Citation
The educational background of executive directors of centers for independent living as it relates to center budget, diversity of budget, and the number of consumers served

Material Information

Title:
The educational background of executive directors of centers for independent living as it relates to center budget, diversity of budget, and the number of consumers served
Creator:
Parker, Billy L., 1951-
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
vii, 183 leaves : ; 29 cm.

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Business executives ( jstor )
Consumer education ( jstor )
Customer relations ( jstor )
Disabilities ( jstor )
Educational background ( jstor )
Funding ( jstor )
Independent living ( jstor )
Nonprofit organizations ( jstor )
Paradigms ( jstor )
Perceptual localization ( jstor )
Dissertations, Academic -- Special Education -- UF
Special Education thesis, Ph. D
City of Tallahassee ( local )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Thesis:
Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Florida, 1996.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references (leaves 173-179).
General Note:
Typescript.
General Note:
Vita.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Billy L. Parker.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
The University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries respect the intellectual property rights of others and do not claim any copyright interest in this item. This item may be protected by copyright but is made available here under a claim of fair use (17 U.S.C. §107) for non-profit research and educational purposes. Users of this work have responsibility for determining copyright status prior to reusing, publishing or reproducing this item for purposes other than what is allowed by fair use or other copyright exemptions. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder. The Smathers Libraries would like to learn more about this item and invite individuals or organizations to contact the RDS coordinator (ufdissertations@uflib.ufl.edu) with any additional information they can provide.
Resource Identifier:
023838313 ( ALEPH )
35779682 ( OCLC )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text









THE EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND OF EXECUTIVE
DIRECTORS OF CENTERS FOR INDEPENDENT LIVING AS IT RELATES TO CENTER BUDGET, DIVERSITY OF BUDGET, AND
THE NUMBER OF CONSUMERS SERVED













By

BILLY L. PARKER


A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

1996


UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA LIBRARIES























Copyright 1996

by

Billy L. Parker











ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank the members of my doctoral committee for their support and time they gave throughout my graduate career. Each of them has given me challenges and guidance. Each member is worth emulating in my professional career.

I would like to give particular thanks to Dr. Stuart E. Schwartz, chair, who convinced me to stay in the program. Because of his willingness to support my endeavor at all times, I was able to complete the program and this dissertation. Dr. Schwartz provided numerous ways to enhance my experiences which provided me with greater insights and understanding.

My family gave me the strong foundation upon which this

dream came true, particularly my wife whose patience was endless and support was constant. I could not have done this without her. I also thank my mother-in-law, Linda, who fed me well and often and my Oma, who taught me as a young child that dreams do come true.

Finally, I would like to thank everyone at the Florida

Network, who made the funding possible. Their support, patience, and confidence in me have made the completing if this degree more enjoyable.











TABLE OF CONTENT


page


ACKNOWLEDGEMENT .........

ABSTRACT ...............

1. INTRODUCTION ........

Statement of the Problem ....
Significance of the Problem . . .
Theoretical Framework .....
Hypotheses . . . .. .. . . . .
Definition of Terms ..........
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . .

2. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE


Centers for Independent Living .....
Two Service Paradigms .. ...........
The Rehabilitation Paradigm . ...
Independent Living Paradigm . ...
Purpose of CILs ............
Rural Centers for Independent Living . .
The Need for Education of Executive Dir Identification of Training Needs . ...
Knowledge of Finances .........
Centers for Independent Living within
Open Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3. RESEARCH PROCEDURE ...........

Study Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Description of Population ...........
Instrument ..... ................
Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Treatment of Data ................
Lim itations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


ectors


. . . . 77 . . . . 85 . . . . 86


87 92 95 98 99 101


� . . . . . 1








4. ANALYSIS OF DATA .... .............. ..102

Characteristics of Variables ............. ..103
Comparison of the Variables to Determine a
Relationship ...... .................. 110
General Linear Models Procedure .......... .113
Comparison of the Variables Through
a One-Way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) 120 Summary ........ .................... 128

5. DISCUSSION ........................ .131

Summary ........ .................... 131
Summary of General Linear Models Procedure . 135 Summary of the ANOVA Procedure .......... 140 Hypotheses Testing ..... ............... .143
Recommendations ...... ................ 144

APPENDICES

A. CORRESPONDENCE .... .............. .152

B. EXPERT PANEL VITA SUMMARY ........ .159 C. SURVEY COVER LETTER ..... ........... 163

D. SURVEY ........ .................... 166

REFERENCES ....... ...................... ..173

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ..... ................ .180













Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the
Graduate School of the University of Florida
in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy THE EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND OF EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS OF CENTERS FOR INDEPENDENT LIVING AS IT RELATES TO
CENTER BUDGET, DIVERSITY OF BUDGET, AND
THE NUMBER OF CONSUMERS SERVED By

Billy L. Parker

August 1996

Chair: Stuart E. Schwartz Major Department: Special Education

The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship

between the educational background of executive directors of centers for independent living and the success of the centers. Center success was defined in terms of size of center budget, diversity of center funds, and the number of consumers served. Additionally center location of rural or urban and the executive director having a disability or not having a disability were investigated in order to determine their association with the educational background of directors and center success.







All 394 executive directors in the United States were surveyed. The survey asked questions regarding center function, educational level of the directors, rural or urban status, and the disability/no disability status of each director.

Linear regression analyses showed a significant relationship

between the executive director's educational level and the location of the centers, disability status of the director, size of center funding, number of consumers served, and the diversity of center funding. In addition, a statistically significant relationship was found between the location of the centers and the disability status of the director, size of center funding, number of consumers served, and the diversity of center funding.

To draw inferences about the population that was investigated, a one-way analysis of variance was conducted (ANOVA). The ANOVA did not find a significant relationship between the disability/nondisability factor of the executive director and the other variables. However, the second variable tested through an ANOVA, the centers' location in a rural or urban environment, was determined to have a statistically significant relationship. Centers located in an urban or rural location showed a significant difference in diversity of funding, the number of consumers served, and the size of center funding.













CHAPTER 1
THE PROBLEM AND ITS SETTING Introduction

The independent living paradigm is based on the assumption that the restrictions faced by individuals with disabilities are societal, not individual. According to Gerben DeJong's (1979) independent living paradigm, the change agents must be those individuals affected by the problem, namely individuals with disabilities. Independent living stresses the importance of empowerment, self-determination, and the removal of external barriers. Although independent living stresses the need for support services for individuals with disabilities, professional intervention can sometimes create further barriers by interjecting personal views and experiences; therefore, independent living emphasizes peer counseling, self-help, consumer control, and self-direction. The problem, as described by the independent living model, is the dependence of people with disabilities on professionals, relatives and others, inadequate support services, and architectural and economic barriers (Lachat, 1988). The independent living










paradigm attempts to break the dependence on others and develop self-reliance.

Since the inception of the Independent Living Model in 1978

(DeJong, 1978), the number of centers for independent living (CILs) has grown from approximately 52 centers in 1977 to an estimated 400 centers in 1991 (Nosek, Zsu, & Howland, 1992). Despite this phenomenal growth over a ten year period, little research has been done to address the needs of centers for independent living.

Centers for independent living are a young phenomenon that feature unique educational and training needs for individuals with disabilities. The 1992 Rehabilitation Act Amendments require centers to make every effort possible to fill employment positions with persons who have a disability. Therefore, centers for independent living draw heavily on individuals with disabilities to fill employment positions and as such have a relatively underdeveloped academic base from which to draw (Smith, Richards, Nosek, & Gerken, 1991). Many believe that the first step in improving CILs is to improve CIL management education and training (Marini, 1994; Nosek et al., 1992; and Smith et al., 1991).

Due to a long history of limited opportunities and

discrimination against individuals with disabilities, many CIL staff have had little or no educational or employment experience (Smith










et al., 1991). According to the National Council on Disability (1993), education is a key to employment success for persons with disabilities. However, research conducted by Brolin and Gysberg (1989) concluded that "[persons] with disabilities are not attaining greater vocational and independent living success than they did in previous years" (p. 155). The result of the decrease in vocational and independent living success has been that individuals with disabilities have been shortchanged in both regular and special education programs (Wright & Leung, 1993). Wright and Leung stated that "failure to provide quality, relevant education to persons with disabilities results in their continued expulsion from the workforce" (p. 23).

Centers for independent living are required by law to employ individuals with disabilities (Rehabilitation Act of 1978, Title VII, Sect. 725). The Independent Living Research Utilization Program (ILRU), a research and training center for independent living in Houston, Texas, defined the minimum employment criteria for centers for independent living using the Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1978 as a basis. The criteria established by the ILRU are as follows: (a) 51% of the governing board members must have a disability; (b) at least one person with a disability must be employed in a management role; and (c) at least one person with a









disability must be employed in a position other than a management role (Nosek, Jones, & Zhu, 1989). Considering the findings of the National Council on Disability (1991), centers for independent living are employing executive directors who have little or no management, administrative, and academic preparation.

Research further shows that there is no standardized formal

training program for individuals who enter the field of independent living (Lundgren, Frieden, House, & Ziskin, 1982; Smith et al., 1991; Marini, 1994). The majority of training programs that are offered to center staff are in the form of short, one day, topical discussions. To date there are three Independent Living Center Training Programs (ILCTP) in existence. The first two were funded in 1985 at Cornell University's School of Industrial and Labor Relations in Ithaca, New York, and the Independent Living Research and Utilization (ILRU) program in Houston, Texas. The third training center was funded in 1991 at Auburn University in Auburn, Alabama. The training provided by these three ILCTPs is based on regional seminars, conferences, and three to four day training programs. The limited number of training programs for CIL staff is only one aspect of the problem in the training of CIL staff. Equally important issues in accessing training programs for CIL staff are the limited funds for travel to training sites, availability of









interpreters for individuals with a hearing disability, personal assistance for individuals with severe disabilities, and ability to accommodate staff time away from their centers (Smith et al., 1991).

The need for basic administrative training of the executive directors of CILs was identified as early as 1982 (ILRU, 1982; Lundgren et al., 1982). The necessity for training was emphasized in Bonnie O'Day's testimony given before the U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Select Education (Oversight and Reauthorization Hearing, 1983). She summarized that the need for professional training is getting more acute, not only for those entering the field but those who are already in the field. If such training is not provided, the quality of services will deteriorate and individuals with disabilities will be denied opportunities to become independent. O'Day concluded her testimony by stating that "the upgrading [sic] of skills of employed personnel is at all times an important aspect of manpower supply and demand and the shortage of personnel who have been trained to their fullest contributes to the overall personnel shortage" (Oversight and Reauthorization Hearing, 1983, p. 123). A similar conclusion was reached at a conference sponsored by the Institute for Educational Leadership in Washington, D.C. (Funk, 1984). In a summary










report, Robert Funk expressed the conference participants' conclusions that what is needed for directors of centers for independent living is leadership development. According to Funk's report of the conference, leadership development encompassed both existing program directors and new leaders in the field.

Marini (1994) reflected comparable findings in a study of CIL directors. He concluded that "assuring financial stability" (p. 48) ranked as one of the top training needs to assure center success. Other needs identified in Marini's study involved training in the provision of services in the four core areas: (a) information and referral; (b) independent living skills training; (c) advocacy; and (d) peer counseling. Marini's findings supported an earlier study conducted by Smith et al., (1991). Using a modified Delphi method Smith et al., (1991) surveyed 32 center directors to determine their most important training needs. Of the top ten training needs identified by center directors in the Delphi study, "assuring financial stability through funding diversification and contingency planning" (Smith et al., 1991, p. 105) was ranked as the fourth most important need in the future success of centers, behind

(a) effective fund raising, (b) using governing boards effectively, and (c) conducting quality assurance and program evaluations.










Both the ILRU and the Marini studies showed the importance center directors placed on the knowledge of fiscal management in the administration of a successful center. In Managing a Nonprofit Organization, Thomas Wolf (1994) wrote "analyzing [an organization's] financial statements is an important way to take a measure of an organization's health while at the same time protecting the organization's interests and those of the public" (p. 139). Beck (1991) suggested that the success of an organization depends largely on the administrator's ability to carry out sound financial management practices. Both Wolf and Beck acknowledged that the fiscal viability of an organization depends on sound financial practices and the ability of executive directors to acquire financial management skills.

Gerard Egan (1988) agreed with the positions of both Wolf

and Beck. Financial management, Egan postulated, is an important aspect to the success of an organization; however, the importance of financial management is more encompassing. In Change-Agent Skills: Assessing & Designing Excellence, Egan (1988) stated:

To remain financially and economically innocent is to court
financial disaster . . . many people, even though they are not
directly involved with finance, could well become more
informed about economic concepts such as financing, pricing, cost, cost accounting, cost control, debt, debt service, equity, overhead, cash flow, profit and loss, taxes, inflation, and the










economic environment and outlook. To be sound, strategic
plans must be financially sound . . . financially troubled
systems simply speeds up the process of dissolution. (p. 93) He continued:

[That] money is a critical resource, and finance-related
programs are an important but sometimes dimly understood
part of the work needed to keep the system alive. It would be
healthier if more members of an [organization] or institutions
were aware of financial realities. (p. 93)



In addition to the financial management skills needed by the administrator, each independent living center must also comply with the Rehabilitation Service Administration's (RSA) minimum basic service requirements. The minimum basic services required by RSA are information and referral, peer counseling, independent living skills training, and advocacy. Most programs throughout the United States also offer personal care assistance referral, housing assistance, interpreter assistance, reader assistance, transportation, financial counseling, barrier removal, and activities of daily living assistance. The services provided by individual centers are determined by the needs of the consumers served, the available community resources, the physical and social makeup of the community, and the program's goals.

Centers for independent living have been established in all 50 states, U.S. territories, and Washington, D.C. Many states with









large populations, such as California, Florida, and New York, support many centers; states with small populations, such as North Dakota, Rhode Island, and Maine, support only one or two centers.

Statement of the Problem

Independent living attributes the problems of disability as

environmental and negative societal values, rather than the person being "broke" (Lachat, 1988) and needing to be "fixed" (Turnbull & Turnbull, 1985). Independent living programs, therefore, have been defined as community based programs that have a large involvement of individuals with disabilities (DeJong, 1981; Thayer & Rice, 1990). This philosophy encourages involvement of individuals with disabilities in the decision making process as it relates to individual needs and services (Bergland & Clark, 1991). Many individuals with disabilities have neither the education nor training to assist in a program's decision process.

The problems of accessing training programs for center directors and management staff were summarized in a study conducted by Smith et al., (1991) as follows:

First: There has been an extraordinary increase over the
past two decades in numbers of independent living centers around the country, bringing with it increased demands for
personnel who have management skills needed to operate
centers effectively and efficiently.










Second: Centers are committed to hiring people with
disabilities, many of whom, because of previous discriminatory
practices in education and employment, have had few
opportunities to develop management skills.

Third: People who work in independent living come from
a variety of backgrounds. At present, there is no standardized
entry-level training to prepare staff to work in independent
living centers, making it difficult to plan and implement postemployment training programs that are appropriate to the
knowledge and skill level of center employees.

Fourth: There are significant differences in types and
scope of services offered from center to center. This is due
in part to centers' efforts to be responsive to individual
community needs, posing problems in offering management
training that focuses on organization and delivery of services.

Fifth: Most centers have relatively small--fewer than ten
persons--staffs, and this results in difficulties in freeing staff
to be away from the center for training activities.

Sixth: Most centers operate within very tight budgets and
have little funding available for staff development of any kind,
including management training.

Seventh: Owing to the larger number of independent
living center staff who are likely to be people with
disabilities, costs for sign language interpreters, readers,
personal assistance services, or other types of accommodation,
including specialized transportation, often need to be figured
into training budgets. (Smith et al., 1991, p. 103-4)

A further problem, as defined by Richards and Smith (1992),

is the lack of education and training of executive directors of

centers for independent living. Because of the lack of training and

limited management training opportunities of executive directors,

many centers have taken on the characteristics of more traditional

service agencies, such as vocational rehabilitation agencies.










Richards and Smith (1992) identified several of the pitfalls that

centers are encountering because of the lack of training. These

include:

1. Consumers being put through lengthy procedures in order
to obtain services, including completing intrusive intake forms
and meeting eligibility requirements;

2. Centers becoming preoccupied with delivering services at
the expense of taking on important community issues;

3. Centers being less aggressive in taking on advocacy issues
in their communities out of concern that business or public
agencies from which funding is obtained might look
unfavorably on highly visible advocacy and might,
consequently, reduce funding;

4. Centers relaxing their emphasis on consumer control and
consumer direction of services and, instead, taking the easier
approach of simply telling consumers what they should or
should not be doing to live more independently. (p. 108-9)

The philosophy of independent living is founded on the

principles of equal rights for people with disabilities, equal access

to services of all types, and consumer sovereignty. Smith et al.,

stated:

Education in the philosophy and history of independent living both for new people entering the field and for persons in the
field who may be caught up in the day-to-day aspects of
service delivery and accountability is critical if the movement [centers for independent living] is to maintain its vitality and
offer a true alternative to traditional, and oftentimes paternalistic, approaches to service delivery. (p. 102)







12

In summary, the problems as defined in this investigation are:

(a) the lack of education and training for executive directors in the operation and management of CILs; (b) the dependence on limited funding sources; and (c) the inability of many centers to provide the core services that are dependent on the availability of funds. This study considered these problems and examined the relationship of centers for independent living nationwide in terms of the educational background of the executive directors and the centers' financial diversity, size of budget of each center, and the number of consumers served. This study further explored the stated problems in terms of the urban or rural location of each center and whether the executive director has a disability or does not have a disability.

Significance of the Problem

With the establishment of centers for independent living in

1978 as a national program for individuals with severe disabilities, little emphasis has been placed on the training needs of executive directors. A survey of all 50 states by the researcher found that each state had one or more centers, with the majority of states having more than one. A study conducted by Nosek, Roth, and Zhu (1990) determined that the typical center for Independent Living is approximately eight years old, located in a moderately sized urban setting, operates on an annual budget of about









$252,000, receives funds primarily from federal and state grants, and has a staff of 7.5 (median) of whom 4 have a disability.

Centers established between 1979 and 1982 have had the full

benefit of federal funding and have been in existence long enough to establish alternate funding. The centers beginning operations after 1983 have entered "into a funding atmosphere which is tenuous at best" (Nosek et al., 1990, p. 29). Diversity of funding, according to Nosek et al., (1990) was the basis for survival of many centers in the future.

With the election of a Republican majority in Congress in

1994, the American politico-social scene experienced a resurgence of a conservative philosophy. Conservatism as a political philosophy has long had a prominent role in the nation's history (Rossiter, 1962); however, the significance of the 1994 election was the emphasis Congress placed on budget cutting and turning many of the federal programs over to states through block grants. According to John Nelson (personal communication, 1995), National Director of Independent Living Services, CILs are in jeopardy of losing much of the federal funds that provide the single largest funding source for many centers. Because of the shrinking federal support for many programs, such as CILs, it is important to investigate funding diversity for centers nationwide to predict future success of centers







14

for independent living and to make system changes to ensure center success. Funding diversity was tied directly to the education and training backgrounds of directors as early as 1982 (ILRU, 1982; Lundgren et al., 1982). The relationship was also identified during testimony given before the U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Select Education (Oversight and Reauthorization Hearing, 1983) and a conference sponsored by the Institute for Educational Leadership in Washington, D.C. (Funk, 1984).

Gerard Egan (1988), Director of the Loyola University in

Chicago's Center for Organizational Development, was more explicit regarding the relationship between education/training and sound financial management when he urged that directors and staff members of an organization should become more informed about economic and financial concepts. He concluded that lack of economic and financial training of directors and staff members could result in financial disaster for an organization. Due to the relationship between education and training of directors and financial diversity of centers, possible future success of centers can be predicted by determining the educational and training backgrounds of executive directors of CILs.

The financial stability further depends on how well CILs meet the philosophical base, equal rights for people with disabilities,









equal access to services of all types, and consumer sovereignty of independent living. Equal rights for people with disabilities, equal access to services of all types, and consumer sovereignty is provided by centers through core services that include independent living skills, advocacy, peer counseling, and information and referral. Education and training of executive directors in the philosophy of independent living will enable centers to provide services within the independent living guidelines as established in the Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1978 and continue to receive funds under this law. Obtaining knowledge of budget size, funding diversity, and number of consumers served provided information regarding the availability of Title VII funds of the Rehabilitation Act and other funds such as Title I, Title XVIII, Block Grants, foundations, and fundraising.

To date no research has been conducted to compare the

education and training background of center directors to funding diversification and funding sources, size of budget, and number of consumers served. As legislatures, individuals with disabilities, and the public continue to demand excellence in social services, states and the community of people with disabilities will need to determine, more than ever, whether the educational preparation of center directors is adequate.









Theoretical Framework

The theoretical framework underlying this study is based

primarily on the work of Bodnar (1980) and Katz and Kahn (1978). Systems theory has pervaded the social sciences and has provided a framework with which to view many different types of processes. Raymond Mayers (1989) stated that "systems concepts help give us a way to look at the human service agency, its systems, and processes in some kind of totality" (p. 55). Human service organizations, such as CILs, consist of their material and human resources. A systems view of centers for independent living gives a graphical view of the place and function of the financial and programmatic subsystems and the relation they have to the human resource, the training and education of executive directors of CILs. In this case, CILs, as a human service organization, are open systems because they are in interaction with their environments; there is a two-way exchange of energy and resources between the agency and its environment. Each can influence and impact the other.

Katz and Kahn (1978) described a number of characteristics of open systems that are indicative of CILs:

Input
As no organization is self contained, every organization
must take in energy in the form of resources from its external environment. In the human service agency these resources are
called inputs. Inputs are material in the form of money,







17

supplies, equipment, and so forth. Inputs may also be human
resources in the form of education and training.

Through-Put
Open systems transform or convert the energy they take
in. This means that some process occurs in the organization for the conversion to take place. In human service agencies
material [funds] and human resources [education and training]
are used to process and/or change consumers.

Output
After through-put, the result of the processing is
returned to the environment. In the case of the nonprofit
organization [CILs], this output is the processed and/or
changed consumer.

Feedback
Inputs into an open system are not just of a material
nature, there are informational inputs as well. These
information inputs [feedback] may come from the outputs of
the agency and thus are cyclical in nature. They tell the
organization about its environment and its own functioning in relation to that environment. The information that the agency receives regarding the results of its processes may be used to
alter the process itself. (p. 158)

The exchange of energy (financial diversity, education and

training of directors, size of budget, and number of consumers

served) has a cyclical nature about it. That is, the output or the

education and training of directors and the financial diversity, size

of budget, and number of consumers served from the system provide

the resources for the cycle of activities to continue. If the outputs

of the centers are seen as successful, which depends on the

education and training of directors, financial diversity, size of

budget, and number of consumers served, the information is relayed









to the funding sources and the community. The perception of success by the community means that a continuing supply of funds should be channeled to the centers.

Centers for independent living depend on financial diversity to provide the core services required by legislation and avoid "entropy." Entropy is a process by which an organization moves toward deterioration, even death (Mayers, 1989). Centers must try to retard or reverse this process by taking in more resources, thus storing up additional resources. Since centers for independent living do not make a profit and depend largely on government grants that require all unexpended funds to be returned to the funding agency by the end of the fiscal year, financial diversity is important for center survival. The human resource or the education and training of directors, financial diversity, size of budget, and number of consumers served are the key to a successful CIL.

Hypotheses

Executive directors of enters for independent living have a

varied background of educational experience. Education is supposed to provide the executive director the skills and experience needed to conduct a successful center.

The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship

between the educational background of executive directors of centers







19
for independent living and the size a centers' budget, the number of consumers served annually, the financial diversity of a center's, and if the directors have or do not have a disability. The study further investigated the relationship of the educational background of the executive directors of centers for independent living based on rural versus urban status and measure if there is a difference in the success of centers as defined through size of budget, number of consumers served, and financial diversity. The dependent variable was defined as the educational background of the executive directors of centers for independent living nationwide. The independent variables was defined as the size of center budgets, number of consumers served and the number of different sources of income for each center.

This study attemted to answer the question: "Is there a relationship between the educational background of executive directors of centers for independent living and the size of the center budget, the number of consumers served, and the financial diversity of centers and how that relationship is affected in rural versus urban centers and by whether the executive director has a disability or does not have a disability?" To address this question the statement of the null hypotheses are as follows:









1. Different levels of educational background of executive

directors of centers for independent living do not evidence different sizes of the center budget, number of consumers served, and the financial diversity of centers.

2. The disability/no disability status of executive directors of centers for independent living does not evidence differences between rural centers and urban centers, the size of center budgets, number of consumers served, and the financial diversity of centers.

3. The rural/urban location of centers does not evidence

differences between directors who have a disability and directors who do not have a disability, the size of the center budget, number of consumers served, and the financial diversity of centers.

Definition of Terms

The following definitions are used throughout this study:

Independent living programs are community based programs that have a large involvement of individuals with disabilities (DeJong, 1981; Thayer & Rice, 1990). CILs encourage involvement of individuals with disabilities in the decision making process as it relates to individual needs and services (Bergland & Clark, 1991). Services provided by centers for independent living do not compete with but complement other programs in order that individuals with disabilities receive the most appropriate services. These programs









can provide services directly or coordinate, through established rehabilitation agencies, those services necessary to assist individuals with severe disabilities to maximize autonomy and minimize unnecessary dependence on others (Frieden, Richards, Cole, & Bailey, 1979). Services include information and referral, peer counseling, advocacy, and independent living skills training. Additional services may include locating accessible housing, personal care assistance services, reader/interpreter services, information about goods and services, transportation, career services, and recreational opportunities (Marini, 1994).

Independent living is the ability of individuals with severe disabilities to participate actively in society: to work; to own a home; to raise a family; and in general, to participate to the fullest extent possible in normal day-to-day activities. It is control over one's life based on the choice of acceptable options that minimize reliance on others in making decisions and in performing everyday activities. This includes managing one's affairs, participating in day-to-day life in the community, fulfilling a range of social roles, and making decisions that lead to self-determination and minimization of physical or psychological dependence on others (Rice, 1980).









Centers for independent living (CILs) are a consumercontrolled, community-based, cross disability, nonresidential private nonprofit agency that is designed and operated within a local community by individuals with disabilities and provides an array of independent living services. [P.L. 102-569, Title VII, Sect. 702(l)(A)(B)]

Independent living services are services that are provided by centers for independent living which include the core services and counseling services, services related to securing housing or shelter, rehabilitation technology, mobility training, services and training for individuals with cognitive and sensory disabilities, personal assistance services, development of surveys and directories, consumer information services, supported living programs, provision of needed prostheses and other appliances and devices, individual and group social and recreational services, programs specifically designed for youths with disabilities, services for children, appropriate preventive services, and community awareness programs to enhance the understanding and integration into society of individuals with disabilities [Pub. L. No. 102-569, Section 7(30)(A)(B)(i - xxi)].

Individual with disabilities are individuals who have a physical or mental impairment which substantially limits one or more of such









person's major life activities, has a record of such an impairment, or is regarded as having such an impairment [Pub. L. No. 102-569, Section (8)(B)(i)].

Individual with a severe disability is an individual with a severe physical or mental impairment whose ability to function independently in the family or community or whose ability to obtain, maintain, or advance in employment is substantially limited and for whom the delivery of independent living services will improve the ability to function, continue functioning, or move toward functioning independently in the family or community or to continue in employment [Pub. L. No. 102-569, Section 14(B)].

Nonprofit agency is any community agency program carried out by a corporation or association, no part of the net earnings of which insure, or may lawfully insure, to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual and the income of which is exempt from taxation under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 [Pub. L. No. 102-569, Section 10].

Executive director is an individual having administrative or managerial authority in an organization. The chief officer responsible for total operation of a center, including staffing, planning, developing, budgeting, implementing and evaluating the entire program. The executive director represents the center on







24

local, state, and national level, employs and supervises the activities of all staff members and their program. Overall responsibility for fundraising. Serve as general liaison between Center and Board of Directors and chief spokesperson for the program. Responsible for compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations, including but not limited to center evaluations, audits, center operation, and sound financial policy (Wolf, 1990).

Financial diversity is a taxonomy of funding sources available to centers for independent living defined within four categories in the United States; governmental agency grants, foundations, business and industrial organizations, and private such as fund raising, membership dues, and trustfunds (Denk, Shreve, Richards, King, Smith, & Smith, 1994).

Educational background consists of a postsecondary degrees

such as associate, bachelor, master, specialist, or doctorate degrees. Any degree awarded by a state certified institution such as high school, community college, or university.

Educational level is the level of formal education completed by an individual, such as 12 years of elementary and secondary education, four years of postsecondary education, two years of graduate education, and three to five years of postgraduate education.









Title VII is the Independent Living component of the

Rehabilitation Act of 1973 as Amended by The Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1992. Title VII promotes the philosophy of independent living, including a philosophy of consumer control, peer support, self-help, self-determination, equal access, and individual and system advocacy, in order to maximize the leadership, empowerment, independence, and productivity of individuals with disabilities, and the integration and full inclusion of individuals with disabilities into the mainstream of American society by: (a) providing financial assistance to states for providing, expanding, and improving the provisions of independent living services; (b) providing financial assistance to develop and support statewide networks of centers for independent living; and (c) providing financial assistance to states for improving working relationships among state independent living rehabilitation service programs, centers for independent living, statewide Independent Living Councils, state vocational rehabilitation programs, state programs of supported employment services, client assistance programs, programs funded under other federal legislation, and programs funded through nonfederal sources [Pub. L. No. 102-569, Title VII, Section 701(1)(2)(3)].









Urban centers for independent living are communities with

populations greater than 30,000 and a service area less than 50 miles (Nosek & Howland, 1992).

Rural centers for independent living are communities with

populations less than 30,000 and a distance of more than 50 miles from a major metropolitan area (Nosek & Howland, 1992).

Summary

In recent years the educational background of center for

Independent Living executive directors has come into question (Marini, 1994; Nosek et al., 1992; Smith et al., 1991). The authors indicated that the education of center executive directors is an important variable in the success of centers. Wolf (1994), Beck (1991) and Egan (1988) stated that the success of a nonprofit organization depends on financial diversity, sound financial practices, and the ability of an organization's administrator to acquire financial management skills. Financial diversity and sound financial practices allow a center to provide quality services to a greater number of consumers. In light of the revised federal regulations of the 1992 Amendments to the Rehabilitation Act (Title VII, 1992) it is important that centers diversify their funding base in order to provide services to as many severely disabled individuals as possible. A center's inability to provide quality services may result in the loss of federal and state funds.














CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Introduction

This review of the literature will present an overview of the material which is related to the educational backgrounds of executive directors of centers for independent living. The review is divided into three major areas. The first section focuses on centers for independent living and how centers for independent living function. Section two will highlight the unique problems of rural centers for independent living and section three will present a discussion of the educational background of executive directors within systems theory and the need for educational training of center executive directors.

Centers for Independent Living History of CIL

Scheer and Grocc (1988) stated that individuals with disabilities have been part of the human existence since the beginning of human history. Prior to industrialization persons with disabilities were integrated into community rolls and protected by ties of kinship. Following industrialization in the 27









18th century, England adopted the "English Poor Laws" which affected the impotent poor and individuals with mental and physical disabilities. Criminals, individuals who were indigent, widows, people considered diseased, and individuals with disabilities were all sheltered together in almshouses. Individuals with disabilities were treated with the sick. Through the 19th and early 20th century individuals with disabilities were segregated and services and schools were dependent on the interests of private firms, individuals, or benefactors (Gajar, Goodman, & McAfee, 1993). All services were provided by individuals who did not have a disability.

The first major legislation in the United States affecting individuals with disabilities was the Smith-Hughes Act of 1917 (P.L. 64-347). The Smith-Hughes Act provided an appropriation of $1.7 million for the year 1917-18, with funding increasing to $7.2 million by 1925-26. The efforts of the Smith-Hughes Act, in 1917-1918, were largely devoted to the needs of the nation in World War I and the returning veterans with disabilities (Barlow, 1992). The Act provided vocational rehabilitation and employment for veterans with disabilities (Gajar et al., 1993). By 1926 vocational education enrollment had increased to almost 900,000 (Barlow, 1992). The following year congress passed the







29

Smith-Sears Act of 1918 (P.L. 65-178), the original Vocational Rehabilitation Act, which provided for additional rehabilitation services for veterans with disabilities returning from World War I (Gajar et al., 1993). The same services provided to veterans with disabilities under the Smith-Sears Act were extended to civilians with disabilities employed in civil service under the Smith-Fess Act of 1920 (P.L. 66-236).

In the 1930s, Congress was concerned with curtailing federal expenses and most of the gains of the 1920s were eroded. However, two pieces of legislation in the late 30s added to the federal commitment to individuals with disabilities (Gajar et al., 1993). The Wagner O'Day Act of 1938 (P.L. 75739) established the National Industries for the Blind which provided services for the vocational needs of individuals who were multihandicapped and blind. The Act further established for the purchases of certain commodities that were made by sheltered workshops that employed individuals who were severely disabled or blind (Richterman, 1982). The second legislation that aided individuals with disabilities was the Social Security Act Amendments of 1939 (P.L. 76-379) which provided financial grants to states for vocational rehabilitation (Gajar et al., 1993).









In 1943, President Franklin D. Roosevelt, signed the

Vocational Rehabilitation Act Amendments (P.L. 77-113) into law. The focal point of this legislation was the need for trained manpower during World War II. The Act provided vocational training for individuals with disabilities who did not qualify for military service. Additionally, medically related services such as examinations, corrective surgery, and prosthetic devices were provided by the Act (Gajar et al., 1993).

After ten years of limited Congressional action on disability legislation, President Eisenhower, in 1954, the signed the Vocational Rehabilitation Act Amendments (P.L. 83-565). This legislation expanded and improved vocational and rehabilitative programs. The Act provided funds for research and professional training.

