Ask

Ask Me!sm FY 2006-2009 ASK ME! Survey

The Quality of Life of Marylanders With Developmental Disabilities Receiving DDA-Funded Support Prepared for the Maryland Developmental Disabilities Administration by Gordon Scott Bonham, Ph.D. Bonham Research Judy Volkman, BA Sarah Sorensen, MPS The Arc of Maryland December 2009

Authors Gordon Scott Bonham has been the project ’s researcher from the initial development of the original questions to the present. He is President of Bonham Research, a private human services research and evaluation company. His 38 years of developing and analyzing surveys have included research at Towson University, the University of Louisville, and the National Center for Health Statistics. Dr. Bonham earned his Ph.D. in sociology from the University of Michigan (Ann Arbor) and has a wide range of experience in surveys, social research, and program evaluation. The social health and well being of the individual in society has been the primary subject of his research, including a number of studies involving supports to people with intellectual and other developmental disabilities.

Dr. Bonham is an Emeritus Board Member of The Arc of Baltimore.

Judy Volkman is the Ask Me! Project Manager at the Arc of Maryland and is in charge of all the field work activities. She was supported by Nolie Rife, Suzy Fletcher and Brenda Davis as regional coordinators. Ann Shipley scheduled interviews and arranged transportation.

Sarah Sorensen is Assistant Director of The Arc of Maryland. Ms. Sorensen holds a Master ’s Degree in Policy Sciences from the University of Maryland Baltimore County. In addition to her responsibilities on the Ask Me! Project, she facilitates the statewide self-advocacy group, People On the Go, and works on policy issues of concern to persons with developmental disabilities and their families.

Committed and skilled interviewers, who themselves receive support funded by the Maryland Developmental Disabilities Administration, make The Ask Me! Project possible. In FY2009, 29 peer interviewers worked for The Arc of Maryland, conducting an average of 91 interviews. The interviewers have an average of 5.8 years of experience, with three being new to the survey in FY2009 and six having ten or more years of experience. One interviewer conducted telephone interviews and keyed most of the survey data (DE). The Ask Me! FY2009 interviewers, with their years of experience shown in parentheses (), include: Alisha Wright (1) Emerald Coleman (3) Michael Raidt (10) Anne Bates (6) Greg Gray (6) Patrick Rhinehart (6) April Carr (4) James Devore (12) Peggy Nazelrod (4) Bernadette Quinn (5) John Giles (2) Reta Cooper (2) Brian Plater (8) Kathy Gentile (1) Robert Heil (6) Bridgette Pressley (11) Linda Cooper (9) Scott Heim (11) Carolina Cano (7) Lois Southard (1) Valerie Smith (4) Christy Scott (3) Lori Powell (11) Vernon DeHaven (10) Crystal Stephens (3) Marianne McNally (4, DE) Vicki Mills (9) Diana Warther (7) Michael Carter (2) Ask Me! has a training manual available for organizations interested in conducting the project in other states. The manual provides all necessary materials and information to conduct the survey. It is available at cost and includes the survey, interview protocol and interviewer training information. All documents are also on a diskette. To protect the integrity of the project, The Arc of Maryland has developed a licensing agreement for entities that wish to become certified to use the survey. For additional information, contact Judy Volkman, The Arc of Maryland, 49 Old Solomons Island Rd., Suite 205, Annapolis, MD 21401, 888-272-3449, jvolkman@thearcmd.org.

This report can be viewed or downloaded as an Adobe Acrobat file from the website of the Maryland Developmental Disability Administration, http://www.dhmh.state.md.us/dda/ReportableInc/Ask09Report.pdf . It, and other publications listed at the end of this report, can be accessed through the website of Bonham Research, http://www.bonhamresearch.com.

Ask Me!sm FY 2006-2009 Executive Summary The FY2009 Ask Me! collected information between August 2008 and June 2009 for about 1,200 people with developmental disabilities 18 years and over who are supported by 45 community provider agencies. Over the four years between FY2006 and 2009, Ask Me! Surveys were conducted for about 5,000 people at 120 agencies supporting ten or more adults. These represent about 13,000 people at the 155 community provider agencies that received funds from the Maryland Developmental Disabilities Administration (DDA). Peer interviewers directly interviewed 77% of the sampled people, including 19% of those classified with profound intellectual disability. They interviewed proxies for those unable to respond for themselves.

Quality of Life Change in Maryland The quality of life in eight domains has been measured in two ways annually in Maryland from between FY2002 and FY2009. The first is the percent reporting a positive quality of life, and the second is the average quality of life on a scale of 010. The increase between FY2002 and FY2009 of the two measures had three general patterns: • • • • • • •

•

Rights continuously increased between FY2002 and FY2009 76% 74% 72% 70% 68% 66% 64% 62% 60% 58% 56%

FY02 FY03 Consistent linear increase Rights--10.1% in positive quality of life (see chart) and 0.6 points in the average quality of life; Self-Determination –8.3% positive, 0.5 average; Social Inclusion –5.9% positive, 0.5 average; Personal Development –6.8% positive, 0.4 average.

Mixed linear and curvilinear increase Physical Well-being –4.4% positive linearly, 0.4 average with a plateau; Emotional Well-being –4.3% positive linearly, 0.4 average with a plateau; Interpersonal Relations –7.4% positive with peak, 0.6 average with a plateau.

No statistical pattern of change Material Well-being –5.7% positive, 0.2 average, highest in FY2004 (see chart).

FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09

No trend in Material Well-being 90% 85% 80% 75% 70% 65% 60% FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY 06 FY07 FY08 FY09

Quality of life remained highest throughout the eight years in the domains of Physical Wellbeing and Emotional Well-being. It remained lowest in the domains of Self-Determination and Rights. The differences, however, decreased.

Ask Me!sm Project FY2009 -- The Arc of Maryland

December 2009 Page i

% Favorable

People interviewed in FY2009 gave significantly Questions with greatest increases more favorable responses to six questions than people interviewed in FY2008. The greatest oneFY02 F Y03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 F Y08 FY09 70% year increase was in voting, from 25% to 36%, 60% (See chart.) The second greatest increase came in 50% choosing house or roommates, from 57% to 62%.

40% Choosing house or roommates also had the greatest 30% 20% average increase over the eight years of the Ask 10% Me! Survey –2.0 percentage points per year. This 0% was followed by people helping them when they Choose housemates Vote in elections make a mistake –1.9 percentage points per year –and is it easy to say something when you have a problem with staff –1.8 percentage points per year. Together, 34 of the 48 indicator questions had significant increases in favorable responses. No question had a significant decline over the eight years.

Person and Service Characteristics and Quality of Life People who respond for themselves reported lower quality of life in the domains of Physical Well-being and Emotional Well-being than did proxies for people who could not respond for themselves. Self respondents reported higher quality of life than did proxies in the other six domains and in Transportation Availability. Self and proxy reports often differ on what characteristics relate to quality of life.

In the domain of Material Well-being, which Self and proxies agree a little on changed least over the past eight years, both self what affects Material Well-being and proxy respondents reported higher Material Individual Support Services Well-being for people who received supported Community Supported Living employment services and for people who consider Self Evening/Weekend Trips transportation more available (solid arrows in the Western Region Southern Region Material chart.) Self respondents who lived in the western Well-being Transportation Availability or southern DDA regions, and/or whose agencies Both Supported Employment took them places other than work or their day Head Injury Proxy programs, reported higher Material Well-being Intellectual Ability Residential Services than those living in the central or eastern regions and/or who did not receive evening and weekend trips. Self respondents with individual support services and community supported living arrangements reported lower Material Well-being than those not receiving these services (dashed arrows), possibly because they were more aware or or had more control over their financial affairs. Proxies reported higher Material Well-being for those with head injuries, those with greater intellectual abilities, or those receiving residential services than for those with other personal characteristics or services.

Page ii

December 2009

Ask Me!sm Project FY2009 -- The Arc of Maryland

In the domain of Rights, which has changed the Self and proxies agree a little on most over the past eight years, both self and proxy what affects Rights reports show that greater perception of Day Habilitation Self Transportation Availability is related to greater Rights. (See chart.) Self respondents receiving Transportation Both Availability day habilitation report lower rights than those receiving only other types of services. Proxies Supported Employment Rights may not be too different in this respect, as they Intellectual Ability report higher Rights for the few who were in Proxy Western Region supported employment compared to those who Southern Region received day habilitation or no support for weekday activities. Only proxies reported greater Rights for people with more intellectual ability, and for people who lived in the western and southern regions of Maryland.

No characteristics of individuals and their services were as strongly associated with quality of life as who responded (or the ability to respond) and the perceived availability of transportation.

The latter had the strongest relationship to quality of life in six domains, and who responded had the strongest relationship to quality of life in two domains.

Quality of Life at Maryland Agencies

Quality of life varies among agencies 10 9 8 7 6 5

ht s ig R

ot i

Em

ys ic a

lW el lb on ei al ng W M at el lb er In ei ia ng te l W rp el er lb so ei na ng lR e la So tio ci P ns al er In so na cl us lD io ev n Se el op lfm D et en er t m in at io n

4 3

Ph

Survey data are available for 119 community agencies between FY2006 and FY2009. Physical Well-being varied between 7.1 and 9.8 among the agencies, with 70% between 8.2 and 9.2. (See chart.)

The difference in Emotional Wellbeing between the highest and the lowest agency was greater than in Physical Well-being, but 70% of the agencies were in a narrower range.

Agencies varied the most in Rights (3.3 to 8.4), with six agencies having unfavorable scores. They varied next most in SelfDetermination, with four having unfavorable scores.

Characteristics of the people agencies support, and the services agencies provide, explain the least variation (14%) in Interpersonal Relations and the most (42%) in Rights. One-third of the variation in Material Well-being can be explained by western and southern geographic location (higher than central and eastern location) and intellectual ability (higher at agencies supporting Ask Me!sm Project FY2009 -- The Arc of Maryland

December 2009 Page iii

people with greater intellectual abilities). Two-fifths of the variation in Rights can be explained by the percent who responded for themselves (higher Rights with greater self response), southern location (higher Rights than in other areas), cerebral palsy (lower Rights with higher percentages), hearing impairments (lower Rights with higher percentages), and residential services (lower Rights with higher percentages). The characteristics associated with the quality of life in more than one domain were as follows: • • • • • • •

Western DDA region (higher in 6 domains); Southern DDA region (higher in 3 domains); Greater intellectual ability (higher in 3 domains); Greater self response (higher in two domains, lower in one domain); Greater percent with cerebral palsy (lower in 3 domains); Greater percent with supported employment (higher in 2 domains); Greater percent with residential services (lower in 2 domains).

Survey data were collected for 108 agencies in both the FY2002-FY2005 cycle and the FY2006FY2009 cycle. Quality of life scores by agency in the two cycles were most similar in the domains of Interpersonal Relations and Self-Development. They were least similar in the domain of Emotional Well-being. Material Well-being scores declined for about as many agencies as they increased, and in only 5% of the agencies did it increase by 1.0 point or more.

In contrast, average Rights scores increased for 75% of the agencies, and increased by 1.0 point or more for 21% of the agencies.

No agency characteristic had a significant relationship with change in Material Well-being. The level of Material Well-being in the second cycle was only associated with the level of Material Well-being in the first cycle. While southern region, intellectual abilities, supported employment, and behavior problems affected the first cycle ’s reporting of Material Well-being, these characteristics had no independent direct effect on the second cycle ’s reporting.

The level of Rights reported during the second Agency characteristics cycle was affected by the level of Rights reported affect change in Rights during the first cycle, but also by five other characteristics. Given the same level of Rights % Self Response reported in cycle one, southern agencies and/or Southern Region agencies with higher rates of self response had Cycle 1 Cycle 2 higher rights reported in the second cycle than Rights Rights agencies in other DDA regions and/or agencies % Residential Services with lower rates of self response. Rights started % Cerebral Palsy out higher at agencies with high self response, and % Hearing Impairment increased more rapidly among those agencies between cycle one and cycle two. Agencies in the southern region did not start out with higher Rights than agencies in other regions, but Rights increased faster among southern agencies over the four years more than at agencies in other regions. Rights increased less rapidly between the two Page iv

December 2009

Ask Me!sm Project FY2009 -- The Arc of Maryland

cycles at agencies primarily providing residential services, those with larger percentages of people with cerebral palsy, and those with larger percentages of people with hearing impairment.

Discussion and Suggestions The increases between FY2002 and FY2008 in the quality of life of adults in Maryland with developmental disabilities suggest that the Ask Me! Survey has been effective in giving a voice to people supported by Maryland community provider agencies, and that DDA, community agencies, and advocates are listening. DDA initially set its ‘Management by Objectives ’ goal to increase Personal Development based on FY2002 findings. The FY2004 and FY2005 Ask Me! reports identified rights as the only domain in which significant increases had failed to occur.

The FY2004 report included the recommendation: Physical and emotional well-being are foundational to a life of quality and should be maintained, but attention should now turn to increasing self-determination and rights.

The FY2005 report recommended: Providers should focus on enhancing rights through enhancing self-determination and personal development.

While DDA did not change its official goal, it increased its training on Self-Determination and Rights. The Arc of Maryland increased its efforts to promote Self-Determination and Rights.

Apparently many community agencies followed the recommendations, especially in the southern DDA region. As a result, the quality of life increased more, and more consistently during the second four-year cycle in Self-Determination and Rights than in the other six domains.

Increases still occurred in the other domains, and seem to be continuing to increase in all but Material Well-being.

The increases in quality of life between FY2002 and FY2009 show that quality of life is dynamic, not static. Yet the strongest predictor of the quality of life reported for agencies was the quality of life reported for the agencies four years before. The Ask Me! Survey provides information that agencies can use in evaluating how they are contributing to the quality of life of the people they support and how they compare to other agencies. The survey also provides information to DDA to set and pursue system goals, and to individuals and families as they seek support for living a life of quality. Based upon the survey findings highlighted in this report, the researcher offers the following suggestions: Suggestion 1. Increase the emphasis that is placed on Material Well-being, without neglecting the progress that has been made in Self-Determination and Rights. The greatest impact on Material Well-being potentially comes from expanding paid work opportunities through supported community employment.

Ask Me!sm Project FY2009 -- The Arc of Maryland

December 2009 Page v

Suggestion 2. Help people be aware of all the transportation available to them to move about their community, as perceptions of transportation availability are strongly related to perceptions of quality of life. The objective number of trips known to staff has little relation to perceptions of availability, but transportation is seen as more available in western and southern Maryland, at smaller than larger agencies, and by proxies more than self respondents.

Suggestion 3. Community agencies should set specific goals to enhance quality of life in domains with relatively low scores, and research concrete strategies for achieving them.

Otherwise quality of life will remain similar to the current levels for the people they support.

Suggestion 4. Educate staff and families about how the self respondents they support view quality of life. Knowing this information could help to reduce potential bias when deciding what might enhance the quality of life for people unable to respond for themselves.

Suggestion 5. DDA could identify existing data on individuals and agencies that can be linked with the Ask Me! data to identify other factors that potentially affect quality of life.

Page vi

December 2009

Ask Me!sm Project FY2009 -- The Arc of Maryland

Table of Contents Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i Table of Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Project Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Survey Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Demographic Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Support Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Quality of Life in Maryland: FY2002-FY2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Positive Quality of Life . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Average Quality of Life . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Program Direction - DDA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Transportation Availability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Responses to Individual Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Quality of Life for Individuals: FY2006-FY2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Personal Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Service Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Self and Proxy Differences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Quality of Life at Agencies: FY2006-FY2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Agency Variation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Agency Quality and Agency Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Agency Change Over Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Summary of Previous Ask Me! Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Individual Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Service Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Staff Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Agency Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Quality of Life Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Quality of Life Increase in Maryland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Quality of Life Differences for Individuals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Ask Me!sm Project FY2009 -- The Arc of Maryland

December 2009 Page vii

Quality of Life Among Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Suggestions for Consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Appendix A. Survey Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Appendix B. Detailed Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Appendix C. Quality of Life at Maryland Provider Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

List of Figures Figure 1. Provider Sample Frame . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Figure 2. Response of People Selected for Interview: FY2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Figure 3. Percent of People Responding for Themselves, by Level of Intellectual Ability . . . . 4 Figure 4. Percent by Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Figure 5. Percent of Persons by Type of Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Figure 6. Percent with Positive Quality of Life by Domain and Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Figure 7. Average Quality of Life by Domain and Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Figure 8. Trend in Average Quality of Life, by Domain: FY2002-FY2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Figure 9. Average Availability of Transportation, by Fiscal Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Figure 10. Characteristics Affecting Transportation Availability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Figure 11. Question with More Favorable Responses in FY2009 than in FY2008 . . . . . . . . . . 14 Figure 12. Person Characteristics and Quality of Life, by Domain (ȕ coefficient) . . . . . . . . . . 17 Figure 13. Average Quality of Life and Transportation Availability, by Respondent . . . . . . . 18 Figure 14. Ability to Consent Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Figure 15. Direct Effects of Person and Service Characteristics on Material Well-being and Indirect Effects through Transportation Availability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Figure 16. Direct Effects of Person and Service Characteristics on Rights, and Indirect Effects through Transportation Availability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Figure 17. Average Quality of Life Among Top 20%, Middle ;70%, and Bottome 10% of Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Figure 18. Percent of Agencies with Quality Extremes, by Size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Figure 19. Relation of Agency Characteristics with Agency Quality of Life, by Domain (ȕ coefficient) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Figure 20. Agency Characteristics and Transportation Availability at Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Figure 21. Percent of Agencies by Change in Quality of Life over Four Years and Domain . . 28 Figure 22. Changes in Agency Material Well-being . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Figure 23. Agency Change in Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Figure 24. Changes for Ask Me! Survey-2sm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Figure A25. Cronbach ’s Alphas for Scale Reliability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

List of Tables

Page viii

December 2009

Ask Me!sm Project FY2009 -- The Arc of Maryland

Table 1. Percent Giving the Favorable Response by Question and Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Table A1. People Supported by Maryland DDA, by Fiscal Year^ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Table A2. Community Providers by Size and Year Selected for Interviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Table A3. Final Field Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Table A4. Weight Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Table B1. Annual Trend in Quality of Life over Foura and Eightb Years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Table B2. Person-Level Correlation Coefficients Between Quality of Life Domains and Person and Service Characteristics: FY2006-FY2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Table B3. Standardized Multiple Regression* Coefficients (Č•) of Quality of Life Domains on Person and Support Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Table B4. Correlation Coefficients of Agency Quality of Life with Agency Characteristics and Previous Quality of Life . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Table B5. Regression of Agency Quality of Life on Person and Service Characteristics: FY2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

Ask Me!sm Project FY2009 -- The Arc of Maryland

December 2009 Page ix

Background The Ask Me! Survey has been used annually since FY2002 to collect information from a probability sample of people receiving support from all Maryland community providers through funds from the Maryland Developmental Disabilities Administration (DDA). The Ask Me! Survey measures people ’s perceptions of the quality of their lives in eight domains. People ’s quality of life is based upon objective circumstances mediated by the individuals ’ perceptions, values, and life experiences. Quality of life is different than satisfaction with services, and it may be possible to provide quality services without improving people ’s overall quality of life.

People may view quality of life differently, and the Ask Me! Survey allows people with developmental disabilities to define quality of life for themselves. People with developmental disabilities helped develop the survey instrument and procedures, promote the survey, conduct the interviews, and key the data into the computer. This involvement of people with developmental disabilities provides data on quality of life that are valid, reliable, and useful for program enhancement.

The Maryland DDA sponsors four-year cycles of the Ask Me! Survey. A random sample of about 30 adults is interviewed from each of about 45 agencies, sampled annually from all community agencies in Maryland that support ten or more individuals. Large agencies participate every year, middle-size agencies are selected to participate every other year, and small agencies participate once in each four-year cycle. The exclusion of very small agencies and micro-boards, supporting fewer than ten people, results in a very small fraction of people whom DDA supports in the community having no opportunity to participate. This report presents data from the Ask Me! Survey during the second cycle of interviews (FY2006-FY2009).

It updates the agency profiles included in the last three annual reports with quality of life scores averaged to the middle of the four-year period. It analyzes differences among agencies surveyed during the FY2006-FY2009 cycle, and how agencies interviewed during the FY2002-FY2005 cycle have changed over the four-year interval.

Quality of life is both an important concept in program planning and in evaluating outcomes (Schalock, Bonham and Verdugo, 2008). The Ask Me! Project began in FY1998 with three pilot years using a modified version of the Schalock and Keith (1993) Quality of Life Questionnaire.

It developed the completely new Ask Me! Survey in FY2001 that reflected the questions of Maryland consumers (People on the Go, 1996) and newer developments in the quality of life field (Schalock and Verdugo, 2002). The Ask Me! Project incorporated the use of peer interviewers (Basehart, Marchand, and Bonham, 2003). Ask Me! findings have been used at the organization and system level to guide change (Keith and Bonham, 2005), and Maryland is one of only a few states to make comparable agency-level quality of life scores available to the public (Bonham, Basehart and Marchand, 2005). The Ask Me! Project involves the four premises of participatory action research (Whitney-Thomas, 1996): (1) people with developmental disabilities identify the specific issues that are important to their quality of life, (2) people with developmental disabilities are asked directly about their own lives, (3) people with developmental disabilities are the interviewers that collect information from their peers, and (4) people with developmental disabilities are empowered by the collected information.

Ask Me!sm Project FY2009 -- The Arc of Maryland

December 2009 Page 1

Data from the Ask Me! Survey is useful for quality management on three levels: state-level, agency-level, and person-level. The DDA uses the Ask Me! results to develop and measure achievement of its goals of personal development, self-determination and social inclusion as a part of the state budgetary process. The Arc of Maryland uses Ask Me! results to guide its advocacy and training programs. Agencies participating in the Ask Me! Survey receive summary data, and the unidentified responses of the people they support, to help them enhance their programs and measure achievement of outcomes included in the quality assurance plans.

Individuals and families have Ask Me! quality of life findings available as a resource in seeking the most appropriate agency for providing support services.

Page 2

December 2009

Ask Me!sm Project FY2009 -- The Arc of Maryland

Project Description Sample

Stratum 1 (350+ adults) • 10 agencies provide 34% of supports • 10 sampled every year Stratum 2 (150-349 adults) • 22 agencies provide 29% of supports • 10 sampled in FY2006 and FY2008 • 12 sampled in FY2007 and FY2009 Stratum 3 (51-149 adults) • 55 agencies provide 30% of supports • 14 sampled in FY2006 • 12 sampled in FY2007 • 15 sampled in FY2008 • 11 sampled in FY2009 Stratum 4 (10-50 adults) • 32 agencies provide 6% of supports • 6 sampled in FY2006 • 10 sampled in FY2007 • 10 sampled in FY2008 • 12 sampled in FY2009 Stratum 5 (1-9 adults) • 34 entities provide 0.7% of supports • Not included in sample

The FY2009 Ask Me! Project collected survey information between August 2008 and June 2009 for 1,160 people with developmental disabilities who are served by 45 community provider agencies. The agencies were sampled according to their size strata, and people were randomly selected within these agencies. (See Figure 1.)

This two-stage sample frame represented 13,148 people 18 years of age and over and 155 community agencies funded by the Maryland DDA. Adults received support from an average of 1.23 agencies, and 33 people were selected twice at two different agencies for an effective sample size of 1,193 when summed across agencies. (See Appendix Table A1 for details.) Entities in stratum five that served fewer than ten adults were not included in the sample. They provide services to 0.7% of the people supported with DDA funds, but half of the people they support from also receive support from agencies in the other four strata. Additionally, about 16% of the people included in the DDA files were not included in the Figure 1. Provider Sample Frame Ask Me! sample selection because they were less than 18 years of age, received only service coordination, received all services from one of the four state institutions, or were Ask Me! interviewers.

The survey collected information for two-thirds of the selected adults in FY2009: 52% of the total responded for themselves, 10% had responses from two proxies that were averaged, and 6% had information from a single proxy. (See Figure 2.) Most of the non-response came from refusals: 11% of the individuals declined for themselves and 3% of their guardians refused to give permission for the interview. Agencies no longer supported or lacked good contact information for 5% of the people that the DDA files indicated they were authorized to support, and these people could not be located through another agency or service coordinator.1 A few (2%) could not be interviewed during the survey period because of their health, they were incarcerated, or because they understood only a language for which no translator was available.

1

The DDA files represent authorization to provide support, not the billing for services. Some differences may be due to the time lag between sample selection and interviewing. People who agencies reported as deceased or no longer living in Maryland were treated as not eligible for sample selection.

Ask Me!sm Project FY2009 -- The Arc of Maryland

December 2009 Page 3

(A deaf interviewer Self refusal Two One proxy 11% conducted interviews in proxies 6% American Sign Language.)

Guardian 10% refusal Ask Me! interviewers could 3% not make contact with an Agency DK additional 5% of the people, 5% frequently those who were Health Other 2% fairly independent, could 32% not be interviewed at work, No contact Selfor could not be reached by Cannot 5% response telephone at home. Some schedule 52% 5% (5%) did not keep Ask decision appointments or put off 1% making appointments and Figure 2. Response of People Selected for Interview: FY2009 may have been tacit refusals. The Ask Me! staff made the decision to not pursue interviews with 1% of the people because of time, distance, or cost limitations.

Weights were added to adjust for the probability that some people could have been selected through more than one provider agency, the different probabilities of an agency being selected for the survey, the different probabilities of a person being selected within different size agencies, and the different rates of non-response at different agencies. All the person-level data presented in this report, except for response rates, were weighted to accurately reflect all the adults receiving DDA-supported community services. Data aggregated to the agency level are not weighted, as all people within an agency had the same probability of selection. Unless otherwise indicated, data are for the four-year period FY2006 -FY2009.

Three-fourths (77%) of the survey responses over the four years from FY2006-FY2009 came from the people judged by 98% 96% peer interviewers as able to 100% 88% give informed consent and respond for themselves. The 80% percent who responded for 53% 60% themselves increased from 19% of those classified with 40% profound retardation, to 53% 19% of those with severe, 88% of 20% those with moderate, and 96% or higher among those with 0% (504) (679) (1309) (1372) (315) mild or no retardation. (See Figure 3.) Proxies responded Profound Severe Moderate Mild None for those who could not Figure 3. Percent of People Responding for Themselves, by Level respond for themselves. of Intellectual Ability Page 4

December 2009

Ask Me!sm Project FY2009 -- The Arc of Maryland

Survey Procedures The Arc of Maryland employed 50 people with disabilities as peer interviewers over the four years of the cycle, with an average of 31 interviewing during a year. (See inside front cover for the list of names who interviewed during FY2009.) Most worked in pairs and conducted interviews face-to-face with the selected person or the person ’s proxy. Interviewers conducted face-to-face interviews in FY2009 with 83% of the self-respondents, and 72% of the first proxies, at the person ’s weekday program or employment site. Interviewers conducted face-toface interviews with 11% of the self-respondents at their home, 5% at other location, and 1% over the telephone. The interviewers conducted only a few face-to-face interviews with proxies at the individuals ’ residence (2%) or other location (6%), and conducted 20% of first proxy interviews by telephone. Most of the second proxy interviews were conducted by phone.

Survey protocol sought two proxies with different relationships to people who could not respond for themselves. First preference was given to day staff, second preference to family members, and third preference to residential staff. However, only one proxy interview was obtained for one-third of the people who could not respond for themselves: one day staff for 27%, one residential staff for 7%, and one family member for 2%. Proxy interviews with a day staff member and a residential staff member were obtained for 37% of the individuals who could not respond for themselves, a day staff member and a family member for 21%, and two similar staff members for 5%.

Demographic Characteristics Of the people represented during the four-year period, 15% were 18-24 years of age, 25% were 2534, 24% were 35-44, 22% were 45-54, and 14% were more than 55 years of age. (See Figure 4.)

Men outnumbered women 57% to 43%. Agencies reported that about half had mild or moderate retardation, although the intellectual ability for one-sixth of the people was not reported.

In addition, 27% of the people had speech and language difficulties, underscoring the importance of allowing them to respond during the interview by pointing to facial representations associated with their answers ( ,

Characteristic Percent Combined number 5,054 Total 100 Age 18-24 15 25-34 25 35-44 24 45-54 22 55-64 10 65 and over 4 Missing 1 Intellectual Ability Profound retardation 10 Severe retardation 13 Moderate retardation 26 Mild retardation 27 Borderline retardation 4 No retardation 2 Not reported 17

Characteristic Percent Gender Female 43 Male 57 Other Disabilities (may have multiple) Speech and language 27 Epilepsy and seizures 20 Specific learning 16 Behavior problems 16 Cerebral Palsy 11 Orthopedic impairment 10 Autism 8 Mental disorder 7 Deaf, hearing impairment 7 Blind, vision impairment 6 Neurological impairment 6 Head injury 4

Figure 4. Percent by Characteristics

Ask Me!sm Project FY2009 -- The Arc of Maryland

December 2009 Page 5

, ). Some peer interviewers, themselves, had speech difficulties and conducted interviews by activating prerecorded questions on their computer. One person in five (20%) had epilepsy and seizure disorders. One in six had specific learning disabilities (16%) and behavior problems (16%).

Support Services Agencies in the Central DDA Region, primarily the Baltimore metropolitan area, support 47% of the people. Agencies in the Southern DDA Region of Montgomery, Prince George ’s, Calvert, Charles and St. Mary ’s Counties support 30% of the people. Agencies in the Western DDA Region supported 13%, and the Eastern DDA Region support 11% of the people.

The majority of the people received day Type of Support Percent habilitation services, with 28% receiving day and All 100 residential services and 25% receiving day Day habilitation and residential 28 services while living with their families or in Day habilitation, no residential 25 other arrangements not reimbursed by DDA. Employment, no residential 20 (See Figure 5.) One in five (20%) received Employment and residential 9 supported employment services while living in Residential, no day or employment 7 their own homes or with their families, while Other services only 12 about half that many (9%) received both supported employment and residential services.

Figure 5. Percent of Persons by Type of One in fourteen (7%) received residential Support services without day or employment services, and another one in eight received only other types of services reimbursed by DDA, such as individual support services (ISS) and community supported living arrangements (CSLA).

Page 6

December 2009

Ask Me!sm Project FY2009 -- The Arc of Maryland

Quality of Life in Maryland: FY2002-FY2009 The Ask Me! Survey produces two measures of quality of life for each domain. The first is the percent of people reporting a positive quality of life. This is a threshold measure and provides no information about how far people are above the threshold. The second is the average quality of life that provides information on how far people are above the threshold, but not on how many are above the threshold. The two measures are highly related, but provide slightly different information.

Positive Quality of Life Three-fourths or more of the people reported positive quality of life in each of the eight domains in FY2009. In the domains of Physical Well-being and Emotional Well-being, about 95% had a positive quality of life in FY2009, about 4 percentage points higher than in FY2002. (See Figure 6.) Quality of life increased 5-6 percentage points in the domains of Material Wellbeing, Interpersonal Relations, Social Inclusion, and Personal Development. The greatest increases came in the domains of Self-Determination (8 percentage points) and Rights (10 percentage points), the domains with the lowest positive quality of life in FY2002. The greatest increase between FY2008 and FY2009 was in the domain of Self-Determination (1.5 percentage points). Increases also occurred between FY2008 and FY2009 in four other domains: Physical 100% 95% 90% 85% 80% 75% 70% 65% 60% Physical Emotion Material well-being well-being well-being

Interpersonal relations

Social inclusion

Personal development

Self determination

Rights

FY2002

90.6%

90.4%

77.8%

82.6%

79.9%

78.8%

72.2%

64.0%

FY2003

93.5%

92.5%

81.6%

85.4%

82.1%

81.5%

71.5%

64.9%

FY2004

94.0%

93.9%

85.3%

89.1%

84.8%

85.9%

79.2%

65.9%

FY2005

94.2%

92.6%

84.1%

88.1%

86.0%

83.2%

78.1%

66.9%

FY2006

94.7%

94.0%

84.5%

88.6%

84.4%

83.9%

77.8%

72.1%

FY2007

94.6%

93.4%

82.8%

89.1%

85.1%

83.2%

77.2%

72.7%

FY2008

94.3%

94.0%

83.6%

89.0%

85.8%

84.0%

78.7%

73.4%

FY2009

95.0%

94.7%

83.5%

90.0%

85.8%

84.0%

80.5%

74.1%

Figure 6. Percent with Positive Quality of Life by Domain and Year Ask Me!sm Project FY2009 -- The Arc of Maryland

December 2009 Page 7

Well-being, Emotional Well-being, Interpersonal Relations and Rights. The percentages remained the same for Social Inclusion and Personal Development. Material Well-being decreased slightly between FY2008 and FY20009, although the decline was small (0.1 percentage point).

The general trend since FY2002 has been an increase in positive quality of life reports in all eight domains, with the increase greater during the early years of the Ask Me! Survey than in the more recent years. During the first four-year cycle, regressions showed significant linear increases by year in seven of the eight domains. Only in the domain of Rights did quality of life not increase significantly between FY2002 and FY2005. (See Appendix Table B1.) During the second four-year cycle, regressions showed no significant linear trend in the percentages with positive quality of life in any of the eight domains. In tests for linear and curvilinear trends over the full eight years, significant linear trends were found for Physical Well-being (0.4% per year), Emotional Well-being (0.4% per year), Social Inclusion (0.6% per year), Self-Determination (1.0% per year), and Rights (1.7% per year). A curvilinear trend was found for Interpersonal Relations, increasing rapidly at first (2.0% in the first year) but then with progressively smaller increases until the last year where it decreased. No statistically significant trends were found in the percentages of positive Material Well-being and Personal Development.

Page 8

December 2009

Ask Me!sm Project FY2009 -- The Arc of Maryland

Average Quality of Life The average (mean) domain score provides a slightly different measure of the quality of life than the percent with a positive score. Rights has historically received the lowest score of the eight quality of life domains, and this continued to be true in FY2009. Physical Well-being has historically received the highest score, and this continued to be true in FY2009. (See Figure 7.)

None of the one-year changes in average quality of life between FY2008 and FY2009 were statistically significant. However, the average quality of life has increased significantly compared to FY2002 in seven of the eight domains. Only the domain of Material Well-being showed no statistical increase over the eight years in the average quality of life.

