Table Of ContentTHE EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND OF EXECUTIVE
DIRECTORS OF CENTERS FOR INDEPENDENT LIVING AS IT
RELATES TO CENTER BUDGET, DIVERSITY OF BUDGET, AND
THE NUMBER OF CONSUMERS SERVED
By
BILLY L. PARKER
A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
1996
UNIVERSITYOFFLORIDALIBRARIES
Copyright 1996
by
Billy L. Parker
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank the members of my doctoral committee
for their support and time they gave throughout my graduate
career. Each of them has given me challenges and guidance.
Each member is worth emulating in my professional career.
I would like to give particular thanks to Dr. Stuart E.
Schwartz, chair, who convinced me to stay in the program.
Because of his willingness to support my endeavor at all times, I
was able to complete the program and this dissertation. Dr.
Schwartz provided numerous ways to enhance my experiences
which provided me with greater insights and understanding.
My family gave me the strong foundation upon which this
dream came true, particularly my wife whose patience was endless
and support was constant. I could not have done this without
her. I also thank my mother-in-law, Linda, who fed me well and
often and my Oma, who taught me as a young child that dreams
do come true.
Finally, I would like to thank everyone at the Florida
Network, who made the funding possible. Their support, patience,
and confidence in me have made the completing if this degree
more enjoyable.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENT
page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
iii
ABSTRACT vi
INTRODUCTION
1. 1
Statement of the Problem 9
Significance of the Problem 12
Theoretical Framework 16
Hypotheses 18
Definition of Terms 20
Summary 26
2. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 27
Centers for Independent Living 27
Two Service Paradigms 33
The Rehabilitation Paradigm 35
Independent Living Paradigm 36
Purpose of CILs 39
Rural Centers for Independent Living 45
The Need for Education of Executive Directors 54
.
Identification of Training Needs 69
Knowledge of Finances 72
Centers for Independent Living within
Open Systems 77
Conclusion 85
3. RESEARCH PROCEDURE 86
Study Design 87
Description of Population 92
Instrument 95
Procedures 98
Treatment of Data 99
Limitations 101
iv
4. ANALYSIS OF DATA 102
Characteristics of Variables 103
Comparison of the Variables to Determine a
Relationship 110
General Linear Models Procedure 113
Comparison of the Variables Through
a One-Way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) . . 120
Summary 128
5. DISCUSSION 131
Summary 131
SSuummmmaarryy ooff GtheenerAaNlOLViAneaPrroMcoeddeulres Procedure . 113450
Hypotheses Testing 143
Recommendations 144
APPENDICES
A. CORRESPONDENCE 152
B. EXPERT PANEL VITA SUMMARY 159
C. SURVEY COVER LETTER 163
D. SURVEY 166
REFERENCES 173
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 180
v
Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the
Graduate School of the University of Florida
in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for the
Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
THE EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND OF EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS
OF CENTERS FOR INDEPENDENT LIVING AS IT RELATES TO
CENTER BUDGET, DIVERSITY OF BUDGET, AND
THE NUMBER OF CONSUMERS SERVED
By
Billy L. Parker
August 1996
Chair: Stuart E. Schwartz
Major Department: Special Education
The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship
between the educational background of executive directors of centers
for independent living and the success of the centers. Center success
was defined in terms of size of center budget, diversity of center
funds, and the number of consumers served. Additionally center
location of rural or urban and the executive director having a
disability or not having a disability were investigated in order to
determine their association with the educational background of
directors and center success.
vi
All 394 executive directors in the United States were surveyed.
The survey asked questions regarding center function, educational
level of the directors, rural or urban status, and the disability/no
disability status of each director.
Linear regression analyses showed a significant relationship
between the executive director's educational level and the location of
the centers, disability status of the director, size of center funding,
number of consumers served, and the diversity of center funding. In
addition, a statistically significant relationship was found between the
location of the centers and the disability status of the director, size
of center funding, number of consumers served, and the diversity of
center funding.
To draw inferences about the population that was investigated, a
one-way analysis of variance was conducted (ANOVA). The ANOVA
did not find a significant relationship between the
disability/nondisability factor of the executive director and the other
variables. However, the second variable tested through an ANOVA,
the centers' location in a rural or urban environment, was determined
to have a statistically significant relationship. Centers located in an
urban or rural location showed a significant difference in diversity of
funding, the number of consumers served, and the size of center
funding.
vii
CHAPTER
1
THE PROBLEM AND ITS SETTING
Introduction
The independent living paradigm is based on the assumption
that the restrictions faced by individuals with disabilities are
societal, not individual. According to Gerben DeJong's (1979)
independent living paradigm, the change agents must be those
individuals affected by the problem, namely individuals with
disabilities. Independent living stresses the importance of
empowerment, self-determination, and the removal of external
barriers. Although independent living stresses the need for support
services for individuals with disabilities, professional intervention
can sometimes create further barriers by interjecting personal views
and experiences; therefore, independent living emphasizes peer
counseling, self-help, consumer control, and self-direction. The
problem, as described by the independent living model, is the
dependence of people with disabilities on professionals, relatives
and others, inadequate support services, and architectural and
economic barriers (Lachat, 1988). The independent living
1
2
paradigm attempts to break the dependence on others and develop
self-reliance.
Since the inception of the Independent Living Model in 1978
(DeJong, 1978), the number of centers for independent living (CILs)
has grown from approximately 52 centers in 1977 to an estimated
400 centers in 1991 (Nosek, Zsu, & Howland, 1992). Despite this
phenomenal growth over a ten year period, little research has been
done to address the needs of centers for independent living.
Centers for independent living are a young phenomenon that
feature unique educational and training needs for individuals with
disabilities. The 1992 Rehabilitation Act Amendments require
centers to make every effort possible to fill employment positions
with persons who have a disability. Therefore, centers for
independent living draw heavily on individuals with disabilities to
fill employment positions and as such have a relatively
underdeveloped academic base from which to draw (Smith, Richards,
Nosek, & Gerken, 1991). Many believe that the first step in
improving CILs is to improve CIL management education and
training (Marini, 1994; Nosek et al., 1992; and Smith et al., 1991).
Due to a long history of limited opportunities and
discrimination against individuals with disabilities, many CIL staff
have had little or no educational or employment experience (Smith
3
et al., 1991). According to the National Council on Disability
(1993), education is a key to employment success for persons with
disabilities. However, research conducted by Brolin and Gysberg
(1989) concluded that "[persons] with disabilities are not attaining
greater vocational and independent living success than they did in
previous years" (p. 155). The result of the decrease in vocational
and independent living success has been that individuals with
disabilities have been shortchanged in both regular and special
education programs (Wright & Leung, 1993). Wright and Leung
stated that "failure to provide quality, relevant education to persons
with disabilities results in their continued expulsion from the
workforce" (p. 23).
Centers for independent living are required by law to employ
individuals with disabilities (Rehabilitation Act of 1978, Title VII,
Sect. 725). The Independent Living Research Utilization Program
(ILRU), a research and training center for independent living in
Houston, Texas, defined the minimum employment criteria for
centers for independent living using the Rehabilitation Act
Amendments of 1978 as a basis. The criteria established by the
ILRU are as follows: (a) 51% of the governing board members must
have a disability; (b) at least one person with a disability must be
employed in a management role; and (c) at least one person with a
