Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Children and Youth Services Review 33 (2011) 810–819
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Children and Youth Services Review
j ourna l homepage: www.e lsev ie r.com/ locate /ch i ldyouth
Person centered planning in a transition program for Bronx youth with disabilities
Erin E. Croke a,1, Ashleigh B. Thompson b,⁎a Office of Undergraduate Studies, City University of New York, 535 E. 80th St., 6th Floor, New York, NY 10075, USAb JFK, Jr. Institute, City University of New York, 101 W. 31st St., 14th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA
⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 646 344 7316; fax:E-mail addresses: [email protected] (E.E. Cr
[email protected] (A.B. Thompson).1 Tel.: +1 212 794 5773; fax: +1 212 794 5706.
0190-7409/$ – see front matter © 2010 Elsevier Ltd. Aldoi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2010.11.025
a b s t r a c t
a r t i c l e i n f oArticle history:Received 17 September 2010Received in revised form 24 November 2010Accepted 28 November 2010Available online 4 December 2010
Keywords:TransitionYouthDisabilityPerson-centered planningSelf-determinationGoal setting
The City University of New York conducted its Youth Transition Demonstration Project from 2003 to 2010.This federally-funded research and demonstration project was designed to help transition-age youth withdisabilities receiving Supplemental Security Income (SSI) achieve maximum self-sufficiency. More than 400youth living in the high-poverty county of Bronx, NY were enrolled in a treatment group and offered a seriesof interventions, including Person-Centered Planning (PCP). Quantitative and qualitative research methodsshow that this process was linked to improved educational and employment outcomes for youth. Sixty-fivepercent of youth enrolled in the project participated in at least one PCP session. Youth from lower-incomefamilies were less likely to participate in PCP, as were youth with mood disorders. Youth who did participatein PCP were more likely to hold at least one paid job. Youth focused on relationships, personal strengths andgoals during these sessions, which proved an important part of their transition process. Recommendations foreducators, service-providers and policy-makers are included for professionals seeking to implementcollaborative transition services for youth and their families.
+1 646 344 7319.oke),
2 See Table A.1 foryouth.
l rights reserved.
© 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
In 1990, Congress amended the Individuals with DisabilitiesEducation Act (IDEA) to require school districts to provide transitionplanning for students with disabilities. Statistics make clear the needfor transition planning that better prepares students with disabilitiesfor life after high school. In New York, educational attainment andemployment rates are much lower for individuals with disabilities.Approximately 60% of individuals with disabilities in New Yorkhave a high school diploma or less, compared to 38% of individualswithout disabilities (Schrader, Erickson, Vilhuber, & Golden, 2009).The employment rate for individuals with disabilities in New York isjust 33%, compared to 72% for people without disabilities (Schraderet al., 2009). Although transition planning is legally mandated,Silverman (2007) examined 264 Individualized Education Plans(IEPs) for transition-age (15–21 years old) students with disabilitiesin New York City and found that 26% of all school IEPs did not includetransition planning. Just 31% of all transition plans included studentinput, and just 70% of all transition plans included input from parents.Less than 4% of the IEPs indicated that outside agencies would beinvolved in the transition process.
The person-centered planning (PCP) component of The CityUniversity of New York's (CUNY) Youth Transition Demonstration
Project (YTDP) was intended to better prepare students withdisabilities for employment or further education. PCP was developedin the 1980s as an alternative to a deficit-oriented and bureaucraticmodel of service delivery for individuals with disabilities. A facilitatedprocess in which an individual with a disability and his or her circle ofsupport are engaged in planning for the future, PCP aims to “listenclosely to the hearts of people with disabilities and to imagine withthem a better world inwhich they can be valuedmembers, contribute,and belong” (Holburn, Gordon, & Vietze, 2007). In early writing on theprocess, Mount (1992) describes the underlying philosophy of PCP asemphasizing youths' unique strengths and abilities, not theirdisability. Often facilitated through disability-services agencies, PCPallows for a vision of the future that is optimistic, in which the youthwill be engaged and integrated in the community. A central tenet ofPCP is one of collaboration and parity among decision makers. Theyouth and his or her family should be empowered, and have controland ownership of the process. Further, PCP is based on a notion thatthe service delivery systemmust meet the unique needs of the youth.Bureaucratic structures are challenged and inter-agency collaborationis assumed necessary to help youth achieve their goals.
A commitment to the principles of PCP was prevalent throughoutall components of YTDP conducted from 2003 to 2010 and funded bythe Social Security Administration. The project emphasized self-determination for more than 400 transition-age Bronx youth withdisabilities,2 working in partnership with parents and youth, and
more specific age and demographic characteristics of participant
3 The descriptive statistics that appear in this report were generated from Efforts-to-Outcomes (ETO), the project's web-based management information system, or fromother administrative records.
811E.E. Croke, A.B. Thompson / Children and Youth Services Review 33 (2011) 810–819
collaborating with a multitude of agencies to creatively help youthreach their individual goals.
The following paper will provide an overview of YTDP, including ahistory of the program and description of key interventions. Theimplementation of PCP and quantitative and qualitative findingsrelated to PCP will be discussed in detail. Challenges related to theimplementation of PCP will be considered, and recommendations forservice providers considering implementation of PCPwill be provided.While Mathematica Policy Research is leading a national impact studyof the six YTDP sites around the country, the analysis described hererepresents a local evaluation effort designed by CUNY for the CUNYsite alone.