Based on the recommendations of President Kennedy's study commission, a vocational education bill was introduced in 1963 in the House of Representatives. HR 4955 was introduced in the House by Representative Carl D. Perkins of Kentucky and signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson as the Vocational Education Act of 1963 (P.L. 88-210). The Act expanded development of vocational programs and training for individuals with disabilities. The Vocational Rehabilitation Amendments of







31
1967 (P.L. 90-99) established the National Centers for the Deaf and Blind followed by the Vocational Rehabilitation Amendments of 1968 (P.L. 90-391) which provided funding for research, rehabilitation, demonstration, and training programs. This law further allocated 10% of the funds for vocational training and rehabilitation for individuals with severe disabilities.

Gajar et al. (1993) summarized the span from 1917 to

1970 as a national recognition of the needs of Americans with disability in the form of pertinent legislation. However, the impact of legislation during the 1917 - 1970 time span was minimal due to the lack of funding and the lack of addressing such issues as training in personal, social, and activities of daily living skills necessary for individuals with disabilities to succeed. According to Bowe (1978), 63% of individuals with disabilities were at or near poverty level; Brolin and Elliot (1984) indicated that 7 million individuals with disabilities did not have a personal income and 4 million earned less than $3,000 annually. In addition, many of the 500,000 students with disabilities who exit the educational system yearly are "woefully unprepared to acquire satisfactory societal roles in occupational, avocational, and daily living activities" (Brolin & Elliot, p. 12).









Due to similar statistics in the early 1970s several more Acts were signed into law (Gajar et al., 1993). All were designed to promote rehabilitative services to individuals with disabilities.

During the late 1960's and early 1970s, the idea of

involving individuals with disabilities in the provision of services to persons with disabilities began taking shape. A major part of these activities involved formation of community-based groups of people with different disabilities who began working together to identify barriers and gaps in services. The involvement of people with disabilities in the delivery of services to individuals with disabilities has resulted in a new method of service delivery. This methodology of service delivery resulted in several significant changes in the passage of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act. The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (P.L. 93-112) was a comprehensive statute authorizing programs to provide rehabilitation services for individuals with disabilities so that they could prepare for and engage in gainful employment and promote and expand employment opportunities in the public and private sectors (29 U.S.C.A. Section 701 to 796). The Act provided for a Comprehensive Needs Study which resulted in the identification of independent living services as the most critical need of individuals with severe









disabilities (The Urban Institute, 1975). As a result of the Comprehensive Needs Study findings and the 1978 Amendments to the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, independent living programs were established as a national organization.

The earliest center was formed in 1972 in Berkeley,

California, soon followed that same year by centers in Boston and Houston. In 1978, following effective advocacy by people with disabilities and their supporters all over the United States, federal legislation was passed that provided funding to establish centers for independent living. At the same time, Congress added requirements that centers should be consumer controlled giving impetus to the independent living paradigm and moving away from the rehabilitation/medical paradigm. Prior to that time, rehabilitation services, as funded through the Act, were primarily directed toward removing barriers to employment and grounded deeply in the traditional rehabilitation/medical paradigm (Michaels, 1989).

Two Service Paradigms

Julie Ann Racino (1992) stated:

[T]he independent living paradigm is based on the assumption
that basic problems are found within society, that selfdetermination and removal of external barriers constitute
critical aspects of problem solving, and that solutions to the
problems are not held solely by professionals. (p. 132)







34

The independent living paradigm was developed as a reaction to the rehabilitation or medical paradigm which, until the 1970s, was the accepted service model for providing services to individuals with disabilities (Lachat, 1988). Lachat's model further attempted to redefine the manner in which the problem of disability is defined and encouraged the development of new interventions by professionals.

DeJong (1979), the author of the independent living

paradigm, described independent living as a paradigm instead of a model based on the work of Thomas S. Kuhn in 1970. In The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Kuhn (1970) observed that scientific facts did not emerge by simple accumulation or evolution, but were the products of new ways of thinking. Paradigms define reality and provide a framework by which problems are identified and solved (DeJong, 1979, p. 57). Paradigms are further defined by two other important concepts, the concept of anomaly and paradigm shift. DeJong defines anomaly as follows:

[A]n event or observation that cannot be adequately
explained by the dominant paradigm of the time. When a
sufficient number of anomalies appear, a crisis is
precipitated and disaffected individuals begin to search for
an alternative explanation or paradigm; (p. 57)









and paradigm shift as:

[W]hen one paradigm is discarded for another. Anomalies
do not automatically cause individuals to renounce one
paradigm for another. A paradigm shift does not occur
unless there is a new paradigm to replace the old. (p. 58)

In the early 1970s the service policy for individuals with disabilities began to shift from the dominant rehabilitation paradigm toward an independent living paradigm. To understand the independent living paradigm, one must understand the medical or rehabilitation paradigm.

The Rehabilitation Paradigm

The Medical Paradigm or Rehabilitation Paradigm relies on

the knowledge of professionals and views the problem of disability as physical, lack of employment skills, lack of motivation, and maladjustment. Individuals with disabilities were perceived as patients, not individuals. DeJong (1979) characterizes the rehabilitation paradigm in the following manner:

[T]he problem [disability] is assumed to reside in the
individual. It is the individual that needs to be changed.
To overcome his/her problem, the disabled individual is
expected to yield to the advice and instruction of a
physician, physical therapist, occupational therapist, or a
vocational rehabilitation counselor. The disabled individual
is expected to assume the role of "patient" or "client."
While the goals of the rehabilitation process is maximum
physical functioning or gainful employment, success in
rehabilitation is to a large degree determined by whether the
patient or client complied with the prescribed therapeutic
regime. (p. 59)







36

The problem of the rehabilitation paradigm became evident in the early 1970s when anomalies appeared that could not be explained by the rehabilitation paradigm. Individuals with severe disabilities were achieving independence without the assistance of professional rehabilitation (DeJong, 1979). DeJong noted:

Within medical rehabilitation, it was assumed that a severely
disabled patient would, upon discharge, be entrusted to the
care of a near relative or be placed in a long-term care
facility. Living by oneself in a community setting was not
considered a realistic discharge goal. Within vocational
rehabilitation, it was assumed that a severely disabled client would upon case termination, be unemployed or be assigned
to a sheltered workshop experience. In medical
rehabilitation, independent living goals such as living by
oneself or becoming employed were unthinkable. (p.60)

Yet in the early 1970s many individuals with severe disabilities--those who would benefit from professional rehabilitation services the most--were becoming independent and employed without the help of professional rehabilitation services. Many of these individuals were considered unemployable. As a result of this anomaly, an alternative paradigm was established. Independent Living Paradigm

During the 1970s persons with disabilities started assuming greater societal roles and began advocating for greater individual control and self-determination. The concept of self-direction in the least restrictive environment was incorporated into legislation (1978 Rehabilitation Act, IDEA, Carl Perkins Act), education, and







37

service models. The independent living paradigm, first developed by Gerben DeJong (1979), became an alternative to the medical model. According to Gerben DeJong (1979) the independent living paradigm views the problem of disability as environmental and the solutions offered. He stated:

According to the independent living paradigm the problem does not reside in the individual but often in the solution
offered by the rehabilitation paradigm---the dependency
inducing features of the physician-patient or professionalclient relationship. Rehabilitation is seen as part of the
problem, not the solution. Rehabilitation is seen as part of the problem, not the solution. The locus of the problem is not the individual but the environment that includes not only
the rehabilitation process but also the physical environment
and the social control mechanisms in society-at-large. To cope with these environmental barriers, the disabled person must shed the patient or client role for the consumer role.
Advocacy, peer counseling, self-help, consumer control, and barrier removal are the trademarks of the independent living
paradigm. (DeJong, 1979, p. 61)

The independent living paradigm looks to the individual for guidance with the move from dependance to independence and employment. Professional service providers are part of the individual's support system, not the primary decision makers. The desired outcomes for the independent living paradigm revolve around self-direction, least restrictive environment, and improved economic productivity (see Table 1).

Centers for independent living are mandated by legislation to be consumer controlled. In simple terms this means that a




Table 1
Comparison of the Rehabilitation and Independent Living Model
Focus Rehabilitation Paradigm Independent Paradigm


Definition of problem






Locus of problem Social role(s) Solution to problem Who controls


Physical impairment; lack of vocational skills; psychological maladjustment; lack of motivation and cooperation


In individual


Patient-client

Professional intervention by physician, physical therapist, occupational therapist, vocational counselor, and others

Professional


Dependence on
professionals, relatives, and others; inadequate support services; architectural barriers; economic barriers
In environment; in the rehabilitation process

Consumer

Peer counseling; advocacy; self-help, consumer control; removal of barriers and disincentives

Consumer


Desired outcomes Maximum ADL; gainful Self-direction; least employment; psychological restrictive environment; adjustment; improved social and economic motivation; completed treatment productivity Lachat, 1988 (reprinted with permission from Center for Resource Management, Inc.,









majority of the governing board must have severe disabilities; centers must serve a population with a wide range of disabilities; centers must provide services in the four core areas of information and referral, advocacy, peer counseling, and skills training; and centers must work toward reducing community barriers. Guidelines implemented by the federal Rehabilitation Service Administration put many centers at odds with state agencies. The difference between the agencies was because centers viewed service provisions under these regulations as too closely related to the rehabilitation paradigm (Michaels, 1989). In 1991, Congress revisited the Rehabilitation Act and endorsed under Title VII, Part A, B, and C the independent living paradigm.

Purpose of CILs

The independent living paradigm is based on the assumptions that the restrictions faced by individuals with disabilities are societal, not individual. According to the independent living model, the change agent must be those individuals affected by the problem, namely individuals with disabilities. Independent living stresses the importance of empowerment, self-determination, and the removal of external barriers. Although independent living stresses support services for individuals with disabilities, professional intervention can sometimes create further barriers by







40

interjecting personal views and experiences; therefore, independent living emphasizes peer counseling, self-help, consumer control, and self-direction. The problem, as viewed by the independent living paradigm (see Table 1), is the dependence of people with disabilities on professionals, relatives and others, inadequate support services, and architectural and economic barriers. The independent living paradigm seeks to break the dependence on others and develop self-reliance.

Independent living attributes the problems of disability as

environmental and negative societal values, rather than the person being "broke" (Lachat, 1988) and needing to be "fixed" (Turnbull & Turnbull, 1985). Independent living programs, therefore, have been defined as community based programs that have a large involvement of individuals with disabilities (DeJong, 1981; Thayer & Rice, 1990). This philosophy encourages involvement of individuals with disabilities in the decision making process as it relates to individual needs and services (Bergland & Clark, 1991). Services provided by independent living do not compete with but complement other programs in order that individuals with disabilities receive the most appropriate services. These programs can provide direct services or coordinate, through established rehabilitation agencies, those services necessary to assist









individuals with severe disabilities to maximize autonomy and minimize unnecessary dependence on others (Frieden, Richards, Cole, & Bailey, 1979). Services include information and referral, peer counseling, advocacy, and independent living skills training. Additional services may include locating accessible housing, personal care assistance services, reader/interpreter services, information about goods and services, transportation, career services, and recreational opportunities (Marini, 1994).

In addition, CIL programs place a strong emphasis on the cognitive and emotional aspect of independence (Nosek et al., 1992). The programs use peer support and peer role models to provide counseling about dealing with a disability and functioning in a nondisabled world. Consumers are taught self-advocacy so that they can be the change agent in removing barriers and discriminatory practices. Subscribers to the independent living movement reject the tendency of existing service systems to restrict access to certain programs and services based on often faulty assumptions about the incapabilities of people with severe disabilities (Nosek et al., 1992). The IL programs reflect the belief that people with severe disabilities can live independently without the restrictions of traditional service agencies, but also that the needs and desires of people with disabilities are best understood by other people with disabilities.









Legislative Guidelines

Legislative guidelines for centers of independent living are set forth in the 1992 Amendments to the Rehabilitation Act of 1978. Originally, funds for independent living were sanctioned to centers for independent living under Title VII of the 1978 Amendments to the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The purpose of Title VII of the 1978 Act was to authorize grants for independent living that will meet the needs of individuals whose disabilities are too severe to enable current employment, but who may benefit from services allowing them to live independently (Nosek et al., 1992). Service authorities are in four parts under Title VII: Part A, provides grant funds for independent living services; Part B, provides grant funds for the establishment of centers; Part C, provides grant funds for independent living services to individuals who are elderly and blind, and Part D, provides grant funds for protection, advocacy, and affirmative action. In 1993, Title VII was dramatically changed in the provision of funds to centers. Part A was redesigned to promote a philosophy of independent living, including a philosophy of consumer control, peer support, self-help, self-determination, equal access, and individual and system advocacy, in order to maximize the leadership, empowerment, independence, and productivity of individuals with









disabilities, and the integration and full inclusion of individuals with disabilities into the mainstream of society, (Title VII, Part A, � 701). Funds are provided under Title VII, Part A to states for providing, expanding, and improving the provisions of independent living services. Part A was further designed to assist in the development and support of a statewide network of centers for independent living and for improving working relationships among state independent living rehabilitation service programs, centers for independent living, statewide Independent Living Councils, state vocational rehabilitation programs, supported employment programs, and state-client assistance programs [Title VII, Part A, � 701(l),(2),(3)].

Part B has been reauthorized to provide independent living services to individuals with severe disabilities and to demonstrate ways in which to expand and improve independent living services. Title VII, Part B was also designed to support the operation of centers for independent living and to conduct studies and analyses, gather information, develop model policies and procedures, and present information, approaches, strategies, findings, conclusions, and recommendations to federal, state, and local policymakers in order to enhance independent living services for individuals with disabilities [Title VII, Part B, � 713(l),(2),(3),(5)].







44

Title VII, Part C, which was the former service provision for people who are elderly and blind, has been amended to provide training, technical assistance, and transition assistance. The training and technical assistance was designed to provide assistance with respect to planning, development, conducting, administering, and evaluating centers for independent living and to assist centers with efforts to achieve compliance with the standards set forth in the Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1992, [Title VII, Part C, � 721(b)(1-5)].

The Independent Living Research Utilization Program (ILRU), a research and training center for independent living in Houston, Texas, has established four minimum compliance criteria as related to Title VII for independent living centers. The four criteria are as follows: (a) 51% of the governing board members must have a disability; (b) at least one person with a disability must be employed in a management role; (c) at least one person with a disability must be employed in a position other than a management role; and (d) at least two different independent living services must be offered (Nosek et al., 1989). Any center or program that complies with all four criteria is considered as an independent living center. Those programs or centers that do not meet the minimum criteria are generally referred to as independent living programs.









Each independent living center must also comply with the Rehabilitation Service Administration's (RSA) minimum basic service requirements. The minimum basic services required by RSA are information and referral, peer counseling, independent living skills training, and advocacy. Most programs throughout the United States also offer personal care assistance referral, housing assistance, interpreter assistance, reader assistance, transportation, financial counseling, barrier removal, and activity of daily living assistance. The services provided by centers are determined by the needs of the consumers served, the available community resources, the physical and social makeup of the community, and the programs' goals.

Rural Centers for Independent Living

Laurel Richards (1986) stated "it is through examining

barriers to service delivery that one can begin to appreciate how complicated it is to carry the independent living concept to rural disabled people" (p. 3). Dr. Richards continued:

In the field of vocational rehabilitation, now over 50
years old, there exists a body of literature which focuses on
service delivery to rural populations; however, it is
strikingly modest. It should not be a surprise, then, that literature on the much younger field of rural independent
living virtually does not exist.
Because of the scarcity of studies and because a
comprehensive needs assessment study has yet to be
conducted on rural disabled people no one really knows what
it is like for severely disabled persons to live in rural









communities--outside of the persons themselves and
perhaps their family members. (p. 3)

Serving individuals with disabilities outside urban areas encompasses unique challenges. Rural areas have limited community services and lack employment opportunities. This is an even greater problem when considering that one third of the U.S. population lives outside of a Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area and 26% live in towns with less than 2,500 inhabitants (Seekins, Ravesfoot, & Maffit, 1992). As of 1990, there were 67 independent living centers (see Table 2) serving rural communities (Richards & Smith, 1992) all of which were funded under Title VII, Part A, state or local general funds, and private sources (Seekins et al., 1992) (see Fig. 1). None were funded, as many urban centers are funded, by Title VII, Part B. According to Seekins et al. these centers have relatively small budgets and serve large geographic areas with sparse populations (see Fig. 2). The ability of rural centers to provide services is directly related to the distance the consumer is from the center. Outside a 45 mile radius the service ability of a center declines dramatically (see Fig. 3).










Table 2
Number of Centers for Independent Living By State

State Centers Rural Satellite Office


Alabama 2 Alaska 5 2 Arizona 4 3 Arkansas 6 2 California 27 6 5 Colorado 11 5 Connecticut 7 Delaware 2 Florida 14 3 Georgia 2 Hawaii 5 Idaho 6 3 Illinois 20 7 Indiana 4 1 Iowa 4 1 Kansas 10 3 Kentucky 5 Louisiana 8 Main 7 1 Maryland 1 Massachusetts 13 Michigan 14 Minnesota* 13 Mississippi 4 Missouri 10 Montana 7 5 Nebraska 3 1 Nevada 2 2 New Hampshire 3 New Jersey 11 New Mexico 3 1 New York 41 North Carolina 4 North Dakota* 4 4 Ohio 10 Oklahoma 5 1 Oregon 7 Pennsylvania 13 Rhode Island 4










Table 2 continued

State Centers Rural Satellite Office

South Carolina 1
South Dakota 5 5
Tennessee 2
Texas 12 4 1
Utah 4 3 Vermont 1 1
Virginia 10 Washington 11
West Virginia 3 1 Wisconsin 9 1
Wyoming 3 3
Washington, D.C. 2

Total 394 67 10 ILRU, 1995
*One center in Minnesota also serves North Dakota




State (49%)








Fe (%)



Other (3%)
[Part A (34%) NtAouted (e%)



Figure 1
Rural Independent Living Center Budget Sources
Seekins, Ravesfoot, & Maffit, 1992















$100,001 -250,00


Over $500,000]



F$250,001 -$500,000




Figure 2
Annual Budget Ranges for Rural Independent Living Centers
Seekins, Ravesfoot, & Maffit, 1992


160 140 120


*100 �80

0


~40


25 45 90 120 160
Distance from CIL in iles


180 200


Figure 3
Rural Outreach Distance
Seekins, Ravesfoot, & Maffit, 1992









In 1986, ILRU surveyed rural independent living centers to determine barriers most significant to independent living in rural areas. Barriers included lack of accessible housing, concerns for greater visibility of individuals with disabilities in the community and misconceptions caused by the general public's confounding of ability with disability, financial issues such as funding diversification of centers, lack of transportation, and architectural barriers (see Table 3 for a complete list).

Table 3 shows the result of a survey conducted by ILRU (Richards, 1986) to determine the niajor barriers preventing persons with severe disabilities to live independently in rural areas. Funding issues appeared more than any other issue concerning individuals who have been diagnosed with a disability and live in a rural area. All 37 concerns are within the service ability of centers.


Table 3
Barriers to Rural Independent Living
Barrier

1. Lack of transportation
2. Limited community resources 3. Lack of appropriate housing
4. Lack of attendant care
resources/household support
5. Isolation
6. Lack of sufficient medical care
7. Lack of employment opportunities
8. Issues of political power


Ranking of Concern*

35 22 19

17 16 15
14 14









Table 3 continued
Barrier Ranking of Concern*

9. Lack of awareness (by the person with a disability) on available services 13 10. Insufficient funding for independent
living programs 10 11. High cost per person served 10 12. Lack of skill training centers 9 13. Poverty conditions 8 14. Lack of coordination in community 8 15. Availability of education 7 16. Lack of local resources and revenue 7 17. Geographic limitations 6 18. Lack of awareness and inaccessibility
of adaptive equipment providers 6 19. Traditional rehabilitation service
methods will not work in rural areas 5 20. Lack of public awareness about disability 5 21. Inadequate outreach by CILs 5 22. Lack of social/recreational opportunities 3 23. Lack of sophisticated communication network 3 24. Inaccessibility to clients due to natural causes 2 25. Lack of peer involvement 1 26. Weather conditions that affect transportation 1 27. Superstitions 1 28. Stereotyped thinking 1 29. Ethnic/cultural mistrust of the dominant culture 1 30. Lack of follow up on migrant clients 1 31. Diverse language 1 32. Inaccessibility of roads 1 33. Urban centers can't locate rural disabled people 1 34. No commitment to political issues 1 35. Lack of civil rights model 1 36. Pride 1 37. Unwillingness to do unconventional solutions 1
*High number denotes high concern Richards, 1986









One of the unique aspects of rural centers for independent living is the extent to which they serve cross-disabilities. Laurel Richards' (1986) investigation found that the average rural center served 9 of the 11 major disability groups (see Table 4) defined in her study. The most frequent disability group served in rural areas is the category "Other" which was not a factor in urban centers (Nosek. Roth, & Zhu, 1990). Surprisingly, the second most served group of consumers in rural centers were individuals with mental retardation which a substantial number of urban centers do not serve (Jones, White, Ulicny, & Mathews, 1988).


Table 4
ILRU Major Disability Groups

1. Spinal Cord Injury 7. Deaf
2. Cerebral Palsy 8. Deaf-Blind
3. Brain Injury 9. Mental Illness
4. Amputation 10. Mental Retardation
5. Stroke 11. Other
6. Blind (includes spina bifida, MD, MS, and all others that do
not fall within a specific
category)

Richards, 1986


According to Richards (1986), the greatest difficulty in

operating a rural center is the lack of organizational knowledge and training of the directors and board members. Both administrators and board members of rural centers had to learn the









responsibilities of their positions and the skills needed to fulfill them along the way. The on-the-job method of acquiring administrative skills created particular especially in establishing a solid funding base, particularly when many of the directors and board members had no experience in grant writing and fundraising (Richards, 1986). Richards concluded:

Funding agencies should place priority on establishing
additional rural independent living programs. This may
require a search for a coterie of rural disabled people who
would be interested in forming the basis (board and staff) of an independent living program. It may require provision of
technical assistance both on the finer points of independent
living program administration and operation and of grant
proposal preparation. (p. 25)

Centers for independent living have become a significant change agent for people with disabilities. Mary Ann Lachat (1988) stated:

Its core values and philosophical principles of consumer
sovereignty, self-reliance, and equal access have been the
foundation of the Congressionally-authorized independent
living program and of service models [paradigms] developed
and implemented in community-based independent living
centers across the country. (p. i)

Center programs and service paradigms reflect the principle of assisting persons with disabilities to achieve economic, social, and personal independence. Rural centers, although steeped in the independent living paradigm, must be more innovative to acquire the goal of assisting persons with disabilities to achieve economic,









social, and personal independence. However, all centers emphasize the elimination of architectural, physical, and economic barriers that prevent people with disabilities from full participation in the community.

The Need for Education of Executive Directors

The success of any independent living center depends on the ability of the organization to recruit and retain employment of directors whose education and knowledge is of sufficient quality and quantity to assure achievement of center goals (Nosek, 1992). Margaret Nosek reflects what business has known for years - a quality education helps in the success of an organization. Education as a Basis for Success

In a questionnaire given to field managers of different

insurance agencies to determine what made their insurance agency the best in the industry, the field managers attributed their agencies' superiority to their executives' ability. The field managers rated executive ability as education, training, and technical competence--in that order (Savage, 1993). Ready, Vicere, and White (1993) concluded that university executive education has yet to achieve its full potential in developing corporate leaders, however; with improvements to university









executive education, the ability for leaders to succeed in leading an organization will be tremendously enhanced.

Most corporations will not consider applicants for top

management positions unless the applicant has a college degree. This hiring practice is reflected in a study conducted by Datta and Guthrie (1994). The authors investigated 1000 companies to determine whether organizational predecessors are reflected in the characteristics of the new executive selected. The study focused on three organizational factors: firm growth, profitability and research, and development intensity. Further investigated were three executive demographic characteristics: insider/outsider, functional experience, and education level. The results provided evidence that relationships existed between organizational antecedents of succession and executive characteristics. The research found that poorly performing companies tend to choose outside executives as top managers. This finding seems to suggest that firms believe outside executives are more effective in implementing growth strategies than those executives within the organization. It also shows that research and development intensity is related to the selection of executives with higher educational levels and technical functional backgrounds. The findings of Datta and Guthrie (1994) echoed an earlier study conducted by Scherer









and Huh (1992). Scherer and Huh's study suggested that executives with a higher educational background tended to invest more in the research and development of an organization than executives with low or no education. The median growth rate for organizations who had executives with a well developed educational background was 71.5%, showing that education is an important factor in the success of an organization.

The American Business Women's Association's Top Ten Business Women for 1994 (Grubb, 1995) all believe that the successful women executive has a strong educational background. Education allows women executives to attain top executive positions because many women do not have the longevity of experience but do instead have a strong educational background which allows them to become successful in running corporations (Lear, 1994). Lear stated, "the influx of women MBAs can be credited for the emergence of women emerging as operating executives of corporations and as CEOs of small firms" (p. 11).

The importance of educating top managers became evident around 1870 with the rise of large-scale organizations (Drucker, 1985). In North America, the transcontinental railroad emerged as a managerial problem and in Europe the Deutsche Bank, with its many branch offices, found traditional management obsolete.









Henry Towne (1844-1924) was one of the first to develop a program for managers. Peter Drucker, in Management: Tasks. Responsibilities, Practices (1985), described Henry Towne's approach:

He raised basic questions: effectiveness as against efficiency;
organization of the work as against the organization of the
plant [factory] community, that is, of the workers; value set in
the marketplace and by the costumer as against technical
accomplishments. With Towne begins the systematic concern with the relationship between the task of management and the
work of management. (p. 23)

In Germany, George Siemens (1839-1901) designed an effective top management program, by addressing the problems of communication and information in large organizations and in Japan, Eiichi Shibusawa (1840-1931) first envisioned the professional manager. Educating top managers has grown to where today most major universities offer business courses and organizations are hesitant to hire applicants that do not have a college education (Datta & Guthrie, 1994).

Education and Centers for Independent Living

Centers for independent living are an exception. According to Margaret Nosek (written communication, see Appendix A), independent living in the early years viewed too much training and qualifications with considerable suspicion. Smith et al. (1991) summarized the problem of the education of center directors in this way:









The independent living field has some unique features and educational needs that set it quite apart from other fields.
It is a young field, having only been in existence for about
20 years, and, as such, has a relatively underdeveloped
academic base from which to draw. It is a field that
employees many individuals who, owing to the long history of discrimination against persons with disabilities, have had
limited educational and employment experiences. It is a
field in which there is, to date, no common preparation for
individuals who enter it. It is a field in which there is also substantial variation from one center to the next in the scope
and types of services offered and the manner in which they
are offered. It is a field in which funding has been
extremely limited and money for travel and release time to participate in educational programs continue to be a luxury.
And it is a field in which extra cost associated with
reasonable accommodation to make training accessible to
persons with disabilities is the rule rather than the
exception. (p. 110)

Centers for independent living are constrained by law to

search out the best and brightest. To be considered a true Center

for independent living, at least one person of the top management

team - the director or assistant director - must have a disability

(Rehabilitation Act of 1978, Title VII, Sect. 725). This basic

premise of the independent living model emerged from the

community-based consumer-oriented approach of the early 1970s

which is that people with disabilities best understand their needs

and the needs of their communities (Lachat, 1988). Lachat

commented on the evolution of center control that "as leaders in

the movement translated philosophical principles into actual service

programs and community advocacy efforts, they recognized that







59

there would be a rich and necessary diversity in service approaches across centers" (p. 10). Also clear was the fact that as centers evolved, certain key elements essential to designing and maintaining effective community-based independent living services included:

Consumer control over policy and management decisions.
Persons with disabilities would control decisions governing
organizational policies and procedures, the provision of
services, and community activities. In this sense, the term
"consumer" is defined broadly to mean persons with
disabilities who may direct recipients of services as well as
those who are not but who are secondary beneficiaries of advocacy efforts. Consumer control in decision making is intended to ensure that policies, procedures, services, and activities are responsive to the needs and respectful of the
rights of the disability population. (Lachat, 1988, p. 11)

The Independent Living Research Utilization Program in

conjunction with the National Council on Disability (NCD) were charged by Congress to establish minimum employment criteria for independent living centers as they are set forth in the Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1978. The criteria established by ILRU and NCD are as follows: (a) 51% of the governing board members must have a disability; (b) at least one person with a disability must be employed in a management role; and (c) at least one person with a disability must be employed in a position other than a management role (Nosek et al.,1989). The principal reason for the employment criteria is best explained by Laurel Richards (1980):







60

It is essential that the director be a disabled individual, and
when the ILP [CIL] is larger, most of the people in administrative, policy-making positions should also be
disabled. Hiring disabled people in staff positions makes a
statement to the community about your [CILs'] principles
and makes the ILP [CIL] an example of what disabled
workers can accomplish. The director usually becomes a spokesperson for disabled people in the community. The
director often will have to ask for money for the ILP [CIL],
speak out for integration of disabled people, and develop
services of the ILP [CIL] and the community to meet [the]
needs of disabled persons. A disabled director makes a
statement to the community that disabled people are capable
of making decisions, handling large amount of money, and
being independent when given adequate resources. A
nondisabled director would only perpetuate the traditional
myths and concepts of disabled people being taken care of
by professionals. (p. 12)

According to Smith et al. (1991) there are no formalized

educational programs for individuals entering the field of

independent living. Most directors and staff members qualify for

positions at centers by virtue of a disability. The need for

training of center directors was identified as early as 1982 (ILRU,

1982; Lundgren et al., 1982). In an ILRU Occasional Paper,

Lundgren et al., (1982) identified critical issues associated with

center success. One of the issues identified was "the need to

enhance basic administrative skills among independent living

program administrators and first-line supervisory staff" (p. 5).

The need for training of center directors and first-line supervisors

was corroborated in a 1982 conference on the status of

independent living sponsored by the Institute for Educational









Leadership in Washington, D.C. A summary report of the conference described the issue of leadership development:

The Conference participants recognized the need for training and support in leadership development and in organizational
planning for staff and Boards of independent living
programs. While disabled people must be in top management
positions and in majority numbers on the Board, many
disabled people are new to the experience of management or
serving on a Board of Directors and unsure of the
responsibilities and conflicts inherent in these roles. (Funk,
1984, p. 30)

The Conference participants recognized that the development of leadership training was critical to the growth of independent living programs; however, due to a lack of trained leaders with a disability centers tended to hire individuals who did not have a disability for leadership and management positions (Institute for Educational Leadership, 1984). This hiring tendency is evident today as centers are pressured by federal and state agencies to take on the roles of more traditional service agencies. Testimony given by Bonnie O'Day, Director of the National Council on Independent Living, before the U. S. House of Representative Subcommittee on Select Education on the Reauthorization of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as Amended (1992), reflected this concern when she argued "that people with disabilities need to be educated so that people with disabilities themselves can have control over [independent living] programs and services" (p. 88).







62

The 1992 testimony of O'Day reiterated the findings of ten years

earlier by the Institute for Educational Leadership.

Critical to the development of community based independent
living programs is the recruitment and training of disabled
persons to direct and staff existing programs, start new
programs, and take on broader leadership roles in the
community and in support of the goals of the independent movement. At the present time, most training takes place on the "front line" through experience, and to some extent
through transfer to programs in other communities. Because
of the youth of the programs, disabled staff have not had access to the many alternate forms of specialized training
and experiences which allow the development and maturity of leadership skills. More formal training programs need to be
developed which can assure programs of a cadre of capable staff to carry out the broad range of responsibilities at the
program level, and will allow disabled persons to expand areas of current responsibilities. (Institute for Educational
Leadership, 1984, p. 48)

One year after O'Day's testimony, the problem of education

and training for center directors and first-line managers was

summarized by Martha Walker, President of the National Council

on Rehabilitation Education in testimony given before the

Oversight and Reauthorization Hearing on the Rehabilitation Act of

1983. She stated, "although the importance of a qualified

professional in the delivery of rehabilitation services has been

recognized for nearly thirty years, often the necessity for such

personnel has been overlooked" (p. 120). Within the independent

living paradigm, education and training of first-line administrators

was secondary to consumer control (DeJong, 1978). The result







63

was the recruitment of center administrators from a population that had limited education and managerial experience (see Table 5).

The necessity of education and training of center directors and first-line administrators was made clear when Lex Frieden urged Congress to:

[E]stablish training as a priority in the area of independent living, both within the Rehabilitation Service Administration and the National Institute of Handicapped Research, in order
to provide sufficient personnel to staff these centers and to provide training to State agency personnel to better utilize
these centers," (Reauthorization Hearing on the
Rehabilitation Act of 1983 before the House Subcommittee on
Select Education, 1984, p. 88).

According to the United States 1990 Census (McNeil, 1993) the limitations of individuals with disabilities is demonstrated (see Table 5). Additionally 156,290 million Americans reported some level of education (McNeil, 1993). Of the 156,290 million Americans who reported some level of education, only 26,012 million Americans with a disability reported some level of education. The largest percentage of individuals with disabilities reported only a high school education. When considering postsecondary education, people with disabilities only constitute one half of one per cent (.52%) of the total population reporting a post secondary education. The U.S. Census figures do not indicate whether a degree was awarded to an individual, only the number of years in school an individual completed (see Table 5)










Table 5
Education of Individuals with Disabilities - Age 25 - 65


1991 - 1992
Years in School Total Number' Percentage No Disability Disability No Disability Disability

Total Number 130,278 26,012 83.4 16.6 Less than 12 21,881 7,846 14.1 .51 12 years 49,902 10,090 31.9 .63 13 to 15 years 27,177 4,759 17.3 .31 16 and over 31,318 3,317 20.1 .21
1. Numbers in Thousands
McNeil, 1993, Table 12









Robert Funk (1984) asserted in a report to the Institute for

Educational Leadership that as long as centers for independent

living are concentrated on training issues for directors and staff

there can be no focus on major policy and planning programs.

