1962/2012 Minnesota Survey of Attitudes Regarding Developmental Disabilities Quantitative Research Study PRESENTATION REPORT prepared for: The Minnesota Governor's Council on Developmental Disabilities prepared by: Project #2152 April 4 2012 Description: The Minnesota Governor's Council on Developmental Disabilities table of contents A:: project overview B:: 50-year comparison of perceptions C:: current attitudes: general population versus population with developmental disabilities D:: current situation and future outlook: - education, employment and future financial well being E:: concerns about abuse F:: perceptions of the quality of services for people with developmental disabilities G:: conclusions 3 A:: project overview Tracking Changes in Attitudes Towards People With Developmental Disabilities A survey of the Minnesota general population was conducted in 1962, to measure awareness and attitudes regarding people with developmental disabilities. The GCDD wanted to repeat the attitudinal tracking survey in 2012, to measure changes in attitudes in Minnesota over the past 50 years. Quantitative Survey of General Population of MN • A survey of attitudes among the general population of Minnesotans towards people with developmental disabilities was conducted, using comparative questions from 1962 and 2007 surveys, along with selected new questions to address the objectives. • Telephone methodology was used, with random digit dial, to provide a representative sample of Minnesota adult heads of households. • A general population sample of 285 was achieved. project overview The GCDD also wanted to obtain insights related to quality of services and supports for people with developmental disabilities, and selected quality of life issues, including: • Education: Gather opinions about the state of public education for students with developmental disabilities, as compared to the general population of students. • Employment: Provide some indications regarding the employment opportunities for people with developmental disabilities, in comparison to opportunities for the general population. • Abuse: Obtain some comparative measures of abuse (for example, physical, verbal, sexual, or financial) between the general population and people with developmental disabilities. Quantitative Survey of People with Developmental Disabilities • A separate telephone survey of households with people with developmental disabilities was conducted, using parallel questions. • Lists of Partners in Policymaking® graduates and other lists provided by GCDD were used as the primary sample source. • 190 people with developmental disabilities and/or people with family members with developmental disabilities participated in the survey. Pilot Interviews • Eight 30-minute interviews were conducted with service providers, who talked about recent developments (and set-backs) facing their constituents with developmental disabilities. • The insights gained helped fine-tune the final questionnaire for the study. Location Minneapolis/ St Paul city Suburb of cities Smaller city/town Rural Ethnicity White/Caucasian Other Refuse respondent profiles: geographic representation and ethnicity :: About half of each respondent group live in smaller cities or rural Minnesota. :: 92% of each respondent group was white/Caucasian in terms of their ethnicity. :: The two groups were very closely matched in terms of their geographic locations and ethnicity. MN General Population (n=285) Developmental Disabilities (n=190) Note: Developmental Disabilities Sample includes both people with developmental disabilities and people with family members with developmental disabilities. Age 15 - 34 35 - 44 45 - 54 55 + Gender Female Male Marital Status Single Married/Living together Separated Divorced Widowed respondent profiles: age, gender and marital status :: In the age, gender and marital status categories there is a good mix of respondents in both of the respondent groups. MN General Population (n=285) Developmental Disabilities (n=190) Note: Developmental Disabilities Sample includes both people with developmental disabilities and people with family members with developmental disabilities. Employment Status Full time Part time Unemployed looking for work Full time student Retired Income Under $35,000 $35,000 - $74,999 $75,00 - $99,999 $100,000 + respondent profiles: employment and income MN General Population (n=285) Developmental Disabilities (n=190) Note: Developmental Disabilities Sample includes both people with developmental disabilities and people with family members with developmental disabilities. :: Employment status and income levels for each respondent group are a good mix. Education Some high school or less High school graduate Trade/Vocational school Some college College graduate Post graduate work Post graduate degree respondent profiles: education and political party MN General Population (n=285) Developmental Disabilities (n=190) Note: Developmental Disabilities Sample includes both people with developmental disabilities and people with family members with developmental disabilities. :: Education levels for each respondent group are a good mix. Reminder that the developmental disabilities group may reflect a family member’s education level. :: Responses to political party affiliation are also reflect a mix. 20% or more refused to respond. Autism Cerebral Palsy Down Syndrome Brain Injury Epilepsy Other cognitive or intellectual disability Other disability Other neurological condition Unsure/Don’t know respondent profiles: developmental disabilities sample Which of the following statements best describes the nature of the disability? :: The developmental disabilities sample was a good mix of age groups: 43% were younger than 20 years of age and 57% were 20 or older. Gender was also a good mix. :: Disabilities were a mixture, with autism being the highest at 29%. 