1 december 2010 project :: 2082 GCDD 5-Year Plan Research Report: Survey of Individuals with Developmental Disabilities and Family Members in Minnesota Presentation of Findings prepared for: The Minnesota Governor's Council on Developmental Disabilities prepared by: MarketResponse International Project #2082 GCDD 5 Year Plan 11/10 2 table of contents 1::project overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 2::executive summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 3::sample profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 4::community & basic needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18 5::IPSII . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21 6::budget cuts and critical issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32 7::information technology segments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 8::appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 3 1:: project overview 4 project overview Background The Minnesota Governor's Council on Developmental Disabilities (GCDD) is a public entity, a division of the Minnesota Department of Administration, not a private sector business.The Council was created by Executive Order under Governor Wendell Anderson's administration in 1971 under provisions of the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act (DD Act) (P.L. 106-402).The DD Act sets out the Council's purpose, the composition of its membership, and responsibilities, including the development of a five year state plan. Presently, the GCDD has repeated the Quality of Life Assessment Survey (QOLAS), which was initially conducted in 2000 and repeated in 2005. The findings will be used as input for the next 5-Year State Plan for federal fiscal years 2012 - 2016. Research ObjectivesInformation was gathered regarding current opinions on: •The degree to which people with developmental disabilities in Minnesota believe they are independent, productive, integrated and included in the community and have self-determination. •Impact of PCA budget cuts and service reductions. •Impact and adoption of technology for individuals with disabilities. 5 project overview Methodology previous studies :: In fall of 2010, GCDD commissioned MarketResponseto conduct a study using the 2000/2005 survey as a benchmark. The 2010 survey included content similar to the 2005 study with additional questions to gather new information on topics identified from prior studies or recommended by the GCDD. contacting respondents :: Historically, it has been difficult to survey the population of people with developmental disabilities because the GCDD does not have a list of these individuals, nor can a list be obtained. Therefore, each time we survey this population, we use creative means of reaching the individuals. :: GCDD provided a list of graduates of their Partners in Policymaking® program, as well as reached out to current Partners in Policymaking® participants, Arc of Minnesota, the Autism Society of Minnesota, STAR Program, CLUES, On Eagles Wings, Advocating Change Together and other organizations. :: GCDD also provided a link to the survey on The Minnesota Governor's Council on Developmental Disabilities website http://www.mn.gov/mnddc/. An interpreter was contracted to translate surveys which needed to be completed in Spanish. survey methodology :: This survey was administered primarily via Phone-Recruit-to-Internet; paper copies were also available upon request. :: The final sample size was n=222. A total of 146 respondents completed the survey on the Internet (66% of the total respondents); 74 completed the survey by mail (33% of the total), and 2 surveys were completed by telephone. 6 2:: executive summary 7 summary of findings The 14 -18 age span is particularly challenging for people with developmental disabilities. •Most likely to indicate that their disability severely impacted their capabilities. •Most likely to believe their basic needs were not being met (even though they represented the highest income households of all groups). •Lowest ratings on several aspects of independence, self determination, integration and inclusion. Low employment rate among adults with developmental disabilities • 54% of adults, age 19 and older, have a job they get paid for; which is a 46% unemployment rate - worst case. • 22% volunteer, so 24% neither work nor volunteer. • Average work week was 17 hours (too few hours for one-third) • One-out-of-five working adults with developmental disabilities do not believe they are as productive as they could be. 8 summary of findings Many are concerned about PCA budget cuts • 42% believe they have been directly impacted. • Most often mentioned concerns were reductions in PCA hours and services for basic needs. The top five most important issues facing people with developmental disabilities over the next few years were: 1.Housing 2.Employment 3.Health care 4.Personal care services 5.Education Four segments were identified based on attitudes and use of information technology: Size of Dev. Dis. Population 1)TechSavvy Life Enhancers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26% 2)Adaptive Technology Enabled. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33% 3)Independent Technology Users. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14% 4)Technology Yearners. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27% 9 summary of findings The four attitudinal segments were described within the 2-dimensional motivational map: Expand Maintain Social Bonding Independence Tech Savvy Life Enhancers (26%) This segment appears to be the most advanced among the total population in terms of their use of technology to enhance their lives. In spite of relatively low income, nine-out-of-10 have a computer at home, and three-out-of-four have Internet access. They believe technology enhances many facets of their lives. Adaptive Technology Enabled Segment (33%) This group, the largest of the four segments, believes technology plays a vital role in helping them live with their disabilities. The most important benefits of technology are that it helps them be more included in the community and connected to other people. Independent Technology Users (14%) This smallest of the four segments reveals curious contradictions: They have the highest income, the highest penetration of computers and Internet access at home, and they are the earliest adopters of computer technology. However, they do not appear to think of information technology as a tool that can help them manage their disability or achieve higher levels of IPSII. They appear to be motivated by staying connected to each other. Technology Yearners Segment (27%) This group is the most disconnected of the four segments, with half not having Internet access at home. But they yearn for greater access to technology and help in learning how they can use it to improve their lives. Another distinguishing characteristic appears to be their location: Almost half (48%) live in greater Minnesota, the highest proportion of the four segments living outside of the Twin Cities metro area 10 conclusions and recommendations The segmentation analysis, based on attitudes and use of information technology, revealed that different people with developmental disabilities are motivated differently by various aspects of IPSII. For example, some are motivated most by the need for independence or self determination; while others seek greater degrees of integration and inclusion. The apparent existence of these opposing motivations suggests that the population of people with developmental disabilities is heterogeneous, and various segments of the population may express different needs with respect to products and services from government and/or other organizations. Results from this research study also implied that the teenage years are particularly challenging for people with developmental disabilities, which adds another layer of complexity to this already heterogeneous group of people. We recommend that we use these insights to enhance our approach to future research studies, by ensuring that we identify and include all relevant segments of the population. Depending on the topical focus of each study, segments could be defined by age, nature and severity of the disability, and/or attitudes and use of information technology, etc. The over-riding objective for all future studies should be to gain greater insights into the unique needs and perspectives of the various groups within the population; so that ultimately, government services can be efficiently designed for, and targeted to, those who need them most. 11 3:: sample profile 12 sample profile -- respondent/location Which of the following statements best describes you? n = 221 Individual with a developmental disability 17% Parent or other family member of an individual with a developmental disability 82% Friend, staff member, or advocate of an individual with a developmental disability 15% Note: Multiple responses allowed. Respondent Zip Codes Twin Cities Metro Area* 64% Greater Minnesota 36% Respondents were limited to individuals with Minnesota zip codes. There was proportionate representation from both the Twin Cities Metro Area and the rest of the state. According to the year 2000 Minnesota census, 62% of the population lives in the Twin Cities Metro Area. * The Twin Cities Metro Area is defined as the following seven counties: Anoka, Carver, Dakota, Hennepin, Ramsey, Scott and Washington. 13 sample profile -- demographics Age of individual with a developmental disability: (n = 218) Under 19 40% 19 or older 60% <14 26% 14-18 14% 19-34 41% 35-54 13% 55+ 6% I have lived in Minnesota for: 10 years or less 18% 11-15 years 17% 16-20 years 21% 21-25 years 14% 26-30 years 13% Over 30 years 17% Primary Residence With parents or relatives 66% Group home 13% Own home, with 24hr supervision 6% Other* 15% *Other includes: Assisted living, less than 24 hour supervision; nursing home; other. Income of household with an individual with a developmental disability: Indicates statistically significant difference from other values in row at the 90% confidence level (Base) Total (222) < $10,000 28% $10,000-$34,999 18% $35,000-$74,999 18% $75,000 or more 17% < 14 (57) < $10,000 14% $10,000-$34,999 16% $35,000-$74,999 30% $75,000 or more 20% 14-18 (31) < $10,000 13% $10,000-$34,999 7% $35,000-$74,999 33% $75,000 or more 30% 19-34 (90) < $10,000 36% $10,000-$34,999 15% $35,000-$74,999 13% $75,000 or more 16% 35-54 (28) < $10,000 39% $10,000-$34,999 28% $35,000-$74,999 -- $75,000 or more 8% 55+ (12) < $10,000 50% $10,000-$34,999 42% $35,000-$74,999 8% $75,000 or more -- 14 Ethnicity of individual with a developmental disability sample profile -- ethnicity n=222 White, European(180) 81% Black, African American(26) 12% American Indian, Native American or Alaska Native (4) 2% Hispanic, Latino (8) 4% Asian (3) 1% Other (9) 4% Actual Minnesota Population* White, European 89% Black, African American 3.5% American Indian, Native American or Alaska Native 1.1% Hispanic, Latino 2.9% Asian 2.9% Other 3% Note: Multiple responses allowed. *According to 2000 Minnesota Census data. 15 sample profile -- impact of disability :: Respondents in the 14 -18 age group were more likely than all others to indicate that their disability severely impacted various capabilities. This is the first indication from this research (more to follow) that this age span is particularly challenging for people with developmental disabilities. (n=) At what level does your developmental disability impact your… (Base) Total(218) Ability to be economically self-sufficient Severely Impacts 67% Moderately Impacts 19% Slightly Impacts 10% Has No Impact 5% Ability to live independently Severely Impacts 64% Moderately Impacts 20% Slightly Impacts 9% Has No Impact 8% Ability to learn Severely Impacts 51% Moderately Impacts 34% Slightly Impacts 10% Has No Impact 6% Ability to take care of yourself Severely Impacts 45% Moderately Impacts 33% Slightly Impacts 15% Has No Impact 8% Ability to use receptive and expressive language Severely Impacts 36% Moderately Impacts 29% Slightly Impacts 21% Has No Impact 15% Ability to be mobile Severely Impacts 29% Moderately Impacts 20% Slightly Impacts 20% Has No Impact 32% Percent Severely Impacts, by Age of Person with Disability <14 (57) Ability to be