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Physical well-being

Emotion well-being

Material well-being

Interpersonal relations

Social inclusion

Personal development

Self determination

Rights

FY2002

8.30

8.15

7.17

7.24

7.06

7.15

6.81

6.27

FY2003

8.60

8.39

7.24

7.54

7.32

7.23

6.77

6.26

FY2004

8.70

8.54

7.54

7.81

7.54

7.64

7.20

6.37

FY2005

8.75

8.49

7.50

7.65

7.47

7.35

7.12

6.44

FY2006

8.66

8.48

7.42

7.68

7.43

7.48

7.20

6.74

FY2007

8.70

8.48

7.35

7.70

7.40

7.45

7.19

6.75

FY2008

8.69

8.53

7.41

7.74

7.60

7.47

7.22

6.78

FY2009

8.68

8.58

7.37

7.85

7.57

7.58

7.34

6.88

Figure 7. Average Quality of Life by Domain and Year The average quality of life, like the percent with a positive quality of life increased significantly between FY2002 and FY2005 in seven of the eight domains, but did not increase significantly between FY2006 and FY2009 in any of the domains. (See Appendix Table B1.) The trend over the full eight years in the average quality of life is the same as in the percent with a positive quality of life in the domains of Material Well-being (no trend) and Social Inclusion, SelfDetermination and Rights (linear increases). The average quality of life in Personal Development also had a statistically significant linear trend, whereas the percent with positive Ask Me!sm Project FY2009 -- The Arc of Maryland

December 2009 Page 9

Personal Development showed no trend over the eight years. (See Figure 8.) The average Physical Well-being, Emotional Well-being, and Interpersonal Relations had curvilinear trends with significant quartic and cubic terms. This means that the increase was rapid during the first few years, leveled off or declined during the middle part of the eight-year period, and then resumed increasing at the end of the period. While the quality of life reported by and for people with developmental disabilities in Maryland may have fluctuated from year to year, the overall trends appear positive in all domains except Material Well-being. Peoples feelings about their Material Well-being (having a job, earning good money, saving money, not worrying about money, and having possessions) did not change consistently from FY2002 to FY2009.

8.8

Physical Well-being

8.6 8.4 8.2 8.0

8.8 8.6 8.4 8.2 8.0 7.8

02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 7.6

M aterial Well-being

7.4 7.2 7.0 6.8

02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 8.0 7.8 7.6 7.4 7.2 7.0 6.8

02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 7.8 7.6 7.4 7.2 7.0 6.8 6.6

Social Inclusion

Self-determination

02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09

Interpersonal Relations

02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 7.8 7.6 7.4 7.2 7.0 6.8

02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 7.6 7.4 7.2 7.0 6.8 6.6 6.4

Emotional Well-being

Personal Development

02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 7.0 6.8 6.6 6.4 6.2 6.0 5.8

Rights

02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09

Figure 8. Trend in Average Quality of Life, by Domain: FY2002-FY2009 Page 10

December 2009

Ask Me!sm Project FY2009 -- The Arc of Maryland

Program Direction - DDA The DDA uses the Ask Me! data to help develop its goals, which are presented as a part of its budget request to the state legislature, as part of the requirements known as “Managing for Results. ” They then use the Ask Me! data to report whether they have met the goals. DDA began this process in FY2004, and established its first goals as: Goal 1. Individuals receiving community services are satisfied with their personal growth, independence and productivity.

DDA developed two specific objectives for FY2005-FY2007 based on FY2004 Ask Me! results and recommendations. As can be seen by referring back to Figure 6 and Figure 7, many of the results from FY2004 turned out to be abnormally high, and DDA revised the targets for FY2008FY2011 based upon FY2007 Ask Me! results. The objectives and targets are as follows: Objective 1.1 By the end of fiscal year ____ the percentage of respondents on the “Ask Me Survey ” expressing satisfaction in the following domains will remain the same or improve.

FY2004 Objectives FY2007 Objectives 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Physical Well-being 94.0%* 94.0%* 94.6% 94.6%* 94.6% 94.6% Material Well-being 85.3% 85.3% 82.8%* 82.8%* 82.8% 82.8% Emotional Well-being 93.9%* 93.9% 93.4%* 93.4%* 93.4% 93.4% Interpersonal Relations 89.1% 89.1%* 89.9% 89.9%* 89.9% 89.9% Rights 65.9%* 65.9%* 72.6%* 72.6%* 72.6% 72.6% Personal Development 85.9% 85.9% 83.2%* 83.2%* 83.2% 83.2% Social Inclusion 84.8% 84.8%* 85.1%* 85.1%* 85.1% 85.1% Self-Determination 79.2% 79.2% 77.2%* 77.2%* 77.2% 77.2% * Did meet or exceed the target Objective 1.2 By the end of fiscal year ____ the average score on the domain of “personal development ” will increase by 5% from the previous year and the average score on the other seven domains will remain the same or improve.

FY2004 Objectives 2006 2007 Personal Development 7.9 8.1 Physical Well-being 8.7* 8.7* Material Well-being 7.5 7.5 Emotional Well-being 8.5* 8.5* Interpersonal Relations 7.8 7.8 Rights 6.4* 6.4* Social Inclusion 7.5 7.5 Self-Determination 7.2* 7.2* * Did meet or exceed the target Ask Me!sm Project FY2009 -- The Arc of Maryland

2008 7.5* 8.7* 7.4* 8.5* 7.7* 6.8* 7.6* 7.2*

FY2007 Objectives 2009 2010 7.5* 7.6 8.7* 8.7 7.4* 7.4 8.5* 8.5 7.7* 7.7 6.8* 6.8 7.6* 7.6 7.2* 7.2

2011 7.7 8.7 7.4 8.5 7.7 6.8 7.6 7.2

December 2009 Page 11

As can be seen, DDA met the Objective 1.1 targets in only three of the eight domains in FY2006 and four in FY2007 (targets with an asterisk *). After revising the targets based upon FY2007 data, DDA met Objective 1.1 targets in seven domains in FY2008 and in all eight domains in FY2009. The 5% annual increase in Personal Development was based on an original scale that could range from -10.0 to +10.5, with 0.0 as the neutral value. This was converted for the FY2005 report to a scale that ranged from 0.0 to 10.0, with 5.0 as the neutral value, and the original 5.0% increase translates into a 2.5% increase on the new scale. DDA met four of the eight Objective 1.2 targets in FY2006 and FY2007 (when the actual are rounded to one decimal), but all eight of the FY2008 and FY2009 targets of the Objective 1.2 set in FY2007.

Transportation Availability Transportation is not a quality of life domain. However, people’’s perceptions of the availability of transportation have strong relationships to the quality of life they report: the more they perceived transportation to be available, the greater they reported their quality of life in all domains. The Ask Me! Survey included five questions about transportation that were combined into a scale of perceived transportation availability.

10 Unlike most quality of life 9 measures, the average 8 7.10 7.03 6.97 7.01 7.11 6.98 6.97 6.86 7 perception of the availability 6 of transportation had a slight, 5 although statistically 4 significant, decline over the 3 eight years between FY2002 2 1 and FY2009. (See Figure 0 9.) Transportation 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Availability was substantially correlated to all Figure 9. Average Availability of Transportation, by Fiscal Year eight quality of life domains (r=.153 to r=.405).

Stepwise multiple regression found that 5% of the variation in Transportation Availability reported by self respondents could be explained by six characteristics of the individuals and their services. These can be shown in a path diagram that represents a causal model that is consistent with the data. Solid arrows from a person or service characteristic to Transportation Availability, show that the characteristic independently increased the reporting of Transportation Availability. A dashed arrow shows that the characteristic decreased the Transportation Availability that was reported. The thickness of the arrow and the size of the path coefficient indicate the relative strength of the independent effect. The color of the characteristic, arrow and coefficient indicates whether the characteristics affected self reporting (blue), proxy reporting (red), or both (black). Path coefficients for self respondents are also shown in standard type above the arrow and path coefficients for proxies are shown in italics below the arrow. The variables to the left of the arrow (tail) affect the variable to the right of the arrow (head). The Page 12

December 2009

Ask Me!sm Project FY2009 -- The Arc of Maryland

relationships among the left-most variables are not indicated by arrows and path coefficients, since they would make the figure much too complex.

.-.0

People in day habilitation reported Day Habilitation lower Transportation Availability than those Autism receiving other types Self Head Injury .06 of DDA-supported Transportation services (dashed .12 Southern Region arrow, ȕ= -.06). (See Availability . 15 .11 blue and black text Western Region and arrows in Figure Both 10.) Self respondents Agency Size with autism (solid Proxy Other Activity Trips arrow, ȕ=.06) and head injuries (ȕ=.06) reported transportation Figure 10. Characteristics Affecting Transportation Availability was more available than did self respondents with other types of disabilities. Geography explained the most variation, with Transportation Availability higher in the southern (ȕ=.12) and western (ȕ=.15) regions than in the central and eastern regions. The larger the agency, the less available (dashed arrow) transportation was reported to be (ȕ= -.06). Proxies reported greater Transportation Availability than did self respondents (8.03 and 6.63 respectively), and 5% of their variability in reporting could be explained by three characteristics of the individuals for whom they reported and their services. Similar to self respondents, proxies in the western region reported greater Transportation Availability than proxies in the other regions (ȕ=.11), and the larger the agency, the less available the transportation (ȕ= -.12, both in black text). Only proxies (red text) reported greater Transportation Availability when the agency provided more frequent transportation to activities other than employment or weekday activities (ȕ=.09).

6

.0 9

. . -. -.06 12

6 .0

Responses to Individual Questions Six of the 53 individual questions had significant increases between FY2008 and FY2009 in the percentages who gave positive responses. All six of these also had significant increases when the whole eight-year period is considered. Almost all (95.8%) in FY2009 said they are never hit or hurt by staff or the people with whom they live. (See Figure 11.) This is an increase from 93.0% in FY2008, and from 85.7% in FY2002. While some variation occurred from year to year, linear regression showed that this percentage increased by an average of 1.1 points per year. The percent who said they liked themselves increased from 78.4% in FY2008 to 82.8% in FY2009, with a regression average annual increase of 0.8 percentage points. Those who often saw or talked with their families increased an average of 0.8 percentage points per year to 63.5% in FY2009. In FY2009, 61.7% of the people said they choose those with whom they lived compared to 56.5% in FY2008 and 49.5% in FY2002. This 2.0 percent per year average increase was greater than for any other question. Owning things increased 2.8 percentage points Ask Me!sm Project FY2009 -- The Arc of Maryland

December 2009 Page 13

Vote in elections

Own things

Choose housemates

See family

Like yourself

Not hit or hurt

% Favorable

between FY2008 and FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY2009, with an 100% average of 1.3 percentage points over 80% the whole period of 60% FY2002 to FY2009.

The greatest one-year 40% increase between FY2008 and FY2009, 20% 10.3 percentage points, 0% concerned voting in government elections, although it only averaged a 1.3 percentage points per year over the eight years of the survey.

Figure 11. Question with More Favorable Responses in FY2009 than (The FY2009 Ask Me! in FY2008 Survey began after the 2008 presidential primaries and included the 2008 elections at the federal, state and local levels.)

Although it changed only a little between FY2008 and FY2009, the question with the second largest average annual increase over the eight years involved people helping them when they made a mistake (1.9 percentage points per year). Similarly, finding it easy to say something when they have problems with staff increased an average of 1.8 percentage points per year even though the increase between FY2008 and FY2009 might not have been statistically significant.

Together, 34 of the 48 indicator questions for the eight domains had significant increases in the favorable response over the eight years between FY2002 and FY2008. The favorable response to the remaining 14 indicator questions remained unchanged statistically.

The percentages of the people who responded in positive manners ( 1) each year are shown for each question in Table 1. The questions are listed in the order they appear on the questionnaire, and are grouped and identified by the quality of life domains that they measure. The average annual changes in the percentages are shown in the last column based upon simple linear regression (b coefficient). A caret (^) indicates the change is significant at the p .01 level and an asterisk (*) indicates the change is significant at the p .001 level. Questions 3, 50, and 56 are used for quality control purposes only and are not shown.

Page 14

December 2009

Ask Me!sm Project FY2009 -- The Arc of Maryland

Table 1. Percent Giving the Favorable Response by Question and Year Question Emotional Well-Being Q1 Would you say that you are a happy person?

Q2 How do you feel about your home where you live?

Q4 How safe do you feel in your neighborhood?

Q5 Do you like yourself?

Q6 Feel others treat you the same as any other person?

Q7 In general, how happy are you with your life?

Social Inclusion Q8 Do people help you to be part of your community?

Q9 Do you go to fun things in your community?

Q10 When you do to fun things, are you active?

Q11 Do you think your neighbors like you?

Q12 Friends from places other than work or home?

Q13 How often do you see these friends on weekends?

Interpersonal Relations Q14 People help you learn to do things for yourself?

Q15 When you make a mistake, do people help you?

Q16 Do people help you reach your goals?

Q17 How often do you see or talk with your family?

Q18 How many close friends do you have?

Q19 Does what you do let you look good to others?

Personal Development Q20 Does what you make you feel important?

Q21 Are you getting training to help you get a job?

Q22 Others give you a chance to be what you want?

Q23 Learning things to make you a better person?

Q24 Get the information you need about sexuality?

Q25 Do you get the services you need?

Self-Determination Q26 Did you pick who you live with?

Q27 Can you be alone when you want to?

Q28 How much choice do you have in your food?

Q29 Do you get a chance to say what you think?

Q30 Do you pay for things with your own money?

Q31 Choose your job or what you do most days?

Physical Well-Being Q32 On your health are people concerned?

Q33 Is your health good?

Q34 Would you say your eating habits are good?

Q35 Do you have regular check ups with a dentist?

Q36 Get the sleep you need without being disturbed?

Fiscal Year Yearly Change 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 80.4 64.7 73.3 73.1 58.2 67.8

78.6 66.5 77.4 78.9 61.9 67.7

80.9 69.1 79.7 77.9 67.5 73.0

78.4 69.7 78.2 78.0 63.2 71.4

76.7 69.2 76.8 79.8 62.5 71.1

79.0 72.0 78.3 78.1 62.9 71.0

80.5 69.2 78.9 78.4 68.7 74.4

80.9 72.6 79.9 82.8 66.2 74.6

0.1 0.9* 0.5^ 0.8* 0.8* 0.9*

68.5 63.7 62.1 64.0 43.4 32.6

72.6 62.2 58.7 65.7 44.2 39.2

76.5 67.4 59.7 70.6 47.8 36.2

76.7 67.2 61.5 69.0 43.3 29.7

73.7 66.2 62.6 68.0 46.8 32.2

74.7 65.9 66.1 65.1 44.9 30.3

76.3 67.8 68.2 71.0 50.7 36.4

74.6 68.3 68.9 71.8 50.4 35.6

0.5^ 0.6^ 1.4* 0.7* 0.9* -0.1

57.1 63.1 70.4 53.3 42.6 62.6

64.0 68.7 72.9 58.1 41.1 64.9

60.3 77.9 77.7 59.9 45.6 70.1

59.6 77.3 76.6 60.0 35.5 68.6

57.3 76.5 76.2 58.1 42.8 66.8

61.9 77.8 77.0 60.0 38.7 66.1

60.1 79.3 79.1 59.1 43.7 70.2

61.2 80.6 77.6 63.5 44.8 70.5

0.1 1.9* 0.9* 0.8* 0.2 0.7*

68.3 56.4 60.0 71.1 36.2 72.7

69.3 51.7 63.8 77.0 34.4 77.0

71.4 57.3 69.6 80.4 39.7 81.9

70.3 51.9 66.0 77.7 37.3 79.4

68.8 55.6 65.7 75.2 41.8 76.5

69.4 57.3 65.1 77.4 37.1 79.1

72.7 55.6 65.9 77.0 41.5 78.8

73.8 58.1 68.7 77.6 42.8 78.8

0.6^ 0.4 0.0 0.3 0.9* 0.4

49.5 59.0 49.9 53.5 66.3 58.2

48.9 53.0 47.1 52.4 68.6 59.2

48.7 64.8 50.8 57.4 71.1 63.8

53.0 62.9 49.2 56.0 70.9 59.7

57.8 63.7 49.7 54.7 71.1 59.4

59.4 62.4 54.1 57.9 72.2 58.1

56.5 63.2 50.7 61.6 72.5 61.2

61.7 63.2 55.4 62.0 75.7 63.4

2.0* 0.8* 0.8* 1.3* 1.0* 0.3

75.1 71.6 70.7 74.1 69.1

78.8 69.2 73.5 79.1 76.8

84.1 76.2 74.9 76.6 76.6

83.6 74.3 75.0 77.5 80.7

82.9 75.6 73.2 74.6 77.1

83.1 71.5 73.6 78.1 79.6

84.8 75.9 75.3 77.0 78.8

84.3 76.3 71.9 75.3 76.5

1.0* 0.6^ 0.1 0.0 0.7*

Ask Me!sm Project FY2009 -- The Arc of Maryland

December 2009 Page 15

Table 1. Percent Giving the Favorable Response by Question and Year Question

Fiscal Year Yearly Change 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 85.7 89.0 92.8 93.0 93.5 93.8 93.0 95.8 1.1*

Q37 Do staff or people you live with hit or hurt you?

Material Well-Being Q38 How many things do you own?

51.0 46.2 Q39 How often do you worry about money?

61.0 69.4 Q40 On money, do you feel that you are well off?

56.5 63.1 Q41 Do you have money each week to spend?

66.2 67.4 Q42 Do you save money?

52.4 51.6 Q43 Do you have the chance to earn good money?

59.0 54.1 Rights Q44 Staff ask permission before entering your home?

57.3 58.4 Q45 Can you lock the bathroom door if you want to?

57.9 55.6 Q46 Can you talk on the telephone in private?

62.0 60.3 Q47 Can you spend time by yourself if you want?

67.4 66.6 Q48 When problem with staff, easy to say something?

54.0 56.3 Q49 How often do you vote in government elections?

23.9 23.8 Transportation Availability Q51 Transportation when you want to go somewhere?

67.5 74.2 Q52 How much planning to go somewhere 30.8 28.6 Q53 If you set up a ride, can you depend on it?

70.3 72.6 Q54 Do you miss things because of transportation?

50.3 52.4 Q55 Transportation problems make you feel separated? 58.5 60.8 ^ Statistically significant p .01 * Statistically significant p .001

Page 16

December 2009

57.6 65.9 61.8 69.1 57.5 59.2

58.0 68.5 64.9 72.2 50.2 55.6

55.2 67.0 62.6 69.2 50.9 58.1

58.7 65.0 63.5 70.4 51.9 56.2

56.5 65.9 65.0 72.3 56.2 58.9

59.9 62.4 63.1 69.9 54.4 60.8

1.3* -0.2 0.6^ 0.6^ 0.2 0.4

58.5 54.4 63.5 69.9 55.9 22.2

61.4 52.7 63.5 71.0 58.0 24.7

60.9 58.7 65.7 72.4 61.0 27.9

65.6 62.3 66.5 71.4 60.4 25.3

67.6 60.7 69.9 73.2 63.9 25.2

66.6 59.6 70.8 72.7 67.5 35.5

1.6* 0.9* 1.5* 0.9* 1.8* 1.3*

71.8 24.0 75.2 50.6 58.6

73.2 26.2 76.9 51.3 60.1

72.6 25.1 71.9 51.2 60.7

72.6 26.2 72.1 52.2 60.5

72.4 26.8 71.2 51.4 61.5

72.7 26.9 75.4 49.8 54.8

0.3 -0.3 0.1 -0.1 -0.2

Ask Me!sm Project FY2009 -- The Arc of Maryland

Quality of Life for Individuals: FY2006-FY2009 Thirty-four characteristics of the approximately 5,000 individuals and their services, with interviews between FY2006 and FY2009, were tested to see if they were related to the reporting of quality of life. Generally the relationships were small, and two characteristics had no bivariate correlation with any of the eight quality of life measures: behavioral problems and orthopedic impairments. (See Appendix Table B2.) Since the characteristics could be interrelated, forward stepwise multiple regression was used to identify which variables had significant independent relationships with quality of life. Five characteristics had significant independent association with Physical Well-being, and together explained 18% (R2=.18) of the variability in reported Physical Well-being. The variable most strongly associated with Physical Well-being was Transportation Availability (ȕ=.36), both measured by the survey. (See Figure 12 and Appendix Table B3.) Next most strongly related was who responded, with self respondents reporting lower Physical Well-being than proxies reported (ȕ= -.11). People living in the western and southern DDA region had greater reported Physical Well-being than people living in the central and eastern DDA regions. After controlling for the perceived availability of transportation, more trips to weekday activities (employment or day habilitation) were associated with a greater favorable reporting of Physical Well-being. Only two characteristics had

Characteristic

Physical Emotional Material InterPersonal SelfWellWellWell- personal Social Develop- Determi- Rights being being being Relations Inclusion ment nation

Transportation Availability .36 Person Self-respondent -.11 Intellectual ability ...

Western region .04 Southern region .06 Age ...

Head injury ...

Specific learning ...

Services Supported employment ...

Day habilitation ...

Residential support ...

Supported living (CSLA)...

Trips to day activities .04 Trips by other agencies ...

Public transportation ...

R2 .18

.32

.42

.29

.24

.30

.29

.25

... ... .05 ... ... ... ...

.15 ... .07 .08 ... ... ...

... .06 .06 ...

-.05 -.06 ...

.20 ... .05 ... ...

-.09 -.05

.21 .08 ... ...

-.04 -.05 ...

.37 .11 .10 .04 ... ... ...

.36 .14 .07 .07 ... ... ...

... ... ... ... ... ... . .11

.07 ... ...

-.05 .06 ... ... .20

.07 ... ... ... ... ...

-.05 .10

... ... .05 ... .06 ... ... .09

.12 .10 ... ... .05 ... ... .14

.06 ... ... ... ...

-.04 ... .25

.07 ... ... ... ... ... ... .25

Figure 12. Person Characteristics and Quality of Life, by Domain (ȕ coefficient)

Ask Me!sm Project FY2009 -- The Arc of Maryland

December 2009 Page 17

independent relationships to Emotional Well-being, explaining 11% of its variability: transportation availability and western region. Seven characteristics explained 20% of the variation in Material Well-being: transportation availability, who responded, western region, southern region, supported employment, and community supported living arrangements. Seven characteristics also had independent relationships with Interpersonal Relations, Social Inclusion and Self-Determination. Eight characteristics had independent relationships to Personal Development, but only explained 14% of its variation. In Rights, however, six characteristics explained 25% of the variation among people.

Personal Characteristics Self or proxy response affected the reported quality of life and it is not possible to separate Domain Self Prox how much of the differences are due to the y individuals’’ abilities to understand and Physical Well-being 8.49 9.32 communicate from how much is due to proxies Emotional Well-being 8.41 8.91 trying to report for someone else. Self Material Well-being 7.43 7.23 respondents reported statistically lower Physical Interpersonal Relations 7.75 7.72 Well-being and Emotional Well-being than Social Inclusion 7.61 7.11 proxies reported, and higher Material WellPersonal Development 7.70 6.80 being, Social Inclusion, Personal Development, Self-determination 7.71 5.66 Self-Determination and Rights than proxies Rights 7.28 5.10 reported. (See Figure 13.). Only in the domains of Interpersonal Relations did the Transportation Availability 6.63 8.03 overall level of reporting not differ statistically.

Figure 13. Average Quality of Life and The separate measure of intellectual ability did Transportation Availability, by Respondent have an independent relationship to Interpersonal Relations as determined by the stepwise regression. (Refer back to Figure 12.) Also, the greater the intellectual ability, the greater the quality of life in the domains of Personal Development, Self-Determination and Rights, independent of who reported. Who responded did not affect the reporting of Material Well-being once other characteristics of individulas were taken into consideration, particularly the region of residence.

Geography significantly affected the reporting of quality of life in seven of the eight domains.

People living in the western region had higher reported quality of life than those living in other regions in all but Personal Development. Those living in the southern region also had higher reported quality of life in Physical Well-being, Material Well-being, Self-Determination and Rights than those living in the central and eastern DDA regions.

People with head injuries had lower Interpersonal Relations, Social Inclusion and Personal Development than those without head injuries. Older people had lower Interpersonal Relations and Personal Development than younger people. People with specific learning disabilities had lower Social Inclusion than those without specific learning disabilities. None of the other characteristics of the individuals surveyed had independent relationships to reporting in any Page 18

December 2009

Ask Me!sm Project FY2009 -- The Arc of Maryland

quality of life domain: gender, autism, behavior problems, mental disorder, cerebral palsy, epilepsy and seizure disorders, other neurological impairments, orthopedic impairments, hearing impairments, speech and language impairments, or vision impairments.

Service Characteristics Services provided with DDA funding explain variation in reported quality of life in seven of the eight domains. Service characteristics had no effect on the reporting of Emotional Well-being.

Supported employment services independently contributed to higher reported quality of life in five domains: Material Well-being, Interpersonal Relations, Personal Development, SelfDetermination and Rights. In contrast, day habilitation services contributed to higher quality of live only in the domain of Personal Development, and residential services contributed to higher reported quality of life only in the domain of Social Inclusion. People with community supported living arrangements (CSLA) reported lower Material Well-being than those in other residential situations. The more frequently agencies reported that they provided transportation to employment or day habilitation, the higher the reported quality of life in four domains: Physical Well-being, Material Well-being, Social Inclusion and Personal Development. However, the more frequently they reported that other agencies provided the transportation, the lower the quality of life in Self-Determination. People who frequently used public transportation had lower reported Interpersonal Relations than those who did not. However, the importance of different sources of transportation changes when self and proxy reports were analyzed separately.

Having or not having individual support services or resource coordination services did not have independent effects on the reporting of quality of life when all respondents were combined.

Neither did the number of agencies providing the services, the size of the agencies, the survey response rate at the agencies, frequency of transportation to evening and weekend activities, and frequency of family (or self) provided transportation. However, the independent contribution of service characteristics to reported quality of life differed sometimes when self and proxy responses are considered 1. Do you understand you will be answering separately. questions? (Yes, no)

Self and Proxy Differences Self response had significant relationships with six quality of life domains. It was associated with higher quality of life in four domains and lower quality of life in two domains. Peer interviewers made the decision on who had sufficient understanding to give informed consent to the interview and thus be able to respond for themselves.

2. Do you understand you can skip questions if you do not want to answer them? (Yes, no) 3. Do you understand you can stop the interview at any time? (Yes, no) 4. Let me ask you a question from the interview.

Would you say that you are a happy person?

(Yes, sometimes, no) 5. Would you like to answer more questions?

(Yes, no) 6. Do you understand that you will be answering questions about your life? (Yes, no) Figure 14. Ability to Consent Questions

Ask Me!sm Project FY2009 -- The Arc of Maryland

December 2009 Page 19

(See Figure 14.) Self-respondents are therefore different from people for whom proxies report in their intellectual ability and perhaps is other ways that might affect quality of life. However, it has also been well documented that self and proxies answer differently for the same person (Lunsky and Benson, 1997; Stancliffe, 1999; Cummins, 2002). While it is not possible to separate the differences due to different characteristics of the person from differences due to different reporters, many of the differences appear to reflect the perspective of the reporters.

Proxies reported greater Physical Well-being than did self-respondents, and proxy reports were not influenced by any characteristic of the individual for whom they were reporting, ignoring the perception of transportation availability which was highly related to every quality of life domain for all responders. (See Appendix Table B3.) Residential services affected proxy reporting of Physical Well-being, with proxies (including residential staff) of people receiving residential services reporting greater Physical Well-being than proxies (only day staff and family) of people not receiving residential services. Self-respondents receiving residential services reported no different Physical Well-being than did self-respondents not receiving residential services.

Region affected the reporting of self-respondents, but not proxy respondents. No characteristic of the individual or service they received affected the high level of Emotional Well-being reported by proxies, while region affected the Emotional Well-being reported by selfrespondents. Proxy and self-respondent answers to questions about Interpersonal Relations and Social Inclusion were affected by totally different characteristics. The reporting of Personal Development by proxies and self respondents were both affected by supported employment and day habilitation, but with no other similarities. The reported level of Self-Determination was affected by geography and supported employment for both types of respondents. In no domain did the same combination of person and service characteristics affect both proxy and self reports, and this will be illustrated by more detailed path analysis of Material Well-being and Rights that also include Transportation Availability.

Transportation Availability had the strongest association with Material Well-being for both self respondents and proxies, with greater Transportation Availability increasing Material Wellbeing. (See Figure 15.) Supported employment also increased Material Well-being reporting of both self respondents and proxies. Self respondents receiving individual support services and community supported living arrangements reported lower Material Well-being than did self respondents not receiving these types of services. The more frequently the agency provided transportation to evening and weekend activities, the higher self respondents reported their Material Well-being (independent of their perceived Transportation Availability). Proxy reporting was not related to these services, but proxies for people receiving residential services reported greater Material Well-being than proxies for people not receiving residential services.

Proxies also reported greater Transportation Availability for people receiving residential services, which indirectly further increased the reporting of Material Well-being. Larger agency size did not directly affect self and proxy reports of Material Well-being, but indirectly decreased both types of respondents reporting of Material Well-being by decreasing their reporting of Transportation Availability.

Page 20

December 2009

Ask Me!sm Project FY2009 -- The Arc of Maryland

Western Region Southern Region Age Autism

Evening/Weekend Trips Individual Support .1 . 10 4

CSLA - .0 -. 0 5 .07

. 12

.0 5 6

.07

. 06

.07

Day Habilitation -.08 Agency Size

-.08 -.13

Transportation.42 Availability .27

Material Well-being

.13

Residential Services .14

Intellectual Ability Head Injury

. 11 -. 12

6 .0 .15

Self; Proxy; Both

Supported Employment

Figure 15. Direct Effects of Person and Service Characteristics on Material Well-being and Indirect Effects through Transportation Availability

Residence in the western region of Maryland had a direct effect of increasing self respondents ’ reports of Material Well-being, as well as indirectly increasing it through increasing their reports of Transportation Availability. However, western residence is associated with less residential services, less supported employment, and more day habilitation which indirectly decreases reporting of Material Well-being. Region did not directly influence proxy reporting of Material Well-being, but western location indirectly increased reporting of Material Well-being by increasing their reporting of Transportation Availability. Southern region location indirectly increased proxy reporting of Material Well-being by increasing the amount of supported employment. Older age had no direct effect on either self or proxy reporting of Material Wellbeing, but indirectly increases Material Well-being by increasing reports of Transportation Availability and residential services and indirectly decreases Material Well-being by being associated with more day habilitation and less supported employment. Autism has a small indirect effect on increasing self respondents ’ reports of Material Well-being though its association with greater Transportation Availability, and an indirect negative effect on proxies ’ reports of Material Well-being through its association with less supported employment.

Intellectual ability had a direct effect of increasing proxy reporting of Material Well-being, and indirect positive effects through association with greater supported employment. This was diminished by indirect negative effects through less residential services. For self respondents, all effect of intellectual ability on Material Well-being was indirect through greater supported employment (positive), fewer residential services (negative), more community supported living arrangements (negative), and fewer evening and weekend trips (negative). Head injuries did not Ask Me!sm Project FY2009 -- The Arc of Maryland

December 2009 Page 21

have direct effects on self respondents reporting of Material Well-being, but did have some indirect negative effects through less supported employment and more individual support services.

Rights had the greatest increase in quality of life between FY2002 and FY2009 among the eight domains, and the trend suggests that this may continue. However, only Transportation Availability affected the reporting of rights by both self respondents and proxies. The more self and proxy respondents reported transportation to be available, the higher the level of Rights they reported. (See Figure 16.) The only other factor that directly affected the reporting of Rights by self respondents was day habilitation services. Self respondents receiving day habilitation reported lower Rights than self respondent not receiving day habilitation. Day habilitation did not affect proxy reporting, but proxies for people receiving supported employment services reported higher levels of rights than proxies for people not receiving supported employment.

Supported employment was as important for proxies as Transportation Availability. Since day habilitation and supported employment are mutually exclusive categories of service, the main difference between self and proxy reporting are for people who received neither day habilitation Western Region .1 . 10 4

Age

-. 08

Southern Region

Day Habilitation

-.0 8

. 12

.17

. 06

Autism

.11

.07

Agency Size

-.08 -.13

Residential Services

Transportation.29 Availability .21

Rights

3 .1 .21

Intellectual Ability

. 27

Supported Employment

Self; Proxy; Both

Figure 16. Direct Effects of Person and Service Characteristics on Rights, and Indirect Effects through Transportation Availability nor supported employment services (e.g., only residential services or individual support services). Proxy reporting of Rights was most influenced by the intellectual ability of the individuals for whom they were responding, with greater level of Rights reported for people with greater intellectual ability. Proxies in the western and southern regions reported higher levels of Rights than did proxies in the central and eastern regions, while geography did not directly influence the reporting of self respondents. Geography indirectly influenced the reporting of rights by both self respondents and proxy respondents as they reported greater Transportation Page 22

December 2009

Ask Me!sm Project FY2009 -- The Arc of Maryland

Availability if they lived in the western and southern DDA regions. Other person and service characteristics that affected the reporting of Transportation Availability indirectly affected the reporting of Rights. Older age and autism indirectly increased the reporting of Rights by self respondents, and residential services indirectly increased the reporting of Rights by proxies.

Larger agency size indirectly decreased the reporting of Rights by both self and proxy respondents as it decreased the reported availability of transportation.

Ask Me!sm Project FY2009 -- The Arc of Maryland

December 2009 Page 23

Quality of Life at Agencies: FY2006-FY2009 Agency Variation Surveys were conducted at 120 community agencies between FY2006 and FY2009 in the second cycle of interviews, as compared to 116 community agencies during the first cycle of interviews.

The average agency quality of life was higher in the second cycle than in the first cycle for seven of the eight domains, with practically no change in Material Well-being. The variation among agencies (as indicated by the standard deviation) was less in the second cycle then in the first for five of the domains: Physical Well-being, Interpersonal Relations, Social Inclusion, Personal Development and Rights. The variation among agencies increased for Emotional Well-being and Material Well-being, and remained the same for Self-Determination. Agencies varied least during the second cycle in Physical Well-being (7.03 to 9.76), and varied most in Rights (3.34 to 8.41). (See Figure 17.) One-fifth of the agencies (24) had average Physical Well-being scores above 9.20 and one-tenth (12) had Physical Well-being scores below 7.97. The majority (70%) had average Physical Well-being scores between 7.97 and 9.20. The majority of agencies had Emotional Well-being scores between 8.00 and 9.00, with the top one-fifth having average scores between 9.00 and 9.57 and the bottom one-tenth has scores between 6.33 and 8.00.

