DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 361 93/. EC 302 401

AUTHOR Wallace, Teri; And OthersTITLE Outreach Training Activities: Results from a Survey

of UAP Outreach Training Directors.INSTITUTION Minnesota Univ., Minneapolis. Inst. on Community

Integration.; Syracuse Tniv., NY. Center on HumanPolicy.

SPONS AGENCY Administration on Developmental Disabilities (DHHS),Washington, D.C.; National Inst. on Disability andRehabilitation Research (ED/OSERS), Washington, DC.

PUB DATE Jun 93CONTRACT 90DD0204101; H133B00003-90NOTE 48p.AVAILABLE FROM Publications Office, Institute on Community

Integration (UAP) , University of Minnesota, 109Pattee Hall, 150 Pillsbury Dr., S.E., Minneapolis, MN55455 (alternative formats available uponrequest).

PUB TYPE Reports Research/Technical (143)Tests/Evaluation Instruments (160)

EDRS PRICE MF01/PCO2 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS Adults; Agencies; Children; *Developmental

Disabilities; *Inservice Education; National Surveys;*Outreach Programs; Resource Allocation; StaffDevelopment; Training

IDENTIFIERS *University Affiliated Training Programs

ABSTRACTThis survey of 39 University Affiliated Program (UAP)

Outreach Training Directors describes UAP outreach training effortsto improve services to people with developmental disabilities. Thesurvey examined the influence of different staffing strategies on thestructure of outreach training programs, and the degree ofparticipation by various groups in planning, coordinating,conducting, financing and evaluating outreach training efforts.Results indicated that UAPs provide outreach training to a largeaudience representing a variety of agencies and constituencies. UAPsfunding one or more positions for outreach training providedsignificantly more hours of training to significantly more people.Based on the results of the survey, recommendations are offeredregarding increasing the involvement of stakeholders in all aspectsof outreach training, increasing collaboration between UAPs andtechnical and community colleges, avoiding duplication of trainingefforts, increasing evaluation efforts that measure the impact oftraining on outcomes for persons with developmental disabilities,reconsidering UAP resources allocated to outreach training, andincreasing training for persons providing support to adults and olderpersons with developmental disabilities. The UAP Outreach TrainingSurvey is appended. (Contains 46 references.) (Author/PB)

********************************************************************

Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be madefrom the original document. *

***********************************************************************

.0

OutreachTrainingActiViti6§

Results From a Survey ofUAP Outreach Training Directors

2

U.S. DEPARTNENT Of EDUCATION("Pict or Educetoone Research end ImprovementEDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION

CENTER (ERIC)

644 document nes been reproduced asreceved from the perfOn of otpenicettenonpmetmg

o Mmor changes have been made to improverePrOduct.on qualay

P.:0ms of yew or ocomons Stated ,n thed0Cemint clo nOt nsCeSeardy reOfelent OffiCtelOERI posit.on or poficy

By Ted Wallace, Sheryl A. Larson andR. Philip Guillery

Institute on Community Integration (UAP)College of Education, University of MinnesotaJune 1993

BEST COPY viU

OutreachTrainingActivities

Results From a Survey ofUAP Outreach Training Directors

By Teri Wallace, Sheryl A. Larson andR. Philip Guillery

Institute on Community Integration (UAP)College of Education, University of MinnesotaJune 1993

The recommended citation for this report is: Wallace, T., Larson, S.A., & Guillery, R.P. (1993).Outreach Training Activities: Results from a survey of UAP Outreach Training Directors. Minneapolis:University of Minnesota (College of Education), Institute on Community Integration (UAP).

Additional copies of this report may be ordered from the Publications Office, Institute on CommunityIntegration (UAP), University of Minnesota, 109 Pi...ttee Hall, 150 Pillsbury Drive SE, Minneapolis,MN 5555, (612) 624-4512. Alternative formats are available upon request.

The University of Minnesota is committed to the policy that all persons shall have equal access to its programs,facilities, and employment without regard to race, religion, color, sex, national origin, disability, age, veteranstatus, or sexual orientation.

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Cheryl Morgan and Vicki Gaylord for their assistance with layout and design. Theauthors also thank Mike Jakupcak, Yvonne Fryberger and Nancy Striffler for their assistance in developingand field testing the qnestionnaire, and in ensuring that as many questionnaires as possible were returned.Finally, the authors th.nk the Outreach Training Directors, Karen Middendorf, chair, for their willingnessto complete this lengthy survey.

This report was supported by grant #90DD0204101 from the Administration on DevelopmentalDisabilities, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Additional support was provided through asubcontract from the Center on Human Policy, Research and Training Center on Community Integration,Syracuse University, funded through Cooperative Agreement #H133B00003-90 from the National Instituteon Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR). The opinions expressed are those of the authors anddo not necessarily reflect the views of the Institute on Community Integration (UAP) or its fundingsources.

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements

Table of Contents lii

List of Tables iv

List of Figures iv

Introduction 1

Methods 2

Defining Characteristics of UAP Outreach Training Efforts 2Needs Assessment and Planning Strategies 3

Background Information 3Results and Discussion 3

Training Arrangements 6Background Information 6Results and Discussion 6

Training Methods and Products 9Background Information 9Results and Discussion 10

Funding Strategies 12Background Information 12Results and Discussion 12

Evaluation Strategies 13Background Information 13Results and Discussion 13

Staffing Patterns for Outreach Training 15Roles of the Outreach Training Director 15Staffing Patterns 15Differences Between UAPs 16

Primary Training Audiences 17Characteristics and Roles of the Primary Training Audiences 17

Background Information 17Results and Discussion 17

Study Limitations 21

Recommendations 21

Conclusions 22

References 23

Appendix A 27

List of Tables

Table 1. Agencies involved in identifying training needs 4Table 2. Strategies used to gather needs assessment data 4Table 3. Considerations in determining training to be provided 5Table 4. Agencies involved in planning outreach training 5Table 5. Strategies to identify outreach training goals/objectives 5Table 6. Effective recruitment strategies used by UAPs 6Table 7. Trainers used by UAPs for outreach training 7Table 8. Agencies collaborating with the UAP to conduct training activities 8Table 9. Locations used as training sites 8Table 10. Types of credit offered 8Table 11. Training formats 10Table 12. Instructional strategies used by UAPs 11Table 13. Instructional media used by UAPs 11Table 14. Product formats used by UAPs 11Table 15. Outreach training products developed by UAPs 12Table 16. Funding sources used by UAPs 13Table 17. Participants in designing or conducting evaluations 14Table 18. Targets of evaluation efforts 14Table 19. Strategies for- evaluating outreach training 14Table 20. Roles of Outreach Training Directors in varions UAP outreach training efforts 15Table 21. Mean number of people funded (in whole or part) for outreach training 16Table 22. Characteristics of UAPs with and without a position funded solely for outreach training . 17Table 23. Primary training audiences for outreach training efforts 17Table 24. Environments from which training participants are usually drawn 18Table 25. Ages served by outreach training participants 18Table 26. Definition of participation indices 18Table 27. Degree of participation in training 19Table 28. Correlations between participation indices 19Table 29. Percent of UAPs usually or always involving consumers, families and direct service staff in

outreach training coordination activities 20Table 30. Percent of UAPs usually or always involving professionals, administrators, and students in

outreach training coordination activities 20Table 31. Involvement by State and local government agencies and DD councils in outreach training

activities: Percent of UAPs usually or always involving these groups 20Table 32. Involvement by local provider agencies, advocacy agencies, and businesses in outreach

training: Percent of UAPs usually or always involving these groups 21

List of Figures

Figure 1. Number of people trained during the last year 7Figure 2. Number of hours of training provided 7Figure 3. Proportion of participants requesting academic credit 9Figure 4. Proportion of OTD funded for outreach training activities 16

fri

iv

Abstract

As the locus of services for persons with developmental disabilities shifts from segregated to moreinclusive community settings, agencies providing services and supports to those individuals experiencerapidly changing demands. Many University Affiliated Programs (UAPs) have developed trainingprograms to enable agencies to respond to those demands. This survey of 39 UAP Outreach TrainingDirectors describes UAP outreach training efforts in detail, examines the influence of different staffingstrategies on the structure of outreach training programs, and examines the degree of participation byvarious groups in planning, coordinating, conducting, financing and evaluating outreach training efforts.

The results of this survey indicate that UAPs provide outreach training to a large audiencerepresenting a variety Of agencies and constituencies. They use many different strategies to plan,implement, and evaluate training activities. UAPs that fund one or more positions for outreach trainingprovided significantly more hours of training to significantly more people. Although many groups aretargeted for outreach training, some of those groups (particularly persons with developmental disabilities,their family members, direct service staff, and students) are often not included in planning training or inevaluating training results. Based on the results of this survey, recommendations are forwarded %;gardingincreasing the involvement of stakeholders in all aspects of outreach training, increasing collaborationbetween UAPs and technical and community colleges, avoiding duplication of training efforts, increasingevaluation efforts that measure the impact of training on outcomes for persons with developmentaldisabilities, reconsidering UAP resources allocated to outreach training, and increasing training for personsproviding support to adults and older persons with developmental disabilities.