1.1. Project overview
CUNY YTDP began in September 2003 through a CooperativeAgreement with the Social Security Administration (12-Y-30007-2-01). The purpose of the project was to help transition-age youth withdisabilities receiving Supplemental Security Income (SSI) achievemaximum self-sufficiency. For the first two years of the project, CUNYran two pilot cohorts with 84 youth. The “Pioneer” cohort started inMay 2004, and the “Pilot” cohort started in May 2005. During thesepilot years, interventions were fine-tuned. Between 2006 and 2010,YTDP served three cohorts, including 403 youth, through the nationalevaluation effort. The program aimed to incorporate best practices fortransition services, several of whichwere identified byMueller (2002)in a report issued by New York Lawyers for the Public Interest:
• Early intervention in the transition process starting at age 16;• Activities that promote student self-determination and self-advocacy;
• Activities that support informed activism by parents; and• Professional development for school and agency personnel.
CUNY YTDP developed an intricate interventionmodel and staffingstructure amidst great socioeconomic challenges and a uniquecultural context. The Bronx is one of the most disadvantaged urbanareas in the country, raising a host of challenges for transition-ageyouth. High unemployment, low income and education levels, andlinguistic diversity characterize this third-most-densely-populatedcounty in the nation (U.S. Census Bureau, 2007) in which 53% ofhomes speak a language other than English and 87% representminority groups (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010). In addition to the barriersto successful transition imposed by fractured bureaucracies andservice systems, YTDP families in the Bronx faced incarceration, gangviolence and economic instability. CUNY YTDP staff tackled needsbeyond those of transition services.
CUNY was well-positioned to empower families and youth in thisdifficult environment. The nation's largest urban university, CUNY iscomprised of 23 colleges which educate more than half a millionstudents in credit and non-credit programs across the five boroughs ofNew York City. CUNY's student population mirrors the diversity ofthe city: CUNY draws students from 205 countries of ancestry, 47%of undergraduates have a native language other than English, and 37%of first-time freshmen are born outside of the United States (CUNY,2009). Founded in 1847, CUNY has historically educated first-generation college students.
Located within the University's Central Office of Academic Affairs,the John F. Kennedy, Jr. Institute (the Institute) administered theproject. The Institute has much expertise in the disability field and, asa result, was selected by the University to administer the YTDPproject. The work of the Institute began in 1989, and includesscholarship programs for frontline workers in the disability field aswell as the development and support of academic programs inDisability Studies. The Institute was able to draw on a rich array ofexisting programs and services throughout CUNY, as well as externalresources. The project also benefited from the facilities and other
resources offered by the two CUNY campuses hosting project services,Lehman (a four-year college) and Hostos (a community college).
1.1.1. “Pioneer” cohortThe first cohort of pilot youth was recruited in 2004 from three
Bronx high schools in District 75, a self-contained special educationdistrict within the New York City Department of Education (DOE).Students and parents were invited to a spring orientation session heldat their school site, informed about the program and encouraged toenroll. While all youth were diagnosed with significant developmen-tal disabilities, not all received SSA benefits. The Pioneers wereengaged in a Summer Institute in 2004, sessions about SSA benefitscounseling, and PCP, for which CUNY engaged nationally-known PCPexpert Dr. Beth Mount. Youth also participated in self-determinationtrainings, crafted through the guidance of Dr. Michael Wehmeyer andfacilitated by Lehman College student peer mentors.
1.1.2. “Pilot” cohortIn the second year of the pilot phase, CUNY implemented a random
assignment process and successfully recruited an additional cohort oftreatment-group youth from a list of Bronx SSA beneficiaries. Thiscohort participated in additional activities like “Freshen Up”, arecreation program at Lehman College on Saturday mornings, andthe Summer Youth Employment Program (SYEP), a city-wideprogram funded by NYC Department of Youth and CommunityDevelopment (DYCD).
1.1.3. National evaluation cohortsThe Youth Transition Demonstration (YTD) national evaluation led
by Mathematica Policy Research began in October 2005. Six sites fromaround the country participated in the random assignment study thatexamined various models of serving youth with disabilities betweenthe ages of 14–25, including five modified SSI rules (SSA YTDWaivers), which may lead to improved education and employmentoutcomes:
1) Student Earned Income Exclusion (SEIE)2) General Earned Income Exclusion (GEIE)3) Plan to Achieve Self-Support (PASS)4) Individual Development Accounts (IDA)5) Continuing Disability Reviews and Age 18 Redeterminations
The evaluation includes analyses of administrative and surveydata, as well as a process analysis. The CUNY site was selected inspring 2006 to participate in the national YTD evaluation.
CUNY served three cohorts, including 403 youth, through thenational evaluation. These cohorts of youth (named the “Vanguards”,“Navigators”, and “Voyagers”) are the focus of this study and thesource of all subsequent data included here. The Vanguards begantheir participation in CUNY YTDP in October 2006 and completed theirparticipation in May 2008. The Navigators participated in CUNY YTDPfrom October 2007 to May 2009, and the Voyagers participated fromOctober 2008 to May 2010.
A total of 235 youth participated at the Lehman College site and168 at Hostos Community College.3 Of these, 72 were Vanguards, 155were Navigators and 176 were Voyagers. Eight participants weredismissed from the project, for reasons such as moving out of theBronx or incarceration.
Twenty-three percent of all participants were Black and 73% wereHispanic. Sixty-nine percent of participants weremale. Seventy-sevenpercent were ages 16 or 17 at the time of enrollment, while 8% wereage 15% and 15% were age 18. See Table A.1 for detailed informationabout participant demographics.