Material Well-being varied much more among agencies, with the middle 70% varying from 6.30 to 7.95. The top 20% varied almost as much as the middle 70%, from 7.95-9.55, while the

10 9 8 7 6 5 4

ht s ig R

Em

Ph

ys ic

al

W ot el io l-b na ei l ng W M el at l -b er In ia l W eing te rp el er l-b so ei na ng lR el So at io ci Pe ns al rs I on nc al lu sio D ev n Se el op lf m D et en er t m in at io n

3

Figure 17. Average Quality of Life Among Top 20%, Middle ;70%, and Bottome 10% of Agencies Page 24

December 2009

Ask Me!sm Project FY2009 -- The Arc of Maryland

bottom 10% varied only from 5.38 to 6.30. Agencies had a fairly narrow range of variation in Interpersonal Relations, with 70% being between 7.08 and 8.16, 20% between 8.16 and 8.85, and 10% between 5.60 and 7.08. Social inclusion did not vary much among the top 20% (8.008.50) or among the middle 70'% (6.85-8.00), but varied substantially among the lowest 10% (4.13-6.85) with one agency having an average score less than the neutral value of 5.00. Greater variation in Personal Development than in Social Inclusion occurred among agencies in the top 20% (8.02-8.92) and middle 70%, (6.55-8.02), but less variation occurred among the bottom 10% (6.02-6.55), and no agency had an unfavorable average response. The domain of SelfDetermination had substantial variation among agencies in the top 20% (7.90-8.96), the middle 70% (6.11-7.90), and the bottom 10% (4.56-6.11). Four of the agencies in the bottom 10% had unfavorable average responses below 5.00 in the domain of Self-Determination. Six agencies had unfavorable Rights scores (3.34-5.00) and an additional six had scores just above the neutral level (5.00-5.60). The middle 70% of agencies had average Rights scores between 5.60 and 7.36, and the top 20% had average Rights scores of 7.36 to 8.41.

Two-fifths of the agencies 80% were in the top 20% of 70% agencies on at least two Bottom 10% in 2+ 60% domains. One-fifth were in domains 50% the bottom 10% on at least Middle 70% in two domains. A few were in 40% most domains 30% the top 20% and bottom Top 20% in 2+ 20% domains 10% about equally. Most 10% were in the middle 70% on 0% all, or all by one domain.

10-50 51-149 150-349 350+ Quality of life does not seem to be related in any Number of People Supported consistent way to agency size, but smaller agencies Figure 18. Percent of Agencies with Quality Extremes, by Size were more likely to be at the quality extremes than larger agencies. (See Figure 18.) Among agencies supporting 10-50 people, 30% were in the bottom 10% on two or more quality of life domains, and 41% were in the top 20% on two or more domains. In contrast, none of the agencies supporting 150 or more people ranked in the bottom 10% on more than one quality of life domain, and 30% or fewer ranked in the top 20% on more than one quality of life domain.

Agency Quality and Agency Characteristics A number of characteristics of people and their services were associated with the quality of life they reported. (See Appendix Table B4.) Characteristics of the people supported by an agency, and the type of services the agency provides, likewise affect the average quality of life reported for the agency. These characteristics of the people and services explain as little as one-fourth of the agency variation in Interpersonal Relations (R2=.24) to over half of the variation in the average reported level of Physical Well-being and Self-Determination (R2=.57 and .51

Ask Me!sm Project FY2009 -- The Arc of Maryland

December 2009 Page 25

Characteristic

Physical Emotional Material InterSocial Personal SelfWellWellWell- personal Inclusion Develop- Determi- Rights being being being Relations Inclusion ment nation .67 .47 .45 .41 .36 .21 .56 ...

Transport available Person % Self-respondent ...

Intellectual ability -.18 Average age group ...

Western region ...

Southern region ... % Autism .14 % Cerebral palsy ... % Head injury ... % Hearing impaired ... % Mental disorder ...

Services % Support employment ... % Residential services ... % Day habilitation ... % Individual support ...

2 R .57

... ... .15 ... ... ... .23 -.25 ...

-.15

...

-.23 ... ... .19 ... ... ... ... ...

...

-.22 ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...

...

-.30 ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...

... ... ... ... ... ...

-.23 ... ... ...

.58 ... ... .16 ... ...

-.14 ... ... ...

.34 ... ... ... ... ...

-.18 ...

-.24 ...

.23 ... ... ... .48

... ... ... ... .36

... ... ... ... .24

... ... .19 ... .30

.26 ... ... ... .22

...

-.27 ... ... .51

.30 ... ... .26 .45

Figure 19. Relation of Agency Characteristics with Agency Quality of Life, by Domain (ȕ coefficient) respectively). (See Figure 19.) The most variation that could be explained was in the domain of Physical Well-being, and most of this was explained by the reported availability of transportation (ȕ=.67). Only two other agency characteristics added any additional help in understanding the Physical Well-being reported at an agency: the intellectual abilities of the people supported (ȕ= -.18) and the percent of people with autism (ȕ=.14). Intellectual ability was not associated with Physical Well-being when analyzed at the individual level for either self or proxy respondents, and probably reflects the very high Physical Well-being reported by proxies. (Refer back to Figure 12 on page 17.) Transportation Availability and four other characteristics explained almost half of the variation among agencies in Emotional Well-being, while none of the four other characteristics were significantly associated with Emotional Wellbeing at the individual level. Transportation Availability, intellectual ability and southern region were associated with Material Well-being at the agency level, but only southern region was associated with Material Well-being at the individual level. Intellectual ability was associated with Interpersonal Relations at the agency, and among proxies at the individual level except in the opposite direction. Supported employment was related to Personal Development at both the agency and individual level. Transportation Availability was not associated with Rights at the Agency level, even though it was at the individual level. Higher rights were reported at agencies with more people responding for themselves and providing more of their people with supported employment services, the same as observed at the individual level. Agencies supporting greater Page 26

December 2009

Ask Me!sm Project FY2009 -- The Arc of Maryland

percentages of people with cerebral palsy had lower reported levels of Personal Development, Self-Determination, and Rights than agencies supporting smaller percentages with cerebral palsy, even though cerebral palsy was not found associated with quality of life at the individual level. Geographic region, associated with quality of life in seven of the eight domains at the individual level, was associated with only two quality of life domains at the agency level independent of average reported Transportation Availability. When Transportation Availability was not included in the regressions, geography was associated with quality of life in six domains. (See Appendix Table B5.)

. 32

.30

Geographic region had significant Cycle 1 Cycle 2 effect on the average Transportation Availability reported at an agency. % Self Response -.

40 Those agencies in the southern and western DDA regions had greater Transportation Availability reported Transportation .25 Transportation than agencies in the central and Availability Availability eastern regions. (See Figure 20.)

This reflects what was found at the Southern Region individual level. The individual analysis also found differences Western Region between self and proxy reporting, with proxies reporting Figure 20. Agency Characteristics and Transportation transportation as much more Availability at Agencies available than self respondents reported. Thus at the agency level, the greater the percent of people responding for themselves, the lower the average reported level of Transportation Availability. The level of Transportation Availability, reported in the first cycle for the agency, also affected the level of Transportation Availability reported in the second cycle, but less so than the other three characteristics. Excluding the cycle one reported level of Transportation Availability from the regression would only increase the size of the remaining three path coefficients.

Agency Change Over Time The Ask Me! Survey included 108 Maryland community agencies at least twice between FY2002 and FY2009. The 34 larger agencies had interviews during two or more years in one or both of the cycles, and their responses during a cycle were combined for this analysis. For all agencies, the responses were adjusted to the midpoint of each cycle to eliminate any differences that might be due to which year during the cycle that interviews were conducted. This resulted in an effective interval of four years between interviews.

The average quality of life scores increased for the majority of agencies, irrespective of which domain is considered. Almost three-fourths of the agencies had increases in Emotional Wellbeing (72%) and Rights (73%). However, just over half (51%) had increases in Material Wellbeing. (See Figure 21.) About two-thirds had increases in the other seven domains. On Ask Me!sm Project FY2009 -- The Arc of Maryland

December 2009 Page 27

Change in Physical Emotional Material InterPersonal Selfaverage wellwellwell- personal Social develop- Determiquality of life being being being relations inclusion ment nation Rights Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% -1.00 or greater 4% 2% 7% 1% 1% 4% 3% 5% -0.50 to -0.99 10% 4% 17% 10% 11% 8% 12% 5% 0.00 to -0.49 27% 22% 25% 24% 20% 25% 20% 17% 0.01 to 0.49 42% 48% 30% 41% 38% 32% 24% 27% 0.50 to 0.99 14% 18% 15% 18% 22% 22% 24% 25% 1.00 or greater 4% 6% 6% 7% 8% 10% 17% 21% Figure 21. Percent of Agencies by Change in Quality of Life over Four Years and Domain Emotional Well-being, 2% of the agencies experienced declines of 1.00 or more, and 4% experienced declines of 0.50-0.99. Most of the declines (22%), however, were less than 0.50 and are likely due to sampling variability for small agencies where only about 30 interviews were conducted during each cycle. Half (48%) of the agencies with increases also had small increases that could be due to sampling variability. Still, 18% had increases in Emotional Wellbeing between 0.50 and 0.99, and 6% had increases of 1.00 or more, with the greatest increase of 1.50. One-fifth of the agencies had increases in the domain of Rights of 1.00 or more, and the greatest increase was 2.30. Self-Determination scores increased similarly to Rights scores, with almost one-fifth having increases of 1.00 or more and the greatest increase of 2.28. The larger increase in Self-Determination and Rights compared to in Emotional Well-being may reflect both the lower overall scores in Self-Determination and Rights to begin with, and the training emphasis that DDA and The Arc of Maryland placed on Self-Determination and Rights starting in the third and fourth years of cycle one after the average scores remained unchanged.

Material Well-being had no discernable trend over the eight years for Maryland as a whole, and this is reflected at the agency level. Almost as many agencies experienced small declines of 0.00 to 0.49 (25%) as experienced small increases of 0.01 to 0.49 (30%). Just about as many experienced large declines of 1.00 or more (7%) as experienced large increases of 1.00 or more (6%). The range of 3.92 points between the agency with the greatest decrease in Material Wellbeing (-1.88) and the agency with the greatest increase (2.04) was wider than in any of other domain except rights, where the range was 4.04 points (-1.74 to 2.30).

The average quality of life in each domain had a strong correlation with the average reported at the same agencies during cycle one, ranging from r=.46 in Personal Development to r=.60 in Rights. Adding the cycle one quality of life to the stepwise regression equations adds minimal explained variance for the regression of Physical Well-being and changes the statistical significance of some of the variables. However, the cycle one quality of life adds substantial amounts of additional explained variances to the regressions of Material Well-being and Interpersonal Relations, and substantially changes what appears to affect quality of life in the second cycle. (See Appendix Table B5.) Path analysis of Material Well-being and Rights with information from both cycle one (shown in blue) and cycle two (shown in red) show how agency Page 28

December 2009

Ask Me!sm Project FY2009 -- The Arc of Maryland

characteristics that are associated with quality of life in the second cycle may be different than those associated with quality of life in the first cycle, and show what characteristics have affected change in the quality of life over time.

Cause and effect, and change, can be modeled at the agency level with a path diagram. Material Well-being did not improve overall during the eight years of the survey, and the level of Material Well-being reported during the first cycle had a large effect on the level of the Material Wellbeing reported during the second cycle four years later (Č•=.36). (See Figure 22.) However, the

CYCLE 1

CYCLE 2 -.28

% Public Transportation

% Mental Disorder

Material Well-being

Western Region 7 .5

Transportation Availability

% Individual Support

.50

.25

-.2 0

-.19

.17

4

.20

Response Rate

-.2

.28

Intellectual Ability

.48 . 30 9 -. 2 .28

Material Well-being

.36

.36

% Supported Employment

Transportation Availability

Figure 22. Changes in Agency Material Well-being level of Transportation Availability reported in cycle two related to Material Well-being reported in cycle two as did the Material Well-being reported in cycle one In other words, the more transportation was seen as available, the more Material Well-being at the agency increased during the previous four years. Agencies with higher Transportation Availability in cycle one had higher Transportation Availability reported in cycle two. Cycle one Transportation Availability had two indirect effects on cycle two Material Well-being: 1) as it affected Transportation Availability in cycle two, and 2) as it affected Material Well-being in cycle one.

Geography did not directly affect Material Well-being in either cycle one or cycle two, but had a substantial indirect effect on cycle two Material Well-being as perceived Transportation Availability increased much more rapidly over the four years in western Maryland than in the other DDA regions. This positive indirect effect of location in the western region was somewhat reduced by the fact that agencies in western Maryland provided greater percentages of their people with individual support services than agencies in other parts of the state, and higher levels of individual support services were related to lower levels of Material Well-being. Supported employment, use of public transportation, intellectual ability, and the percent of people selected Ask Me!sm Project FY2009 -- The Arc of Maryland

December 2009 Page 29

for the Ask Me! Survey who agreed to be interviewed, all directly affected the level of Material Well-being reported in cycle one, but did not affect changes in Material Well-being over the four years between cycles. Agencies with larger percentages of people with mental health disorders in cycle two had less increase (or more decrease) in Material Well-being than did agencies with smaller percentages with mental health disorders. The path model also shows that agencies with higher cycle one response rates and/or supported employment provided smaller percentages of their people with individual support services in cycle two than agencies with lower survey response rates and/or supporting smaller percentages in employment. Greater intellectual ability and/or public transportation use was associated with higher percentages receiving individual support services. These indirectly affected cycle two Material Well-being, as less increase (or greater decrease) in Material Well-being occurred for agencies providing large percentages of people with individual support services.

Rights changed substantially between the first and second four-year cycles of the Ask Me! Survey. However, the level of Rights reported during cycle one was the strongest predictor of the average level of Rights reported during cycle two (ȕ=.47). (See Figure 23.) Four factors affected change in Rights at agencies, and had direct effects on the average level of Rights

Cycle 1

Cycle 2 .86

% Self Response

.1

-.45

.47

Rights

1

% Cerebral Palsy

Rights

-. 15 . 22 -.2

0 -.2

7

% Residential -.19 Services

3 .5

% Epilepsy, Seizures

% Self Response

Southern Region

% Hearing Impairment

Figure 23. Agency Change in Rights reported during cycle two. The larger the percentages of people at the agencies who responded for themselves, the higher the level of Rights that were reported. This relationship was observed during cycle one as well, and the percent responding for themselves in cycle two was highly related to the percent responding for themselves in cycle one (ȕ=.86). Independent of people ’s abilities to respond for themselves, rights increased less over the four years at agencies providing greater percentages of their people with residential services. Agencies ’ residential services did Page 30

December 2009

Ask Me!sm Project FY2009 -- The Arc of Maryland

not affect the level of reported rights in cycle one, but agencies with higher self-response in cycle one were less likely to be providing residential services in cycle two, showing that self response affects Rights and change in Rights occurs through multiple paths. Independent of ability to respond for themselves, the reporting of Rights increased less at agencies supporting larger percentages of people with cerebral palsy and with hearing impairments than at agencies with smaller percentages of people with these particular types of disabilities. Cerebral palsy and hearing impairments were not associated with the level of Rights reported in cycle one, but epilepsy and seizure disorders were. Finally, agencies in the southern region had the same level of Rights reported during the first cycle as did agencies in other parts of the state, but Rights increased more rapidly among agencies in the southern region than among agencies in other regions.

Ask Me!sm Project FY2009 -- The Arc of Maryland

December 2009 Page 31

Summary of Previous Ask Me! Findings The Ask Me! Survey has a twelve-year history, four pilot years with agencies volunteering to participate, and eight years with agencies selected systematically. These twelve years of data have produced a number of findings that are documented in reports and refereed publications.

The findings are summarized below with references to where more extensive discussion can be found.

Individual Characteristics !

Demographic –Older people report slightly less Personal Development and Interpersonal Relations than younger people, but age has no relation to other quality of life domains.

Men and women do not differ in their reporting of quality of life (Bonham, Basehart and Marchand, 2005: 36).

!

Intellectual Ability –Two measures of intellectual ability relate to most quality of life domains. People ’s ability to answer survey questions for themselves generally provides stronger predictions than agency-reported levels of ability (Bonham, Basehart and Marchand, 2005: 36, 80-81). However, the importance of intellectual ability and thirdperson reporting cannot be separated for those unable to respond for themselves (Bonham, Basehart and Marchand, 2006: 18-24).

!

Conditions –A few physical conditions and impairments may relate to quality of life, but which ones often depends on whether the individual or proxies answer the survey questions (Bonham, Basehart and Marchand, 2005: 36, 80-81).

Service Characteristics !

Employment –People with supported employment services have higher quality of life in all eight domains than people with day habilitation services when physical and intellectual abilities have been taken into account (Bonham, Basehart and Marchand, 2005: 35, 80-81). Also, agencies with a large percent of consumers in supported employment had a higher average reported quality of life than agencies that provided few or no consumers with employment support. This was true for six of the eight domains (all except Physical and Emotional Well-being), even after physical and intellectual abilities had been taken into account (Bonham, Basehart and Bonham, 2005: 40, 82).

!

Residential —Whether people do or do not receive residential services does not directly relate to their quality of life. One study suggests that the more independent the residential situation, the higher the quality of life (Bonham, Basehart and Marchand, 2000a).

!

Community Supported Living –Whether or not a person has community supported living arrangements (CSLA) does not affect quality of life at the individual level, but agencies

Page 32

December 2009

Ask Me!sm Project FY2009 -- The Arc of Maryland

with larger proportions of people in CSLA services have higher average reporting of Material Well-being and Social Inclusion than other agencies (Bonham, Basehart and Marchand, 2005: 37, 43, 82), !

Other Support –Whether people do or do not receive individual support services (ISS) does not directly relate to their quality of life (Bonham, Basehart and Marchand, 2005: 37). The characteristics and quality of these services have not been measured.

!

Transportation —People ’s perception of the availability of transportation has a large effect on their quality of life in all eight domains. The frequency that family and friends provide transportation is the only objective measure of transportation that relates to (increases) perceptions of transportation availability (Bonham, Basehart and Marchand, 2004: 23). The frequency that an agency provides transportation to employment or day programs and to other activities directly affects one or two quality of life domains.

Agencies who have many people using public transportation also have higher reported quality of life in Material Well-being and Interpersonal Relations (Bonham, Basehart and Marchand, 2005: 82). Being able to depend on a planned ride is highly related to perceptions of Rights, and using public transportation has become more strongly associated with Rights over time (Bonham, Basehart and Marchand, 2007: 11).

!

Service Coordination —Whether or not people receive service coordination (service brokering) independent of an agency directly providing support does not show any statistical relationship with quality of life. However, the quality of the relationship with the service coordinator (chosen, available, listens, identifies new services) does affect quality of life (Bonham, Basehart and Marchand, 2000a).

Staff Characteristics !

Turnover —The higher the turnover rates of direct support and first line supervisors at an agency, the lower the quality of life in several domains (Bonham, Basehart and Marchand, 2005: 42, 82; Bonham, Basehart and Marchand, 2006: 18).

!

Wages —Wages of direct support staff directly affect only Personal Development, independent of staff turnover. Wages of first line supervisors had no independent direct effect (Bonham, Basehart and Marchand, 2005: 41, 82).

!

Staffing Ratio –The larger the number of direct support staff supervised by a first level supervisor, the lower the Personal Development and Self-determination reported by those supported by the agency (Bonham, Basehart and Marchand, 2005: 41, 82).

Agency Characteristics !

Quality Assurance Plans —Agency goals of improving Physical Well-being, Personal Development, Self-determination, and Rights resulted in increased quality of life among

Ask Me!sm Project FY2009 -- The Arc of Maryland

December 2009 Page 33

the people they support. Agency goals of improving Emotional Well-being, consumer satisfaction, or staff satisfaction resulted in decreased quality of life. Goals to improve agency processes had no direct effect on quality of life (Bonham, Basehart and Marchand, 2004: 28). !

Value Placed on Consumer Data —The greater the participation rate in the Ask Me! Survey (both self and proxy responses), the higher the reported quality of life at an agency (Bonham, Basehart and Marchand, 2005: 41, 82). The more times agencies attended training on Ask Me! and analyzed the data for themselves, the greater the value they saw in the data (Bonham, Basehart and Marchand, 2003: 48-51).

Quality of Life Measurement !

Involvement of People with Disabilities –People with intellectual and other developmental disabilities should be involved in research affecting them at all stages of the process. Most important is asking individuals directly about themselves, and the Ask Me! Survey has the highest reported level of self-response of surveys of people with disabilities. This is due to the content of the survey coming directly from people with disabilities, from peers determining their ability to respond and conducting the interviews, and the survey process and results increasing the confidence and selfadvocacy of both interviewers and respondents (Bonham, 2008b).

!

Proxy Reporting –Some people cannot understand and respond to questions for themselves, so others are asked to provide information by proxy. Proxies do not answer as many questions as those who can respond for themselves can answer, and are no more consistent in their answers than self-respondents. Two proxies for the same person agree most on Emotional Well-being and least on Self-determination. Two proxies who are both day staff proxies agree with each other most frequently while a family proxy and a staff proxy agree the least. Self-respondents and proxies differ on the level of quality of life they report, but not on what influenced the quality (Bonham, Basehart and Marchand, 2006: 18-24; Bonham, 2006).

!

Peer Interviewers –People with disabilities can become excellent interviewers of their peers. The number of answers they elicit increases with their experience (Bonham et al., 1999: 8). The FY2008 interviewers averaged 5.0 years of experience. Some evidence exists to suggest that respondents give more “yes ” or positive answers to non-peers than to peers (Bonham, Basehart and Marchand, 2001: p. 8).

Page 34

December 2009

Ask Me!sm Project FY2009 -- The Arc of Maryland

Discussion Quality of Life Measurement The concept for the Ask Me! Project began in 1996 with a broad-based consortium of key stakeholders: Maryland Developmental Disabilities Administration (DDA), Maryland Disability Law Center, Maryland Developmental Disabilities Council, People on the Go of Maryland, The Arc of Maryland, and the Maryland Association of Community Service. It was based on premises that reflect the four principles of participatory action research (WhitneyThomas, 1996): (a) research subjects should identify the specific issues that are important to them, (b) individuals should be asked directly about their own lives, (c) subjects should be involved in the collection of data, and (d) the research should be used to empower people. A four-year pilot began in FY1998, using a modification of the Schalock and Keith Quality of Life Questionnaire that could be administered by interviewers with developmental disabilities. A completely new Ask Me! Survey was developed in FY2001 to include more of the questions selfadvocates had identified as important to them, and to reflect the better understanding of the multi dimensionality of the quality of life construct. International research in a number of fields has somewhat agreed on eight dimensions to quality of life, but has not agreed on whether a hierarchy exists among them. This report focuses on selected domains based on the level of their scores and the change in them over time, and does not assume any theoretical hierarchy among them.

The Ask Me! Survey has been administered to a random sample of individuals supported by a probability sample of community agencies annually between FY2002 and FY2009 in two cycles.

Each Maryland agency supporting ten or more individuals is included at least once during a cycle. The largest agencies in Maryland have been able to review the change in reporting of their people over time, but FY2009 marks the first time that 108 Maryland agencies can analyze change over time. This report presents the quality of life scores for individual agencies for the FY2006-FY2009 cycle. The FY2005 report contains similar data for the FY2002-FY2005 cycle.

Bonham Research sent to each agency a customized and updated toolkit that included four PowerPoint slides. The first slide showed the scores for each domain for each year of both cycle one and cycle two that the agency was included in the survey. The second slide showed the agency ’s cycle two score, averaged and adjusted to the midpoint, compared to the Maryland cycle two average, and symbols indicating the agency ’s relative standing compared to other agencies. The third slide showed the four questions which people supported by the agency answered most favorably compared to the Maryland average, and the fourth slide showed the four questions which people answered least favorably compare to the Maryland average.

The use of the same survey instrument and procedures during the eight years makes analysis of change over time straight forward. However, an unchanging survey cannot reflect changes in how people define quality of life. During FY2008-FY2009, the Ask Me! Project team reviewed the research literature, distributed surveys, and conducted focus groups with adults, transitioning youth, parents of young children, community agencies, and DDA staff to identify important questions not included in the existing survey. The resulting Ask Me! Survey-2 was pretested in Ask Me!sm Project FY2009 -- The Arc of Maryland

December 2009 Page 35

the during FY2009 for use in • Friendships and romantic relations FY2010. Key revisions include: 1) separated from staff relations new questions about romantic • relations and including these and • New questions on leadership, planning, questions on friendships in a domain different from relations speaking up, and saying “No” with staff, 2) new questions about opportunities to speak for • New questions on quality of work life themselves and lead others in various situations, 3) new questions on work and the quality of work • New section on staff and services life, and 4) replacing the questions replaces old section on transportation on transportation availability with questions on services and staff Figure 24. Changes for Ask Me! Survey-2sm relations. (See Figure 24.) The development of the new survey instrument and how the new domain scores compare with the previous domain scores appears in a separate report (Bonham, Schneider, Volkman and Sorensen, 2009). The procedures of the revised Ask Me! Survey will change in only two ways. The first is minor and reflects moving the question on potential abuse to the end of the survey and requiring interviewers to report any indication of abuse to their supervisors, who in turn are required to report it. The second involves asking agencies to report the level of support needed, the place of residence, and the hours worked for pay rather than transportation and the level of intellectual ability.

The emphasis in the Ask Me! Survey on peer interviewers has resulted in higher self response than reported by any other survey of people with developmental disabilities (Feinstein, 2009; Perry and Felce, 2002; Research and Training Center on Community Living, 2004: Siegelman, et al., 1980). This report shows significant differences in the reporting of self respondents and proxy respondents. Some of these differences may be due to differences between people who can and cannot understand and answer questions, but the pattern of differences suggest that much of the differences are due to the perspective of proxies that are influenced by their position or relation to the individual. It does not seem plausible that people who are unable to respond for themselves truly have greater Physical Well-being than people able to respond for themselves, particularly when residential staff reports greater Physical Well-being for the same person than do day habilitation staff. Nor does it seem plausible that people able to live with their families or in their own homes have fewer rights than those receiving residential services from agencies. It does not seem reasonable that a resource coordinator would only reduce the Personal Development and Interpersonal Relations of people unable to respond for themselves and not affect the Personal Development and Interpersonal Relations of self respondents. Still, it is important to get the perspective of staff and family rather than to gather no information on the quality of life of people unable to understand and communicate even with others who have disabilities.

Page 36

December 2009

Ask Me!sm Project FY2009 -- The Arc of Maryland

Quality of Life Increase in Maryland During the time period covered by the Ask Me! Survey, the number of adults supported in the community through DDA funding increased by 2,240, and the number of community agencies increased by 19. Most of the new community agencies supported fewer than ten people, and were therefore not included in the survey. These smallest agencies supported only a fraction of a percent of the people with reimbursed DDA services, at least half of whom received services from larger agencies. These smallest agencies also frequently provide services for a short period of time. One-third of the agencies supporting fewer than ten adults in FY2002 no longer supported adults with DDA funds in FY2009, and only one-tenth had grown to support ten or more adults by FY2009. The remainder continued to support fewer than ten adults. Forty-three agencies had started providing support after FY2002, only 30% of which had grown to support ten or more adults by FY2009.

The quality of life increased during the same period that services expanded to include more people. It is possible that some of the increases in quality of life resulted from extending services to people with higher quality of life to begin with. The percent of people responding for themselves, and the percent living in the southern DDA region, increased during the eight years of the Ask Me! Survey, and self response and southern Maryland location were associated with higher quality of life in the majority of the domains. However, the decrease in frequency of trips to employment or day habilitation would have dampened the increase in half of the domains.

Rights, not caused it. Other characteristics that affected the quality of life in half or more of the domains did not change significantly over the time period: intellectual ability, supported employment, and the western region location It seems more likely that the increases in quality of life between FY2002 and FY2009 are the result of increased attention paid to quality of life by DDA and community agencies as a result of the Ask Me! Survey. DDA initially set its ‘Management by Objectives ’ goal to increase Personal Development based on FY2002 findings, and has used Ask Me! findings to measure achievement of its goal. The FY2003 Ask Me! report stated, “Rights and self-determination received the lowest average rating by people . . .and were the only domains that did not increase between FY2002 and FY2003. ” It recommended: The Maryland developmental disabilities system needs to increase its attention on rights and self-determination.

While DDA did not change its official domain of focus based upon findings, it increased its training on Self-Determination and Rights during FY2004. The FY2004 report noted, “Selfdetermination increased only in FY2004; Rights of people did not change over the four years, ” and made its recommendation more general: Recommendation 1: Physical and emotional well-being are foundational to a life of quality and should be maintained, but attention should now turn to increasing selfdetermination and rights.

Ask Me!sm Project FY2009 -- The Arc of Maryland

December 2009 Page 37

The FY2005 report again noted. “No change in the level of rights, ” repeated the recommendation above and added another recommendation regarding Rights: Recommendation 4: Providers should focus on enhancing rights through enhancing selfdetermination and personal development. Focusing on supported employment is a primary way to enhance personal development, and lessons may be learned from the Western DDA region on how to help adults, with the same level of intellectual ability and personal development, have a greater sense of self-determination.

The Arc of Maryland specifically increased its efforts to promote Self-Determination and Rights during these years based on Ask Me! findings. At the end of the first four-year cycle (FY2005), the Ask Me! Project developed and sent to each agency a Toolbox containing data specific to the people the agency supported. The Toolbox provided suggestions on how to use Ask Me! Data.

It is updated with four PowerPoint slides, customized for the agency, each year the agency is included in the survey and again at the end of a four-year cycle. DDA also began requiring agencies to address how they use Ask Me! findings in their quality assurance plans. The continuing increase in quality of life, particularly in the domains of Self-Determination and Rights, suggests that these recommendations and efforts were effective. Three-fourths of agencies responding to a 2008 survey said they had used the Ask Me! findings. One agency has found the Ask Me! information so valuable that it self-funds interviews during years when it is not included in the statewide sample.

Quality of life increased most over the years in the domains of Rights and Self-Determination.

These two domains still have room for further increases, and efforts should continue to enhance them. However, no consistent pattern of change occurred in the domain of Material Well-being, and all the increases occurred in the FY2002-FY2004. This suggests that greater emphasis be now placed on Material Well-being. Increasing people ’s abilities to respond for themselves, increasing the perceived availability of transportation, and increasing supported employment have the greatest potential to increase Material Well-being.

Quality of Life Differences for Individuals The analysis of quality of life differences for individuals is limited to association, since individuals are randomly selected each year independent of any selection in prior years. Some individuals may be selected by chance in different years, but they would not constitute a random sample of people, as the probabilities of being selected in two or more years is dependent up the size of the agencies that support them. Therefore, no study of change in the quality of life of individuals over time has been done since the initial two pilot years. However, the associations of characteristics of individuals and their services with quality of life suggest causal effects, at least in terms of reporting. It is very clear that self respondents and proxy respondents report differently. Anything that increases the ability of people to respond for themselves will increase quality of life in at least five domains: Rights, Self-Determination, Personal Development and Social Inclusion, and Material Well-being. Information from proxies may be valuable in understanding how they, particularly staff, see quality of life and what may need to be done to bring it into greater agreement with how the people they support view their quality of life. The Page 38

December 2009

Ask Me!sm Project FY2009 -- The Arc of Maryland

higher reporting of Physical Well-being by proxies, particularly residential staff, suggests they may have too low a threshold of what constitutes Physical Well-being, or else an overly optimistic view of how they contribute to Physical Well-being. Quality of life was related to individuals’’ abilities to respond for themselves in six domains during both the first and second cycles. Quality of life was related to other measures of intellectual ability in six domains in the first cycle but only four in the second cycle. It appears that this external measures of intellectual ability is becoming less important, and the Ask Me! Project will no longer request this information from agencies in the future.

Individuals receiving supported employment had higher reported quality of life in most domains in both cycles (6 in cycle one and 5 in cycle two). The relative importance of supported employment did not otherwise change between the two cycles, and was independent of all other characteristics, and increased when transportation availability was excluded from the analysis.

These findings emphasizes the importance of a job to a life of quality, and the revised Ask Me! Survey will collect additional information on employment in cycle three.

Self respondents with developmental disabilities in the western part of Maryland reported higher quality of life than did self respondents in the central and eastern parts of the state in seven domains during the first cycle and all eight domains during the second cycle. The perception that transportation is more available in the western region, contributed indirectly to this regional difference. The regional difference in one domain during cycle one, and two domains during cycle two, disappeared when perceived Transportation Availability was included. People in southern Maryland reported higher quality of life than people in central and eastern Maryland in five domains in both cycles, similar to those in western Maryland, but the perception of greater availability of transportation in the southern region contributed to the geographical difference.

Independent of transportation availability, self respondents in the southern region reported the same quality of life as in the central and eastern regions during the first cycle, and in only three domains during the second cycle. A study elsewhere (Keith and Ferdinand, 2000) found that geographic variation in the quality of life reported by people with developmental disabilities reflected the geographic variation in the quality of life reported by people without developmental disabilities. It may be that people without disabilities in western and southern Maryland would also report higher quality of life than similar people in central and eastern Maryland.

Few other characteristics of individuals and their disabilities had significant relationships with quality of life during either cycle, and none were related to quality of life in both cycles. This, along with the lessening importance of intellectual ability, suggests that all individuals can potentially benefit from efforts to enhance quality of life.

