Download the Journal (PDF) - Division on Autism and ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

tional training, medical treatment, and participation in contracts (Lisi et al.). It is important to emphasize that legislation, which is created by each state, has differing levels and scope of guardianship. It might be expected, <strong>the</strong>refore, that individuals who exhibit few if any self-determination skills would need a full (plenary) guardian to make <strong>the</strong> majority or all decisions for <strong>the</strong>ir ward, in contrast to individuals displaying some selfdetermination skills who would be appointed a limited guardian to make decisions on specific issues (e.g., financial decisions) (Stancliffe, Abery, Springborg, & Elkin, 2000). It may also be expected that an individual who does not need or have a guardian exhibits self-determination skills. Essentially, individuals who have a full or partial guardian could be perceived as having no or limited capability to provide informed consent or to exercise control over <strong>the</strong>ir life in comparison to persons without guardians (Abery & Stancliffe, 1996). Interestingly, <strong>the</strong> research on <strong>the</strong> extent to which guardian appointments impact self-determination is limited, and in many instances dated. In one topic related study, Lindsey and Luckasson (1991) suggested that service providers frequently allowed or encouraged family members to make decisions as if <strong>the</strong>y were <strong>the</strong> guardian for an individual with a disability who did not legally have one appointed. This suggests that some equate disability with incompetence and limited ability. In ano<strong>the</strong>r study, Lindsey (1994) evaluated 69 adults, who had developmental disabilities capacity to give informed consent to community residential placements. In this study, it was found that <strong>the</strong>re were no significant differences regarding <strong>the</strong> ability to give informed consent between individuals who ei<strong>the</strong>r had or did not have a court appointed guardian. This brings to question <strong>the</strong> need of legal guardian appointments. In a more recent study, Stancliffe, et al. (2000) attempted to compare self-determination competencies demonstrated by adults with disabilities by using results from self-determination related scales completed by residential agency care providers. Stancliffe et al. anticipated that adults with disabilities who had no guardian would be perceived as exhibiting more self-determination competencies and control over <strong>the</strong>ir lives in comparison to 280 / Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities-September 2008 <strong>the</strong>ir peers who had guardians. Findings revealed that <strong>the</strong> level of personal control exhibited by 76 adults (ages ranging between 20.8 to 71.7, with <strong>the</strong> average age of 37.3, sd 11.6; full IQ mean scores ranging from 42.3 to 62.6) who did not have guardians were perceived by agency personnel as higher than those individuals who had ei<strong>the</strong>r partial or full guardians. The authors concluded that <strong>the</strong>ir findings “provide objective evidence that individuals with less restrictive substitute decisionmaking arrangements actually do exercise greater control over <strong>the</strong>ir lives.” (p. 417). Given <strong>the</strong> findings of <strong>the</strong> studies noted above, it is clear that more research is necessary that examines <strong>the</strong> complexity of guardianship. Fur<strong>the</strong>r, when considering IDEA, and <strong>the</strong> impact guardian appointments may or may not have on <strong>the</strong> rights of individuals, it is clear that research in <strong>the</strong> area of guardianship and its impact on self-determination is needed, particularly with respect to school-aged adults who have disabilities. Interestingly, <strong>the</strong> relationship has been rarely been examined. Within <strong>the</strong> last 10 years, Millar, and colleague, (Millar & Renzaglia, 2002; Millar, 2003) conducted studies that investigated guardianship in relation to young adults who had developmental disabilities that were in <strong>the</strong> transition phase of <strong>the</strong>ir education. By reviewing over 220 guardianship court files, it was found that guardians, as stated on court petition forms most often completed by parents, were needed because <strong>the</strong> student (a) reached <strong>the</strong> age of majority (18 years of age), and (b) had limited or no ability to make decisions. It was also found that <strong>the</strong> evidence used to “prove” “incompetence” was unclear, and that in 100% of <strong>the</strong> cases a guardian (most often a parent) was appointed. Review of annual reports submitted to courts by guardians found that <strong>the</strong> majority of wards’ “conditions” of “having limited or no capacity to make decisions” reportedly remained unchanged following guardian appointments. In a related investigation, Millar (2007) conducted focus groups with secondary special education teachers, parents (both who were legal guardians and who were not), and young adults with disabilities (both who had legal guardians and who did not) to determine <strong>the</strong>ir knowledge of guardianship and self-determination. It was learned that <strong>the</strong> par-