8

Outreach Training Activities: Results From aSurvey of UAP Outreach Training Directors

Introduction

Changes in attitucks, values, legislation, andpublic policy over the past two decades have led torapid expansion of community services forindividuals with disabilities and their families(Middendorf, 1992; Wallace & Johnson, 1992).The locus of residential services has shifted frominstitutions to small community livingarrangements. Educational services have shiftedfrom segregated services to models that facilitatethe inclusion of all children in neighborhoodschools and regular classrooms. Adult day servicesare moving from a skill development model toproviding supports needed to enable people towork in community jobs. As more communityresidential, educational, and vocationalopportunities have been created, the trainingneeds of staff in these programs have increased inscope and complexity, and the lack of training hasbecome more visible (Healy & Bacon, 1990).Community agencies are experiencing increasedpressure to hire, train, and retain staff memberswho understand the purpose and nature ofcontemporary services, and who are equipped toprovide state-of-the-art services. UniversityAffiliated Programs are among the groupsresponding to these needs.

University Affiliated Programs (UAPs) wereestablished in 1963 to address human resourceneeds in providing exemplary services to personswith mental retardation (Semmel & Elder, 1986).The Administration on Developmental Disabilities,which administers the law and funds the cumntUAP network, articulates a vision for communityinclusion based on personal power and leadershipand political strength for individuals withdisabilities and their families, and the developmentof positive public images as valued communitymembers (Middendorf, 1992). UAPs reflect thiscommitment by providing a wide range of training,curriculum development, technical assistance, andsystems change initiatives in cooperation andcollaboration with State and local service

1

providers, and with individuals and families(Middendorf, 1992).

UAP training efforts are commonly dividedinto several separate activities. Pre-servicetraining is provided to undergraduate, graduate,and post-doctoral students studying in theprograms affiliated with the UAP. Outreachtraining is interdisciplinary training that occurswith individuals off campus. Outreach trainingparticipants are typically employed and are usuallynot currently in formal academic trainingprograms. Technical assistance activities are directproblem solving services provided by the UAP toassist people, programs, and agencies to improvetheir services, management or policies. Each ofthese forms of training are used by UAPs to meetthe training needs of their constituents.

The rapid development of communityprograms in recent years has stimulated increasedinvolvement by UAPs in outreach training (Healy& Bacon, 1990; Middendorf, 1992). The additionof training initiatives in the 1987 amendments tothe Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Billof Rights Act (P.L. 100-146) provided funding forthis increased involvement. As a result, between1987 and 1991 the number of hours of outreachtraining provided by UAPs increased from 17,647to 51,042 (National Information and ReportingSystem [NIRS], 1991). In FY 1991 alone, UAPsin 49 states, the District of Columbia, and PuertoRico provided outreach training to more than471,000 participants (NIRS, 1991).

In the early 1980s, to support increasedinvolvement by UAPs in inservice and outreachtraining, UAP Outreach Training Directors(OTDs) came together to form the NationalOutreach Training Directors Council of theAmerican Association of University AffiliatedPrograms (AAUAP). This group meets twice ayear to identify, discuss, and resolve problems andissues regarding outreach training policies andinitiatives (Middendorf, 1992). The group alsoprovides a forum for OTDs to network and learnnew outreach training strategies. This group has

been essential in assisting OTDs in defining andfulfilling their interdisciplinary training roles.Today the roles of OTDs include: (a) completingneeds assessments, (b) matching resources,(c) implementing or coordinating the delively ofinterdisciplinary outreach training, (d) identifyingor developing curricula, (e) leveraging resourcesnecessary to provide training, and (f) evaluatingtrainee satisfaction and the impact of training(Healy & Bacon, 1990). This report examines howthese and other roles are carried out by OTDs inUAPs nationwide. The vision for how these rolesmight be implemented is compared with the realityas measured by a national survey of UAPOutreach Training Directors.

Methods

In 1991, researchers at the Institute onCommunity Integration (UAP), at the Universityof Minnesota, in collaboration with the AAUAPOutreach Training Directors Council, conductedan in-depth survey of outreach training activities inUAPs. An 11 page survey requested informationabout the organizational structure, planning andneeds assessment activities, training activities,training products, funding strategies, andevaluation efforts used by UAPs in conductingoutreach training (See Appendix A). Surveys weremailed to all of the UAP Outreach TrainingDirectors who were on the AAUAP NationalOutreach Training Director's Council mailing listas of June 1991. OTDs who did not return theirsurveys were personally contacted at the AAUAPmeeting in October 1991 to get their responses.Follow-up phone calls were also used to solicitmissing surveys.

The survey was completed either by theOutreach Training Director or by the persondesignated to attend AAUAP National OutreachTraining Director's Council meetings. In all, 39 of50 UAP OTDs (78%) returned the surveys. Ofthe 39 respondents, 74.4% were the OTD for theirUAP, 5.1% were designated to attend nationaloutreach training meetings, and 20.5% were froma UAP that did not have an OTD. Among the 30respondents who were the OTD, their mcantenure as OTD was 3.9 years (SD = 6.6 years,range = 1 month to 13 years). The UAPs forwhich they worked had had an OTD for anaverage of 7.0 years (SD = 6.6 years, Range = 0to 23 years).

The surveys that were received were reviewedcarefully. Missing data were obtained through

2

follow-up phone calls when possible. Othermissing data were entered according to thefollowing procedures. For questions that includedlong lists of items to rate as occurring "usually oralways," "sometimes," or "never," if at least oneitem was marked "usually or always" or"sometimes," all unmarked items were coded"never." For items about the number of stafffunded for outreach training activities, if the UAPindicated this question was not applicable, zeroswere recorded for all categories. Questions aboutthe number of people receiving outreach trainingand the number of hours of outreach trainingprovided in FY 89/90 were coded as marked withtwo exceptions. If no answer was given, the(espondent was phoned to request the dataprovided to AAUAP for FY 90/91 (thisinformation was mailed by AAUAP to therespondents within 2 days of the phone call). Inthree cases the numbers originally provided byrespondents were considerably larger than any ofthe other UAPs. In those cases, the respondentwas recontacted to confirm the response. Revisednumbers obtained in the follow-up call were used.

The survey addressed three basic sets ofre-,earch questions:1) What are the defining characteristics of UAP

outreach training efforts in terms of planningand needs assessment strategies, trainingarrangements, training methods and products,funding strategies, and evaluation strategies?

2) How do the staffing patterns used by UAPsdiffer? Do those differences influence thecharacteristics of training efforts?

3) What are the characteristics and roles of theprimary target audiences in planning,coordinating, conducting, financing, andevaluating outreach training efforts?

The remaining sections of this report address theseresearch questions.

Defining Characteristics of UAPOutreach Training Efforts

The largest section of the survey focused ondefining the characteristics of UAP outreach-training efforts. Among the characteristicsexamined were planning and needs assessmentstrategies, training arrangements, training methodsand products, funding strategies, and evaluationstrategies.

I o

Needs Assessment andPlanning Strategies

One of the primary roles of the OutreachTraining Director is to conduct training needsassessments at both the organizational level and atthe state level (Healy & Bacon, 1990). The OTD'sresponsibility is to assist community programs andState agencies in identifying agency and stafftraining needs that are of highest priority so thetraining developed by the UAP will address thoseneeds.

Background Information

Needs assessments strategies for organizationsrange from highly formal processes conducted byoutside consultants to less formal processesmanaged by internal program personnel. Theselection of needs assessment strategies dependsupon the type, nature, and scope of the trainingneeded within the community service program(Buckley, Albin, & Mank, 1985; Levine, 1983;McCormick, Cooper, & Goldman, 1979; Swanson,1982; Swanson & Gradous, 1986). One way toidentify competencies needed by staff is to beginby specifying what the organization must do tosuccessfully provide services (Buckley, Albin, &Mank, 1985; Mori, Rusch, & Fair, 1982). Thisapproach requires a comprehensive assessment ofbroad agency needs including identification of theexpected outcomes (Goldstein, 1993). Once theexpected outcomes are defined and strategics forreaching those outcomes are identified, thosestrategies can be translated into specific staffknowledge and competencies. Neededcompetencies can also be identified by usingtechniques such as general work analysis, jobcontent analysis, and task analysis (Levine, 1983;McCormick, 1979; Swanson, 1982; and Swanson &Gradous, 1986).

Several strategies may be used to collectinformation about the competencies required for aspecific job, the current skill level of employees,and the employees' self-identified training needs.Those strategies include individual or groupinterviews, observations, material review, andstructured surveys (Inge, Barcus, & Everson, 1988;Swanson & Gradous, 1986). Information gatheredusing these strategies must include both neededknowledge, skills, and attitudes, as well asinformation regarding the staff member's need forsupport. Information about whcn staff membersare available for training, the level of difficulty

staff members can handle in training materials,and the types of adaptations or other supportsneeded to make training successful should beidentified. Some staff, for example, may requirethat training occur outside of regular workinghours; others may require written materials to beat an 8th grade reading level, or in anotherlanguage. Whatever the situation, needs forsupport must be identified and addressed.

UAP Outreach Training Directors also mustassess the training needs and priorities of theState. This assessment might consider the currentState priorities, the training needs reflected inState agency plans (e.g., Department of HumanServices, Department of Education, Division ofRehabilitation Services, Governors PlanningCouncil on Developmental Disabilities), andcurrent State and Federal funding priorities. Statelevel needs assessments may require focus groupsof stakeholders from various State agencies, reviewof relevant documents, identification of currentstatewide training resources, and interviews withtraining personnel from various State and localagencies.

Results and Discussion

This survey asked several questions about howUAP outreach training activities are planned, whois involved the planning process, and how needsassessment information is gathered.