Failure to solve this issue "may prove to be their [centers]

downfall" (p. 50). Funk suggested a broad based training

program that encompasses four skill domains:

1. Training of Existing Program Directors and Staff in:
A. Fiscal and program management B. Public and community relations
C. Legislative development and advocacy
D. Leadership and staff development skills
E. Fund development and fundraising

2. Recruitment and Training of New Leaders and Staff for
Programs:
A. Outreach to minority and underserved disability
community
B. Training and outreach activities for development,
recruitment and program start-up of community
based independent living programs

3. Leadership Skill Enhancement for Existing Directors:
A. Training in public management and public policy
B. Development of internship and Fellowship
opportunities to enhance public policy and
research and management skills, with emphasis on
state and national levels

C. Development of programs to allow short-term
replacements of staff for staff development
programs









4. Leadership Programs for Directors and other Disabled
Leaders to Develop Capabilities for Linkage and
Leadership Activities in Major Generalist Policymaking
Positions:
A. Internships and Fellowships for ILP leadership
with organizations involved in broader disability
rights arena

B. Internships and Fellowships through major
institutions to enhance credentials of disabled
leaders
C. Specific leadership skill programs to develop
understanding of public policy and management and translate the skills gained to other arenas.
(Funk, 1984, p. 49-50)

Robert Funk's 1984 report did not achieve its intent, that of establishing a strong educational and training program for center directors and first-line managers. As of this date, there are no formal degree granting educational programs and only three national training programs for center directors and first-line managers. The first training program for directors and middle managers of centers for independent living was established in Houston, Texas within the Independent Living Research Utilization (ILRU) program. Although ILRU was established in 1977, training programs for center directors and first line managers did not begin until 1985 through a long term training grant from the Rehabilitation Service Administration. The grant established ILRU as a national center for information, training, research, and technical assistance in independent living. The grant's goal was









to expand the body of knowledge in independent living and to improve utilization of results of research programs and demonstration projects in the field of independent living (ILRU, 1995a).

Training conducted by ILRU is based on short term seminars lasting three or four days, conferences, tele-conferences, published materials including both printed materials and video materials, and technical assistance. Short term seminars are geared toward single subject issues such as peer counseling, rural center issues, and personal care assistance programs. Long term seminars are set up to provide a multitude of topics such as fundraising, fiscal policy, program development, evaluations, and identification of community needs.

The second program established in 1985 was the Independent Living Training program at Cornell University's School of Industrial and Labor Relations. This program, which is still in existence today, provides three and one half day training seminars on a regional basis. One of the unique features of the Cornell program is the simulation of a fiscal year of a Center for independent living collapsed into a three and one half day training seminar. The simulation allows center directors to address a variety of issues related to the management of centers for









independent living--such as financial management, funding, personnel practices, community linkages, and board relations.

Other training provided by Cornell encompasses strategic and operational planning. The Cornell seminars include information on the strategic planning process including mission statements; environmental analysis; examples of community, board, staff, and consumer input surveys; and a discussion of sources to obtain information on projects and trends. The program further provides training on board development, leadership development, fundraising, and financial management.

The third program, funded by Rehabilitation Service Administration (RSA) in 1991, was developed at Auburn University, which received funds from RSA to provide regional training to center staff in the southeast (Marini, 1994). The majority of the training programs were two day seminars and covered such topics as executive development, financial accountability, rehabilitation technology, and grant management. The program was not refunded and closed in 1994.

The training provided by these three Independent Living

Center Training Programs (ILCTPs) is based on regional seminars, conferences, and one to two week training programs. None of these training programs provide a common preparation and the







69

indepth study required by a formalized degreed program. Smith et al. (1991) summarized the limited educational opportunities for persons entering the field of independent living in the following manner:

For independent living centers to be able to realize their
potential in effectively meeting service and advocacy needs
in their respective communities, there have to be educational
opportunities to prepare persons adequately for management
and service delivery roles that are grounded in the
independent living philosophy. To date, these opportunities
are far too few. (p. 110)

Identification of Training Needs

Recognizing the need for training, the Rehabilitation Service Administration awarded two grants to provide management training for center directors and upper-level managers. The grants were awarded to ILRU and Cornell University's School of Industrial and Labor Relations in 1985. In 1991 RSA awarded a third grant to the University of Auburn for regional training.

Information provided by the grant training programs reflected similar findings of two studies conducted by ILRU (Smith et al., 1991) and by Irmo Marini (1994) of CIL directors. Their studies concluded that "assuring financial stability" (Smith et al., 1991, p. 48) ranked as one of the top training needs to ensure center success. The other needs identified by the three training centers involved training in providing services in the four core areas such









as transportation to individuals with disabilities, housing, health care, employment training, referrals, and follow through procedures. Marini's findings further concluded that "center directors and personnel are interested in strategies to increase their funding base via fund-raising strategies, grant writing workshops, and other innovative ways to market their services" (p. 51). Table 6 shows the findings of the Marini study and represents the top training needs of centers for independent living as precieved by directors.


Table 6
Training Needs for Center Success - University of Auburn
Topic Priority
1. Diversifying funding source 22.6 2. Evaluation service impact 17.7
3. Procedures for expanding IL
resources to the community 17.7
4. Effective outreach program ns
5. Skills in political legislative
advocacy ns
6. Methods to reduce staff and
board burnout ns
ns = nonsignificant
Marini, 1994, p. 50


The numbers under the heading "priority" represent the percentage of respondents who perceived the topic as a top training priority. As can be seen in Table 6, 22.6% of the directors surveyed noted that funding diversification is the top









priority in managing a center. If funding diversification is

considered with procedures for expanding IL resources to the

community, which is also financially based, then 40.3% of those

surveyed consider financial training as necessary for center success.

An earlier study conducted by Smith et al.,(1991) supported

Marini's study. Using a modified Delphi method, Smith et al.

(1991) surveyed 32 center directors to determine the most important

training needs as seen by center directors. Of the top ten training

needs identified by center directors in the Delphi study "assuring

financial stability through funding diversification and contingency

planning" (Smith et al., 1991, p. 105) was ranked as one the most

important needs in the future success of centers (see Table 6 and

7).


Table 7
Directors' Ranking of the Ten Top Training Needs for Center Success
1. Doing effective fund raising
2. Using center governing boards effectively
3. Conducting program evaluation and assuring quality
4. Assuring financial stability through funding diversification
and contingency planning
5. Providing for staff development
6. Mounting effective community and public relations
programs
7. Doing effective long-range planning
8. Doing effective outreach to underserved populations
9. Building effective working teams
10. Involving consumers in all aspect of center operations,
including board roles and staff and volunteer activities Smith, Richards, Nosek, & Gerken (1991, p. 105)








72

The study conducted by Smith et al. (1991) used a modified Delphi method to obtain training priorities of executive directors. Twenty-three separate items were identified by executive directors as important training needs for a successful center. A second mail survey asked each director to rank the importance of each item identified in the first survey. These rankings were used to identify the ten most important management issues (see Table 7).

Knowledge of Finances

The findings of ILRU and the University of Auburn coincide with the literature of business management on the success of organizations and directors. Lack of education and training are in the forefront. "Managers and administrators in business have had access to professional education for a long time, programs tailored for managers in nonprofit organizations have been established only recently" (Young, Hollister, & Hodgkinson, 1993, p. xv). Educating managers in the nonprofit field began about fifteen years ago with the founding of the Program on Nonprofit Organizations at Yale University. As with the field of independent living, the education of nonprofit managers is a young field and therefore has limited research and literature.

One of the most comprehensive research findings was

published by McCauley and Hughes (1992). The authors surveyed









300 human service administrators to determine what qualities the

administrators considered most important for success in their

position. Three of the top twelve dimensions considered most

important to the administrators success were knowledge of finances

and better education. These were:

1. Utilizing resources and building support for change.
Human service agencies must be responsive to the
changing needs of their client groups and to the
innovative ideas generated within the agency. But this
often translates into the need to do things differently, which staff may resist. Thus one task the leaders of
these organizations face is getting staff support and the
necessary resources to create needed changes or
experiment with new approaches.

2. Uncertain or limited resources, Human service
administrators face yearly uncertainty in level or
sources of funding, which leads to a large amount of
time spent in fundraising.

3. Lack of knowledge or experience. Many leaders of
human service agencies have backgrounds in helping
professions with little preparation for management.
Thus the new human service administrator operates with
the additional challenge of building a knowledge and
experience base for carrying out the responsibilities of his or her job. (McCauley & Hughes, 1992, p. 159-60)

In Managing a Nonprofit Organization, Thomas Wolf (1994)

advanced the idea that examining an organization's financial

statements is the best way to determine the organizations health

and safeguard the organization's and the publics interests. Many

nonprofit organizations fail this test because the executive officer

came into the nonprofit organization with no financial background.









Executive directors are often chosen because of a knowledge or commitment they have to the organization and rely on the financial people to deal with the organizations' finances. To many directors, budgets, reports, and financial statements are unrelated to day-to-day operation of the organization, however, finances are a "critical part of overall organizational planning" (Wolf, 1994, p. 139). Any director who needs to be involved in setting priorities for the organization must have some knowledge and training in finances (Wolf, 1994).

According to Wolf, nonprofits must maintain financial

records carefully and should have these records reviewed on a periodic basis by an independent outside examiner. The director is ultimately fiscally responsible for the organization and must be able to read financial statements, be aware of reporting requirements, and have knowledge of fiscal systems. Beck (1991) proposed that the administrator's knowledge of sound financial management practices is directly related to the success and growth of an organization. Both Wolf (1994) and Beck (1991) acknowledged that acquiring financial management skills by the upper management personnel is vital to the fiscal viability of an organization.







75

For an organization, such as a nonprofit organization, not to emphasize training its top management in sound financial management practices is to court failure (Egan, 1988). Egan concluded that organizations would be better served if more of the organizations' staff would become informed about such economic concepts as financing, pricing, cost, cost accounting, cost control, debt, debt service, equity, overhead, cash flow, profit and loss, taxes, inflation, and the economic environment. To develop a viable strategic plan, the organization must first be financially sound. Organizations that are not financially sound will cease to exist (Egan, 1988).

Financial management is necessary for efficient and effective operations of not-for-profit organizations like centers for independent living. Centers for independent living have grown from five centers in 1978 to over 400 in 1991 (Nosek et al., 1992)(see Table 2). This growth coincides with the growth of not-for-profit organizations throughout the United States. According to Braswell, Fortin and Osteryoung (1994), not-forprofit organizations account for 20 percent of our national income and have expanded about twice the rate of the national income. The majority of not-for-profit organizations such as CILs provide intangible services. This creates a problem for CILs financial









management because services cannot be stored in inventory awaiting demand. If the personnel or services are not available at the time of consumer demand or need, then the services are denied to the consumer. In addition, most center services are free and those that are payment based cannot be denied to consumers if the consumer has no funds with which to pay for the needed services. As a result, CILs have a difficult time in collecting revenue and controlling cost (Braswell et al., 1994). Furthermore most CILs depend on federal and state grants for the majority of their income and therefore are susceptible to state or federal budget cuts, reauthorization of legislation, and changes in legislative priorities.

Centers for independent living are dominated by individuals with disabilities, who play a major role in the policy decisions of the centers (Marini, 1994; Nosek et al., 1992; Smith et al., 1991). The dominance of individuals with disabilities has several implications for the financial management of CILs. First, due to a long history of limited opportunities and discrimination against people with disabilities, many individuals with disabilities have had little or no educational or employment experience. Second, the evaluation of centers for independent living are geared toward criteria established by individuals with disabilities rather than the









efficient use of resources. Last, the factors which motivate people with disabilities are often inconsistent with good resource utilization. Success is measured by the number of core services provided rather than by meeting objective financial standards. Consequently, individuals with disabilities who serve on the CIL board and are staff members are faced with a dual set of standards, those imposed by the independent living philosophy and by other individuals with disabilities in the community.

Consumer control is often the utmost consideration and all other considerations are secondary. Financial consideration and training of executive directors are given little weight. Braswell et al. (1994) summarized the difficulty for CILs in obtaining professionals with leadership experience and knowledge of financial management as follows:

The role of not-for-profit organizations in our economy is
prominent and is expanding at a rapid rate. Paralleling this
increased role is an increased emphasis on financial
management. Competent financial management is necessary
for the efficient and effective operation of not-for-profit organizations as well as for profit-oriented organizations.
Financial decision-making techniques for profit oriented firms
have been presented in numerous books. Financial decision
making for not-for-profit organizations, however, has
generally been ignored. (p. ix)

Centers for Independent Living within Open Systems

There are many unique features of centers for independent living, the main feature being that centers for are consumer









controlled. Consumer control means that centers are operated, evaluated, managed, and directed by individuals with disabilities. Consumer control is the cornerstone of the independent living philosophy.

The primary goal of centers for independent living is to

provide a socially useful function, as defined by individuals with disabilities and the community, rather than to make a profit. Because CILs are not concerned with profit, the financial statements of CILs have a different emphasis. All surplus revenue obtained must be used for programs. If there is a grant surplus it is to be returned to the state or federal government at the end of the fiscal year. Much of the surplus revenues are used to provide services to individuals with disabilities who need services but cannot pay for them. However, surplus revenues do not necessarily cover all consumers who cannot pay; therefore, it is important for CILs to develop alternative income sources to be able to provide the services without worrying about whether the consumer has the ability to pay.

Many centers for independent living receive or obtain

resources in the form of gifts, fundraising, foundations, state and federal grants, and donations (Nosek et al., 1992). The providers of these resources do not expect repayment, but entrust the funds









to centers to be used in the community to better the lives of individuals with disabilities. Center for independent living have a public responsibility to account for the funds they receive. This responsibility often falls to the executive director or the Board of Directors. Governing boards, however, seem less influential in decision-making because they are volunteers that give the centers an aura of legitimacy (Mayers, 1989). Boards rarely get involved in the day-to-day operations of the center. This is the domain of the director. Understanding the workings of the center, particularly financial management, is the responsibility of the director.

To view centers for independent living as a system, it is easy to see the knowledge needed by executive directors to be successful. Looking at CILs as a system is important in several respects. First, systems are the basis for the development of information systems, an organizational system is an integral part of planning and development. Second, systems are important for accounting and auditing functions, particularly if the CIL uses a computer accounting system. Third, systems provide the director a way of viewing the center in its subsystems and processes in some type of totality (Mayers, 1989).








80

Centers for independent living are open systems because they are in constant interaction with the environment. There is an exchange between the CILs and the community and individuals with disabilities and between the agency and its environment. Each can influence and impact the other. A systems view of centers for independent living can provide a definite view of the interaction between the financial and programmatic subsystems and how they relate to the human resource, the training and education of executive directors of CILs (see Fig. 4 and 5).

Katz and Kahn (1978) described the characteristics of open systems in four distinct parts: a) input, b) through-put, c) output, and d) feedback. The authors characterized input as taking energy into the system from the external environment. Centers for independent living take in energy in the form of money, land, buildings, equipment, personnel, board members, and consumers. This energy or input may also be in the form of education and training. Each entity contributes to the centers, either in a positive or negative way.

Through-put transforms or modifies the energy the

organization takes in. According to Katz and Kahn (1978) some process occurs in the organization for the conversion to take place. In centers for independent living, the funds, equipment,














- eedn
< -- - - -- - -- -/
S/ THROUGH
/ INPUT PUT //

Material Resources Agency uses
Money material and human Land, Building, resources to process Equipment and/or change clients
by using Its specialized
Human Resources technology.
Personnel
SClients


OUTP

Processed and/or Changed Client


I 7 / -I


Social/Economic/Political Environment Figure 4
A Systems View of the Human Service Agency Mayers, 1989, p.15 (Reprinted with permission granted from Charles C. Thomas, Pub.)


board members, and the education and training of the personnel are used to process and/or change consumers, families of people with disabilities, programs, and the community.

Output is the result that is obtained from input and throughput and returned to the environment. In the case of the nonprofit organization, such as centers for independent living, this output is independence and self-sufficiency of individuals who have a disability.

Feedback is the way a system receives information. Feedback tells the organization about its environment and its own functioning


















I aiim




/
INPUTSTHROUGH PUTS
/

Material Resources Agency uses
Money material and human
Land, Building, resources to develop skills
Equipment training, advocacy,
nformantion anf referral, Human Resources and peer counseling
Personnel programs.
\ Board Members
N Consumers
C
N CONSUMER
"- . -- - &


II I
I -


lndividuald with disabilities achieve greater independence, become self sulficient, and economic viability./
/
/ /
/
CONSUMER 7

"- ---.


CONSUMER


Figure 5
A Systems View of Independent Living
Adapted from Mayers. 1989, p. 15




functioning in relation to that environment. Centers for independent living use feedback to alter the process of the input, through put, and output. The transformation of centers' funds, the education and training of directors, size of the budget, and the number of consumers served is continually being evaluated and revised. That is, the education and training of directors and the financial diversity, size of budget, and number of consumers served at the centers provide the resources for the cycle of activities to continue. For funds to continue to be directed









toward centers, the output of the centers must be perceive as successful. Perception of success depends on the education and training of directors, financial diversity, size of budget, number of consumers served, as well as the information and the ability of centers to relay this information to the funding sources and the community that is responsible for the allocation of funds.

To avoid entropy, the process by which an organization

moves toward deterioration or even death (Mayers, 1989), centers for independent living must diversify their financial base to provide the core services required by legislation. To retard or reverse this process, centers must take in more resources and store those resources. Nonprofit, human service agencies, such as centers for independent living, do not make a profit. Centers depend largely on government grants and are required by law to return all unexpended funds to the funding agency by the end of the fiscal year. The dependence on government grants and the inability to store up excess funds at the end of the fiscal year show the importance financial diversity is for center survival. The human resource or the education and training of directors, financial diversity, size of budget, and number of consumers served are the key to providing financial diversity.









The most important aspect of an organization, according to

Peter Drucker (1985), is the human resource which consists of the director and organizational people. Gibb (1990) pointed to three factors for an organization to function effectively: 1) existence of resources, 2) managerial talent, and 3) organizational talent (p. 4). Gibb stated:

All these aspects affect the ability to devise appropriate
strategies to deal with environmental factors. Organizations best function as open systems, the separation between them
and their environment must be flexible enough to provide for
feedback and changes significant enough to promote growth.
(p. 4)

Centers for independent living, according to Gibb's concept, depend on funds and the education, training and experience of the director and staff. Centers that are grounded in the independent living philosophy, which argues for environmental changes to reduce handicapping effects on individuals with disabilities, must be flexible enough to adapt to environmental changes and use them to their advantage. For a center to accomplish this, the director and staff must have a knowledge base from which to make correct decisions and adapt to environmental factors with the least disruption to the organization. Gibb (1990) further pointed out:

In many social based organizations, . . . [such as Center for
independent living] . . . the greatest resource is the human
aspect. The proper mix of skills, knowledge, aspiration, and
ability are often key to an organization and [are] not
purchasable. (p. 7)









Conclusion

Using a systems view to investigate the educational background of executive directors as it relates to financial diversity and core programs clarifies the development of an overall framework to better understand centers for independent living and how the education of center directors affects the overall process. The education of center directors in both the internal aspects of centers for independent living and the external environment can be better considered using a systems approach.














CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH PROCEDURE

Introduction

This study was designed to investigate the relationship between the educational backgrounds of executive directors of centers for independent living (CILs) and size of program funding, number of consumers with disabilities served, and funding diversification. The inquiry also tested the relationship in rural and urban centers independently and examined any differences that were found in those variables in relationship to both rural and urban centers combined. Two alternative variables believed to account for some of the variance in the dependent variables were also included as related independent variables. They included the executive director having a diagnosed disability, as defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act (1990), or having no disability.

Chapter 3 will present the methods and procedures of the study. For the purpose of presentation, the remainder of chapter three has been divided into six sections: (a) the study design;

(b) the subjects; (c) research instrumentation; (d) description of









the procedures; (e) treatment of the data; and (f) limitations of the study.

Study Design

This study utilized an ex post facto design. This design was selected because it was not possible to randomly assign the independent variable or executive directors to the rural or urban group nor was it possible to randomly assign executive directors to the group of executive directors with a disability or with no disability. It was also not possible to randomly assign executive directors to a control or experimental group. Ex post facto designs are most commonly used to describe relationships among, two or more variables and to examine the degree of association: among two or more variables; they do not examine the causal relationship. Richard J. Shavelson (1988) stated:
/
These designs [ex post facto] allow the researcher to come
"7
on the scene when nature has already implemented a
treatment, either through difference in environment in which"\
subjects find themselves, through differences in inheritance,
or through some combination of these two factors. Thus,
the researcher arrives after the fact (ex post facto) that the
treatments have been imposed on the subject. (p. 28)

Fred N. Kerlinger (1973) defined ex post facto research in the following and somewhat similar but more specific manner:

Ex post facto research is systematic empirical inquiry in
which the scientist does not have direct control of
independent variables because their manifestations have
already occurred or because they are inherently not







88

manipulable. Inferences about relations among variables are made, without direct intervention, from concomitant variation
of independent and dependent variables. (p. 379)

In an experimental design, Kerlinger continued, it is assumed that "if x then y." The researcher uses some method to manipulate or measure x. The researcher then observes y to see if the variation expected or predicted from the variation in x occurs. If it does, this is evidence for the validity of the proposition.

In ex post facto research y is observed and an x, or several x's, are also observed and conclusions or observations are reported of the relationships of x to y. From this an argument can be structured. In this investigation the x factor or dependent variable was the educational background of the executive directors of centers for independent living, the disability/nondisability factor was Yi , and the rural/urban factor was Y2 or alternative variables. The Y3 factor or independent variable was the size of the centers budget, the number of consumers served, and the number of sources from which the center derives funds. The concluding argument structure or its logical validity for an ex post facto design, such as this investigation, was not very different from an experimental design (Kerlinger, 1973).









D. A. deVaus (1990) suggested that the first step in

developing an ex post facto design is to clarify the concepts. The author stated that "concepts are simple tools which fulfill a useful shorthand function: they are abstract summaries of a whole set of behaviors, attitudes, and characteristics which have something in common" (p. 48).

The defining concept for this research was how the education of executive directors of centers for independent living relate to the overall performance of the centers. In the case of this research, the treatments were defined as the educational background of executive directors and if the executive director had been diagnosed with a disability or as not having a disability. Treatments were further considered in terms of the location of the centers, the size of each center's budget, the number of consumers served by each center, and the number of sources from which each center receives funds (see Fig. 6).

According to Fred N. Kerlinger (1973) there are three weaknesses with ex post facto research: "(a) the inability to manipulate the independent variables; (b) the lack of power to randomize; and (c) the risk of improper interpretation" (p. 380). Kerlinger further explained that the first two weaknesses are the result of a researcher's inability to randomly assign subjects












Dependent Alternative Alternative Independent Variable (x) Variable (Y,) Variable (Y2) Variable (Y3)



Size of Budget
Disability Consumers Served Diversity of Funds Rural
Size of Budget
No Disability Consumers Served Executive Director Diversity of Funds
Education
Size of Budget
Disability Consumers Served U Diversity of Funds

Size of Budget
No Disability Consumers Served Diversity of Funds


Figure 6
Independent Variable in Relation to


the Denendent Variable









to experimental groups. He concluded, "this lack of control is the basis of the third weakness: the risk of improper interpretation" (p. 380).

Kerlinger (1973) recommended that to control for these

potential weaknesses, major and alternative variables be identified before the data are collected. Significant differences or correlations are located and then interpreted. In this study, two alternative variables (disability and location) that could account for variance in the independent variables (size of budget, number of consumers served, and diversity of funds) were identified (see Fig. 6).

The independent variable in this study was the educational background of executive directors of centers for independent living. Alternative independent variables that were thought to account for some of the variances are the location of a center in a rural or urban environment and the executive director being disabled or not being a disabled (see Fig. 6). The factors of employment of individuals with disabilities compared to individuals who do not have a disability in urban and rural centers are discussed in Chapter 2.

To control for third weakness of ex post facto research, the risk of improper interpretation, a panel of experts in the field of







92

Independent Living was utilized. The panel provided input in the formulation of the survey instrument and guidance in developing the research questions (see Appendix B).

Description of Population

The target population for this study were the 394 executive directors of centers for independent living in the United States listed in Table 8. It is important to note that there are more centers for independent living than there are directors because several states, such as California, have established satellite centers which are considered centers but are administered by the parent center.

Typically, the person responsible for center operation has the title "Executive Director" and is the Chief Executive of the center for independent living. The executive director usually is responsible for the total operation of a center, including staffing, planning, developing, budgeting, implementing and evaluating the entire program. Executive directors customarily represent centers on local, state, and national levels and are responsible for the employment and supervision of activities of all staff members and the center programs. This person typically has overall responsibility for fundraising, is the general liaison between the center and Board of Directors, is chief spokesperson for the









Table 8
Number of Executive Directors in Each State Included in Study
Number of Percent Number of Directors State Directors Responded' Responded


Alabama 2 0.25 1 Alaska 5 0.51 2 Arizona 4 1.02 4 Arkansas 6 0.76 3 California 32 4.31 17 Colorado 11 2.03 8 Connecticut 7 0.76 3 Delaware 2 0.25 1 Florida 14 2.03 8 Georgia 2 0.25 1 Hawaii 5 0.25 1 Idaho 6 1.02 4 Illinois 20 3.05 12 Indiana 4 0.51 2 Iowa 4 0.51 2 Kansas 10 1.52 6 Kentucky 5 0.51 2 Louisiana 8 0.25 1 Main 8 0.25 1 Maryland 1 0.00 0 Massachusetts 13 1.27 5 Michigan 14 2.28 9 Minnesota* 13 1.78 7 Mississippi 4 0.00 0 Missouri 10 2.03 8 Montana 7 0.25 1 Nebraska 4 0.25 1 Nevada 2 0.51 2 New Hampshire 3 0.25 1 New Jersey 11 1.52 6 New Mexico 3 0.25 1 New York 41 5.08 20 North Carolina 4 1.02 4 North Dakota 4 0.76 3 Ohio 10 1.02 4 Oklahoma 5 1.02 4 Oregon 7 1.52 6 Pennsylvania 13 2.03 8 Rhode Island 4 0.51 2




Full Text

PAGE 1

THE EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND OF EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS OF CENTERS FOR INDEPENDENT LIVING AS IT RELATES TO CENTER BUDGET, DIVERSITY OF BUDGET, AND THE NUMBER OF CONSUMERS SERVED By BILLY L. PARKER A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 1996 UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA LIBRARIES

PAGE 2

Copyright 1996 by Billy L. Parker

PAGE 3

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank the members of my doctoral committee for their support and time they gave throughout my graduate career. Each of them has given me challenges and guidance. Each member is worth emulating in my professional career. I would like to give particular thanks to Dr. Stuart E. Schwartz, chair, who convinced me to stay in the program. Because of his willingness to support my endeavor at all times, I was able to complete the program and this dissertation. Dr. Schwartz provided numerous ways to enhance my experiences which provided me with greater insights and understanding. My family gave me the strong foundation upon which this dream came true, particularly my wife whose patience was endless and support was constant. I could not have done this without her. I also thank my mother-in-law, Linda, who fed me well and often and my Oma, who taught me as a young child that dreams do come true. Finally, I would like to thank everyone at the Florida Network, who made the funding possible. Their support, patience, and confidence in me have made the completing if this degree more enjoyable. iii

PAGE 4

TABLE OF CONTENT page ACKNOWLEDGEMENT iii ABSTRACT vi 1. INTRODUCTION 1 Statement of the Problem 9 Significance of the Problem 12 Theoretical Framework 16 Hypotheses 18 Definition of Terms 20 Summary 26 2. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 27 Centers for Independent Living 27 Two Service Paradigms 33 The Rehabilitation Paradigm 35 Independent Living Paradigm 36 Purpose of CILs 39 Rural Centers for Independent Living 45 The Need for Education of Executive Directors . 54 Identification of Training Needs 69 Knowledge of Finances 72 Centers for Independent Living within Open Systems 77 Conclusion 85 3. RESEARCH PROCEDURE 86 Study Design 87 Description of Population 92 Instrument 95 Procedures 98 Treatment of Data 99 Limitations 101 iv

PAGE 5

4. ANALYSIS OF DATA 102 Characteristics of Variables 103 Comparison of the Variables to Determine a Relationship 110 General Linear Models Procedure 113 Comparison of the Variables Through a One-Way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) . . 120 Summary 128 5. DISCUSSION 131 Summary 131 Summary of General Linear Models Procedure . 135 Summary of the ANOVA Procedure 140 Hypotheses Testing 143 Recommendations 144 APPENDICES A. CORRESPONDENCE 152 B. EXPERT PANEL VITA SUMMARY 159 C. SURVEY COVER LETTER 163 D. SURVEY 166 REFERENCES 173 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 180 v

PAGE 6

Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy THE EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND OF EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS OF CENTERS FOR INDEPENDENT LIVING AS IT RELATES TO CENTER BUDGET, DIVERSITY OF BUDGET, AND THE NUMBER OF CONSUMERS SERVED By Billy L. Parker August 1996 Chair: Stuart E. Schwartz Major Department: Special Education The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between the educational background of executive directors of centers for independent living and the success of the centers. Center success was defined in terms of size of center budget, diversity of center funds, and the number of consumers served. Additionally center location of rural or urban and the executive director having a disability or not having a disability were investigated in order to determine their association with the educational background of directors and center success. vi

PAGE 7

All 394 executive directors in the United States were surveyed. The survey asked questions regarding center function, educational level of the directors, rural or urban status, and the disability/no disability status of each director. Linear regression analyses showed a significant relationship between the executive director's educational level and the location of the centers, disability status of the director, size of center funding, number of consumers served, and the diversity of center funding. In addition, a statistically significant relationship was found between the location of the centers and the disability status of the director, size of center funding, number of consumers served, and the diversity of center funding. To draw inferences about the population that was investigated, a one-way analysis of variance was conducted (ANOVA). The ANOVA did not find a significant relationship between the disability/nondisability factor of the executive director and the other variables. However, the second variable tested through an ANOVA, the centers' location in a rural or urban environment, was determined to have a statistically significant relationship. Centers located in an urban or rural location showed a significant difference in diversity of funding, the number of consumers served, and the size of center funding. vii

PAGE 8

CHAPTER 1 THE PROBLEM AND ITS SETTING Introduction The independent living paradigm is based on the assumption that the restrictions faced by individuals with disabilities are societal, not individual. According to Gerben DeJong's (1979) independent living paradigm, the change agents must be those individuals affected by the problem, namely individuals with disabilities. Independent living stresses the importance of empowerment, self-determination, and the removal of external barriers. Although independent living stresses the need for support services for individuals with disabilities, professional intervention can sometimes create further barriers by interjecting personal views and experiences; therefore, independent living emphasizes peer counseling, self-help, consumer control, and self-direction. The problem, as described by the independent living model, is the dependence of people with disabilities on professionals, relatives and others, inadequate support services, and architectural and economic barriers (Lachat, 1988). The independent living 1

PAGE 9

2 paradigm attempts to break the dependence on others and develop self-reliance. Since the inception of the Independent Living Model in 1978 (DeJong, 1978), the number of centers for independent living (CILs) has grown from approximately 52 centers in 1977 to an estimated 400 centers in 1991 (Nosek, Zsu, & Howland, 1992). Despite this phenomenal growth over a ten year period, little research has been done to address the needs of centers for independent living. Centers for independent living are a young phenomenon that feature unique educational and training needs for individuals with disabilities. The 1992 Rehabilitation Act Amendments require centers to make every effort possible to fill employment positions with persons who have a disability. Therefore, centers for independent living draw heavily on individuals with disabilities to fill employment positions and as such have a relatively underdeveloped academic base from which to draw (Smith, Richards, Nosek, & Gerken, 1991). Many believe that the first step in improving CILs is to improve CIL management education and training (Marini, 1994; Nosek et al., 1992; and Smith et al., 1991). Due to a long history of limited opportunities and discrimination against individuals with disabilities, many CIL staff have had little or no educational or employment experience (Smith

PAGE 10

3 et al., 1991). According to the National Council on Disability (1993), education is a key to employment success for persons with disabilities. However, research conducted by Brolin and Gysberg (1989) concluded that "[persons] with disabilities are not attaining greater vocational and independent living success than they did in previous years" (p. 155). The result of the decrease in vocational and independent living success has been that individuals with disabilities have been shortchanged in both regular and special education programs (Wright & Leung, 1993). Wright and Leung stated that "failure to provide quality, relevant education to persons with disabilities results in their continued expulsion from the workforce" (p. 23). Centers for independent living are required by law to employ individuals with disabilities (Rehabilitation Act of 1978, Title VII, Sect. 725). The Independent Living Research Utilization Program (ILRU), a research and training center for independent living in Houston, Texas, defined the minimum employment criteria for centers for independent living using the Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1978 as a basis. The criteria established by the ILRU are as follows: (a) 51% of the governing board members must have a disability; (b) at least one person with a disability must be employed in a management role; and (c) at least one person with a

PAGE 11

4 disability must be employed in a position other than a management role (Nosek, Jones, & Zhu, 1989). Considering the findings of the National Council on Disability (1991), centers for independent living are employing executive directors who have little or no management, administrative, and academic preparation. Research further shows that there is no standardized formal training program for individuals who enter the field of independent living (Lundgren, Frieden, House, & Ziskin, 1982; Smith et al., 1991; Marini, 1994). The majority of training programs that are offered to center staff are in the form of short, one day, topical discussions. To date there are three Independent Living Center Training Programs (ILCTP) in existence. The first two were funded in 1985 at Cornell University's School of Industrial and Labor Relations in Ithaca, New York, and the Independent Living Research and Utilization (ILRU) program in Houston, Texas. The third training center was funded in 1991 at Auburn University in Auburn, Alabama. The training provided by these three ILCTPs is based on regional seminars, conferences, and three to four day training programs. The limited number of training programs for CIL staff is only one aspect of the problem in the training of CIL staff. Equally important issues in accessing training programs for CIL staff are the limited funds for travel to training sites, availability of

PAGE 12

5 interpreters for individuals with a hearing disability, personal assistance for individuals with severe disabilities, and ability to accommodate staff time away from their centers (Smith et al., 1991). The need for basic administrative training of the executive directors of CILs was identified as early as 1982 (ILRU, 1982; Lundgren et al., 1982). The necessity for training was emphasized in Bonnie O'Day's testimony given before the U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Select Education ( Oversight and Reauthorization Hearing . 1983). She summarized that the need for professional training is getting more acute, not only for those entering the field but those who are already in the field. If such training is not provided, the quality of services will deteriorate and individuals with disabilities will be denied opportunities to become independent. O'Day concluded her testimony by stating that "the upgrading [sic] of skills of employed personnel is at all times an important aspect of manpower supply and demand and the shortage of personnel who have been trained to their fullest contributes to the overall personnel shortage" ( Oversight and Reauthori zation Hearing . 1983, p. 123). A similar conclusion was reached at a conference sponsored by the Institute for Educational Leadership in Washington, D.C. (Funk, 1984). In a summary

PAGE 13

6 report, Robert Funk expressed the conference participants' conclusions that what is needed for directors of centers for independent living is leadership development. According to Funk's report of the conference, leadership development encompassed both existing program directors and new leaders in the field. Marini (1994) reflected comparable findings in a study of CIL directors. He concluded that "assuring financial stability" (p. 48) ranked as one of the top training needs to assure center success. Other needs identified in Marini's study involved training in the provision of services in the four core areas: (a) information and referral; (b) independent living skills training; (c) advocacy; and (d) peer counseling. Marini's findings supported an earlier study conducted by Smith et al., (1991). Using a modified Delphi method Smith et al., (1991) surveyed 32 center directors to determine their most important training needs. Of the top ten training needs identified by center directors in the Delphi study, "assuring financial stability through funding diversification and contingency planning" (Smith et al., 1991, p. 105) was ranked as the fourth most important need in the future success of centers, behind (a) effective fund raising, (b) using governing boards effectively, and (c) conducting quality assurance and program evaluations.