43% under 20 years of age 12 or under 13 - 19 20s – early 30s Mid 30s – late 40s 50+ Female Male Is the person with this developmental disability male or female? How old is the person with the developmental disability? 11 B:: 50 year comparison of perceptions from 1962 - 2012 Very well Fairly well Not too well Not well at all Have you ever known of a person who was thought to have a developmental disability? 1962 (n=900) How well would you say you know him / her? 2012 1962 1962 - 2012: familiarity with developmental disabilities :: In each survey, more than 80% of respondents know someone who was thought to have a developmental disability. :: More than 25% of each survey population, knows that person very well. 2012 (n=285) 2012 MN Gen. Pop. 1962 MN Gen. Pop. Agree Strongly Agree somewhat Neither agree/disagree (Don’t know - 1962) Disagree somewhat Disagree strongly 1962 - 2012: People with developmental disabilities…care …. should be cared for at home. (1962) by the immediate family, as much as possible. (2012) :: Today, 83% of the general population feel that people with developmental disabilities should be cared for by their immediate family as much as possible. :: In 1962, 71% of the general population felt that people with developmental disabilities should not be cared for at home. 2012 MN Gen. Pop. 1962 MN Gen. Pop. Agree Strongly Agree somewhat Neither agree/disagree (Don’t know - 1962) Disagree somewhat Disagree strongly 1962 - 2012: People with developmental disabilities… kept …. should be kept in institutions :: Today, more than 90% of the general population disagrees with the idea that people with developmental disabilities should be kept in institutions. :: In 1962, the general population had mixed feelings about people with developmental disabilities being cared for in institutions. 2012 MN Gen. Pop. 1962 MN Gen. Pop. Agree Strongly Agree somewhat Neither agree/disagree (Don’t know - 1962) Disagree somewhat Disagree strongly 1962 - 2012: People with developmental disabilities…look …. look different from typical people :: Today, 58% of the general population disagrees with the idea that people with developmental disabilities look different. :: In 1962, 55% of the general population felt that people with developmental disabilities do look different from typical people. 2012 MN Gen. Pop. 1962 MN Gen. Pop. Agree Strongly Agree somewhat Neither agree/disagree (Don’t know - 1962) Disagree somewhat Disagree strongly 1962 - 2012: People with developmental disabilities…lives …. can learn to live normal lives :: Today, 89% of the general population agrees that people with developmental disabilities can learn to live normal lives. :: In 1962, 64% of the general population felt that people with developmental disabilities could learn to live normal lives; while 28% disagreed. Agree Strongly Agree somewhat Neither agree/disagree (Don’t know - 1962) Disagree somewhat Disagree strongly 1962 - 2012: People with developmental disabilities…parents …. have parents with developmental disabilities :: Since the 1962 study, the level of disagreement regarding people with developmental disabilities having parents with developmental disabilities has increased. :: Since the 1962 study, the general population has gone from disagreeing somewhat to disagreeing strongly with this statement. 2012 MN Gen. Pop. 1962 MN Gen. Pop. 2012 MN Gen. Pop. 1962 MN Gen. Pop. Agree Strongly Agree somewhat Neither agree/disagree (Don’t know - 1962) Disagree somewhat Disagree strongly 1962 - 2012: People with developmental disabilities…treated ….should be treated at regular hospitals :: Today, 87% of the general population agrees that people with developmental disabilities should be treated at regular hospitals, which is similar to results (70%) of the 1962 study. 2012 MN Gen. Pop. 1962 MN Gen. Pop. Agree Strongly Agree somewhat Neither agree/disagree (Don’t know - 1962) Disagree somewhat Disagree strongly 1962 - 2012: People with developmental disabilities…driving …should be allowed to drive a car. (1962) able to obtain a driver’s license, if they pass the driver’s test. (2012) :: Today, 73% of the general population agrees that people with developmental disabilities should be able to obtain a driver’s license. :: In 1962, 75% of the general population felt that people with developmental disabilities should not be able to obtain a driver’s license. Agree Strongly Agree somewhat Neither agree/disagree (Don’t know - 1962) Disagree somewhat Disagree strongly 2012 MN Gen. Pop. 1962 MN Gen. Pop. 1962 - 2012: People with developmental disabilities…voting Should be allowed to vote, for President. (1962) to vote. (2012) :: Today, 70% of the general population agrees that people with developmental disabilities should be able to vote. :: In 1962, there were mixed feelings; 46% of the general population felt that people with developmental disabilities should be able to vote, and 48% disagreed. 