Needs Assessment Participants. TheOutreach Training Directors surveyed consultedseveral different groups of stakeholders to identifytraining needs. The mean number of agencies thatwere usually or always involved in the needsassessment process was 3.00 (SD = 2.47). Onaverage, an additional 4.64 agencies weresometimes involved (SD = 2.90). Several differentgroups were consulted by UAPs. More than 50%of the UAPs usually consulted State agencies,outreach training participants, local provideragencies and schools, the DD Council, parents andfamily members, and local UAP personnel, boardsor committees in the needs assessment process(See Table 1). Less often involved were advocacyorganizations, institutions of higher education,persons with developmental disabilities, and localgovernment agencies.

These findings suggest substantial diversityamong UAPs in selecting particular agencies orgroups to be involved in thc needs assessmentprocess. Even the most common participants wcrcusually consulted by only about half of the UAPs.

While most UAPs sometimes asked parents, familymembers, and persons with disabilities about theoutreach training needs of the region, less than50% of the UAPs usually consulted thoseindividuals to identify training needs. This isunfortunate because consumers and familymembers can offer valuable insight to the trainingneeds they have, and to the training needs ofpeople who are providing supports or services tothem (Wallace, Larson, 84 Hewitt, 1992).Furthermore, while some UAPs worked withinstitutions of higher education (includinguniversities, colleges, community colleges, andtechnical institutes), fully one third of the UAPsnever contacted those organizations whenidentifying training needs. Since institutions ofhigher education are often involved in providingtraining to the broad community of personsinvolved in the lives of persons withdevelopmental disabilities, UAPs that neverinclude those groups are missing importantinformation about training needs and trainingresources.

Table 1Agencies involved in identifying training needs

Agency/ Usually Sometimes NeverGroup or AlwaysState agencies 55.3% 39.5% 5.3%Outreach training

participants 52.6% 39.5% 7.9%Local provider

agencies/schools 50.0% 47.4% 2.6%DD Council 50.0% 44.7% 5.3%Parents and

family members 50.0% 44.7% 5.3%Local UAP personnel,

boards or committees 50.0% 36.8% 13.2%Advocacy organizations 36.8% 50.0% 13.1%Institution of

higher education 36.8% 47.4% 36.8%Persons with DD 34.2% 52.6% 13.2%Local/State government 28.9% 52.6% 28.9%Protection and advocacy

organizations 21.1% 55.3% 23.6%Professional association 21.1% 47.4% 31.6%Students 13.2% 65.8% 21.1%Hospital/Physician Group 7.9% 63.2% 28.9%AAUAP personnel,

boards or committees 5.3% 44.7% 50.0%General public 2.6% 44.7% 52.6%Businesses 0.0% 28.9% 71.1%

4

Needs Assessment Sirate2ies. A variety ofstrategies were used by UAPs to gatherinformation about training needs. Those strategiesinvolved gathering information from sources suchas training participants, agencies and individualswith a stake in training outcomes, and theacademic literature. Five needs assessmentstrategies were used by more than 70% of allUAPs (See Table 2). Those strategies involvedgathering inforinagon from at least four differentsources. Considering the time and effort requiredto use group process and individual interviewstrategies, it is remarkable that so many UAPsreported using those strategies. On the otherhand, formal needs assessment strategies such asjob analysis and direct assessment of potentialparticipants were less commonly used despite theiraccuracy in identifying job tasks and activities.

Table 2Strategies used to gather needs assessment data

StrategyEvaluations of previous

training effortsIndividual interviews

and surveysGroup Process

(delphi technique)Potential participant

opinion surveyLiterature reviewsJob analysisDirect assessment of

potential participantsOther

Information Source % UAPs

Previous participants

Other stakeholders

Other stakeholders

Potential participantsProfessional lit.Potential participants

Potential participantsOther stakeholders

84.6%

84.6%

82.1%

79.5%74.4%59.0%

48.7%17.9%

Needs Assessment Considerations. Inaddition to needs assessment results, several otherfactors are considered by UAPs when determiningwhat training will be provided. Primaryconsiderations for the majority of UAPs includedrequests for training, and UAP goals andobjectives (See Table 3). The large number ofUAPs considering requests for training suggeststhat these UAPs placed a high priority onproviding training that is responsive to the needsof the community. Federal, State and local plansand priorities were also common considerations.Interestingly, while tne availability of training fromother sources was a primary consideration forabout half of those surveyed, another 4 l% saidthis was only a secondary consideration. This mayresult in the duplication of training efforts.

Table 3Considerations in determining training to be provided

Consideration Primary Secondary NotRequests for training 89.7% 7.7% 2.6%UAP goals and objectives 82.1% 15.4% 2.6%State agency plans 61.5% 38.5% 0.0%Federal funding priorities 61.5% 33.3% 5.1%Availability of training

from other sources 56.4% 41.0% 2.6%Local funding priorities 56.4% 38.5% 5.1%DD Council plans 53.8% 41.0% 5.1%Other funding agency

priorities 41.0% 48.7% 10.3%

Planning Training Activities. Once the needsassessment has been completed and neededtraining has been identified, a training plan,including training goals and objectives can beestablished. This survey provided someinformation about how UAPs go about thisprocess. The Outreach Training Directorssurveyed involved a variety of agencies and groupsin planning training activities. On average, 3.15agencies or groups usually or always participatedin planning training activities (SD = 2.6). Anadditional 4.67 agencies or groups were sometimesconsulted (SD = 2.8). Agencies or groups usuallyor always involved in planning training in at leasthalf of the UAPs were local UAP personnel,boards and committees, state agencies, and localprovider agencies and schools (See Table 4).Other groups such as the DD Councils,institutions of higher education, and localgovernment agencies were usually involved inplanning in just over a third of the UAPs.Stakeholders such as outreach trainingparticipants, parents and family members, advocacyorganizations and persons with developmentaldisabilities were occasional participants in theplanning process in most UAPs.

As in the needs assessment area, considerablevariation was observed in the combinations ofagencies and constituencies involved in planningtraining efforts. This variation may be due in partto planning processes that respond to particularneeds. The specific combination of participantsselected by each UAP is likely to influence and tobe influenced by the focus and topics of training tobe conducted. The variation in characteristics offrequent participants in planning activitiesprobably results in variation in the outcomes ofthose planning efforts as well.

5

Table 4Agencies involved in planning outreach training

Agency/Group Usually Sometimes Neveror Always

Local UAP personnel 61.5% 25.6% 12.8%State agencies 53.8% 46.2% 0.0%Local provider

agencies/schools 53.8% 43.6% 2.6%DD Council 43.6% 46.2% 10.3%Outreach training

participants 43.6% 43.6% 12.8%Parents and

family members 41.0% 51.3% 7.7%Advocacy organizations 38.5% 46.2% 15.4%Institution of

higher education 38.5% 43.6% 17.9%Local/State government 35.9% 46.2% 35.9%Persons with DD 28.2% 53.8% 17.9%Students 23.1% 48.7% 28.2%Protection and advocacy

organizations 23.1% 48.7% 28.2%Professional association 17.9% 51.3% 30.8%Hospital/Physician Group 10.3% 59.0% 30.8%General public 10.3% 33.3% 56.4%AAUAP 2.6% 48.7% 48.7%Businesses 0.0% 35.6% 64.1%

Identifying training goals and objectives. Theplanning process also includes developing goalsand objectives for outreach training activities.Survey respondents were asked which of severalpossible strategies most closely matched thestrategy used by their UAP to determine outreachtraining goals and objectives. The vast majority ofrespondents indicated that a joint processinvolving the Outreach Training Director, UAPstaff members, project directors, students and/orfaculty was used (See Table 5). However, in12.8% of the UAPs the outreach training goalsand objectives were specific to ongoing projects.

Table 5Strategies to identify outreach training goals/objectives

Strategy % usingThe OTD, UAP staff members, project

directors, students, and/or facultyjointly determine goals and objectives 64.1%

A task force identifies goals and objectives 12.8%Use only goals and objectives specific

to our projects 12.8%The UAP Director determines the goals

and objectives 2.6%The OTT) determines the goals and objectives 2.6%We do not have goals and objectives specific

to outreach training 2.6%Other 2.6%

3

Training Arrangements

Background Information

A critical role of Outreach Training Directorsis to match resources to identified training needs.This role can be fulfilled in several ways. TheOTD might act as a broker, matching people andresources to needs by negotiating assistance fromother UAP staff who have the knowledge and skillto respond to an identified need, or targetingcurricula and training materials which an on-sitestaff trainer could use to meet a specific trainingneed (Healy & Bacon, 1990). The OID mightalso respond by designing a training program foran organization or leveraging resources for thedevelopment of a statewide conference to addressa broader need. The OTD's role can be diverse inthis area. However, the focus must always be onmaintaining an interdisciplinary approach toplanning and delivering training.

Part of the UAP mission defined in theDevelopmental Disabilities Act is to provideinterdisciplinary training for developmentaldisabilities personnel in community settingsthrough outreach activities (Healy & Bacon, 1990).The interdisciplinary training approach refers toboth the process of servicc delivery and themethods of instruction. An interdisciplinarytraining process means that participants in thetraining acquire knowledge and skills tounderstand and practice interdisciplinary servicedelivery. An interdisciplinary method ofinstruction involves the use of instructionalmethods and techniques that reflect the principlesof interdisciplinary services delivery, such as: teamidentity, shared goals and leadership, andrecognition of the importance of interactionalprocesses (Healy & Bacon, 1990). Well trainedpersonnel are critical to the provision ofcoordinated interdisciplinary community services(Barcus, Everson & Hall, 1987). The changes inphilosophy and practice during the last 20 yearshave confronted community service agencies with aneed to provide immediate philosophical andpractical skills training to their personnel (Barcus,Everson & Hall, 1987; Middendorf, 1992; Pickett,1989; Wallace & Johnson, 1992).