economically self-sufficient 60% Ability to live independently 68% Ability to learn 58%% Ability to take care of yourself 44% Ability to use receptive and expressive language 39% Ability to be mobile 23% 14 -18 (31) Ability to be economically self-sufficient 87% Ability to live independently 74% Ability to learn 71% Ability to take care of yourself 61% Ability to use receptive and expressive language 55% Ability to be mobile 29% 19 -34 (90) Ability to be economically self-sufficient 70% Ability to live independently 64% Ability to learn 46% Ability to take care of yourself 45% Ability to use receptive and expressive language 35% Ability to be mobile 34% 35 -54 (28) Ability to be economically self-sufficient 54% Ability to live independently 46% Ability to learn 37% Ability to take care of yourself 29% Ability to use receptive and expressive language 18% Ability to be mobile 21% 55 + (12) Ability to be economically self-sufficient 67% Ability to live independently 58% Ability to learn 33% Ability to take care of yourself 50% Ability to use receptive and expressive language 17% Ability to be mobile 33% ^ v Indicates statistically significant difference from other values in row at the 95% confidence level 16 Which of the following statements best describes the nature of the disability? Autisn Spectrum Disorder 30% Epilepsy 15% Cerebral Palsy 15% Other neurological condition 14% Mental illness 14% Another physical condition* 11% Brain injury 10% Blindness, deafness 10% Unsure/Don't know 2% Other intellectual or developmental disability 41% Other disability 27% *Another physical condition that substantially limits one or more basic physical activities such as walking, climbing stairs, reaching, lifting or carrying. :: From the list shown here many respondents checked more than one disability to describe their condition. The most often selected disabilities were Autism Spectrum Disorder and other intellectual or developmental disability. 17 4:: community & basic needs 18 my community Disagree Strongly Disagree Somewhat Neither Agree Somewhat Agree Strongly :: People with developmental disabilities appear to have better feelings about their communities as they get older. Percent of respondents who agree or disagree… (Base)(222) All things considered, my community is a good place for people with developmental disabilities. agree 74% disagree 18% Age of Person with Developmental Disability <14 (57) 63% 14-18 (31) 71% 19-34 (90) 78% 35-54 (28) 82% 55+ (12) 83% My community is becoming a better place for individuals with developmental disabilities. agree 70% disagree 16% Age of Person with Developmental Disability <14 (57) 60% 14-18 (31) 74% 19-34 (90) 72% 35-54 (28) 79% 55+ (12) 83% Indicates statistically significant difference from other values in row at the 95% confidence level 19 basic needs Disagree Strongly Disagree Somewhat Neither Agree Somewhat Agree Strongly :: Even though they report having the highest income, relative to the other age groups (see slide 13), the 14 -18 year old age group was least likely to believe their basic needs were being met. Percent of respondents who agree or disagree… (Base) Total (n = 221) I feel safe in the neighborhood where I live Agree88% Disagree6% Age of Person with Disability Percent who agree <14 (57) 75% 14-18 (31) 77% 19-34 (90) 98% 35-54 (28) 89% 55+ (12) 100% I feel comfortable in the building or house where I live, it feels like home Agree 86% Disagree 5% Age of Person with Disability Percent who agree <14 (57) 77% 14-18 (31) 74% 19-34 (90) 92% 35-54 (28) 93% 55+ (12) 83% I have access to the healthcare I need Agree 82% Disagree 11% Age of Person with Disability Percent who agree <14 (57) 81% 14-18 (31) 68% 19-34 (90) 91% 35-54 (28) 71% 55+ (12) 92% I know what to do if my health or safety is in jeopardy Agree 50% Disagree 36% Age of Person with Disability Percent who agree <14 (57) 39% 14-18 (31) 26% 19-34 (90) 52% 35-54 (28) 75% 55+ (12) 75% I have enough money to live on Agree 41% Disagree 40% Age of Person with Disability Percent who agree <14 (57) 35% 14-18 (31) 26% 19-34 (90) 46% 35-54 (28) 50% 55+ (12) 58% My future will be secure, even if something happens to my parents/current staff member, friend, or advocate Agree 41% Disagree 48% Age of Person with Disability Percent who agree <14 (57) 32% 14-18 (31) 26% 19-34 (90) 53% 35-54 (28) 32% 55+ (12) 42% Indicates statistically significant difference from other values in row at the 95% confidence level 20 5:: IPSII 21 IPSII defined What is IPSII? -- Independence, Productivity, Self Determination, Integration and Inclusion As we stated in the background section of this report: The GCDD's mission is to assure that individuals with developmental disabilities receive the necessary support to achieve increased independence, productivity, self determination, integration and inclusion (IPSII) in the community. In 2000, this list consisted of only Independence, Productivity, Integration and Inclusion (IPII), i.e. Self Determination was added to the federal law later that year. Since the GCDD was responsible for measuring these results, the best way to determine its success was to ask people directly using qualitative and quantitative methods. Federal law defines these terms; however, they were complex and did not represent the voice of the customer. Therefore, our first step in 2000, was to interview individuals with developmental disabilities and their families to get an understanding of their situation and what these broader terms, IPII, might mean to them in everyday life. Through these interviews we developed a list of statements to help describe the larger concepts of IPII using the voice of the customer. These statements were then verified in the 2000 study, and reduced to a smaller set of drivers using statistical regression analysis. The smaller set of statements was used for 2005 and 2010 surveys. Self Determination was added after the 2000 study and we did not have the opportunity to obtain the voice of the customer on this concept. The idea of Self Determination was somewhat overlapping with the original IPII terms. However, we saw it as partly a subset and partly an expansion of the concept of Independence. We