21 C:: current attitudes: general population vs. population with developmental disabilities People with developmental disabilities…care :: Most respondents in each of the groups agree that people with developmental disabilities should be cared for by their immediate family and treated at regular hospitals. Statements MN General Population (n = 285) Has Family Member with / has Developmental Disabilities (n = 190) % Agree % Disagree % Agree % Disagree …. should be cared for by the immediate family, as much as possible. 83% 8% 76% 15% … should be kept in institutions 3% 93% 1% 98% …be treated at regular hospitals 69% 13% 82% 6% … look different from typical people 26% 58% 18% 74% … have parents with developmental disabilities 10% 79% 8% 87% Indicates statistically significant differences between the two populations at the 95% confidence level. People with developmental disabilities… potential :: With society’s support, there is agreement among both respondents groups that people with developmental disabilities can learn to live normal lives, and can be productive contributors to society. Statements MN General Population (n = 285) Has Family Member with / has Developmental Disabilities (n = 190) % Agree % Disagree % Agree % Disagree People with developmental disabilities can learn to live normal lives 88% 6% 91% 3% Most people with developmental disabilities are not capable of any real level of self-determination; they need someone else to make most of their daily decisions 20% 71% 12% 81% With the right education or training, most people with developmental disabilities could be very productive workers 90% 5% 93% 2% When society helps people with disabilities live to their highest potential we are all better off 96% 3% 98% 1% I have a lot of respect for companies that employ people with developmental disabilities 98% 1% 99% 1% Indicates statistically significant differences between the two populations at the 95% confidence level. People with developmental disabilities… Integration and inclusion :: On attitudes related to integration and inclusion, the general population of Minnesotans generally agrees with the population of families with a member with a developmental disability; however, the general population appears less comfortable with the idea that people with developmental disabilities should be allowed to drive a car or live on their own. Statements MN General Population (n = 285) Has Family Member with / has Developmental Disabilities (n = 190) % Agree % Disagree % Agree % Disagree …. Should be integrated into normal society as much as possible 96% 4% 98% 1% Society should do everything in its power to help those who are most vulnerable 94% 4% 98% 0% … should be included in public places or social events 97% 1% 98% 1% …. Should be allowed to vote 70% 13% 82% 6% Should be able to obtain a driver’s license if they pass the driver’s test 73% 15% 87% 4% People with developmental disabilities should not be allowed to live on their own; they need to be closely monitored 26% 61% 17% 70% Indicates statistically significant differences between the two populations at the 95% confidence level. People with developmental disabilities…care :: While a minority of Minnesotans tend to believe society/government is doing more for people with developmental disabilities than it should, they are far less likely to be found among the population of families that have a member with developmental disabilities, than among the general MN population. Statements MN General Population (n = 285) Has Family Member with / has Developmental Disabilities (n = 190) % Agree % Disagree % Agree % Disagree Parents of children with developmental disabilities cannot be expected to provide all necessary services themselves 77% 15% 92% 6% If someone has a child with a developmental disability that’s their problem. There’s really no reason why the rest of us should have to pay the extra cost of raising that child 7% 88% 2% 96% Too much tax payer money is being spent on people with developmental disabilities 14% 65% 3% 92% Indicates statistically significant differences between the two populations at the 95% confidence level. 