6

Results and Discussion

This section examines the arrangements madeto provide outreach training. Amcng the featuresof the training delivery system to be discussed are:recruitment strategies, training recipients, hours oftraining, providers of training, training locations,provision of credit for completion of training, andtraining formats.

Recruitment strategies. Once a trainingprogram has been developed, UAPs mustcommunicate that the training is available. Whilemany recruitment strategies could be used,according to OTD's, the distribution of printedmaterials and word of mouth advertising are by farthe most effective strategies to recruit participantsfor outreach training (See Table 6). Otherstrategies such as incentives, group presentations,specific referral systems and printed ads were usedand considered effective by about a third of thosesurveyed.

Table 6Effective recruitme-at strategies used by UAPs

Recruitment stratettv % EffectivePrinted materials 92.1%Word of mouth 86.8%incentives for participation 39.5%Presentation to groups 36.8%Referral system 34.2%Printed advertisements 28.9%Multi-media 10.5%

Training Recipients. The effectiveness of therecruitment strategies used by OThs can be clearlyseen in the number of people attracted to UAPoutreach training programs. Among the 36 UAPsresponding, the mean number of people receivingtraining during Fiscal Year (FY) 89/90 was 8,249.0(SD = 6.061.8). The interesting finding howeverwas the tremendous range in the number of peopletrained (Range = 180 to 22,061). Among the 30UAPs that provided information about the numberof people trained, 42% trained fewer than 5,000people, 55% trained 5,001 to 20,000, and only 3%trained more than 20,001 people (See Figure 1).

Figure 1Number of people trained during the last year (N=36)

16

14 ....12

0.< 10 9

8 7

z 6

44

2

0-4 5-9 10-14 15-19

Number of people (thousands)

20-24

Hours of training. As with the number ofpeople trained, the UAPs varied considerably inthe number of hours of training provided. Themean number of hours of training provided by the36 reporting UAPs was 1,381.1 (SD = 1,239.3).The range was from 40 hours to 4,625 hours.About 60% of the reporting UAPs provided lessthan 1,000 hours of training (See Figure 2).Another 28% provided between 1,001 and 2,999hours. The remaining UAPs provided more than3,001 hours of outreach training.

20

Figure 2Number of hours of training provided (N=36)

5

Table 8Agencies collaborating with the UAP to conduct

training activities

Agency/Group

Usually Sometimesor Always

Never

State agencies 42.1% 55.3% 2.6%Local agencies/schools 42.1% 52.6% 5.3%Advocacy organizations 31.6% 55.3% 13.2%Local/State government 23.7% 57.9% 18.4%Professional association 21.1% 66.5% 18.4%Hospital/Physician Group 18.4% 52.6% 18.4%Protection and advocacy

organizations 10.5% 63.3% 26.3%DD Council 7.9% 52.6% 31.5%Institution of

higher education 7.9% 39.5% 52.6%Businesses 2.6% 28.9% 68.4%

Training Locations. The most commonlocations for outreach training activities areconference centers and hotels, and provider agencylocations (See Table 9). The common use ofprovider agencies to house training activitiessupports collaborative efforts with those agencies.While university and college settings aresometimes used for outreach training however, fewUAPs work with technical colleges or communitycolleges to house outreach training efforts. Giventhe mission of technical and community colleges,these agencies could collaborate with UAPs toprovide training opportunities to persons whomight not otherwise have access to that training.Collaboration with technical and communitycolleges also provides the option of obtainingcredit for training received, providing importantbenefits to training recipients. Collaborationbetween UAPs and technical and communitycolleges also can be used to establish programsthat will enhance career advancementopportunities for participants.

Table 9Locations used as training sites

Location Usually Sometimesor Always

Never

Conference centers/hotels 50.0% 42.1% 7.9%Provider agency locations 47.4% 42.1% 10.5%University/State or local

college 28.9% 57.9°, 13.2%Local community ed sites 26.3% 57.9% 15.8%Public schools 23.7% 55.3% 21.1%Clinics/hospital settings 21.1% 55.3% 23.7%Other 13.2% 5.3% 81.6%Technical colleges 5.5% 34.2% 60.5%Community colleges 5.3% 63.2% 31.6%

8

Types of credit offered. Most of the UAPssurveyed offered some form of academic orcontinuing education credit to outreach trainingparticipants. Most UAPs offered continuingeducation credit, and more than 50% offeredgraduate school credit (See Table 10). Only abouta third of the UAPs, however, offeredundergraduate credit or professional accreditationfor training participants. This suggests thatdespite an increased emphasis on outreach trainingby UAPs, those efforts focus on professionals whoalready have a college degree. The very smallnumber of UAPs collaborating with community ortechnical colleges to offer credit is a concern fordirect service staff members in all settings. Mostof those individuals have not earned collegedegrees, and many have no education beyond highschool (Larson, Hewitt & Lakin, in press). Theavailability of career ladders for paraprofessionalsdepends on access to education to advance theirknowledge. For many this education will initiallybe provided by community or technical colleges.

Table 10Types of credit offered

Types of Credit % OfferingContinuing education 81.6%University graduate 60.5%University/4 yr college undergraduate 36.8%Professional accreditation 31.6%Community college 13.2%Technical college 7.9%Other 5.3%

Offering academic credit will not ensure thatparticipants will take advantage of it, however. AsFigure 3 shows, in the majority of UAPs (65.8%),fewer than 25% of the outreach trainingparticipants request available credit. In 10.5% ofthe UAPs academic credit is not available at all.It cannot be determined from this survey whetherthis apparent lack of interest in credit for trainingis because people do not want credit, or whether itis because the types of credit offered does notmatch the needs of those seeking outreachtraining. However, the training audiences whomight benefit most from getting credit for this typeof training, (i.e., those with no formal educationbeyond high school), are not given opportunitiesto request credit appropriate to their needs (i.e.,Community college or technical institute credit) inmost of the UAPs surveyed. Other reports haveindicated that when community college ortechnical institute credit is offered to those

working with persons with developmentaldisabilities the response has been good. Forexample, in North Dakota 1,333 personscompleted a certificate program, and 76 earnedAssociate of Arts Degrees between 1983 and 1992(Vassiliou, 1992) for completing UAP developedtraining programs. In St. Louis, Missouri, whenthe Productive Living Board for St. Louis CountyCitizens with Developmental Disabilities teamedup with the St. Louis Community College toprovide short three hour workshops toparaprofessionals, 882 paraprofessionals weredrawn to the courses, and a two year programleading to an Associate of Arts degree wasdeveloped (Bassin & Hanks, 1992). If UAPs areserious about providing to outreach training topersons without college degrees, much moreconsideration should be given to the types ofcredit offered, and to where that training will beconducted.

Figure 3Proportion of participants requesting academic credit

6-10%(21.1%)

0-5%(23.7%)

No credit available(10.5%)

11-25%(21.1%)

26-50%(10_,%)

76-100%(10.5%)

51-75%(2.6%)

Training formats. The most common trainingformats used by UAPs were workshops, technicalassistance, and professional presentations (SeeTable 11). Inservices were also used by more than50% of the UAPs. As expected, typical pre-servicetraining formats such as formal courses andseminars were less commonly used for outreachtraining. These formats are diverse and meet theneeds of a wide range of audicnces. Directtechnical assistance services, ir service training andon-site consultation efforts provide immediateattention to staff and consumer needs. Inservicetraining offers a unique opportunity for on-sitetechnical assistance both during and after training

9

(Barcus, Everson & Hall, 1987). Ali of theseformats can be used to meet the needs of directservice staff members. Professional presentationsand conferences are well-suited to informationdissemination to professional audiences.

Training Methods and Products

Background Information

The Outreach Training Director may choosefrom several different techniques to deliver thctraining content. Lectures, group discussions, role-play situations, fieldwork experience, audiovisualmaterials, and other strategies are often used. Theselection of strategies should be based on the goalsand objectives of training, characteristics ofparticipants, length of training, experience of thetrainer, location of the training, and otherconstraints and costs (Goldstein, 1993; Inge,Barcus, & Everson, 1988; Tannebaum & Yukl,1992). Multimodal techniques that incorporatepractice and feedback have been shown to be moreeffective than techniques that focus solely ondidactic instruction (Anderson & Kratochwill,1988; Feldman & Dalrymple, 1984; Kazdin, 1984;Ziarnik & Bernstein, 1984).

The characteristics of adult learners shoaldalso be considered when selecting trainingmaterials and methods since the consumer ofoutreach training activities is the adult learner(Templeman & Peters, 1992). Knowing and usingadult learning principles is an importantcomponent to preparing on-site trainers to trainothers in their organizations (Goldstein, 1993;Templeman & Peters, 1992). A train-the-trainerstrategy, which is used often by UAPs, increasesthe numbers trained and improves the costeffectiveness of long-term training programs(Templeman & Peters, 1992).