also added a list of "basic needs" statements to the survey. These statements covered aspects of an individual's situation that we felt were not covered by the IPII concepts - such as having enough money to live on. 22 IPSII defined What is IPSII? --Independence, Productivity, Self Determination, Integration and Inclusion Below is a description of how we defined IPSII for this study: Independence: Major aspects :: mobility:: privacy :: information access :: housing options (suitable, near family, etc.) :: choice of staff / provider Productivity: Major aspects:: productivity at home v. job / volunteering:: responsibility:: skill development:: recognition Self Determination: Major aspects :: self expression :: control of daily schedule :: goal setting / problem solving / decision making :: spending money (own, public funding, etc.) :: control over where and with whom one lives Integration: Major aspects :: community resources :: support :: social opportunities :: rights to equality :: acceptance Inclusion: Major aspects:: treated with respect / as an equal :: develop meaningful relationships Independence v. Self Determination These concepts are somewhat overlapping; however, we define Independence as more related to access, privacy and having options; while we see Self Determination as the ability to make one's own decisions. Integration v. Inclusion These concepts are somewhat overlapping; however, we define Integration as having the appropriate rights and resources within a community - meaning that the community is structured to support the individual; while we see Inclusion as more of a feeling of how one is treated. 23 independence Disagree Strongly Disagree Somewhat Neither Agree Somewhat Agree Strongly :: As expected adults scored higher than younger people on several attributes related to independence. Younger groups scored particularly lower on aspects of privacy. Percent of respondents who agree or disagree… (base) Total Agree(221) Disagree(221) I can get to where I want to go (even if someone helps me) Agree 82% Disagree 9% Age of Person with Disability Percent who agree <14 (57) 77% 14-18 (31) 61% 19-34 (90) 90% 35-54 (28) 89% 55+ (12) 92% I can meet with people in private, when I want Agree 56% Disagree 16% Age of Person with Disability Percent who agree <14 (57) 26% 14-18 (31) 26% 19-34 (90) 76% 35-54 (28) 86% 55+ (12) 83% I can be alone and have privacy, when I feel I need it Agree 71% Disagree 13% Age of Person with Disability Percent who agree <14 (57) 58% 14-18 (31) 58% 19-34 (90) 78% 35-54 (28) 86% 55+ (12) 83% Only people who are allowed to know my personal information have access to it Agree 75% Disagree 11% Age of Person with Disability Percent who agree <14 (57) 68% 14-18 (31) 65% 19-34 (90) 77% 35-54 (28) 86% 55+ (12) 92% Finding a suitable housing option for me is possible Agree 51% Disagree 23% Age of Person with Disability Percent who agree <14 (57) 39% 14-18 (31) 26% 19-34 (90) 58% 35-54 (28) 68% 55+ (12) 83% I can live near the people who are important to me Agree 67% Disagree 15% Age of Person with Disability Percent who agree <14 (57) 61% 14-18 (31) 55% 19-34 (90) 72% 35-54 (28) 68% 55+ (12) 75% I choose the staff who work with me Agree 37% Disagree 32% Age of Person with Disability Percent who agree <14 (57) 26% 14-18 (31) 42% 19-34 (90) 44% 35-54 (28) 32% 55+ (12) 25% I choose the provider who assists me Agree 43% Disagree 21% Age of Person with Disability Percent who agree <14 (57) 32% 14-18 (31) 39% 19-34 (90) 51% 35-54 (28) 39% 55+ (12) 58% Indicates statistically significant difference from other values in row at the 95% confidence level 24 self-determination Disagree Strongly Disagree Somewhat Neither Agree Somewhat Agree Strongly :: As expected, adults experienced the highest degree of self-determination, especially those between 35-54. Overall individuals with disabilities felt most in control of their appearance and personal environment, and least in control of public funds. Percent of respondents who agree or disagree… (base) Total Agree (221) Disagree (221) I can decorate or arrange my living area how I like it (even if someone helps me) Agree 70% Disagree 11% Age of Person with Disability Percent who agree <14 (57) 49% 14-18 (31) 65% 19-34 (90) 82% 35-54 (28) 79% 55+ (12) 75% I have control over how I present myself, what I wear/hairstyle, etc. (even if someone helps me) Agree 80% Disagree 6% Age of Person with Disability Percent who agree <14 (57) 61% 14-18 (31) 74% 19-34 (90) 88% 35-54 (28 )89% 55+ (12) 100% I have control over my daily schedule Agree 59% Disagree 22% Age of Person with Disability Percent who agree <14 (57) 33% 14-18 (31) 42% 19-34 (90) 69% 35-54 (28) 89% 55+ (12) 75% I can set outcomes (goals) for myself Agree59% Disagree18% Age of Person with Disability Percent who agree <14 (57) 37% 14-18 (31) 29% 19-34 (90) 70% 35-54 (28) 86% 55+ (12) 83% I can decide how I spend my money Agree 56% Disagree 18% Age of Person with Disability Percent who agree <14 (57) 32% 14-18 (31) 42% 19-34 (90) 62% 35-54 (28) 86% 55+ (12) 83% I can make decisions that will affect my future Agree 52% Disagree 20% Age of Person with Disability Percent who agree <14 (57) 26% 14-18 (31 32% 19-34 (90) 62% 35-54 (28) 75% 55+ (12) 75% I solve my own problems (even if someone helps me) Agree 56% Disagree 24% Age of Person with Disability Percent who agree <14 (57) 44% 14-18 (31) 36% 19-34 (90) 58% 35-54 (28) 86% 55+ (12) 75% I can decide how public funds are spent for my services and support Agree 26% Disagree 37% Age of Person with Disability Percent who agree <14 (57) 11% 14-18 (31) 26% 19-34 (90) 31% 35-54 (28) 46% 55+ (12) 25% I have control over who I live with Agree 39% Disagree 26% Age of Person with Disability Percent who agree <14 (57) 14% 14-18 (31) 16% 19-34 (90) 50% 35-54 (28) 64% 55+ (12) 58% Indicates statistically significant difference from other values in row at the 95% confidence level 25 integration Disagree Strongly Disagree Somewhat Neither Agree Somewhat Agree Strongly :: Age was less of a differentiator for Integration, although older respondents did tend to feel somewhat more comfortable outside of their immediate communities, and felt they had