812 E.E. Croke, A.B. Thompson / Children and Youth Services Review 33 (2011) 810–819
While staffing structure varied throughout the project, the Instituteemployed a Project Director, two Parent Advocates, two CareerDevelopment Specialists and two Benefits Advisors to work in theBronx and implement the CUNY YTDP effort at Lehman and Hostos.Part-timeBronx staff numberedmore than 70 at different times duringthe project. Two central office administrators worked from theInstitute's main office in Manhattan.
Strong partnerships enabled CUNY YTDP to serve a large numberof youthwith disabilities. The project worked continually with publicand private partners, many of whom were represented on an Ad-visory Committee which met periodically. Community ResourceMapping activities during summer 2008 provided another formalopportunity for local partners to contribute to YTDP and its futuredirection.
By marshalling available resources, CUNY was able to provide avariety of supports to transition-age youth. At least 20 youth haveenrolled in college, mainly at CUNY campuses. More than half (225youth) participated in paid employment. In each of its key interven-tions, participating youth showed progress toward the program goalof increased self-sufficiency.
1.2. Intervention overview
Three sequential cohorts of youth received the 20-month inter-vention. The following flow chart depicts how enrolled youth movedthrough the various phases of the intervention model:
To facilitate participation in each phase of the intervention,families received supports such as free food and childcare atworkshops, and free MetroCards for the New York City bus andsubway system. The majority of service implementation took place onSaturdays. Types of services and their intensity varied, depending onthe needs of CUNY YTDP families, who participated based on theirown needs, availability and interest.
The five key interventions built upon one another and relateddirectly to the project's goals of fostering maximum independenceand economic self-sufficiency through improved educational andemployment outcomes. CUNY YTDP's major interventions includedthe following items.
1.2.1. Saturday college program for youth and their parentsAfter enrolling in the program, youth and their families began
attending Saturday morning workshops at one of the two on-campusproject sites. The sessions included a mix of recreation activities suchas sports or drama, as well as self-determination and pre-vocationalcurricula. These workshops were held for two 10-week semesters oneach Saturday (October through December and March through May).
Parents participated in concurrent, bilingual workshops with thepurpose of developing advocacy skills and learning about communityresources.
1.2.2. Benefits counselingIndividuals with disabilities that receive SSA benefits are often
concerned that engaging in work activity will result in a loss of ben-efits. Benefits Advisors bilingual in English and Spanish providedguidance on public benefit programs to youth enrolled in the projectand their parents. Main efforts focused on providing counselingabout unique SSA waivers available to project participants. Oneexample of these special waivers was the removal of an age limit forSSA's Student Earned Income Exclusion (SEIE). Benefits planningservices were offered both as part of the Saturday workshop cur-riculum and as stand-alone, individualized services. The purpose ofthe SSA waivers and benefits counseling efforts was to ensure thatyouth and their families understood the impact of work on theirbenefits, and were not afraid to begin on the path to employment.Over the course of the project, most participants that engaged in workactivity did not experience a reduction in benefits due to the SSAwaivers and relatively low levels of total earnings.
1.2.3. Person-centered planningPCP entails the promotion of self-advocacy on the part of the youth
and their parents by identifying educational, career and quality of lifegoals. This approach is built around the person's own vision of whatquality of life means for them. As described by Michaels and Ferrara(2005), “Person-Centered planning is an ideal vehicle for promotingcollaboration and problem solving to ensure that transition plans arecreated that are meaningful and student-centered” ( p. 287). PCP aspracticed by CUNY YTDP built upon a participant's skills and abilities,while also focusing the conversation on what the youth would like toachieve in the future.
Twice during the intervention model YTDP participants and theirfamilies had the opportunity to participate in individual person-centered planning sessions. Person-centered plans visually displayeda comprehensive view of the person, using charts that detailed wherethe person was and where he or she hoped to be in the future. Nextsteps were clearly detailed to show how individuals could move fromtheir present situation toward their goals. CUNY YTDP facilitatorsincluded many factors in the person-centered plans, including keyrelationships, home life, work and school activities, communityinvolvement, building competence and improving health.
1.2.4. Summer and after-school jobsCUNY YTDP prepared youth for a summer work experience and
assessed their longer-term career interests and goals. After complet-ing the spring Saturday workshops, youth had the opportunity toparticipate in a paid summer work experience through DYCD's SYEP.In partnering with existing SYEP vendors, YTDP enrolled youth in theprogram and created job placements for YTDP participants at LehmanCollege and Hostos Community College in departments such as theOffice of the President, Library, campus catering, Adult and ContinuingEducation and Facilities. CUNY YTDP also provided intensive jobcoaching and other vocational support services. Between 2007 and2009, these efforts resulted in more than $270,000 in total earningsfor project participants. Approximately 200 youth (50%) from theVanguard, Navigator, and Voyager cohorts participated in SYEP,earning on average more than $900 over the course of the summer.Approximately 70 youth (17%) held other types of paid jobs duringthe project.
1.2.5. Referrals and follow-upDuring the follow-up phase, youth were eligible to receive 10
additional months of more individualized services, including but notlimited to: career development support, after-school jobs, academic
813E.E. Croke, A.B. Thompson / Children and Youth Services Review 33 (2011) 810–819
supports, continuing education courses, benefits counseling, andreferrals to appropriate services. The focus during this phase was onempowering youth to apply the self-determination and advocacyskills they had developed through the previous interventions. Almost80% of all participants received at least one referral.