Designing the training environment is adelicate process that requires a combination oflearning principles and media selection, based onthe tasks that the trainee is eventually expected toperform (Goldstein, 1993). Outreach TrainingDirectors often must identify existing curricula ordevelop new training materials to meet specifictraining needs. The decision of whether to useexisting curriculum materials, adapt existingmaterials to the particular situation, or developnew materials is difficult. Hundreds of trainingmodules and manuals on a wide range of topicshave been developed in recent years. Fortunatelyresource guides have been developed delineating

Table 11Training formats

Training Format Description Usuallyor always

Sometimes Never

Workshop Usually brief, small groups of people, focusedtopic, emphasizes participation and skilldevelopment.

68.4% 28.9% 2.6%

Technical assistance Provision of specific assistance leading to skilldevelopment, includes follow-up.

60.5% 39.5% 0.0%

Professionalpresentation

Presentation made at professional conferences ormeetings.

60.5% 39.5% 0.0%

Inservice Training for people who are employed, usually atthe employment site.

50.0% 50.0% 0.0%

On-site consultation Short-term provision of professional or expertadvice to personnel at their place of employment

44.7% 55.3% 0.0%

Conference Usually 2 or more days, multiple topics,emphasizes knowledge dissemination andawareness.

36.8% 52.6% 10.5%

Academic course Usually University based, part of a program ofstudy, quarter or semester long, leads toacademic cr,edit.

34.2% 52.6% 10.5%

Seminar Academic event where persons, usually graduatestudents, discuss issues

31.6% 55.3% 13.2%

Internship, residence,practicum

Supervised training in a parlicular workenvironment for a specified period of time.

26.3% 57.9% 15.8%

Training institute Usually week long, intensive instruction on topicsin a particular field.

21.1% 44.7% 34.2%

Symposium Formal gathering in which several specialistsmake short presentations on a related topic.

15.8% 63.2% 21.1%

Colloquium Academic meeting where specialists makepresentations on one or more related topics andthen address questions.

13.2% 65.8% 21.1%

training materials that are currently available ontopics such as residential services (Larson &Hewitt, 1992), behavior management (Sigafoos &Linz, 1989), transition from school to adult life(Ellson et al., 1992), and supported employment(Wallace, Johnson, & Erickson, 1990). Guidessuch as these provide information to enable OTDsto avoid duplicative efforts, while also allowingthem to spot gaps in available materials.Regardless of whether new materials aredeveloped, or existing materials are used, the OTDmust insure that the materials are appropriate forthe audience and the training occasion (Goldstein,1993; Inge, Barcus, & Everson, 1988; Swanson &Gradous, 1986).

10

Results and Discussion

The survey asked several questions abouttraining methods and products. Specificcharacteristics addressed include instructionalstrategies, instructional media, product formats,and the topics on which materials have beenprepared.

Instructional stratezies. Outreach TrainingDirectors used a wide range of instructionalstrategies during training. Almost all of the UAPsused panels/guest speakers, discussion groups, andlectures (See Table 12). More than three quartersused case studies, demonstration or modeling, andgroup process. More labor intensive instructional

strategies such as fieldwork, one-to-oneinstruction, and structured feedback were used by55% to 67% of the UAPs. The effectiveness ofthese commonly used strategies varies. Accordingto Templeman & Peters (1992), retention of newlearning ranges from 5% for lecture alone, to 30%for demonstration and 50% for group discussions.More effective strategies such as practice (75%retention of information) and teaching others(95% retention) are among the least commonlyused instructional strategies for outreach trainingby UAPs.

video, and computer based instruction were muchless common. Self-paced modules that could beused by learners without a trainer present havebeen prepared by about one-third of the UAPssurveyed. This media is particularly useful fortraining personnel in remote isolated areas, or fortraining personnel such as residential direct servicestaff who may work evening or weekend hoursmaking them more difficult to reach withtraditional formats.

Table 13Instructional media used by UAPs

Table 12Instructional strategies used by UAPs Instructional Media % Using

Films, filmstrips, videotapes, slides 92.3%

Instructional Strategy % Using Trainee Handbooks 79.5%

Panels/guest speakers 97.4% Train-the-trainer manuals 69.2%

Discussion groups 92.3% Site visits, field trips 56.4%

Lectures 92.3% Workbooks 51.3%

Case studies 84.6% Newsletters 38.5%

Demonstration or modeling 79.5% Telecommunication (e.g., closed circuit TV) 38.5%

Group process 79.5% Self-paced learning modules 35.9%

Fieldwork (e.g., practica, internships) 66.7% Textbooks 33.3%

Anecdotes 64.1% Interactive video 17.9%

One-to-one instruction 59.0% Audio Cassette 12.8%

Games, skits, roleplaying 59.0% Computer based instruction 5.1%

Structured feedback (verbal, written, video) 56.4%

Instructional media. Most of the UAPssurveyed (92.3%) used films, filmstrips, videotapesor slides in their outreach training efforts (SeeTable 13). A large majority also produced traineehandbooks or train-the-trainer manuals. Morethan half used site visits or field trips, ordeveloped workbooks. High tech instructionalmedia such as telecommunications, interactive

Product formats. The most common formatsused for disseminating outreach traininginformation were written products such as researchto practice publications and training manualsaimed at non-academic audiences, and otherproducts such as conference presentations aimedat professional audiences (See Table 14). Theother potential formats were used less frequently.

Table 14Product formats used by UAPs

Format Examples Usuallyor always

Sometimes Never

Written products for non-academicaudiences

Research to practice publications,training manuals information sheets

48.7% 51.3% 0.0%

Other products for academic audiences Presentations at conferences 46.2% 51.3% 2.6%

Written products for academicaudiences

Books chapters, journal articles,technical reports

28.2% 69.2% 2.6%

Resource coordination products Resource library, resource guide 28.2% 53.8% 17.9%

Other products for non-academicaudiences

Videotapes, television ads 25.6% 61.5% 12.8%

11

Product topics. Outreach training productshave been prepared by UAPs on a wide range oftopics. The most popular topics include earlyintervention, case management and servicecoordination, intervention/treatment/programming,and introduction to developmental disabilities.More than 60% of UAPs had developed trainingmaterials in those areas (See Table 15). Materialsabout a variety of individual special needs (e.g.,medical issues, challenging behavior), and serviceareas (e.g., transition, education) were availablefrom at least half of the UAPs. Less than a thirdof the UAPs had prepared written materials onpublic policy/planning, staff development, humansexuality, or administrative and managementissues. These areas represent potential nationalneeds for training materials. The wide availabilityof training materials on many topics suggests thatUAPs should collaborate and consult with oneanother to determine whether appropriatematerials have already been developed beforeproceeding with an expensive materialsdevelopment project.

Table 15Outreach training products developed by IJAI's

Topic % offeringEarly intervention 69.2%Case management and service coordination 64.1%Intervention/treatment/programming 64.1%Introduction to developmental disabilities 61.5%Individual assessment 56.4%Medical issues 56.4%Family supports 56.4%Transition 56.4%Challenging behavior 56.4%Education 53.8%Sensory and communication needs 53.8%Legal issues/self-advocacyfindividual rights 53.8%Services to persons who are elderly 51.3%Health care, safety, emergency issues 46.2%Community integration 43.6%Employment/adult day services 43.6%Physical special needs 43.6%Residential services 38.5%Parents with MR/Dll 38.5%Personal care special needs 35.9%Public policy/planning 33.3%Staff development 33.3%Human sexuality 28.2%Administrative/management issues 25.6%

12

Funding Strategies

Background Information

Leveraging support for training is a method ofmaintaining relations between UAPs and Federaland State agencies (Far lec, 1976). In successfulUAPs, programmatic support is obtained fromFederal agencies, State DD councils, privatefoundations, and fees for scrvice (Davidson &Fifield, 1992; Far lee, 1976; Mayo & Tarjan, 1962).Leveraging resources is often necessary to supportUAP outreach training activities and can be usedas a catalyst for involving agency representatives inplanning, funding, implementing, and evaluatingtraining activities.

Results and Discussion

These UAPs reported using an average of 3.59primary funding sources (SD = 1.45), and anaverage of 4.41 secondary funding sources (SD =2.46) to support outreach training activities. Themost common primary funding sources wereFederal and State agency funding, the ADDTraining Initiatives, and the UAP core grant (SeeTable 16). Among the 82.1% of reporting UAPsthat had ADD Training Initiative grants the mostcommon target areas were direct care staff training(41.0% of 1.) kPs) and early intervention (35.9%).Fewer than 15% had grants on services to personswho were elderly (12.8%), assistive technology(10.3%), or positive behavior management (2.6%).A range of secondary funding sources were used tosupport training efforts. Since this question didnot specifically list DD Councils as a potentialfunding source, no inferences about their status asa primary or secondary funding source should bemade. Of the 39 UAPs surveyed, only 30.8%reported that their outreach training activitieswere self-supporting. Several participant feestructures were used (sometimes more than oneper UAP). The most common strategies usedwere informal policies (48.7%), and negotiated feestructures (43.6%). A written fee policy was inplace in 2.6% of the UAPs, and 10.3% used someother fee structure. A total of 28.2% did notcharge any participant fees for training.