26 26 D:: current situation and future outlook: education, employment and financial well being Better than it was two years ago About the same as it was two years ago Not as good today as it was two years ago Don’t know Will be… Better in two years than it is today About the same in two years as it is today Worse in two years as it is today Don’t know past/current/future projections: education Overall quality of education services and all other education related services that are available to… Is… 27 :: Both populations are in general agreement regarding today’s quality of education services: About half of each group feel that education services are about the same as two years ago, and one out of four believe they’re not as good as two years ago :: 42% of families with a member with a developmental disability expect that education services for students with developmental disabilities will be worse in two years than they are today. The outlook for education among the general population is more positive. all young Minnesotans students with developmental disabilities MN General Population (n=285) MN Developmental Disabilities (n=190) Indicates statistically significant differences between the two populations at the 95% confidence level. Better than it was two years ago About the same as it was two years ago Not as good today as it was two years ago Don’t know Will be… Better in two years than it is today About the same in two years as it is today Worse in two years as it is today Don’t know past/current/future projections: employment Overall quality of employment related services and opportunities for employment that are available to… Are… 28 :: Opinions regarding employment vary between the two populations: 45% of people with developmental disabilities feel employment related services are the same as two years ago, versus 32% of the general population. :: A pessimistic outlook regarding future employment opportunities for people with developmental disabilities is much more prevalent, as compared to the outlook for the MN general population. adults in MN adults with developmental disabilities MN General Population (n=285) MN Developmental Disabilities (n=190) Better off today than you were two years ago About the same today as two years ago Not as good today as two years ago Don’t know Will be… Better in two years than it is today About the same in two years as it is today Worse in two years as it is today Don’t know past/current/future projections: financial Now thinking about overall financial well being. Would you say your household and immediate family… Are… MN General Population (n=285) Developmental Disabilities (n=190) 29 :: Views on their overall financial well being vary; 41% of people with developmental disabilities feel their financial well being is not as good today as it was 2 years ago, versus 32% of the general population. :: Twenty-two percent (22%) of families with members with developmental disabilities feel they will be worse off financially in 2 years than they are today; whereas, 12% of the general population households held a negative outlook. Indicates statistically significant differences between the two populations at the 95% confidence level. 30 E:: concerns about abuse General Population (Base = 285) Developmental Disabilities Population (Base = 190) concerns about abuse 31 :: Concern about abuse is much more prevalent among families with a member with developmental disabilities, as compared to the general population of MN families. Somewhat Concerned Very Concerned 31% 62% Forms of abuse Percent Concerned Age of person w/ Developmental Disabilities <18 (n = 39) 18-34 (n = 59) 35+ (n = 19) Verbal abuse, teasing, berating, etc. 67% 73% 47% Physical abuse such as shoving, hitting, etc. 28% 58% 26% Neglect 15% 53% 42% Physical restraint and seclusion 28% 49% 16% Financial Exploitation 31% 56% 37% Inappropriate touching or other forms of sexual abuse 31% 59% 26% concerns about abuse MN General Population (n = 89) Developmental Disabilities (n = 117) :: Levels of concern over the various types of abuse are the same for both populations. :: Concern regarding all forms of abuse are highest for young adults with developmental disabilities, those between the ages of 18-34. Indicates statistically significant differences between the three age groups of people with developmental disabilities at the 95% confidence level. 33 F:: perceptions of the quality of services for people with developmental disabilities perceptions of government's / society’s overall performance in providing quality services Average MN General Population 3.2 Developmental Disabilities 2.9 1 Very Poor 2 3 Moderate (not good nor bad) 4 5 Very good All things considered, how would you rate the overall performance of government, or society as a whole, in providing needed quality services to people with developmental disabilities? :: Perceptions of overall performance of government/society are somewhat lower, on average, among families with a member with developmental disabilities, as compared to perceptions among the general population. Indicates statistically significant differences between the two populations at the 95% confidence level. FOR GENERAL POPULATION RESPONDENTS ONLY: I am now going to read a list of services designed for people with developmental disabilities. For each statement please say whether you AGREE STRONGLY…(see below) that it’s important for government to use tax payer money to assure adequate provision of each service. And if you neither agree nor disagree, just say so. FOR DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITY POPULATION