No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

This article presents the findings of a review of evidence related to quality of life in models of supported accommodation for adults with intellectual disabilities identified in English‐speaking nation deinstitutionalization and postdeinstitutionalization studies. An international literature‐based investigation of research published between 1995 and 2005 in English‐language peer‐reviewed academic journals was conducted to: (1) review the outcome of deinstitutionalization and postinstitutionalization studies; (2) examine instruments used to measure outcomes for individuals; and (3) compare costs and benefits associated with different models of supported accommodation. In the deinstitutionalization studies, there was consistent evidence of greater choice and self‐determination, participation in social networks or relationships and community‐based activities, and personal satisfaction in community‐based settings. Postdeinstitutionalization studies provided consistent evidence for greater choice, self‐determination, and participation in community‐based activities in smaller settings, but no evidence for greater physical health or material well‐being, and little evidence for a relationship between type of setting and employment. Future research is needed to meet methodological challenges identified here, to investigate the apparent failure of smaller residences to improve residents’ well‐being and to study systematically factors not directly addressed in the studies under review: poverty and income, organizational culture, and geographical variation.

The COVID-19 epidemic caused disruption and dislocation in the lives of people with disabilities, their families, and providers. What we have learned during this period regarding the strengths and weaknesses of the service system for people with disabilities should provide a roadmap for building a more robust and agile system going forward. Based on a canvas of leaders in our field, I propose a way of outlining a reimagined system.

No abstract

BACKGROUND: Rates of integrated employment among people with IDD receiving services are low and have remained essentially unchanged for the past ten years. National Core Indicators © (NCI) data provide an important window on the employment and employment outcomes of people with IDD receiving services. OBJECTIVE: To use NCI data to describe the employment status of individuals supported by state IDD agencies, to compare outcomes of those in and those not in integrated employment, and to propose policy suggestions to increase the numbers if individuals with IDD receiving services in integrated employment. METHODS: NCI data from 2012-13 were analyzed to look at the demographics, outcomes and employment status of NCI respondents. RESULTS: The data highlighted in this article illustrate the employment, employment support, employment type, wages, hours and selected employment outcomes of individuals with IDD who receive public services. CONCLUSIONS: Improving the level of participation of people with IDD in integrated employment and the quality of employment outcomes in terms of choice of job, individual or group supports, rate of pay and type of work must continue to be a priority for states.

Objective. We identified trends in the receipt of preventive health care by adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities by type of residential setting.Methods. We used data from the 2008-2009 collection round of the National Core Indicators (NCI) program. Participating states drew random samples of adults receiving developmental disabilities services. The study was observational, with both self-report and report by proxy. Once the random samples were drawn in each state, data were collected using the NCI Adult Consumer Survey. Trained interviewers administered the survey in person.Results. The likelihood of a person receiving preventive care procedures was related to age, level of intellectual disability, mobility, health status, and state. Type of living arrangement also affected whether a person received these health services, even after controlling for state, level of disability, and other personal characteristics. In general, people living with parents or relatives were consistently the least likely to receive preventive health exams and procedures.Conclusion. With growing numbers of adults being served in the family home, educational and policy-based efforts to ensure access to preventive care are increasingly critical.