PAGE 14

7 Both the ILRU and the Marini studies showed the importance center directors placed on the knowledge of fiscal management in the administration of a successful center. In Managing a Nonprofit Organization . Thomas Wolf (1994) wrote "analyzing [an organization's] financial statements is an important way to take a measure of an organization's health while at the same time protecting the organization's interests and those of the public" (p. 139). Beck (1991) suggested that the success of an organization depends largely on the administrator's ability to carry out sound financial management practices. Both Wolf and Beck acknowledged that the fiscal viability of an organization depends on sound financial practices and the ability of executive directors to acquire financial management skills. Gerard Egan (1988) agreed with the positions of both Wolf and Beck. Financial management, Egan postulated, is an important aspect to the success of an organization; however, the importance of financial management is more encompassing. In Change-Agent Skills: Assessing & Designing Excellence . Egan (1988) stated: To remain financially and economically innocent is to court financial disaster . . . many people, even though they are not directly involved with finance, could well become more informed about economic concepts such as financing, pricing, cost, cost accounting, cost control, debt, debt service, equity, overhead, cash flow, profit and loss, taxes, inflation, and the

PAGE 15

8 economic environment and outlook. To be sound, strategic plans must be financially sound . . . financially troubled systems simply speeds up the process of dissolution, (p. 93) He continued: [That] money is a critical resource, and finance-related programs are an important but sometimes dimly understood part of the work needed to keep the system alive. It would be healthier if more members of an [organization] or institutions were aware of financial realities, (p. 93) In addition to the financial management skills needed by the administrator, each independent living center must also comply with the Rehabilitation Service Administration's (RSA) minimum basic service requirements. The minimum basic services required by RSA are information and referral, peer counseling, independent living skills training, and advocacy. Most programs throughout the United States also offer personal care assistance referral, housing assistance, interpreter assistance, reader assistance, transportation, financial counseling, barrier removal, and activities of daily living assistance. The services provided by individual centers are determined by the needs of the consumers served, the available community resources, the physical and social makeup of the community, and the program's goals. Centers for independent living have been established in all 50 states, U.S. territories, and Washington, D.C. Many states with

PAGE 16

9 large populations, such as California, Florida, and New York, support many centers; states with small populations, such as North Dakota, Rhode Island, and Maine, support only one or two centers. Statement of the Problem Independent living attributes the problems of disability as environmental and negative societal values, rather than the person being "broke" (Lachat, 1988) and needing to be "fixed" (Turnbull & Turnbull, 1985). Independent living programs, therefore, have been defined as community based programs that have a large involvement of individuals with disabilities (DeJong, 1981; Thayer & Rice, 1990). This philosophy encourages involvement of individuals with disabilities in the decision making process as it relates to individual needs and services (Bergland & Clark, 1991). Many individuals with disabilities have neither the education nor training to assist in a program's decision process. The problems of accessing training programs for center directors and management staff were summarized in a study conducted by Smith et al., (1991) as follows: First: There has been an extraordinary increase over the past two decades in numbers of independent living centers around the country, bringing with it increased demands for personnel who have management skills needed to operate centers effectively and efficiently.

PAGE 17

10 Second: Centers are committed to hiring people with disabilities, many of whom, because of previous discriminatory practices in education and employment, have had few opportunities to develop management skills. Third: People who work in independent living come from a variety of backgrounds. At present, there is no standardized entry-level training to prepare staff to work in independent living centers, making it difficult to plan and implement postemployment training programs that are appropriate to the knowledge and skill level of center employees. Fourth: There are significant differences in types and scope of services offered from center to center. This is due in part to centers' efforts to be responsive to individual community needs, posing problems in offering management training that focuses on organization and delivery of services. Fifth: Most centers have relatively small—fewer than ten persons—staffs, and this results in difficulties in freeing staff to be away from the center for training activities. Sixth: Most centers operate within very tight budgets and have little funding available for staff development of any kind, including management training. Seventh: Owing to the larger number of independent living center staff who are likely to be people with disabilities, costs for sign language interpreters, readers, personal assistance services, or other types of accommodation, including specialized transportation, often need to be figured into training budgets. (Smith et al., 1991, p. 103-4) A further problem, as defined by Richards and Smith (1992), is the lack of education and training of executive directors of centers for independent living. Because of the lack of training and limited management training opportunities of executive directors, many centers have taken on the characteristics of more traditional service agencies, such as vocational rehabilitation agencies.

PAGE 18

1 1 Richards and Smith (1992) identified several of the pitfalls that centers are encountering because of the lack of training. These include: 1. Consumers being put through lengthy procedures in order to obtain services, including completing intrusive intake forms and meeting eligibility requirements; 2. Centers becoming preoccupied with delivering services at the expense of taking on important community issues; 3. Centers being less aggressive in taking on advocacy issues in their communities out of concern that business or public agencies from which funding is obtained might look unfavorably on highly visible advocacy and might, consequently, reduce funding; 4. Centers relaxing their emphasis on consumer control and consumer direction of services and, instead, taking the easier approach of simply telling consumers what they should or should not be doing to live more independently, (p. 108-9) The philosophy of independent living is founded on the principles of equal rights for people with disabilities, equal access to services of all types, and consumer sovereignty. Smith et al., stated: Education in the philosophy and history of independent living both for new people entering the field and for persons in the field who may be caught up in the day-to-day aspects of service delivery and accountability is critical if the movement [centers for independent living] is to maintain its vitality and offer a true alternative to traditional, and oftentimes paternalistic, approaches to service delivery, (p. 102)

PAGE 19

1 2 In summary, the problems as defined in this investigation are: (a) the lack of education and training for executive directors in the operation and management of CILs; (b) the dependence on limited funding sources; and (c) the inability of many centers to provide the core services that are dependent on the availability of funds. This study considered these problems and examined the relationship of centers for independent living nationwide in terms of the educational background of the executive directors and the centers' financial diversity, size of budget of each center, and the number of consumers served. This study further explored the stated problems in terms of the urban or rural location of each center and whether the executive director has a disability or does not have a disability. Significance of the Problem With the establishment of centers for independent living in 1978 as a national program for individuals with severe disabilities, little emphasis has been placed on the training needs of executive directors. A survey of all 50 states by the researcher found that each state had one or more centers, with the majority of states having more than one. A study conducted by Nosek, Roth, and Zhu (1990) determined that the typical center for Independent Living is approximately eight years old, located in a moderately sized urban setting, operates on an annual budget of about

PAGE 20

13 $252,000, receives funds primarily from federal and state grants, and has a staff of 7.5 (median) of whom 4 have a disability. Centers established between 1979 and 1982 have had the full benefit of federal funding and have been in existence long enough to establish alternate funding. The centers beginning operations after 1983 have entered "into a funding atmosphere which is tenuous at best" (Nosek et al., 1990, p. 29). Diversity of funding, according to Nosek et al., (1990) was the basis for survival of many centers in the future. With the election of a Republican majority in Congress in 1994, the American politico-social scene experienced a resurgence of a conservative philosophy. Conservatism as a political philosophy has long had a prominent role in the nation's history (Rossiter, 1962); however, the significance of the 1994 election was the emphasis Congress placed on budget cutting and turning many of the federal programs over to states through block grants. According to John Nelson (personal communication, 1995), National Director of Independent Living Services, CILs are in jeopardy of losing much of the federal funds that provide the single largest funding source for many centers. Because of the shrinking federal support for many programs, such as CILs, it is important to investigate funding diversity for centers nationwide to predict future success of centers

PAGE 21

for independent living and to make system changes to ensure center success. Funding diversity was tied directly to the education and training backgrounds of directors as early as 1982 (ILRU, 1982; Lundgren et al., 1982). The relationship was also identified during testimony given before the U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Select Education ( Oversight and Reauthorization Hearing . 1983) and a conference sponsored by the Institute for Educational Leadership in Washington, D.C. (Funk, 1984). Gerard Egan (1988), Director of the Loyola University in Chicago's Center for Organizational Development, was more explicit regarding the relationship between education/training and sound financial management when he urged that directors and staff members of an organization should become more informed about economic and financial concepts. He concluded that lack of economic and financial training of directors and staff members could result in financial disaster for an organization. Due to the relationship between education and training of directors and financial diversity of centers, possible future success of centers can be predicted by determining the educational and training backgrounds of executive directors of CILs. The financial stability further depends on how well CILs meet the philosophical base, equal rights for people with disabilities,

PAGE 22

1 5 equal access to services of all types, and consumer sovereignty of independent living. Equal rights for people with disabilities, equal access to services of all types, and consumer sovereignty is provided by centers through core services that include independent living skills, advocacy, peer counseling, and information and referral. Education and training of executive directors in the philosophy of independent living will enable centers to provide services within the independent living guidelines as established in the Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1978 and continue to receive funds under this law. Obtaining knowledge of budget size, funding diversity, and number of consumers served provided information regarding the availability of Title VII funds of the Rehabilitation Act and other funds such as Title I, Title XVIII, Block Grants, foundations, and fundraising. To date no research has been conducted to compare the education and training background of center directors to funding diversification and funding sources, size of budget, and number of consumers served. As legislatures, individuals with disabilities, and the public continue to demand excellence in social services, states and the community of people with disabilities will need to determine, more than ever, whether the educational preparation of center directors is adequate.

PAGE 23

16 Theoretical Framework The theoretical framework underlying this study is based primarily on the work of Bodnar (1980) and Katz and Kahn (1978). Systems theory has pervaded the social sciences and has provided a framework with which to view many different types of processes. Raymond Mayers (1989) stated that "systems concepts help give us a way to look at the human service agency, its systems, and processes in some kind of totality" (p. 55). Human service organizations, such as CILs, consist of their material and human resources. A systems view of centers for independent living gives a graphical view of the place and function of the financial and programmatic subsystems and the relation they have to the human resource, the training and education of executive directors of CILs. In this case, CILs, as a human service organization, are open systems because they are in interaction with their environments; there is a two-way exchange of energy and resources between the agency and its environment. Each can influence and impact the other. Katz and Kahn (1978) described a number of characteristics of open systems that are indicative of CILs: Input As no organization is self contained, every organization must take in energy in the form of resources from its external environment. In the human service agency these resources are called inputs. Inputs are material in the form of money,

PAGE 24

1 7 supplies, equipment, and so forth. Inputs may also be human resources in the form of education and training. Through-Put Open systems transform or convert the energy they take in. This means that some process occurs in the organization for the conversion to take place. In human service agencies material [funds] and human resources [education and training] are used to process and/or change consumers. Output After through-put, the result of the processing is returned to the environment. In the case of the nonprofit organization [CILs], this output is the processed and/or changed consumer. Feedback Inputs into an open system are not just of a material nature, there are informational inputs as well. These information inputs [feedback] may come from the outputs of the agency and thus are cyclical in nature. They tell the organization about its environment and its own functioning in relation to that environment. The information that the agency receives regarding the results of its processes may be used to alter the process itself, (p. 158) The exchange of energy (financial diversity, education and training of directors, size of budget, and number of consumers served) has a cyclical nature about it. That is, the output or the education and training of directors and the financial diversity, size of budget, and number of consumers served from the system provide the resources for the cycle of activities to continue. If the outputs of the centers are seen as successful, which depends on the education and training of directors, financial diversity, size of budget, and number of consumers served, the information is relayed

PAGE 25

18 to the funding sources and the community. The perception of success by the community means that a continuing supply of funds should be channeled to the centers. Centers for independent living depend on financial diversity to provide the core services required by legislation and avoid "entropy." Entropy is a process by which an organization moves toward deterioration, even death (Mayers, 1989). Centers must try to retard or reverse this process by taking in more resources, thus storing up additional resources. Since centers for independent living do not make a profit and depend largely on government grants that require all unexpended funds to be returned to the funding agency by the end of the fiscal year, financial diversity is important for center survival. The human resource or the education and training of directors, financial diversity, size of budget, and number of consumers served are the key to a successful CIL. Hypotheses Executive directors of enters for independent living have a varied background of educational experience. Education is supposed to provide the executive director the skills and experience needed to conduct a successful center. The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between the educational background of executive directors of centers

PAGE 26

19 for independent living and the size a centers' budget, the number of consumers served annually, the financial diversity of a center's, and if the directors have or do not have a disability. The study further investigated the relationship of the educational background of the executive directors of centers for independent living based on rural versus urban status and measure if there is a difference in the success of centers as defined through size of budget, number of consumers served, and financial diversity. The dependent variable was defined as the educational background of the executive directors of centers for independent living nationwide. The independent variables was defined as the size of center budgets, number of consumers served and the number of different sources of income for each center. This study attemted to answer the question: "Is there a relationship between the educational background of executive directors of centers for independent living and the size of the center budget, the number of consumers served, and the financial diversity of centers and how that relationship is affected in rural versus urban centers and by whether the executive director has a disability or does not have a disability?" To address this question the statement of the null hypotheses are as follows:

PAGE 27

20 1. Different levels of educational background of executive directors of centers for independent living do not evidence different sizes of the center budget, number of consumers served, and the financial diversity of centers. 2. The disability/no disability status of executive directors of centers for independent living does not evidence differences between rural centers and urban centers, the size of center budgets, number of consumers served, and the financial diversity of centers. 3. The rural/urban location of centers does not evidence differences between directors who have a disability and directors who do not have a disability, the size of the center budget, number of consumers served, and the financial diversity of centers. Definition of Terms The following definitions are used throughout this study: Independent livin g programs are community based programs that have a large involvement of individuals with disabilities (DeJong, 1981; Thayer & Rice, 1990). CILs encourage involvement of individuals with disabilities in the decision making process as it relates to individual needs and services (Bergland & Clark, 1991). Services provided by centers for independent living do not compete with but complement other programs in order that individuals with disabilities receive the most appropriate services. These programs

PAGE 28

21 can provide services directly or coordinate, through established rehabilitation agencies, those services necessary to assist individuals with severe disabilities to maximize autonomy and minimize unnecessary dependence on others (Frieden, Richards, Cole, & Bailey, 1979). Services include information and referral, peer counseling, advocacy, and independent living skills training. Additional services may include locating accessible housing, personal care assistance services, reader/interpreter services, information about goods and services, transportation, career services, and recreational opportunities (Marini, 1994). Independ ent living is the ability of individuals with severe disabilities to participate actively in society: to work; to own a home; to raise a family; and in general, to participate to the fullest extent possible in normal day-to-day activities. It is control over one's life based on the choice of acceptable options that minimize reliance on others in making decisions and in performing everyday activities. This includes managing one's affairs, participating in day-to-day life in the community, fulfilling a range of social roles, and making decisions that lead to self-determination and minimization of physical or psychological dependence on others (Rice, 1980).

PAGE 29

22 Centers for independent living (CILs) are a consumercontrolled, community-based, cross disability, nonresidential private nonprofit agency that is designed and operated within a local community by individuals with disabilities and provides an array of independent living services. [P.L. 102-569, Title VII, Sect. 702(1)(A)(B)] Independent living services are services that are provided by centers for independent living which include the core services and counseling services, services related to securing housing or shelter, rehabilitation technology, mobility training, services and training for individuals with cognitive and sensory disabilities, personal assistance services, development of surveys and directories, consumer information services, supported living programs, provision of needed prostheses and other appliances and devices, individual and group social and recreational services, programs specifically designed for youths with disabilities, services for children, appropriate preventive services, and community awareness programs to enhance the understanding and integration into society of individuals with disabilities [Pub. L. No. 102-569, Section 7(30)(A)(B)(i xxi)]. Individua l with disabilities are individuals who have a physical or mental impairment which substantially limits one or more of such

PAGE 30

23 person's major life activities, has a record of such an impairment, or is regarded as having such an impairment [Pub. L. No. 102-569, Section (8)(B)(i)]. Individual with a severe disability is an individual with a severe physical or mental impairment whose ability to function independently in the family or community or whose ability to obtain, maintain, or advance in employment is substantially limited and for whom the delivery of independent living services will improve the ability to function, continue functioning, or move toward functioning independently in the family or community or to continue in employment [Pub. L. No. 102-569, Section 14(B)]. Nonprofit agency is any community agency program carried out by a corporation or association, no part of the net earnings of which insure, or may lawfully insure, to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual and the income of which is exempt from taxation under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 [Pub. L. No. 102-569, Section 10]. Executive director is an individual having administrative or managerial authority in an organization. The chief officer responsible for total operation of a center, including staffing, planning, developing, budgeting, implementing and evaluating the entire program. The executive director represents the center on

PAGE 31

24 local, state, and national level, employs and supervises the activities of all staff members and their program. Overall responsibility for fundraising. Serve as general liaison between Center and Board of Directors and chief spokesperson for the program. Responsible for compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations, including but not limited to center evaluations, audits, center operation, and sound financial policy (Wolf, 1990). Financial diversity is a taxonomy of funding sources available to centers for independent living defined within four categories in the United States; governmental agency grants, foundations, business and industrial organizations, and private such as fund raising, membership dues, and trustfunds (Denk, Shreve, Richards, King, Smith, & Smith, 1994). Educational background consists of a postsecondary degrees such as associate, bachelor, master, specialist, or doctorate degrees. Any degree awarded by a state certified institution such as high school, community college, or university. Educational level is the level of formal education completed by an individual, such as 12 years of elementary and secondary education, four years of postsecondary education, two years of graduate education, and three to five years of postgraduate education.

PAGE 32

Title VII is the Independent Living component of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 as Amended by The Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1992. Title VII promotes the philosophy of independent living, including a philosophy of consumer control, peer support, self-help, self-determination, equal access, and individual and system advocacy, in order to maximize the leadership, empowerment, independence, and productivity of individuals with disabilities, and the integration and full inclusion of individuals with disabilities into the mainstream of American society by: (a) providing financial assistance to states for providing, expanding, and improving the provisions of independent living services; (b) providing financial assistance to develop and support statewide networks of centers for independent living; and (c) providing financial assistance to states for improving working relationships among state independent living rehabilitation service programs, centers for independent living, statewide Independent Living Councils, state vocational rehabilitation programs, state programs of supported employment services, client assistance programs, programs funded under other federal legislation, and programs funded through nonfederal sources [Pub. L. No. 102-569, Title VII, Section 701(1)(2)(3)].

PAGE 33

26 Urban centers for independent living are communities with populations greater than 30,000 and a service area less than 50 miles (Nosek & Howland, 1992). Rural centers for independent living are communities with populations less than 30,000 and a distance of more than 50 miles from a major metropolitan area (Nosek & Howland, 1992). Summary In recent years the educational background of center for Independent Living executive directors has come into question (Marini, 1994; Nosek et al., 1992; Smith et al., 1991). The authors indicated that the education of center executive directors is an important variable in the success of centers. Wolf (1994), Beck (1991) and Egan (1988) stated that the success of a nonprofit organization depends on financial diversity, sound financial practices, and the ability of an organization's administrator to acquire financial management skills. Financial diversity and sound financial practices allow a center to provide quality services to a greater number of consumers. In light of the revised federal regulations of the 1992 Amendments to the Rehabilitation Act (Title VII, 1992) it is important that centers diversify their funding base in order to provide services to as many severely disabled individuals as possible. A center's inability to provide quality services may result in the loss of federal and state funds.

PAGE 34

CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Introduction This review of the literature will present an overview of the material which is related to the educational backgrounds of executive directors of centers for independent living. The review is divided into three major areas. The first section focuses on centers for independent living and how centers for independent living function. Section two will highlight the unique problems of rural centers for independent living and section three will present a discussion of the educational background of executive directors within systems theory and the need for educational training of center executive directors. Centers for Independent Living History of CTT. Scheer and Grocc (1988) stated that individuals with disabilities have been part of the human existence since the beginning of human history. Prior to industrialization persons with disabilities were integrated into community rolls and protected by ties of kinship. Following industrialization in the 27

PAGE 35

28 18th century, England adopted the "English Poor Laws" which affected the impotent poor and individuals with mental and physical disabilities. Criminals, individuals who were indigent, widows, people considered diseased, and individuals with disabilities were all sheltered together in almshouses. Individuals with disabilities were treated with the sick. Through the 19th and early 20th century individuals with disabilities were segregated and services and schools were dependent on the interests of private firms, individuals, or benefactors (Gajar, Goodman, & McAfee, 1993). All services were provided by individuals who did not have a disability. The first major legislation in the United States affecting individuals with disabilities was the Smith-Hughes Act of 1917 (P.L. 64-347). The Smith-Hughes Act provided an appropriation of $1.7 million for the year 1917-18, with funding increasing to $7.2 million by 1925-26. The efforts of the Smith-Hughes Act, in 1917-1918, were largely devoted to the needs of the nation in World War I and the returning veterans with disabilities (Barlow, 1992). The Act provided vocational rehabilitation and employment for veterans with disabilities (Gajar et al., 1993). By 1926 vocational education enrollment had increased to almost 900,000 (Barlow, 1992). The following year congress passed the

PAGE 36

Smith-Sears Act of 1918 (P.L. 65-178), the original Vocational Rehabilitation Act, which provided for additional rehabilitation services for veterans with disabilities returning from World War I (Gajar et al., 1993). The same services provided to veterans with disabilities under the Smith-Sears Act were extended to civilians with disabilities employed in civil service under the Smith-Fess Act of 1920 (P.L. 66-236). In the 1930s, Congress was concerned with curtailing federal expenses and most of the gains of the 1920s were eroded. However, two pieces of legislation in the late 30s added to the federal commitment to individuals with disabilities (Gajar et al., 1993). The Wagner O'Day Act of 1938 (P.L. 75739) established the National Industries for the Blind which provided services for the vocational needs of individuals who were multihandicapped and blind. The Act further established for the purchases of certain commodities that were made by sheltered workshops that employed individuals who were severely disabled or blind (Richterman, 1982). The second legislation that aided individuals with disabilities was the Social Security Act Amendments of 1939 (P.L. 76-379) which provided financial grants to states for vocational rehabilitation (Gajar et al., 1993).

PAGE 37

30 In 1943, President Franklin D. Roosevelt, signed the Vocational Rehabilitation Act Amendments (P.L. 77-113) into law. The focal point of this legislation was the need for trained manpower during World War II. The Act provided vocational training for individuals with disabilities who did not qualify for military service. Additionally, medically related services such as examinations, corrective surgery, and prosthetic devices were provided by the Act (Gajar et al., 1993). After ten years of limited Congressional action on disability legislation, President Eisenhower, in 1954, the signed the Vocational Rehabilitation Act Amendments (P.L. 83-565). This legislation expanded and improved vocational and rehabilitative programs. The Act provided funds for research and professional training. Based on the recommendations of President Kennedy's study commission, a vocational education bill was introduced in 1963 in the House of Representatives. HR 4955 was introduced in the House by Representative Carl D. Perkins of Kentucky and signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson as the Vocational Education Act of 1963 (P.L. 88-210). The Act expanded development of vocational programs and training for individuals with disabilities. The Vocational Rehabilitation Amendments of

PAGE 38

31 1967 (P.L. 90-99) established the National Centers for the Deaf and Blind followed by the Vocational Rehabilitation Amendments of 1968 (P.L. 90-391) which provided funding for research, rehabilitation, demonstration, and training programs. This law further allocated 10% of the funds for vocational training and rehabilitation for individuals with severe disabilities. Gajar et al. (1993) summarized the span from 1917 to 1970 as a national recognition of the needs of Americans with disability in the form of pertinent legislation. However, the impact of legislation during the 1917 1970 time span was minimal due to the lack of funding and the lack of addressing such issues as training in personal, social, and activities of daily living skills necessary for individuals with disabilities to succeed. According to Bowe (1978), 63% of individuals with disabilities were at or near poverty level; Brolin and Elliot (1984) indicated that 7 million individuals with disabilities did not have a personal income and 4 million earned less than $3,000 annually. In addition, many of the 500,000 students with disabilities who exit the educational system yearly are "woefully unprepared to acquire satisfactory societal roles in occupational, avocational, and daily living activities" (Brolin & Elliot, p. 12).

PAGE 39

32 Due to similar statistics in the early 1970s several more Acts were signed into law (Gajar et al., 1993). All were designed to promote rehabilitative services to individuals with disabilities. During the late 1960's and early 1970s, the idea of involving individuals with disabilities in the provision of services to persons with disabilities began taking shape. A major part of these activities involved formation of community-based groups of people with different disabilities who began working together to identify barriers and gaps in services. The involvement of people with disabilities in the delivery of services to individuals with disabilities has resulted in a new method of service delivery. This methodology of service delivery resulted in several significant changes in the passage of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act. The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (P.L. 93-112) was a comprehensive statute authorizing programs to provide rehabilitation services for individuals with disabilities so that they could prepare for and engage in gainful employment and promote and expand employment opportunities in the public and private sectors (29 U.S.C.A. Section 701 to 796). The Act provided for a Comprehensive Needs Study which resulted in the identification of independent living services as the most critical need of individuals with severe

PAGE 40

disabilities (The Urban Institute, 1975). As a result of the Comprehensive Needs Study findings and the 1978 Amendments to the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, independent living programs were established as a national organization. The earliest center was formed in 1972 in Berkeley, California, soon followed that same year by centers in Boston and Houston. In 1978, following effective advocacy by people with disabilities and their supporters all over the United States, federal legislation was passed that provided funding to establish centers for independent living. At the same time, Congress added requirements that centers should be consumer controlled giving impetus to the independent living paradigm and moving away from the rehabilitation/medical paradigm. Prior to that time, rehabilitation services, as funded through the Act, were primarily directed toward removing barriers to employment and grounded deeply in the traditional rehabilitation/medical paradigm (Michaels, 1989). Two Service Paradigms Julie Ann Racino (1992) stated: [T]he independent living paradigm is based on the assumption that basic problems are found within society, that selfdetermination and removal of external barriers constitute critical aspects of problem solving, and that solutions to the problems are not held solely by professionals, (p. 132)

PAGE 41

34 The independent living paradigm was developed as a reaction to the rehabilitation or medical paradigm which, until the 1970s, was the accepted service model for providing services to individuals with disabilities (Lachat, 1988). Lachat's model further attempted to redefine the manner in which the problem of disability is defined and encouraged the development of new interventions by professionals. DeJong (1979), the author of the independent living paradigm, described independent living as a paradigm instead of a model based on the work of Thomas S. Kuhn in 1970. In The Structure of Scientific Revolutions . Kuhn (1970) observed that scientific facts did not emerge by simple accumulation or evolution, but were the products of new ways of thinking. Paradigms define reality and provide a framework by which problems are identified and solved (DeJong, 1979, p. 57). Paradigms are further defined by two other important concepts, the concept of anomaly and paradigm shift. DeJong defines anomaly as follows: [A]n event or observation that cannot be adequately explained by the dominant paradigm of the time. When a sufficient number of anomalies appear, a crisis is precipitated and disaffected individuals begin to search for an alternative explanation or paradigm; (p. 57)

PAGE 42

35 and paradigm shift as: [W]hen one paradigm is discarded for another. Anomalies do not automatically cause individuals to renounce one paradigm for another. A paradigm shift does not occur unless there is a new paradigm to replace the old. (p. 58) In the early 1970s the service policy for individuals with disabilities began to shift from the dominant rehabilitation paradigm toward an independent living paradigm. To understand the independent living paradigm, one must understand the medical or rehabilitation paradigm. The Rehabilitation Paradigm The Medical Paradigm or Rehabilitation Paradigm relies on the knowledge of professionals and views the problem of disability as physical, lack of employment skills, lack of motivation, and maladjustment. Individuals with disabilities were perceived as patients, not individuals. DeJong (1979) characterizes the rehabilitation paradigm in the following manner: [T]he problem [disability] is assumed to reside in the individual. It is the individual that needs to be changed. To overcome his/her problem, the disabled individual is expected to yield to the advice and instruction of a physician, physical therapist, occupational therapist, or a vocational rehabilitation counselor. The disabled individual is expected to assume the role of "patient" or "client." While the goals of the rehabilitation process is maximum physical functioning or gainful employment, success in rehabilitation is to a large degree determined by whether the patient or client complied with the prescribed therapeutic regime, (p. 59)

PAGE 43

36 The problem of the rehabilitation paradigm became evident in the early 1970s when anomalies appeared that could not be explained by the rehabilitation paradigm. Individuals with severe disabilities were achieving independence without the assistance of professional rehabilitation (DeJong, 1979). DeJong noted: Within medical rehabilitation, it was assumed that a severely disabled patient would, upon discharge, be entrusted to the care of a near relative or be placed in a long-term care facility. Living by oneself in a community setting was not considered a realistic discharge goal. Within vocational rehabilitation, it was assumed that a severely disabled client would upon case termination, be unemployed or be assigned to a sheltered workshop experience. In medical rehabilitation, independent living goals such as living by oneself or becoming employed were unthinkable, (p. 60) Yet in the early 1970s many individuals with severe disabilities—those who would benefit from professional rehabilitation services the most—were becoming independent and employed without the help of professional rehabilitation services. Many of these individuals were considered unemployable. As a result of this anomaly, an alternative paradigm was established. Independent Living Paradigm During the 1970s persons with disabilities started assuming greater societal roles and began advocating for greater individual control and self-determination. The concept of self-direction in the least restrictive environment was incorporated into legislation (1978 Rehabilitation Act, IDEA, Carl Perkins Act), education, and

PAGE 44

37 service models. The independent living paradigm, first developed by Gerben DeJong (1979), became an alternative to the medical model. According to Gerben DeJong (1979) the independent living paradigm views the problem of disability as environmental and the solutions offered. He stated: According to the independent living paradigm the problem does not reside in the individual but often in the solution offered by the rehabilitation paradigm---the dependency inducing features of the physician-patient or professionalclient relationship. Rehabilitation is seen as part of the problem, not the solution. Rehabilitation is seen as part of the problem, not the solution. The locus of the problem is not the individual but the environment that includes not only the rehabilitation process but also the physical environment and the social control mechanisms in society-at-large. To cope with these environmental barriers, the disabled person must shed the patient or client role for the consumer role. Advocacy, peer counseling, self-help, consumer control, and barrier removal are the trademarks of the independent living paradigm. (DeJong, 1979, p. 61) The independent living paradigm looks to the individual for guidance with the move from dependance to independence and employment. Professional service providers are part of the individual's support system, not the primary decision makers. The desired outcomes for the independent living paradigm revolve around self-direction, least restrictive environment, and improved economic productivity (see Table 1). Centers for independent living are mandated by legislation to be consumer controlled. In simple terms this means that a

PAGE 45

38 T3 C4 O c c o, cd u -a a u 2 5 . e 0) 1/3 rrt .« CX 09 — i cd Cd _Q o -o kH C a. cd o , c CX o C 3 t-i O ui A U » 60 d 6 g .2 CX cd E u .5 o > 03 o o It d u E 00 "O 3 C '***» Cd .2 d cd o — > cd • .Hoc 5> E .2 O — I cd J ° o oo ed CX — CX o o o E u o 1* CX or c o 60 3 c O o u tx Q u •S go c u .5 u o ... i— CX c u c E o c \s o cd d x> H — c 03 m > O o c E un — CX o 1/3 CX 03 l-H .5 X — CX — od c o c •03 CA o 03 C O 03 CX 3 O >> O »X o ft, CX o u VI c 3 o o c w '13 o t« o -a o c > pj E u X o CX c o oj o o CO CO In o ceo 0 1) 1> § o -a 1) > c 3 .2 1 i_ Oj « •» ° « t> o 3 -3 0 bo ' O 3 0Xi c H -a 2 O 1> C > o o •"60 CX Jap Q .5 < c C cj >. E o c E 03 d c ti E ed c ed o In 3 o 05 E 3 E 60 X CX 3 £ 6 t? •a u *-» s a. E o o c o cd > o E 1) C CU y E o 3 O 60 60 E Im CX 60 3 O •o u i60 u a •3 l-H CX
PAGE 46

39 majority of the governing board must have severe disabilities; centers must serve a population with a wide range of disabilities; centers must provide services in the four core areas of information and referral, advocacy, peer counseling, and skills training; and centers must work toward reducing community barriers. Guidelines implemented by the federal Rehabilitation Service Administration put many centers at odds with state agencies. The difference between the agencies was because centers viewed service provisions under these regulations as too closely related to the rehabilitation paradigm (Michaels, 1989). In 1991, Congress revisited the Rehabilitation Act and endorsed under Title VII, Part A, B, and C the independent living paradigm. Purpose of CILs The independent living paradigm is based on the assumptions that the restrictions faced by individuals with disabilities are societal, not individual. According to the independent living model, the change agent must be those individuals affected by the problem, namely individuals with disabilities. Independent living stresses the importance of empowerment, self-determination, and the removal of external barriers. Although independent living stresses support services for individuals with disabilities, professional intervention can sometimes create further barriers by

PAGE 47

40 interjecting personal views and experiences; therefore, independent living emphasizes peer counseling, self-help, consumer control, and self-direction. The problem, as viewed by the independent living paradigm (see Table 1), is the dependence of people with disabilities on professionals, relatives and others, inadequate support services, and architectural and economic barriers. The independent living paradigm seeks to break the dependence on others and develop self-reliance. Independent living attributes the problems of disability as environmental and negative societal values, rather than the person being "broke" (Lachat, 1988) and needing to be "fixed" (Turnbull & Turnbull, 1985). Independent living programs, therefore, have been defined as community based programs that have a large involvement of individuals with disabilities (DeJong, 1981; Thayer & Rice, 1990). This philosophy encourages involvement of individuals with disabilities in the decision making process as it relates to individual needs and services (Bergland & Clark, 1991). Services provided by independent living do not compete with but complement other programs in order that individuals with disabilities receive the most appropriate services. These programs can provide direct services or coordinate, through established rehabilitation agencies, those services necessary to assist

PAGE 48

41 individuals with severe disabilities to maximize autonomy and minimize unnecessary dependence on others (Frieden, Richards, Cole, & Bailey, 1979). Services include information and referral, peer counseling, advocacy, and independent living skills training. Additional services may include locating accessible housing, personal care assistance services, reader/interpreter services, information about goods and services, transportation, career services, and recreational opportunities (Marini, 1994). In addition, CIL programs place a strong emphasis on the cognitive and emotional aspect of independence (Nosek et al., 1992). The programs use peer support and peer role models to provide counseling about dealing with a disability and functioning in a nondisabled world. Consumers are taught self-advocacy so that they can be the change agent in removing barriers and discriminatory practices. Subscribers to the independent living movement reject the tendency of existing service systems to restrict access to certain programs and services based on often faulty assumptions about the incapabilities of people with severe disabilities (Nosek et al., 1992). The IL programs reflect the belief that people with severe disabilities can live independently without the restrictions of traditional service agencies, but also that the needs and desires of people with disabilities are best understood by other people with disabilities.