2. Implementation of person-centered planning
Anne Gordon and Dr. Peter Vietze, experts in PCP from the NewYork State Institute of Basic Research in Developmental Disabilities,assisted CUNY YTDP in developing its intervention and trainingstaff. Their 2007 book Person-Centered Planning Made Easy wasdistributed to project staff and used as a text for training. Dr. BethMount, a nationally-known expert on PCP, spoke to families about theintervention several months before they participated in PCP. Full andpart-time staff met for several half-days of training. Teams wereformed, and staff was prepared to conduct PCP sessions in English orSpanish, depending on the needs of the family.
CUNY YTDP's person-centered plans visually displayed a compre-hensive view of the person. See Appendix B.2 for an example of thecharts and summary sheets used during PCP. Follow-up PCP sessionswere conducted after the summer job experience. Staff encouragedyouth to consider shifts in personal goals in light of their paid workexperience.
For project evaluation purposes, an emphasis was placed oncollecting and recording data about each PCP session. Staff alsoneeded a vehicle for information about students' work goals as theydeveloped SYEP job placements. Fields were created to capture per-tinent information within ETO. Staff recorded basic details aboutthe session, including who attended, where the session took place,whether a language translator or sign interpreter was present, andhow long the session lasted. As discussed during the session, in-formation about the youth's relationships, interests, abilities, edu-cational and employment experiences, and goals was also recorded.Using the database resulted in standardization of the PCP process, asall facilitators were expected to gather similar types of information.Recording details of the session in the database also allowed staff toprint and share a summary of the session with families and otherservice providers. For Spanish-speaking families, summaries weretranslated into Spanish and shared.
Based on ETO data, typically at least one family member attendedthe PCP with the youth. In some cases youth had two or three familymembers in attendance. Approximately two staff also attended thesession, including a facilitator and recorder. On average, the sessionlasted approximately 90 min, and youth specified approximatelyfour goals. Examples of educational goals identified by youth in-clude graduating from high school, improving their reading skills,finding a tutor, passing an exam, or enrolling in college. Examples ofpersonal goals identified by youth include purchasing a cell phone,finding a girl friend, attending church, finding an apartment, orobtaining a driver's license. Youth also identified employment goalssuch as obtaining a summer job, finding a job coach, or starting abusiness.
Throughout the course of the program, the PCP intervention wasimplemented as originally planned and intended. Project staff con-sidered and piloted the use of laptops during PCP sessions to recorddata. However, staff believed that it was important to continue usingcharts taped to the wall to visually represent what was discussed.There was a concern that using laptops would create a more formaland less collaborative environment. Although the model was im-plemented consistently from year-to-year, there was variationbetween the winter and summer sessions of PCP. The summer sessionof PCP was conducted as a follow-up session, providing an op-portunity for staff to check-in with youth and their families to see ifanything had changed and to help youth consider the progress theywere making toward their goals.
3. Materials and methods
The authors of this report administered CUNY YTDP, and utilizedprogram administrative records as well as their own experience tobegin assessment of the implementation of PCP. Quantitative datawere gathered from ETO, a web-based database used as the primarymanagement information system. The database contained detaileddemographic and participation data for all participants. Full and part-time staff recorded data on a daily basis, tracking participation in eachcomponent of the intervention model, interactions with youth andfamilies, job placements, education placements, detailed informationabout each PCP session, and referrals. ETO data were analyzed forthe 403 participants that enrolled in the YTDP program between 2006and 2008. Data from ETO allowed for the analysis of participation inPCP for various demographic groups.
Qualitative data were also collected. During the summer of 2009five PCP sessions were observed. Four of these sessions were con-ducted in English and one was conducted in Spanish. Detailed fieldnotes were taken for each of the observed sessions. All sessions wereaudio recorded and the four sessions in English were transcribed.Following two of the PCP sessions semi-structured interviews wereconducted separately with the youth participant, the family memberwho attended the session, and the staff member who facilitatedthe session. These interviews were also audio-recorded and tran-scribed. Questions for youth and parents focused on perceptions of thePCP experience andwhether the PCP session had helped them plan forthe future. Staff was asked to consider the role of PCP within theoverall intervention model, and how PCP had affected themprofessionally and personally.
4. Results
4.1. Quantitative Analysis of person-centered planning
Approximately 63% of all youth (n=254) participated in thewinter session of PCP, while 31% (n=125) participated in thesummer PCP session (Table A.3). PCP participation was comparableor higher than participation rates for other components of theintervention model. For instance, 63% of youth and 56% of parentsattended at least 6 Saturday workshops (approximately 30% of allworkshop sessions). Forty-one percent of youth and 36% of parentsattended at least 12 workshops (approximately 60% of all workshopsessions).
In total, 65% of participants participated in PCP during the winteror summer session, while 29% participated in both PCP sessions(Table A.4). Using a chi-square analysis, rates of PCP participationwere significantly different by age, cohort, and household income.Youth who were age 18 at the time of program enrollment were lesslikely to participate in PCP compared to younger participants.Members of the Navigator cohort were less likely to participate inboth PCP sessions compared to the Vanguard and Voyager cohorts.Youth from families with household income under $25,000 were alsoless likely to participate in the intervention compared to youth frommore economically advantaged households. Rates of participation inPCP were similar across various disability categories. However, youthwithmood disorders were not as likely to participate in PCP comparedto other youth.
Youth who participated in PCP were more likely to hold at leastone paid job compared to youth who did not participate in PCP(Table A.5). A total of 56% of all participants (n=227) held at least onepaid job during the course of the project. Of those that participatedin the winter session of PCP, 76% held at least one paid job. Just 23%of youth that did not participate in PCP held a paid job that is recordedin ETO.