ticipants (a) believed <strong>the</strong>y exhibited/promoted self-determination; (b) did not recognize a disconnect between self-determination and guardianship; and (c) had limited understanding of guardianship and its alternatives. Ano<strong>the</strong>r finding was that when asked how families first learned about guardianship, students and parents shared that it was at an IEP. They shared that a teacher asked “Do you have a guardian?” when it came to that section on <strong>the</strong> IEP form. From that point, parents went to court because <strong>the</strong>y thought <strong>the</strong>y were supposed to do it and began <strong>the</strong> guardianship proceedings without truly understanding what guardian appointments entailed. Parents also reported that <strong>the</strong>y found it devastating to state <strong>the</strong>ir son or daughter was incompetent to make decisions. In hindsight, <strong>the</strong>se parents questioned whe<strong>the</strong>r a guardian was actually needed. Based on a review of guardianship and selfdetermination literature, it was learned that <strong>the</strong>re has not been a study that addressed why some school-aged young adults with developmental disabilities do not have a guardian appointed, while o<strong>the</strong>rs do. This current study, <strong>the</strong>refore, builds on <strong>the</strong> previous work as it provides an understanding of <strong>the</strong> experiences students and families encounter at <strong>the</strong> time students with developmental disabilities reach <strong>the</strong> age of majority and guardianship is considered. In a addition, a purpose of this study was to examine why or why not parents elected to become guardians, as well as examine expectations that those with a full guardian were less likely to be self-determined and experience personal control than those with no guardian. Ultimately, it was hoped that through a case study approach, an in-depth view to guardianship and self-determination would lead to increased awareness as to what guardianship is really about, and <strong>the</strong> extent to which a guardian impacts a young adult’s life. This is <strong>the</strong> first known study that explores how families, with young adults with similar educational experiences and special education school labels, came to very different conclusions about guardianship when <strong>the</strong>y attended an Individualized Education Program meeting (IEP) and it was time for <strong>the</strong> parents’ rights to potentially transfer to <strong>the</strong>ir adult child. Method Participants and Settings Kevin and Jack, both 21 years of age, were purposively identified for this study as <strong>the</strong>y both (a) had <strong>the</strong> special education eligibility label of “moderately cognitively impaired” based on results from IQ assessments, adaptive behavior scores, and onset of <strong>the</strong> disability; (b) were over <strong>the</strong> age of 18; (c) were eligible for services including vocational rehabilitation, social security income, Medicaid, Department of Mental Health - Services of People with Developmental Disabilities (DMH); and (d) had high levels of parental involvement. One essential criteria was that one individual (Jack) had a full (plenary) guardian, while one (Kevin) did not. The two young men lived in <strong>the</strong> same community, attended <strong>the</strong> same high school, and had <strong>the</strong> same teachers throughout most of <strong>the</strong>ir schooling. Essentially, <strong>the</strong>se two young men had grown up toge<strong>the</strong>r, via <strong>the</strong>ir special education, since <strong>the</strong> age of four. The suburban community where Kevin and Jack lived had a population of over 40,000. The high school enrollment approximated 500, where 90% of <strong>the</strong> student body was Caucasian. The school district had a solid reputation for preparing students for college, and also had a reputation across <strong>the</strong> region and state for promoting supported community living and job experiences for individuals who had developmental disabilities. The school’s curriculum emphasis was on <strong>the</strong> expanded development of Kevin’s and Jack’s life skills (e.g., cooking, cleaning, money use) and vocational training. Particular emphasis was placed on teaching <strong>the</strong>m to fur<strong>the</strong>r develop <strong>the</strong>ir self-advocacy and o<strong>the</strong>r related self-determination skills. At <strong>the</strong> time <strong>the</strong> study began, both were in <strong>the</strong>ir last year of public schooling where <strong>the</strong>y attended school for two to three hours a day, <strong>the</strong>n were in <strong>the</strong> community – ei<strong>the</strong>r working or recreating. Both young men, and <strong>the</strong>ir parents, had opportunities for becoming aware of <strong>the</strong> various transition services available during and after high school graduation. Opportunities to explore various jobs, options, and agency services were available to Kevin and Jack, as <strong>the</strong>y were for all students who received special Self-Determination and Guardianship / 281
Page 1 and 2: Education and Training in Developme
Page 7: Self-Determination in Relation to H
Page 11 and 12: Field notes were used to document <
Page 13 and 14: ling information, medical history a
Page 15 and 16: Home. Jack lived with his mo<strong
Page 17 and 18: we felt strongly that we needed inf
Page 19 and 20: literature, mostly to do with <stro
Page 21 and 22: tion? The national consumer survey.