PAGE 49

42 Legislative Guidelines Legislative guidelines for centers of independent living are set forth in the 1992 Amendments to the Rehabilitation Act of 1978. Originally, funds for independent living were sanctioned to centers for independent living under Title VII of the 1978 Amendments to the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The purpose of Title VII of the 1978 Act was to authorize grants for independent living that will meet the needs of individuals whose disabilities are too severe to enable current employment, but who may benefit from services allowing them to live independently (Nosek et al., 1992). Service authorities are in four parts under Title VII: Part A, provides grant funds for independent living services; Part B, provides grant funds for the establishment of centers; Part C, provides grant funds for independent living services to individuals who are elderly and blind, and Part D, provides grant funds for protection, advocacy, and affirmative action. In 1993, Title VII was dramatically changed in the provision of funds to centers. Part A was redesigned to promote a philosophy of independent living, including a philosophy of consumer control, peer support, self-help, self-determination, equal access, and individual and system advocacy, in order to maximize the leadership, empowerment, independence, and productivity of individuals with

PAGE 50

43 disabilities, and the integration and full inclusion of individuals with disabilities into the mainstream of society, (Title VII, Part A, § 701). Funds are provided under Title VII, Part A to states for providing, expanding, and improving the provisions of independent living services. Part A was further designed to assist in the development and support of a statewide network of centers for independent living and for improving working relationships among state independent living rehabilitation service programs, centers for independent living, statewide Independent Living Councils, state vocational rehabilitation programs, supported employment programs, and state-client assistance programs [Title VII, Part A, § 701(1), (2), (3)]. Part B has been reauthorized to provide independent living services to individuals with severe disabilities and to demonstrate ways in which to expand and improve independent living services. Title VII, Part B was also designed to support the operation of centers for independent living and to conduct studies and analyses, gather information, develop model policies and procedures, and present information, approaches, strategies, findings, conclusions, and recommendations to federal, state, and local policymakers in order to enhance independent living services for individuals with disabilities [Title VII, Part B, § 713(1), (2), (3), (5)].

PAGE 51

44 Title VII, Part C, which was the former service provision for people who are elderly and blind, has been amended to provide training, technical assistance, and transition assistance. The training and technical assistance was designed to provide assistance with respect to planning, development, conducting, administering, and evaluating centers for independent living and to assist centers with efforts to achieve compliance with the standards set forth in the Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1992, [Title VII, Part C, § 721(b)(l-5)]. The Independent Living Research Utilization Program (ILRU), a research and training center for independent living in Houston, Texas, has established four minimum compliance criteria as related to Title VII for independent living centers. The four criteria are as follows: (a) 51% of the governing board members must have a disability; (b) at least one person with a disability must be employed in a management role; (c) at least one person with a disability must be employed in a position other than a management role; and (d) at least two different independent living services must be offered (Nosek et al., 1989). Any center or program that complies with all four criteria is considered as an independent living center. Those programs or centers that do not meet the minimum criteria are generally referred to as independent living programs.

PAGE 52

Each independent living center must also comply with the Rehabilitation Service Administration's (RSA) minimum basic service requirements. The minimum basic services required by RSA are information and referral, peer counseling, independent living skills training, and advocacy. Most programs throughout the United States also offer personal care assistance referral, housing assistance, interpreter assistance, reader assistance, transportation, financial counseling, barrier removal, and activity of daily living assistance. The services provided by centers are determined by the needs of the consumers served, the available community resources, the physical and social makeup of the community, and the programs' goals. Rural Centers for Independent Living Laurel Richards (1986) stated "it is through examining barriers to service delivery that one can begin to appreciate how complicated it is to carry the independent living concept to rural disabled people" (p. 3). Dr. Richards continued: In the field of vocational rehabilitation, now over 50 years old, there exists a body of literature which focuses on service delivery to rural populations; however, it is strikingly modest. It should not be a surprise, then, that literature on the much younger field of rural independent living virtually does not exist. Because of the scarcity of studies and because a comprehensive needs assessment study has yet to be conducted on rural disabled people no one really knows what it is like for severely disabled persons to live in rural

PAGE 53

46 communities—outside of the persons themselves and perhaps their family members, (p. 3) Serving individuals with disabilities outside urban areas encompasses unique challenges. Rural areas have limited community services and lack employment opportunities. This is an even greater problem when considering that one third of the U.S. population lives outside of a Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area and 26% live in towns with less than 2,500 inhabitants (Seekins, Ravesfoot, & Maffit, 1992). As of 1990, there were 67 independent living centers (see Table 2) serving rural communities (Richards & Smith, 1992) all of which were funded under Title VII, Part A, state or local general funds, and private sources (Seekins et al., 1992) (see Fig. 1). None were funded, as many urban centers are funded, by Title VII, Part B. According to Seekins et al. these centers have relatively small budgets and serve large geographic areas with sparse populations (see Fig. 2). The ability of rural centers to provide services is directly related to the distance the consumer is from the center. Outside a 45 mile radius the service ability of a center declines dramatically (see Fig. 3).

PAGE 54

Table 2 Number of Centers for Independent Living By State 47 State Centers Rural Satellite Office Alabama 2 Alaska 5 2 Arizona 4 3 Arkansas 6 2 California 27 6 Colorado 11 5 Connecticut 7 Delaware 2 Florida 14 3 Georgia 2 Hawaii 5 Idaho 6 3 Illinois 20 7 Indiana 4 1 Iowa 4 1 Kansas 10 3 Kentucky 5 Louisiana 8 Main 7 1 Maryland 1 Massachusetts 13 Michigan 14 Minnesota* 13 Mississippi 4 Missouri 10 Montana 7 5 Nebraska 3 1 Nevada 2 2 New Hampshire 3 New Jersey 11 New Mexico 3 1 New York 41 North Carolina 4 North Dakota* 4 4 Ohio 10 Oklahoma 5 1 Oregon 7 Pennsylvania 13 Rhode Island 4

PAGE 55

48 Table 2 continued State Centers Rural Satellite Office South Carolina 1 South Dakota 5 5 Tennessee 2 Texas 12 4 1 Utah 4 3 Vermont 1 1 Virginia 10 Washington 1 1 West Virginia 3 1 Wisconsin 9 1 Wyoming 3 3 Washington, D.C. 2 Total 394 67 10 ILRU, 1995 *One center in Minnesota also serves North Dakota State (49%) Figure 1 Rural In dependent Living Center Budget Sources Seekins, Ravesfoot, & Maffit, 1992

PAGE 56

49 $100,001 -$250,00 $50,001 -$100,000 | 0-$50,000 | Figure 2 Annual Budget Ranges for Rural Independent Living Centers Seekins, Ravesfoot, & Maffit, 1992 Distance from CIL in Miles Figure 3 Rural Outreach Distance Seekins, Ravesfoot, & Maffit, 1992

PAGE 57

50 In 1986, ILRU surveyed rural independent living centers to determine barriers most significant to independent living in rural areas. Barriers included lack of accessible housing, concerns for greater visibility of individuals with disabilities in the community and misconceptions caused by the general public's confounding of ability with disability, financial issues such as funding diversification of centers, lack of transportation, and architectural barriers (see Table 3 for a complete list). Table 3 shows the result of a survey conducted by ILRU (Richards, 1986) to determine the njajor barriers preventing persons with severe disabilities to live independently in rural areas. Funding issues appeared more than any other issue concerning individuals who have been diagnosed with a disability and live in a rural area. All 37 concerns are within the service ability of centers. Table 3 Barriers to Rural Independent Living Barrier Ranking of Concern* 1. Lack of transportation 2. Limited community resources 3. Lack of appropriate housing 4. Lack of attendant care 35 22 19 resources/household support 5. Isolation 6. Lack of sufficient medical care 7. Lack of employment opportunities 8. Issues of political power 17 16 15 14 14

PAGE 58

51 Table 3 continued Barrier Ranking of Concern* 9. Lack of awareness (by the person with a disability) on available services 13 10. Insufficient funding for independent living programs 10 11. High cost per person served 10 12. Lack of skill training centers 9 13. Poverty conditions 8 14. Lack of coordination in community 8 15. Availability of education 7 16. Lack of local resources and revenue 7 17. Geographic limitations 6 18. Lack of awareness and inaccessibility of adaptive equipment providers 6 19. Traditional rehabilitation service methods will not work in rural areas 5 20. Lack of public awareness about disability 5 21. Inadequate outreach by CILs 5 22. Lack of social/recreational opportunities 3 23. Lack of sophisticated communication network 3 24. Inaccessibility to clients due to natural causes 2 25. Lack of peer involvement 1 26. Weather conditions that affect transportation 1 27. Superstitions 1 28. Stereotyped thinking 1 29. Ethnic/cultural mistrust of the dominant culture 30. Lack of follow up on migrant clients 31. Diverse language 32. Inaccessibility of roads 33. Urban centers can't locate rural disabled people 34. No commitment to political issues 35. Lack of civil rights model 36. Pride 37 Unwillingness to do uncon ventional solutions *High number denotes high concern Richards, 1986

PAGE 59

52 One of the unique aspects of rural centers for independent living is the extent to which they serve cross-disabilities. Laurel Richards' (1986) investigation found that the average rural center served 9 of the 11 major disability groups (see Table 4) defined in her study. The most frequent disability group served in rural areas is the category "Other" which was not a factor in urban centers (Nosek. Roth, & Zhu, 1990). Surprisingly, the second most served group of consumers in rural centers were individuals with mental retardation which a substantial number of urban centers do not serve (Jones, White, Ulicny, & Mathews, 1988). Table 4 ILRU Major Disability Groups 1. Spinal Cord Injury 7. Deaf 2. Cerebral Palsy 8. Deaf-Blind 3. Brain Injury 9. Mental Illness 4. Amputation 10. Mental Retardation 5. Stroke 11. Other 6. Blind (includes spina bifida, MD, MS, and all others that do not fall within a specific category) Richards, 1986 According to Richards (1986), the greatest difficulty in operating a rural center is the lack of organizational knowledge and training of the directors and board members. Both administrators and board members of rural centers had to learn the

PAGE 60

53 responsibilities of their positions and the skills needed to fulfill them along the way. The on-the-job method of acquiring administrative skills created particular especially in establishing a solid funding base, particularly when many of the directors and board members had no experience in grant writing and fundraising (Richards, 1986). Richards concluded: Funding agencies should place priority on establishing additional rural independent living programs. This may require a search for a coterie of rural disabled people who would be interested in forming the basis (board and staff) of an independent living program. It may require provision of technical assistance both on the finer points of independent living program administration and operation and of grant proposal preparation, (p. 25) Centers for independent living have become a significant change agent for people with disabilities. Mary Ann Lachat (1988) stated: Its core values and philosophical principles of consumer sovereignty, self-reliance, and equal access have been the foundation of the Congressionally-authorized independent living program and of service models [paradigms] developed and implemented in community-based independent living centers across the country, (p. i) Center programs and service paradigms reflect the principle of assisting persons with disabilities to achieve economic, social, and personal independence. Rural centers, although steeped in the independent living paradigm, must be more innovative to acquire the goal of assisting persons with disabilities to achieve economic,

PAGE 61

social, and personal independence. However, all centers emphasize the elimination of architectural, physical, and economic barriers that prevent people with disabilities from full participation in the community. The Need for Education of Executive Directors The success of any independent living center depends on the ability of the organization to recruit and retain employment of directors whose education and knowledge is of sufficient quality and quantity to assure achievement of center goals (Nosek, 1992). Margaret Nosek reflects what business has known for years a quality education helps in the success of an organization. Education as a Basis for Success In a questionnaire given to field managers of different insurance agencies to determine what made their insurance agency the best in the industry, the field managers attributed their agencies' superiority to their executives' ability. The field managers rated executive ability as education, training, and technical competence—in that order (Savage, 1993). Ready, Vicere, and White (1993) concluded that university executive education has yet to achieve its full potential in developing corporate leaders, however; with improvements to university

PAGE 62

55 executive education, the ability for leaders to succeed in leading an organization will be tremendously enhanced. Most corporations will not consider applicants for top management positions unless the applicant has a college degree. This hiring practice is reflected in a study conducted by Datta and Guthrie (1994). The authors investigated 1000 companies to determine whether organizational predecessors are reflected in the characteristics of the new executive selected. The study focused on three organizational factors: firm growth, profitability and research, and development intensity. Further investigated were three executive demographic characteristics: insider/outsider, functional experience, and education level. The results provided evidence that relationships existed between organizational antecedents of succession and executive characteristics. The research found that poorly performing companies tend to choose outside executives as top managers. This finding seems to suggest that firms believe outside executives are more effective in implementing growth strategies than those executives within the organization. It also shows that research and development intensity is related to the selection of executives with higher educational levels and technical functional backgrounds. The findings of Datta and Guthrie (1994) echoed an earlier study conducted by Scherer

PAGE 63

56 and Huh (1992). Scherer and Huh's study suggested that executives with a higher educational background tended to invest more in the research and development of an organization than executives with low or no education. The median growth rate for organizations who had executives with a well developed educational background was 71.5%, showing that education is an important factor in the success of an organization. The American Business Women's Association's Top Ten Business Women for 1994 (Grubb, 1995) all believe that the successful women executive has a strong educational background. Education allows women executives to attain top executive positions because many women do not have the longevity of experience but do instead have a strong educational background which allows them to become successful in running corporations (Lear, 1994). Lear stated, "the influx of women MBAs can be credited for the emergence of women emerging as operating executives of corporations and as CEOs of small firms" (p. 11). The importance of educating top managers became evident around 1870 with the rise of large-scale organizations (Drucker, 1985). In North America, the transcontinental railroad emerged as a managerial problem and in Europe the Deutsche Bank, with its many branch offices, found traditional management obsolete.

PAGE 64

57 Henry Towne (1844-1924) was one of the first to develop a program for managers. Peter Drucker, in Management: Tasks. Responsibilities. Practices (1985), described Henry Towne's approach: He raised basic questions: effectiveness as against efficiency; organization of the work as against the organization of the plant [factory] community, that is, of the workers; value set in the marketplace and by the costumer as against technical accomplishments. With Towne begins the systematic concern with the relationship between the task of management and the work of management, (p. 23) In Germany, George Siemens (1839-1901) designed an effective top management program, by addressing the problems of communication and information in large organizations and in Japan, Eiichi Shibusawa (1840-1931) first envisioned the professional manager. Educating top managers has grown to where today most major universities offer business courses and organizations are hesitant to hire applicants that do not have a college education (Datta & Guthrie, 1994). Education and Centers for Independent Living Centers for independent living are an exception. According to Margaret Nosek (written communication, see Appendix A), independent living in the early years viewed too much training and qualifications with considerable suspicion. Smith et al. (1991) summarized the problem of the education of center directors in this way:

PAGE 65

58 The independent living field has some unique features and educational needs that set it quite apart from other fields. It is a young field, having only been in existence for about 20 years, and, as such, has a relatively underdeveloped academic base from which to draw. It is a field that employees many individuals who, owing to the long history of discrimination against persons with disabilities, have had limited educational and employment experiences. It is a field in which there is, to date, no common preparation for individuals who enter it. It is a field in which there is also substantial variation from one center to the next in the scope and types of services offered and the manner in which they are offered. It is a field in which funding has been extremely limited and money for travel and release time to participate in educational programs continue to be a luxury. And it is a field in which extra cost associated with reasonable accommodation to make training accessible to persons with disabilities is the rule rather than the exception, (p. 110) Centers for independent living are constrained by law to search out the best and brightest. To be considered a true Center for independent living, at least one person of the top management team the director or assistant director must have a disability (Rehabilitation Act of 1978, Title VII, Sect. 725). This basic premise of the independent living model emerged from the community-based consumer-oriented approach of the early 1970s which is that people with disabilities best understand their needs and the needs of their communities (Lachat, 1988). Lachat commented on the evolution of center control that "as leaders in the movement translated philosophical principles into actual service programs and community advocacy efforts, they recognized that

PAGE 66

59 there would be a rich and necessary diversity in service approaches across centers" (p. 10). Also clear was the fact that as centers evolved, certain key elements essential to designing and maintaining effective community-based independent living services included: Consumer control over policy and management decisions. Persons with disabilities would control decisions governing organizational policies and procedures, the provision of services, and community activities. In this sense, the term "consumer" is defined broadly to mean persons with disabilities who may direct recipients of services as well as those who are not but who are secondary beneficiaries of advocacy efforts. Consumer control in decision making is intended to ensure that policies, procedures, services, and activities are responsive to the needs and respectful of the rights of the disability population. (Lachat, 1988, p. 11) The Independent Living Research Utilization Program in conjunction with the National Council on Disability (NCD) were charged by Congress to establish minimum employment criteria for independent living centers as they are set forth in the Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1978. The criteria established by ILRU and NCD are as follows: (a) 51% of the governing board members must have a disability; (b) at least one person with a disability must be employed in a management role; and (c) at least one person with a disability must be employed in a position other than a management role (Nosek et al. , 1989). The principal reason for the employment criteria is best explained by Laurel Richards (1980):

PAGE 67

60 It is essential that the director be a disabled individual, and when the ILP [CIL] is larger, most of the people in administrative, policy-making positions should also be disabled. Hiring disabled people in staff positions makes a statement to the community about your [CILs'] principles and makes the ILP [CIL] an example of what disabled workers can accomplish. The director usually becomes a spokesperson for disabled people in the community. The director often will have to ask for money for the ILP [CIL], speak out for integration of disabled people, and develop services of the ILP [CIL] and the community to meet [the] needs of disabled persons. A disabled director makes a statement to the community that disabled people are capable of making decisions, handling large amount of money, and being independent when given adequate resources. A nondisabled director would only perpetuate the traditional myths and concepts of disabled people being taken care of by professionals, (p. 12) According to Smith et al. (1991) there are no formalized educational programs for individuals entering the field of independent living. Most directors and staff members qualify for positions at centers by virtue of a disability. The need for training of center directors was identified as early as 1982 (ILRU, 1982; Lundgren et al., 1982). In an ILRU Occasional Paper, Lundgren et al., (1982) identified critical issues associated with center success. One of the issues identified was "the need to enhance basic administrative skills among independent living program administrators and first-line supervisory staff" (p. 5). The need for training of center directors and first-line supervisors was corroborated in a 1982 conference on the status of independent living sponsored by the Institute for Educational

PAGE 68

61 Leadership in Washington, D.C. A summary report of the conference described the issue of leadership development: The Conference participants recognized the need for training and support in leadership development and in organizational planning for staff and Boards of independent living programs. While disabled people must be in top management positions and in majority numbers on the Board, many disabled people are new to the experience of management or serving on a Board of Directors and unsure of the responsibilities and conflicts inherent in these roles. (Funk, 1984, p. 30) The Conference participants recognized that the development of leadership training was critical to the growth of independent living programs; however, due to a lack of trained leaders with a disability centers tended to hire individuals who did not have a disability for leadership and management positions (Institute for Educational Leadership, 1984). This hiring tendency is evident today as centers are pressured by federal and state agencies to take on the roles of more traditional service agencies. Testimony given by Bonnie O'Day, Director of the National Council on Independent Living, before the U. S. House of Representative Subcommittee on Select Education on the Reauthorization of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as Amended (1992), reflected this concern when she argued "that people with disabilities need to be educated so that people with disabilities themselves can have control over [independent living] programs and services" (p. 88).

PAGE 69

62 The 1992 testimony of O'Day reiterated the findings of ten years earlier by the Institute for Educational Leadership. Critical to the development of community based independent living programs is the recruitment and training of disabled persons to direct and staff existing programs, start new programs, and take on broader leadership roles in the community and in support of the goals of the independent movement. At the present time, most training takes place on the "front line" through experience, and to some extent through transfer to programs in other communities. Because of the youth of the programs, disabled staff have not had access to the many alternate forms of specialized training and experiences which allow the development and maturity of leadership skills. More formal training programs need to be developed which can assure programs of a cadre of capable staff to carry out the broad range of responsibilities at the program level, and will allow disabled persons to expand areas of current responsibilities. (Institute for Educational Leadership, 1984, p. 48) One year after O'Day's testimony, the problem of education and training for center directors and first-line managers was summarized by Martha Walker, President of the National Council on Rehabilitation Education in testimony given before the Oversight and Reauthorization Hearing on the Rehabilitation Act of 1983. She stated, "although the importance of a qualified professional in the delivery of rehabilitation services has been recognized for nearly thirty years, often the necessity for such personnel has been overlooked" (p. 120). Within the independent living paradigm, education and training of first-line administrators was secondary to consumer control (DeJong, 1978). The result

PAGE 70

63 was the recruitment of center administrators from a population that had limited education and managerial experience (see Table 5). The necessity of education and training of center directors and first-line administrators was made clear when Lex Frieden urged Congress to: [Establish training as a priority in the area of independent living, both within the Rehabilitation Service Administration and the National Institute of Handicapped Research, in order to provide sufficient personnel to staff these centers and to provide training to State agency personnel to better utilize these centers," (Reauthorization Hearing on the Rehabilitation Act of 1983 before the House Subcommittee on Select Education, 1984, p. 88). According to the United States 1990 Census (McNeil, 1993) the limitations of individuals with disabilities is demonstrated (see Table 5). Additionally 156,290 million Americans reported some level of education (McNeil, 1993). Of the 156,290 million Americans who reported some level of education, only 26,012 million Americans with a disability reported some level of education. The largest percentage of individuals with disabilities reported only a high school education. When considering postsecondary education, people with disabilities only constitute one half of one per cent (.52%) of the total population reporting a post secondary education. The U.S. Census figures do not indicate whether a degree was awarded to an individual, only the number of years in school an individual completed (see Table 5)

PAGE 71

03 1/3 B Ih X) O Z NO ON ON 01 X ON ON 6/3 X a: 6/3 Q 4= 03 3 •o "> •I— I -o d m .2 -4-» — o X 3 E1 W X E 3 z o H x t/i O Z o o O 00 H (f) H NO 1/1 NO C*"> (N NO >* i-H on en n ^ -h |s o oo ro ~h (si CN NO O ON f* 0\ Ift h O oo o t-m no O t n 00 « M h OO t^00 O t"—i n oo o\ n O H J, H ci n ^ m n —I E 3 z c 03 03 -*-> O 03 u >. so in v— £2 > o -o c 03 6/3 6/5 (N cn NO H iH H 6/3 •o (N c o3 3 O -C 03 E-| H c cn On l« iON
PAGE 72

65 Robert Funk (1984) asserted in a report to the Institute for Educational Leadership that as long as centers for independent living are concentrated on training issues for directors and staff there can be no focus on major policy and planning programs. Failure to solve this issue "may prove to be their [centers] downfall" (p. 50). Funk suggested a broad based training program that encompasses four skill domains: 1. Training of Existing Program Directors and Staff in: A. Fiscal and program management B. Public and community relations C. Legislative development and advocacy D. Leadership and staff development skills E. Fund development and fundraising 2. Recruitment and Training of New Leaders and Staff for Programs: A. Outreach to minority and underserved disability community B. Training and outreach activities for development, recruitment and program start-up of community based independent living programs 3. Leadership Skill Enhancement for Existing Directors: A. Training in public management and public policy B. Development of internship and Fellowship opportunities to enhance public policy and research and management skills, with emphasis on state and national levels C. Development of programs to allow short-term replacements of staff for staff development programs

PAGE 73

66 4. Leadership Programs for Directors and other Disabled Leaders to Develop Capabilities for Linkage and Leadership Activities in Major Generalist Policymaking Positions: A. Internships and Fellowships for ILP leadership with organizations involved in broader disability rights arena B. Internships and Fellowships through major institutions to enhance credentials of disabled leaders C. Specific leadership skill programs to develop understanding of public policy and management and translate the skills gained to other arenas. (Funk, 1984, p. 49-50) Robert Funk's 1984 report did not achieve its intent, that of establishing a strong educational and training program for center directors and first-line managers. As of this date, there are no formal degree granting educational programs and only three national training programs for center directors and first-line managers. The first training program for directors and middle managers of centers for independent living was established in Houston, Texas within the Independent Living Research Utilization (ILRU) program. Although ILRU was established in 1977, training programs for center directors and first line managers did not begin until 1985 through a long term training grant from the Rehabilitation Service Administration. The grant established ILRU as a national center for information, training, research, and technical assistance in independent living. The grant's goal was

PAGE 74

67 to expand the body of knowledge in independent living and to improve utilization of results of research programs and demonstration projects in the field of independent living (ILRU, 1995a). Training conducted by ILRU is based on short term seminars lasting three or four days, conferences, tele-conferences, published materials including both printed materials and video materials, and technical assistance. Short term seminars are geared toward single subject issues such as peer counseling, rural center issues, and personal care assistance programs. Long term seminars are set up to provide a multitude of topics such as fundraising, fiscal policy, program development, evaluations, and identification of community needs. The second program established in 1985 was the Independent Living Training program at Cornell University's School of Industrial and Labor Relations. This program, which is still in existence today, provides three and one half day training seminars on a regional basis. One of the unique features of the Cornell program is the simulation of a fiscal year of a Center for independent living collapsed into a three and one half day training seminar. The simulation allows center directors to address a variety of issues related to the management of centers for

PAGE 75

68 independent living--such as financial management, funding, personnel practices, community linkages, and board relations. Other training provided by Cornell encompasses strategic and operational planning. The Cornell seminars include information on the strategic planning process including mission statements; environmental analysis; examples of community, board, staff, and consumer input surveys; and a discussion of sources to obtain information on projects and trends. The program further provides training on board development, leadership development, fundraising, and financial management. The third program, funded by Rehabilitation Service Administration (RSA) in 1991, was developed at Auburn University, which received funds from RSA to provide regional training to center staff in the southeast (Marini, 1994). The majority of the training programs were two day seminars and covered such topics as executive development, financial accountability, rehabilitation technology, and grant management. The program was not refunded and closed in 1994. The training provided by these three Independent Living Center Training Programs (ILCTPs) is based on regional seminars, conferences, and one to two week training programs. None of these training programs provide a common preparation and the

PAGE 76

69 indepth study required by a formalized degreed program. Smith et al. (1991) summarized the limited educational opportunities for persons entering the field of independent living in the following manner: For independent living centers to be able to realize their potential in effectively meeting service and advocacy needs in their respective communities, there have to be educational opportunities to prepare persons adequately for management and service delivery roles that are grounded in the independent living philosophy. To date, these opportunities are far too few. (p. 110) Identification of Training Needs Recognizing the need for training, the Rehabilitation Service Administration awarded two grants to provide management training for center directors and upper-level managers. The grants were awarded to ILRU and Cornell University's School of Industrial and Labor Relations in 1985. In 1991 RSA awarded a third grant to the University of Auburn for regional training. Information provided by the grant training programs reflected similar findings of two studies conducted by ILRU (Smith et al., 1991) and by Irmo Marini (1994) of CIL directors. Their studies concluded that "assuring financial stability" (Smith et al., 1991, p. 48) ranked as one of the top training needs to ensure center success. The other needs identified by the three training centers involved training in providing services in the four core areas such

PAGE 77

70 as transportation to individuals with disabilities, housing, health care, employment training, referrals, and follow through procedures. Marini's findings further concluded that "center directors and personnel are interested in strategies to increase their funding base via fund-raising strategies, grant writing workshops, and other innovative ways to market their services" (p. 51). Table 6 shows the findings of the Marini study and represents the top training needs of centers for independent living as precieved by directors. Table 6 Training Needs for Center Success University of Auburn Topic Priority 1. Diversifying funding source 22.6 2. Evaluation service impact 17.7 3. Procedures for expanding IL resources to the community 17.7 4. Effective outreach program ns 5. Skills in political legislative advocacy ns 6. Methods to reduce staff and board burnout ns ns — nonsignificant Marini, 1994, p. 50 The numbers under the heading "priority" represent the percentage of respondents who perceived the topic as a top training priority. As can be seen in Table 6, 22.6% of the directors surveyed noted that funding diversification is the top

PAGE 78

71 priority in managing a center. If funding diversification is considered with procedures for expanding IL resources to the community, which is also financially based, then 40.3% of those surveyed consider financial training as necessary for center success. An earlier study conducted by Smith et al. ,(1991) supported Marini's study. Using a modified Delphi method, Smith et al. (1991) surveyed 32 center directors to determine the most important training needs as seen by center directors. Of the top ten training needs identified by center directors in the Delphi study "assuring financial stability through funding diversification and contingency planning" (Smith et al., 1991, p. 105) was ranked as one the most important needs in the future success of centers (see Table 6 and 7). Table 7 Directors' Ranking of the Ten Top Training Needs for Center Success 1 . Doing effective fund raising 2. Using center governing boards effectively 3. Conducting program evaluation and assuring quality 4. Assuring financial stability through funding diversification and contingency planning 5. Providing for staff development 6. Mounting effective community and public relations programs 7. Doing effective long-range planning 8. Doing effective outreach to underserved populations 9. Building effective working teams 10. Involving consumers in all aspect of center operations, including board roles and staff and volunt eer activities Smith, Richards, Nosek, & Gerken (1991, p. 105) '

PAGE 79

72 The study conducted by Smith et al. (1991) used a modified Delphi method to obtain training priorities of executive directors. Twenty-three separate items were identified by executive directors as important training needs for a successful center. A second mail survey asked each director to rank the importance of each item identified in the first survey. These rankings were used to identify the ten most important management issues (see Table 7). Knowledge of Finances The findings of ILRU and the University of Auburn coincide with the literature of business management on the success of organizations and directors. Lack of education and training are in the forefront. "Managers and administrators in business have had access to professional education for a long time, programs tailored for managers in nonprofit organizations have been established only recently" (Young, Hollister, & Hodgkinson, 1993, p. xv). Educating managers in the nonprofit field began about fifteen years ago with the founding of the Program on Nonprofit Organizations at Yale University. As with the field of independent living, the education of nonprofit managers is a young field and therefore has limited research and literature. One of the most comprehensive research findings was published by McCauley and Hughes (1992). The authors surveyed

PAGE 80

73 300 human service administrators to determine what qualities the administrators considered most important for success in their position. Three of the top twelve dimensions considered most important to the administrators success were knowledge of finances and better education. These were: 1 . Utilizing resources and building support for change. Human service agencies must be responsive to the changing needs of their client groups and to the innovative ideas generated within the agency. But this often translates into the need to do things differently, which staff may resist. Thus one task the leaders of these organizations face is getting staff support and the necessary resources to create needed changes or experiment with new approaches. 2. Uncertain or limited resources. Human service administrators face yearly uncertainty in level or sources of funding, which leads to a large amount of time spent in fundraising. 3. Lack of knowledge or experience. Many leaders of human service agencies have backgrounds in helping professions with little preparation for management. Thus the new human service administrator operates with the additional challenge of building a knowledge and experience base for carrying out the responsibilities of his or her job. (McCauley & Hughes, 1992, p. 159-60) In Managing a Nonprofit Organization . Thomas Wolf (1994) advanced the idea that examining an organization's financial statements is the best way to determine the organizations health and safeguard the organization's and the publics interests. Many nonprofit organizations fail this test because the executive officer came into the nonprofit organization with no financial background.