814 E.E. Croke, A.B. Thompson / Children and Youth Services Review 33 (2011) 810–819
4.2. Qualitative analysis of person-centered planning
Drawing on the observed PCP sessions and interview data4 thefollowing themes emerged.
4.2.1. Relationship buildingPCP fosters relationship building and improved communication
among staff, youth, and their family members. According to one staffperson, meeting individually with youth allows staff to develop “asnapshot of their lives.” The session allows the youth to fully exploreand communicate about key aspects of their life, including theirinterests, abilities, relationships, education and employment activi-ties, and goals for the future. According to one staff member, PCPallows staff and parents to gain, “knowledge and information thatusually teenagers don't want to share.”
Parents of youth with disabilities report that PCP provides anopportunity to learn more about their child. Kevin, an 18-year oldstudent, indicated that he was interested in auto repair, somethingthat was a surprise to his mother. During the follow-up PCP session,Kevin's mother reported that the project had resulted in improvedcommunication between them. “We sit and we talk now. Yes, we do.Before he didn't want to hear it… Now we actually talk like twoadults.”
Based on observations and interview data, the evaluation teamfound that at its core, PCPwas a respectful activity, allowing youth andtheir family members to express themselves. By engaging families inPCP, we helped to ensure that they felt respected and understood.Kevin's mother indicated her appreciation for the project. She said, “…they take time to listen. You don't get that. You do not get thateverywhere.”
We believe that including PCP as one of the first components of theintervention model was helpful. These personalized sessions alloweda collaborative relationship to form between staff, youth, and theirfamilies. Staff may build on the information gained and therelationship fostered during the PCP session to provide better services.For example, Career Development Specialists were able to moreeffectively place youth in summer work experiences based on theirunderstanding of the youth's personality and interests. Project staffshared the PCP with school counselors so that school staff could usethe information to facilitate better transition planning.
4.2.2. Focusing on strengthsA goal of the PCP process is to focus on youths' strengths and
abilities. Staff took time to point out strengths of the youth they haveobserved, and encourage youth and their parents to consider theyouth's abilities. In observed PCP sessions, some youth were shy aboutdiscussing their abilities. With some probing, they realized all thethings they were good at doing. For instance, youth described beingable to cook breakfast, take care of animals, draw, or care for youngersiblings. This component of the PCP was intended to help youth thinkabout their abilities in the context of possible activities they couldpursue in the future, or abilities they may want to develop more fullyin the future.
Observations revealed that focusing on youth strengths alsocreates a supportive, confidence-building environment. For instance,Kevin's PCP facilitator raved about his summer work experience. Shesaid, “I'm going to just congratulate you…on an incredible, incredi-ble… You have done everything you're supposed to do. You've beenabsolutely magnificent. You were where you're supposed to be. Yourevaluations are incredible.” In response, Kevin's mother said, “I'mproud of him. I am very proud of him. I mean, getting up, coming hereand not even complaining, you know… So this program really workedout. It really did.” For both youth and parents, it is crucial to operate
4 See Appendix B.1. for interview protocol.
from a strengths-based perspective so they move forward positivelytoward their goals.
4.2.3. Goal settingStaff indicated that PCP allows for an opportunity to provide
direction for youth and to help them “put their priorities in order.” Forinstance, youth may indicate that they would like to attend collegebut have not yet made plans to take the SAT or apply for tuitionfunding through the state vocational rehabilitation provider. Otheryouth may express a desire to work, but must first learn to travelindependently. The PCP allows youth to develop a plan that will allowthem to pursue their goals.
Parents view PCP as a strategy that may help their child becomemore independent. The grandmother of 16-year-old Shayla stressedthe importance of independence, “because I'm not going to be herealways.” She went on to say, “…ain't nothing like being independent,'cause I'm telling you, you cannot depend on others.” Prior toparticipating in PCP, many youth have never articulated their goalsor discussed goals for their future with parents. Shayla's grand-mother indicated that Shayla had never before talked about hergoals at home.
The concept of “goals”may be difficult or frightening. For instance,while interviewing Shayla, the interviewer noticed that she did notmention specific goals during the PCP. When asked, “Do you havegoals for your future?” she surprised the interviewer by saying thatno, she does not have goals. She provided a long explanation abouthow she likes to go with the flow, and does not want to be stressed bystudying all the time, with no time for herself. It seemed that Shayladid not want to get swept-up in something that overwhelmed her.She had made the decision not to specify goals, and staff surmisedthis might stem from a desire to preserve her childhood or avertfailure.
A hesitancy to articulate goals also emerged from the interviewwith Kevin. He indicated that he did not like talking about his goalsbecause, “I don't know what I should go for. Some people try forthings their whole lives and never make it.” The concept of goals foryouth with disabilities may be especially challenging because theymay lack self-confidence, or feel that they have not been successfulwithin the education system. Kevin was not really sure college wasthe right path for him, but felt pressure because it seemed to himthat everyone else was pursuing college as the next step. Since acentral component of PCP is goal setting, project staff needs to beaware of conflicting emotions youth may have about planning fortheir future.
For youth who are uncertain of their long-term goals, it may bebest to focus on short-term objectives. This strategy keeps thingsconcrete and from becoming too overwhelming. Staff may need to bequite directive. For instance, Kevin indicated that he would like toattend college, but seemed hesitant and unsure. The staff facilitatorsuggested that Kevin meet with his high school guidance counselorto determine whether he was on track to graduate. She also sug-gested that Kevin schedule an appointment with her to speak in moredetail about educational options. Kevin and his mother agreed onthese next steps.