Page 23 and 24: Figure 1. Proposed intersection of
Page 25 and 26: teaching in each program for five y
Page 27 and 28: also used to support and challenge
Page 29 and 30: Despite Paula’s description of an
Page 31 and 32: The paraprofessionals at Harborvill
Page 33 and 34: Figure 2. Resultant intersection of
Page 35 and 36: learning opportunities relevant to
Page 37 and 38: Bouck, E. C. (2005). Service delive
Page 39 and 40: Thirty Year Review of Safety Skill
Page 41 and 42: TABLE 1 Safety Skill Studies Refere
Page 43 and 44: TABLE 1—(Continued) Reference Par
Page 45 and 46: found differences only in efficienc
Page 47 and 48: skill for integrating persons with
Page 49 and 50: treatment of a burn) may take sever
Page 51 and 52: created video programs to teach stu
Page 53 and 54: and on-schedule behavior and decrea
Page 55 and 56: TABLE 1—(Continued) Author(s) Mor
Page 57 and 58: trums, aggression) in a four-year-o
Page 59 and 60:
(Quill, 1995). Furthe</stro
Page 61 and 62:
following picture prompt training.
Page 63 and 64:
medication, for example anticonvuls
Page 65 and 66:
TABLE 1 Number of Facilities That U
Page 67 and 68:
Snoezelen on a variety of behaviors
Page 69 and 70:
Kapell, D., Nightingale, B., Rodrig
Page 71 and 72:
ity being on the c
Page 73 and 74:
communication turns (i.e., initiati
Page 75 and 76:
Definitions of Target Behaviors and
Page 77 and 78:
student gave the p
Page 79 and 80:
Figure 2. Bob’s performance data.
Page 81 and 82:
contact increased 41% from baseline
Page 83 and 84:
Figure 5. Eric’s performance data
Page 85 and 86:
Figure 6. Jen’s performance data.
Page 87 and 88:
to students with severe disabilitie
Page 89 and 90:
The use of arm splints has been suc
Page 91 and 92:
Figure 1. Intervention results for
Page 93 and 94:
sions, he engaged in hand mouthing
Page 95 and 96:
Effects of a Reciprocal Questioning
Page 97 and 98:
4-45). Because the
Page 99 and 100:
TABLE 2 Codes of Student Question G
Page 101 and 102:
TABLE 3 Examples of Elements of a S
Page 103 and 104:
Figure 2. Self-monitoring checklist
Page 105 and 106:
TABLE 4 Example Question Words, Thi
Page 107 and 108:
Figure 4. Frequency of prompted and
Page 109 and 110:
Figure 5. Frequency of unprompted s
Page 111 and 112:
their children to
Page 113 and 114:
and lack of random selection makes
Page 115 and 116:
prehension-monitoring activities. C
Page 117 and 118:
all three participants who passed b
Page 119 and 120:
TABLE 2 Leisure Activities Used in
Page 121 and 122:
papers were removed and the
Page 123 and 124:
was 68% (range 42% to 83%). In <str
Page 125 and 126:
Teaching Test-taking Strategies to
Page 127 and 128:
ing experiences beginning at <stron
Page 129 and 130:
short essay question. Items were ei
Page 131 and 132:
plication of the t
Page 133 and 134:
Figure 2. Percent correct on <stron
Page 135 and 136:
aseline probes, data were highly va
show all

Download the Journal (PDF) - Division on Autism and ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?