Table 16Funding sources used by UAPs

Agency/Group Primary Secondary NotFederal government agencies 76.9%State government agencies 64.1%ADD training initiative 61.5%UAP core grant 53.8%Fees received for services 33.3%

10.3%33.3%12.8%33.3%41.0%

12.8%2.6%

25.6%12.8%26.5%

Local government agencies 20.5% 46.2% 33.3%University/grantee support 17.9% 51.3% 30.8%In-kind contributions 10.3% 51.3% 38.5%Federal/State per service

reimbursement 7.7% 28.2% 64.1%Community foundations

(e.g., United Way) 5.1% 20.5% 74.4%Private foundations 2.6% 33.3% 64.1%Professional and trade

associations 2.6% 59.0% 38.5%Other 2.6% 2.6% 94.9%Corporations 0.0% 17.9% 82.1%

Evaluation Strategies

Background Information

Traditionally, the evaluation of trainingimplemented by UAPs has focused on processinputs and quantitative outputs (Davidson &Fifield, 1992; Healy & Bacon, 1990). However,more recently the importance of evaluating thequality of training in terms of its impacts onindividuals with disabilities, families, programs andprogram systems has been recognized (Bernstein &Ziarnik, 1982; Dufresne, 1990; Lakin, Larson &Prouty, in press). Experts in quality assurancesuggest that effective change in services will onlyoccur when high quality is rewarded and whentraining and technical assistance efforts supportthe development of needed skills among providers(Bradley, 1990; Conroy & Feinstien, 1990; Lakin,Larson & Prouty, in press). Measurement of theimpact of UAP training should be based on (a)demonstrating a relation between consumers andUAP direct or indirect service programs and (b)documenting that UAP services in fact make achange in persons with disabilities or their familymembers along functional dimensions (e.g., accessto services, service options, community integration,productivity, or independence) (Davidson andFifield, 1992).

Few examples of outcome based evaluationsystems exist (Davidson & Fifield, 1992). Oneexception is the system developed by Davidsonand Adams (1989). That system involves (a)developing operational definitions of consumcr

and agency outcomes, (b) documenting thatprograms or services are provided in inclusivecommunity settings with the intent to enhance theindependence and producti,,ity of individuals withdisabilities, and (c) surveying selected individualsto determine whether their functional statuschanged following delivery of UAP services(Davidson and Fifield, 1992). The evaluationprocess includes two procedures--establishingmeasures of success and using experimental andnonexperimental designs to determine whatchanges have occurred during and after thetraining process (Goldstein, 1993). Measures ofsuccess must be established to evaluate traineesupon completion of the training and during on-the-job performance. The measures of success arebased on behavioral objectives developed duringthe needs assessment process. They examine theimpact trained employees have on the individualsthey serve. The trainer might ask: Have theservices the individuals receive improved? Whatcriteria are used to evaluate improved services?How can impact on service recipients bemeasured? Once the measures of success havebeen identified, several sources may be consultedto gather evaluation information. Those sourcesinclude reaction of participants, learning ofparticipants in training, behavior changes on thejob, and final results of the total program(Kirkpatrick, 1960).

13

Results and Discussion

In this survey, OTDs provided informationabout the persons involved in planningevaluations, the persons who provided data for theevaluation, and the strategies used to evaluateoutreach training activities.

Persons planning evaluations. Just as therewere many groups and individuals involved inplanning and conducting training, there were alsoa variety of groups involved in evaluating theresults of training efforts. Training evaluationswere most often designed or conducted byprofessionals (See Table 17). Additionalparticipants included local UAP personnel, boardsor committees, and outreach training participantsin over a third of the UAPs. Unlike many of theother training activities, several of the stakeholderagencies and groups were never involved indesigning or conducting evaluations in the majorityof UAPs (e.g., direct care workers, general public).The absence of these individuals as regularparticipants in planning evaluations casts serious

doubts on whether UAPs are evaluating outcomesthat are important to persons with developmentaldisabilities, their family members and the peoplewho work most closely wit') them.

Table 17Participants in designing or conducting evaluations

Agency/Group Usually Sometimes Neveror Always

Professionals 69.2% 20.5% 10.3%Local UAP personnel 41.0% 38.5% 20.5%Outreach training

participants 35.9% 64.1% 43.6%Administrators 23.1% 38.5% 38.5%Direct care workers 15.4% 33.3% 51.3%Parents and

family members 15.4% 48.7% 35.9%Policy makers 10.3% 48.7% 41.0%Persons with DD 7.7% 43.6% 48.7%Students 7.7% 53.8% 38.5%Consultants/

external evaluators 5.1% 51.3% 43.6%General public 2.6% 15.4% 82.1%AAUAP personnel 2.6% 12.8% 84.6%

Targets of evaluation efforts. The mostcommon targets of evaluation efforts wereprofessionals and direct care workers with over50% of UAPs usually or always targeting thesegroups for evaluation (See Table 18). Parents andfamily members were the usual target forevaluation efforts in just over one third of theUAPs. Other training participant groups such asadministrators, persons with developmentaldisabilities, students and policy makers were lesscommon targets of evaluation efforts.

Table 18Targets of evaluation efforts

Agency/Group Usually Sometimes Neveror Always

Professionals 64.1% 30.8% 5.1%Direct care workers 56.4% 30.8% 12.8%Parents and

family members 38.5% 53.8% 7.7%Administrators 28.2% 59.0% 12.8%Persons with DD 25.6% 46.2% 28.2%Local UAP personnel 25.6% 38.5% 35.9%Students 23.1% 59.0% 17.9%Policy makers 20.5% 56.4% 23.1%General public 7.7% 38.5% 53.8%Other 5.1% 2.6% 92.3%

Strategies for evaluating training. Whilethere are many diffcrent ways to evaluate training

14

effectiveness, the UAPs in this survey were mostlikely to use partidpant opinion surveys or theUAP workshop evaluation to evaluate their efforts(See Table 19). More intensive assessment of thequality of materials (such as content analysis), andmore comprehensive assessments of learnercompetence using observation, written testing, orcompetency testing, were less commonly used.Although the more intensive and comprehensivestrategies takP more time and energ to complete,the information they yield may warrant moreextensive use. Those more comprehensivestrategies would enable the CYID to determinewhether the training was producing its intendeddirect impact on the training participants.However, the need for evaluation extends evenbeyond adequately measuring whether participantslearned the material. The true test of theusefulness of training is whether the people whoparticipated in training actually changed theirbehavior in ways that improved the quality ofservices provided to persons with developmentaldisabilities. Of the strategies in the survey onlyobservation of trainees in site visits, and contentanalysis of service documents even begin to assessthis type of information. Neither of thesestrategies were commonly used by the UAPssurveyed.

Table 19Strategies for evaluating outreach training

Strategy Usually Sometimesor Always

Never

Participant opinionsurveys/interviews 94.9% 5.1% 0.0%

UAP workshop evaluation 51.3% 35.9% 12.8%Content analysis of training

materials 17.9% 38.5% 43.6%Observation of trainees/

site visit 12.8% 59.0% 28.2%Written test of knowledge

acquisition 10.3% 64.1% 25.6%Competency testing of

participants 7.7% 71.8% 20.5%Observation of training

session by evaluator 7.7% 46.2% 46.2%Cost analysis 5.1% 38.5% 56.4%Group process (e.g., dclphi

technique) 5.1% 43.6% 51.3%Content analysis of service

documents (e.g., IEP,IFSP, H-IP) or othertrainee products 0.0% 51.3% 48.7%

cl

Staffing Patterns forOutreach Training

UAPs use a variety of strategies to structurethe roles of the Outreach Training Director, andto fund the Outreach Training Director's activities.This section examines these strategies, and thenexamines how UAPs that use different strategiesvary in their outreach training activities andoutcomes.

Roles of the Outreach TrainingDirector

Meetings of the AAUAP National OutreachTraining Directors' Council have providedexcellent opportunities for networking amongOTD's. However, it has become clear that manydifferent approaches are used to structure UAPoutreach training activities. This can be seen byexamining the level of involvement OTD's had ineach of the five categories of outreach trainingactivities: planning, coordinating, conducting,financing, and evaluating.

The survey clearly showed that responsibilitiesfor these activities are shared by OTDs with otherUAP staff (See Table 20). In fact, between 80%and 90% of UAPs have more than one person

responsible for each phase. The OTD has overallcoordination responsibilities for these activities in50% to 60% of the UAPs, and sole responsibilityfor these activities in 3% to 8% of the UAPs. Asimportant as systematic training efforts are to themission of UAPs, between 16% and 29% of UAPsdid not have a single person responsible forcoordinating activities in these five areas.

Staffing Patterns

University Affiliated Programs use manyapproaches to allocating personnel resources foroutreach training. Of the UAPs in this survey,48.7% had at least one position that was fundedsolely for outreach training. Table 21 shows themean number of people and positions funded ineach job classification. In all, 18 UAPs fundedone or more faculty members, 14 UAPs fundedone or more staff members, 3 UAPs funded one ormore students, and 9 UAPs funded one or moreclerical staff members for outreach trainingactivities. An average of 2.64 people received totalor partial funding specifically to conduct outreachtraining activities. The average UAP allocated1.24 full time equivalent (I-TE) positions tooutreach training activities.