5. Discussion and recommendations
5.1. Discussion of challenges of person-centered planning
Coordinating PCP for hundreds of youth required intensive staffeffort. In order to achieve adequate participation rates staff workedto schedule PCP at convenient times. Families received reminderphone calls, and those who missed their session were given theopportunity to reschedule. Recording details of each PCP session inETO required substantial amounts of staff time. Approximately 30%of project families spoke Spanish at home and required bilingual staff
815E.E. Croke, A.B. Thompson / Children and Youth Services Review 33 (2011) 810–819
to facilitate the PCP session. All PCP information was entered intoETO by staff in English, and Spanish-speaking families received aSpanish translation of the PCP which required additional time toproduce.
The project had difficulty engaging all student groups equally inPCP. Youth who were older and from families with lower householdincomes were less likely to participate in PCP. It is possible that olderyouth were less willing to engage in the program, or had alreadydeveloped plans for the future. Although the project offered freemetro cards for the New York City transportation system and food atmost project activities, families that faced particularly difficultfinancial circumstances were still less likely to attend.
Project scale-up also presented challenges that impacted PCPparticipation rates. O'Brien, O'Brien, and Mount (1997) cautionedagainst what may happen when PCP is scaled-up in such a way thatthe original intent of the process is lost. “Mindful work involvesovercoming a sense of drudgery and dread at the numbers of unfinishedplans and being alert to organize concerted action in situations wherereal change can happen” (O'Brien et al., 1997). Certainly, YTDP staff feltpressure to complete as many plans as possible in a short period oftime. The development of a web-based data entry form to capturedetails from each PCP further contributed to standardization of theprocess, and possibly resulted in some loss of personalization.
The effect of project scale-up on PCP is evident in the lowerparticipation rates for the second cohort, the Navigators (seeTable A.4). Project staff believes that a lack of capacity contributedto lower participation rates. For example, the first cohort of youth hada total of 72 youth, while enrollment more than doubled for theNavigator cohort. Project staff had to work simultaneously onenrollment of the third and largest cohort and also on completingfollow-up PCP sessions for the Navigators. As a result, just 13% ofNavigators participated in both PCP sessions, compared to 32% ofVanguards and 41% of Voyagers.
Evaluators observed that some PCP sessions were facilitated moreeffectively than others. Some staff facilitated the session in a morescripted way, guided more by the data entry form than by responsesof the youth. The most adept facilitators effectively probed for moreinformation, clarification, and offered suggestions and insights.Effective facilitators focused their attention on the youth, makinggood eye contact with the youth throughout the session. Staffindicated that in some instances it was difficult to find the rightbalance between involving the parent, while also maintaining focuson the youth. Some parents were dominating during the session, orinfluenced the way the youth responded. It was also important to beencouraging and positive, and to present information in a non-threatening way. One staff member indicated that she had grownprofessionally while learning to facilitate PCPs. She felt that her publicspeaking skills had improved, and that she had learned to pick up oncues and share insights.
Staff experienced stress as they encountered families that dealtwith significant challenges. One staff person described PCP by saying,“I have to say that at times it has given me great pleasure because ofthese success stories, and at times it breaks my heart because I knowthat there are true limitations, barriers that will never be brokendown.” Many serious issues arose during PCP sessions. Families dealtwith domestic violence, poverty, housing issues, drug and alcoholaddiction, and gang violence.
Providing ongoing support for youth and their families to achievethe goals articulated during PCP was a significant challenge. PCP was afirst step, allowing staff to get to know the youth and their family anddevelop an understanding of the youth's needs and desires. However,there wasmuchmorework that needed to be accomplished. Theweb-based database was a crucial tool used to track next steps andachievements for youth.
Following the winter session of PCP, the project engaged youth inservices for approximately 15 more months. During this time, staff
continued to work with the youth to develop self-determinationand pre-employment skills during the spring Saturday workshops,support the youth in a paid summer employment experience, andassist the youth in accessing other community services and improvededucational opportunities. At the follow-up PCP session staff oftensaw that the youth had made great strides. One staff commented, “Inthis short time, you figure six months, the changes and the advancesand the awakening that happens is amazing.” However, some youthdid not participate in the follow-up PCP session because they wereunable or unwilling to participate, and there was not sufficient timeto track progress for every youth toward each of their goals. Staffindicated that a third PCP session would be helpful to ensure thatyouth continued on track, because “we never have closure.”
Although intensive supports were available over a 20-monthperiod, ongoing support may have resulted in better outcomes foryouth. Project staff hope that by participating in PCP, many familieswere able to gain valuable experience planning for the future.
5.2. Recommendations
• CUNY YTDP believes that transition planning for youth withdisabilities should begin earlier than age 17 or 18. PCP participationrates were lower for older youth, suggesting that youngerindividuals may be more receptive to the intervention (Table A.4).Conducting PCP earlier provides youth and their families with moretime to plan for the future, and to ensure they are on track with highschool course taking, college preparations, and vocational trainingpathways.
• It is important to adequately prepare youth and their families forPCP. For example, project staff should explain the underlyingphilosophy of PCP, emphasizing that the purpose is to help youthplan for their future. Families and youth should feel empowered toparticipate as equal partners, and youth should be encouragedto speak about what they want for their future. CUNY YTDP invitedDr. Beth Mount, a nationally-known expert on PCP, to speak aboutPCP with families before the intervention began. Families werealso given templates of letters to invite the relatives and friendswho comprise the youth's circle of support to his/her PCP session.Parents and youth needed to be able to explain the process andprepare for this new experience, which differed from school IEPsessions where youth were often not questioned or included.