Quality of Life Among Agencies The average quality of life reported by people supported by agencies vary. Between one-seventh and one-half of the variation in quality of life among the agencies can be explained by their geographic location, the disability characteristics of the people agencies support, and the types of services they provide. The remaining variation is due to factors not measured for the Ask Me! Project. A good quality of life is the desired outcome for support services, and most people Ask Me!sm Project FY2009 -- The Arc of Maryland

December 2009 Page 39

receive support from only one agency. Therefore, it would be expected that the quality of agency services, and the staff that provide them, will affect the quality of life of the supported individuals. Earlier studies have shown that agency quality assurance goals and the turnover of direct care staff and first line supervisors affect the quality of life reported at agencies. Size of the agency seems to have some effect, but not in a linear manner. Those agencies that ranked in the top 20% in multiple domains, or ranked in the bottom 10% in multiple domains, tended to be agencies supporting fewer than 150 people. No larger agency ranks in the bottom 10% in more than one domain, but a smaller percent of larger agencies than medium and smaller agencies rank in the top 20% in more than one domain. Perhaps policies and procedures are more routinized at larger than smaller agencies and they prevent problems from occurring. However, routinized policies and procedures may also hinder new or non-standard ways that quality of life could be enhanced. Perhaps resource coordination and CSLA are seen by staff as non-standard for people unable to respond for themselves, and thus are seen as hindering quality of life.

In both cycles, an average of 3.8 characteristics of people and services predicted domain scores at agencies. They predicted an average of 50% of the variation during the first cycle and 39% during the second cycle. The relationships that were significant in both cycles involved percentages who responded for themselves and average intellectual abilities. Much of this consistency was due to the stability of the quality of life at agencies over four years. However, the quality of life in seven of the eight domains increased more over the four years at agencies with greater perceived Transportation Availability. It increased more in two domains at agencies with greater percentages of individuals who could respond for themselves, in agencies with smaller percentages in residential services, and at agencies in the southern region. The only other characteristics of the people supported, or the services provided by agencies, that affected change in more than one domain was cerebral palsy, which was associated with greater agency change in one domain and less agency change in three domains. However, cerebral palsy was not associated with quality of life at the individual level. These findings suggests that other agency characteristics, not available for analysis in this report, also contribute to change.

Additional system-wide data could contribute to understanding changes in quality of life at agencies. More immediately, agencies should analyze how their quality of life measures changed (or did not change) between cycle one and cycle two, and develop hypotheses about what may have contributed to the change. These can then be tested with results from the third cycle. Another approach is to look at agencies that scored in the top 20% in several domains, and discuss with them what they are doing that might contribute to their high reported quality of life. Individuals and families seeking supports should also ask prospective agencies what they are doing to enhance quality of life for those they support.

Suggestions for Consideration The researcher offers a few suggestions for consideration that come from analyzing the quality of life data. Others will have to determine the desirability and practicality, as research can only look at what happened. It cannot determine what will happen in the future, nor what should happen.

Page 40

December 2009

Ask Me!sm Project FY2009 -- The Arc of Maryland

Suggestion 1. Increase the emphasis that is placed on Material Well-being, without neglecting the progress that has been made in Self-Determination and Rights. The greatest impact on Material Well-being potentially comes from expanding paid work opportunities through supported community employment.

Suggestion 2. Help people be aware of all the transportation available to them to move about their community, as perceptions of transportation availability are strongly related to perceptions of quality of life. The objective number of trips known to staff has little relation to perceptions of availability, but transportation is seen as more available in western and southern Maryland, at smaller than larger agencies, and by proxies more than self respondents.

Suggestion 3. Community agencies should set specific goals to enhance quality of life in domains with relatively low scores, and research concrete strategies for achieving them.

Otherwise quality of life will remain similar to the current levels for the people they support.

Suggestion 4. Educate staff and families about how the people they support who can speak for themselves view quality of life to help reduce potential bias when deciding what might enhance the quality of life for people unable to understand and respond for themselves.

Suggestion 5. DDA could identify existing data on individuals and agencies that can be linked with the Ask Me! data to identify other factors that potentially affect quality of life.

Ask Me!sm Project FY2009 -- The Arc of Maryland

December 2009 Page 41

References Basehart, S., Marchand, C., & Bonham, G. S. (2003). A survey of quality of life designed by and for people with developmental disabilities. In Bradley, V. J., & Kimmich, M. H. Quality Enhancement in Developmental Disabilities. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co, 163-178.

Bonham, G. S. (2008b). Who Should Speak for Individuals with Intellectual Disabilities?

Evaluating Quality of Life at Community Providers. American Evaluation Association, 22nd Annual conference, Denver, CO, November.

Bonham, G. S. (2006). Proxy reports and their value. Unpublished paper, July.

Bonham, G. S., Basehart, S., & Marchand, C. B. (2006). Ask Me!sm Year FY2006: The Quality of Life of Marylanders with Developmental Disabilities Receiving DDA-Funded Services.

Annapolis, MD: The Arc of Maryland (December).

Bonham, G. S., Basehart, S., & Marchand, C. B. (2005). Ask Me!sm Year FY2005: The Quality of Life of Marylanders with Developmental Disabilities Receiving DDA-Funded Services.

Annapolis, MD: The Arc of Maryland (December).

Bonham, G. S., Basehart, S., & Marchand, C. B. (2004). Ask Me!sm Year FY2004: The Quality of Life of Marylanders with Developmental Disabilities Receiving DDA-Funded Services.

Annapolis, MD: The Arc of Maryland (December).

Bonham, G. S., Basehart, S., & Marchand, C. B. (2003). Ask Me!sm Year FY2003: The Quality of Life of Marylanders with Developmental Disabilities Receiving DDA-Funded Services.

Annapolis, MD: The Arc of Maryland (December).

Bonham, G. S., Basehart, S., & Marchand, C. B. (2001). Ask Me!sm Year FY2001: The Quality of Life of Marylanders with Developmental Disabilities Receiving DDA-Funded Services.

Annapolis, MD: The Arc of Maryland (November).

Bonham, G. S., Basehart, S., & Marchand, C. B. (2000b). Ask Me!sm Year FY2000: The Quality of Life of Marylanders with Developmental Disabilities Receiving DDA-Funded Services.

Annapolis, MD: The Arc of Maryland (December).

Bonham, G. S., Basehart, S., & Marchand, C. B. (2000a). Quality of Life of Marylanders with Developmental Disabilities Participating in the Robert Wood Johnson Self Determination Initiative: Final Report. Baltimore, MD: Bonham Research.

Bonham, G. S., Pisa, L. M., Basehart, S., Marchand, C. B., Harris, C., Heim, S., & Ingram, A. (1999). Ask Me!sm Year 2: The Quality of Life of Marylanders with Developmental

Page 42

December 2009

Ask Me!sm Project FY2009 -- The Arc of Maryland

Disabilities Receiving DDA-Funded Services. Annapolis, MD: The Arc of Maryland (November).

Bonham, G. S., Schneider, J. A., Volkman, J., & Sorensen, S. (In preparation). Ask Me!sm Survey Revision. Annapolis, MD: The Arc of Maryland Bonham, G. S., Volkman, J., & Basehart, S. (2007). Ask Me!sm Year FY2007: The Quality of Life of Marylanders with Developmental Disabilities Receiving DDA-Funded Services.

Annapolis, MD: The Arc of Maryland (December).

Cummins, R. A. (2002). Proxy responding for subjective well-being: A review. International Review of Research in Mental Retardation, 25, 183-207.

Feinstein, C. (2009). Personal communication that fewer than 50% of people selected for the Pennsylvania IM4Q survey respond for themselves.

Keith, K. D., & Bonham, G. S. (2005). The use of quality of life data at the organization and systems level. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 49: 799-805.

Keith, K. D., & Ferdinand, L. R.. (2000). Project to compare quality of life of Nebraskans with developmental disabilities and citizens without disabilities. Governor’’s Planning Council on Developmental Disabilities, Lincoln.

Lunsky, Y., & Benson, B. A. (1997). Reliability of ratings of consumers with mental retardation and their staff on multiple measures of social support. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 102, 280-284.

People on the Go. (1996). Signs of Quality. Annapolis, MD: The Arc of Maryland.

Perry, J., & Felce, D. (2002). Subjective and objective quality of life assessment: Responsiveness, response bias and resident:proxy concordance. Mental Retardation, 40, 445-456.

Research and Training Center on Community Living. (2004). Response patterns among adult respondents with mental retardation in the National Health Interview Survey, 1997-2002.

DD Data Brief, 6(2). Institute on Community Integration (UCEDD). Retrieved March 18, 2005 from the World Wide Web: www.rtc.umn.edu/nhis/databrief10/dddb62.pdf.

Schalock, R. L., Bonham, G. S. & Verdugo, M. A. (2008). The concept of quality of life in program planning and evaluation, Evaluation and Program Planning, 32:181-199.

Schalock, R. L.,& Keith, K. D. (1993). Quality of Life Questionnaire Manual. Hastings, NE: IDS Publishing Corporation.

Ask Me!sm Project FY2009 -- The Arc of Maryland

December 2009 Page 43

Schalock, R. L., & Verdugo, M. A. (2002). Handbook on Quality of Life for Human Support Practitioners. Washington, DC: American Association on Mental Retardation.

Sigelman, C. K., Schoenrock, C. J., Spanhel, C. L., Hromas, S. G., Winer, J. L., Budd, E. C., & Martin, P. W. (1980). Surveying mentally retarded persons: Responsiveness and response validity in three samples. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 84, 479-486.

Stancliffe, R. J. (1999). Proxy respondents and the reliability of the Quality of Life Questionnaire Empowerment factor. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 43, 185-193.

Wang, M., Schalock, R. L., Verdugo, M. A., & Jenaro, C. (In press). Examining the Factor Structure and Hierarchical Nature of the Quality of Life Construct, American Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities.

Whitney-Thomas, J. (1996). Participatory action research as an approach to enhancing quality of life for individuals with disabilities. In R. L. Schalock & G. N. Siperstein (Eds.), Quality of life: Volume II: Application to persons with disabilities (pp. 181-197).

Washington, DC: American Association on Mental Retardation.

Unreferenced Ask Me!sm Reports and Papers Bonham, G. S. (2008a). Measuring Quality of Life - “The Maryland Ask Me!sm Experience. ” Paper prepared for the QOL Measures International Conference, Vienna, Austria, September 15.

Bonham, G. S., Basehart, S., Schalock, R. L., Marchand, C. B., Kirchner, N., & Rumenap, J. (2004). Consumer Based Quality of Life Assessment: The Maryland Ask Me! Project.

Mental Retardation, 42(5):338-355.

Bonham, G. S., Basehart, S., & Marchand, C. B. (2002). Ask Me!sm Year FY2002: The Quality of Life of Marylanders with Developmental Disabilities Receiving DDA-Funded Services.

Annapolis, MD: The Arc of Maryland (November).

Bonham, G. S., Pisa, L. M., Marchand, C. B., Harris, C., White, D. & Schalock, R. L. (1998).

Ask Me!sm The Quality of Life of Marylanders with Developmental Disabilities Receiving DDA-Funded Services. Annapolis, MD: The Arc of Maryland (February).

Bonham, G. S., Volkman, J., & Sorensen, S. (2008). Ask Me!sm Year FY2008: The Quality of Life of Marylanders with Developmental Disabilities Receiving DDA-Funded Services.

Annapolis, MD: The Arc of Maryland (December).

Schalock, R. L., & Bonham, G. S. (2003). Measuring Outcomes and Managing for Results.

Evaluation and Program Planning, 26:229-235.

Page 44

December 2009

Ask Me!sm Project FY2009 -- The Arc of Maryland

Schalock, R. L., Bonham, G. S. & Marchand, C. B. (2000). Consumer based quality of life assessment: a path model of perceived satisfaction. Evaluation and Program Planning, 23:77-87.

Schalock, R. L., Verdugo, G. S., Bonham, G. S., & Val Loon, J. (2008). Enhancing personal outcomes: Organizational strategies, guidelines and examples. Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities, 5(4): 276-285.

Ask Me!sm Project FY2009 -- The Arc of Maryland

December 2009 Page 45

Appendix

Page 46

December 2009

Ask Me!sm Project FY2009 -- The Arc of Maryland

Appendix A. Survey Methods Agency Sample The Ask Me! Survey cannot interview every person who received support through funds from the Maryland Developmental Disabilities Administration (DDA) in every year, due to time and expense. At the start of FY2009 (July 2008), the DDA had authorized 27,860 person-provider service combinations for 15,678 people at 169 providers. (See Table A1.) These recipients of support needed to be sampled in a way that produced statewide quality of life estimates, while also providing reasonable estimates of the quality of life among people supported by each community provider agency in the state. A two-step sampling procedure started by assigning agencies to strata based upon agency size. The number of people supported in July 2004 formed the basis for the initial assignment of 139 agencies to strata and to years for the FY2006-FY2009 cycle. The assignment was modified slightly at the beginning of each survey year using current DDA data. The FY2009 Ask Me! Survey frame included 155 community agencies authorized to provide 16,327 services to 13,148 adults. It excluded state institutions and individuals for whom the institutions provided all their services, agencies that only coordinated services, agencies or fiscal entities that provided services for fewer than ten individuals, individuals less than 18 years of age, and Ask Me! interviewers. About three-fourths (76%) of the adults in the sample frame received all their support (excluding service coordination) from a single agency, and had only one record in the sample frame. Most of the remainder received support from two agencies and had two records in the sample frame. The few that received support from three or more provider agencies had the same number of records in the sample frame.

Table A1. People Supported by Maryland DDA, by Fiscal Year^ DDA File Sample Frame* FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 # of Provider ID’’s 154 162 158 169 139 145 151 155 # Person-Provider Records 25,201 25,343 25,715 27,860 14,991 15,025 15,700 16,327 # Persons Supported 13,665 13,863 14,329 15,678 12,067 12,112 12,615 13,148 Support by 1 provider 7,305 5,990 6,311 7,207 9,203 9,244 9,544 9,987 Support by 2 providers 4,564 4,515 4,760 4,867 2,807 2,826 3,057 3,143 Support by 3 providers 1,756 3,142 3,149 3,498 54 39 14 18 Support by 4 providers 38 193 108 105 3 3 0 0 Support by 5 providers 2 23 1 1 0 0 0 0 Support by 6 providers 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ^ The DDA files were created in July at the start of the fiscal year. * The sample frame excludes records for children, institutions, support coordination, and Ask Me! interviewers.

Ask Me!sm Project FY2009 -- The Arc of Maryland

December 2009 Page 47

Community agencies were first assigned to strata based on the number of people supported.

Stratum 1 identified the ten largest agencies, and they were included in the sample every year.

Collectively they provided about one-third of the supports, and excluding them from any of the annual samples would result in an unrepresentative sample. Stratum 2 consisted of the 22 next largest community providers randomly assigned to either FY2006 and FY2008, or FY2007 and FY2009. They provided slightly less than one-third of the supports. Stratum 3 included the remaining agencies supporting more than 50 individuals. Fifty people from agencies in strata 13 were randomly selected for interview each year their agency was included. Stratum 4 included agencies supporting 10-50 adults, all of whom were selected for interviews. Agencies in strata 3 and 4 were randomly assigned to one year in the four-year cycle, with some modification to keep them as close to a four-year interval from their participation in the first cycle as possible. Few of the stratum 4 agencies could be interviewed during FY2002 and FY2003 due to DDA budget constraints, and their token representation during the first two years may have resulted in underestimating the quality of life during these two years, resulting in the major increase seen in FY2004. Stratum 3 agencies provide slightly less than one-third of the supports, and Stratum 4 agencies provide about 6% of the supports. Stratum 5 contains the remaining agencies or entities supporting fewer than ten people. Although they represent one-fifth of the agencies (or entities receiving DDA funds), they provide only 0.7% of the supports, and half of the people they support are also supported by larger agencies.

The size of most agencies remained about the same from one year to the next, but some agencies moved between strata during the four-year cycle due to growth, merger, or subsequent determination that multiple provider IDs on the DDA file really represented multiple sites of a single provider. The number of people supported by some agencies declined over the four years, and some left the sample frame due to merging with other agencies, or by no longer supporting people with DDA funds. These changes in size only affected the sample if they resulted in an agency being moved between stratum 1 and stratum 2, between stratum 2 and stratum 3, or between stratum 4 and stratum 5. Table A2 shows the allocation of agencies among the strata for FY2009.

Table A2. Community Providers by Size and Year Selected for Interviews Number of People Ask Me Provider ID 109 Arc of Baltimore 112 Chimes Inc, includes Intervals 314 Arc of Prince George’’s Co 303 CHI Center 128 Providence Center 355 Abilities Network 312 Arc of Montgomery Co 811 Arc of Washington Co 311 Melwood Horticulture 915 Humanim Strata 1 Subtotal (350+ People)

Page 48

December 2009

Year in Sample

FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 1,050 1,039 1,048 1051 1 1 1 1 718 729 750 785 1 1 1 1 428 492 499 510 1 1 1 1 397 426 439 444 1 1 1 1 414 404 414 423 1 1 1 1 262 323 389 417 1 0 1 1 385 413 409 412 1 1 1 1 408 441 399 394 1 1 1 1 390 387 381 391 1 1 1 1 219 351 358 365 0 1 1 1 5,172 5,323 5,086 5,192 11 9 10 10

Ask Me!sm Project FY2009 -- The Arc of Maryland

Table A2. Community Providers by Size and Year Selected for Interviews Number of People Ask Me Provider ID 104 Athelas Institute 107 ACCFX Gallagher 132 UCP Central Maryland 121 Emerge 105 Opportunity Builders 156 Arc of Central Chesapeake 135 Arc of Howard Co 318 Center for Life Enrichment 124 Arc of Northern Chesapeake 108 Bello Machre 328 Rehabilitation Opportunities 614 Dove Pointe Inc 301 Ardmore Enterprises 933 UCP of Southern MD 302 Arc of Southern Maryland 142 NCIA CBAI 919 Alliance 824 Arc of Carroll Co 158 Center for Progressive Learning 316 Spring Dell Center 129 Richcroft 319 New Horizon 611 Bayside Community Network 827 Change, Inc Strata 2 Subtotal (150-349 People) 830 Target, Inc 817 Medsource Community Services 152 Center for Social Change 325 Southern MD Vocational Industries 806 Friends Aware, Inc 125 Penn Mar 164 Spectrum Support 335 SEEC 149 Creative Options 951 Lower Shore Enterprises 322 Lt Joseph P Kennedy Institute 805 Arc of Frederick County 306 CSAAC 608 Somerset Community Services Inc 804 Scott Key Center 106 Langton Green 353 Securecare Services 812 Washington Co HDC 308 Jewish Foundation for Group Homes 309 Jubilee Association of MD 120 Life

Year in Sample

FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 382 355 340 342 1 1 0 1 301 306 308 318 1 1 0 1 299 331 329 307 1 0 1 0 235 275 287 293 1 0 1 0 218 248 269 288 1 0 1 0 169 178 191 241 0 1 0 1 213 225 236 239 0 1 0 1 171 205 224 234 0 1 0 1 186 207 215 227 1 0 1 0 181 191 214 221 0 1 0 1 204 209 206 207 1 0 1 0 183 182 194 201 1 0 1 0 193 193 192 196 1 0 1 0 190 187 198 187 0 1 0 1 160 165 172 179 0 1 0 1 121 149 162 179 1 0 1 0 199 179 179 173 1 0 1 0 148 156 171 173 1 0 1 0 137 157 158 155 0 1 0 1 126 138 146 155 0 1 0 1 104 118 146 154 1 0 0 0 146 147 152 152 0 1 0 1 120 134 147 152 0 1 0 0 147 156 150 150 0 1 0 1 3,826 4,204 4,694 5123 10 12 10 12 109 128 138 149 0 0 0 1 123 128 126 145 1 * * 0 84 114 131 137 0 0 1 0 133 138 132 136 1 0 0 0 132 135 136 129 0 1 0 0 113 120 120 126 1 0 0 0 107 119 127 124 1 0 0 0 105 111 123 124 1 0 0 0 100 111 120 121 0 0 1 0 89 104 114 121 0 0 0 1 109 109 112 120 0 1 0 0 82 90 98 119 1 0 0 0 114 116 117 118 0 1 0 0 96 102 105 118 0 0 0 1 104 102 111 112 0 0 1 0 105 104 104 107 0 0 0 1 63 91 111 105 0 0 1 0 95 96 103 105 0 0 1 0 86 92 98 98 0 0 1 0 83 94 98 97 0 1 0 0 76 94 96 97 0 0 1 0

Ask Me!sm Project FY2009 -- The Arc of Maryland

December 2009 Page 49

Table A2. Community Providers by Size and Year Selected for Interviews Number of People Ask Me Provider ID 932 Treatment & Learning Ctr Inc 801 Appalachian Crossroads 602 Caroline Center 352 Community Support Services 807 Horizon Goodwill Industries 621 Chesapeake Center Inc 802 Community Living Inc 610 Worcester Co Developmental Center 117 Harford Center 126 Progress Unlimited 606 Delmarva Community Services 119 Jewish Family Services 324 Family Service Foundation Inc 912 CSSD 624 Bay Shore Services Inc 619 Benedictine School 334 Jewish Social Services Agency 139 Forward Visions 605 Chesterwye Center 315 Rock Creek Foundation 616 Chesapeake Care Resources 931 UCP of PG & Montgomery Co 101 Progressive Horizons 815 Jeanne Bussard Center 052 League for People with Disabilities 065 Fidelity Resources, Inc 165 Mid Atlantic Human Services Corp 809 Ray of Hope Inc 134 St. Peters Adult Learning 351 Calmra Inc 338 Charles Co Health Dept 601 Kent Center Inc 333 Head Injury Rehabilitation 836 Star Communities Strata 3 Subtotal (51-146 People) 151 Shura 123 National MS 607 Epilepsy Assoc of Eastern Shore 088 Maryland Community Connections 154 Kennedy Kreiger Inst 323 Full Citizenship of Maryland 305 Charles Co HARC 321 Maryland Neighborly Networks 818 Lycher Inc 147 Starflight 166 REM Inc

Page 50

December 2009

Year in Sample

FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 66 77 80 94 0 0 0 1 84 96 96 93 0 0 0 1 94 91 92 93 1 0 0 0 66 76 83 93 0 1 0 0 96 100 95 92 1 0 0 0 78 89 93 92 0 0 1 0 84 93 93 90 0 1 0 0 93 89 88 85 1 0 0 0 54 71 75 84 0 0 1 0 77 80 81 83 0 0 1 0 91 79 77 77 0 0 1 0 57 66 80 75 0 1 0 0 82 84 77 73 0 0 0 1 56 59 74 73 1 0 0 0 66 72 71 70 1 0 0 0 55 62 63 64 1 0 0 0 45 60 56 62 1 0 0 0 60 59 60 61 0 0 1 0 53 60 59 61 0 0 0 1 64 63 54 61 0 1 0 0 61 62 66 60 0 0 1 0 27 42 51 60 0 0 1 0 58 61 62 59 0 1 0 0 62 65 57 59 1 0 0 0 23 34 42 59 0 0 1 0 -20 43 58 0 0 1 0 24 48 56 55 0 1 0 0 54 56 52 55 0 0 1 0 40 45 49 54 0 0 1 0 49 53 53 53 0 0 0 1 43 57 54 52 0 0 0 1 47 50 53 52 1 0 0 0 38 48 51 51 0 0 0 1 25 36 43 51 1 0 0 0 4,098 4,331 4,869 4,863 14 12 15 11 42 46 49 47 0 1 0 0 48 64 55 47 0 0 0 1 62 57 49 46 0 0 1 0 --34 44 --0 1 12 34 30 43 0 0 1 0 34 39 38 40 0 0 1 0 35 37 37 38 0 0 1 0 26 36 36 38 0 0 0 1 44 43 36 36 0 1 0 0 27 34 35 36 0 1 0 0 13 25 30 36 0 1 0 0

Ask Me!sm Project FY2009 -- The Arc of Maryland

Table A2. Community Providers by Size and Year Selected for Interviews Number of People Ask Me Provider ID 327 Montgomery Co Dept of Fam Resources 828 Flying Colors of Success 808 Goodwill Industries Monocacy Valley 064 Living Sans Frontieres, Inc 910 Linwood Children ’s Center 070 Quantum Leap 952 Deaf Independent Living Association 053 Innovative Services, Inc 803 Council for EC&A 074 Way Station 354 Ebed Enterprises 330 VOCA Corporation 141 Caring Hands Inc 089 Work Opportunities Unlimited 069 Dominion Resource Center Inc 825 Carroll Co Bureau of Aging 066 Erosun, Inc 071 ACE Helping Hands Inc 073 Dreamcatchers Community Improve 163 PACT: Helping Children 050 Lifeline LLC Strata 4 Subtotal (10-50 People) 082 Helena ’s House 068 Comprehensive Residential Systems 081 Living Hope 090 Northstar Special Services 313 National Children ’s Center 623 Shorehaven 054 Calvert Co Office on Aging 059 S & G Residential Services, Inc 085 Freedom to Choose 051 Mary T Maryland 078 Shared Support 814 Archway Station 084 Bee Homes Inc 157 Maxim Health Care Services 162 National Mentor Health Care 072 Second Chance Services Unlimit 617 Crossroads Community 079 Bethlehem House 076 Center for Community Integration 087 St Patrick Homes Inc 091 JAPEC Residential Programs 060 Hebron Assoc for Community Services 153 Netcon & Earthkins Inc (closed) 146 Autum Homes (closed)

Year in Sample

FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 46 35 37 35 1 0 0 0 33 32 32 32 0 0 0 1 21 19 26 31 0 1 0 0 -20 28 30 -1 0 0 19 25 26 27 0 1 0 0 -6 20 26 -0 1 0 23 23 23 25 1 0 0 0 6 18 22 25 0 1 0 0 26 28 23 23 0 1 0 0 -13 20 23 -0 0 1 12 18 22 22 0 0 0 1 19 19 19 21 0 0 0 1 17 20 19 19 0 1 0 0 ---15 ---1 -7 8 12 -0 0 1 8 10 12 11 0 0 1 0 -9 12 11 -0 0 1 -6 10 11 -0 0 1 -6 10 11 -0 1 0 13 9 10 10 1 0 0 0 2 5 5 10 0 0 0 1 907 1,086 944 881 6 10 10 12 -2 6 9 -0 0 0 -5 5 9 -0 0 0 -1 5 9 -0 0 0 ---7 ---0 10 7 6 6 0 0 0 0 4 5 6 6 0 0 0 0 3 6 6 6 0 0 0 0 2 4 5 6 0 0 0 0 --2 6 --0 0 3 3 5 5 0 0 0 0 -1 5 5 -0 0 0 1 2 2 5 0 0 0 0 --2 5 --0 0 2 1 3 4 0 0 0 0 3 4 4 3 0 0 0 0 -3 4 3 -0 0 0 4 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 -2 3 3 -0 0 0 -1 3 3 -0 0 0 --3 3 --0 0 ---3 ---0 1 -2 2 0 0 0 0 42 7 2 2 0 0 0 0 32 6 2 2 0 0 0 0

Ask Me!sm Project FY2009 -- The Arc of Maryland

December 2009 Page 51

Table A2. Community Providers by Size and Year Selected for Interviews Number of People

Year in Sample

Ask Me Provider ID 100 Service Coordination 167 Center for Neuro Rehabilitation 834 Hope Homes of MD 061 Joshua House 075 NIAS House 077 Home Sweet Home 080 Missy ’s Choice 083 Tracy ’s Life 086 DESCO Charities 092 Social Health Services Group 145 Selfpride (closed) 813 Bethesda Lutheran Homes 168 Evershine Residential Services 058 Service Source 170 Cope Homes Inc 831 Multiple Sclerosis Society 063 Esro Holding Provider 337 Calvert Co Health Dept 950 Chesapeake Head Injury Center 062 Matts Way Strata 5 Subtotal

FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 ---2 ---0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 -1 1 1 -0 0 0 -1 2 1 -0 0 0 -1 1 1 -0 0 0 -1 1 1 -0 0 0 --2 1 --0 0 ---1 ---0 26 27 22 -0 0 0 -8 ---0 0 --5 ---0 ---5 2 --0 0 --4 ---0 ---4 ---0 ---3 ---0 ---1 1 --0 0 --1 ---0 ---1 ---0 ---74 121 107i 126 0 0 0 0

TOTAL Adult Community Provider Pairs

14,991 15,025 15,700 16,327

TOTAL Adults Support in the Community 001 Rosewood Center 005 Holly Center 003 Potomac Center 004 Brandenburg Center Strata 6 Institutions 100 Service Coordination 327 Montgomery Co Dept Family Resources 340 Prince George ’s Co Dept Family Services 338 Charles Co Health Dept 339 St. Mary ’s Co Health Dept 337 Calvert Co Health Dept Strata 7 Service Coordination TOTAL Person Provider Pairs

12,067 12,112 12,615 13,148 .

329 245 .

135 134 .

50 44 .

23 20 .

537 443 4,596 6,394 443 440 344 337 207 263 .

118 112 80 80 5,788 7,627 25,201 25,343 25,715 27,860

TOTAL People Supported by DDA

13,665 13,863 14,329 15,678

41

44

46

45

* Special agency sample, not part of the Maryland sample

Person Sample and Response SPSS software was used to randomly select 40 individuals for a primary sample, and 10 additional individuals for a secondary sample, for each selected provider in strata 1-3. All of the individuals supported by stratum 4 providers were selected. The first 40 randomly selected Page 52

December 2009

Ask Me!sm Project FY2009 -- The Arc of Maryland

individuals were placed in the primary sample and any remaining placed in the secondary sample to be used if fewer than 28 individuals at an agency responded. The numbers of individuals selected in FY2009, and their final status, are shown in Table A3. Individuals selected for interviews at two different agencies were interviewed only once, but their responses were included for both agencies. Some individuals were included in the sample frame and selected for interviews, but were subsequently dropped from the sample. They were dropped because they were in the secondary sample that was not needed by the field staff because 28 people had already responded from among the 40 primary sample persons, the person was no longer alive or living in Maryland (the DDA files may not have been up to date or the person died or moved between the date of selection and when the interview could be scheduled), the individual was hired as an Ask Me! interviewer after the sample had been identified, or the DDA file had an erroneous or missing date of birth and the individual was less than 18 years of age.

The categories of response and non-response are discussed in the main text of the report.

Table A3. Final Field Status: FY2009 Sampled Final Field Status of Case Frequency Twice 1 Completed Self 2 Completed 2 Proxies Response 3 Completed 1 of 2 Proxies Total Response 12 Guardian Refused 13 Person Refused 6 Unknown if still DDA 17 Contact information unavailable Non15 No Contact 6 Tries response 16 Cannot Schedule 19 Language, Health 20 Other Non-response Total Non-response Total Sample 5 Died, Moved, Not DDA 8 Less than 18 years Not in 9 Ask Me Interviewer Sample 10 Secondary Sample Not Needed Total Not in Sample Total

883 176 101 1,160 43 188 93 104 86 84 30 33 661 1,821 11 1 0 110 122 1,943

24 6 3 33 1 5 2 6 4 1 0 0 19 52 0 0 0 3 3 55

Percent Sample Respondents 48.5% 9.7% 5.5% 63.7% 2.4% 10.3% 5.1% 5.7% 4.7% 4.6% 1.6% 1.8% 36.3% 100.0%

76.1% 15.2% 8.7% 100.0%

Weights Each person record received a weight that took into account the probability that the individual could be selected through multiple agencies, the probability that their agency was selected for inclusion in the year, the probability of the person’’s selection within the agency, and the Ask Me!sm Project FY2009 -- The Arc of Maryland

December 2009 Page 53

probability of others in the agency not responding to the survey. Weights for individuals ranged from 1-33, with an average of 10.9. Agencies not part of the probability sample, but who requested and self-funded interviews for their planning purposes, had zero weights assigned to their respondents so they did not affect the statewide estimates.

When people are selected for interviews at two provider agencies, their survey responses were duplicated and included with both provider agencies prior to weighting. The person was counted as responding for both provider agencies in the calculation of provider-specific response adjustments. The adjustment was made during the weighting process. People who changed providers during the year were considered a respondent for the provider through which they were originally selected. Additional people, discovered at small provider agencies in stratum four, had interviews attempted and were assigned the same probability of selection as all the other people selected from that provider and added to the count of the number of people supported by that provider.

Weights were used for all analysis included in this report. The calculation of the population weight for an individual respondent is shown in equation (1) and the statistical weight for an individual is shown in equation (2). The properties of these weights are shown in Table A4: (1) wtpopulation = wtstrata * wtprovider * wtnonresponse * wtperson * wtpopadjust; (2) wtstatistical = wtpopulation * wtstatadjust; wtpopulation = final weight for the person to produce population estimates, rounded to an integer; wtstrata = number of provider agencies in the stratum / number of selected provider agencies in the stratum; wtprovider = number of people supported by the provider / number of people in the provider selected for interviews; wtnonresponse = number of people eligible for interviews at the provider / number of people interviewed at the provider; wtperson = 1 / number of agencies providing community support to the person; wtpopadjust = total number of people with DDA support in the community / sum of wtpopulation prior to adjustment; wtstatadjust = number of people with data records / sum of wtpopulation.

Page 54

December 2009

Ask Me!sm Project FY2009 -- The Arc of Maryland

Table A4. Weight Characteristics Type of Weight Year FY2006 Population Weight Statistical Weight FY2007 Population Weight Statistical Weight FY2008 Population Weight Statistical Weight FY2009 Population Weight Statistical Weight

True Number 12,067 1,253 12,112 1,217 12,615 1,292 13,148 1,157

Sum of Minimum Maximum Average Weights Weight Weight Weight 12,559 2.00 32.00 9.60 1,252 0.25 3.30 1.00 12,116 1.00 38.00 9.96 1,217 0.11 3.78 1.00 12,559 1.00 32.00 9.72 1,292 0.15 3.27 1.00 13,002 1.00 33.00 11.24 1,292 0.12 3.28 1.12

Personal Characteristics One of the DDA files used to draw the sample includes sex, birth date, and 21 disability classifications for each person supported. The analysis used the birth date to calculate a person ’s age as of July 1 at the beginning of the fiscal year, and grouped ages into six categories: (1) 1824, (2) 25-34, (3) 35-44, (4) 45-54, (5) 55-64, and (6) 65 and older. Person-level analysis used the DDA classifications as dichotomous variables, except for intellectual ability. Since the DDA only has a classification of ‘mental retardation ’ with no gradation, Ask Me! requested agency staff to provide a level of retardation on the Transportation Form as a measure of intellectual ability: (1) profound retardation, (2) severe retardation, (3) moderate retardation, (4) mild retardation, (5) borderline retardation, and (6) no retardation. Since some agencies did not provide this additional information on anyone, the agency level analysis used the percent with the DDA classification of ‘mental retardation. ’ The percentages with the DDA classification of other disabilities were also used. The DDA assigns each agency to one or its four regions, even if the agency provides services in more than one region. This analysis uses the FY2009 DDA assignment for the agency and for all the people selected through the agency. The DDA central region includes the Baltimore metropolitan area. The DDA southern region includes Montgomery and Prince George ’s counties along with the other southern Maryland counties.

