Contact InformationBrian Freedman brianf@udel.edu

Family Engagement among Postsecondary Education Programs for Students with Intellectual Disabilities

Krista Jensen & Brian FreedmanUniversity of Delaware Center for Disabilities Studies & School of Education

Results Conclusions• Surprisingly, several programs communicate

directly with families without students involvement• Others exclude families on potentially important

meetings• Wide variability in types of engagement and

communication practices• Most challenges seem to occur in the relative

minority of families which may drive a “one bad apple” approach

• Specific policies or descriptions of expectations from parents are not typically available

Recommendations• Creation of clearly articulated parent engagement

policies and processes• Consideration of support for families pre-transition

and during programs• Greater focusing on fostering independence and

creating communication channels between students and parents while maintaining family support

Further discussion • Think College webinar on Family Engagement:

November 24, 2014 3-4 PM EST.• Registration: www.thinkcollege.net

References Eckes, S. & Ochoa, T. (2005). Students with disabilities: Transitioning from high school to higher education. American Secondary Education, 33 (3), pp. 6-20. Leuchovius, D & Pleet-Odle, A. (2014). Family Guideposts. Washington DC: National Collaborative on Workforce and Disability, funded by Office of Disability Employment Policy, US Dept of Labor. Wandry, D. & Pleet, A. (2012) Family Involvement in Transition Planning. In Weymeyer, M. & Webb, C. Handbook of Adolescent Transition Education for Youth with Disabilities. New York: Routledge (pp. 102-118).

Thanks to survey participants; funding for this research provided by US Department of Education Award #P407A100045-14 Transition Programs for Students with Intellectual Disabilities into Higher Education

General Program Informa-tion

Individual Student Progress Finances Transportation0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Communication Directly with Families/Support Systems without Students

Orientati

on

Advisem

ent M

eetings

Progre

ss Mee

tings

Academ

ic Concer

ns

Transiti

on Mee

tings

Mentor T

raining M

eetings

Progra

m Planning M

eetings

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Meetings Parents are Engaged in and How they are Invited

Parents Do Not Attend

Automatic Invite

Students Told to Invite

Students Choice

Group M

eetings

Newsle

tters

Group E-

mails F

amilie

s Only

Group E-

mails F

amilie

s and St

udents

Socia

l Med

ia Outre

ach

Progra

m Web

site

Universi

ty W

eb-Base

d Servi

ce0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Methods for Engaging Families and Types of Supports

Individual E-mail Group E-mail Phone Calls Social Media Mailed Letters Fliers Sent with Students

In-person Communication

Team Meetings0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Effective Strategies for Engaging Families/Support Systems

Difficu

lty Contac

ting

Busy W

ith O

ther Oblig

ations

Langu

age

Finan

ces

Locati

on

Curricu

lum Opinion

Studen

ts' Perf

orman

ce Opinion

Opinion re: P

arental

Invo

lvemen

t

Amount of C

ommunication O

pinion

Value o

f Pro

gram O

pinion0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Challenges to Parent Engagement

51-75%

26-50%

0-25%

Parent Engagement • Families take on a critical advocacy role early,

which results in typically significant involvement• As students age, parent may be engaged less• Lack of preparation for parents on role changes

in the transition to adulthood.• Colleges typically have minimal engagement with

parents/family members• Given the important role that family members

play, college programs for students with ID may need to consider different models for parent involvement.

Method Participants• Participants were directors and administrators

from 19 TPSID programs. Two questionnaires were incomplete and were not included in analyses, giving us a total of 17 responses.

• Sample includes 4-year colleges/universities (n=15) and community colleges (n=2).

• Program locations range from urban (n=10), suburban (n=6), and rural (n=1).

• Seven are residential and 10 are non-residential.

Survey• The survey consisted of 19 questions of which 3

were open-ended.• Survey items created through discussions with

TPSID Special Interest Group members and the PACER Center.

• Items asked about activities parents are included in, methods used to engage parents, and challenges to parent engagement that repeatedly appear

Analyses• Frequency counts of the number of participants

responding to each item were performed.