more friends without developmental disabilities. Teenagers tended to feel somewhat less Integrated than younger children. Percent of respondents who agree or disagree… (base) Total Agree(221) Disagree (221) Resources that I need are available in my community Agree 63% Disagree 32% Age of Person with Disability Percent who agree <14 (57) 60% 14-18 (31) 52% 19-34 (90) 67% 35-54 (28) 70% 55+ (12) 67% The personal support that I require is available in my community Agree 66% Disagree 24% Age of Person with Disability Percent who agree <14 (57) 56% 14-18 (31) 42% 19-34 (90) 77% 35-54 (28) 78% 55+ (12) 67% I have opportunities to do things with people my age Agree 61% Disagree 33% Age of Person with Disability Percent who agree <14 (57) 61% 14-18 (31) 55% 19-34 (90) 58% 35-54 (28) 74% 55+ (12) 75% My rights to equality are acknowledged by my community Agree 54% Disagree 33% Age of Person with Disability Percent who agree <14 (57) 54% 14-18 (31) 36% 19-34 (90) 52% 35-54 (28) 74% 55+ (12) 67% I have friends who do not have developmental disabilities Agree 63% Disagree 28% Age of Person with Disability Percent who agree <14 (57) 67% 14-18 (31) 52% 19-34 (90) 58% 35-54 (28) 70% 55+ (12) 92% I feel comfortable going outside my immediate community Agree 65% Disagree 22% Age of Person with Disability Percent who agree <14 (57) 56% 14-18 (31) 52% 19-34 (90) 67% 35-54 (28) 82% 55+ (12) 83% Indicates statistically significant difference from other values in row at the 95% confidence level 26 inclusion Disagree Strongly Disagree Somewhat Neither Agree Somewhat Agree Strongly :: Overall the oldest group (55+) feels the highest levels of Inclusion, compared to the other age groups. Percent of respondents who agree or disagree… (base) Total Agree(221) Disagree (221) People without a disability treat me as an equal Agree 48% Disagree 43% Age of Person with Disability Percent who agree <14 (57) 46% 14-18 (31) 32% 19-34 (90) 44% 35-54 (28) 63% 55+ (12) 75% People treat me with respect Agree 72% Disagree 21% Age of Person with Disability Percent who agree <14 (57) 65% 14-18 (31) 60% 19-34 (90) 71% 35-54 (28) 93% 55+ (12) 92% I have opportunities to develop meaningful relationships with people who do not have a developmental disability Agree 55% Disagree 35% Age of Person with Disability Percent who agree <14 (57) 53% 14-18 (31) 45% 19-34 (90) 51% 35-54 (28) 63% 55+ (12) 83% I have opportunities to develop meaningful relationships with people who do have a developmental disability Agree 73% Disagree 16% Age of Person with Disability Percent who agree <14 (57) 61% 14-18 (31) 77% 19-34 (90) 74% 35-54 (28) 78% 55+ (12) 100% Indicates statistically significant difference from other values in row at the 95% confidence level 27 ISII summary -- potential :: As was the case five years ago, Inclusion is the most difficult of these four dimensions of ISII to achieve for people with developmental disabilities. While there's an understandable relationship between age, and Independence and Self Determination; we see that Integration and Inclusion are most elusive to teenagers, aged 14-18. I have as much (ISII) as I can have given my disability. Percent of respondents who agree or disagree… (Base) Total (221) Independence agree 71% disagree 16% Self Determination agree 66% disagree 16% Integration agree 61% disagree 35% Inclusion agree 50% disagree 40% Disagree Strongly Disagree Somewhat Neither Agree Somewhat Agree Strongly Independence Age of Person with Developmental Disability <14 (57) 51% 14-18 (31) 52% 19-34 (90) 80% 35-54 (28) 86% 55+ (12) 100% Self Determination Age of Person with Developmental Disability <14 (57) 58% 14-18 (31) 45% 19-34 (90) 72% 35-54 (28) 75% 55+ (12) 83% Integration Age of Person with Developmental Disability <14 (57) 65% 14-18 (31) 42% 19-34 (90) 57% 35-54 (28) 74% 55+ (12) 75% Inclusion Age of Person with Developmental Disability <14(57) 48% 14-18 (31) 36% 19-34 (90) 49% 35-54 (28) 59% 55+ (12) 83% Indicates statistically significant difference from other values in row at the 95% confidence level 28 ISII summary -- satisfaction :: Teenagers 14-18 years old were the least satisfied with their levels of ISII, when compared to all other age groups. I am satisfied with my level of (ISII). Disagree Strongly Disagree Somewhat Neither Agree Somewhat Agree Strongly Percent of respondents who agree or disagree… (Base) Total (221) Independence agree 55% disagree 26% Age of Person with Developmental Disability <14 (57) 37 14-18 (31) 29 19-34 (90) 69 35-54 (28) 68 55+ (12) 75 Self Determination agree 59% disagree 15% Age of Person with Developmental Disability <14 (57) 47 14-18 (31) 42 19-34 (90) 64 35-54 (28) 71 55+ (12) 83 Integration agree 54% disagree 32% Age of Person with Developmental Disability <14 (57) 46 14-18 (31) 36 19-34 (90) 57 35-54 (28) 67 55+ (12) 83 Inclusion agree 50% disagree 37% Age of Person with Developmental Disability <14 (57) 41 14-18 (31) 29 19-34 (90) 52 35-54 (28) 67 55+ (12) 83 Indicates statistically significant difference from other values in row at the 95% confidence level For respondents over 19 years of age, do you work or volunteer outside your home? (Base) Age of Person with Developmental Disability Adults, age 19 + (130) Most Employable age 19-54 (118) 19-34 (90) 35-54 (28) 55+ (12) Yes, I have a job I get paid for 56% 53% 63% 42% Yes, I volunteer my time 22% 23% 19% 25% No 23% 24% 19% 33% 29 employment/volunteer IF WORK OR VOLUNTEER OUTSIDE HOME: On average, how many hours do you work or volunteer each week? (Base) Total 19 + (97) 19-34 (67) 35-54 (22) 55 + (8) Mean hours: 17 17 18 21 :: The unemployment rate among adults with developmental disabilities is about 46% (worst case scenario). Those employed work an average of 17 hours per week, which one-out-of-three indicate to be too few hours. 