Table 20Roles of Outreach Training Directors in various UAP outreach training efforts

Level of Involvement Planning Coordinating Conducting Financing Evaluating

This phase does not occur within my UAP 2.6% 2.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

I am not involved with this phase 0.0% 7.7% 2.6% 5.3% 2.6%

I am kept aware of activities associatedwith this phase

5.1% 10.3% 5.3% 7.9% 2.6%

I am one of many person responsible forthis phase (No one serves as coordinator)

15.4% 15.4% 28.9% 21.1% 18.4%

I am one of many person responsible forthis phase (Someone else serves ascoordinator)

7.7% 7.7% 10.5% 10.5% 18.4%

I am one of many person responsible forthis phase (I also serve as overallcoordinator)

61.5% 51.3% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0%

I am solely responsible for this phase 7.7% 5.1% 2.6% 5.3% 7.9%

15

Table 21Mean number of people funded (in whole or

part) for outreach training (N = 36)

Classification

FacultyStaffStudentsClerical

Total

Number ofpeople

1.131.01

.15

.40

Number of FTEpositions

.47

.52

.10

.13

2.64 1.24

While 25 UAPs funded one or more people toprovide outreach training, and while the averageUAP funds 1.24 FIE for outreach training, onlyone-third of the UAPs surveyed funded anOutreach Training Director more than 25% timeto coordinate and conduct outreach trainingactivities (see Figure 4). This suggests that mostof the outreach training activities conducted orcoordinated by UAPs are carried out by peopleother than the OTD. A small proportion of UAPs(12.8%) had full-time OTDs. The major questionraised by this finding is whether OTDs are fundedat a level that will enable them to adequately carryout the outreach training tasks they areresponsible for.

Figure 4Proportion of CTD funded for outreach training

activities

Differences Between UAPs

This section examines whether the variationsin outreach training activities of UAPs were

16

related to the funding strategies used by thoseUAPs. Of the three variables that might havebeen used to test differences among UAPs (thepresence of an Outreach Training Director,funding of one or more positions solely foroutreach training activities, and the number ofFI b's allocated to outreach training), the fundingquestion had the highest response rate (100%) andwas best suited to inferential statistics because 19UAPs funded one or more positions and 20 didnot. The hypothesis tested is that UAPs thatactually fund a position for outreach training willtrain more participants, more efficiently, and willhave a more highly structured system for outreachtraining.

One-way analysis of variance procedures wereused to test the differences between UAPs withend without a position funded solely for outreachmining for continuous dependent variables. Chi-squi:re analyses were used for dependent variableswith categorical data. Some results were asexpected while others were not (See Table 22). Asexpected, the UAPs with a position funded solelyfor outreach training trained significantly morepersons in a year (about twice as many), andprovided substantially more hours of training thanthose who did not have such a position.Somewhat surprising was the finding that nosignificant differences were detected in the numberof people funded for outreach training, or thenumber of full-time equivalent positions funded'for outreach training. The differences in thepercent time the OTD is funded for outreachtraining activities were also not statisticallydifferent. Interestingly, however, even in UAPsthat funded a position for outreach training, morethat half of the OTDs were funded 50% time orless for outreach training. This suggests thatsomeone other than the OTD was the personfunded solely for outreach training. The finalfinding was that whether the outreach trainingactivities were self-supporting or not was notassociated with whether a position funded solelyfor training existed. These findings suggest thatthe number of hours of outreach training provided,and the number of people trained are related tothe presence of a position that is solely funded foroutreach training activities. However, it is notpossible to know whether funding a positioncaused UAPs to train more people, or whethertraining more people pushed UAPs to fundpositions solely to provide outreach training.

Table 22Characteristics of UAPs with and without a position

funded solely for outreach training

Characteristic Withposition(N = 19)

Withoutposition(N = 20)

F

No. of trainees (M) 10,833.8 5,936.3 6.83'(SD) 5,966.4 5,277.4

Hours of training (M) 1,997.4 888.1 8.69-(SD) 1,552.4 592.5

N people fundedfor outreach (M) 3.3 2.0 0.92training (SD) 3.9 4.6

FTE funded foroutreach (M) 2.0 .6 3.14trainin5 (SD) 3.3 1.3

Percent time OTDis fundedNo OTD 3 6 8.59'0%-25% 6 1126%-50% 4 351%-75% 1 076%400% 0

OT activities self- yes 5 7 0.34'supporting no 14 13

* p < .05, ** p < .01'Chi-square

Primary Training Audiences

Characteristics and Roles of thePrimary Training Audiences

Background Information

Since many different organizations andprofessionals provide services to each person witha disability, cooperation and coordination amongthem is essential (Kokaska & Brolin, 1985; Moon,1984; Mori, et al., 1982). Professionals mustdemonstrate the skills to work cooperatively with avariety of agencies and disciplines (Everson,Barcus, Moon & Morton, 1987; Renzaglia, 1986).Communication between home and school and/orcommunity service providers is also fundamentalto the successful delivery of services to personswith disabilities (Haring, 1982; Mori, et al., 1982;Wchman, Kregel & Barcus, 1985). Aninterdisciplinary philosophy must be maintainedthroughout training content and strategiesprovided and coordinated by UAP OutreachTraining Directors. This survey examined theseissues by examining the variation in types ofpeople in the training audicnce.

Results and Discussion

17

The questions in this section identified theprimary target audiences for training, examined theinvolvement of types of people in various aspectsof training, and reviewed the involvement ofseveral types of agencies in various aspects oftraining. The questions examine the extent towhich people who have vested interests in trainingparticipate in the training process used by UAPs.

Primary tamet audiences. Unlike pre-servicetraining which is focused primarily on a singlewell-defined group (i.e., students), outreachtraining activities have many potential targetaudiences depending on the focus and expertise ofa particular UAP. An important issue for UAPs iswhether to focus on persons with college degreeswho are in professional, administrative, or policymaking positions, or whether to target directservice staff members from a variety of settings.The UAPs responding to this survey all includedprofessionals as a primary or secondary trainingaudience (See Table 23). Paraprofessionals weretargeted often as well (they were a primary targetaudience for 80% of the UAPs), but not as oftenas professionals. The other common targetaudience was parents and family members ofpersons with developmental disabilities. Abouthalf of thc UAPs targeted administrators or policymakers as a primary audience. Only a few UAPsspecifically targeted members of the general publicfor outreach training efforts.

Table 23Primary training audiences for outreach training efforts

Agency/Group PriorityPrimary Secondary Not

Professionals 94.9% 5.1% 0.0%Direct care workers 79.5% 12.8% 7.7%Parents and

family members 74.4% 23.1% 2.6%Administrators 59.0% 35.9% 5.1%Students 43.6% 46.2% 10.3%Policy makers 41.0% 56.4% 2.6%Persons with DD 23.1% 64.1% 12.8%Local UAP personnel 20.5% 61.5'N 17.9%General public 12.8% 66.7% 20.5%AAUAP personnel 0.0% 33.3% 66.7%

Two other characteristics of the targetaudiences were identified, the settings they comefrom and the age groups they typically serve. Themost common settings represented amongrecipients of outreach training activities were

work/day activity settings (71.8%), home/residentialsettings (66.7%), and schools (59.0%) (See Table24). While all age groups were represented, staffworking with school and transition age persons(ages 6 to 21) were somewhat more common (SeeTable 25). Fewer training recipients servedpersons who were elderly. In fact, 59% of theUAPs surveyed never provided training to personsserving elderly persons with developmentaldisabilities. Considering that the average lifeexpectancy for persons with down syndrome, oneof the most common causes of developmentaldisabilities, has increased from 18.3 years in 1963to 55 years in 1993 (Adlin, 1993), it is clear thatthe need to train community agency staff to meetthe needs of older persons are increasing. UAPsthat wish to be responsive to these changingdemographics will need to devote increasedresources to the training needs of those staffmembers.

Table 24Environments from which

training participants are usually drawn

Settingtype

Soff working with ages Total0-21 22+ all

Work/day activity 20.5% 12.8% 385% 71.8%Home/residential 23.1% 7.7% 35.9% 66.7%School 56.4% 0.0% 2.6% 59.0%Medical/therapy 20.5% 5.1% 17.9% 43.6%Recreation 10.3% 12.8% 5.1% 28.2%

Table 25Ages served by outreach training participants

Age group % of UAPsPreschool 59.0%School Age 64.1%Transition Age 66.7%Adult 53.8%Elderly 41.0%

Participation by primary training audiences intraining activities. Outreach Training Directorsand other UAP staff members bear the primaryresponsibility for planning, conducting andevaluating outreach training activities. But thoseactivities do not occur in a vacuum. Manystakeholders have interests in these activities. Inthis survey, OTD's indicated which stakeholderswere usually or always involved in variouscomponents of the training process. One way thisinformation was analyzed was through participantindices. These indices were developed bycombining the ratings of how frequently a groupwas involved in each area of training (e.g., "usuallyor always" = 2, "sometimes" = 1, "never" = 0).The areas of involvement varied slightly across thegroups of people, but all groups included planningtraining, needs assessment, and conducting training(See Table 26). The scores for each type ofinvolvement were summed and the result wasdivided by the number of categories for that group.The resulting scores ranged from 0 to 2 with 2meaning the group was usually or always involvedin all aspects of training and 0 meaning the groupwas never involved in any of the areas of training.