The western region includes Frederic, Washington and all the counties further west. The eastern region includes Cecil along with the Eastern Shore counties.

DDA Authorized Services The second DDA file used to draw the sample includes a record for each service authorized for an agency to provide to an individual as of July 1 at the beginning of the fiscal year. This file may not precisely reflect the supports people received at the time of their interviews, since services and agencies may have changed since July 1, or the last time the DDA files were updated was prior to July 1. However, this analysis classified people as receiving or not receiving six types of services based on records in this file: residential services, community supported living arrangements, day habilitation, supported employment, individual support services, and service coordination. The services were not necessarily provided by the agency through which they were selected for the person-level analysis. For agency-level analysis, only Ask Me!sm Project FY2009 -- The Arc of Maryland

December 2009 Page 55

the services provided by the agency are included. The percent receiving a type of service for agency-level analysis reflects the percent of people with Ask Me! data that received the service, and this may differ slightly from the percent of all people supported by the agency who received the service. This report does not include analysis of the less frequent services of behavioral support, family support services, and adult foster care.

Transportation The scale of perceived transportation availability was constructed from five questions in the survey and can range from 0 to 10, similar to the eight quality of life scales. Staff provided objective measures of trips on a Transportation Form sent to, and returned by, the agency. Staff recorded the number of round trips per week for an interviewed person: 1) to employment or day activities by the provider through which the person was selected for interview, 2) to other activities by the provider through which the person was selected, 3) from other provider agencies, 4) from family, friends, or the person driving their own car, and 5) from public sources (bus, train, taxi, and paratransit). The project keyed the high end of any recorded range and rounded up any recorded decimal. Therefore, a “1" could represent “occasionally ” as well as “1 time per week. ” Transportation was considered zero (0) if staff either recorded a zero or recorded nothing. Staff most frequently recorded 0 or 5, so the frequencies were recoded into and ordinal scale of none (0), 1-4 times per week (1), and 5 or more times per week (2) for most analysis.

Quality of Life Scales The Ask Me! Survey contained six indicator questions for each of the eight quality of life domains, and five questions for the area of transportation availability. Respondents could give one of three answers to each question. The first listed answer was favorable ( “yes, ” “a lot, ” “very happy, ” “most times, ” etc.), and was keyed as 1. The second listed answer was neutral ( “sometimes, ” “a little, ” “OK, ” etc.), and was keyed as 2. The third listed answer was unfavorable ( ‘no, ” “none, ” “not happy, ” “no times, ” etc.), and was keyed as 3. When a person answered four or more questions for a quality of life domain, a scale score was calculated as 15 - (5 * average QOL Domain FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 keyed value). Thus the scale score Rights .64 .66 .57 .64 would be 0 if the person gave Self-Determination .65 .71 .69 .66 unfavorable responses (3) to all the Personal Development .63 .65 .65 .64 questions in the scale, 10 if the person Social Inclusion .66 .66 .63 .64 gave favorable responses (1) to all Interpersonal Relations .59 .62 .60 .61 questions, and 5 if the person gave Material Well-being .58 .55 .61 .55 neutral responses (2) to all questions, Emotional Well-being .65 .65 .65 .64 or an equal number of favorable and Physical Well-being .57 .67 .61 .54 unfavorable responses.

Other Scale Scale reliability is generally represented by Cronbach ’s alpha that Page 56

December 2009

Transportation Availability .62

.61

.59

.55

Figure A25. Cronbach ’s Alphas for Scale Reliability Ask Me!sm Project FY2009 -- The Arc of Maryland

measures how similar all the questions are that contribute to a summary scale. The higher the alpha, the better the scale. Alphas of 0.70 or higher are generally interpreted as showing good reliability During FY2006-FY2009, the Cronbach ’s alphas for the eight quality of life domains ranged from 0.55 to 0.71, fairly good although slightly lower than ideal. (See Figure A25.)

Statistical Significance Statistical significance for person-level analysis for this report was set at p .01, meaning less than one time in a hundred would a finding this large be observed just by chance. This level was selected to differentiate very strong relationships from weak relationships that might appear to be statistically significant only due to the large number of observations. For instance, the trends in domain scores are based on data for 9,028-10,124 individuals over the eight years, depending on the domain. For agency-level analysis based on 119 or fewer agencies, the more traditional p .05 level is used. Relationships that are not statistically significant at the designated level are either shown without any symbol, or not show at all. Relationships that meet the designated level of significance are identified with a caret (^), except when they are significant at the p .001 level and are identified with an asterisk (*).

Regression Simple linear regression on years since FY2006 was used to determine how much the responses to individual questions, and the average domain scores, had changed between FY2006-FY2009.

The average annual changes for individual questions are shown in Table 1. The average annual changes in the domain scores were used to adjust the average quality of life scores for agencies to the midpoint of the four-year cycle. They are discussed in the next section, and the regression coefficients are shown in Table B1.

Forward stepwise multiple regression, with p=.05 for entry and p=.10 for deletion, was used to measure change in the quality of life scores between FY2002 and FY2009, and whether the change was linear or curvilinear. The equation took the following form: QOL = a + b1*year + b2*year2 + b3year3 where ‘a ’ is the baseline score for FY2002, ‘year ’ is the number of years since FY2002, ‘b1' is the average annual change in the score, ‘b2' is the quadratic increase or decrease in the average annual change, and ‘b3' is the cubic increase or decrease in the average annual change. When b3 was statistically significant, a cubic curve with two inflection points was fitted to the data.

When b3 was not, but b2 was statistically significant, a quadratic curve was fitted to the data. If only b1 was statistically significant, a straight line was fitted to the data. (See Table B1.)

Forward stepwise multiple regression was also used to measure which characteristics of individuals and their services had associations with the average quality of life scores during the FY2006-FY2009 cycle independent of other characteristics. Missing data were excluded pairwise, p=.01 was used for entry, and p=.02 was used for deletion. Only characteristics that had bivariate correlations at p=.01 with the quality of life score were included in the regression.

Ask Me!sm Project FY2009 -- The Arc of Maryland

December 2009 Page 57

Quality of Life Score Adjustment Appendix C shows the average quality of life for each fiscal year that an agency was selected for interviews during the second cycle of Ask Me! (FY2006 to FY2009). The reported quality of life has generally increased in Maryland during the cycle, so comparisons of agencies interviewed in different years would favor agencies interviewed at the end of the cycle over agencies interviewed at the beginning of the cycle. Therefore, Appendix C also shows the regression adjusted score for each domain as of the midpoint of the cycle, and based on this adjusted score, whether the agency is among the top 20% of agencies, the middle 70%, or the bottom 10% of agencies on that domain. To allow meaningful comparisons, FY2006-FY2009 domain scores were averaged adjusted by linear regression coefficients to the midpoint of the cycle.

Page 58

December 2009

Ask Me!sm Project FY2009 -- The Arc of Maryland

Appendix B. Detailed Tables Table B1. Annual Trend in Quality of Life over Foura and Eightb Years 2002-05 A

B1

2006-09 A

2002-09

B1

A

B1

B2

B3

Percent Positive Quality of Life (proportion) Physical Well-being

.915

.011*

.946

.001

.925

.004*

-

-

Emotional Well-being

.913

.007

.936

.003

.918

.004*

-

-

Material Well-being

.791

.021*

.840

-.002

.832

-

-

-

Interpersonal Relations

.835

.019*

.885

.004

.836

.022*

-.002^

-

Social Inclusion

.801

.021*

.845

.005

.821

.006*

-

-

Personal Development

.800

.017*

.836

.001

.833

-

-

-

Self-Determination

.715

.026*

.772

.009

.737

.010*

-

-

Rights

.639

.010

.721

.007

.633

.017*

-

Average Quality of Life (0-10) Physical Well-being

8.383

.138*

8.677

.003

8.318

.331*

-.082*

.006^

Emotional Well-being

8.224

.116*

8.462

.036

8.152

.323*

-.088*

.007*

Material Well-being

7.175

.128*

7.406

-.011

7.391

-

-

-

Interpersonal Relations

7.361

.140*

7.661

.056

7.250

.431*

-.120*

.010*

Social Inclusion

7.148

.138*

7.409

.061

7.266

.049*

-

-

Personal Development

7.209

.097*

7.447

.033

7.289

.041*

-

-

Self-Determination

6.780

.136*

7.172

.045

6.880

.068*

-

-

Rights

6.241

.063

6.724

.043

6.209

.100*

-

-

^ p .01 * p .001 a b Year forced entry Year, year2 and year3 entered stepwise A = score at the start of the period B1 = annual linear increase during the period B2 = change in annual linear increase (quartic) B3 = change in annual linear increase (cubic) Ask Me!sm Project FY2009 -- The Arc of Maryland

December 2009 Page 59

Table B2. Person-Level Correlation Coefficients Between Quality of Life Domains and Person and Service Characteristics: FY2006-FY2009

Emotion Well-being Correlation Sig. (2-tail) N Material Well-being Correlation Sig. (2-tail) N Interpersonal Correlation Relations Sig. (2-tail) N Social Inclusion Correlation Sig. (2-tail) N Personal Correlation Development Sig. (2-tail) N Self-Determination Correlation Sig. (2-tail) N Rights Correlation Sig. (2-tail) N Transportation Correlation Availability Sig. (2-tail) N Self response Correlation Sig. (2-tail) N Agency size Correlation Sig. (2-tail) N Agency response Correlation rate Sig. (2-tail) N Intellectual ability Correlation Sig. (2-tail) N Age group Correlation Sig. (2-tail) N Male Correlation Sig. (2-tail) N Autism Correlation Sig. (2-tail) N Behavior problems Correlation Sig. (2-tail) N

Page 60

December 2009

Physical Emotion Material InterPersonal SelfWellWellWell- personal Social Develop- Determin being being being Relations inclusion ment ation Rights 0.456 0.000 4599 0.473 0.384 0.000 0.000 4332 4334 0.454 0.479 0.431 0.000 0.000 0.000 4577 4749 4322 0.354 0.469 0.393 0.596 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 4538 4759 4301 4683 0.376 0.386 0.432 0.570 0.538 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 4540 4655 4306 4648 4591 0.287 0.318 0.405 0.439 0.445 0.545 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 4548 4608 4318 4595 4563 4561 0.228 0.217 0.371 0.361 0.367 0.455 0.597 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 4438 4443 4273 4436 4405 4405 4434 0.405 0.324 0.395 0.289 0.203 0.228 0.192 0.153 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 4401 4404 4227 4396 4358 4369 4379 4358 -0.214 -0.125 0.040 0.008 0.103 0.179 0.368 0.383 0.000 0.000 0.009 0.572 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 4609 5027 4337 4763 4766 4665 4618 4452 -0.067 -0.071 -0.084 -0.063 -0.064 -0.047 -0.072 -0.072 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 4609 5027 4337 4763 4766 4665 4618 4452 0.060 0.031 0.052 0.025 0.051 0.012 -0.033 -0.063 0.000 0.056 0.003 0.139 0.002 0.476 0.053 0.000 3418 3776 3185 3546 3553 3456 3415 3283 -0.115 -0.080 0.051 0.031 0.024 0.150 0.299 0.326 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.054 0.134 0.000 0.000 0.000 3799 4162 3581 3933 3929 3854 3810 3661 0.015 0.040 -0.011 -0.051 0.030 -0.054 -0.016 -0.031 0.316 0.004 0.468 0.000 0.037 0.000 0.280 0.037 4556 4963 4287 4706 4708 4611 4565 4399 0.034 0.046 0.036 -0.015 0.006 0.022 0.016 0.014 0.020 0.001 0.017 0.295 0.674 0.139 0.283 0.336 4596 5008 4325 4749 4750 4652 4605 4439 0.077 0.041 0.041 0.011 0.003 0.038 0.003 0.004 0.000 0.003 0.008 0.453 0.839 0.010 0.823 0.793 4586 4998 4316 4739 4740 4642 4595 4429 0.018 -0.003 0.006 -0.006 -0.025 -0.010 -0.006 -0.036 0.213 0.855 0.690 0.670 0.090 0.502 0.692 0.016 4586 4998 4316 4739 4740 4642 4595 4429

Ask Me!sm Project FY2009 -- The Arc of Maryland

Table B2. Person-Level Correlation Coefficients Between Quality of Life Domains and Person and Service Characteristics: FY2006-FY2009

Blind, vision impairment

Correlation Sig. (2-tail) N Cerebral palsy Correlation Sig. (2-tail) N Deaf, hearing Correlation impairment Sig. (2-tail) N Head injury Correlation Sig. (2-tail) N Mental disorder Correlation Sig. (2-tail) N Other neurological Correlation impairments Sig. (2-tail) N Orthopedic Correlation impairments Sig. (2-tail) N Epilepsy and seizure Correlation disorders Sig. (2-tail) N Specific learning Correlation disabilities Sig. (2-tail) N Speech and language Correlation impairments Sig. (2-tail) N Eastern DDA region Correlation Sig. (2-tail) N Southern DDA Correlation region Sig. (2-tail) N Western DDA Correlation region Sig. (2-tail) N DDA residential Correlation services Sig. (2-tail) N DDA CSLA Correlation Sig. (2-tail) N DDA supported Correlation employment Sig. (2-tail) N

Physical Emotion Material InterPersonal SelfWellWellWell- personal Social Develop- Determin being being being Relations inclusion ment ation Rights 0.035 0.034 -0.001 -0.009 -0.015 -0.039 -0.057 -0.074 0.016 0.015 0.946 0.542 0.295 0.007 0.000 0.000 4586 4998 4316 4739 4740 4642 4595 4429 0.041 0.051 0.009 0.020 0.030 -0.020 -0.042 -0.074 0.006 0.000 0.549 0.175 0.041 0.180 0.005 0.000 4586 4998 4316 4739 4740 4642 4595 4429 -0.012 0.025 -0.007 -0.022 0.015 0.001 -0.053 -0.057 0.414 0.083 0.633 0.126 0.308 0.919 0.000 0.000 4586 4998 4316 4739 4740 4642 4595 4429 -0.001 -0.022 -0.007 -0.045 -0.081 -0.033 0.031 0.060 0.942 0.126 0.630 0.002 0.000 0.026 0.038 0.000 4586 4998 4316 4739 4740 4642 4595 4429 -0.042 -0.045 -0.044 -0.029 -0.037 0.020 0.027 -0.002 0.005 0.001 0.004 0.050 0.010 0.171 0.068 0.881 4586 4998 4316 4739 4740 4642 4595 4429 -0.009 -0.027 -0.002 0.005 -0.053 -0.019 0.023 0.034 0.562 0.058 0.909 0.719 0.000 0.186 0.123 0.024 4586 4998 4316 4739 4740 4642 4595 4429 0.030 0.022 0.014 0.007 -0.006 -0.019 -0.027 -0.027 0.044 0.125 0.367 0.644 0.674 0.201 0.069 0.069 4586 4998 4316 4739 4740 4642 4595 4429 0.029 0.017 -0.007 0.013 0.002 -0.002 -0.053 -0.066 0.053 0.239 0.668 0.381 0.876 0.877 0.000 0.000 4586 4998 4316 4739 4740 4642 4595 4429 -0.056 -0.041 -0.019 -0.021 -0.065 0.012 0.055 0.051 0.000 0.004 0.210 0.145 0.000 0.426 0.000 0.001 4586 4998 4316 4739 4740 4642 4595 4429 0.056 0.016 0.012 0.034 -0.011 -0.004 -0.001 -0.014 0.000 0.248 0.433 0.019 0.450 0.799 0.926 0.347 4586 4998 4316 4739 4740 4642 4595 4429 -0.071 -0.018 -0.044 -0.016 0.002 0.016 -0.026 0.001 0.000 0.197 0.004 0.264 0.889 0.260 0.080 0.948 4609 5027 4337 4763 4766 4665 4618 4452 0.087 0.036 0.099 0.047 0.026 0.036 0.047 0.077 0.000 0.011 0.000 0.001 0.072 0.014 0.002 0.000 4609 5027 4337 4763 4766 4665 4618 4452 0.083 0.093 0.079 0.084 0.074 0.026 0.094 0.049 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.071 0.000 0.001 4609 5027 4337 4763 4766 4665 4618 4452 0.088 0.035 0.052 -0.003 0.054 -0.032 -0.133 -0.104 0.000 0.012 0.001 0.833 0.000 0.027 0.000 0.000 4599 5017 4328 4753 4756 4655 4608 4442 -0.031 -0.009 -0.047 -0.000 -0.005 -0.014 0.028 0.039 0.036 0.505 0.002 0.992 0.736 0.344 0.055 0.009 4599 5017 4328 4753 4756 4655 4608 4442 -0.021 -0.017 0.098 0.074 0.049 0.127 0.170 0.193 0.152 0.238 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 4599 5017 4328 4753 4756 4655 4608 4442

Ask Me!sm Project FY2009 -- The Arc of Maryland

December 2009 Page 61

Table B2. Person-Level Correlation Coefficients Between Quality of Life Domains and Person and Service Characteristics: FY2006-FY2009

DDA day habilitation

Correlation Sig. (2-tail) N DDA individual Correlation support services Sig. (2-tail) N DDA resource Correlation coordination Sig. (2-tail) N Number of agencies Correlation providing services Sig. (2-tail) N Transportation to Correlation day activity Sig. (2-tail) N Transportation to Correlation other activities Sig. (2-tail) N Transportation from Correlation other providers Sig. (2-tail) N Family Correlation transportation Sig. (2-tail) N Public transportation Correlation Sig. (2-tail) N

Page 62

December 2009

Physical Emotion Material InterPersonal SelfWellWellWell- personal Social Develop- Determin being being being Relations inclusion ment ation Rights 0.023 0.025 -0.027 -0.016 0.034 -0.042 -0.144 -0.173 0.115 0.080 0.073 0.259 0.017 0.004 0.000 0.000 4599 5017 4328 4753 4756 4655 4608 4442 -0.034 -0.016 -0.051 -0.020 -0.049 -0.009 0.076 0.061 0.022 0.244 0.001 0.172 0.001 0.524 0.000 0.000 4599 5017 4328 4753 4756 4655 4608 4442 0.037 0.020 0.000 -0.022 0.023 -0.064 -0.076 -0.086 0.013 0.167 0.999 0.134 0.114 0.000 0.000 0.000 4599 5017 4328 4753 4756 4655 4608 4442 0.024 0.024 0.010 0.022 0.021 0.014 -0.039 -0.044 0.102 0.091 0.492 0.133 0.148 0.344 0.009 0.003 4599 5017 4328 4753 4756 4655 4608 4442 0.062 0.034 0.058 0.028 0.066 0.039 -0.031 -0.064 0.000 0.023 0.000 0.062 0.000 0.011 0.043 0.000 4164 4543 3922 4306 4301 4215 4175 4021 0.055 0.031 0.045 0.021 0.045 0.009 -0.038 -0.046 0.000 0.036 0.005 0.168 0.003 0.555 0.014 0.004 4163 4542 3921 4305 4300 4213 4174 4020 0.002 -0.030 -0.027 -0.033 -0.035 -0.035 -0.078 -0.055 0.899 0.043 0.091 0.031 0.020 0.025 0.000 0.000 4164 4543 3922 4306 4301 4215 4175 4021 0.015 -0.002 0.042 0.043 0.005 0.056 0.096 0.111 0.333 0.898 0.009 0.005 0.761 0.000 0.000 0.000 4164 4543 3922 4306 4301 4215 4175 4021 -0.063 -0.056 -0.004 -0.039 -0.051 -0.020 0.061 0.091 0.000 0.000 0.799 0.010 0.001 0.194 0.000 0.000 4164 4543 3922 4306 4301 4215 4175 4021

Ask Me!sm Project FY2009 -- The Arc of Maryland

Table B3. Standardized Multiple Regression* Coefficients (Č•) of Quality of Life Domains on Person and Support Characteristics Person and Support Characteristics Transportation availability Self reporting Intellectual ability Western DDA region Southern DDA region Age Male Autism Cerebral palsy Head injury Specific learning disability Number of support agencies Agency size Supported employment Day habilitation Residential support

Physical Well-being Self .36

Proxy .30

Emotional Well-being

Total Self .36 .30 -.11 -.20

Proxy .24

Material Well-being

Total Self .32 .42 ... -.12

Proxy .27 .11

.06 .11 .07 .13

.04 .10 .06 .08 .06 .11 .05

.05 .08 .07 .13 .07 .12

Interpersonal Relations

Total Self Proxy Total .42 .31 .23 .29 .15 ... ... ... .06 .10 .09 .06 .07 .12 .08 .13 .06 .11 .08 .12 .07 .09 .15 .07 -.05

.04 .06

.05 .05 -.12 -.10

-.06

-.06

.05 .05 -.06

.11

-.06

-.11 -.10 .10 .06 .09 .15 .16 .07 .10 .07 .10 .07 .09 .14 .13

.08

-.09

Supported living (CSLA) -.05 -.05 Individual support services -.06 Resource coordination -.09 Trips by other provider agencies -.09 Provider trips to day activity .04 .06 .07 Provider trips to other activity .05 .07 Trips by family and friends Public transportation trips -.05 -.05 -.05 -.12 R2 .15 .03 .09 .01 .18 .01 .10 .02 .06 ... .11 .03 .21 .03 .15 .08 .20 .04 .12 .03 .11 * Stepwise regression with p=.01 to enter and p=.02 to delete; variables tested with partial correlations of p=.01.

Ask Me!sm Project FY2009 -- The Arc of Maryland

December 2009 Page 63

-.11 -.10

-.12 -.05 -.06 .06 .10 .02

Table B3. Standardized Multiple Regression* Coefficients (Č•) of Quality of Life Domains on Person and Support Characteristics Person and Support Characteristics Transportation availability Self reporting Intellectual ability Western DDA region Southern DDA region Age Male Autism Cerebral palsy Head injury Specific learning disabilities Number of support agencies Agency size Supported Employment Day habilitation Residential support

Personal Development Self .31

Social Inclusion

Self-Determination

Proxy .22

Total Self Proxy Total Self .30 .25 .22 .24 .32 .21 .13 .20 .14 .22 .21 .08 .08 -.06 .06 .06 .09 .07 .05 .07 .06 .11 .06 -.09 -.04 -.06

Rights

Proxy .29

Total Self Proxy .29 .29 .21 .37 .29 .21 .19 .11 .12 .27 .25 .24 .29 .10 .15 .08 .17 .21 .11 .14 .04 .08 .08 .11 .13

Total .25 .36 .29 .14 .14 .07 .10 .07 .09

.05 -.06

-.05

-.10 -.09 -.07 -.07

-.11 -.16 -.06 .12 .08 .20 .20 .12 .13 .09 .15 .16 .10 .09

-.09 -.08 -.05 -.06 -.11 -.15

-.06 .06 -.08

.06 .08

-.04 .21 .22 .07 .08

.15 .15 .06 .08 -.08 -.09

.06 .05 .06 -.06

Supported living (CSLA) -.10 -.12 Individual support services -.11 -.12 Resource coordination -.09 Trips by other provider agencies -.04 Provider trips to day activity .05 .06 .10 .10 .06 .06 Provider trips to other activity .07 Trips by family and friends .06 .05 Public transportation trips R2 .11 .02 .18 .13 .14 .06 .09 .03 .08 .03 .09 .04 .12 .02 .22 .14 .25 .17 .10 .02 .21 .17 .25 .19 * Stepwise regression with p=.01 to enter and p=.02 to delete; variables tested with partial correlations of p=.01.

Page 64

December 2009

Ask Me!sm Project FY2009 -- The Arc of Maryland

Table B4. Correlation Coefficients of Agency Quality of Life with Agency Characteristics and Previous Quality of Life

Emotional Wellbeing

Correlation Sig. (2-tail) N Material Well-being Correlation Sig. (2-tail) N Interpersonal Correlation Relations Sig. (2-tail) N Personal Correlation Development Sig. (2-tail) N Social Inclusion Correlation Sig. (2-tail) N Self-Determination Correlation Sig. (2-tail) N Rights Correlation Sig. (2-tail) N Physical Well-being Correlation Cycle 1 Sig. (2-tail) N Emotional WellCorrelation being Cycle 1 Sig. (2-tail) N Material Well-being Correlation Cycle 1 Sig. (2-tail) N Interpersonal Correlation Relations Cycle 1 Sig. (2-tail) N Personal Correlation Development Cycle Sig. (2-tail) 1 N Social Inclusion Correlation Cycle 1 Sig. (2-tail) N Self-Determination Correlation Cycle 1 Sig. (2-tail) N Rights Cycle 1 Correlation Sig. (2-tail) N Transportation Correlation Availability Cycle 2 Sig. (2-tail) N

Physical Emotion Material InterPersonal SelfWellWellWellpersonal Develop- Social Determin being being being Relations ment Inclusion ation Rights 0.740 0.000 119 0.694 0.575 0.000 0.000 119 119 0.633 0.735 0.534 0.000 0.000 0.000 119 119 119 0.426 0.457 0.542 0.636 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 119 119 119 119 0.571 0.706 0.591 0.772 0.618 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 119 119 119 119 119 0.342 0.434 0.461 0.560 0.665 0.483 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 119 119 119 119 119 119 0.16 0.21 0.36 0.42 0.56 0.27 0.80 0.07 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 119 119 119 119 119 119 119 0.515 0.501 0.441 0.377 0.179 0.290 0.139 0.062 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.064 0.002 0.152 0.524 108 108 108 108 108 108 108 108 0.523 0.503 0.468 0.444 0.271 0.330 0.202 0.111 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.005 0.000 0.036 0.253 108 108 108 108 108 108 108 108 0.413 0.357 0.530 0.385 0.391 0.404 0.176 0.195 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.068 0.043 108 108 108 108 108 108 108 108 0.311 0.350 0.411 0.535 0.337 0.436 0.285 0.299 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.002 108 108 108 108 108 108 108 108 0.194 0.208 0.339 0.368 0.463 0.383 0.343 0.320 0.044 0.030 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 108 108 108 108 108 108 108 108 0.295 0.352 0.383 0.486 0.440 0.485 0.284 0.257 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.007 108 108 108 108 108 108 108 108 -0.032 0.137 0.196 0.256 0.294 0.213 0.560 0.535 0.742 0.157 0.042 0.007 0.002 0.027 0.000 0.000 108 108 108 108 108 108 108 108 -0.131 -0.043 0.110 0.173 0.261 0.073 0.500 0.595 0.177 0.656 0.258 0.073 0.006 0.451 0.000 0.000 108 108 108 108 108 108 108 108 0.723 0.537 0.532 0.442 0.243 0.388 0.219 0.122 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.017 0.187 119 119 119 119 119 119 119 119

Ask Me!sm Project FY2009 -- The Arc of Maryland

December 2009 Page 65

Table B4. Correlation Coefficients of Agency Quality of Life with Agency Characteristics and Previous Quality of Life

% Responding for themselves

Correlation Sig. (2-tail) N Agency size Correlation Sig. (2-tail) N Agency response Correlation rate Sig. (2-tail) N Intellectual ability Correlation group average Sig. (2-tail) N Age group average Correlation Sig. (2-tail) N % Male Correlation Sig. (2-tail) N % Autism Correlation Sig. (2-tail) N % Behavior Correlation problems Sig. (2-tail) N % Blind, vision Correlation impairment Sig. (2-tail) N % Cerebral palsy Correlation Sig. (2-tail) N % Deaf, hearing Correlation impairment Sig. (2-tail) N % Head injury Correlation Sig. (2-tail) N % Mental disorder Correlation Sig. (2-tail) N % Mental Correlation retardation Sig. (2-tail) N % Other Correlation neurological Sig. (2-tail) impairments N % Orthopedic Correlation impairments Sig. (2-tail) N

Page 66

December 2009

Physical Emotion Material InterPersonal SelfWellWellWellpersonal Develop- Social Determin being being being Relations ment Inclusion ation Rights -0.533 -0.369 -0.167 -0.135 0.140 -0.156 0.337 0.484 0.000 0.000 0.069 0.143 0.130 0.091 0.000 0.000 119 119 119 119 119 119 119 119 -0.021 -0.005 0.019 0.031 0.035 0.020 0.058 0.069 0.818 0.953 0.836 0.736 0.704 0.828 0.529 0.458 119 119 119 119 119 119 119 119 0.204 0.206 0.196 0.129 0.102 0.192 -0.059 -0.133 0.026 0.025 0.033 0.163 0.270 0.036 0.526 0.149 119 119 119 119 119 119 119 119 -0.277 -0.253 -0.028 -0.105 0.053 -0.132 0.338 0.427 0.003 0.007 0.772 0.269 0.580 0.165 0.000 0.000 113 113 113 113 113 113 113 113 0.216 0.326 0.094 0.107 0.023 0.145 0.010 -0.061 0.018 0.000 0.310 0.247 0.803 0.115 0.911 0.511 119 119 119 119 119 119 119 119 0.238 0.030 0.219 0.156 0.167 0.142 0.067 0.106 0.009 0.746 0.017 0.089 0.070 0.123 0.469 0.250 119 119 119 119 119 119 119 119 0.281 0.110 0.163 0.179 0.189 0.034 0.116 0.111 0.002 0.235 0.076 0.051 0.040 0.715 0.208 0.231 119 119 119 119 119 119 119 119 0.168 -0.050 0.063 -0.052 0.140 -0.024 -0.010 -0.063 0.068 0.586 0.494 0.575 0.129 0.798 0.916 0.499 119 119 119 119 119 119 119 119 0.094 0.094 0.039 -0.051 -0.099 -0.014 -0.228 -0.315 0.308 0.308 0.674 0.582 0.284 0.878 0.013 0.000 119 119 119 119 119 119 119 119 0.061 0.264 0.039 0.096 -0.250 0.164 -0.230 -0.275 0.508 0.004 0.674 0.298 0.006 0.074 0.012 0.002 119 119 119 119 119 119 119 119 -0.015 -0.065 -0.101 -0.226 -0.043 -0.146 -0.044 -0.211 0.868 0.484 0.273 0.013 0.646 0.113 0.635 0.021 119 119 119 119 119 119 119 119 -0.135 -0.286 -0.092 -0.153 -0.125 -0.178 -0.035 0.154 0.142 0.002 0.319 0.096 0.175 0.053 0.709 0.095 119 119 119 119 119 119 119 119 -0.185 -0.313 -0.224 -0.076 0.097 -0.087 -0.101 0.033 0.044 0.001 0.014 0.413 0.292 0.348 0.275 0.719 119 119 119 119 119 119 119 119 0.265 0.299 0.294 0.281 0.203 0.399 -0.103 -0.162 0.004 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.027 0.000 0.266 0.079 119 119 119 119 119 119 119 119 -0.105 -0.167 -0.099 -0.058 -0.120 -0.083 -0.015 0.118 0.257 0.069 0.283 0.528 0.193 0.368 0.868 0.201 119 119 119 119 119 119 119 119 0.033 0.183 0.111 -0.034 -0.106 0.178 -0.093 -0.159 0.722 0.046 0.230 0.711 0.253 0.053 0.313 0.085 119 119 119 119 119 119 119 119

Ask Me!sm Project FY2009 -- The Arc of Maryland

Table B4. Correlation Coefficients of Agency Quality of Life with Agency Characteristics and Previous Quality of Life

% Epilepsy and seizure disorders

Correlation Sig. (2-tail) N % Specific learning Correlation disabilities Sig. (2-tail) N % Speech and Correlation language Sig. (2-tail) impairments N Eastern DDA region Correlation Sig. (2-tail) N Southern DDA Correlation region Sig. (2-tail) N Western DDA Correlation region Sig. (2-tail) N % Residential Correlation services Sig. (2-tail) N % CSLA services Correlation Sig. (2-tail) N % Supported Correlation employment Sig. (2-tail) services N % Day habilitation Correlation services Sig. (2-tail) N % Individual Correlation support services Sig. (2-tail) N % Only provider of Correlation services Sig. (2-tail) N % Provided Correlation transportation 3+ Sig. (2-tail) times a week N % Using public Correlation transportation Sig. (2-tail) N

Physical Emotion Material InterPersonal SelfWellWellWellpersonal Develop- Social Determin being being being Relations ment Inclusion ation Rights 0.241 0.205 0.028 0.103 -0.014 0.185 -0.253 -0.336 0.008 0.025 0.761 0.265 0.882 0.044 0.005 0.000 119 119 119 119 119 119 119 119 -0.249 -0.329 -0.082 -0.236 -0.005 -0.285 0.103 0.268 0.006 0.000 0.377 0.010 0.957 0.002 0.264 0.003 119 119 119 119 119 119 119 119 0.143 0.109 0.142 0.198 0.137 0.135 0.117 0.155 0.121 0.240 0.124 0.031 0.138 0.142 0.205 0.093 119 119 119 119 119 119 119 119 -0.239 -0.044 -0.130 -0.051 0.080 0.037 -0.044 -0.018 0.009 0.632 0.158 0.584 0.390 0.687 0.638 0.849 119 119 119 119 119 119 119 119 0.291 0.085 0.316 0.094 0.148 0.057 0.098 0.192 0.001 0.359 0.000 0.309 0.108 0.539 0.287 0.036 119 119 119 119 119 119 119 119 0.283 0.344 0.256 0.311 0.148 0.280 0.295 0.151 0.002 0.000 0.005 0.001 0.108 0.002 0.001 0.101 119 119 119 119 119 119 119 119 0.167 0.010 0.095 -0.123 -0.055 -0.073 -0.429 -0.408 0.070 0.914 0.307 0.184 0.553 0.428 0.000 0.000 119 119 119 119 119 119 119 119 -0.063 -0.058 -0.047 0.016 0.021 -0.029 0.105 0.164 0.496 0.534 0.609 0.861 0.825 0.757 0.257 0.075 119 119 119 119 119 119 119 119 0.016 -0.006 0.159 0.171 0.267 0.060 0.339 0.392 0.862 0.952 0.084 0.064 0.003 0.518 0.000 0.000 119 119 119 119 119 119 119 119 0.011 0.115 0.131 0.162 0.162 0.242 0.101 0.020 0.902 0.213 0.157 0.079 0.079 0.008 0.274 0.826 119 119 119 119 119 119 119 119 -0.054 0.036 -0.185 -0.040 -0.157 -0.117 0.220 0.246 0.563 0.696 0.044 0.665 0.088 0.206 0.016 0.007 119 119 119 119 119 119 119 119 -0.129 -0.020 -0.025 0.020 0.044 0.010 0.150 0.197 0.161 0.830 0.789 0.828 0.638 0.916 0.103 0.031 119 119 119 119 119 119 119 119 0.101 0.147 0.178 0.073 0.056 0.243 0.156 0.081 0.280 0.114 0.055 0.433 0.547 0.008 0.092 0.385 117 117 117 117 117 117 117 117 -0.083 -0.214 -0.161 -0.078 -0.060 -0.201 0.108 0.245 0.371 0.021 0.084 0.404 0.523 0.030 0.248 0.008 117 117 117 117 117 117 117 117

Ask Me!sm Project FY2009 -- The Arc of Maryland

December 2009 Page 67

Table B5. Regression of Agency Quality of Life on Person and Service Characteristics: FY2006-FY2009 (significant Č• coefficients at p .05) Characteristic

Physical Well-being

Emotional Well-being

Material Interpersonal Well-being Relations

Social Inclusion

Personal SelfDevelopment Determination

Cycle 1 QOL Score .18 .26 .36 .46 .34 .42 Transportation availability .67 .61 .47 .38 .45 .36 .41 .27 .36 .29 .21 .20 % Self-respondent -.41 -.22 .22 Intellectual ability -.18 -.15 -.23 -.22 -.22 -.33 -.30 -.24 -.26 Average age group .15 .17 Western region .30 .25 .25 .43 .26 .19 .36 Southern region .31 .29 .44 .19 % Autism .18 .14 % Cerebral palsy .19 .23 .22 -.22 -.23 -.21 -.15 % Hearing impairment % Head injury -.22 -.25 -.22 % Mental disorder -.20 -.15 -.20 % Specific learning disab.