RESPONDENTS ONLY: I am now going to read a list of services designed for people with developmental disabilities, which are provided by various levels of government or private entities using taxpayers’ money. Using a scale of 1-5, where 5 means Very Good Performance, and 1 means Very Poor Performance, please indicate how good of a job you believe the government, and society in general, are doing in providing each service. The middle number 3 means moderate performance neither good nor bad. AGREEMENT SCALE Agree Strongly Agree Somewhat Neither Disagree Somewhat Disagree Strongly 5 4 3 2 1 PERFORMANCE SCALE Very Good Performance Moderate Performance Very Poor Performance 5 4 3 2 1 perceptions of quality of services for people with developmental disabilities :: Parallel questions about government services – shown below – were used to gather perceptions of agreement and also performance ratings for a series of 13 statements. The 13 services rated are rank ordered based on net (positive - negative) perceptions of government/society’s performance in providing each service. Perceptions of service quality Poor Performance Good Performance Net Perception Quality health care 22% 51% 29% Individual assistants for children with developmental disabilities attending regular classes 24% 44% 20% Special education for students with developmental disabilities 26% 44% 18% Personal assistants for people with developmental disabilities to be more independent 24% 38% 14% Group/foster homes where people with developmental disabilities reside/live 24% 31% 7% Training people with developmental disabilities/advocates on how to exercise their rights 33% 34% 1% Training so people with developmental disabilities have job skills 32% 33% 1% Research to learn about the causes of developmental disabilities 29% 29% -- Abuse prevention for people with developmental disabilities 35% 28% -7% Assistants so people with developmental disabilities can work in regular businesses 38% 25% -13% Training/counseling for parents of people with developmental disabilities 42% 28% -14% Family support (Subsidies for extra costs of care for children with developmental disabilities) 42% 23% -19% Subsidies for adults with developmental disabilities to rent/purchase homes 44% 12% -32% performance of government services :: Performance ratings for these services varied widely among the families with developmental disabilities. • Access to quality health care services • Training so people with developmental disabilities have job skills • Special education services for students • with developmental disabilities • Subsidies to families to pay for extra costs of caring for children with developmental disabilities. • Provision of personal care attendants for people with developmental disabilities to enable them to live more independently, or as they choose. • Specialized education/training for people with developmental disabilities, and/or their advocates, on how to exercise rights and speak up for oneself • Et cetera ………. derived importance method uncovers key overall performance drivers Government or society’s performance providing these supports: DETERMINES: Perceptions of government or society’s overall performance in providing needed services/supports to people with developmental disabilities However, some services are more important than others. The derived importance technique uncovers the relative importance of each service. . . . . .identifying the services that are key drivers of government/ society’s overall performance. most important services -- drivers of overall performance perceptions :: Six of the 13 services evaluated were identified as the most important drivers of overall performance perceptions. Improvement on these services would have the most impact on overall performance measures. :: The best opportunities for enhancing overall perceptions are represented by the three services shown with a *** below, which have relatively low or negative net perceptions of good versus poor performance. Most Important/Key Driver Services for People with Developmental Disabilities Relative Importance Perceptions of Service Quality Poor Performance Good Performance Net Perception Access to quality health care services 22% 22% 51% 29% *** Day training services so that people with developmental disabilities can learn job skills 20% 32% 33% 1% ***Family Support (subsidies to families to pay for extra costs of care for children with developmental disabilities) 17% 42% 23% -19% Special education services for students with developmental disabilities 17% 26% 44% 18% Provisions of personal care attendants, who assist people w/ developmental disabilities, enabling more independence 15% 24% 38% 14% ***Education/training for people with developmental disabilities/advocates, on how to exercise rights 9% 33% 34% 1% TOTAL EXPLAINED VARIANCE (R2) .54 Services Designed for People with Developmental Disabilities Gen Pop % Who Agree Special education for students with developmental disabilities 93% Training so people with developmental disabilities have job skills 93% Quality health care 93% Abuse prevention for people with developmental disabilities 