Table 26Definition of participation indices

Area ofInvolvementPlanning trainingNeeds identificationAgency plans consideredConducting trainingHosting trainingDesigning evaluationsFunding training

Total * of Categories

Consumers Families

4 4

Students

XX

X

X

4

StateGvt

LocalGvt

DDCouncil

Providers

X X X XX X X XX X XX X X X

X

5 5 4 4

18

The participation scores for each group wereaveraged for all UAPs. The results are shown inTable 27. Persons from State governmentalagencies, DD councils, and provider agencies orschools were most likely to participate in thevarious components of training done by UAPs,while students and persons with developmentaldisabilities were least likely to be activeparticipants. The participation indices were also

Table 27Degree of participation in training

Group Mean SDStudents .82 .44Consumers .92 .45Local government 1.13 .47Families 1.14 .44Provider Agencies/schools 1.34 .43DD Council 1.39 .50State government 1.51 .36

examined to determine whether the level ofinvolvement by one group was related to levels ofinvolvement of other groups (See Table 28). Acorrelational analysis indicated an interestingpattern of relationships. University AffiliatedPrograms that were likely to include persons withdisabilities in various aspects of outreach trainingwere also likely to include students and familymembers. Involvement by local governmentalagencies was positively correlated with theinvolvement of consumers, families, students, andState governmental agencies. Involvement byproviders was positively related to involvement bythe DD councils and families. Except for localgovernment agencies, the involvement of Stateagencies was unrelated to that of other groups.Perhaps this has to do with the overall high level

of involvement by State agencies compared to thelevel of involvement by any other group. Thispattern of relationships suggest the level ofinclusiveness by UAPs in the outreach trainingprocess is an all or nothing affair for certaingroups. Either consumers, family members andstudents are all involved, or none of them areconsulted when training activities are planned andcarried out.

Involvement by consumers, families and directservice staff members. A recent issue of theresearch to practice publication, IMPACT, focusingon training for direct service staff memberspointed out the importance of including thoseimpacted by training in planning and conductingtraining (Wallace, Larson & Hewitt, 1992).Persons with developmental disabilities, theirparents and family members, and the staffmembers who work directly with them are amongthose who are heavily influenced by the qualityand comprehensiveness of training provided byUAPs. As Table 29 shows, however, theirparticipation in the activities of the OTD's werenot extensive. While parents were considered aprimary target audience for outreach trainingefforts in 74% of the UAPs, they usually or alwaysparticipated in needs assessment and planning inonly 40% to 50% of the UAPs. Consumers, whowere considered a primary target audience for 23%of the UAPs, and who are arguably the mostimportant persons for measuring the impact oftraining were typically involved in planning andneeds identification in only about a third of theUAPs. None of these groups were typicallyincluded in conducting or evaluating the trainingactivities of those UAPs (although many UAPsindicated that they sometimes participated in thoseactivities).

Table 28Correlations between participation indices

Area of Families StudentsInvolvementConsumers .69**FamiliesStudentsState governmentLocal governmentDD Council

.67**

.681*

p < .01, ** p < .001

StateGvt

LocalGvt

DDCouncil

Providers

.11 .52* .36 .37

.30 .49* .33 47*

.01 43* .28 .37.48* .30 -.01

.29 .25551*

19

Table 29Percent of UAPs usually or always involving consumers,

families and direct service staff in outreachtraining coordination activities

Area of ConsumersInvolvement

Families Directservice staff

Planning training 28.2% 41.0%Needs identification 34.2% 50.0%Conducting training 0.0% 10.5% 2.6%Designing evaluations 7.7% 15.4% 15.4%

Involvement by professionals, administratorsand students. Another set of stakeholders whoare influenced by UAP outreach training activitiesare current and future professionals andadministrators. As Table 23 noted, professionalswere almost always a primary audience foroutreach training activities. It is not surprising,then, that they were often involved in conductingtraining and designing evaluations of trainingefforts (See Table 30). However, whileadministrators and students were also typicaltraining recipients, they were much less likely tobe included in planning activities. The lack ofinvolvement by students, while not unexpected, issomewhat discouraging. Students receiving pre-service training from UAPs, especially those at thegraduate level, are often the future professionalsand administrators who will be called upon toprovide training to a variety of audiences aftergraduation. UAP personnel are among the mostprolific trainers in the field of developmentaldisabilities. A great opportunity to providecomprehensive training on how to provideoutreach training is missed when students are notregular active participants in all components ofUAP outreach training efforts. Likewise, the lackof involvement by administrators in conductingan4 evaluating training is also discouraging.Administrators are in a position to coordinate andfacilitate assessment of training impact (both onjob performance and on consumer outcomes) intheir agencies. Their involvement is essential for

Table 30Percent of UAPs usually or always involving

professionals, administrators, and students in outreachtraining coordination activities

Area of Involvement Profes-sionals

Admin-istrators Students

Planning training - 23.1%Needs identification - 13.2%Conducting training 89.5% 5.2% 0.0%Designing evaluations 69.2% 23.1% 7.7%

analyzing the implications of the evaluation resultsto guide future training efforts.

Agency involvement in various trainingactivities. Another set of stakeholders who haveextensive interests in the training provided byUAPs are the agencies who plan and fund servicesfor persons with developmental disabilities. Stateand local government agencies and State DDcouncils have a vested interest in the type andquality of training provided by UAPs. To theextent that these agencies work together with theUAP to plan and fund training, that training canbe geared to meet the goals and objectives of boththe UAP and of the administrative agencies fordevelopmental disabilities. In more than 50% ofthe UAPs surveyed, the plans of the administrativeagencies are usually or always considered whenplanning training (See Table 31). About 50% ofthe UAPs involve State agencies and DD councilsin most areas of planning for training. Localgovernmental agencies are usual participants inabout a third of the UAPs surveyed.

20

Table 31Involvement by State and local government agencies

and DO councils in outreach training activities: Percentof UAPs usually or always involving these groups

Area of State Local DDInvolvement Agencies Govt CouncilPlanning training 53.8% 35.9% 43.6%Agency plans considered

by UAP 61.5% 56.4% 53.8%Needs identification 55.3% 28.9% 50.5%Conducting training 42.1% 23.7% 7.9%Funding training 64.1% 20.5%

Agencies providing direct supports or servicesto persons with developmental disabilities andtheir families also have a vested interest in theavailability of applicable outreach training. Abouthalf of the UAPs recognized the interests ofprovider agencies and schools in outreach trainingactivities. About a third usually or always includedadvocacy organizations in those activities. Localbusinesses and providers of generic services wererarely included in outreach training activities.While those groups may not fit the historicalmodel of outreach training participants, theAmericans with Disabilities Act, and the revisionsof the Rehabilitation Act make training for thesegroups an increasingly important issue. UAPsshould carefully consider thc extent to which thcycan reach out to these groups in their outreachtraining.

Table 32Involvement by local provider agencies, advocacy

agencies, and businesses in outreach training: Percentof UAPs usually or always involving these groups

Area ofInvolvement

Planning trainingNeeds identificationConducting trainingIlosting training

activities

Provider Advocacy BusinessesAgencies/ Org.

Schools53.8% 38.5%50.0% 36.8%42.1% 31.6%

47.4%/23.7%

0.0%0.0%2.6%

Study Limitations

This survey represents an initial attempt todefine the roles that Outreach Training Directorsplay in University Affiliated Programs throughoutthe country. It provides extensive descriptiveinformation about those roles. However, severalcautions should be heeded in interpreting theimplications of this information. Foremost amongthese is a caution about the precise accuracy of theinformation. In agencies that are providingthousands of hours of training to tens ofthousands of persons every year, the likelihoodthat any one person will be completely aware of allof the outreach training activities is slim. Evenamong the UAPs with full-time staff dedicated tooutreach training activities, some of the questionson this survey may have been difficult to answerwith complete accuracy. Another caution is thatonly 78% of the 50 UAPs that were in existence atthe time completed the survey. Although this is atypical response rate for a survey, the impact ofmissing information from nearly a quarter of theUAPs is unknown. Furthermore, several newUAPs have begun since the time of this survey.The characteristics of those UAi's are notreflected here. Finally, in the 18 month: since thissurvey was completed, these UAPs haveundoubtedly changed in response to the ongoingchanges in the field of developmental disabilities,changes in Federal and State priorities, andchanges in personnel. Additional study will beneeded to clarify, refine, and increase thc precisionof information about current UAP outreachtraining efforts.

Recommendations

Based on the findings of this survey, severalstrategies may prove useful in the developmentand implementation of outreach training activities.

21

In response to these findings, UAPs shouldconsider the following actions:

1) Increase the involvement of persons withdevelopmental disabilities, their parents, anddirect service staff members in identifyingtraining needs and planning training activities.Persons with developmental disabilities andtheir family members can offer valuable insightinto the training needs of people who providesupports or services to them. Direct servicestaff members can provide insight into thetraining they feel they most need. Thisinformation can be combined with informationfrom other sources to determine strategies tobest meet their training needs.

2) Increase collaborative efforts with communityand technical colleges in all phases of trainingto increase access to training for persons whodo not have college degrees and to promotethe development or enhancement of careerladders. Identify the types of credit that theprimary training audiences need, and workwith the appropriate agencies to make thatcredit available to participants in UAPoutreach training efforts. These efforts arecritical in the 80% of UAPs who considerdirect service staff members a primary trainingaudience.

3) Increase the diversity of people who usuallyprovide outreach training. Persons withdevelopmental disabilities and their familiesshould play a more prominent role in thedelivery of outreach training. While mostUAPs surveyed sometimes included thesepeople in providing outreach training, thevalue of their perspective cannot beunderestimated. Likewise, the input thatpolicy makers can provide to trainingrecipients should not be ignored.

4) Increase attention to avoid duplication oftraining efforts. UAPs should pay closerattention to the availability of training fromother sources when developing trainingprograms. While almost all of the UAPssurveyed considered this factor in planningtraining, it was only a secondary considerationfor more than 40% of them. When resourcesfor training efforts are l