Traditional personal assistance programs often lack a significant consumer-direction focus that allows or encourages consumers to be in charge of their services. Independent evaluations of the Cash and Counseling Demonstration and Evaluation (CCDE) project are comparing costs of, quality of, and satisfaction with traditional personal care services versus consumer-directed cash benefit and information services. Because the disability community is composed of diverse subgroups, each group having with its own needs and concerns, the interests of each of these various populations should be assessed. This article presents the results of a telephone survey conducted in Florida as background research for the CCDE project to assess the interest in a cash option among families of children and adolescents with developmental disabilities. The findings indicate overall high levels of interest in the cash option, especially among individuals who were willing to pay a worker directly, persons who desired more involvement with services, and consumers dissatisfied with the current services. The authors of this article also include suggestions regarding how to communicate with families when informing them of such an option.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Agosta, J., & Melda, K. (1995, May). Supplemental Security Income for children with disabilities: An exploration of child and family needs and the relative merits of the cash benefit program. Salem, OR: Human Services Research Institute.
2.
Allard, M.A., Gottlieb, A., & Hart, D. (1993). Impact study of the Family Cash Assistance Project: Year three results. Waltham, MA: The Shriver Center.
3.
Ashbaugh, J.W., Bradley, V.J., & Blaney, B.C. (1994). Implications for future practice and systems design . In V. J. Bradley, J. W. Ashbaugh, & B. C. Blaney (Eds.), Creating individual supports for people with developmental disabilities: A mandate for change at many levels (pp. 491—508). Baltimore: Brookes.
4.
Barnes, C., & Sutherland, S. (1995, April 17). Context of care, provider characteristics, and quality of care in the IHSS program: Implications for provider standards (Interim Report to the California Department of Social Services). Sacramento: California State University, Sacramento Institute for Social Research.
5.
Benjamin, A.E., Matthias, R.E., & Frank, T. (1998, September). Comparing client-directed and agency models for providing disability-related supportive services at home (Report prepared for the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services). Los Angeles: University of California, School of Public Policy and Social Research.
6.
Bradley, V.J., Ashbaugh, J.W., & Blaney, B.C. (1994). Creating individual supports for people with developmental disabilities: A mandate for change at many levels. Baltimore : Brookes.
7.
Brown, R., & Foster, L. (2000). Cash and counseling: Early experiences in Arkansas (Issue Brief No. 1). Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research.
8.
Conroy, J., & Yuskauskas, A. (1996). Independent evaluation of the Monadnock Self-Determination Project. Ardmore, PA: The Center for OutcomeAnalysis.
9.
Doty, P. (1997). Internal briefing paper addressing possible fraud and abuse issues in the cash option. Unpublished manuscript, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, Washington, DC.
10.
Doty, P., Kasper, J., & Litvak, S. (1996). Consumer-directed models of personal care: Lessons from Medicaid. Milbank Memorial Fund, 74, 377—409.
11.
Foster, L., Brown, R., Phillips, B., Schore, J., & Carlson, B. (2002) Having their way in Arkansas: Does quality improve when consumers direct their personal care? Draft report submitted toCenter on Aging, University of Maryland. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research.
12.
Geron, S., & Chassler, D. (1994). Guidelines for case management practice across the long-term care continuum (Tech. rep.)Bristol: Connecticut Community Care.
13.
Heller, T., Factor, A.R., Hsieh, K., & Hahn, J.E. (1998). The impact of age and transitions out of nursing homes for adults with developmental disabilities. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 103, 236—248.
14.
Jackson, M.E. (1994). Rationing case management: Six case studies (Unpublished report prepared for theDepartment of Health and Human Services Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation).
15.
Kapp, M. (1996). Enhancing autonomy and choice in selecting and directing long-term care services. The ElderLaw Journal, 4(1), 55—97.
16.
Knoll, J., Covert, S., Osuch, R., O'Connor, S., & Blaney, B. (1990). Family support services in the United States: An end of decade status report. Cam-bridge, MA: Human Services Research Institute.
17.
Litvak, S., & Kennedy, J. (1990). New models for the provision of personnel assistance services. Appendix B: Chartbook of tables from FY 1988 Personal Assistance Program Survey Data (NIDRR Grant No. G008720134). Berkeley, CA: World Institute on Disability.
18.
Litvak, S., & Kennedy, J. (1991). Policy issues and questions affecting the Medicaid personal care services optional benefit (Contract No. HHS-100-89-0025). Berkeley, CA: World Institute on Disability.
19.
Litvak, S., Zukas, H., & Heumann, J.E. (1987). Attending to America: Personal assistance for independent living. A survey of attendant service programs in the United States for people of all ages with disabilities. Berkeley, CA : World Institute on Disability.
20.
Moseley, C. (1999). Making self-determination work. Durham, NH: University of New Hampshire, National Program Office on Self-Determination, Institute on Disability.
21.
Rimer, S. (1998, March 15). Blacks carry load of care of their elderly . The New York Times, p. 1.
22.
Sciegaj, M., & Kyriacou, C.K. (2000). Study examines racial and ethnic differences in preferences for consumer direction. Consumer Choice News, 4(4), 5.
23.
Simon-Rusinowitz, L., Bochniak, M.A., Mahoney, K.J., & Hecht, D. (2000a). Implementation issues for consumer directed programs: Views from policy experts. In Annual review of ethics, law, and aging (pp. 107—129). New York: Springer .
24.
Simon-Rusinowitz, L., Bochniak, M.A., Mahoney, K.J., & Hecht, D. (2000b). The status of a common agenda between the aging and disability communities: Where has it been, where is it going? Views from policy experts. In Annual review of ethics, law, and aging (pp. 85—106). New York: Springer .
25.
Simon-Rusinowitz, L., Mahoney, K.J., Shoop, D.M., Desmond, S.M., Squillace, M.R., & Sowers, J.A. (2001). Consumer and surrogate preferences for a cash option versus traditional services: Florida adults with developmental disabilities . Mental Retardation, 39, 87—103.
26.
Tennestedt, S., & Chang, B.-H. (1998). The relative contribution of ethnicity versus socioeconomic status in explaining differences in disability and receipt of informal care. Journal ofGerontology: Social Sciences, 53B, S61—S70.
27.
Wallace, S.P., Levy-Storms, L., Kington, R.S., & Andersen, R.M. (1998). The persistence of race and ethnicity. Journal of Gerontology: Social Sciences, 53B, S104—S112.
28.
Yuan, S., Baker-McCue, T., & Witkin, K. (1996). Coalitions for family support and the creation of two flexible funding programs. In G. H. S. Singer, L. E. Powers, & A. L. Olson (Eds.), Redefining family support: Innovations in public-private partnerships (pp. 357—385). Baltimore: Brookes.