-.20 % Supported employment .27 .26 .25 % Day habilitation .19 % Residential services -.22 % Individual support -.27 -.19 % Transport 3+ per week .17 2 R .45 .57 .57 .34 .48 .51 .30 .36 .46 .14 .24 .41 .22 .30 .37 .18 .22 .29 .39 a Transportation Availability did not have a significant bivariate correlation and was not entered into the regression.

Page 68

December 2009

Ask Me!sm Project FY2009 -- The Arc of Maryland

.32 .56 .51 .58 .38 .34

Rights .47 a .17

a a a a .16 a a .22 a -.14 -.17 -.18 a -.15 -.24 a -.21 a a a .30 a a -.27 -.24 a -.19 .26 a a .51 .56 .45 a .56

Appendix C. Quality of Life at Maryland Provider Agencies General Information The Ask Me! Survey collects information from people receiving support funded by the Maryland Developmental Disabilities Administration (DDA) to determine their satisfaction with the quality of their lives. Quality of life is defined in eight domains: Rights

The expression of human rights (respect, dignity and equality) and the guarantee of legal rights (citizenship, access and due process); Self-Determination The expression of autonomy and personal control, the pursuit of personal goals and values, and the opportunity to make decisions; Social Inclusion The integration into and participation in one ’s community, the expression of valued social roles, and the receipt of social support from community members; Personal Development The level of education received, personal competence expressed, and performance exhibited (includes creativity and personal expression); Interpersonal Relations The experiencing of social interactions and relationships (with family, friends, peers) and receiving support (emotional, physical, financial, and feedback) from family, friends, peers or providers; Material Well-Being The presence of adequate financial status, employment (a job), and adequate housing; Emotional Well-Being The condition of being contented (satisfied, happy) having a positive selfconcept, and being relatively free of stress; Physical Well-Being The level of health experienced (physical functioning, disease symptoms, pain, fitness, energy, nutrition) and the receipt of health care.

People view quality of life differently, and the Ask Me! Survey allows people with developmental disabilities to define quality of life for themselves. Some general findings should be kept in mind when looking at average quality of life scores of individual providers: • • • • •

Most people in Maryland with developmental disabilities report a good quality of life, particularly in the domains of Physical and Emotional Well-being; The eight quality of life domains are distinct and all are important, but different people may place different importance on different domains when considering services; The quality of life has generally increased in Maryland in most domains. Average scores are computed every four years and statistically adjusted to the midpoint of the cycle (see Bonham, Basehart and Marchand, 2005, for average scores for the first cycle); The larger the provider, the more their scores contribute to the Maryland average, and therefore the more likely their scores will be similar to the Maryland average; People receiving employment support report higher quality of life than people not receiving employment support; therefore the quality of life would be expected to be higher at providers with high percentages of people receiving employment services.

Ask Me!sm Project FY2009 -- The Arc of Maryland

December 2009 Page 69

Definitions and Symbols Scores can range from 0.0 (all negative) to 10.0 (all positive), with a 5.0 score indicating people gave neutral, or as many favorable as unfavorable, answers to the indicator questions.

The average agency scores are shown for each fiscal year during which interviews were conducted, and the numbers of people interviewed are shown in parentheses (). Surveys are conducted at large agencies every year, and middle sized agencies every other year, and at small agencies about once every four years. Year to year differences less than 1.00 may simply reflect sampling variability, but differences more than 1.50 are likely to reflect real change.

Agency scores relative to all other agencies can be compared only after a four-year cycle of interviews are complete. Symbols are presented to show how an agency compared with other agencies based on the FY2006-2009 cycle. The scores were averaged, or adjusted to the midpoint of the cycle, before being compared as follows: 3 0

Average score in the top 20% of agencies, significantly higher than the Maryland average; Average score in the middle 70% of agencies, about the Maryland average; Average score in the bottom 10% of agencies, significantly lower than the Maryland average.

The following additional information is provided for the fiscal year of the last time surveyed: Number of people supported:

The number of people supported with DDA funds at the start of the FY2009; Survey response rate: The percent of people with completed interviews (self or proxy) among those selected and eligible for the survey; Self response rate: The percent of surveys completed by the selected people for themselves; Served by other agencies: The percent of people responding to the last time surveyed who received support from at least one other agency; Percent in residential services: The percent of people with surveys who received residential services from this agency; Percent in CSLA: The percent of people with surveys supported by this agency in community supported living arrangements; Percent in employment services: The percent of people with surveys supported by this agency with employment services; Percent in day habilitation: The percent of people with surveys supported by this agency with day habilitation services; Percent with individual support: The percent of people with surveys supported by this agency with individual support services.

Page 70

December 2009

Ask Me!sm Project FY2009 -- The Arc of Maryland

State of Maryland Average InterPhysical Emotional Material Personal Personal Social SelfWellbeing Wellbeing Wellbeing Relations Development InclusionDetermination Rights FY2009 (1,160) FY2008 (1,269) FY2007 (1,172) FY2006 (1,225)

8.68 8.69 8.70 8.66

8.58 8.53 8.48 8.48

7.37 7.41 7.35 7.42

7.85 7.74 7.70 7.68

7.58 7.47 7.45 7.48

7.57 7.60 7.40 7.43

7.34 7.22 7.19 7.20

6.88 6.78 6.75 6.74

FY06-09 adjust 8.68 FY06-09 rank 0

8.52 0

7.39 0

7.74 0

7.50 0

7.50 0

7.24 0

6.79 0

Most recent survey year: FY2009 Weighted number of respondents: 13,148 Survey response rate: 65% Self-response rate: 81% Served by multiple agencies: 23%

Respondents in residential services: Respondents in CSLA Respondents in employment services: Respondents in day habilitation services: Respondents with individual support:

Ask Me!sm Project FY2009 -- The Arc of Maryland

38% 12% 32% 52% 12%

December 2009 Page 71

Abilities Network InterPhysical Emotional Material Personal Personal Social SelfWellbeing Wellbeing Wellbeing Relations Development InclusionDetermination Rights FY2009 (26) FY2008 (30) FY2007 (33) FY2006 (25)

8.68 8.53 7.98 8.47

8.45 8.56 8.41 7.97

7.53 7.55 6.57 6.93

7.64 7.93 7.50 7.76

7.70 7.59 7.85 7.51

7.01 7.44 7.10 7.42

8.39 8.13 7.92 7.52

7.95 7.85 6.97 7.46

FY06-09 adjust 8.38 FY06-09 rank 0

8.36 0

7.10 0

7.70 0

7.68 0

7.24 0

7.98 3

7.52 3

Most recent survey year: Number of people supported: Survey response rate: Self-response rate: Served by other agencies:

FY2009 417 52% 95% 30%

Respondents in residential services: 0% Respondents in CSLA 26% Respondents in employment services: 42% Respondents in day habilitation services: 0% Respondents with individual support: 36%

ACCFX Gallagher InterPhysical Emotional Material Personal Personal Social SelfWellbeing Wellbeing Wellbeing Relations Development InclusionDetermination Rights FY2009 (33) FY2007 (28) FY2006 (29)

8.44 9.16 8.13

8.64 8.24 8.06

7.40 7.40 6.77

7.90 8.32 7.05

7.05 7.71 6.63

7.82 7.75 6.95

6.37 7.08 6.12

5.74 6.50 5.53

FY06-09 adjust 8.57 FY06-09 rank 0

8.32 0

7.18 0

7.77 0

7.14 0

7.52 0

6.53 0

5.93 0

Most recent survey year: Number of people supported: Survey response rate: Self-response rate: Served by other agencies:

Page 72

December 2009

FY2009 318 66% 66% 34%

Respondents in residential services: 76% Respondents in CSLA 0% Respondents in employment services: 0% Respondents in day habilitation services: 62% Respondents with individual support: 0%

Ask Me!sm Project FY2009 -- The Arc of Maryland

Alliance InterPhysical Emotional Material Personal Personal Social SelfWellbeing Wellbeing Wellbeing Relations Development InclusionDetermination Rights FY2008 (17) FY2006 (30)

8.82 8.36

8.45 8.61

6.65 7.37

7.96 7.92

7.18 7.82

7.13 7.01

8.08 8.11

7.57 7.13

FY06-09 adjust 8.49 FY06-09 rank 0

8.58 0

7.17 0

7.99 0

7.67 0

7.11 0

8.16 3

7.31 0

Most recent survey year: Number of people supported: Survey response rate: Self-response rate: Served by other agencies:

FY2008 179 34% 94% 41%

Respondents in residential services: 0% Respondents in CSLA 6% Respondents in employment services: 82% Respondents in day habilitation services: 24% Respondents with individual support: 12%

Appalachian Crossroads InterPhysical Emotional Material Personal Personal Social SelfWellbeing Wellbeing Wellbeing Relations Development InclusionDetermination Rights FY2009 (39)

9.27

9.39

8.34

8.62

8.62

8.56

8.60

6.97

FY06-09 adjust 9.26 FY06-09 rank 3

9.34 3

8.35 3

8.53 3

8.56 3

8.45 3

8.50 3

6.88 0

Most recent survey year: Number of people supported: Survey response rate: Self-response rate: Served by other agencies:

FY2009 93 78% 85% 10%

Respondents in residential services: 33% Respondents in CSLA 8% Respondents in employment services: 5% Respondents in day habilitation services: 72% Respondents with individual support: 31%

Ask Me!sm Project FY2009 -- The Arc of Maryland

December 2009 Page 73

Arc of Baltimore InterPhysical Emotional Material Personal Personal Social SelfWellbeing Wellbeing Wellbeing Relations Development InclusionDetermination Rights FY2009 (32) FY2008 (32) FY2007 (26) FY2006 (28)

8.14 8.32 7.82 8.61

8.28 8.08 8.06 8.13

6.71 6.70 6.02 6.83

7.44 7.34 7.20 7.36

6.95 7.76 7.31 7.28

7.54 6.66 7.28 6.78

6.66 6.16 6.44 6.71

6.78 6.29 5.90 5.90

FY06-09 adjust 8.23 FY06-09 rank 0

8.14 0

6.58 0

7.34 0

7.31 0

7.06 0

6.50 0

6.22 0

Most recent survey year: Number of people supported: Survey response rate: Self-response rate: Served by other agencies:

FY2009 1,081 67% 78% 36%

Respondents in residential services: Respondents in CSLA Respondents in employment services: Respondents in day habilitation services: Respondents with individual support:

14% 11% 35% 54% 2%

Arc of Carroll County InterPhysical Emotional Material Personal Personal Social SelfWellbeing Wellbeing Wellbeing Relations Development InclusionDetermination Rights FY2008 (38) FY2006 (45)

8.92 8.67

8.62 8.59

7.65 7.90

8.02 8.06

7.86 7.56

8.04 7.73

7.73 7.33

6.65 7.32

FY06-09 adjust 8.79 FY06-09 rank 0

8.62 0

7.79 0

8.08 0

7.72 0

7.91 0

7.55 0

7.06 0

Most recent survey year: Number of people supported: Survey response rate: Self-response rate: Served by other agencies:

Page 74

December 2009

FY2008 171 76% 76% 37%

Respondents in residential services: 11% Respondents in CSLA 8% Respondents in employment services: 8% Respondents in day habilitation services: 68% Respondents with individual support: 24%

Ask Me!sm Project FY2009 -- The Arc of Maryland

Arc of Central Chesapeake InterPhysical Emotional Material Personal Personal Social SelfWellbeing Wellbeing Wellbeing Relations Development InclusionDetermination Rights FY2009 (22) FY2007 (24) FY2005 (27)

9.18 7.76 8.52

8.97 8.49 8.24

7.49 6.50 7.59

7.19 7.15 8.16

7.29 7.30 7.31

7.34 6.92 7.89

6.78 7.29 7.19

6.97 6.72 5.66

FY06-09 adjust 8.40 FY06-09 rank 0

8.69 0

6.90 0

7.14 0

7.28 0

7.08 0

7.03 0

6.81 0

Most recent survey year: Number of people supported: Survey response rate: Self-response rate: Served by other agencies:

FY2009 241 51% 76% 60%

Respondents in residential services: 48% Respondents in CSLA 36% Respondents in employment services: 6% Respondents in day habilitation services: 0% Respondents with individual support: 10%

Arc of Frederick County InterPhysical Emotional Material Personal Personal Social SelfWellbeing Wellbeing Wellbeing Relations Development InclusionDetermination Rights FY2006 (32)

8.07

8.54

6.79

7.57

7.27

7.08

7.05

7.33

FY06-09 adjust 8.08 FY06-09 rank 0

8.58 0

6.78 0

7.66 0

7.32 0

7.18 0

7.15 0

7.43 3

Most recent survey year: Number of people supported: Survey response rate: Self-response rate: Served by other agencies:

FY2006 87 76% 76% 39%

Respondents in residential services: 0% Respondents in CSLA 0% Respondents in employment services: 0% Respondents in day habilitation services: 0% Respondents with individual support: 97%

Ask Me!sm Project FY2009 -- The Arc of Maryland

December 2009 Page 75

Arc of Howard County InterPhysical Emotional Material Personal Personal Social SelfWellbeing Wellbeing Wellbeing Relations Development InclusionDetermination Rights FY2009 (29) FY2007 (34)

8.96 9.03

9.09 8.00

7.91 7.13

8.34 7.01

7.56 6.67

8.06 7.00

7.55 6.63

6.47 6.50

FY06-09 adjust 9.00 FY06-09 rank 0

8.49 0

7.47 0

7.58 0

7.05 0

7.44 0

7.00 0

6.47 0

Most recent survey year: Number of people supported: Survey response rate: Self-response rate: Served by other agencies:

FY2009 234 58% 78% 19%

Respondents in residential services: Respondents in CSLA Respondents in employment services: Respondents in day habilitation services: Respondents with individual support:

35% 19% 27% 52% 8%

Arc of Montgomery County InterPhysical Emotional Material Personal Personal Social SelfWellbeing Wellbeing Wellbeing Relations Development InclusionDetermination Rights FY2009 (36) FY2008 (35) FY2007 (23) FY2006 (29)

8.73 9.26 8.49 8.60

8.30 9.10 8.24 8.38

7.83 8.83 7.86 7.43

8.09 8.40 7.76 7.64

7.26 8.41 7.20 6.76

7.33 7.76 7.02 7.37

6.53 8.37 7.43 6.56

7.44 7.42 7.63 6.76

FY06-09 adjust 8.76 FY06-09 rank 0

8.52 0

7.96 3

7.98 0

7.37 0

7.38 0

7.16 0

7.29 0

Most recent survey year: Number of people supported: Survey response rate: Self-response rate: Served by other agencies: Page 76

December 2009

FY2008 409 70% 80% 46%

Respondents in residential services: 57% Respondents in CSLA 0% Respondents in employment services: 20% Respondents in day habilitation services: 54% Respondents with individual support: 3% Ask Me!sm Project FY2009 -- The Arc of Maryland

Arc of Northern Chesapeake InterPhysical Emotional Material Personal Personal Social SelfWellbeing Wellbeing Wellbeing Relations Development InclusionDetermination Rights FY2008 (28) 8.17 8.18 7.38 7.98 7.93 8.02 7.65 7.71 FY2006 (31) 8.58 8.62 7.05 7.97 7.83 7.29 7.68 6.83 FY06-09 adjust 8.42 FY06-09 rank 0

8.44 0

Most recent survey year: Number of people supported: Survey response rate: Self-response rate: Served by other agencies:

7.17 0 FY2008 215 56% 100% 11%

8.02 0

7.90 0

7.63 0

7.72 0

Respondents in residential services: Respondents in CSLA Respondents in employment services: Respondents in day habilitation services: Respondents with individual support:

7.21 0 32% 11% 54% 29% 4%

Arc of Prince George's County InterPhysical Emotional Material Personal Personal Social SelfWellbeing Wellbeing Wellbeing Relations Development InclusionDetermination Rights FY2009 (29) FY2008 (25) FY2007 (16) FY2006 (24)

8.78 8.90 8.05 8.98

8.49 8.63 8.37 8.34

7.18 7.40 7.05 7.32

7.30 8.00 6.27 8.01

7.49 7.63 6.67 6.82

7.20 7.58 6.39 7.08

6.88 7.25 6.71 6.65

6.01 6.70 6.26 6.28

FY06-09 adjust 8.73 FY06-09 rank 0

8.46 0

7.26 0

7.44 0

7.19 0

7.09 0

6.88 0

6.31 0

Most recent survey year: Number of people supported: Survey response rate: Self-response rate: Served by other agencies:

FY2009 510 71% 63% 29%

Respondents in residential services: Respondents in CSLA Respondents in employment services: Respondents in day habilitation services: Respondents with individual support:

Ask Me!sm Project FY2009 -- The Arc of Maryland

36% 10% 19% 55% 11%

December 2009 Page 77

Arc of Southern Maryland InterPhysical Emotional Material Personal Personal Social SelfWellbeing Wellbeing Wellbeing Relations Development InclusionDetermination Rights FY2009 (30) FY2007 (33)

9.03 9.23

9.07 9.01

7.72 8.34

8.50 7.90

8.35 7.60

8.42 7.68

7.95 7.33

7.04 6.87

FY06-09 adjust 9.14 FY06-09 rank 0

9.02 3

8.08 3

8.14 0

7.92 0

7.98 0

7.57 0

6.92 0

Most recent survey year: Number of people supported: Survey response rate: Self-response rate: Served by other agencies:

FY2009 179 60% 78% 33%

Respondents in residential services: Respondents in CSLA Respondents in employment services: Respondents in day habilitation services: Respondents with individual support:

52% 27% 28% 31% 0%

Arc of Washington County InterPhysical Emotional Material Personal Personal Social SelfWellbeing Wellbeing Wellbeing Relations Development InclusionDetermination Rights FY2009 (35) FY2008 (41) FY2007 (36) FY2006 (40)

8.89 9.07 8.72 9.14

8.75 8.90 8.93 9.08

7.98 7.53 8.22 7.68

8.17 8.00 8.15 8.34

7.62 7.51 7.25 7.94

7.34 8.08 7.67 8.37

8.20 7.77 8.26 8.18

7.06 7.05 6.77 7.20

FY06-09 adjust 8.96 FY06-09 rank 0

8.92 0

7.84 0

8.17 3

7.59 0

7.90 0

8.10 3

7.03 0

Most recent survey year: Number of people supported: Survey response rate: Self-response rate: Served by other agencies: Page 78

December 2009

FY2009 394 88% 81% 17%

Respondents in residential services: Respondents in CSLA Respondents in employment services: Respondents in day habilitation services: Respondents with individual support:

43% 17% 4% 57% 24%

Ask Me!sm Project FY2009 -- The Arc of Maryland

Ardmore Enterprises InterPhysical Emotional Material Personal Personal Social SelfWellbeing Wellbeing Wellbeing Relations Development InclusionDetermination Rights FY2008 (33) FY2006 (27)

9.29 9.25

8.93 8.76

8.50 8.10

8.20 7.73

8.17 7.33

7.97 7.68

7.38 6.11

7.36 6.48

FY06-09 adjust 9.27 FY06-09 rank 3

8.86 0

8.30 3

8.00 0

7.79 0

7.86 0

6.79 0

6.96 0

Most recent survey year: Number of people supported: Survey response rate: Self-response rate: Served by other agencies:

FY2008 192 75% 52% 52%

Respondents in residential services: 12% Respondents in CSLA 0% Respondents in employment services: 6% Respondents in day habilitation services: 88% Respondents with individual support: 6%

Athelas Institute InterPhysical Emotional Material Personal Personal Social SelfWellbeing Wellbeing Wellbeing Relations Development InclusionDetermination Rights FY2009 (37) FY2007 (36) FY2006 (38)

9.01 8.82 8.94

8.45 8.77 8.80

7.08 7.47 7.43

8.24 7.88 7.88

7.69 7.89 7.77

8.11 7.84 7.73

7.01 7.04 7.48

6.68 6.45 6.77

FY06-09 adjust 8.92 FY06-09 rank 0

8.68 0

7.32 0

7.74 0

7.79 0

7.91 0

7.19 0

6.65 0

Most recent survey year: Number of people supported: Survey response rate: Self-response rate: Served by other agencies:

FY2009 342 74% 71% 52%

Respondents in residential services: 14% Respondents in CSLA 2% Respondents in employment services: 30% Respondents in day habilitation services: 65% Respondents with individual support: 2%

Ask Me!sm Project FY2009 -- The Arc of Maryland

December 2009 Page 79

Bay Shore Services Inc InterPhysical Emotional Material Personal Personal Social SelfWellbeing Wellbeing Wellbeing Relations Development InclusionDetermination Rights FY2006 (20)

7.80

7.71

6.40

7.25

6.50

6.03

6.51

5.95

FY06-09 adjust 7.81 FY06-09 rank

7.76

6.39 0

7.34 0

6.56 0

6.14

6.61 0

6.04 0

Most recent survey year: Number of people supported: Survey response rate: Self-response rate: Served by other agencies:

FY2006 77 46% 76% 38%

Respondents in residential services: Respondents in CSLA Respondents in employment services: Respondents in day habilitation services: Respondents with individual support:

10% 43% 24% 5% 24%

Bayside Community Network InterPhysical Emotional Material Personal Personal Social SelfWellbeing Wellbeing Wellbeing Relations Development InclusionDetermination Rights FY2007 (18)

7.73

8.31

6.14

7.50

7.54

7.39

6.97

6.76

FY06-09 adjust 7.73 FY06-09 rank

8.33 0

6.14

7.53 0

7.56 0

7.42 0

7.00 0

6.79 0

Most recent survey year: Number of people supported: Survey response rate: Self-response rate: Served by other agencies:

Page 80

December 2009

FY2007 134 88% 91% 3%

Respondents in residential services: 46% Respondents in CSLA 0% Respondents in employment services: 31% Respondents in day habilitation services: 66% Respondents with individual support: 3%

Ask Me!sm Project FY2009 -- The Arc of Maryland

Bello Machre InterPhysical Emotional Material Personal Personal Social SelfWellbeing Wellbeing Wellbeing Relations Development InclusionDetermination Rights FY2009 (25) FY2007 (22)

8.41 7.51

8.47 8.09

7.11 7.22

7.27 7.74

7.67 6.25

7.01 6.93

6.03 7.17

6.75 5.74

FY06-09 adjust 7.95 FY06-09 rank

8.25 0

7.17 0

7.49 0

6.88 0

6.94 0

6.61 0

6.17 0

Most recent survey year: Number of people supported: Survey response rate: Self-response rate: Served by other agencies:

FY2009 211 61% 95% 82%

Respondents in residential services: 80% Respondents in CSLA 13% Respondents in employment services: 0% Respondents in day habilitation services: 0% Respondents with individual support: 7%

Benedictine School InterPhysical Emotional Material Personal Personal Social SelfWellbeing Wellbeing Wellbeing Relations Development InclusionDetermination Rights FY2006 (27)

7.99

8.40

6.37

7.81

8.36

8.24

7.12

6.34

FY06-09 adjust 8.00 FY06-09 rank 0

8.44 0

6.36 0

7.90 0

8.42 3

8.35 3

7.22 0

6.44 0

Most recent survey year: Number of people supported: Survey response rate: Self-response rate: Served by other agencies:

FY2006 62 75% 93% 7%

Respondents in residential services: 77% Respondents in CSLA 0% Respondents in employment services: 27% Respondents in day habilitation services: 77% Respondents with individual support: 0%

Ask Me!sm Project FY2009 -- The Arc of Maryland

December 2009 Page 81

Calmra Inc InterPhysical Emotional Material Personal Personal Social SelfWellbeing Wellbeing Wellbeing Relations Development InclusionDetermination Rights FY2009 (36)

9.41

9.42

7.69

8.00

7.55

7.70

6.72

5.99

FY06-09 adjust 9.40 FY06-09 rank 3

9.38 3

7.70 0

7.91 0

7.49 0

7.59 0

6.62 0

5.89 0

Most recent survey year: Number of people supported: Survey response rate: Self-response rate: Served by other agencies:

FY2009 53 72% 53% 89%

Respondents in residential services: 86% Respondents in CSLA 11% Respondents in employment services: 0% Respondents in day habilitation services: 0% Respondents with individual support: 3%

Caring Hands Inc InterPhysical Emotional Material Personal Personal Social SelfWellbeing Wellbeing Wellbeing Relations Development InclusionDetermination Rights FY2007 (14)

8.00

8.08

5.71

7.52

6.98

7.31

6.04

5.42

FY06-09 adjust 8.00 FY06-09 rank 0

8.10 0

5.70

7.55 0

7.00 0

7.35 0

6.08

5.45

Most recent survey year: Number of people supported: Survey response rate: Self-response rate: Served by other agencies:

Page 82

December 2009

FY2007 20 88% 44% 87%

Respondents in residential services: 100% Respondents in CSLA 0% Respondents in employment services: 0% Respondents in day habilitation services: 0% Respondents with individual support: 0%

Ask Me!sm Project FY2009 -- The Arc of Maryland

Caroline Center InterPhysical Emotional Material Personal Personal Social SelfWellbeing Wellbeing Wellbeing Relations Development InclusionDetermination Rights FY2006 (28)

9.03

9.32

7.87

8.39

7.88

7.99

7.61

7.07

FY06-09 adjust 9.03 FY06-09 rank 0

9.36 3

7.86 0

8.48 3

7.94 0

8.10 3

7.71 0

7.16 0

Most recent survey year: Number of people supported: Survey response rate: Self-response rate: Served by other agencies:

FY2006 99 81% 71% 19%

Respondents in residential services: 48% Respondents in CSLA 0% Respondents in employment services: 0% Respondents in day habilitation services: 87% Respondents with individual support: 13%

Carroll County Bureau of Aging InterPhysical Emotional Material Personal Personal Social SelfWellbeing Wellbeing Wellbeing Relations Development InclusionDetermination Rights FY2008 (11)

8.86

9.58

7.23

8.27

6.97

7.95

7.46

7.35

FY06-09 adjust 8.86 FY06-09 rank 0

9.57 3

7.24 0

8.24 3

6.95 0

7.92 0

7.43 0

7.32 0

Most recent survey year: Number of people supported: Survey response rate: Self-response rate: Served by other agencies:

FY2008 12 92% 64% 55%

Respondents in residential services: 0% Respondents in CSLA 0% Respondents in employment services: 0% Respondents in day habilitation services: 0% Respondents with individual support: 100%

Ask Me!sm Project FY2009 -- The Arc of Maryland

December 2009 Page 83

Center for Life Enrichment InterPhysical Emotional Material Personal Personal Social SelfWellbeing Wellbeing Wellbeing Relations Development InclusionDetermination Rights FY2009 (28) FY2007 (26)

9.26 9.45

8.86 8.67

7.91 7.67

8.17 8.05

7.63 7.58

7.27 7.76

7.65 6.76

7.19 6.57

FY06-09 adjust 9.36 FY06-09 rank 3

8.74 0

7.79 0

8.08 0

7.59 0

7.50 0

7.15 0

6.84 0

Most recent survey year: Number of people supported: Survey response rate: Self-response rate: Served by other agencies:

FY2009 234 56% 78% 34%

Respondents in residential services: 0% Respondents in CSLA 7% Respondents in employment services: 47% Respondents in day habilitation services: 47% Respondents with individual support: 17%

Center for Progressive Learning InterPhysical Emotional Material Personal Personal Social SelfWellbeing Wellbeing Wellbeing Relations Development InclusionDetermination Rights FY2009 (31) FY2007 (35)

8.47 8.82

7.45 8.71

6.54 6.71

7.16 7.56

7.39 7.73

7.72 7.98

7.04 6.75

6.61 6.14

FY06-09 adjust 8.66 FY06-09 rank 0

8.58 0

6.63 0

7.35 0

7.56 0

7.82 0

6.85 0

6.33 0

Most recent survey year: Number of people supported: Survey response rate: Self-response rate: Served by other agencies:

Page 84

December 2009

FY2009 155 62% 58% 77%

Respondents in residential services: 100% Respondents in CSLA 0% Respondents in employment services: 0% Respondents in day habilitation services: 0% Respondents with individual support: 0%

Ask Me!sm Project FY2009 -- The Arc of Maryland

Center for Social Change InterPhysical Emotional Material Personal Personal Social SelfWellbeing Wellbeing Wellbeing Relations Development InclusionDetermination Rights FY2008 (31)

9.52

8.63

7.79

8.27

8.63

8.06

7.78

7.31

FY06-09 adjust 9.51 FY06-09 rank 3

8.61 0

7.79 0

8.24 3

8.61 3

8.03 3

7.75 0

7.28 0

Most recent survey year: Number of people supported: Survey response rate: Self-response rate: Served by other agencies:

FY2008 131 62% 71% 74%

Respondents in residential services: 87% Respondents in CSLA 3% Respondents in employment services: 19% Respondents in day habilitation services: 0% Respondents with individual support: 0%

Change, Inc InterPhysical Emotional Material Personal Personal Social SelfWellbeing Wellbeing Wellbeing Relations Development InclusionDetermination Rights FY2009 (28) FY2007 (27)

9.15 9.46

9.08 9.18

6.82 6.78

7.23 8.55

6.75 7.25

6.81 7.60

6.55 7.19

5.15 6.32

FY06-09 adjust 9.30 FY06-09 rank 3

9.12 3

6.80 0

8.19 3

7.36 0

7.74 0

7.11 0

6.28 0

Most recent survey year: Number of people supported: Survey response rate: Self-response rate: Served by other agencies:

FY2009 150 56% 61% 27%

Respondents in residential services: 0% Respondents in CSLA 20% Respondents in employment services: 2% Respondents in day habilitation services: 71% Respondents with individual support: 16%

Ask Me!sm Project FY2009 -- The Arc of Maryland

December 2009 Page 85

Charles County HARC InterPhysical Emotional Material Personal Personal Social SelfWellbeing Wellbeing Wellbeing Relations Development InclusionDetermination Rights FY2008 (32)

9.33

9.34

7.84

8.09

6.96

8.02

5.97

5.65

FY06-09 adjust 9.33 FY06-09 rank 3

9.32 3

7.85 0

8.06 0

6.94 0

7.98 0

5.94

5.62 0

Most recent survey year: Number of people supported: Survey response rate: Self-response rate: Served by other agencies:

FY2008 37 86% 31% 81%

Respondents in residential services: 97% Respondents in CSLA 0% Respondents in employment services: 0% Respondents in day habilitation services: 0% Respondents with individual support: 3%

Charles County Health Dept InterPhysical Emotional Material Personal Personal Social SelfWellbeing Wellbeing Wellbeing Relations Development InclusionDetermination Rights FY2009 (19)

8.33

8.03

5.65

7.73

6.47

6.63

6.79

6.71

FY06-09 adjust 8.33 FY06-09 rank 0

7.99

5.65

7.64 0

6.41

6.52

6.69 0

6.62 0

Most recent survey year: Number of people supported: Survey response rate: Self-response rate: Served by other agencies:

Page 86

December 2009

FY2004 46 55% 50% 17%

Respondents in residential services: 0% Respondents in CSLA 0% Respondents in employment services: 0% Respondents in day habilitation services: 0% Respondents with individual support: 87%

Ask Me!sm Project FY2009 -- The Arc of Maryland

Chesapeake Care Resources InterPhysical Emotional Material Personal Personal Social SelfWellbeing Wellbeing Wellbeing Relations Development InclusionDetermination Rights FY2008 (30)

8.32

9.12

6.98

8.14

7.13

7.89

6.30

5.96

FY06-09 adjust 8.32 FY06-09 rank 0

9.11 3

6.98 0

8.11 0

7.11 0

7.85 0

6.27 0

5.93 0

Most recent survey year: Number of people supported: Survey response rate: Self-response rate: Served by other agencies:

FY2008 66 77% 63% 3%

Respondents in residential services: 57% Respondents in CSLA 3% Respondents in employment services: 13% Respondents in day habilitation services: 83% Respondents with individual support: 3%

Chesapeake Center Inc. InterPhysical Emotional Material Personal Personal Social SelfWellbeing Wellbeing Wellbeing Relations Development InclusionDetermination Rights FY2008 (32)