PAGE 81

74 Executive directors are often chosen because of a knowledge or commitment they have to the organization and rely on the financial people to deal with the organizations' finances. To many directors, budgets, reports, and financial statements are unrelated to day-to-day operation of the organization, however, finances are a "critical part of overall organizational planning" (Wolf, 1994, p. 139). Any director who needs to be involved in setting priorities for the organization must have some knowledge and training in finances (Wolf, 1994). According to Wolf, nonprofits must maintain financial records carefully and should have these records reviewed on a periodic basis by an independent outside examiner. The director is ultimately fiscally responsible for the organization and must be able to read financial statements, be aware of reporting requirements, and have knowledge of fiscal systems. Beck (1991) proposed that the administrator's knowledge of sound financial management practices is directly related to the success and growth of an organization. Both Wolf (1994) and Beck (1991) acknowledged that acquiring financial management skills by the upper management personnel is vital to the fiscal viability of an organization.

PAGE 82

75 For an organization, such as a nonprofit organization, not to emphasize training its top management in sound financial management practices is to court failure (Egan, 1988). Egan concluded that organizations would be better served if more of the organizations' staff would become informed about such economic concepts as financing, pricing, cost, cost accounting, cost control, debt, debt service, equity, overhead, cash flow, profit and loss, taxes, inflation, and the economic environment. To develop a viable strategic plan, the organization must first be financially sound. Organizations that are not financially sound will cease to exist (Egan, 1988). Financial management is necessary for efficient and effective operations of not-for-profit organizations like centers for independent living. Centers for independent living have grown from five centers in 1978 to over 400 in 1991 (Nosek et al., 1992)(see Table 2). This growth coincides with the growth of not-for-profit organizations throughout the United States. According to Braswell, Fortin and Osteryoung (1994), not-forprofit organizations account for 20 percent of our national income and have expanded about twice the rate of the national income. The majority of not-for-profit organizations such as CILs provide intangible services. This creates a problem for CILs financial

PAGE 83

76 management because services cannot be stored in inventory awaiting demand. If the personnel or services are not available at the time of consumer demand or need, then the services are denied to the consumer. In addition, most center services are free and those that are payment based cannot be denied to consumers if the consumer has no funds with which to pay for the needed services. As a result, CILs have a difficult time in collecting revenue and controlling cost (Braswell et al., 1994). Furthermore most CILs depend on federal and state grants for the majority of their income and therefore are susceptible to state or federal budget cuts, reauthorization of legislation, and changes in legislative priorities. Centers for independent living are dominated by individuals with disabilities, who play a major role in the policy decisions of the centers (Marini, 1994; Nosek et al., 1992; Smith et al., 1991). The dominance of individuals with disabilities has several implications for the financial management of CILs. First, due to a long history of limited opportunities and discrimination against people with disabilities, many individuals with disabilities have had little or no educational or employment experience. Second, the evaluation of centers for independent living are geared toward criteria established by individuals with disabilities rather than the

PAGE 84

77 efficient use of resources. Last, the factors which motivate people with disabilities are often inconsistent with good resource utilization. Success is measured by the number of core services provided rather than by meeting objective financial standards. Consequently, individuals with disabilities who serve on the CIL board and are staff members are faced with a dual set of standards, those imposed by the independent living philosophy and by other individuals with disabilities in the community. Consumer control is often the utmost consideration and all other considerations are secondary. Financial consideration and training of executive directors are given little weight. Braswell et al. (1994) summarized the difficulty for CILs in obtaining professionals with leadership experience and knowledge of financial management as follows: The role of not-for-profit organizations in our economy is prominent and is expanding at a rapid rate. Paralleling this increased role is an increased emphasis on financial management. Competent financial management is necessary for the efficient and effective operation of not-for-profit organizations as well as for profit-oriented organizations. Financial decision-making techniques for profit oriented firms have been presented in numerous books. Financial decision making for not-for-profit organizations, however, has generally been ignored, (p. ix) Centers fo r Independent Living within Open Systems There are many unique features of centers for independent living, the main feature being that centers for are consumer

PAGE 85

78 controlled. Consumer control means that centers are operated, evaluated, managed, and directed by individuals with disabilities. Consumer control is the cornerstone of the independent living philosophy. The primary goal of centers for independent living is to provide a socially useful function, as defined by individuals with disabilities and the community, rather than to make a profit. Because CILs are not concerned with profit, the financial statements of CILs have a different emphasis. All surplus revenue obtained must be used for programs. If there is a grant surplus it is to be returned to the state or federal government at the end of the fiscal year. Much of the surplus revenues are used to provide services to individuals with disabilities who need services but cannot pay for them. However, surplus revenues do not necessarily cover all consumers who cannot pay; therefore, it is important for CILs to develop alternative income sources to be able to provide the services without worrying about whether the consumer has the ability to pay. Many centers for independent living receive or obtain resources in the form of gifts, fundraising, foundations, state and federal grants, and donations (Nosek et al., 1992). The providers of these resources do not expect repayment, but entrust the funds

PAGE 86

79 to centers to be used in the community to better the lives of individuals with disabilities. Center for independent living have a public responsibility to account for the funds they receive. This responsibility often falls to the executive director or the Board of Directors. Governing boards, however, seem less influential in decision-making because they are volunteers that give the centers an aura of legitimacy (Mayers, 1989). Boards rarely get involved in the day-to-day operations of the center. This is the domain of the director. Understanding the workings of the center, particularly financial management, is the responsibility of the director. To view centers for independent living as a system, it is easy to see the knowledge needed by executive directors to be successful. Looking at CILs as a system is important in several respects. First, systems are the basis for the development of information systems, an organizational system is an integral part of planning and development. Second, systems are important for accounting and auditing functions, particularly if the CIL uses a computer accounting system. Third, systems provide the director a way of viewing the center in its subsystems and processes in some type of totality (Mayers, 1989).

PAGE 87

80 Centers for independent living are open systems because they are in constant interaction with the environment. There is an exchange between the CILs and the community and individuals with disabilities and between the agency and its environment. Each can influence and impact the other. A systems view of centers for independent living can provide a definite view of the interaction between the financial and programmatic subsystems and how they relate to the human resource, the training and education of executive directors of CILs (see Fig. 4 and 5). Katz and Kahn (1978) described the characteristics of open systems in four distinct parts: a) input, b) through-put, c) output, and d) feedback. The authors characterized input as taking energy into the system from the external environment. Centers for independent living take in energy in the form of money, land, buildings, equipment, personnel, board members, and consumers. This energy or input may also be in the form of education and training. Each entity contributes to the centers, either in a positive or negative way. Through-put transforms or modifies the energy the organization takes in. According to Katz and Kahn (1978) some process occurs in the organization for the conversion to take place. In centers for independent living, the funds, equipment,

PAGE 88

81 < . S 4/ / INPUT / / THROUGH PUT ^Feedback Loop - Changed Client I / I l_. Social/Economic/Political Environment Figure 4 ~" A Systems View of the Human Service Agency Mayers, 1989, p. 15 (Reprinted with permission granted from Charles C. Thomas, Pub.) board members, and the education and training of the personnel are used to process and/or change consumers, families of people with disabilities, programs, and the community. Output is the result that is obtained from input and throughput and returned to the environment. In the case of the nonprofit organization, such as centers for independent living, this output is independence and self-sufficiency of individuals who have a disability. Feedback is the way a system receives information. Feedback tells the organization about its environment and its own functioning

PAGE 89

82 / rINPUTS Feedback Loop / THROUGH PUTS / Material Resources Agency uses / Money I Land, Building, \ Equipment \ \ Human Resources ^ Personnel \ Board Members \ Consumers material and human resources to develop skills training, advocacy, informantion anf referral, and peer counseling programs. CONSUMER OUTPUT: \ \ Individuald with \ disabilities achieve greater independence, become self sufficient, and economic viability. CONSUMER / / \ I i CONSUMER Figure 5 A Systems View of Independent Living Adapted from Mayers. 1989, p. 15 functioning in relation to that environment. Centers for independent living use feedback to alter the process of the input, through put, and output. The transformation of centers' funds, the education and training of directors, size of the budget, and the number of consumers served is continually being evaluated and revised. That is, the education and training of directors and the financial diversity, size of budget, and number of consumers served at the centers provide the resources for the cycle of activities to continue. For funds to continue to be directed

PAGE 90

83 toward centers, the output of the centers must be perceive as successful. Perception of success depends on the education and training of directors, financial diversity, size of budget, number of consumers served, as well as the information and the ability of centers to relay this information to the funding sources and the community that is responsible for the allocation of funds. To avoid entropy, the process by which an organization moves toward deterioration or even death (Mayers, 1989), centers for independent living must diversify their financial base to provide the core services required by legislation. To retard or reverse this process, centers must take in more resources and store those resources. Nonprofit, human service agencies, such as centers for independent living, do not make a profit. Centers depend largely on government grants and are required by law to return all unexpended funds to the funding agency by the end of the fiscal year. The dependence on government grants and the inability to store up excess funds at the end of the fiscal year show the importance financial diversity is for center survival. The human resource or the education and training of directors, financial diversity, size of budget, and number of consumers served are the key to providing financial diversity.

PAGE 91

84 The most important aspect of an organization, according to Peter Drucker (1985), is the human resource which consists of the director and organizational people. Gibb (1990) pointed to three factors for an organization to function effectively: 1) existence of resources, 2) managerial talent, and 3) organizational talent (p. 4). Gibb stated: All these aspects affect the ability to devise appropriate strategies to deal with environmental factors. Organizations best function as open systems, the separation between them and their environment must be flexible enough to provide for feedback and changes significant enough to promote growth. (P4) Centers for independent living, according to Gibb's concept, depend on funds and the education, training and experience of the director and staff. Centers that are grounded in the independent living philosophy, which argues for environmental changes to reduce handicapping effects on individuals with disabilities, must be flexible enough to adapt to environmental changes and use them to their advantage. For a center to accomplish this, the director and staff must have a knowledge base from which to make correct decisions and adapt to environmental factors with the least disruption to the organization. Gibb (1990) further pointed out: In many social based organizations, . . . [such as Center for independent living] ... the greatest resource is the human aspect. The proper mix of skills, knowledge, aspiration, and ability are often key to an organization and [are] not purchasable, (p. 7)

PAGE 92

85 Conclusion Using a systems view to investigate the educational background of executive directors as it relates to financial diversity and core programs clarifies the development of an overall framework to better understand centers for independent living and how the education of center directors affects the overall process. The education of center directors in both the internal aspects of centers for independent living and the external environment can be better considered using a systems approach.

PAGE 93

CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH PROCEDURE Introduction This study was designed to investigate the relationship between the educational backgrounds of executive directors of centers for independent living (CILs) and size of program funding, number of consumers with disabilities served, and funding diversification. The inquiry also tested the relationship in rural and urban centers independently and examined any differences that were found in those variables in relationship to both rural and urban centers combined. Two alternative variables believed to account for some of the variance in the dependent variables were also included as related independent variables. They included the executive director having a diagnosed disability, as defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act (1990), or having no disability. Chapter 3 will present the methods and procedures of the study. For the purpose of presentation, the remainder of chapter three has been divided into six sections: (a) the study design; (b) the subjects; (c) research instrumentation; (d) description of 86

PAGE 94

87 the procedures; (e) treatment of the data; and (f) limitations of the study. Study Design This study utilized an ex post facto design. This design was selected because it was not possible to randomly assign the independent variable or executive directors to the rural or urban group nor was it possible to randomly assign executive directors to the group of executive directors with a disability or with no disability. It was also not possible to randomly assign executive directors to a control or experimental group. Ex post facto designs are most commonly used to describe relationships among two or more variables and to examine the degree of association among two or more variables; they do not examine the causal relationship. Richard J. Shavelson (1988) stated: These designs [ex post facto] allow the researcher to come on the scene when nature has already implemented a treatment, either through difference in environment in which subjects find themselves, through differences in inheritance, or through some combination of these two factors. Thus, the researcher arrives after the fact (ex post facto) that the treatments have been imposed on the subject, (p. 28) Fred N. Kerlinger (1973) defined ex post facto research in the following and somewhat similar but more specific manner: Ex post facto research is systematic empirical inquiry in which the scientist does not have direct control of independent variables because their manifestations have already occurred or because they are inherently not

PAGE 95

88 manipulable. Inferences about relations among variables are made, without direct intervention, from concomitant variation of independent and dependent variables, (p. 379) In an experimental design, Kerlinger continued, it is assumed that "if x then y." The researcher uses some method to manipulate or measure x. The researcher then observes y to see if the variation expected or predicted from the variation in x occurs. If it does, this is evidence for the validity of the proposition. In ex post facto research y is observed and an x, or several x's, are also observed and conclusions or observations are reported of the relationships of x to y. From this an argument can be structured. In this investigation the x factor or dependent variable was the educational background of the executive directors of centers for independent living, the disability/nondisability factor was y, , and the rural/urban factor was y 2 or alternative variables. The y 3 factor or independent variable was the size of the centers budget, the number of consumers served, and the number of sources from which the center derives funds. The concluding argument structure or its logical validity for an ex post facto design, such as this investigation, was not very different from an experimental design (Kerlinger, 1973).

PAGE 96

89 D. A. deVaus (1990) suggested that the first step in developing an ex post facto design is to clarify the concepts. The author stated that "concepts are simple tools which fulfill a useful shorthand function: they are abstract summaries of a whole set of behaviors, attitudes, and characteristics which have something in common" (p. 48). The defining concept for this research was how the education of executive directors of centers for independent living relate to the overall performance of the centers. In the case of this research, the treatments were defined as the educational background of executive directors and if the executive director had been diagnosed with a disability or as not having a disability. Treatments were further considered in terms of the location of the centers, the size of each center's budget, the number of consumers served by each center, and the number of sources from which each center receives funds (see Fig. 6). According to Fred N. Kerlinger (1973) there are three weaknesses with ex post facto research: "(a) the inability to manipulate the independent variables; (b) the lack of power to randomize; and (c) the risk of improper interpretation" (p. 380). Kerlinger further explained that the first two weaknesses are the result of a researcher's inability to randomly assign subjects

PAGE 97

90 S3 v 3.8 n sj 09 a a T3 T3 T3 4> c c C 3 > 3 > 3 > 3 0) *— i 0) D a> b D > 03 \D >, CD a> ^» E *-< 4-. E o Is c 3 O 3 u o 3 t-i t) N to a> §•£ ize ons ive ize SUO ive N §£ VI U Q c/5 U Q on U Q oo U Q > X) ?3 13 > > 'Z. i> W — C "2 < > c • .2 Q > X t/3 X c/3 O z x to X O Z 3 c X c o T3 C 1) D 1) X C o D on x i> C 0) NO T3 a <0 4> , O 3 (O bo -a

PAGE 98

91 to experimental groups. He concluded, "this lack of control is the basis of the third weakness: the risk of improper interpretation" (p. 380). Kerlinger (1973) recommended that to control for these potential weaknesses, major and alternative variables be identified before the data are collected. Significant differences or correlations are located and then interpreted. In this study, two alternative variables (disability and location) that could account for variance in the independent variables (size of budget, number of consumers served, and diversity of funds) were identified (see Fig. 6). The independent variable in this study was the educational background of executive directors of centers for independent living. Alternative independent variables that were thought to account for some of the variances are the location of a center in a rural or urban environment and the executive director being disabled or not being a disabled (see Fig. 6). The factors of employment of individuals with disabilities compared to individuals who do not have a disability in urban and rural centers are discussed in Chapter 2. To control for third weakness of ex post facto research, the risk of improper interpretation, a panel of experts in the field of

PAGE 99

92 Independent Living was utilized. The panel provided input in the formulation of the survey instrument and guidance in developing the research questions (see Appendix B). Description of Population The target population for this study were the 394 executive directors of centers for independent living in the United States listed in Table 8. It is important to note that there are more centers for independent living than there are directors because several states, such as California, have established satellite centers which are considered centers but are administered by the parent center. Typically, the person responsible for center operation has the title "Executive Director" and is the Chief Executive of the center for independent living. The executive director usually is responsible for the total operation of a center, including staffing, planning, developing, budgeting, implementing and evaluating the entire program. Executive directors customarily represent centers on local, state, and national levels and are responsible for the employment and supervision of activities of all staff members and the center programs. This person typically has overall responsibility for fundraising, is the general liaison between the center and Board of Directors, is chief spokesperson for the

PAGE 100

93 Table 8 Number of Executive Directors in Each State Included in Study Number of Percent Number of Directors State Directors Responded 1 Responded Alabama 2 0.25 1 Alaska 5 0.51 2 Arizona 4 1.02 4 Arkansas 6 0.76 3 California 32 4.31 17 Colorado 11 2.03 8 Connecticut 7 0.76 3 Delaware 2 0.25 1 Florida 14 2.03 8 Georgia 2 0.25 1 Hawaii 5 0.25 1 Idaho 6 1.02 4 Illinois 20 3.05 12 Indiana 4 0.51 2 Iowa 4 0.51 2 Kansas 10 1.52 6 Kentucky 5 0.51 2 Louisiana 8 0.25 1 Main 8 0.25 1 Maryland 1 0.00 0 Massachusetts 13 1.27 5 Michigan 14 2.28 9 Minnesota* 13 1.78 7 Mississippi 4 0.00 0 Missouri 10 2.03 8 Montana 7 0.25 1 Nebraska 4 0.25 1 Nevada 2 0.51 2 New Hampshire 3 0.25 1 New Jersey 11 1.52 6 New Mexico 3 0.25 1 New York 41 5.08 20 North Carolina 4 1.02 4 North Dakota 4 0.76 3 Ohio 10 1.02 4 Oklahoma 5 1.02 4 Oregon 7 1.52 6 Pennsylvania 13 2.03 8 Rhode Island 4 0.51 2

PAGE 101

94 Table 8 continued Number of Percent Number of Directors State Directors Responded 1 Responded South Carolina 1 0.25 1 South Dakota 5 0.76 3 Tennessee 2 0.25 1 Texas 13 2.03 8 Utah 4 0.51 2 Vermont 1 0.25 1 Virginia 10 1.78 7 Washington 1 1 1.78 7 West Virginia 4 0.76 3 Wisconsin 10 1.27 5 Wyoming 3 0.51 2 Washington, D C. 2 0.25 1 Total 394 53.81 212 'Based on 394 possible centers responses center, and is responsible for the compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations, including center evaluations, audits, center operation, and sound financial policy. In some states this person may have the title "Director" or possibly "Coordinator." Regardless of the title used in a particular state, the crucial consideration is that the survey was sent to the executive in charge of the center and who would most likely be the person able to supply the information desired. A problem that must be faced in research is to determine the size of the sample necessary to attain the objectives of the research. Borg and Gall (1989) suggested "the larger the sample, the more likely is its mean and standard deviation to be

PAGE 102

95 representative of the population mean and standard deviation" (p. 233). In this investigation, it was impossible for the researcher to control the important variables that had an effect upon the research findings. Under these condition, Borg and Gall (1989) suggested that the research can have more confidence in the findings if a large sample is employed. To ensure a high confidence level that the uncontrolled variables, or executive directors' educational backgrounds, would themselves be operating randomly for the groups labeled urban/rural and disability/no disability and therefore would not have a systematic effect upon the results, all executive directors in the United States were used in the sample. To identify all centers for independent living executive directors, the Directory of Centers for Independent Living published by the Independent Living Research Utilization Program (ILRU, 1995b) was used. A survey was mailed to each of the 394 center directors in the United States. Completion of the survey by each executive director was on a volunteer basis. Instrument A closed question survey instrument was developed by the researcher to determine the extent, if any, of the impact the educational background of executive directors had on the size of

PAGE 103

96 budget, number of consumers served, and diversity of funds of centers for independent living in the United States. D. A. deVaus (1990) stated "closed questions are used to see if the respondent has thought about or is aware of the issues and to get at specific aspects of an issues" (p. 87). Norman M. Bradburn (1982) suggested the use of a closed questionnaire survey when conducting survey research since a closed form questionnaire survey allows for the quantification and analysis of the results to be carried out efficiently. This survey was mailed to each executive director identified in the Directory of Centers for Independent Living . Borg and Gall (1989) stated, "with careful planning and sound methodology, the mailed questionnaire can be a very valuable research tool in education" (p. 423). These authors suggested, "the objectives need to be identified at the outset of the study, otherwise you [the researcher] will find it very difficult to make sound decisions regarding selection of a sample, construction of the questionnaire, and methods for analyzing the data" (p. 425). The survey questions consisted of a categorical checklist and yes/no responses, requiring little effort to complete. The questionnaire was developed to gather the necessary data to obtain information about centers for independent living and the

PAGE 104

97 educational background of executive directors. In order to determine readability and the appropriateness of the questions on the survey instrument, the questions were reviewed by a panel of experts in the field of independent living and statistical data collection (see Appendix A and B). Following the initial review, the questionnaire were revised to reflect the expert opinion of the review panel. Questions with limited significance were discarded and questions needing to be revised were revised. The final questionnaire resulted in a four page instrument and consist of 18 questions which requested information regarding the educational background of executive directors, rural or urban location, funding diversity, size of budget, number of consumers served, and if the executive director was disabled or nondisabled. The questionnaire was divided into three parts. Part one of the questionnaire gathered information on the independent variable, the educational background of executive directors. The second part of the survey provided information on the center location and if the executive director was disabled or nondisabled. Section three of the questionnaire gathered data on the funding diversity, number of consumers served, and size of budget of the directors' respective centers (see Appendix C).

PAGE 105

98 Procedures After identifying the executive directors as specified in the Description of Population section of this chapter (p. 93) and determining their addresses, a cover letter soliciting their participation and a survey instrument was mailed to each of them (see Appendix C). Two weeks after the first mailing a second letter and survey instrument was mailed to all nonrespondents. Finally, a telephone reminder was used to solicit a response from those who did not respond to the second mailing. For many different reasons people selected in a survey may refuse to answer and others will respond inappropriately. Often, non-respondents are different in crucial respects to respondents such as age and/or less education (deVaus, 1990). This creates two problems: (a) reduction of sample size; and (b) bias. In order to obtain the largest response rate possible, the "Total Design Method (TDM)" developed by Dillman (1978) was utilized. Dillman's TDM is a highly structured mail survey process which aims at maximizing responses by attending to minute details that affect response behavior. A research study conducted by Dillman (1978) showed that when surveying a specialized population a response rate of 74% or higher can be anticipated, particularly when surveying members of a profession.

PAGE 106

99 Treatment of Data The data developed by this study were analyzed using the Statistical Analysis System located in the University of Florida's mainframe computer system. An expert in the field of statistical analysis was utilized to provide recommendations for the appropriate data processing techniques. The decision level for significance was set at 0.05 a priori for all statistical tests. Multiple regression was used to enter each independent variable into a regression equation with the educational background of executive directors as the dependent variable. Borg and Gall (1989) stated "multivariate correlations allow us to describe and explore the relationships between three or more variables" (p. 346). The first step in the factor analysis procedure was the computation of a correlation matrix, which determined the correlation between every possible pair of variables that were analyzed. To further determine interrelationships between the dependent variable and the independent variables a covariance matrix was computed. The covariance matrix provided a more precise estimate of the direction and degree of relations between the variables. The degree of range that is most useful in a covariance matrix range from +1.00 through 0 to -1.00, +1.00

PAGE 107

100 indicating a perfect positive relation, -1.00 a perfect negative relation, and 0 no discernable relation. To determine the strength of the relationship between the executive directors' educational background and the independent variables a multiple linear regression was computed. A multiple linear regression was used to describe the strength of the relationship between several independent variables and one dependent variable (Borg & Gall, 1989, p. 347). Multiple linear regression provided estimates of both the magnitude and statistical significance of the relationships between the educational background of the executive directors with all other combinations of variable. The one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was computed to determine whether the groups differ on more than one dependent variable, the educational background of the executive directors. Each director was scored on two or more independent variables. These scores were represented by a vector or mathematical expression. Further, a mean vector was calculated for different groups of directors, such as the educational background of executive directors with a disability, educational background of executive directors with no disability, educational background of executive directors with a disability in rural areas, educational

PAGE 108

101 background of executive directors with a disability in urban areas, educational background of executive directors with no disability in urban areas, and educational background of executive directors with no disability in rural areas. The mean vector scores provided a centroid. The calculation of an ANOVA then determined whether there were statistically significant differences between the centroids of different groups providing an interaction effect. The calculation of an ANOVA further allowed the comparison of the above subgroups that varied on more than one variable establishing the main effect. Limitations This study was limited due to the ex post facto design of the study because no causal inferences can be made between the dependent variable and the independent variables. Consideration was also given to the fact that other variables may exist that affect the dependent variable. Last, it is acknowledged that limitations exist due to the use of a locally developed instrument with relatively unestablished validity and reliability, other than the use of a panel of experts.

PAGE 109

CHAPTER 4 ANALYSIS OF DATA Introduction The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between the educational background of executive directors of centers for independent living and the size of the center budget, the number of consumers served, and the financial diversity of centers and how that relationship was affected in rural versus urban centers and if the executive director has a disability or does not have a disability. The following hypotheses were the major focus of this study: 1. Different levels of educational background of executive directors of centers for independent living do not evidence different sizes of the center budget, number of consumers served, and the financial diversity of centers. 2. The disability/no disability status of executive directors of centers for independent living does not evidence differences between rural centers and urban centers, the size of center budgets, number of consumers served, and the financial diversity of centers. 3. The rural/urban location of centers does not evidence differences between directors who have a disability and directors who 102

PAGE 110

103 do not have a disability, the size of the center budget, number of consumers served, and the financial diversity of centers. This chapter is divided into four major sections. The first section describes the characteristics of each variable included in this study. In this section, percentages are used to describe each variable and the distribution of scores in each variable. In section 2, the Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficient is used to measure the strength of the relationship between the variables. The Pearson Correlation is a representation of the relationship and indicates if the variables are increasing together, decreasing together, or one is increasing and the other decreasing at a steady rate throughout the range of the two variables. The third section of this chapter will focus on the ability of one variable to predict another variable. To explore this possibility, linear regression will be used. The last section will compare the variables through a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) to draw inferences about the population that is being investigated. Characteristics of Variables Dependent Variable The educational background of executive directors, the main dependent variable in this study, was determined by the executive directors indicating which of the following educational levels he or

PAGE 111

104 she possessed: (a) No Degree, (b) High School Degree, (c) Associate Degree, (d) Bachelor Degree, (e) Master Degree, (f) Specialist Degree, or (g) Doctorate Degree. As reported in Table 9, the majority of executive directors had received a bachelor's degree (37.9%) or a master's degree (46.8%). Only 9.5% of the executive directors had less than a four year degree and 5.8% had a degree higher than a master's degree. Table 9 Educational Level of Executive Directors Degree Level Frequency Percent No Degree 2 1.1 High School Degree 7 3.7 Associate Degree 9 4.7 Bachelor Degree 72 37.9 Master Degree 89 46.8 Specialist Degree 2 1.1 Doctorate Degree 8 4.2 Unspecified 1 0.5 Total 190 100.0 Independent Variables The independent variables consisted of three categories: (a) diversity of center funding, (b) the number of consumers served, and (c) the size of each center's budget. These three variables were considered inter-related on the assumption that those centers with a greater diversity of funding sources would have a larger budget and therefore could serve a greater number of consumers. However, the

PAGE 112

105 mean number of different funding sources for the centers was approximately five, with a budget of approximately $300,000 to $400,000 which served 76 to 100 individuals with a disability. Table 10 shows the distribution of how many different funding sources from which centers received funds. The percentage distribution places the largest number of centers receiving five different funding sources; however, three, four, five, and six sources are grouped Table 10 Funding Diversity Received by Centers No. of Sources Frequency Percent 1 16 8.4 2 15 7.9 3 27 14.2 4 28 14.7 5 1 29 15.3 6 27 14.2 7 22 11.6 8 9 4.7 9 8 4.2 10 4 2.1 11 3 1.6 12 2 1.1 Total 190 100. 0 1 Mean closely together. The most common sources centers received funds from are federal, state, and local sources (Smith et al., 1991). The response to the survey indicated that the majority of centers received federal, state, and local funds. Sixteen or 8.4% of the 190 centers

PAGE 113

106 that responded received funds from only one source and 26 or 13.7% of the responding centers received funds from eight or more sources. The size of center budgets ranged from a low of less than $50,000 to a high of over one million dollars. The most frequent group, 37 centers or 19.6%, received approximately $200,000 to $300,000. However, the mean (7 or $300,000 to $400,000) suggested that the funding size is somewhat larger. This discrepancy between the most frequent funding group and the mean can be attributed to the fact that 24 centers or 12.7% of the centers surveyed indicated that they received one million dollars or more annually. Many of the older, well established centers fall into this category. Those centers with an annual income of $200,000 or less fall mostly in rural areas. The survey indicates that these centers do not receive Title VII, Part B funds (see Fig. 1 on page 48). Table 11 shows the budget size reported by the centers. Of the 190 surveys that were returned one did not provide information regarding budget size, therefore N=189. Table 12 provides a description of the number of consumers served by each center responding to the survey. The majority of the centers surveyed serve 100 individuals with disabilities or fewer. Eighty-six centers or 45.7% of the centers serve 75 individuals with

PAGE 114

107 Table 11 Size of Center Budget Score Size of Budget 1 Frequency Percent 1 less than 50 4 2.1 2 50 75 5 2.6 3 76 100 7 3.7 4 101 150 17 9.0 5 151 200 18 9.5 6 201 300 37 19.6 7 2 301 400 27 14.3 8 401 500 16 8.5 9 501 600 10 5.3 10 601 750 9 4.8 11 751 1,000 15 7.9 12 1,000 or more 24 12.7 Total 189 100.0 Missing frequency = 1 1 Thousands of dollars 2 Mean disabilities or less annually. Of the centers responding to the questionnaire, 188 responded to the question regarding the number of consumers being served at their centers. Although the majority of centers reported that they served fewer than 100 individuals with disabilities annually, 14 centers or 7.4% of the centers serve 500 or more individuals with disabilities. Those centers who serve large populations are usually in large, dense, urban areas such as Los Angeles, Boston, Chicago, St. Louis, New York, Atlanta, and Washington, D.C. This coincides with the findings of Smith et al., (1991). Historically, centers for independent living were an urban phenomenon and were first established in large cities. CILs have

PAGE 115

108 just recently gained acceptance in rural areas; therefore, urban centers have had an historical edge in building a consumer base. Table 12 Number of Consumers Served by Centers Number of Consumers Frequency Percent less than 25 12 6.4 26 50 39 20.8 51 75 35 18.4 76 100 1 19 10.2 101 150 26 13.9 151 200 20 10.7 201 300 16 8.5 301 400 6 3.2 401 500 1 0.5 More than 500 14 7.4 Total m 100.0 Missing frequency = 2 1 Mean Alternative Variables One categorical variable (y^, the location of each center in an urban or rural environment, showed that the centers were evenly distributed. Ninety-five respondents located their center in an urban environment and 95 respondents located their respective center in a rural environment. These findings are contradictory to the findings of Richards (1986), Richards and Smith (1992), and Seekins et al., (1992) who contend that there are relatively few rural centers. Table 13 shows the distribution of urban and rural centers as indicated by the respondents of the survey. The reason for the increase in rural

PAGE 116

109 centers over the last several years could possibly be attributed to the emphasis the federal government has given to serving rural areas. Table 13 Breakdown of Urban and Rural Centers Category Frequency Percent Urban 95 50.0 Rural 95 50.0 Total 190 100. 0 Another categorical variable (y 2 ), the executive director having a disability or not having a disability, was determined by each executive director indicating if he or she met the criterion set forth in the Rehabilitation Act of 1992 [P.L. 102-569, Section (8)(B)(i)] as being an individual with a disability. Of the 190 executive directors surveyed, 72.6% of the executive directors stated that they met the criteria for being an individual with a disability. Table 14 shows the distribution of executive directors who are individuals with a disability and executive directors who do not have a disability. Table 14 Executive Directors with a Disability/No Disability Category Frequency Percent With a Disability 138 72.6 Without a Disability 52 27.4 Total 190 100.0 The high number of executive directors in the individuals with a disability group stems from the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 as

PAGE 117

110 amended in 1978 and 1992. The Act requires a minimum of one individual in the top management of a center for independent living to meet the criteria as an individual with a disability. Comparison of the Variables to Determine a Relationship Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficients were computed to evaluate if there were any relationships among the variables. Results of this analysis are shown in Table 15. The Pearson Correlation indicated that the variables were generally independent of each other even though some shared considerable variance. The greatest dependence was found between the number of consumers served and the size of the center budget. This inter-correlation was high, indicating that the number of consumers served and the size of the center budget overlapped highly as evidenced by the high correlation (.62). The high correlation would be expected due to the ability of centers with large budgets to serve a greater number of individuals with disabilities and those centers with a small budget to serve fewer individuals. The intercorrelation between the size of the center budget and the diversity of funding was also high (.54). Again, the relationship between many funding sources and a large budget or a few funding sources and a small budget was not expected. The relationship between diverse funding, number of consumers being served, and the size of center

PAGE 118

111 M 2 3 C c w a ON o w o Q W CO > 5 5 03 D Oi D co Z o Q Z o co O CO O o _. 73 > \C 3 O u X X » u > 3 o B a) CO U X 4> S3 « s 13 u O o .s § •O X) e S3 .3 3 u g o ° o o o co g m j a w Q '£ S ±3 ° <4-4 C £>CN o •13 S TD cd X) o «j -a 3 2 o c (U o In a c ^ .2 «s S3 6 q2 W Q D Q OS 3 <-> co c 3 cU O O O
PAGE 119

112 budget can be seen by the overlap of number of consumers served and location of centers in rural or urban settings (-.35). Rural centers, by nature of being located in sparsely populated areas, serve fewer consumers and urban centers, being in densely populated areas, serve a greater number of individuals. There are several correlations of little concern. These are (a) the executive director having a disability or not having a disability and the educational level of the executive director (-.025); (b) the educational training of executive directors and the size of the center budgets (-.0009); (c) the executive director having a disability or not having a disability and the diversity of funding (-.07), location (-.05), number of consumers served (-.08), and size of budget (.07); and (d) the number of consumers served and the educational training of executive directors (.03). There is a possibility that these correlations could be random since several of the relations are supported in the literature. The 1992 Rehabilitation Act requires centers to fill employment positions with persons who have a disability. Individuals with disabilities, as compared to the general population, are relatively underdeveloped academically and lack managerial experience (Smith et al., 1991). Centers are drawing on a population of individuals with limited education and experience to fill executive positions which is reflected in the low relationship

PAGE 120

113 between the disability variable and the degree level of directors, diversity of funding, location, number of consumers served, and size of budget. General Linear Models Procedure A multiple regression procedure was used to explore if one variable can be used to predict other variables and to test the three hypotheses proposed in this study. A significance test level of a = 0.05 was chosen as a criterion for the statistical tests. The first model was developed to determine if the educational background of executive directors of centers for independent living can be used to predict the size of the center budget, number of consumers served, and the financial diversity of centers. The second model determined if the educational background and the disability/no disability status of executive directors were significant in determining the size of center budgets, number of consumers served, and the financial diversity of centers. Finally, the third model looked at the educational background of executive directors in rural or urban locations and determine if there is a significant difference between directors who have a disability and directors who do not have a disability in the size of the center budget, number of consumers served, and the financial diversity of centers.