• Initial and ongoing training and support for staff facilitators iscrucial. In addition to learning to appropriately facilitate PCPsessions, project administrators should be aware of the personaltoll PCP may have on staff.
• It is recommended that the PCP intervention be included as one ofthe first components of the intervention model. PCP aids in thedevelopment of a more collaborative relationship between staff,youth and their families. Staff may build on the information gainedand the relationship fostered during PCP to provide better services.
• PCP works best when the abilities and gifts of each youth areemphasized. Operating from a strengths-based perspective allowsyouth and their families to move forward positively toward theirgoals.
• For youth who are unsure of their long-term goals, it may be best tofocus on short-term objectives. For example, youth may beencouraged to schedule a meeting with their high school guidancecounselor to explore their options, or to ensure they are on trackto graduate.
• Ongoing evaluation of PCP is likely to result in improved outcomes.It may be helpful to develop a project database that will allowadministrators to track participation in PCP for different studentgroups, sites or cohorts. Staff should be encouraged to reflect aboutthe quality of the intervention and consider strategies for improve-ment. Families should be encouraged to provide feedback.
816 E.E. Croke, A.B. Thompson / Children and Youth Services Review 33 (2011) 810–819
• Careful consideration must be given to the PCP follow-up process.We believe that participating in PCP is empowering for youth andtheir families, but ongoing collaboration with youth and theirfamilies is crucial. Youth participation in more than one PCP sessionmeans that staff attention is directed anew to a list of action itemspreviously outlined. This, or a family's revisiting of an original PCP,helps ensure that stakeholders continue to make progress toward ayouth's life goals.
• In order to help youth reach their unique goals, interagencycollaboration is essential. Projects administering PCP should brokerpartnerships with other service providers in the community, andestablish referral processes for connecting youth with supplementalservices that will help them reach their goals. Sharing the PCP withthe youth's school guidance counselor or transition coordinator mayalso be helpful.
6. Conclusion
Person-centered planning played a central role in CUNY's YouthTransition Demonstration Project, requiring intensive staff effort.The opportunity for youth to exercise self-determination proved apowerful expression for both them and their parents, and was aphilosophy around which the entire project revolved. Many YTDPfamilies had not experienced this constructive, engaged approach tothinking about the young person's future. The individualized focusof PCP allowed staff to effectively collaborate with each youth andfamily to help them reach their own unique goals. While questionsremain around standardization of this intervention and conductingit at scale, staff worked hard to balance limited capacity withproviding the full experience of PCP to more than 250 youth withdisabilities.
Acknowledgments
This publication wasmade possible by a grant from Social Security.The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of theauthors and do not represent the official views of Social Security.
Appendix A
Table A.1CUNY youth transition demonstration project, participant overview.Source: CUNY Youth Transition Demonstration Project, ETO database.
Total
N
%Total
403 100 Race/ethnicityBlack, non-Hispanic
91 23 Hispanic 296 73 Other, non-Hispanic 16 4Gender
Female 124 31 Male 279 69Disability
ADD/ADHD 46 11 Autistic disorders 20 5 Learning disorders 52 13 Mental retardation 88 22 Mood disorders 15 4 Speech and language delays 43 11 Other 139 34Cohort
Vanguards (2006–08) 72 18 Navigators (2007–09) 155 38 Voyagers (2008–10) 176 44Site
Hostos Community College 168 42 Lehman College 235 58(continued)Table A.1 (continued)
Total
N
%Age at enrollment
15 31 8 16 121 30 17 189 47 18 62 15Household income
Less than $10,000 153 38 $10,000–$25,000 165 41 $25,000–$50,000 45 11 $50,000–$75,000 4 1 Don't know 36 9Head of household graduate high school
Yes 174 43 No 204 51 Don't know 25 6Language spoken at home
English 267 66 Spanish 125 31 Other 11 3Table A.2Summary of person centered planning intervention.Source: CUNY Youth Transition Demonstration Project, ETO database.
Average length of PCP session (in minutes)
90 Number of family members attending PCP session1
16% 2 55% 3 24% 4 6%Total number attending PCP session, including participant, staff, and family
2 7% 3 17% 4 32% 5 25% 6 14% More than 6 5%Number of goals identified
1 1% 2 10% 3 32% 4 24% 5 19% 6 or more 14%Table A.3Participation rates, by intervention.Source: CUNY Youth Transition Demonstration Project, ETO database.
%
Attended winter PCP
63 Attended summer PCP 31 Attended both PCP sessions 29 Held at least 1 paid job 56 Youth attended at least 6 workshop sessions 63 Youth attended at least 12 workshop sessions 41 Parent attended at least 6 workshop sessions 56 Parent attended at least 12 workshop sessions 36
Table A.4Participation in PCP, by demographic characteristics.Source: CUNY Youth Transition Demonstration Project, ETO database.