30 Percent of respondents who agree or disagree… employment/volunteer Disagree Strongly Disagree Somewhat Neither Agree Somewhat Agree Strongly I have been improving my skills I am rewarded for the things I do I am appropriately challenged by my responsibilities I am as productive as I can be given my developmental disability I am satisfied with my current level of productivity Age of Person with Developmental Disability 19-34 (67) 35-54 (22) 55+ (8) 90% 96% 88% 85% 82% 88% 75% 91% 88% 70% 86% 100% 67% 77% 88% Indicates statistically significant difference from other values in row at the 95% confidence level :: Approximately one-out-of five working adults with developmental disabilities do not believe they are as productive as they could be given their disability, and they are not satisfied with their current level of productivity. These findings indicate that there may be an opportunity for increased employment and productivity among the population of people with developmental disabilities. (Base) Total 19+ (97) 6:: budget cuts & critical issues 32 58% 42% Yes No Percent saying Yes <14 30% 14-18 58% 19-34 46% 35-54 44% 55+ 33% Have PCA budget cuts and service reductions directly impacted you? If YES: In which areas did PCA budget cuts and service reductions affect you? (Check all that apply) PCA services n = 221 Social connection 74% Impacted my family 67% Independence 64% Integration 64% Inclusion 64% Basic Needs 59% Productivity *(no difference by employment status) 34%* Self-determination 29% Education *(47% for <14 years old) 20%* n = 92 n = 87 If YES: Please describe how you have been impacted? (Open ended response) Not enough PCA hours 37% Unable to receive as many services for basic needs 24% Can't get out into community 16% Financial impact on family 10% Reduction/elimination of waiver/grant 9% More staff turnover 8% Difficult to learn to be independent 6% Parents have to help more 6% Less able to pursue work options 2% Unqualified PCA staff 2% Family has to apply for government programs 2% Family member has to go back to work to help out 1% Not getting help in a timely manner/long waits 1% Lower quality of life 1% 33 most critical issues :: In two different surveys, people with developmental disabilities and providers - both groups selected the same top three issues facing Minnesotans with developmental disabilities in the next years -housing, employment and health care. Housing Employment Health care Personal care services Education Independence Funding Budget cuts Employment Health care Housing Quality assurance Self-advocacy Education Recreation Early intervention or childcare People with Development Disabilities (n=222) Providers Survey (n = 66) In a separate survey, providers were asked to identify the three most critical issues that Minnesotans with developmental disabilities will face in the next years. We felt it was important to show that the results of the two surveys were very similar. 7:: information technology segments Do Not have a computer at home Have a home computer, but no Internet access Have a computer and Internet access at home 35 computer and internet access at home :: While 83% report having a working computer in their household, almost all (97%) of those in the 14-18 year age bracket have a home computer. The penetration of having a computer and Internet access at home is about two-thirds of Minnesota households with a family member with a developmental disability. This leaves about 32% of Minnesota households who do not have access to the Internet from a home computer. Is there a working computer in your household? Total sample (n = 222) Yes 83% No 17% For how long has there been a working computer in your household?(Base:n = 184) Less than 1 year. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1 -2 years. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3 -5 years. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 6 -10 years. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 More than 10 years. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 (Base: n = 222) (Base) Age of Person with Developmental Disability Annual Household Income <14 (57) 14-18 (31) 19-34 (90) 35-54 (28) 55+ (12) < $10K (61) $10-$34K (40) $35-74K (39) $75K+ (36) Yes 84% 97% 84% 68% 75% 74% 78% 100% 97% Indicates statistically significant difference from other values in row at the 95% confidence level 36 technology segmentation analysis The survey questionnaire included several statements reflecting a variety of attitudes related to the use of, interest in, and benefits sought from information technologies. The respondents indicated the degree to which they agreed or disagreed with each statement using this scale: Disagree Strongly 1 Disagree Somewhat 2 Neither 3 Agree Somewhat 4 Agree Strongly 5 A multivariate statistical analysis procedure was used to group like-minded people together based on consistency of answers across the statements. This analysis uncovered four different attitudinal segments: 1) Tech Savvy Life Enhancers 2) Adaptive Technology Enabled 3) Independent Technology Users 4) Technology Yearners 37 technology segmentation analysis The four attitudinal segments will be displayed within the 2-dimensional motivational map: Expand Maintain Social Bonding Independence The vertical axis differentiates those who wish to expandtheir understanding and use of technologies, from those more reluctant, or unable, to make that effort to change. The horizontal axis differentiates those who are motivated by the need to bond with other people and social groups, from those who seek a feeling of independence or self reliance. 38 four technology segments Expand Maintain Social Bonding Independence Tech Savvy Life Enhancers(26%) Adaptive Technology Enabled (33%) Technology Yearners (27%) Independent Technology Users (14%) 39 tech savvy life enhancers Tech Savvy Life Enhancers (26%) This segment appears to be the most advanced among the total population, in terms of their use of technology to enhance their lives. In spite of relatively low income, nine-out-of-10 have a computer at home, and three-out-of-four have Internet access. They believe technology enhances many facets of their lives. Their defining attitudes, which they tended to agree with more strongly than all others, were as follows: • Technology helps me to be more independent and self sufficient. • I use technology to help me stay more informed about what's happening in the world. • Technology helps me to be more productive. • I use technology to express myself and my own creativity. • Technology helps me to have deeper and more meaningful relationships with other people. • Technology helps me to be my own advocate. • I use technology to help me stay on schedule. • I use the Internet to obtain information about my disability. Income < $10,000 38% $10,000 - $34,999 20% $35,000 - $74,999 16% $75,000+ 14% Don't Know/Refused 13% Expand Maintain Social Bonding Independence Tech Savvy Life Enhancers(26%) Adaptive Technology Enabled (33%) Technology Yearners (27%) Independent Technology Users (14%) Average age of person with dev. dis. . . . . . . . . 