PAGE 121

1 14 The null hypothesis (H 0 ) for the first model was that the educational background of executive directors of centers for independent living does not differ in the size of the center budget, number of consumers served, and the financial diversity of centers. Table 16 shows the findings of the regression analysis for the relationship between the educational background of executive directors and the location of the centers, disability status of the director, size Table 16 Regression Analysis Summary for Model 1 Relationship Between the Educational Background of Executive Directors and the Location of the Centers. Disability Status. Size of Center Funding. Number of Consumers Served, and the Diversity of Center Funding Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square FValue p Model 5 12.2440 2.4488 2.43 0.0369 Error 181 182.4725 1.0081 Corrected Total 186 194.7165 p<0.05 of center funding, number of consumers served, and the diversity of center funding. The results of this model showed that since the pvalue (0.0369) for the model was less than 0.05, the model was significant in predicting the degree level from all the other variables. In other words, there was a significant relationship between the executive director's educational level and the location of the centers, disability status of the director, size of center funding, number of

PAGE 122

1 1 5 consumers served, and the diversity of center funding. A summary of the findings can be seen in Table 17. Note that there is an individually significant variable in the size of center funding (p = 0.0041) since p<0.05. Table 17 Regression Analysis Summary the Location of the Centers. Disability Status. Size of Center Funding. Number of Consumers Served, and the Diversity of Center Funding Source DF Type III Mean FValue p SS Square RURURB 1.142 1.1422 1.13 0.2886 DIS 0.6473 0.6473 0.64 0.4240 FUND 8.5207 8.5207 8.45 0.0041* CONS 0.3620 0.3620 0.36 0.5498 DIV 1.0079 1.0079 1.00 0.3187 *p<0.05 Table 18 shows the parameter estimates for the regression and shows the equation to be: DEGLEV = 3.4676 0.167(RULURB) 0.134(DIS) + O.IOO(FUND) -0.0245(CONS) 0.0364(DIV). Table 18 Parameter Estimates for the Regression Parameter Est. T for HO Pr> |T| Std Error of Parameter = 0 Estimate INTERCEPT 3.4676 8.13 0.0001 0.4264 RURURB -0.1671 -1.06 0.2886 0.1569 DIS -0.1337 -0.80 0.4240 0.1669 FUND 0.1004 2.91 0.0041 0.0345 CONS -0.0244 0.60 0.5498 0.0408 DIV -0.0364 -1.00 0.3187 0.0364

PAGE 123

116 The first research hypothesis in this study stated that there is no relationship between the executive directors' educational level and the location of the centers, disability status of the director, size of center funding, number of consumers served, and the diversity of center funding. This hypothesis was rejected at the 0.05 level of significance. The null hypothesis (H 0 ) for the second model was that the disability/no disability status of executive directors of centers for independent living does not differ in the size of center budgets, number of consumers served, and the financial diversity of centers. Table 19 shows the findings of the regression analysis for the relationship between the disability/no disability status of executive directors and the location of the centers, size of center funding, number of consumers served, and the diversity of center funding. Table 19 Regression Analysis Summary for Model 2 Relationship Between the Disability/No Disability Status of Executive Directors and the Location of the Centers. Size of Center Funding. Number of Consumers Served, and the Diversity of Center Funding Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square FValue p Model 3 1.1344 0.3781 1.90 0.1310 Error 183 36.4056 0.1989 Corrected Total 186 37.5401 p<0.05

PAGE 124

117 The second model showed that the p-value (0.1310) was greater than 0.05; the model is not significant in predicting the disability status of the executive director from all the other variables. There was no evidence that there was a significant relationship between the executive director having a disability or not having a disability and the location of the centers, size of center funding, number of consumers served, and the diversity of center funding. A summary of the findings can be seen in Table 20. Note that there is again, as in the first model, an individually significant variable in the size of center funding (p = 0.0339) with p<0.05. Since the overall model was not significant, the equation is not reported. Table 20 Regression Analysis Summary of the Size of Center Funding. Number of Consumers Served, and the Diversity of Center Funding Source DF Type III Mean FValue P SS Square FUND 1 0.9089 0.9089 4.57 0.0339 CONS 1 0.4823 0.4823 2.42 0.1212 DIV 1 0.2869 0.2869 1.44 0.2313 p<0.05 The second research hypothesis in this study stated that there is no relationship between the executive director having a disability or not having a disability and the location of the centers, size of center funding, number of consumers served, and the diversity of center funding. This hypothesis was not rejected at the 0.05 level of significance.

PAGE 125

118 The null hypothesis (H 0 ) for the third model was that the rural or urban location of centers for independent living does not differ in the size of center budgets, number of consumers served, and the financial diversity of centers. Table 21 shows the findings of the regression analysis for the relationship between the location of centers and the disability status of the director, size of center funding, number of consumers served, and the diversity of center funding. Table 21 Regression Analysis Summary for Model 3 Relationship Between the Educational Background of Executive Directors and the Location of the Centers and the Disability Status. Size of Center Funding. Number of Consumers Served, and the Diversity of Center Funding Source DF Sum of Mean FValue p Squares Square Model 4 5.8479 1.4619 6.51 0.0001 Error 182 40.9007 0.2247 Corrected Total 186 46.7486 p<0.05 The third model showed that the p-value of 0.0001 was significant, since it is less than 0.05. The third model, therefore, is significant in predicting the rural or urban location from all the other variables. The model demonstrated that there was a significant relationship between the location of the centers and the disability status of the director, size of center funding, number of consumers served, and the diversity of center funding. A summary of the

PAGE 126

119 findings can be seen in Table 22. There is an individually significant variable in the number of consumers served (p = 0.0016) with p<0.05. Table 22 Regression Analysis Summary of the Disability Status. Size of Center Funding. Number of Consumers Served, and the Diversity of Center Funding Source DF Type III Mean FValue P SS Square DIS 1 0.2444 0.2444 1.09 0.2084 FUND 1 0.0241 0.0241 0.11 0.7433 CONS 1 2.3084 2.3084 10.27 0.0016* DIV 1 0.1300 0.1300 0.58 0.4477 *p = .05 Table 23 gives the parameter estimate for the regression of the third model and shows the equation to be: RURURB = 1.9743 0.0819 (DIS) 0.0053(FUND) 0.0601(CONS) 0.0130(DIV) Table 23 Parameter Estimates for the Regression Parameter Est. T for HO Pr> |T| Std Error of Parameter = 0 Estimate INTERCEPT 1.9743 14.28 0.0001 0.1382 DIS -0.0819 -1.04 0.2984 0.0785 FUND -0.0053 -0.33 0.7433 0.0163 CONS -0.0601 -3.21 0.0016 0.0187 DIV -0.0130 -0.76 0.4477 0.0171 The third research hypothesis in this study stated that there is no relationship between the executive directors' educational level and

PAGE 127

120 the location of the centers and the disability status of the director, size of center funding, number of consumers served, and the diversity of center funding. This hypothesis was rejected at the 0.05 level of significance. Comparison of the Variables Through a One-Way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA^ In order to draw inferences about the population that is being investigated, a one-way analysis of variance was conducted. An ANOVA was calculated to investigate if any differences in the mean were the result of chance or do they represent a true difference in the population. Two variables were investigated to determine if there was a true difference in the population or a difference that resulted from chance. The first variable that was investigated was the disability/nondisability factor of the executive director. The second variable was the center's location in a rural or urban environment. The following statistical tables will first consider the executive directors with a disability and those that do not have a disability and compare that variable to all other variables independently. In other words, ignoring all other variables, do the disability groups differ on degree level, educational level, diversity of funding, number of consumers served, and funding size?

PAGE 128

121 Table 24 shows that, ignoring all other variables, the disability groups do not differ on the degree level. A level of significance for the relationship between the executive director having a disability or not having a disability and the degree level of the executive director was p = 0.7283 which is greater than p = 0.05 and therefore does not reject the hypothesis. There is no difference between the degree level of executive directors who have a disability and those that do not. Table 24 One-Way Analysis of Variance Relationship Between the Executive Director Having a Disability or Not Having a Disability and Degree Level of the Executive Director Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square FValue p Model 1 0.1257 0.1257 0.12 0.7283 Error 188 195.3269 1.0389 Corrected Total 189 195.4526 Table 25 shows that, ignoring all other variables, the disability groups do not differ on the educational level. A level of significance for the relationship between the executive director having a disability or not having a disability and the educational level of the executive director was p=0.1182 which is greater than p = 0.05 and therefore does not reject the second hypothesis. There is no difference between the educational level of executive directors who have a disability and those that do not.

PAGE 129

122 Table 25 One-Way Analysis of Variance Relationship Between the Executive Director Havi ng a Disability or Not Having a Disability and Educational Level of the E xecutive Director Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square FValue p Model 1 10.9166 10.9166 2.46 0.1182 Error 188 832.9991 4.4308 Corrected Total 189 843.9157 p<0.05 Table 26 shows that, ignoring all other variables, the disability groups do not differ on the diversity of center funds. A level of significance for the relationship between the executive director having a disability or not having a disability and the diversity of center funds was p = 0.3403 which is greater than p=0.05 and therefore does not reject the second hypothesis. There is no difference between the diversity of a center's funds and executive directors who have a disability and those who do not. Table 26 Qne-Way Analysis of Variance Relationship Between the Executive Director Having a Disability or Not Having a Disability and Diversity of Center Funds Source DF Sum of Mean FValue p Squares Square Model 1 5.5951 5.5951 0.91 0.3403 Error 188 1150.9785 6.1222 Corrected Total 189 1156.5736 p<0.05

PAGE 130

123 Table 27 shows that, ignoring all other variables, the disability groups do not differ on the number of consumers served. A level of significance for the relationship between the executive director Table 27 One-Way Analysis of Variance Relationship Between the Executive Director Having a Disability or not having a Disability and the Number of Consumers Served Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square FValue P Model 1 6.4482 6.4482 1.06 0.3053 Error 186 1135.1900 6.1031 Corrected Total 187 1141.6382 p<0.05 having a disability or not having a disability and the number of consumers served was p=0.3053 which is greater than p = 0.05 and therefore does not reject the second hypothesis. Therefore, it may be concluded that there is no difference between the number of consumers served and the executive directors who have a disability and those that do not. Table 28 shows that, ignoring all other variables, the disability groups do not differ on the size of center funds. A level of significance for the relationship between the executive director having a disability or not having a disability and the size of center funding was p = 0.3615 which is greater than p = 0.05 and therefore does not

PAGE 131

1 24 Table 28 Qne-Way Analysis of Variance Relationship Between the Executive Director Having a Disability or not having a Disability and the Size of Center Funding/Budget Source DF Sum of Mean FValue Squares Square P Model 1 7.1742 7.1742 0.84 0.3615 Error 187 1603.4924 8.5748 Corrected Total 188 1610.6666 p<0.05 reject the second hypothesis. There is no difference between the size of a center's funding and the executive directors who have a disability and those that do not. The findings resulting from the computation of an ANOVA did not reject any combination of the executive director having a disability or not having a disability and the other variables. In simple terms, executive directors who did not have a disability were not significantly different from executive directors who have a disability in terms of degree level, number of years of education, size of center funding/budget, the number of consumers served, and the diversity of a center's funding. The second variable that was investigated was the rural and urban relationship. The following statistical tables will look at the rural and urban location of a center and compare that variable to all other variables independently. In other words, ignoring all other

PAGE 132

125 variables, does the location of a center in a rural or urban environment affect the degree level of the executive director, the executive director's educational level, the diversity of center funding, the number of consumers served by a center, and funding size or center's budget. Table 29 One-Way Analysis of Variance Relationship Between the Rural Location and Urban Location and the Degree Level of the Executive Director Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square FValue p Model 1 2.5473 2.5473 2.48 0.1168 Error 188 192.9052 1.0260 Corrected Total 189 195.4526 p<0.05 Table 29 shows that, ignoring all other variables, the location of a center in a rural location or urban location does not differ on the degree level of the executive director. A level of significance for the relationship between the rural location and urban location and the degree level of the executive director was p = 0. 1 168 which is greater than p = 0.05 and therefore does not show a significant difference. There is no difference between the degree level of executive directors who administer a rural center or urban center. Table 30 shows that, ignoring all other variables, the location of a center in a rural location or urban location does not differ on

PAGE 133

126 the educational level of the executive director. A level of significance for the relationship between the rural location and urban location and the educational level of the executive director was p = 0.0861 which is greater than p = 0.05 and therefore does not show a significant difference. There is no difference between the Table 30 One-Wav Analysis of Variance Relationship Between the Rural Location and Urban Location and the Educational Level of the Executive Director Source DF Sum of Mean FValue P Squares Square Model 1 13.1578 13.1578 2.98 0.086 Error 188 830.7578 4.4189 Corrected Total 189 843.9157 p<0.05 educational level of executive directors who administer a rural center or urban center. Table 31 shows that, ignoring all other variables, the location of a center in a rural location or urban location does differ on the diversity of a centers funding. A level of significance for the relationship between the rural location and urban location and the diversity of center funding was p = 0.0019 which is less than p = 0.05 and therefore does show a significant difference. There is a difference between the diversity of funding between a rural center and an urban center.

PAGE 134

127 Table 31 One-Way Analysis of Variance Relationship Between the Rural Location and Urban Location and the Diversity of Center Funding Source DF Sum of Mean FValue p Squares Square Mblil 1 58.0263 58.0263 03 0.0019 Error 188 1098.5473 5.8433 Corrected Total 189 1156.5736 p<0.05 Table 32 shows that, ignoring all other variables, the location of a center in a rural location or urban location does differ on the number of consumers served. A level of significance for the relationship between the rural location and urban location and the Table 32 One-Way Analysis of Variance Relationship Between the Rural Location and Urban Location and the Number of Consumers Served Source DF Sum of Mean FValue p Squares Square Model 1 136.1702 136.1702 25.19 0.0001 Error 186 1005.4608 5.4057 Corrected Total 187 1141.6382 p<0.05 number of consumers served was p = 0.0001 which is less than p=0.05 and therefore does show a significant difference. There is a difference between the number of consumers served between a rural center and an urban center.

PAGE 135

128 Table 33 shows that, ignoring all other variables, the location of a center in a rural location or urban location does differ on the size of a center's funding. A level of significance for the relationship between the rural location and urban location and the size of center funding was p = 0.0005 which is less than p = 0.05 and Table 33 One-Way Analysis of Variance Size of Center Funding Source DF Sum of Mean FValue p Squares Square Model 1 101.0895 101.0895 12.52 0.0005 Error 187 1509.5771 8.0726 Corrected Total 188 1610.6666 p<0.05 therefore does show a significant difference. There is a difference between the size of funding between a rural center and an urban center. Summary The overall findings in this study indicate that: 1. There was a significant relationship between the executive director's educational level and the location of the centers, disability status of the director, size of center funding, number of consumers served, and the diversity of center funding.

PAGE 136

129 2. There was no significant relationship between the executive director having a disability or not having a disability and the location of the centers, size of center funding, number of consumers served, and the diversity of center funding. 3. There was a significant relationship between the location of the centers in a rural location versus an urban location and the disability status of the director, size of center funding, number of consumers served, and the diversity of center funding. 4. Ignoring all other variables, there was no difference between the degree level of executive directors who have a disability and those executive directors that do not have a disability. 5. Ignoring all other variables, there was no difference between the educational level of executive directors who have a disability and those that do not have a disability. 6. Ignoring all other variables, there was no difference in the diversity of a center's funding and executive directors who have a disability and those that do not have a disability. 7. Ignoring all other variables, there was no difference between the number of consumers served by a center and the executive directors who have a disability and those that do not have a disability.

PAGE 137

130 8. Ignoring all other variables, there was no difference between the size of a center's funding and the executive directors who have a disability and those that do not have a disability. 9. Ignoring all other variables, there was no difference between the degree level of executive directors who administer a rural center or urban center. 10. Ignoring all other variables, there was no difference between the educational level of executive directors who administer a rural center or urban center. 11. Ignoring all other variables, there was a statistically significant difference in the diversity of funding between a rural center and an urban center. 12. Ignoring all other variables, there was a statistically significant difference in the number of consumers served between a rural center and an urban center. 13. Ignoring all other variables, there was a statistically significant difference in the size of funding between a rural center and an urban center.

PAGE 138

CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION Summary A review of the literature indicated that little research has been done in the field of independent living (Nosek et al., 1992) and no research has been completed on the relationship of the educational level of executive directors of centers for independent living and how that relates to the size of a center's budget, the number of consumers served by a center, and how diverse a center's budget is. In addition, the center's location in a rural or urban environment and the executive director's having a disability or not having a disability were investigated in order to determine their association with the educational level of the executive director and the size of a center's budget, the diversity of a center's funding, and the number of consumers served by a center. The following questions were asked: 1. What relationship exists between the educational level of an executive director and a center's budget size, diversity of a center's funding, and the number of consumers served by a center? 131

PAGE 139

1 32 2. Is there a relationship between the disability status of an executive director and a center's budget size, diversity of a center's funding, the number of consumers served by a center, and by the location of a center in a rural or urban environment? 3. Is there a relationship between the location of a center (rural or urban) and a center's budget size, diversity of a center's funding, the number of consumers served by a center, and executive director's disability status? These questions led to the formation of the following three null hypotheses: 1. Different levels of educational background of executive directors of centers for independent living do not evidence different sizes of the center budget, number of consumers served, and the financial diversity of centers. 2. The disability/no disability status of executive directors of centers for independent living does not evidence differences between rural centers and urban centers, the size of center budgets, number of consumers served, and the financial diversity of centers. 3. The rural/urban location of centers does not evidence differences between directors who have a disability and directors

PAGE 140

133 who do not have a disability, the size of the center budget, number of consumers served, and the financial diversity of centers. A three part questionnaire was developed to gather information. Part 1 of the questionnaire was used to gather data on the dependent variable or the educational level of the executive director. The second part of the questionnaire gathered data regarding the independent variables which were size of funding, diversity of funding, and the number of consumers served. The third part of the questionnaire was designed to gather information on the categorical variables of rural/urban location of the centers and the disability status of the executive director. The ILRU Directory of Independent Living Programs (ILRU 1995) was used obtain the names of all executive directors of centers for independent living in the United States. Each executive director was mailed a survey and asked to complete and return the survey. Of the 394 executive directors in the United States 212, returned the survey, a return rate of 54%. Nine surveys were removed from the analysis because the survey indicated that they were medical facilities, four surveys were discarded because the survey indicated that the entity was no longer operating as a center for independent living, and five

PAGE 141

134 executive directors did not complete the majority of the survey; therefore those surveys were also discarded. The total return sample was 190 or 48%. Data was analyzed using the Statistical Analysis System at the University of Florida. A consultant from the University of Florida's Department of Tests and Measurements was utilized to provide recommendations for the appropriate statistical procedure. Statistical techniques used in analyzing the data were percentages to describe each variable and the distribution of scores in each variable, the Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficient to measure the strength of the relationship between the variables, multiple regression to determine the ability of one variable to predict another variable, and a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) in order to draw inferences about the population that was being investigated. Of the 212 surveys that were returned, 190 were viable. Of the 190 surveys that were returned, the combined educational level of the executive directors was a mean 15 years of education. When considering the alternative variable of disability/no disability, 138 (72%) executive directors considered themselves as an individual with a disability and 52 (27%) indicated that they did not have a disability. The mean educational level for the

PAGE 142

135 executive directors who had a disability was 14 years of education. Executive directors who did not have a disability had a mean score of 17 years of education. The difference in the level of education of directors who have a disability and those who do not have a disability supports the findings of Smith et al., (1991) who concluded that individuals with disabilities have a relatively underdeveloped academic base. When regarding the location of the center in an urban or rural environment, the executive directors in the urban location had a mean educational score of 16 years of education. The rural centers' executive directors had a mean educational score of 13.8 years of education. These findings coincide with the research conducted by Richards (1986) that executive directors in rural areas lack organizational knowledge and education. Summary of General Linear Models Procedure A multiple regression procedure was used to explore if there was a statistically significant relationship in the dependent variable (educational level of the executive director) and independent variables (size of budget, diversity of funds, and number of consumers served, rural/urban, and disability/no disability). To examine any relationships, three regression models were constructed. The first model was developed to determine if there

PAGE 143

136 was a statistically significant relationship between the educational background of executive directors of centers for independent living and the size of the center budget, number of consumers served, the financial diversity of centers, the rural or urban location, and the disability status of the executive director. The second model was constructed to ascertain if the disability/no disability status of executive directors was significantly related to the rural/urban location, size of center budgets, number of consumers served, and the financial diversity of centers. Finally, the third model looked at the rural or urban locations to determine if there was a statistical significant difference between the size of the center budget, number of consumers served, and the financial diversity of centers. Each model considered the relationship between all variables. Description of the Executive Director's Educational Level and Size of Center Funding. Number of Consumers Served, and the Diversity of Center Funding Executive directors with a higher education tended to (a) operate with a larger budget, (b) serve a larger amount of consumers, and (c) receive funds from a greater variety of sources. Nosek (1992) reported that the success of any center of independent living depended on the ability of the organization to recruit and retain employment of directors whose education and

PAGE 144

137 knowledge is of sufficient quality and quantity to assure achievement of center goals. The relationship between the educational background and a larger budget, number of consumers served, and funding diversity is echoed by Scherer and Huh's (1992) study which suggested that executives with a higher educational background tended to invest more in the research and development, such as increasing budgets and enlarging services, of an organization than executives with low or no education. Scherer and Huh concluded that the education of an executive director is an important factor in the success of an organization. One fact should be pointed out, however; there are some unique aspects regarding CILs. Although the researchers appear in agreement that an executive director with a higher educational background is more likely to succeed (Egan, 1988; Beck, 1991; Wolf, 1994;), centers for independent living operate on an unequal footing. Large centers, such as urban centers, have the ability to pay larger salaries and therefore are able to attract individuals with higher degrees and experiences. This is evidenced when comparing the executive directors in an urban location with a mean educational score of 16 years of education and executive directors in a rural setting with a mean educational score of 13.8 years of education.

PAGE 145

138 The findings do point out the concerns of many who believe that the first step in improving CILs is to improve CIL management education and training (Marini, 1994; Nosek et al., 1992; and Smith et al., 1991). The concerns are even greater for rural centers. According to Richards (1986), the greatest difficulty in operating a rural center is the lack of organizational knowledge and training of the directors. Description of the Executive Director Having a Disability or Not Having a Disability and Size of Center Funding. Number of Consumers Served, and the Diversity of Center Funding The executive director having a disability or not having a disability had no statistical significant relationship on the size of center funding, the number of consumers served, and the diversity of center's funding. The mean educational level for executive directors who had a disability was 14 years of education and executive directors who did not have a disability had a mean educational level of 17 years of education which agreed with the findings of Smith et al., (1991) who concluded that individuals with disabilities have a relatively underdeveloped academic base. The underdeveloped educational base, as evident when comparing educational levels, did not affect, in a statistically significant manner, the center's budget size, diversity of funding, and the number of consumers

PAGE 146

1 39 served by centers with a director who had a disability and those centers who had a director who did not have a disability. Centers for independent living, being a young phenomenon, were founded on the peer role model and thus considered having a disability of greater importance than education and training for a center director (personal communication with Margaret Nosek, see Appendix A). One conclusion that can possibly be drawn from this is that personal knowledge of a disability and disability issues are a factor in providing independent living services and are an asset in the administration of a center for independent living. Description of the Location of Centers in a Rural Location Versus an Urban Location and Size of Center Funding. Number of Consumers Served, and the Diversity of Center Funding There was a statistically significant relationship between the location of the centers in a rural versus an urban location and size of center funding, number of consumers served, and the diversity of center funding. The findings of Richards (1986), Richards and Smith (1992), and Seekins et al., (1992) contend that there are relatively few rural centers; however, the respondents to this survey were evenly divided between rural and urban centers. This growth in rural centers over the last four years, 1992 through 1996, can possibly be attributed to what Jones, White,

PAGE 147

140 Ulicny, and Mathews, (1988) call rural centers for independent living—the new issue in independent living. As can be seen in Chapter 3, Figure 3, rural centers for independent living have difficulty in serving large numbers of consumers because of the large area covered and sparse populations in rural areas (Seekins et al., 1992). Urban centers, located in densely populated areas, are able to serve more consumers. It is not surprising then that the statistical analysis shows a statistical significance (p<0.0016) in the number of consumers served between a rural center and an urban center. The same appears to be true for the size of rural and urban funding and budget diversity. Rural centers are funded under Title VII, Part A, state or local general funds, and private sources (Seekins et al., 1992) and do not receive, as many urban centers do, Title VII, Part A and B funds. According to Seekins et al. (1992) rural centers have relatively small budgets. The results of this research, that rural centers have smaller budgets and are less diversified in their funding than urban centers, concur with the findings of Seekins et al. (1992). Summary of the ANOVA Procedure To draw inferences about the population that was investigated, a one-way analysis of variance was conducted to

PAGE 148

141 explore if any differences in the mean were the result of chance, or if they represent a true difference in the population. Two variables were examined to determine if there was a true difference in the population or a difference that resulted from chance. The first variable that was investigated was the disability/nondisability (categorical variable y^ factor of the executive director. The second variable that was considered was the center's location in a rural or urban environment (categorical variable y 2 ). Both alternative variables were considered in relation to each variable alone, ignoring all other variables. Difference Between Executive Director Who Have a Disability and those Executive Directors that do not Have a Disability in Relation to Degree Level. Educational Level. Diversity of Funding. Number of Consumers Served, and Funding Size When considering executive directors who have a disability and those executive directors who do not have a disability and ignoring all other variables, there are no statistically significant differences in the size of center budgets, the diversity of funding, and the number of consumers served. In other words, ignoring all other variables, the disability groups do not differ on degree level, educational level, diversity of funding, number of consumers served, and funding size. The findings resulting from the computation of an ANOVA did not reject any combination of the executive director having a disability or not having a disability

PAGE 149

142 and the other variables. In simple terms, executive directors who did not have a disability did not differ in a statistically significant way from executive directors who had a disability in terms of degree level, number of years of education, size of center funding/budget, the number of consumers served, and the diversity of a centers funding. These findings agree with the second regression model which stated that executive directors having a disability or not having a disability had no statistically significant relationship on the other variables. Difference Between Rural Centers and Urban Centers in Relation to Degree Level. Educational Level. Diversity of Funding. Number of Consumers Served, and Funding Size When considering the rural location and urban location and ignoring all other variables, there are some statistically significant differences. Better stated, ignoring all other variables, the location of a center differs in the diversity of funding, number of consumers served, and funding size. This coincides with the findings of the third regression model and the literature. However, when considering the location of a center in a rural or urban environment, there is no statistically significant difference in the degree level and educational level of executive

PAGE 150

143 directors who administer a center. Again, these findings coincide with the second regression model and the literature. Hypotheses Testing The first hypothesis evaluated was in regard to the educational background of executive directors of centers for independent living and relationship to the size of the center budget, number of consumers served, and the financial diversity of centers. From the results of the data analyses, it was evident that there was a statistically significant relationship. Therefore, the educational background of executive directors had a statistically significant relationship with the center's budget, number of consumers served, and the diversity of funding. The first null hypothesis was rejected. The second hypothesis looked at the disability/no disability status of executive directors of centers for independent living in relation to rural centers and urban centers in the size of center budgets, number of consumers served, and the financial diversity of centers. From the results of the data analyses, it was evident that there was not a statistically significant relationship. Therefore, the disability/no disability status of executive directors had no statistically significant relationship with the center's

PAGE 151

144 budget, number of consumers served, and the diversity of funding. The second null hypothesis was not rejected. The third hypothesis examined the relationship between rural/urban location of centers and the disability status of the executive director, the size of the center's budget, number of consumers served, and the financial diversity of centers. From the results of the data analyses, it was evident that there was a statistically significant relationship. Therefore, the rural/urban location of centers had a correlation with the center's budget, number of consumers served, and the diversity of funding. The third null hypothesis was rejected. Recommendations The most obvious recommendation evolving from the results of this study is the issue of rural centers versus urban centers. Rural centers should be more closely examined in order to bring them to the level of urban centers in funding, budget diversity, and number of consumers served. Specific education in the operation of rural centers for rural executive directors can have an influence on the discrepancy between rural and urban centers. The development of a consortia to share information and training of rural centers for independent living managers and administrators can help share the cost of such training.

PAGE 152

1 45 Consortias can be developed on either a local or regional level. Cost sharing will allow rural centers to provide top quality trainers to address such issues as isolation, funding, lack of services, and housing. The statistical procedures indicated that rural and urban centers were statistically different in funding size, diversity of funding, and the number of consumers served. Equally important to the variables that were statistically different were the variables that indicated no statistical differences. The research revealed that the disability status of the director had no influence on the funding size, diversity of funding, or the number of consumers served. It is highly likely that the lack of influence of the disability status of the executive director can be attributed to the legislative requirement of centers to employ qualified individuals with disabilities; however, the lack of differences demonstrates that individuals with disabilities are as capable as individuals that do not have a disability in administering a non-profit organization. The lack of differences of individuals with disabilities and individuals that do not have a disability in leadership roles should be investigated to determine if these findings translate into similar results in the business world.

PAGE 153

146 There are also several other important lines of research which stem from this initial study. The outcome of these future studies will be helpful to researchers interested in improving the quality of centers for independent living. Some of the potential research areas are as follows: 1. The educational background of executive directors should be investigated in terms of male/female and the disability status, rural/urban, size of center budgets, diversity of budgets, and number of consumers served. The American Business Women's Association's Top Ten Business Women for 1994 (Grubb, 1995) associated a strong educational background for women with executive success. Women, as indicated by Lear (1994), do not have the longevity of experience but do instead have a strong educational background. Determining if there are any statistically significant differences between men and women executive directors might shine a light on the experience based executive versus the educational based executive. 2. A longitudinal study following executive directors of centers for independent living entering the field with various educational levels could be examined and how the budget and numbers of consumers served changes over a long period of time.

PAGE 154

147 A. To obtain a broader perspective of independent living and the administration of centers, a qualitative methodology could be used to ask the questions of this study. Interviewing directors, staff, board members, and consumers might give a much richer, context relevant database for analysis. B. This study needs to be replicated with a larger number of managers for centers of independent living, not just executive directors. This would increase the number of predictor variables that can be analyzed. Different levels of center management (director, assistant director, program managers) need to be studied. C. This study needs to be replicated in other not for profit organizations and compared to the findings of this study. This would provide a larger database for future prediction of how administrators affect an organization. 3. Center administrators need to be examined in relation to consumer attitudes of center success. Since centers are consumer based the attitude of consumers is an important factor in center growth and development. It is possible that consumer attitude on how well an executive director administers a center could produce a different affect on center management.