N Attended bothwinter andsummer PCP
Attended eitherwinter orsummer PCP
Did notattendPCP
P value
Total 403 29% 36% 35%Race/ethnicity
Black, non-Hispanic 91 32% 40% 29% 0.649Hispanic 296 28% 35% 37%Other, non-Hispanic 16 25% 44% 31%
GenderFemale 124 31% 33% 36% 0.634Male 279 28% 38% 34%
DisabilityADD/ADHD 46 28% 35% 37% 0.332Autistic disorders 20 35% 30% 35%Learning disorders 52 31% 35% 35%Mental retardation 88 34% 36% 30%Mood disorders 15 13% 27% 60%Speech/Language delays 43 22% 43% 35%Other 139 39% 26% 35%
CohortVanguards (2006–08) 72 32% 35% 33% b0.0001Navigators (2007–09) 155 13% 45% 42%Voyagers (2008–10) 176 41% 30% 29%
SiteHostosCommunityCollege 168 31% 38% 32% 0.497Lehman College 235 27% 36% 37%
Age at enrollment15 31 42% 29% 29% 0.00716 121 36% 33% 31%17 189 27% 40% 33%18 62 13% 35% 52%
Household incomeLess than $10,000 153 25% 37% 39% 0.025$10,000–$25,000 165 33% 36% 30%$25,000–$50,000 45 36% 44% 20%$50,000–$75,000 4 0% 75% 25%Don't know 36 19% 22% 58%
Head of household graduate high schoola
Yes 174 30% 36% 34% 0.555No 204 27% 36% 37%
Language spoken at homeb
English 267 31% 35% 34% 0.271Spanish 125 22% 39% 38%
Note: PCP was first offered to program participants during the winter, following the fallSaturday workshop program. A follow-up PCP session was offered approximately6 months later during the summer. Most participants that attended only one PCPsession attended the winter session.
a “Don't know” category not included.b “Other” category not included.
Table A.5Relationship between PCP participation and paid work experience.Source: CUNY Youth Transition Demonstration Project, ETO database.
Total Held at least1 paid job
Did not hold atleast 1 paid job
N N % N %
Full sample 403 227 56 176 44
Participated in PCP (winter session)Yes 254 193 76 61 24No 149 34 23 115 77
Chi-square: pb0.0001
817E.E. Croke, A.B. Thompson / Children and Youth Services Review 33 (2011) 810–819
Appendix B.1. PCP Interview Protocol
Questions for youth
1. Did you like this meeting? Did you like talking about yourself andyour goals?
2. How do you think this meeting can help you?3. How did it make you feel to talk about all the friends you have,
and about all the things you're good at?4. Has talking to us today helped you have a better idea of what you
want to do after high school?5. Do you remember doing this for the first time in January, with
the charts on the wall?6. Do you like coming here? Why? Why not? What do you like
most?7. Do you feel like coming here has helped you? How?8. Can you tell me a story of something that happened here?
Questions for parent
1. Did you find this meeting helpful? How is it helpful?2. Did you like hearing about your child and his/her goals?3. Was there something you wanted to talk about that we didn't talk
about?4. Have you ever heard your child articulate his/her strengths,
friends, goals after high school, etc.?4. For you, what's the purpose of PCP?5. Did you learn anything new about your child?6. Do you have a better idea of the steps s/he needs to take to
achieve her/his goals? Do you think s/he can do it?7. Do you think you have the help you need to achieve your
goals?8. Have you seen your child change as a result of their participation
in this project?9. Do you like coming here? Why? Why not? What do you like
most? Least?10. Do you feel like coming here has helped you? How?11. Can you tell me a story of something that happened here?
Questions for staff
1. Do you think it's important to ask about the things we askabout, like social supports, interests/abilities, current status,plan/goals, etc.?
2. What is one thing we don't typically ask about that you think weshould ask about? Or, is there anything you typically insert as aquestion that isn't on the question list?
3. What is most challenging about facilitating the PCP?4. What do you think families gain by doing the PCP?5. What do you think families struggle with most during the
PCP?6. How has facilitating PCPs impacted you personally or
professionally?7. Do families receive the support they need to realize the goals
articulated in PCP?8. What are the differences between PCPs in the winter and
summer?9. How do you think the PCP process could be improved?
10. How/where do you think PCPs fit in with our other YTDinterventions?
11. Do you have a favorite PCP story?
818 E.E. Croke, A.B. Thompson / Children and Youth Services Review 33 (2011) 810–819
Appendix B.2. Example of PCP summary sheet and charts
819E.E. Croke, A.B. Thompson / Children and Youth Services Review 33 (2011) 810–819
References
The City University of New York (2009). About CUNY. Retrieved December 4, 2009,from. http://cuny.edu/about/index.html.
Holburn, S., Gordon, A., & Vietze, P. M. (2007). Person-centered planning made easy.Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co., Inc..
Michaels, C. A., & Ferrara, D. L. (2005). Promoting post-school success for all: The role ofcollaboration in person-centered transition planning. Journal of Educational andPsychological Consultation, 16(4), 287−313.
Mount, B. (1992). Person-centered planning: Finding directions for change using personalfutures planning. New York: Graphic Futures.
Mueller, R. (2002, September). Missed opportunities: The state of transition services foryouth with disabilities in New York City. Retrieved from. http://www.nylpi.org/images/FE/chain234siteType8/site203/client/DLC%20-%20NYLPI%20Transition%20Report.pdf.
O'Brien, C. L., O'Brien, J., & Mount, B. (1997). Person-centered planning has arrived… orhas it? Mental Retardation, 35, 480−484.
Schrader, S., Erickson, W., Vilhuber, L., & Golden, T. (2009). New York state disabilityand employment status report. Retrieved from. http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1282&context=edicollect.
Silverman, M. (2007, September). Transitioning to nowhere: An analysis of the planningand provision of transition services to students with disabilities in New York City.Retrieved from. http://www.advocatesforchildren.org/pubs/Transitioning_to_nowhere_final_report.pdf.
U.S. Census Bureau (2007). Table B-1. Counties−area and population. Retrieved from.http://www.census.gov/statab/ccdb/cc07_tabB1.pdf.
U.S. Census Bureau (2010). State and county quick facts: Bronx county, New York.Retrieved July 21, 2010 from. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/36/36005.html.