24 (No differences between segments) Have a computer at home. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89% Have Internet access at home. . . . . . . . . . . . . 75% Have a job they get paid for. . . . . . . . . . . . . 25% (Lowest of all segments) Are Partners in Policymaking graduates . . . . . 43% (Second highest of the four segments) Live in: Twin Cities metro area. . . . . . . . . . . . 75% (Highest of all four segments) Greater Minnesota. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25% 40 adaptive technology enabled Adaptive Technology Enabled Segment (33%) This group, the largest of the four segments, believes technology plays a vital role in helping them live with their disabilities. Over half (58%) are Partners in Policymaking graduates (highest of all segments). The most important benefits of technology is that it helps them be more included in the community, and connected to other people. Their defining attitudes, which they tended to agree with more strongly than all others, were as follows: • Technology plays a vital role in helping me live with my disability. • I am more included in community activities because of my access to, and use of technology. • I use technology devices which have been adapted to meet my specific needs. • Technology helps keep me safe, because I am always connected to someone who can assist. Income (Highest of all segments) < $10,000 27% $10,000 - $34,999 19% $35,000 - $74,999 9% $75,000+ 19% Expand Maintain Social Bonding Independence Tech Savvy Life Enhancers (26%) Adaptive Technology Enabled (33%) Independent Technology Users (14%) Technology Yearners (27%) Average age of person with dev. dis. . . . . . . . . 24 (No differences between segments) Have a computer at home. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81% Have Internet access at home. . . . . . . . . . . . . 73% Have a job they get paid for. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38% Are Partners in Policymaking graduates . . . . . 58% (Highest of the four segments) Live in: Twin Cities metro area. . . . . . . . . . . . 67% Greater Minnesota. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33% 41 isolated technology users Independent Technology Users Segment (14%) This smallest of the four segments reveals curious contradictions. They have the highest income, the highest penetration of computers and Internet access at home, and they are the earliest adopters of computer technology. However, they do not appear to think of information technology as a tool that can help them manage their disability or achieve higher levels of IPSII. They appear to be motivated by staying connected to each other. Their defining attitudes, which they tended to agree with more strongly than all others, were as follows: • Compared to most other households, we are usually one of the first to try new technology devices. • Our family is more connected to each other because of our use of technology. • I believe technology has helped us to be more socially connected. Income (Highest of all segments) < $10,000 10% $10,000-$34,999 13% $35,000-$74,999 35% $75,000+ 26% Expand Maintain Social Bonding Independence Tech Savvy Life Enhancers (26%) Adaptive Technology Enabled (33%) Independent Technology Users (14%) Technology Yearners (27%) Average age of person with dev. dis. . . . . . . . . 23 (No differences between segments) Have a computer at home. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97% (Highest of the four segments) Have Internet access at home. . . . . . . . . . . . . 84% (Highest of the four segments) Have a job they get paid for. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36% Are Partners in Policymaking graduates . . . . . 36% Live in: Twin Cities metro area. . . . . . . . . . . . 61% Greater Minnesota. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39% 42 technology yearners Technology Yearners Segment (27%) This group is the most disconnected of the four segments, with half not having Internet access at home. But they yearn for greater access to technology and half in learning how they can use it to improve their lives. Another distinguishing characteristic appears to be their location: Almost half of this segment (48%) live in greater Minnesota, the highest proportion of the four segments living outside of the Twin Cities metro area. Their defining attitudes, which they tended to agree with more strongly than all others, were as follows: • We would use technology a lot more than we do now if it were more affordable. • It seems that other people are using more technology products than we are. • We would like to learn more about the ways in which technology devices could help us live better. • I believe we would be better off if new technology devices were more accessible to us. Income < $10,000 29% $10,000-$34,999 16% $35,000-$74,999 21% $75,000+ 10% Expand Maintain Social Bonding Independence Tech Savvy Life Enhancers(26%) Adaptive Technology Enabled (33%) Independent Technology Users (14%) Technology Yearners (27%) Average age of person with dev. dis. . . . . . . . . 24 (No differences between segments) Have a computer at home. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72% (Lowest of the four segments) Have Internet access at home. . . . . . . . . . . . . 50% (Lowest of the four segments) Have a job they get paid for. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34% Are Partners in Policymaking graduates . . . . . 26% (Lowest of the four segments) Live in: Twin Cities metro area. . . . . . . . . . . . 52% Greater Minnesota. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48% (Highest of the four segments) 43 ISII potential – by technology segment :: The Adaptive Technology Enablers were more likely to believe they have achieved as much ISII as their disabilities would allow, while the Technology Yearners were least likely to believe they have reached their ISII potential, especially regarding Integration and Inclusion. The Adaptive Technology Enablers appear to be further along on Inclusion than all three of the other segments. (Base) Total (219) I have as much (ISII) as I can have given my disability. Percent of respondents who agree or disagree… Disagree Strongly Disagree Somewhat Neither Agree Somewhat Agree Strongly Independence agree 71% disagree 16% Self Determination agree 66% disagree 16% Integration agree 61% disagree 35% Inclusion agree 50% disagree 40% Technology Segments Tech Savvy Life Enhance (56) Adap. Tech Enabled (74) Independent Tech Users (31) Technology Yearners (58) Tech Savvy Life Enhance (56) Independence 68% Self Determination 74% Integration 74% Inclusion 66% Adap. Tech Enabled (74) Independence 70% Self Determination 69% Integration 71% Inclusion 57% Independent Tech Users (31) Independence 61% Self Determination 70% Integration 60% Inclusion 48% Technology Yearners (58) Independence 48% Self Determination 60% Integration 47% Inclusion 41% Indicates statistically significant difference from other values in row at the 95% confidence level 44 ISII satisfaction – by technology segment Disagree Strongly Disagree Somewhat Neither Agree Somewhat Agree Strongly :: The Adaptive Technology Enabled segment was most satisfied, and the Technology Yearners were least satisfied, with their current levels of ISII. I am satisfied with my level of (ISII). Percent of respondents who agree or disagree… (Base) Total(219) Independence Agree 71% Disagree 16% Self Determination Agree 66% Disagree 16% Integration Agree 61% Disagree 35% Inclusion Agree 50% Disagree 40% Technology Segments Disagree Strongly Disagree Somewhat Neither Agree Somewhat Agree Strongly Tech Savvy Life Enhance (56) Independence 59% Self Determination 60% Integration 58% Inclusion 43% Adap. Tech Enabled (74) Independence 63% Self Determination 70% Integration 48% Inclusion 47% Independent Tech Users (31) Independence 52% Self Determination 70% Integration 37% Inclusion 45% Technology Yearners (58) Independence 45% Self Determination 60% Integration 50% Inclusion 41% Indicates statistically significant difference from other values in row at the 95% confidence level 45 integration Disagree Strongly Disagree Somewhat Neither Agree Somewhat Agree Strongly :: The Adapted Technology Enabled segment is the most interesting, in terms of its success in achieving higher levels of integration, compared to all other segments. As their name implies, the Isolated Technology Users revealed the lowest levels on attributes serveral of integration. Percent of respondents who agree with each statement(base) Technology Segments Tech Savvy Life Enhance (56) Adap. Tech Enabled (74) Independent Tech Users (31) Technology Yearners (58) Resources that I need are available in my community Tech Savvy Life Enhance (56) 55% Adap. Tech Enabled (74) 71% Independent Tech Users (31) 43% Technology Yearners (58) 69% I have opportunities to do things with people my age Tech Savvy Life Enhance (56) 54% Adap. Tech Enabled (74) 73% Independent Tech Users (31) 37% Technology Yearners (58) 64% My rights to equality are acknowledged by my community Tech Savvy Life Enhance (56) 55% Adap. Tech Enabled (74) 65% Independent Tech Users (31) 33% Technology Yearners (58) 48% I have friends who do not have developmental disabilities Tech Savvy Life Enhance (56) 66% Adap. Tech Enabled (74) 74% Independent Tech Users (31) 40% Technology Yearners (58) 59% Indicates statistically significant difference from other values in row at the 95% confidence level 46 inclusion :: The Adapted Technology Enabled segment was also further along on most attributes of Inclusion; whereas, the Isolated Tech Users indicated the lowest levels of Inclusion, compared to all other segments. Disagree Strongly Disagree Somewhat Neither Agree Somewhat Agree Strongly Percent of respondents who agree with each statement (base) Technology Segments Tech Savvy Life Enhance (56) Adap. Tech Enabled (74) Independent Tech Users (31) Technology Yearners (58) People without a disability treat me as an equal Tech Savvy Life Enhance (56) 36% Adap. Tech Enabled (74) 66% Independent Tech Users (31) 37% Technology Yearners (58) 41% People treat me with respect Tech Savvy Life Enhance (56) 61% Adap. Tech Enabled (74) 85% Independent Tech Users (31) 59% Technology Yearners (58) 74% I have opportunities to develop meaningful relationships with people who do not have a developmental disability Tech Savvy Life Enhance (56) 48% Adap. Tech Enabled (74) 69% Independent Tech Users (31) 37% Technology Yearners (58) 52% I have opportunities to develop meaningful relationships with people who do have a developmental disability Tech Savvy Life Enhance (56) 70% Adap. Tech Enabled (74) 78% Independent Tech Users (31) 63% Technology Yearners (58) 76% Indicates statistically significant difference from other values in row at the 95% confidence level 47 8:: appendix 48 sample profile Have you or a family member ever been abused, neglected or exploited? n = 221 No 79% Yes 21% If YES, did someone help? n = 47 Yes 68% No 17% Other 15% If YES, did you call someone? n = 47 No 40% Yes 60% If YES, who did you call? n = 28 Family member 22% Police 22% Teacher/school staff 17% Other* 61% *Other includes: Child protection, hospital staff, Department of Human Services, Social Services/Social worker, Arc, Office of the Ombudsman for Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities, Minnesota Disability Law Center, therapist, 911, abuse advocate, other/miscellaneous. 49 Thank you! MarketResponse International 1304 university ave. ne suite 304 minneapolis, mn 55413 t:: 612.379.1645 f:: 612.379.1659 web:: www.marketresponse.com Tom Pearson, Managing Director t.pearson@marketresponse.com Susan McCullough, Senior Research Consultant s.mccullough@marketresponse.com Derek Pearson, Research Analyst d.pearson@marketresponse.com