8.23

8.18

7.45

7.02

6.53

6.69

7.40

7.24

FY06-09 adjust 8.23 FY06-09 rank 0

8.16 0

7.46 0

6.99

6.51

6.65

7.37 0

7.21 0

Most recent survey year: Number of people supported: Survey response rate: Self-response rate: Served by other agencies:

FY2008 93 71% 100% 9%

Respondents in residential services: 44% Respondents in CSLA 3% Respondents in employment services: 3% Respondents in day habilitation services: 88% Respondents with individual support: 6%

Ask Me!sm Project FY2009 -- The Arc of Maryland

December 2009 Page 87

Chesterwye Center InterPhysical Emotional Material Personal Personal Social SelfWellbeing Wellbeing Wellbeing Relations Development InclusionDetermination Rights FY2009 (34)

8.68

8.38

7.71

7.82

7.81

7.71

7.01

6.75

FY06-09 adjust 8.68 FY06-09 rank 0

8.34 0

7.72 0

7.73 0

7.75 0

7.60 0

6.90 0

6.66 0

Most recent survey year: Number of people supported: Survey response rate: Self-response rate: Served by other agencies:

FY2004 48 70% 70% 3%

Respondents in residential services: Respondents in CSLA Respondents in employment services: Respondents in day habilitation services: Respondents with individual support:

35% 8% 10% 81% 79%

CHI Centers InterPhysical Emotional Material Personal Personal Social SelfWellbeing Wellbeing Wellbeing Relations Development InclusionDetermination Rights FY2009 (40) FY2008 (31) FY2007 (26) FY2006 (26)

8.85 9.03 9.07 9.23

8.98 8.62 8.39 8.64

8.29 7.50 7.86 8.27

8.16 8.32 7.90 8.21

8.21 8.09 7.41 7.92

8.39 8.10 7.34 7.92

8.14 7.52 6.69 7.97

7.52 7.27 7.29 7.41

FY06-09 adjust 9.03 FY06-09 rank 0

8.68 0

8.00 3

8.15 0

7.93 0

7.97 0

7.62 0

7.38 3

Most recent survey year: Number of people supported: Survey response rate: Self-response rate: Served by other agencies: Page 88

December 2009

FY2009 444 80% 91% 49%

Respondents in residential services: 21% Respondents in CSLA 7% Respondents in employment services: 19% Respondents in day habilitation services: 73% Respondents with individual support: 4% Ask Me!sm Project FY2009 -- The Arc of Maryland

Chimes Inc InterPhysical Emotional Material Personal Personal Social SelfWellbeing Wellbeing Wellbeing Relations Development InclusionDetermination Rights FY2009 (25) FY2008 (33) FY2007 (22) FY2006 (28)

8.24 8.11 8.90 8.22

8.42 8.11 7.90 8.67

6.23 6.82 6.62 7.70

7.12 7.22 7.82 7.30

6.76 6.69 7.27 6.89

6.69 7.51 6.69 7.24

6.45 7.03 5.93 7.43

5.36 6.84 5.34 6.75

FY06-09 adjust 8.35 FY06-09 rank 0

8.28 0

6.91 0

7.36 0

6.89 0

7.08 0

6.79 0

6.18 0

Most recent survey year: Number of people supported: Survey response rate: Self-response rate: Served by other agencies:

FY2009 785 64% 72% 30%

Respondents in residential services: 24% Respondents in CSLA 3% Respondents in employment services: 14% Respondents in day habilitation services: 76% Respondents with individual support: 6%

Community Living Inc InterPhysical Emotional Material Personal Personal Social SelfWellbeing Wellbeing Wellbeing Relations Development InclusionDetermination Rights FY2007 (43)

9.03

8.30

7.44

7.16

6.91

7.33

7.38

6.74

FY06-09 adjust 9.04 FY06-09 rank 0

8.32 0

7.43 0

7.19 0

6.93 0

7.36 0

7.42 0

6.77 0

Most recent survey year: Number of people supported: Survey response rate: Self-response rate: Served by other agencies:

FY2007 93 92% 61% 54%

Respondents in residential services: 84% Respondents in CSLA 0% Respondents in employment services: 0% Respondents in day habilitation services: 16% Respondents with individual support: 14%

Ask Me!sm Project FY2009 -- The Arc of Maryland

December 2009 Page 89

Community Support Services InterPhysical Emotional Material Personal Personal Social SelfWellbeing Wellbeing Wellbeing Relations Development InclusionDetermination Rights FY2007 (32)

9.47

8.98

8.32

8.47

8.90

8.10

8.54

7.63

FY06-09 adjust 9.47 FY06-09 rank 3

9.00 3

8.31 3

8.50 3

8.92 3

8.14 3

8.57 3

7.66 3

Most recent survey year: Number of people supported: Survey response rate: Self-response rate: Served by other agencies:

FY2007 76 85% 58% 7%

Respondents in residential services: 73% Respondents in CSLA 6% Respondents in employment services: 82% Respondents in day habilitation services: 9% Respondents with individual support: 0%

Community Support Services for the Deaf (CSSD) InterPhysical Emotional Material Personal Personal Social SelfWellbeing Wellbeing Wellbeing Relations Development InclusionDetermination Rights FY2006 (29)

7.82

7.09

6.18

5.75

6.34

5.72

6.72

5.16

FY06-09 adjust 7.82 FY06-09 rank

7.13

6.17

5.84

6.40

5.83

6.82 0

5.25

Most recent survey year: Number of people supported: Survey response rate: Self-response rate: Served by other agencies:

FY2006 57 82% 81% 25%

Respondents in residential services: 50% Respondents in CSLA 0% Respondents in employment services: 0% Respondents in day habilitation services: 0% Respondents with individual support: 53%

NOTE: The American Sign Language version of the Ask Me! Survey differs from the English version, and domain scores may not be exactly comparable.

Page 90

December 2009

Ask Me!sm Project FY2009 -- The Arc of Maryland

Council for EC&A InterPhysical Emotional Material Personal Personal Social SelfWellbeing Wellbeing Wellbeing Relations Development InclusionDetermination Rights FY2007 (26)

9.49

9.20

7.84

7.83

7.48

7.97

7.97

6.97

FY06-09 adjust 9.49 FY06-09 rank 3

9.22 3

7.84 0

7.86 0

7.50 0

8.01 3

8.01 3

7.01 0

Most recent survey year: Number of people supported: Survey response rate: Self-response rate: Served by other agencies:

FY2007 28 88% 39% 96%

Respondents in residential services: 78% Respondents in CSLA 0% Respondents in employment services: 0% Respondents in day habilitation services: 0% Respondents with individual support: 17%

Creative Options InterPhysical Emotional Material Personal Personal Social SelfWellbeing Wellbeing Wellbeing Relations Development InclusionDetermination Rights FY2008 (24)

8.54

8.40

7.13

7.15

7.67

6.87

6.16

6.37

FY06-09 adjust 8.54 FY06-09 rank 0

8.38 0

7.13 0

7.12 0

7.65 0

6.84

6.12 0

6.33 0

Most recent survey year: Number of people supported: Survey response rate: Self-response rate: Served by other agencies:

FY2008 120 50% 83% 58%

Respondents in residential services: 79% Respondents in CSLA 0% Respondents in employment services: 0% Respondents in day habilitation services: 38% Respondents with individual support: 0%

Ask Me!sm Project FY2009 -- The Arc of Maryland

December 2009 Page 91

CSAAC InterPhysical Emotional Material Personal Personal Social SelfWellbeing Wellbeing Wellbeing Relations Development InclusionDetermination Rights FY2007 (32)

9.65

8.95

8.49

8.36

8.04

7.74

7.72

7.24

FY06-09 adjust 9.65 FY06-09 rank 3

8.96 0

8.48 3

8.39 3

8.06 3

7.78 0

7.75 0

7.27 0

Most recent survey year: Number of people supported: Survey response rate: Self-response rate: Served by other agencies:

FY2007 116 82% 59% 6%

Respondents in residential services: 97% Respondents in CSLA 0% Respondents in employment services: 88% Respondents in day habilitation services: 0% Respondents with individual support: 0%

Deaf Independent Living Association InterPhysical Emotional Material Personal Personal Social SelfWellbeing Wellbeing Wellbeing Relations Development InclusionDetermination Rights FY2006 (13)

9.17

8.99

7.36

7.27

7.53

6.97

7.95

6.63

FY06-09 adjust 9.17 FY06-09 rank 0

9.03 3

7.35 0

7.36 0

7.59 0

7.08 0

8.05 3

6.73 0

Most recent survey year: Number of people supported: Survey response rate: Self-response rate: Served by other agencies:

FY2006 23 61% 100% 38%

Respondents in residential services: 69% Respondents in CSLA 4% Respondents in employment services: 54% Respondents in day habilitation services: 0% Respondents with individual support: 31%

NOTE: The American Sign Language version of the Ask Me! Survey differs from the English version, and domain scores may not be exactly comparable.

Page 92

December 2009

Ask Me!sm Project FY2009 -- The Arc of Maryland

Delmarva Community Services InterPhysical Emotional Material Personal Personal Social SelfWellbeing Wellbeing Wellbeing Relations Development InclusionDetermination Rights FY2008 (35)

8.00

8.06

6.53

7.52

6.96

7.45

6.82

6.17

FY06-09 adjust 8.00 FY06-09 rank 0

8.04 0

6.54 0

7.49 0

6.94 0

7.41 0

6.79 0

6.14 0

Most recent survey year: Number of people supported: Survey response rate: Self-response rate: Served by other agencies:

FY2008 77 85% 89% 6%

Respondents in residential services: 51% Respondents in CSLA 6% Respondents in employment services: 9% Respondents in day habilitation services: 60% Respondents with individual support: 6%

Dominion Resources InterPhysical Emotional Material Personal Personal Social SelfWellbeing Wellbeing Wellbeing Relations Development InclusionDetermination Rights FY2009 (8)

7.96

8.07

5.68

7.55

6.88

6.66

5.26

3.44

FY06-09 adjust 7.95 FY06-09 rank

8.03 0

5.69

7.46 0

6.82 0

6.55

5.16

3.34

Most recent survey year: Number of people supported: Survey response rate: Self-response rate: Served by other agencies:

FY2009 12 67% 63% 75%

Respondents in residential services: 100% Respondents in CSLA 0% Respondents in employment services: 0% Respondents in day habilitation services: 0% Respondents with individual support: 0%

Ask Me!sm Project FY2009 -- The Arc of Maryland

December 2009 Page 93

Dove Pointe Inc InterPhysical Emotional Material Personal Personal Social SelfWellbeing Wellbeing Wellbeing Relations Development InclusionDetermination Rights FY2008 (31) FY2006 (33)

8.87 8.52

8.53 8.48

7.71 6.79

8.38 7.01

7.50 7.55

7.50 7.73

6.13 7.26

6.45 6.61

FY06-09 adjust 8.68 FY06-09 rank 0

8.52 0

7.12 0

7.63 0

7.55 0

7.68 0

6.84 0

6.60 0

Most recent survey year: Number of people supported: Survey response rate: Self-response rate: Served by other agencies:

FY2008 194 78% 61% 16%

Respondents in residential services: 29% Respondents in CSLA 16% Respondents in employment services: 3% Respondents in day habilitation services: 84% Respondents with individual support: 0%

Dreamcatchers InterPhysical Emotional Material Personal Personal Social SelfWellbeing Wellbeing Wellbeing Relations Development InclusionDetermination Rights FY2008 (6)

8.61

8.06

9.44

7.08

7.50

7.22

7.22

6.53

FY06-09 adjust 8.61 FY06-09 rank 0

8.04 0

9.45 3

7.05

7.48 0

7.19 0

7.19 0

6.50 0

Most recent survey year: Number of people supported: Survey response rate: Self-response rate: Served by other agencies:

Page 94

December 2009

FY2008 10 67% 100% 100%

Respondents in residential services: 83% Respondents in CSLA 17% Respondents in employment services: 0% Respondents in day habilitation services: 0% Respondents with individual support: 0%

Ask Me!sm Project FY2009 -- The Arc of Maryland

Ebed Enterprises InterPhysical Emotional Material Personal Personal Social SelfWellbeing Wellbeing Wellbeing Relations Development InclusionDetermination Rights FY2009 (16)

8.40

8.26

7.46

6.76

6.60

6.67

6.20

5.89

FY06-09 adjust 8.40 FY06-09 rank 0

8.21 0

7.47 0

6.67

6.54

6.56

6.10

5.79 0

Most recent survey year: Number of people supported: Survey response rate: Self-response rate: Served by other agencies:

FY2009 22 73% 75% 69%

Respondents in residential services: 94% Respondents in CSLA 6% Respondents in employment services: 0% Respondents in day habilitation services: 0% Respondents with individual support: 0%

eMerge InterPhysical Emotional Material Personal Personal Social SelfWellbeing Wellbeing Wellbeing Relations Development InclusionDetermination Rights FY2008 (36) FY2006 (31)

8.84 9.14

8.13 8.51

7.60 7.78

7.51 7.77

7.52 7.99

7.50 7.83

7.29 7.48

6.52 7.16

FY06-09 adjust 8.98 FY06-09 rank 0

8.32 0

7.68 0

7.66 0

7.77 0

7.68 0

7.41 0

6.86 0

Most recent survey year: Number of people supported: Survey response rate: Self-response rate: Served by other agencies:

FY2008 287 73% 78% 22%

Respondents in residential services: Respondents in CSLA Respondents in employment services: Respondents in day habilitation services: Respondents with individual support:

Ask Me!sm Project FY2009 -- The Arc of Maryland

42% 19% 25% 53% 6%

December 2009 Page 95

Epilepsy Association of Eastern Shore InterPhysical Emotional Material Personal Personal Social SelfWellbeing Wellbeing Wellbeing Relations Development InclusionDetermination Rights FY2008 (14)

8.10

8.38

8.05

7.60

8.18

8.01

7.10

6.75

FY06-09 adjust 8.10 FY06-09 rank 0

8.37 0

8.05 3

7.57 0

8.16 3

7.98 0

7.07 0

6.72 0

Most recent survey year: Number of people supported: Survey response rate: Self-response rate: Served by other agencies:

FY2008 49 29% 93% 86%

Respondents in residential services: 57% Respondents in CSLA 14% Respondents in employment services: 0% Respondents in day habilitation services: 0% Respondents with individual support: 14%

Erosum Inc InterPhysical Emotional Material Personal Personal Social SelfWellbeing Wellbeing Wellbeing Relations Development InclusionDetermination Rights FY2009 (9)

8.13

6.99

6.22

7.73

7.08

7.04

6.11

5.96

FY06-09 adjust 8.13 FY06-09 rank 0

6.95

6.23

7.64 0

7.02 0

6.93 0

6.01

5.87 0

Most recent survey year: Number of people supported: Survey response rate: Self-response rate: Served by other agencies:

Page 96

December 2009

FY2009 11 82% 67% 89%

Respondents in residential services: 100% Respondents in CSLA 0% Respondents in employment services: 0% Respondents in day habilitation services: 0% Respondents with individual support: 0%

Ask Me!sm Project FY2009 -- The Arc of Maryland

Family Service Foundation Inc InterPhysical Emotional Material Personal Personal Social SelfWellbeing Wellbeing Wellbeing Relations Development InclusionDetermination Rights FY2009 (26)

9.11

8.50

7.09

7.55

7.53

7.53

5.86

3.96

FY06-09 adjust 9.11 FY06-09 rank 0

8.46 0

7.10 0

7.46 0

7.47 0

7.42 0

5.76

3.87

Most recent survey year: Number of people supported: Survey response rate: Self-response rate: Served by other agencies:

FY2009 73 65% 12% 19%

Respondents in residential services: 77% Respondents in CSLA 0% Respondents in employment services: 0% Respondents in day habilitation services: 88% Respondents with individual support: 0%

Fidelity Resources Inc. InterPhysical Emotional Material Personal Personal Social SelfWellbeing Wellbeing Wellbeing Relations Development InclusionDetermination Rights FY2008 (22)

8.28

8.21

6.35

7.34

8.14

7.53

8.04

7.17

FY06-09 adjust 8.28 FY06-09 rank 0

8.19 0

6.35 0

7.31 0

8.12 3

7.49 0

8.01 3

7.14 0

Most recent survey year: Number of people supported: Survey response rate: Self-response rate: Served by other agencies:

FY2008 43 52% 100 % 41%

Respondents in residential services: 0% Respondents in CSLA 50% Respondents in employment services: 0% Respondents in day habilitation services: 0% Respondents with individual support: 50%

Ask Me!sm Project FY2009 -- The Arc of Maryland

December 2009 Page 97

Flying Colors of Success InterPhysical Emotional Material Personal Personal Social SelfWellbeing Wellbeing Wellbeing Relations Development InclusionDetermination Rights FY2009 (26)

9.28

8.80

7.55

8.33

7.71

8.14

6.23

5.13

FY06-09 adjust 9.28 FY06-09 rank 3

8.75 0

7.56 0

8.24 3

7.66 0

8.04 3

6.13 0

5.03

Most recent survey year: Number of people supported: Survey response rate: Self-response rate: Served by other agencies:

FY2009 32 81% 38% 96%

Respondents in residential services: 100% Respondents in CSLA 0% Respondents in employment services: 0% Respondents in day habilitation services: 4% Respondents with individual support: 0%

Forward Visions InterPhysical Emotional Material Personal Personal Social SelfWellbeing Wellbeing Wellbeing Relations Development InclusionDetermination Rights FY2008 (24)

7.75

8.05

5.38

6.75

6.04

6.15

6.68

5.81

FY06-09 adjust 7.75 FY06-09 rank

8.03 0

5.38

6.72

6.02

6.12

6.34 0

5.78 0

Most recent survey year: Number of people supported: Survey response rate: Self-response rate: Served by other agencies:

Page 98

December 2009

FY2008 60 49% 71% 63%

Respondents in residential services: 63% Respondents in CSLA 17% Respondents in employment services: 0% Respondents in day habilitation services: 0% Respondents with individual support: 21%

Ask Me!sm Project FY2009 -- The Arc of Maryland

Friends Aware, Inc InterPhysical Emotional Material Personal Personal Social SelfWellbeing Wellbeing Wellbeing Relations Development InclusionDetermination Rights FY2007 (39)

8.74

8.52

7.77

7.88

7.68

7.69

8.04

7.47

FY06-09 adjust 8.74 FY06-09 rank 0

8.54 0

7.77 0

7.91 0

7.70 0

7.72 0

8.08 3

7.50 3

Most recent survey year: Number of people supported: Survey response rate: Self-response rate: Served by other agencies:

FY2007 135 80% 80% 30%

Respondents in residential services: Respondents in CSLA Respondents in employment services: Respondents in day habilitation services: Respondents with individual support:

25% 13% 0% 75% 18%

Full Citizenship of Maryland InterPhysical Emotional Material Personal Personal Social SelfWellbeing Wellbeing Wellbeing Relations Development InclusionDetermination Rights FY2008 (28)

9.73

9.09

9.18

8.31

8.31

8.11

8.15

7.93

FY06-09 adjust 9.73 FY06-09 rank 3

9.08 3

9.19 3

8.28 3

8.29 3

8.08 3

8.12 3

7.89 3

Most recent survey year: Number of people supported: Survey response rate: Self-response rate: Served by other agencies:

FY2008 38 78% 46% 18%

Respondents in residential services: 89% Respondents in CSLA 4% Respondents in employment services: 79% Respondents in day habilitation services: 0% Respondents with individual support: 0%

Ask Me!sm Project FY2009 -- The Arc of Maryland

December 2009 Page 99

Goodwill Industries of Monocacy Valley InterPhysical Emotional Material Personal Personal Social SelfWellbeing Wellbeing Wellbeing Relations Development InclusionDetermination Rights FY2007 (14)

8.07

8.90

7.32

7.23

7.95

7.50

8.10

6.73

FY06-09 adjust 8.07 FY06-09 rank 0

8.91 0

7.32 0

7.26 0

7.97 0

7.54 0

8.13 3

6.76 0

Most recent survey year: Number of people supported: Survey response rate: Self-response rate: Served by other agencies:

FY2007 19 178% 93% 57%

Respondents in residential services: 0% Respondents in CSLA 0% Respondents in employment services: 14% Respondents in day habilitation services: 71% Respondents with individual support: 21%

Harford Center InterPhysical Emotional Material Personal Personal Social SelfWellbeing Wellbeing Wellbeing Relations Development InclusionDetermination Rights FY2008 (34)

8.09

8.12

6.89

7.64

6.93

7.52

7.08

5.85

FY06-09 adjust 8.09 FY06-09 rank 0

8.11 0

6.89 0

7.61 0

6.91 0

7.49 0

7.05 0

5.82 0

Most recent survey year: Number of people supported: Survey response rate: Self-response rate: Served by other agencies:

Page 100

December 2009

FY2008 75 87% 76% 53%

Respondents in residential services: 0% Respondents in CSLA 0% Respondents in employment services: 0% Respondents in day habilitation services: 100% Respondents with individual support: 0%

Ask Me!sm Project FY2009 -- The Arc of Maryland

Head Injury Rehabilitation InterPhysical Emotional Material Personal Personal Social SelfWellbeing Wellbeing Wellbeing Relations Development InclusionDetermination Rights FY2009 (30)

7.85

7.17

6.64

6.99

7.04

6.52

6.76

8.26

FY06-09 adjust 7.85 FY06-09 rank

7.12

6.65 0

6.90

6.98 0

6.41

6.66 0

8.17 3

Most recent survey year: Number of people supported: Survey response rate: Self-response rate: Served by other agencies:

FY2009 51 60% 93% 0%

Respondents in residential services: Respondents in CSLA Respondents in employment services: Respondents in day habilitation services: Respondents with individual support:

47% 13% 17% 57% 23%

Horizon Goodwill Industries InterPhysical Emotional Material Personal Personal Social SelfWellbeing Wellbeing Wellbeing Relations Development InclusionDetermination Rights FY2006 (42)

9.34

9.30

8.31

8.37

8.07

8.13

8.26

7.25

FY06-09 adjust 9.34 FY06-09 rank 3

9.35 3

8.30 3

8.46 3

8.12 3

8.23 3

8.36 3

7.35 0

Most recent survey year: Number of people supported: Survey response rate: Self-response rate: Served by other agencies:

FY2006 97 84% 62% 67%

Respondents in residential services: 0% Respondents in CSLA 0% Respondents in employment services: 12% Respondents in day habilitation services: 81% Respondents with individual support: 7%

Ask Me!sm Project FY2009 -- The Arc of Maryland

December 2009 Page 101

Humanim InterPhysical Emotional Material Personal Personal Social SelfWellbeing Wellbeing Wellbeing Relations Development InclusionDetermination Rights FY2009 (28) FY2008 (31) FY2007 (26)

7.78 8.10 8.32

7.74 7.98 8.40

6.56 6.99 7.60

6.96 7.35 7.03

7.71 7.29 7.07

7.44 7.39 7.04

7.65 7.56 6.47

7.16 7.10 6.62

FY06-09 adjust 8.06 FY06-09 rank 0

8.02 0

7.03 0

7.08

7.34 0

7.26 0

7.21 0

6.93 0

Most recent survey year: Number of people supported: Survey response rate: Self-response rate: Served by other agencies:

FY2009 365 56% 95% 33%

Respondents in residential services: Respondents in CSLA Respondents in employment services: Respondents in day habilitation services: Respondents with individual support:

8% 19% 29% 41% 16%

Innovative Services, Inc. InterPhysical Emotional Material Personal Personal Social SelfWellbeing Wellbeing Wellbeing Relations Development InclusionDetermination Rights FY2007 (9)

9.54

8.67

7.62

8.36

7.76

6.96

7.04

7.03

FY06-09 adjust 9.54 FY06-09 rank 3

8.68 0

7.62 0

8.39 3

7.78 0

7.00 0

7.07 0

7.06 0

Most recent survey year: Number of people supported: Survey response rate: Self-response rate: Served by other agencies:

Page 102

December 2009

FY2007 18 63% 80% 30%

Respondents in residential services: 100% Respondents in CSLA 0% Respondents in employment services: 0% Respondents in day habilitation services: 0% Respondents with individual support: 0%

Ask Me!sm Project FY2009 -- The Arc of Maryland

Jeanne Bussard Center InterPhysical Emotional Material Personal Personal Social SelfWellbeing Wellbeing Wellbeing Relations Development InclusionDetermination Rights FY2006 (33)

8.89

8.95

8.37

8.56

8.02

8.38

8.04

7.53

FY06-09 adjust 8.89 FY06-09 rank 0

8.99 0

8.36 3

8.65 3

8.08 3

8.49 3

8.14 3

7.63 3

Most recent survey year: Number of people supported: Survey response rate: Self-response rate: Served by other agencies:

FY2006 67 68% 94% 55%

Respondents in residential services: 0% Respondents in CSLA 0% Respondents in employment services: 3% Respondents in day habilitation services: 85% Respondents with individual support: 12%

Jewish Family Services InterPhysical Emotional Material Personal Personal Social SelfWellbeing Wellbeing Wellbeing Relations Development InclusionDetermination Rights FY2007 (21)

8.17

7.99

6.15

7.63

6.72

6.95

6.61

7.02

FY06-09 adjust 8.17 FY06-09 rank 0

8.00

6.15

7.66 0

6.74 0

6.98 0

6.64 0

7.05 0

Most recent survey year: Number of people supported: Survey response rate: Self-response rate: Served by other agencies:

FY2007 66 70% 86% 54%

Respondents in residential services: 39% Respondents in CSLA 36% Respondents in employment services: 0% Respondents in day habilitation services: 0% Respondents with individual support: 25%

Ask Me!sm Project FY2009 -- The Arc of Maryland

December 2009 Page 103

Jewish Foundation for Group Homes InterPhysical Emotional Material Personal Personal Social SelfWellbeing Wellbeing Wellbeing Relations Development InclusionDetermination Rights FY2008 (27)

9.04

8.55

8.38

7.93

8.42

7.68

7.50

7.96

FY06-09 adjust 9.04 FY06-09 rank 0

8.53 0

8.38 3

7.90 0

8.40 3

7.64 0

7.47 0

7.93 3

Most recent survey year: Number of people supported: Survey response rate: Self-response rate: Served by other agencies:

FY2008 98 56% 81% 85%

Respondents in residential services: 85% Respondents in CSLA 4% Respondents in employment services: 0% Respondents in day habilitation services: 0% Respondents with individual support: 11%

Jewish Social Services Agency InterPhysical Emotional Material Personal Personal Social SelfWellbeing Wellbeing Wellbeing Relations Development InclusionDetermination Rights FY2006 (26)

8.17

8.06

6.97

7.57

7.18

6.78

6.92

7.10

FY06-09 adjust 8.18 FY06-09 rank 0

8.10 0

6.96 0

7.66 0

7.24 0

6.89 0

7.02 0

7.20 0

Most recent survey year: Number of people supported: Survey response rate: Self-response rate: Served by other agencies:

Page 104

December 2009

FY2006 47 64% 93% 15%

Respondents in residential services: 0% Respondents in CSLA 0% Respondents in employment services: 85% Respondents in day habilitation services: 0% Respondents with individual support: 15%

Ask Me!sm Project FY2009 -- The Arc of Maryland

Jubilee Association of Maryland InterPhysical Emotional Material Personal Personal Social SelfWellbeing Wellbeing Wellbeing Relations Development InclusionDetermination Rights FY2007 (32)

9.16

8.68

8.44

8.43

7.88

8.09

8.01

7.56

FY06-09 adjust 9.16 FY06-09 rank 0

8.69 0

8.44 3

8.46 3

7.89 0

8.13 3

8.04 3

7.59 3

Most recent survey year: Number of people supported: Survey response rate: Self-response rate: Served by other agencies:

FY2007 94 87% 76% 68%

Respondents in residential services: 53% Respondents in CSLA 47% Respondents in employment services: 0% Respondents in day habilitation services: 0% Respondents with individual support: 3%

Kennedy Kreiger Institute InterPhysical Emotional Material Personal Personal Social SelfWellbeing Wellbeing Wellbeing Relations Development InclusionDetermination Rights FY2008 (9)

9.22

8.75

7.19

7.97

6.56

8.02

7.60

5.52

FY06-09 adjust 9.22 FY06-09 rank 3

8.74 0

7.19 0

7.94 0

6.54

7.98 3

7.57 0

5.49

Most recent survey year: Number of people supported: Survey response rate: Self-response rate: Served by other agencies:

FY2008 30 31% 56% 78%

Respondents in residential services: 0% Respondents in CSLA 0% Respondents in employment services: 0% Respondents in day habilitation services: 0% Respondents with individual support: 22%

Ask Me!sm Project FY2009 -- The Arc of Maryland

December 2009 Page 105

Kent Center Inc InterPhysical Emotional Material Personal Personal Social SelfWellbeing Wellbeing Wellbeing Relations Development InclusionDetermination Rights FY2006 (25)

8.20

7.80

7.13

6.94

7.45

7.47

5.52

5.93

FY06-09 adjust 8.21 FY06-09 rank 0

7.84

7.12 0

7.03

7.51 0

7.57 0

5.62

6.03 0

Most recent survey year: Number of people supported: Survey response rate: Self-response rate: Served by other agencies:

FY2006 49 52% 64% 0%

Respondents in residential services: Respondents in CSLA Respondents in employment services: Respondents in day habilitation services: Respondents with individual support:

52% 12% 44% 52% 12%

Langton Green InterPhysical Emotional Material Personal Personal Social SelfWellbeing Wellbeing Wellbeing Relations Development InclusionDetermination Rights FY2009 (28)

9.36

9.48

7.59

8.25

8.15

8.00

7.05

6.63

FY06-09 adjust 9.36 FY06-09 rank 3

9.44 3

7.60 0

8.16 3

8.09 3

7.89 0

6.95 0

6.54 0

Most recent survey year: Number of people supported: Survey response rate: Self-response rate: Served by other agencies:

Page 106

December 2009

FY2009 107 74% 89% 79%

Respondents in residential services: 96% Respondents in CSLA 4% Respondents in employment services: 7% Respondents in day habilitation services: 0% Respondents with individual support: 0%

Ask Me!sm Project FY2009 -- The Arc of Maryland

League for People with Disabilities InterPhysical Emotional Material Personal Personal Social SelfWellbeing Wellbeing Wellbeing Relations Development InclusionDetermination Rights FY2008 (25)

7.20

7.85

7.01

7.53

6.63

7.17

7.12

6.89

FY06-09 adjust 7.20 FY06-09 rank

7.84

7.01 0

7.50 0

6.61 0

7.13 0

7.09 0

6.86 0

Most recent survey year: Number of people supported: Survey response rate: Self-response rate: Served by other agencies:

FY2008 42 60% 100% 12%

Respondents in residential services: 0% Respondents in CSLA 0% Respondents in employment services: 100% Respondents in day habilitation services: 0% Respondents with individual support: 0%

LIFE InterPhysical Emotional Material Personal Personal Social SelfWellbeing Wellbeing Wellbeing Relations Development InclusionDetermination Rights FY2008 (28)

8.97

9.43

8.10

8.02

7.90

7.91

7.90

7.00

FY06-09 adjust 8.97 FY06-09 rank 0

9.42 3

8.10 3

7.99 0

7.88 0

7.87 0

7.87 0

6.97 0

Most recent survey year: Number of people supported: Survey response rate: Self-response rate: Served by other agencies:

FY2008 96 58% 79% 71%

Respondents in residential services: 93% Respondents in CSLA 7% Respondents in employment services: 0% Respondents in day habilitation services: 0% Respondents with individual support: 0%

Ask Me!sm Project FY2009 -- The Arc of Maryland

December 2009 Page 107

Lifeline InterPhysical Emotional Material Personal Personal Social SelfWellbeing Wellbeing Wellbeing Relations Development InclusionDetermination Rights FY2009 (8)

8.54

8.59

7.69

7.18

6.18

8.61

4.90

4.71

FY06-09 adjust 8.54 FY06-09 rank 0

8.55 0

7.70 0

7.09 0

6.12

8.50 3

4.80

4.62

Most recent survey year: Number of people supported: Survey response rate: Self-response rate: Served by other agencies:

FY2009 10 89% 50% 12%

Respondents in residential services: 100% Respondents in CSLA 0% Respondents in employment services: 0% Respondents in day habilitation services: 0% Respondents with individual support: 0%

Linwood Children's Center InterPhysical Emotional Material Personal Personal Social SelfWellbeing Wellbeing Wellbeing Relations Development InclusionDetermination Rights FY2007 (23)

9.64

9.43

8.13

8.18

8.04

7.63

7.81

6.94

FY06-09 adjust 9.64 FY06-09 rank 3

9.44 3

8.13 3

8.21 3

8.06 3

7.66 0

7.85 0

6.97 0

Most recent survey year: Number of people supported: Survey response rate: Self-response rate: Served by other agencies:

Page 108

December 2009

FY2007 25 96% 54% 12%

Respondents in residential services: 96% Respondents in CSLA 0% Respondents in employment services: 79% Respondents in day habilitation services: 4% Respondents with individual support: 0%

Ask Me!sm Project FY2009 -- The Arc of Maryland

Living Sans Frontieres, Inc. InterPhysical Emotional Material Personal Personal Social SelfWellbeing Wellbeing Wellbeing Relations Development InclusionDetermination Rights FY2007 (11)

7.07

6.32

5.95

5.57

6.00

4.10

4.66

5.95

FY06-09 adjust 7.07 FY06-09 rank

6.33

5.94

5.60

6.02

4.13

4.69

5.98 0

Most recent survey year: Number of people supported: Survey response rate: Self-response rate: Served by other agencies::

FY2007 20 60% 92% 67%

Respondents in residential services: 100% Respondents in CSLA 0% Respondents in employment services: 0% Respondents in day habilitation services: 0% Respondents with individual support: 0%

Lower Shore Enterprises InterPhysical Emotional Material Personal Personal Social SelfWellbeing Wellbeing Wellbeing Relations Development InclusionDetermination Rights FY2009 (31)

8.40

8.34

7.68

7.64

7.70

7.51

7.79

7.80

FY06-09 adjust 8.39 FY06-09 rank 0

8.30 0

7.69 0

7.55 0

7.65 0

7.40 0

7.69 0

7.71 3

Most recent survey year: Number of people supported: Survey response rate: Self-response rate: Served by other agencies:

FY2009 121 78% 100% 45%

Respondents in residential services: 0% Respondents in CSLA 0% Respondents in employment services: 94% Respondents in day habilitation services: 6% Respondents with individual support: 0%

Ask Me!sm Project FY2009 -- The Arc of Maryland

December 2009 Page 109

Lt Joseph P Kennedy Institute InterPhysical Emotional Material Personal Personal Social SelfWellbeing Wellbeing Wellbeing Relations Development InclusionDetermination Rights FY2007 (13)

8.92

8.94

7.29

8.20

7.23

7.65

7.38

7.72

FY06-09 adjust 8.92 FY06-09 rank 0

8.96 0

7.28 0

8.23 3

7.25 0

7.69 0

7.41 0

7.76 3

Most recent survey year: Number of people supported: Survey response rate: Self-response rate: Served by other agencies:

FY2007 109 31% 93% 67%

Respondents in residential services: Respondents in CSLA Respondents in employment services: Respondents in day habilitation services: Respondents with individual support:

20% 20% 33% 13% 33%

Lycher Inc InterPhysical Emotional Material Personal Personal Social SelfWellbeing Wellbeing Wellbeing Relations Development InclusionDetermination Rights FY2007 (38)

9.58

9.10

7.19

7.34

6.63

7.19

6.63

5.43

FY06-09 adjust 9.58 FY06-09 rank 3

9.12 3

7.19 0

7.37 0

6.65 0

7.22 0

6.67 0

5.47

Most recent survey year: Number of people supported: Survey response rate: Self-response rate: Served by other agencies:

Page 110

December 2009

FY2007 43 93% 16% 34%

Respondents in residential services: 42% Respondents in CSLA 0% Respondents in employment services: 0% Respondents in day habilitation services: 76% Respondents with individual support: 0%

Ask Me!sm Project FY2009 -- The Arc of Maryland

Maryland Community Connections InterPhysical Emotional Material Personal Personal Social SelfWellbeing Wellbeing Wellbeing Relations Development InclusionDetermination Rights FY2009 (28)

8.81

8.21

7.51

7.30

7.67

7.28

7.57

7.65

FY06-09 adjust 8.81 FY06-09 rank 0

8.17 0

7.52 0

7.21 0

7.61 0

7.17 0

7.46 0

7.56 3

Most recent survey year: Number of people supported: Survey response rate: Self-response rate: Served by other agencies:

FY2009 44 65% 96% 25%

Respondents in residential services: 0% Respondents in CSLA 4% Respondents in employment services: 86% Respondents in day habilitation services: 0% Respondents with individual support: 11%

Maryland Neighborly Networks InterPhysical Emotional Material Personal Personal Social SelfWellbeing Wellbeing Wellbeing Relations Development InclusionDetermination Rights FY2009 (28)

8.67

8.31

7.70

8.07

8.21

7.96

7.28

6.31

FY06-09 adjust 8.66 FY06-09 rank 0

8.26 0

7.70 0

7.98 0

8.15 3

7.85 0

7.18 0

6.21 0

Most recent survey year: Number of people supported: Survey response rate: Self-response rate: Served by other agencies:

FY2009 38 74% 96% 96%

Respondents in residential services: 96% Respondents in CSLA 4% Respondents in employment services: 0% Respondents in day habilitation services: 0% Respondents with individual support: 0%

Ask Me!sm Project FY2009 -- The Arc of Maryland

December 2009 Page 111

Medsource Community InterPhysical Emotional Material Personal Personal Social SelfWellbeing Wellbeing Wellbeing Relations Development InclusionDetermination Rights FY2009 (36) FY2008 (39) FY2007 (33) FY2006 (32)

9.38 9.38 9.72 9.47

9.22 8.89 9.28 8.82

8.59 8.25 8.31 8.15

8.14 7.38 7.95 6.93

8.00 7.59 8.06 6.60

8.13 7.46 7.90 6.63

8.08 7.26 8.45 5.78

7.15 7.05 7.40 6.14

FY06-09 adjust 9.48 FY06-09 rank 3

9.05 3

8.33 3

7.60 0

7.58 0

7.54 0

7.41 0

6.95 0

Most recent survey year: Number of people supported: Survey response rate: Self-response rate: Served by other agencies:

FY2009 145 84% 24% 92%

Respondents in residential services: 94% Respondents in CSLA 5% Respondents in employment services: 0% Respondents in day habilitation services: 0% Respondents with individual support: 2%

Melwood InterPhysical Emotional Material Personal Personal Social SelfWellbeing Wellbeing Wellbeing Relations Development InclusionDetermination Rights FY2009 (26) FY2008 (27) FY2007 (27) FY2006 (24)

7.96 9.05 9.14 8.84

7.93 9.21 8.51 8.65

7.50 8.80 7.64 8.28

7.58 8.22 7.83 8.21

7.00 7.77 7.44 8.15

7.31 8.63 7.49 8.14

7.39 8.24 7.31 7.92

6.38 7.64 6.96 7.56

FY06-09 adjust 8.81 FY06-09 rank 0

8.59 0

8.07 3

7.96 0

7.61 0

7.92 0

7.72 0

7.18 0

Most recent survey year: Number of people supported: Survey response rate: Self-response rate: Served by other agencies: Page 112

December 2009

FY2009 391 52% 92% 28%

Respondents in residential services: Respondents in CSLA Respondents in employment services: Respondents in day habilitation services: Respondents with individual support:

20% 6% 48% 44% 11%

Ask Me!sm Project FY2009 -- The Arc of Maryland

Mid Atlantic Human Services Corp InterPhysical Emotional Material Personal Personal Social SelfWellbeing Wellbeing Wellbeing Relations Development InclusionDetermination Rights FY2007 (25)

9.49

9.40

7.93

8.61

7.71

8.29

7.03

5.96

FY06-09 adjust 9.49 FY06-09 rank 3

9.42 3

7.93 0

8.64 3

7.73 0

8.32 3

7.06 0

5.99 0

Most recent survey year: Number of people supported: Survey response rate: Self-response rate: Served by other agencies:

FY2007 48 61% 19% 56%

Respondents in residential services: 859% Respondents in CSLA 11% Respondents in employment services: 0% Respondents in day habilitation services: 0% Respondents with individual support: 0%

Montgomery County Department of Family Resources InterPhysical Emotional Material Personal Personal Social SelfWellbeing Wellbeing Wellbeing Relations Development InclusionDetermination Rights FY2006 (12)

9.79

8.97

8.13

7.76

8.03

8.17

8.67

7.85

FY06-09 adjust 9.80 FY06-09 rank 3

9.02 3

8.12 3

7.85 0

8.09 3

8.28 3

8.77 3

7.95 3

Most recent survey year: Number of people supported: Survey response rate: Self-response rate: Served by other agencies:

FY2006 49 31% 62% 62%

Respondents in residential services: 0% Respondents in CSLA 0% Respondents in employment services: 0% Respondents in day habilitation services: 0% Respondents with individual support: 100%

Ask Me!sm Project FY2009 -- The Arc of Maryland

December 2009 Page 113

National MS InterPhysical Emotional Material Personal Personal Social SelfWellbeing Wellbeing Wellbeing Relations Development InclusionDetermination Rights FY2009 (14)

8.11

8.51

6.58

7.69

6.22

6.67

8.13

7.67

FY06-09 adjust 8.10 FY06-09 rank 0

8.47 0

6.59 0

7.60 0

6.16

6.57

8.03 3

7.57 3

Most recent survey year: Number of people supported: Survey response rate: Self-response rate: Served by other agencies:

FY2009 47 36% 100% 0%

Respondents in residential services: 0% Respondents in CSLA 0% Respondents in employment services: 0% Respondents in day habilitation services: 0% Respondents with individual support: 100%

NCIA CBAI InterPhysical Emotional Material Personal Personal Social SelfWellbeing Wellbeing Wellbeing Relations Development InclusionDetermination Rights FY2008 (33) FY2006 (22)

8.56 8.25

8.45 7.60

7.97 7.50

7.59 7.47

8.32 7.56

8.07 7.37

7.65 6.74

7.03 5.52

FY06-09 adjust 8.43 FY06-09 rank 0

8.09 0

7.77 0

7.56 0

8.01 0

7.80 0

7.29 0

6.40 0

Most recent survey year: Number of people supported: Survey response rate: Self-response rate: Served by other agencies:

Page 114

December 2009

FY2008 162 66% 91% 64%

Respondents in residential services: 33% Respondents in CSLA 0% Respondents in employment services: 67% Respondents in day habilitation services: 33% Respondents with individual support: 0%

Ask Me!sm Project FY2009 -- The Arc of Maryland

New Horizon InterPhysical Emotional Material Personal Personal Social SelfWellbeing Wellbeing Wellbeing Relations Development InclusionDetermination Rights FY2009 (41) FY2007 (21)

9.11 8.35

9.17 8.31

7.75 6.50

8.56 7.36

8.08 8.56

8.11 8.12

7.78 8.35

6.79 7.01

FY06-09 adjust 8.84 FY06-09 rank 0

8.81 0

7.32 0

8.09 0

8.22 3

8.06 3

7.93 3

6.82 0

Most recent survey year: Number of people supported: Survey response rate: Self-response rate: Served by other agencies:

FY2009 152 84% 74% 65%

Respondents in residential services: 0% Respondents in CSLA 1% Respondents in employment services: 35% Respondents in day habilitation services: 65% Respondents with individual support: 6%

Opportunity Builders InterPhysical Emotional Material Personal Personal Social SelfWellbeing Wellbeing Wellbeing Relations Development InclusionDetermination Rights FY2008 (29) FY2006 (39)

8.56 8.94

8.60 8.58

7.44 8.62

8.03 8.20

7.95 7.81

8.17 8.26

7.32 7.76

7.08 6.54

FY06-09 adjust 8.79 FY06-09 rank 0

8.61 0

8.18 3

8.19 3

7.89 0

8.28 3

7.64 0

6.78 0

Most recent survey year: Number of people supported: Survey response rate: Self-response rate: Served by other agencies:

FY2008 269 74% 90% 62%

Respondents in residential services: 0% Respondents in CSLA 0% Respondents in employment services: 31% Respondents in day habilitation services: 62% Respondents with individual support: 7%

Ask Me!sm Project FY2009 -- The Arc of Maryland

December 2009 Page 115

PACT: Helping Children with Special Needs InterPhysical Emotional Material Personal Personal Social SelfWellbeing Wellbeing Wellbeing Relations Development InclusionDetermination Rights FY2006 (11)

7.65

8.18

6.18

7.50

7.80

7.00

7.88

7.76

FY06-09 adjust 7.66 FY06-09 rank

8.22 0

6.17

7.59 0

7.86 0

7.11 0

7.98 3

7.85 3

Most recent survey year: Number of people supported: Survey response rate: Self-response rate: Served by other agencies:

FY2006 18* 92% 100% 75%

Respondents in residential services: 0% Respondents in CSLA 0% Respondents in employment services: 0% Respondents in day habilitation services: 0% Respondents with individual support: 100%

* Short-term support is provided through a general grant rather than person-specific funds, and all adults supported at the time of the survey were interviewed.

Penn Mar InterPhysical Emotional Material Personal Personal Social SelfWellbeing Wellbeing Wellbeing Relations Development InclusionDetermination Rights FY2006 (31)

9.03

8.76

8.10

7.68

7.80

7.02

6.69

7.00

FY06-09 adjust 9.04 FY06-09 rank 0

8.81 0

8.09 3

7.77 0

7.86 0

7.13 0

6.79 0

7.09 0

Most recent survey year: Number of people supported: Survey response rate: Self-response rate: Served by other agencies:

Page 116

December 2009

FY2006 118 87% 69% 14%

Respondents in residential services: Respondents in CSLA Respondents in employment services: Respondents in day habilitation services: Respondents with individual support:

66% 9% 31% 63% 14%

Ask Me!sm Project FY2009 -- The Arc of Maryland

Progress Unlimited InterPhysical Emotional Material Personal Personal Social SelfWellbeing Wellbeing Wellbeing Relations Development InclusionDetermination Rights FY2008 (39)

8.65

8.75

7.44

7.52

6.35

7.05

4.99

4.83

FY06-09 adjust 8.65 FY06-09 rank 0

8.74 0

7.44 0

7.49 0

6.33

7.01 0

4.95

4.80

Most recent survey year: Number of people supported: Survey response rate: Self-response rate: Served by other agencies:

FY2008 81 78% 36% 74%

Respondents in residential services: 100% Respondents in CSLA 0% Respondents in employment services: 0% Respondents in day habilitation services: 0% Respondents with individual support: 0%

Progressive Horizons InterPhysical Emotional Material Personal Personal Social SelfWellbeing Wellbeing Wellbeing Relations Development InclusionDetermination Rights FY2007 (32)

8.58

8.00

6.69

7.14

6.97

6.96

6.52

6.04

FY06-09 adjust 8.58 FY06-09 rank 0

8.01 0

6.69 0

7.17 0

6.99 0

7.00 0

6.55 0

6.07 0

Most recent survey year: Number of people supported: Survey response rate: Self-response rate: Served by other agencies:

FY2007 61 86% 67% 81%

Respondents in residential services: 94% Respondents in CSLA 6% Respondents in employment services: 0% Respondents in day habilitation services: 0% Respondents with individual support: 0%

Ask Me!sm Project FY2009 -- The Arc of Maryland

December 2009 Page 117

Providence Center InterPhysical Emotional Material Personal Personal Social SelfWellbeing Wellbeing Wellbeing Relations Development InclusionDetermination Rights FY2009 (22) FY2008 (28) FY2007 (21) FY2006 (23)

8.44 8.12 7.52 8.65

8.73 9.18 8.27 8.43

7.45 7.96 7.21 7.18

8.03 8.03 7.41 7.53

7.18 7.58 7.57 7.96

7.99 8.03 7.29 7.09

7.14 7.76 7.11 6.87

5.72 6.37 7.31 6.80

FY06-09 adjust 8.17 FY06-09 rank 0

8.64 0

7.42 0

7.72 0

7.64 0

7.52 0

7.20 0

6.66 0

Most recent survey year: Number of people supported: Survey response rate: Self-response rate: Served by other agencies:

FY2009 423 55% 93% 52%

Respondents in residential services: 0% Respondents in CSLA 0% Respondents in employment services: 12% Respondents in day habilitation services: 84% Respondents with individual support: 5%

Quantum Leap InterPhysical Emotional Material Personal Personal Social SelfWellbeing Wellbeing Wellbeing Relations Development InclusionDetermination Rights FY2008 (12)

8.07

8.75

6.50

8.06

8.56

7.61

7.52

7.58

FY06-09 adjust 8.07 FY06-09 rank 0

8.74 0

6.50 0

8.03 0

8.54 3

7.58 0

7.48 0

7.55 3

Most recent survey year: Number of people supported: Survey response rate: Self-response rate: Served by other agencies:

Page 118

December 2009

FY2008 20 60% 100% 83%

Respondents in residential services: 100% Respondents in CSLA 0% Respondents in employment services: 0% Respondents in day habilitation services: 0% Respondents with individual support: 0%

Ask Me!sm Project FY2009 -- The Arc of Maryland

Ray of Hope Inc InterPhysical Emotional Material Personal Personal Social SelfWellbeing Wellbeing Wellbeing Relations Development InclusionDetermination Rights FY2008 (38)

9.13

8.83

7.90

8.27

8.16

8.07

8.19

7.28

FY06-09 adjust 9.13 FY06-09 rank 0

8.81 0

7.90 0

8.24 3

8.17 3

8.03 3

8.15 3

7.25 0

Most recent survey year: Number of people supported: Survey response rate: Self-response rate: Served by other agencies:

FY2008 52 76% 68% 82%

Respondents in residential services: 76% Respondents in CSLA 11% Respondents in employment services: 0% Respondents in day habilitation services: 0% Respondents with individual support: 13%

Rehabilitation Opportunities InterPhysical Emotional Material Personal Personal Social SelfWellbeing Wellbeing Wellbeing Relations Development InclusionDetermination Rights FY2008 (25) FY2006 (28)

8.88 8.35

8.40 7.98

8.21 7.01

7.48 7.62

7.82 7.28

7.23 7.42

8.04 6.76

7.12 6.49

FY06-09 adjust 8.59 FY06-09 rank 0

8.20 0

7.52 0

7.59 0

7.54 0

7.37 0

7.36 0

6.81 0

Most recent survey year: Number of people supported: Survey response rate: Self-response rate: Served by other agencies:

FY2008 206 56% 88% 40%

Respondents in residential services: 0% Respondents in CSLA 0% Respondents in employment services: 4% Respondents in day habilitation services: 96% Respondents with individual support: 0%

Ask Me!sm Project FY2009 -- The Arc of Maryland

December 2009 Page 119

REM Inc InterPhysical Emotional Material Personal Personal Social SelfWellbeing Wellbeing Wellbeing Relations Development InclusionDetermination Rights FY2007 (12)

8.72

8.23

7.76

7.34

6.55

7.55

5.44

4.86

FY06-09 adjust 8.72 FY06-09 rank 0

8.24 0

7.76 0

7.37 0

6.57 0

7.59 0

5.48

4.89

Most recent survey year: Number of people supported: Survey response rate: Self-response rate: Served by other agencies:

FY2007 25 64% 56% 69%

Respondents in residential services: 94% Respondents in CSLA 0% Respondents in employment services: 0% Respondents in day habilitation services: 0% Respondents with individual support: 0%

Richcroft InterPhysical Emotional Material Personal Personal Social SelfWellbeing Wellbeing Wellbeing Relations Development InclusionDetermination Rights FY2006 (29)

8.30

7.87

6.91

6.92

6.28

6.83

6.14

5.12

FY06-09 adjust 8.31 FY06-09 rank 0

7.92

6.90 0

7.01

6.34

6.93 0

6.24 0

5.21

Most recent survey year: Number of people supported: Survey response rate: Self-response rate: Served by other agencies:

Page 120

December 2009

FY2006 115 76% 58% 82%

Respondents in residential services: 82% Respondents in CSLA 12% Respondents in employment services: 0% Respondents in day habilitation services: 0% Respondents with individual support: 6%

Ask Me!sm Project FY2009 -- The Arc of Maryland

Rock Creek Foundation InterPhysical Emotional Material Personal Personal Social SelfWellbeing Wellbeing Wellbeing Relations Development InclusionDetermination Rights FY2007 (24)

8.22

8.23

7.85

7.31

7.67

7.94

7.19

6.98

FY06-09 adjust 8.22 FY06-09 rank 0

8.25 0

7.84 0

7.34 0

7.69 0

7.97 0

7.22 0

7.01 0

Most recent survey year: Number of people supported: Survey response rate: Self-response rate: Served by other agencies:

FY2007 63 54% 92% 16%

Respondents in residential services: 72% Respondents in CSLA 8% Respondents in employment services: 20% Respondents in day habilitation services: 40% Respondents with individual support: 4%

Scott Key Center InterPhysical Emotional Material Personal Personal Social SelfWellbeing Wellbeing Wellbeing Relations Development InclusionDetermination Rights FY2008 (45)

9.38

9.20

8.43

8.82

7.95

8.10

8.35

7.55

FY06-09 adjust 9.38 FY06-09 rank 3

9.19 3

8.43 3

8.79 3

7.93 0

8.07 3

8.32 3

7.52 3

Most recent survey year: Number of people supported: Survey response rate: Self-response rate: Served by other agencies:

FY2008 111 90% 60% 76%

Respondents in residential services: 0% Respondents in CSLA 0% Respondents in employment services: 36% Respondents in day habilitation services: 60% Respondents with individual support: 4%

Ask Me!sm Project FY2009 -- The Arc of Maryland

December 2009 Page 121

SecureCare Services InterPhysical Emotional Material Personal Personal Social SelfWellbeing Wellbeing Wellbeing Relations Development InclusionDetermination Rights FY2008 (34)

9.14

8.87

6.87

7.73

7.16

7.75

6.93

6.81

FY06-09 adjust 9.14 FY06-09 rank 0

8.86 0

6.78 0

7.70 0

7.14 0

7.72 0

6.90 0

6.77 0

Most recent survey year: Number of people supported: Survey response rate: Self-response rate: Served by other agencies:

FY2008 111 74% 50% 62%

Respondents in residential services: 100% Respondents in CSLA 0% Respondents in employment services: 0% Respondents in day habilitation services: 0% Respondents with individual support: 0%

SEEC InterPhysical Emotional Material Personal Personal Social SelfWellbeing Wellbeing Wellbeing Relations Development InclusionDetermination Rights FY2006 (25)

9.15

8.65

6.98

7.87

7.11

7.51

6.30

6.30

FY06-09 adjust 9.16 FY06-09 rank 0

8.70 0

6.97 0

7.96 0

7.17 0

7.62 0

6.40 0

6.39 0

Most recent survey year: Number of people supported: Survey response rate: Self-response rate: Served by other agencies:

Page 122

December 2009

FY2006 111 57% 46% 54%

Respondents in residential services: 4% Respondents in CSLA 25% Respondents in employment services: 21% Respondents in day habilitation services: 0% Respondents with individual support: 68%

Ask Me!sm Project FY2009 -- The Arc of Maryland

Shura InterPhysical Emotional Material Personal Personal Social SelfWellbeing Wellbeing Wellbeing Relations Development InclusionDetermination Rights FY2007 (24)

8.72

8.31

7.02

7.90

7.32

8.33

7.31

7.11

FY06-09 adjust 8.72 FY06-09 rank 0

8.33 0

7.02 0

7.93 0

7.34 0

8.36 3

7.35 0

7.14 0

Most recent survey year: Number of people supported: Survey response rate: Self-response rate: Served by other agencies:

FY2007 46 72% 100% 93%

Respondents in residential services: 86% Respondents in CSLA 14% Respondents in employment services: 0% Respondents in day habilitation services: 0% Respondents with individual support: 0%

Somerset Community Services Inc InterPhysical Emotional Material Personal Personal Social SelfWellbeing Wellbeing Wellbeing Relations Development InclusionDetermination Rights FY2009 (31)

8.67

8.59

7.19

8.33

8.89

7.94

7.52

7.18

FY06-09 adjust 8.67 FY06-09 rank 0

8.55 0

7.19 0

8.24 3

8.83 3

7.84 0

7.42 0

7.09 0

Most recent survey year: Number of people supported: Survey response rate: Self-response rate: Served by other agencies:

FY2009 118 78% 84% 0%

Respondents in residential services: Respondents in CSLA Respondents in employment services: Respondents in day habilitation services: Respondents with individual support:

Ask Me!sm Project FY2009 -- The Arc of Maryland

42% 10% 23% 71% 10%

December 2009 Page 123

Southern Maryland Vocational Industries InterPhysical Emotional Material Personal Personal Social SelfWellbeing Wellbeing Wellbeing Relations Development InclusionDetermination Rights FY2006 (32)

8.88

8.62

7.60

7.88

8.04

7.31

7.47

7.31

FY06-09 adjust 8.88 FY06-09 rank 0

8.67 0

7.59 0

7.97 0

8.10 3

7.42 0

7.58 0

7.40 3

Most recent survey year: Number of people supported: Survey response rate: Self-response rate: Served by other agencies:

FY2006 135 75% 79% 38%

Respondents in residential services: 44% Respondents in CSLA 0% Respondents in employment services: 47% Respondents in day habilitation services: 0% Respondents with individual support: 9%

Spectrum Support InterPhysical Emotional Material Personal Personal Social SelfWellbeing Wellbeing Wellbeing Relations Development InclusionDetermination Rights FY2006 (31)

8.63

7.96

7.51

7.75

7.43

7.67

7.23

7.23

FY06-09 adjust 8.63 FY02-05 rank 0

8.01 0

7.50 0

7.84 0

7.49 0

7.78 0

7.33 0

7.32 0

Most recent survey year: Number of people supported: Survey response rate: Self-response rate: Served by other agencies:

Page 124

December 2009

FY2006 125 65% 81% 81%

Respondents in residential services: 22% Respondents in CSLA 3% Respondents in employment services: 28% Respondents in day habilitation services: 59% Respondents with individual support: 3%

Ask Me!sm Project FY2009 -- The Arc of Maryland

Spring Dell Center InterPhysical Emotional Material Personal Personal Social SelfWellbeing Wellbeing Wellbeing Relations Development InclusionDetermination Rights FY2009 (30) FY2007 (22)

8.57 9.01

8.84 8.70

6.82 7.94

7.70 7.84

7.11 7.23

6.97 7.56

6.44 6.62

5.37 6.12

FY06-09 adjust 8.78 FY06-09 rank 0

8.76 0

7.34 0

7.74 0

7.15 0

7.20 0

6.48 0

5.72 0

Most recent survey year: Number of people supported: Survey response rate: Self-response rate: Served by other agencies:

FY2009 155 61% 64% 38%

Respondents in residential services: 15% Respondents in CSLA 9% Respondents in employment services: 7% Respondents in day habilitation services: 85% Respondents with individual support: 7%

St. Peters Adult Learning InterPhysical Emotional Material Personal Personal Social SelfWellbeing Wellbeing Wellbeing Relations Development InclusionDetermination Rights FY2008 (30)

7.40

7.75

5.53

7.10

6.76

7.13

6.57

6.22

FY06-09 adjust 7.40 FY06-09 rank

7.74

5.54

7.07

6.74 0

7.10 0

6.54 0

6.19 0

Most recent survey year: Number of people supported: Survey response rate: Self-response rate: Served by other agencies:

FY2008 49 63% 100% 17%

Respondents in residential services: 0% Respondents in CSLA 0% Respondents in employment services: 47% Respondents in day habilitation services: 53% Respondents with individual support: 0%

Ask Me!sm Project FY2009 -- The Arc of Maryland

December 2009 Page 125

Star Community InterPhysical Emotional Material Personal Personal Social SelfWellbeing Wellbeing Wellbeing Relations Development InclusionDetermination Rights FY2006 (31)

9.25

9.23

8.90

8.33

7.65

8.18

7.31

6.27

FY06-09 adjust 9.25 FY06-09 rank 3

9.27 3

8.89 3

8.42 3

7.71 0

8.29 3

7.41 0

6.36 0

Most recent survey year: Number of people supported: Survey response rate: Self-response rate: Served by other agencies:

FY2006 35 97% 35% 15%

Respondents in residential services: 74% Respondents in CSLA 0% Respondents in employment services: 0% Respondents in day habilitation services: 97% Respondents with individual support: 0%

Starflight InterPhysical Emotional Material Personal Personal Social SelfWellbeing Wellbeing Wellbeing Relations Development InclusionDetermination Rights FY2007 (21)

8.38

7.99

5.91

6.70

6.08

6.32

4.53

4.63

FY06-09 adjust 8.39 FY06-09 rank 0

8.00

5.91

6.73

6.10

6.36

4.56

4.66

Most recent survey year: Number of people supported: Survey response rate: Self-response rate: Served by other agencies:

Page 126

December 2009

FY2007 34 73% 46% 75%

Respondents in residential services: 79% Respondents in CSLA 0% Respondents in employment services: 0% Respondents in day habilitation services: 0% Respondents with individual support: 4%

Ask Me!sm Project FY2009 -- The Arc of Maryland

Target, Inc InterPhysical Emotional Material Personal Personal Social SelfWellbeing Wellbeing Wellbeing Relations Development InclusionDetermination Rights FY2009 (32)

9.14

9.24

7.64

8.94

8.07

8.37

7.90

7.94

FY06-09 adjust 9.14 FY06-09 rank 0

9.20 3

7.65 0

8.85 3

8.01 0

8.26 3

7.80 0

7.85 3

Most recent survey year: Number of people supported: Survey response rate: Self-response rate: Served by other agencies:

FY2009 149 64% 78% 31%

Respondents in residential services: Respondents in CSLA Respondents in employment services: Respondents in day habilitation services: Respondents with individual support:

19% 28% 50% 13% 9%

Treatment & Learning Center Inc InterPhysical Emotional Material Personal Personal Social SelfWellbeing Wellbeing Wellbeing Relations Development InclusionDetermination Rights FY2009(16)

8.72

8.28

7.17

8.23

7.97

7.61

9.06

8.05

FY06-09 adjust 8.72 FY06-09 rank 0

8.24 0

7.18 0

8.14 0

7.91 0

7.51 0

8.96 3

8.41 3

Most recent survey year: Number of people supported: Survey response rate: Self-response rate: Served by other agencies:

FY2009 94 32% 100% 19%

Respondents in residential services: 0% Respondents in CSLA 6% Respondents in employment services: 94% Respondents in day habilitation services: 0% Respondents with individual support: 6%

Ask Me!sm Project FY2009 -- The Arc of Maryland

December 2009 Page 127

UCP of Central Maryland InterPhysical Emotional Material Personal Personal Social SelfWellbeing Wellbeing Wellbeing Relations Development InclusionDetermination Rights FY2008 (29) FY2006 (33)

8.39 9.03

8.26 8.94

6.65 7.63

7.10 8.10

6.37 7.46

7.29 7.77

5.96 7.29

5.07 6.42

FY06-09 adjust 8.73 FY06-09 rank 0

8.66 0

7.24 0

7.69 0

7.01 0

7.59 0

6.73 0

5.84 0

Most recent survey year: Number of people supported: Survey response rate: Self-response rate: Served by other agencies:

FY2008 329 76% 48% 21%

Respondents in residential services: 55% Respondents in CSLA 17% Respondents in employment services: 3% Respondents in day habilitation services: 66% Respondents with individual support: 3%

UCP of Montgomery & Prince George's & Counties InterPhysical Emotional Material Personal Personal Social SelfWellbeing Wellbeing Wellbeing Relations Development InclusionDetermination Rights FY2008 (29)

8.62

8.75

7.93

7.67

7.32

7.91

7.79

7.40

FY06-09 adjust 8.62 FY06-09 rank 0

8.74 0

7.93 0

7.64 0

7.30 0

7.88 0

7.75 0

7.37 3

Most recent survey year: Number of people supported: Survey response rate: Self-response rate: Served by other agencies:

Page 128

December 2009

FY2008 51 63% 97% 31%

Respondents in residential services: 0% Respondents in CSLA 3% Respondents in employment services: 28% Respondents in day habilitation services: 48% Respondents with individual support: 28%

Ask Me!sm Project FY2009 -- The Arc of Maryland

UCP of Southern Maryland InterPhysical Emotional Material Personal Personal Social SelfWellbeing Wellbeing Wellbeing Relations Development InclusionDetermination Rights FY2009 (22) FY2007 (17)

8.37 8.21

8.64 8.76

7.56 8.01

7.34 8.66

8.02 8.10

7.30 7.91

8.12 8.61

7.78 7.45

FY06-09 adjust 8.30 FY06-09 rank 0

8.69 0

7.76 0

7.90 0

8.03 3

7.55 0

8.31 3

7.59 3

Most recent survey year: Number of people supported: Survey response rate: Self-response rate: Served by other agencies:

FY2009 187 44% 98% 26%

Respondents in residential services: Respondents in CSLA Respondents in employment services: Respondents in day habilitation services: Respondents with individual support:

22% 17% 54% 0% 15%

VOCA Corporation InterPhysical Emotional Material Personal Personal Social SelfWellbeing Wellbeing Wellbeing Relations Development InclusionDetermination Rights FY20094 (21)

9.05

8.85

8.17

7.69

8.43

7.30

7.38

6.56

FY06-09 adjust 9.04 FY06-09 rank 0

8.81 0

8.18 3

7.60 0

8.37 3

7.19 0

7.28 0

6.46 0

Most recent survey year: Number of people supported: Survey response rate: Self-response rate: Served by other agencies:

FY2009 21 100% 19% 76%

Respondents in residential services: 100% Respondents in CSLA 0% Respondents in employment services: 0% Respondents in day habilitation services: 0% Respondents with individual support: 0%

Ask Me!sm Project FY2009 -- The Arc of Maryland

December 2009 Page 129

Washington Co Human Development Council InterPhysical Emotional Material Personal Personal Social SelfWellbeing Wellbeing Wellbeing Relations Development InclusionDetermination Rights FY2008 (41)

9.63

9.35

7.84

8.11

7.27

8.06

7.37

6.88

FY06-09 adjust 9.63 FY06-09 rank 3

9.33 3

7.85 0

8.08 0

7.25 0

8.03 3

7.34 0

6.85 0

Most recent survey year: Number of people supported: Survey response rate: Self-response rate: Served by other agencies:

FY2008 103 82% 34% 34%

Respondents in residential services: 54% Respondents in CSLA 0% Respondents in employment services: 5% Respondents in day habilitation services: 68% Respondents with individual support: 5%

Way Station InterPhysical Emotional Material Personal Personal Social SelfWellbeing Wellbeing Wellbeing Relations Development InclusionDetermination Rights FY2009 (18)

9.15

8.19

7.90

8.11

8.41

7.57

8.14

7.50

FY06-09 adjust 9.15 FY06-09 rank 0

8.15 0

7.91 0

8.02 0

8.35 3

7.46 0

8.04 3

7.41 3

Most recent year: Total adults supported Survey response rate: Self-response rate: Served by other agencies:

Page 130

December 2009

FY2009 18 78% 72% 61%

Respondents in residential services: 0% Respondents in CSLA 0% Respondents in employment services: 17% Respondents in day habilitation services: 78% Respondents with individual support: 6%

Ask Me!sm Project FY2009 -- The Arc of Maryland

Worcester County Developmental Center InterPhysical Emotional Material Personal Personal Social SelfWellbeing Wellbeing Wellbeing Relations Development InclusionDetermination Rights FY2006 (28)

7.74

8.71

7.07

7.74

8.12

8.13

7.82

7.17

FY06-09 adjust 7.75 FY06-09 rank

8.75 0

7.06 0

7.83 0

8.18 3

8.24 3

7.93 3

7.26 0

Most recent year: Total adults supported Survey response rate: Self-response rate: Served by other agencies:

FY2006 93 66% 90% 13%

Respondents in residential services: 23% Respondents in CSLA 7% Respondents in employment services: 3% Respondents in day habilitation services: 97% Respondents with individual support: 0%

Ask Me!sm Project FY2009 -- The Arc of Maryland

December 2009 Page 131