91% Personal assistants for people with developmental disabilities to be more independent 91% Group/foster homes where people with developmental disabilities reside/live 90% Education/training people with developmental disabilities/advocates on how to exercise their rights 89% Assistants so people with developmental disabilities can work in regular businesses 88% Training/counseling for parents of people with developmental disabilities 87% Research to learn about the causes of developmental disabilities 85% Family support… (Subsidies for extra costs of care for children with developmental disabilities) 84% Individual assistants for children with developmental disabilities attending regular classes 80% Subsidies for adults with developmental disabilities to rent/purchase homes 72% importance of government services :: A high percent of the general population “agree” that it is important for government/society to provide all 13 services; however, there is less enthusiastic support for the services towards the bottom of the list. 40 G:: conclusions From institutions to integration Attitudes regarding people with developmental disabilities have changed substantially over the past 50 years. In 2012, Minnesotans in general embraced the ideas of integrating and including people with developmental disabilities into their community and society at large. Belief in the family From 1962 to 2012, the majority opinion has shifted from disagreement to agreement, that the best way to care for people with developmental disabilities is through their immediate family, as much as possible. While most Minnesotans believe that the immediate family is in the best position to provide care, there was great support for the idea that the family cannot carry the responsibility alone. conclusions Integration benefits everyone • In 2012 Minnesotans embraced the idea that everyone is better off when people with developmental disabilities are integrated into society, and living independent and productive lives as much as possible. Employment for people with developmental disabilities is beneficial, important • Over 90% believed that, with the right education or training, people with developmental disabilities could be very productive workers. • 98% of all respondents agreed that they have a lot of respect for companies that employ people with developmental disabilities. conclusions There are less positive outlooks for education services and employment opportunities for people with developmental disabilities. • 42% of families with a member with a developmental disability expect that education services for students with developmental disabilities will be worse in two years than they are today. • The future outlook for education among the general population is more positive. • A pessimistic outlook regarding future employment opportunities for people with developmental disabilities is much more prevalent, as compared to the employment outlook for the MN general population. conclusions Perceptions of current and future financial well being differed somewhat between the general population of Minnesota households and with families with a member with developmental disabilities. • 41% of the developmental disabilities population feel their financial well being is not as good today as it was 2 years ago; whereas, - 32% of the general population feel the same. • 22% of families with a member with a developmental disability feel they will be worse off financially in 2 years than they are today; whereas, - 12% of the general population households held that negative outlook. conclusions Concern about abuse is much more prevalent among families with a member with a developmental disability (62% concerned), as compared to the general population of MN families (31% concerned). Concern regarding all forms of abuse are highest for young adults with developmental disabilities, those between the ages of 18-34. The most prevalent concern among both populations had to do with verbal abuse, teasing, berating, etc. conclusions Three of 13 services for people with developmental disabilities were identified as most important to families with a member with a developmental disability, while also showing substantial room for improvement. They were: • Day training services so that people with developmental disabilities can learn job skills. • Family support (subsidies to families to pay for extra costs of care for children with developmental disabilities) • Education/training for people with developmental disabilities/advocates on how to exercise rights Convincing government to put more resources into enhancing day training for job skills would be an "easier sell" than enhancing the other two services above, especially family support. MarketResponse International 1304 university ave. ne suite 304 minneapolis, mn 55413 t:: 612.379.1645 f:: 612.379.1659 web:: www.marketresponse.com Thank you! Tom Pearson, Managing Director t.pearson@marketresponse.com Derek Pearson, Research Analyst d.pearson@marketresponse.com Char Psihos, Project Director c.psihos@marketresponse.com Description: The Minnesota Governor's Council on Developmental