PAGE 155

148 4. An analysis should be conducted which includes the number of years of experience an executive director has in managing a center for independent living. 5. An analysis should be conducted to examine any relationship between executive directors who were CIL consumers and the success of centers. 6. Executive directors should be investigated in terms of married or closely related to an individual with a disability in relation to rural/urban, size of center budgets, diversity of budgets, and number of consumers served. 7. An analysis should be conducted to examine the human factors of center directors with disabilities and directors who do not have a disability including salary differences and location of centers. 8. A more detailed investigation should be conducted into the diversity of funding, the dollar amounts, and the funding sources; particularly between rural and urban centers. Two concluding observation were made from this inquiry. The first observation was based on the differences between rural and urban centers and the significant relationship between the executive director's educational level and the size of center funding, number of consumers served, and the diversity of center

PAGE 156

149 funding. The differences between rural and urban centers and the relationship between the executive director's educational level and the size of center funding, number of consumers served, and the diversity of center funding illustrates the need for executive directors of centers for independent living to become involved in training and education to bring about parity between centers for independent living, especially between rural and urban centers. The training does not necessarily have to be in the field of independent living, but as the literature suggested in management or administration. Federal support should be sought through a national organization such as the National Council on Disability or the Independent Living Research Utilization Program to establish a degreed program in conjunction with a major university. Such a program should include the philosophical basis of independent living, administration of a non-profit organization, financial accountability, grant writing, networking with other agencies, and service delivery. By establishing a degreed program for independent living and providing a large dose of independent living philosophy and the foundations of independent living can centers avoid becoming miniature rehabilitation centers. Developing an independent living education program at a major

PAGE 157

1 50 university will help future managers and administrators of CILs stay grounded in the consumer controlled philosophy. The second observation that became apparent throughout this research but was not directly addressed by this investigation was the lack of research and literature pertaining to centers for independent living. The literature that is available is dispersed over educational journals, rehabilitation journals, medical journals, business journals, and even farm journals. Centers for independent living should establish a refereed journal for independent living and solicit articles from leaders in the field. A professional journal would assist in the sharing of information and discussion of current issues in the field. Centers for independent living (CILs) are a young phenomenon and often defy analysis. It was founded on the peer role model, making the concepts of "training" and "qualifications" of directors antithetical to its purpose. An individual with too much training was, at least in the early years of the movement, view with considerable suspicion. Independent living centers have, nevertheless, evolved into bona fide service providing organizations. The need for directors having a well developed educational base as opposed to just having a disability to manage centers has become a national issue. This investigation examined

PAGE 158

151 the issue of the disability status and the educational background of executive directors who administer CILs. The findings of this study showed that the educational background of directors had a relationship with the size of the center budget, number of consumers served, and the financial diversity of centers; however, the disability status of the director had no influence on the size of the center budget, number of consumers served, and the financial diversity of centers. Hopefully, this study provided some answers to the question of disability versus education in the management of CILs and has established the basis for further research into centers for independent living.

PAGE 159

APPENDICES

PAGE 160

APPENDIX A CORRESPONDENCE

PAGE 161

mter for Research on Women wnn Disabilities lent of PhysicaJ Medicine and Rehabilitation MEMORANDUM 3440 Richmond Ave Houston, Texas 77046 Tel: (713) 960-0505 Fax: (713) 961-3555 DATE: TO: FROM: RE: May 27, 1996 Billy Parker ^ Margaret A. Nosek, Ph.D. I Dissertation and survey draft Congratulations for having the courage to take on a study of independent living centers for your dissertation. In many ways, the phenomenon of independent living centers defies analysis. It was founded on the peer role model, making the concepts of "training" and "qualifications" antithetical to its purpose. Indeed, an individual with too much training was, at least in the early years of the movement, view with considerable suspicion. Independent living centers have, nevertheless, evolved into bona fide service providing organizations and must be held to the same standards as all service providing organizations. I am pleased that you have chosen to examine their operations for your research. Before proceeding with my reactions to your survey instrument, I would like to make a few comments on your theoretical framework, which will also explain in part what I mean when I say that independent living centers defy analysis. You have astutely defined the components of independent living centers according to Katz and Kahn's characteristics of open systems, i.e., inputs, through-puts, outputs, and feedback. The most problematic component is outputs. It is almost impossible to measure change in the independent living status of the consumers of program services or change in the community that resulted from systems advocacy provided by the center staff. There are too many confounding factors to isolate the effect of the ILC services. We developed an instrument to assess an individual's level of independence, the Personal Independence Profile, but it is too cumbersome to use for program purposes. It is best used as a research tool only. Other systems of program evaluation, such as that developed by Lachat et al, use the attainment of consumer established goals as an output measures. This has proven to be ineffective because of its inconsistency and difficulty of weighing the value of achieving minor goals versus major goals. In practice, many centers would hand consumers a list of goals on intake and have them check off the ones they wanted to take on. This was good for consistency, but bad for the spirit of the movement. In the last paragraph on page 16 of your dissertation draft, you confuse this issue by referring to education and training of directors, financial diversity, size of budget, and number of consumers as outputs. Education and training of directors is definitely an input, no program has as its goal to educate its director. The others are process variables, they have no direct effect on consumer outcomes. You go on to say that outputs are dependent on these four factors. I question this. Financial diversity and size of budget make an organization more stable but do not directly affect consumer outcomes. The number of consumers served is of little importance to 1 54

PAGE 162

1 55 the one consumer served. In your hypotheses, you state that the education and training of directors will affect the various process measures of ILCs, but you do not state that it will affect the level of independent achieved by the consumers served. This confusion could be partly resolved by admitting that process is the outcome. Two additional minor points. On page 19, clarify the concept of a bona fide ILC. The term "independent living program" is not used much any more. Bona fide ILCs are defined in the Rehab Act, the rest are variously referred to as IL programs or service providers. Also, the definition of "rural" must include a distance of more than 50 miles from a major metropolitan area. Houston has communities of less than 30,000 with their own mayor and service systems; these communities are embedded within the Houston city limits, not to mention all the suburbs. For a more complete definition, see Nosek, M.A., and Howland, C.A. (1992). The role of independent living centers in delivering rehabilitation services to rural communities. American Rehabilitation. 18 (1), 2-6. Now on to the survey instrument itself. It seems you have replicated most of our survey for the National Database on Independent Living Centers. You have our permission to do this, but I question the need for items that do not relate directly to your hypotheses. This includes items on the educational background of staff other than the directors and characteristics of consumers. Shortening the survey will enhance the response rate. Item #6 would serve you better as a continuous variable, simply leave a line for them to fill in their exact budget total. As a categorical dependent variable (the interval between each category is not equal), you would have to use Chi-square analyses, which is much less powerful than ANOVA or regression. Clarify the response format for Item #7. You want a dollar amount, not just a check. Items #8 and #10 are confusing. What you really want to know is if they are operating in the red or black. It may be hard to get an honest answer to this. Could it be worded instead in terms of average monthly or yearly overexpenditures? Item #9 is not necessary. You will have that information in Item #7. Item numbering got strange after #13. In Item #4 (after #13), why is the fiscal manager/accountant excluded from the management team? In some centers, that person is part of the staff and the team. Beware in Item #20 that the non-managerial staff total is clearly indicated to be the total of the numbers that follow. It looks like a separate, independent category. Item #24f should read, "Personal assistance services/referral." The details on consumer characteristics are not necessary for testing your hypotheses. However, if you wish the information for further analyses (e.g. if having a minority director is associated with a higher percentage of minority consumers), be sure to clarify whether you want a

PAGE 163

1 5 a number or a percentage, and whether such should be given on the total of direct service consumers or the total of direct plus I and R. Item #29 should be worded, "Disability (primary only) of consumers served by your organization." You do not want to imply that they serve one disability primarily, nor that they should report all disabilities of all consumers. Also, spinal cord injury is a type of mobility impairment and should be eliminated as a category to avoid duplication and confusion. I don't think the urban/rural question will yield much of interest. The number of respondents from rural ELCs is likely to be too small to conduct a valid analysis. You can see the limits of qualitative methodology when asking complex questions such as these on a relatively small sample. In your next study of ELCs, consider using qualitative methodology. Interviewing directors, staff, board members, and consumers will give you a much richer, context relevant dataset for analysis. Good luck!

PAGE 164

ARKANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENT OF COUNSELOR EDUCATION AND PSYCHOLOGY P.O. BOX 1560 STATE UNIVERSITY, AR 72467-1560 TELEPHONE 501/972-3064 FAX 501/972-3828 JONESBORO, ARKANSAS Mr. Bill Parker 6427 N.W. 37th Drive Gainesville, FL 32653 Dear Mr. Parker, Thank you for requesting my assistance in reviewing the validity of your 35 item instrument assessing the educational and disability status of CIL directors in relation to the budget they receive, clientele they serve and the size of the centers. Your instrument appears to be well designed and the questions are easily understood. Overall, it is my opinion that your survey possesses high content validity in relation to your stated research question and related hypotheses. Specifically, I find the instrument: (A) Is very well structured and worded; (B) has appropriately asked questions which answer to each of the six information domains; (C) each of the 35 questions addresses some aspect of your hypothesis; (D) each question also further addresses some aspect of your hypothesis; and, (E) each question in some way contributes to answering your overall research question. Once again, I find that this instrument contains very high content validity in responding to your stated research question and hypotheses. Each of the 35 questions pertain to some aspect of your question, hypotheses and six information domains. Good luck with your data collection and please call if I can be of any further assistance. Sincerely, Irmo Marini, Ph.D.,CRC MRC Program Coordinator Arkansas State University

PAGE 165

Florida Department of Labor and Employment Security Division of Vocational Rehabilitation Lawton CJii&S Governor Doug Jamerson Secretary May 28, 1996 Billy L. Parker 6427 N.W. 37th Drive Gainesville, FL 32653 Dear Bill, As per your request, I read and evaluated your survey instrument and Chapter I of your dissertation. I was very impressed by the wording and structure and felt it asked all the right questions to address your hypothesis. I also felt all of your questions were appropriate in answering the research question. My only comments are on page 7 where I suggested a question on VR staff serving on CIL Boards since this has been an issue in Florida. Also, I added job placement under question 24, since many CIL's are now providing this service. I have attached a copy of my resume which is not quite up to date. I once again have responsibility for the Division Independent Living Program. Thank you for asking me to be one of your "experts". I wish you good luck in completing your doctorate and continuing your career in the field of Independent Living. Sincerely, Ralph E. Vennum, Program Manager RV/sh Building A, 2002 Old St. Augustine Road, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0696

PAGE 166

APPENDIX B EXPERT PANEL VITA SUMMARY

PAGE 167

Irmo Marini, Ph.D. 304 Greenmeadow Lane Jonesboro, Arkansas 72404 (501) 972-3064 Education The University of Auburn, Auburn, AL, Ph.D., Rehabilitation 1989-1992. Dissertation: The use of humor to modify attitudes, decrease interaction anxiety, and increase desire to interact with persons of differing abilities. Academic Appointments Associate Professor and Program Coordinator, Department of Counselor Education and Psychology, Arkansas State University, 1996 to present. Program Coordinator, Department of Counselor Education and Psychology, Arkansas State University, 1996 to present. Assistant Professor, Department of Counselor Education and Psychology, Arkansas State University, 1992-1996. Published in refereed journals Marini, I. (1995). Using humor in counseling and teaching social skills to persons with disabilities. Directions in Rehabilitation Counseling. 6 . 3-9. Marini, I. (1994). Identified services and training needs of centers for independent living in the southeastern United States. Journal of Rehabilitation . 60(1), 47-51. Marini, I. (1992). Spinal Cord injury and independent living Current and future issues. Spinal Cord Injury: Psychosocial Process. 60 m. 47-51. 1 60

PAGE 168

161 Margaret A. Nosek, Ph.D. 6910 Fannin St., Suite 310-South Houston, Texas 77030 (713) 797-6282 Education The University of Texas, Austin, Ph.D., Rehabilitation 1982-1984. Dissertation: Relationships among measures of psychological independence, social independence, and functional abilities for adults with severe orthopedic impairments. Advisor: Randall Parker, Ph.D. Academic Appointments Associate Professor, Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Baylor College of Medicine, April 1993-present. Director, Center for Research on Women with Disabilities, Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Baylor College of Medicine 1993 to present. Director of Research, Independent Living Research Utilization Program of The Institute for Rehabilitation and Research, Houston, TX, 1984 present. Published in refereed journals Nosek, M.A. and Krouskop, T.A. (1995). Demonstrating a model approach to independent living center-based asssistive technology services. Assistive Technology. 7 (1), 48-54. Howland, C.A., Walden, E. , and Nosek, M.A. (1993). Independent living centers and private sector rehabilitationists: A dynamic partnership for implementing the ADA. Journal of the National Association of Rehabilitation Professionals in the Private Sector. 8 . (4). Nosek, M.A., and Fuhrer, M.J. (1992). Independence among people with disabilities: I. A heuristic model. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin. 36 (11. 6-20.

PAGE 169

1 62 Ralph E. Vennum 2103 Lee Avenue Tallahassee, Florida, 32312 (904) 488-8380 Education University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK. Post-graduate courses in Vocational Rehabilitation Management. Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL. Master of Science in Vocational Rehabilitation Counseling. University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY. Bachelor of Science in Personnel Management. Appointments Administrator State of Florida Independent Living Program. Tallahassee, FL, 1995-present. Direct State of Florida's statewide Independent Living Program including budgeting, program planning, statewide CIL staff training, and federal grant administration. Program Manager Client Service and Transportation. Tallahassee, FL, 1992-present. Managed client service system to provide supervision, guidance, and training to field staff. Served as Secretary of Labor's designee on Florida's Transportation Disadvantaged Commission. Chief Bureau of Community Services. Tallahassee, FL, 19911992. Directed staff and activities of Bureau including contracts, grants, supported employment, independent living, social security program, and workers' compensation. Administrator State of Florida Independent Living Program. Tallahassee, FL, 1984-1991. Directed State of Florida's statewide Independent Living Program including budgeting, program planning, statewide CIL staff training, and federal grant administration.

PAGE 170

APPENDIX C SURVEY COVER LETTER

PAGE 171

June 01, 1996 Dear Director: I am a doctoral candidate in the Department of Special Education at the University of Florida and a former director of a Center for Independent Living. The attached survey instrument is a study being carried out for the fulfillment of the requirements of my doctoral program under the supervision of Dr. Stuart E. Schwartz. The survey will investigate the educational background of Executive Directors of Centers for Independent Living and the program's financial diversity, size of center budgets, and the number of consumers served by each center. This study is concerned specifically with determining the present status of the educational and managerial backgrounds of independent living program directors. The results of this study will help provide information regarding the diversity of independent living programs and assist in possible future training needs of program staff. I am particularly desirous of obtaining your responses because your experience in managing an independent living program will contribute significantly toward solving some of the problems faced in independent living. The enclosed instrument has been developed in order to make it possible to obtain all necessary data while requiring a minimum of your time. You do not have to answer any question you do not wish to answer. Completion and the return of the survey is voluntary and no compensation will be awarded. The average time required for Executive Directors to fill out the survey instrument is approximately 20 minutes. If you volunteer to complete the enclosed survey, it would be appreciated if you would return the form prior to June 15th, 1996. A stamped envelope has been enclosed for your 1 64

PAGE 172

1 65 convenience. I would welcome any comments or questions that you may have concerning any aspects of this survey. Your response will be kept confidential to the extent provided by law. If you have any questions or concerns regarding your rights as a participant in this survey you may direct your quarries to the UFIRB Office, Box 112250, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 326112250 . I would be happy to send you a summary of the survey results if you desire. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely yours, Bill Parker Enc. Survey

PAGE 173

APPENDIX D SURVEY

PAGE 174

SURVEY OF INDEPENDENT LIVING CENTERS This survey should be completed by the Executive Director or Executive in Charge . If you have any questions please call Bill Parker at (904) 392-0701 ext. 267 or (904) 374-7912. 1 . Which of the following describes the educational level of the Executive Director. No Degree High School Degree Associate Degree Bachelor Degree Master Degree Master of Business Administration Specialist Degree Doctorate Degree Other (please specify) 2. If answer to question number one is Associate Degree or higher, please specify field of highest degree received? Business/Management Counseling/Psychology General Education Rehabilitation Counseling Special Education Other (please specify) 3. Does the Executive Director have a disability? Yes No 4. Other than the Executive Director, Fiscal Manager/ Accountant and Volunteers, how many individuals make up the Top Management Team (Assistant Director, Program Manager, Program Coordinators, etc.)? One Six More than ten (Specify) Two Seven Three Eight Four Nine Five Ten 1 67

PAGE 175

168 SURVEY OF INDEPENDENT LIVING CENTERS 5. Considering the highest degree held by each individual on the Top Management Team, how many individuals on the top management team have the following: No Degree High School Degree Associate Degrees Bachelor Degrees Master Degrees Master of Business Administration Specialist Degree Doctorate Degrees Other (please specify) (please specify) (please specify) 6. Excluding the Executive Director, the Top Management Team, Fiscal Manager/ Accountant, and Volunteers, how many staff members does your Independent Living Program have: One Six Four Nine Two Seven Five Ten Three Eight More than ten (Specify) 7. Considering the highest degree held by each staff member, excluding Executive Director, the Top Management Team, Fiscal Manager/ Accountant, and Volunteers, how many individuals on the staff have the following: No Degree High School Degree Associate Degrees Bachelor Degrees Master Degrees Master of Business Administration Specialist Degree Doctorate Degrees Other (please specify) (please specify) (please specify)

PAGE 176

169 SURVEY OF INDEPENDENT LIVING CENTERS 8. Does the Fiscal Manager/ Accountant hold a degree? Yes No Do not have a Fiscal Manager/ Accountant 9. If number ten is yes, what type of degree does the Fiscal Manager/ Accountant hold? Please specify 10. Which is your Independent Living Program considered: Urban Rural 1 1 . Approximately how many consumers does your Independent Living Program serve per month? less than 25 151 200 26 50 201 300 51 75 301 400 76 100 401 500 101 150 more than 500 12. What is the approximate total annual budget of your independent living program? less than $50,000 $300,000 $ 400,000 $ 50,000 $ 75,000 $400,000 $ 500,000 $ 75,000 $100,000 $500,000 $ 600,000 $100,000 $150,000 $600,000 $ 750,000 $150,000 $200,000 $750,000 $1,000,000 $200,000 $300,000 more than $1,000,000

PAGE 177

170 SURVEY OF INDEPENDENT LIVING CENTERS 13. Funds for your independent living program are derived from which of the following sources? (check as many as applicable) Title VII Title I Title XVIII (Medicare) Title XIX (Medicaid) HUD (Block Grants, Section 202, etc.) Department of Transportation grants Community Action Agencies (Community Services Adm.) CETA Foundations Corporate Support Fund Raising Fee for Services Memberships United Way State Legislation Other (please specify) (please specify) (please specify) 14. How well does your monthly budget meet your independent living program's monthly expenses? Always Most of the time Sometimes Hardly ever Never

PAGE 178

171 SURVEY OF INDEPENDENT LIVING CENTERS 15. The largest percentage of your independent living program's budget is derived from which of the following source? Title VII grant funds Other federal funds (please specify) State government funds (please specify) Local government funds (please specify) Fee for services Foundation funds (please specify) Donations (please specify) Other (please specify) 16. How well does your annual budget meet your independent living program's annual expenses? Always Most of the time Sometimes Hardly ever Never 17. Who is involved in your annual budget planning? (mark as many as appropriate) Executive Director Top Management Team Total Staff Selected Staff Members Board President/Chair Total Board Select Board Committee Consumers Outside Assistance (please specify) Other (please specify)

PAGE 179

172 SURVEY OF INDEPENDENT LIVING CENTERS 18. Comments. Use the space below to provide comments, insights or questions that you might have. If you need more space, use a separate sheet of paper. THANK YOU very much for the time you have taken to answer these questions. The information you have provided is valuable for expanding the knowledge base regarding Centers for Independent Living nationally. Name and title of the person responding to questionnaire: Name Title Please return the complete form in the stamped envelope enclosed within 10 working days to: Bill Parker University of Florida Department of Special Education 315 G Norman Hall Gainesville, Florida 32611 If you have any questions or need further information regarding this survey, please do not hesitate in contacting Bill Parker at (352) 392-0701 Ext. 267/269 or writing to the above address.

PAGE 180

REFERENCES Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-336, § 2, 104 Stat. 328 (July 26, 1990). Barlow, M. (1992). 1917-1992: A vocational education era. Vocational Education Journal. 67 (2). 30-32. Beck, D. (1991). The rise and fall of great companies. Journal of Business Strategy. 12 (4). 62(3). Bergland, M.M., & Clark, D.W. (1991). The community independent living program: An educational model. Journal of Rehabilitation . 57(3), 43-46. Bodnar, C. A. (1980). Accounting information systems . Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Borg, R. B., & Gall, M. D. (1989). Educational research: An introduction (5th ed.). New York: Longman. Bowe, F. (1978). Handicapp in g America: Barriers to disabled people. New York: Harper & Row. Bradburn, N. M. (1982). Question-wording effects in surveys (1st ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Braswell, R., Fortin, K., & Osteryoung, J. S. (1994). Financial management for not-for-profit organizations (1st ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Brolin, D. E., & Elliot, T. R. (1984). Meeting the lifelong career development needs of students with handicaps. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals. 7 (1). 12-21. Brolin, D. E., & Gysberg, N. C. (1989). Career education for students with disabilities. Journal of Counseling and Development. 68(2), 155. 173

PAGE 181

174 Datta, D. K., & Guthrie, J. P. (1994). Executive succession: Organizational antecedents of CEO characteristics. Strategic Management Journal. 15 (7). p569(9). DeJong, G. (1978). The movement for independent living: Origins, ideology, and implications for disability research (University Center for International Rehabilitation Monograph, East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University, (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED175217) DeJong, G. (1979). Independent living: From social movement to analytic paradigm. Archives of Physical Medical Rehabilitation. 60. 435-446. DeJong, G. (1981). Environmental accessibility and independent living outcomes . East Lansing, MI: University Center for International Rehabilitation, Michigan State University. Denk, J., Shreve, M., Richards, L., King, K., Smith, L., & Smith, Q. (1994). A pplying marketing principles: Staying on track . (ILRU Management support series). Houston, Texas: Independent Living Research Utilization. deVaus, D. A. (1990). Survey in social research (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Unwin Hyman. Dillman, D. A. (1978). Mail and telephone surveys . New York: John Wiley & Sons. Drucker, P. F. (1985). Management: Tasks, responsibilities, practices (1st ed.). New York: Harper & Row. Egan, G. (1988). Change-agent skills a: Assessing & designing excellence . San Diego, CA: University Associates, Inc. Frieden, L., Richards, L., Cole, J., & Bailey, D. (1979). ILRU source book: A technical assistance manual independent living research utilization project . Houston, TX: The Institute for Rehabilitation and Research. Funk, R. (1984). Challenges of emerging leadership: Community based independent living programs and the disability rights movement. Final Report (Report No. ISBN-0-93784694-5). Flint, MI: Mott Foundation.

PAGE 182

175 Gajar, A., Goodman, L, & McAfee, J. (1993). Secondary schools and beyond: Transition of individuals with mild disabilities. New York: Merrill. Gibb, G. K. (1990). General systems theory: Implication for educational organizations and administration . Buffalo, NY: State University of New York. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED323590) Grubb, D.J. (1995). A view from the top. Women in Business. 47(1), 18(6). Hearing on reauthorization of the rehabilitation act: Hearing before the Subcommittee on Select Education of the Committee on Education and Labor. House of Representatives . 102nd Cong., 1st Sess. February 20, 1992. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Independent Living Research Utilization Program. (1982). Operating independent living programs: The five most critical areas of need . (ILRU occasional paper). Houston, TX: Author. Independent Living Research Utilization Program. (1995a). An orientation to independent living centers (1st ed) [Brochure]. Houston, TX: Author. Independent Living Research Utilization Program. (1995b). ILRU directory of independent living programs . Houston, TX: Author. Institute for Educational Leadership, Inc. (1984). Challenges of emerging leadership: Community based independent living programs and the disability rights movement . Washington, DC: Author. Jones, M. L., White, G. W., Ulicny, G. R., & Mathews, R. M. (1988). A survey of services by independent living centers to people with cognitive disabilities. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin. 31(3), 244-48. Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations (2nd Edition) . New York: John Wiley. Kerlinger, F. N. (1973). Foundations of behavorial research (2nd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

PAGE 183

176 Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolution (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Lachat, M. A. (1988). The independent living service model: Historical roots, core elements, and current practice . South Hampton, NH: Center for Resource Management. Lear, R. W. (1994). Here come the women directors. Chief Executive (U.S.). 93 . (IL 10. Lundgren, D., Frieden, L., House, R., & Ziskin, I. (1982). Meeting management training needs in independent living. ILRU Occasional Paper . Houston, TX: ILRU. Marini, I. (1994). Identified services and training needs of centers for independent living in the southeastern United States. Journal of Rehabilitation. 60 (1L 47-51. Mayers, R. S. (1989). Financial management for nonprofit human service agencies . Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas. McCauley, C. D., & Hughes, M. W. (1992). Leadership in human services: Key challenges and competencies. In D. R. Young, R. M. Hollister, & V. A. Hodgkinson (eds.), Governing, leading, and managing nonprofit organizations (pp. 155-179). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. McNeil, J. M. (1993). Americans with disabilities: 1991-92 (U.S. Bureau of Census. Current Population Reports, No. P70-33). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office (Table 12). Michaels, R. E. (1989). Title VII. Part A: A survey of state independent living programs . Houston, TX: Independent Living Research Utilization. National Council on Disability (1991). Future frontiers in the employment of minority persons with disabilities . Washington, DC: President's Committee on Employment of People with Disabilities (Grant No. H133B80059). National Council on Disability (1993). Serving the nation's students with disabilities: Progress and Prospects . Washington, DC: Author.

PAGE 184

177 Nosek, M. A. (1992). Relationships between compliance with federal standards for independent living centers and diversity and amount of funding. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin. 35 (3). 190-99. Nosek, M. A., & Howland, C. A. (1992). The role of independent living centers in delivering rehabilitation services to rural communities. American Rehabilitation. 18 (1). 2-6. Nosek, M. A., Jones, S. D., & Zhu, Y. (1989). Levels of compliance with federal requirements in independent living centers. The Journal of Rehabilitation. 55 (2). 31-7. Nosek, M. A., Narita, Y., Dart, Y., & Dart, J. (1982). A philosophical foundations for the independent living and disability rights movement . Occasional Paper No. 1. Houston: The Institute for Rehabilitation and Research. Nosek, M. A., Roth, P. L., & Zhu, Y. (1990). Independent living programs: Impact of program age, consumer control, and budget on program operation. The Journal of Rehabilitation. 56 (4). 28. Nosek, M. A., Zhu, Y., & Howland, C. A. (1992). The evolution of independent living programs. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin. 35 (3). 175-89. Oversight and reauthorization hearing on the rehabilitation act of 1983: Hearing before the Subcommittee on Select Education of the Committee on Education and Labor. House of Representatives. 98th Cong., 1st Sess. March 21 and 23, 1983. (1984). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Racino, J. A. (1992). Living in the community: Independence, support, and transition. In F.R. Rusch, L. Destefano, J. ChadseyRusch, L.A. Phelps, & E. Szymanski (eds.), Transition from school to adult life (pp. 131-145). Sycamore, IL: Sycamore. Ready, D. V., Vicere, A., & White, A. F. (1993). Executive education: Can universities deliver? Human Resource Planning. 16 (4). 1(11). Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1963, 29 U.S.C. § 107. (1964, November 8).

PAGE 185

178 Rehabilitation Act Amendments Stat. 250 § 1. (1967, October 3) Rehabilitation Act Amendments U.S.C. § 297. (1968). Rehabilitation Act Amendments Stat. 355. (1973, September 26). Rehabilitation Act Amendments Stat. 2955. (1978, November 6). Rehabilitation Act Amendments 106 Stat. 4344. (1993, August 11). of 1967, Pub. L. No. 90-99, 81 of 1968, Pub. L. No. 90-391, 29 of 1973, Pub. L. No. 93-112, 87 of 1978, Pub. L. No. 95-602, 92 of 1992, Pub. L. No. 102-569, Rice, W.P. (1980). Implementation of independent living programs in rehabilitation . Hot Springs: Arkansas Rehabilitation Research and Training Center, University of Arkansas. Richards, L. (1980). How to set up an independent living program: Twenty-seven questions and answers . Houston, TX: Independent Living Research Utilization. Richards, L. (1986). Independent living in rural America: The real frontier . Houston, TX: Independent Living Research Utilization. Richards, L., & Smith, Q. (1992). Independent living centers in rural communities. Rural Special Education Quarterly. 11 (1) 5-10. Richterman, H. (1982). Blind plus other impairments: People are working. Disabled USA , pp. 19-20. Rossiter, C. (1962). Conservatism in America (2nd ed.). New York: Vantage Press. Savage, R. C. (1993, May). At the top. Managers Magazine. 68(5), 16-20. Scheer, J., & Grocc, N. (1988). Impairment as a human constant: Cross-cultural and historical perspectives on variation. Journal of Social Issues. 44 (H. 23-37. Scherer, F.M., & Huh, K. (1992). Top managers' education and R&D investment. Research Policy. 21 (61. p507(5).

PAGE 186

179 Seekins, T., Ravesfoot, C, & Maffit, B. (1992). Extending the independent living center model to rural areas: Expanding services through state and local efforts. Rural Special Education Quarterly. 11(1), 11-15. Shavelson, R. J. (1988). Statistical reasoning for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon, Inc. Smith, W. Q., Richards, L. K., Nosek, A. M., & Gerken, L. (1991). Education and training needs of independent living center managers. Rehabilitation Education. 5. 101-111. Thayer, T.M., & Rice, B.D. (1990). Vocational rehabilitation services in independent living centers . Fayetteville: Arkansas Research and Training Center in Vocational Rehabilitation, University of Arkansas. Turnbull, A., & Turnbull, R. (1985). Developing independence. Journal of Adolescent Health Care. 6 . 108-119. Urban Institute, (1975, June 23). Reports of the comprehensive service needs study . Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Office of Human Development, Rehabilitation Service Administration. Wolf, T. (1994). Managing a nonprofit organization . New York: Simon & Schuster. Wright, T. J., & Leung, P. (1993). Meeting the unique needs of minorities with disabilities: A report to the President and the Congress . Washington, DC: National Council on Disabilities. Young, D. R., Hollister, R. M., & Hodgkinson, V. A. (1993). Governing, leading, and managing nonprofit organizations (1st ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

PAGE 187

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH In the beginning I remember my grandmother, who nurtured me for the first 12 years of my life. I grew up in a different country and culture which has allowed me to be more tolerant of differences between people and countries. I was born in 1951 in Linz, Austria. My first three years of education were in an Austrian school where English was taught as a second language. The English I learned was very literal, such as if you had a headache you were sick in the head or to tell someone to be quiet you told the person to hold their jaw. English was a very strange language. I did not like school very much. My goals at that time were to become a world class soccer player or pastry chef— there was no relation between the two. My heroes at that time were Tony Syler, 1956 Austrian Olympian gold medalist in the giant slalom, and Futzi der Sheriff, greatest cowboy ever. In 1962, my father was transferred back to the U.S., I was placed back in the third grade because I did not speak English. Third grade was very boring, everyone was adding single digit numbers and reading about Dick and Jane, I already knew how to 180

PAGE 188

181 add, subtract, divide, and multiply multidigit numbers and furthermore I could read anything placed in front of me--as long as it was in German. Fourth grade was no better. No history, no science, just reading, writing, and math. I survived my elementary school years without any major psychological effects. In the seventh grade I became interested in sports and began playing football, basketball, and baseball. During the next five years my interests were in sports not academics and my grades reflected this. Upon graduation, I joined the U.S. Marine Corps which allowed me to enrolled at Central Missouri State University and Officer Training in Aviation. My goal was to make the military my career and to learn to fly. All this ended on June 24, 1972. While waiting for my military training cycle to begin, I was working as a lifeguard when the lifeguard stand collapsed on me severing my spinal cord. The next year I went from one hospital to another until finally in December of 1972 I went home. Life in a wheelchair was different in 1972. There were no ramps, no programs, and no employment. Finally, in June 1973 I decided to go back to school. The only universities that had a program for individuals with disabilities were the University of Missouri and the University of Illinois. I chose the University of

PAGE 189

182 Missouri. I had no guidance as to career possibilities or programs available. I chose history as a major and teaching of social studies as a minor. I liked going to school and changed majors every two or three semesters so that I could postpone graduation as long as possible. During this time I became active in disability rights. I helped establish a disability program at the University of Missouri and assisted in its incorporation as a minority student government. In December of 1975, I received a letter from the University of Missouri informing me that I had enough credit hours to graduate and that I needed to graduate. I accidentally graduated with a B.S. in Education degree. I must have interviewed with 50 different school systems but all asked the same questions: "Can you teach from a wheelchair?" "How can you do this from a wheelchair?" "How can you do that from a wheelchair?" Six months later I returned to the University of Missouri for a masters degree. Home again. In 1979 I graduated with a Master of Education degree in secondary school administration and supervision. Searching for employment the second time was as frustrating as the first time. During this time I also became aware of the shortage of accessible housing. I began working with the Birmingham City Council to change existing city laws and ordinances to force builders to make

PAGE 190

183 a certain percentage of new apartment units fully accessible. The ordinance passed in November 1986 along with accessible parking fines, accessible public facilities, and equal access to city employment. Because of the advocacy work I was doing, Ms. Patti Sheets, Executive Director of the Center for Independent Living in Birmingham, AL, offered me a position. I worked with the Birmingham Center until 1990 when I was offered the position of Executive Director of the Briarwood Center for Independent Living in Gainesville, Florida. As Director of the Briarwood Center, I reorganized the staff, obtained several new grants, increased the income by 100%, developed intercommunity programs, developed interagency contracts, and made the Briarwood Center into one of the top three center in Florida. At the age of 40 I decided to turn my life upside down. I resigned my position, went back to school for my doctorate, and became married. What a life!

PAGE 191

I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Stuart E. Sthwartz, Chair Professor erf Special Educa I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. ieanne B. Repetto, Cochair (^Assistant Professor of Special Education I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Cary L./Reichard Professor of Special Education I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. James W. Hensel Professor of Educational Leadership

PAGE 192

I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Ronald J. Assistant Professor of Rehabilitation Counseling This dissertation was submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the College of Education and to the Graduate School and was accepted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. August 1996 fl >)c f>?/^f§ p Dean, College/fef Education Dean, Graduate School