A confluence of research and current events in the United States has brought guardianship for people with disabilities into focus in recent years. In the process, the field of special education has been confronted with an unpleasant reality. In their action or inaction, special education professionals may play a role in parents of students with disabilities pursuing undue and overbroad guardianship. The purpose of this study was to work with researchers and practitioners supporting alternatives to guardianship to gather their foremost recommendations for the field of special education on addressing the use of undue guardianship. To this end, the researchers conducted a three-round Delphi study with these established professionals to solicit, rate, and revise their ratings of related recommendations toward achieving consensus. The 30 top recommendations they offered have been collected here and discussed in terms of their relevance for policy, practice, and research in the field.
AgranM.StoreyK.KruppM. (2010). Choosing and choice making are not the same: Asking “what do you want for lunch?” is not self-determination. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 33(2), 77–88.
2.
BlanckP.MartinisJ. G. (2015). “The right to make choices”: The national resource center for supported decision-making. Inclusion, 3(1), 24–33.
3.
BrownI.BrownR. I. (2009). Choice as an aspect of quality of life for people with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities, 6(1), 11–18.
4.
CraneS. A. (2015). Is guardianship reform enough-next steps in policy reforms to promote self-determination among people with disabilities. Journal of International Aging Law & Policy, 8, 177–210.
5.
CookB. G.OdomS. L. (2013). Evidence-based practices and implementation science in special education. Exceptional Children, 79(2), 135–144.
6.
DinersteinR. (2012). Implementing legal capacity under Article 12 of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: The difficult road from guardianship to supported decision-making. Human Rights Brief, 19(2), 8–12.
7.
GraneheimU. H.LindgrenB. M.LundmanB. (2017). Methodological challenges in qualitative content analysis: A discussion paper. Nurse Education Today, 56, 29–34.
8.
HagiwaraM.ShogrenK. A.LaneK. L.RaleyS. K.SmithS. A. (2020). Development of the self-determined learning model of instruction coaching model. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 55(1), 17–27.
9.
HassonF.KeeneyS. (2011). Enhancing rigour in the Delphi technique research. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 78(9), 1695–1704.
10.
HatchM. J.CraneS. A.MartinisJ. G. (2015). Unjustified isolation is discrimination: The Olmstead case against overbroad and undue organizational and public guardianship. Inclusion, 3(2), 65–74.
11.
JamesonJ. M.RiesenT.PolychronisS.TraderB.MiznerS.MartinisJ.HoyleD. (2015). Guardianship and the potential of supported decision making with individuals with disabilities. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 40(1), 36–51.
12.
KanterA. (2015). Guardianship for young adults with disabilities as a violation of the purpose of the individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act. Journal of International Aging Law & Policy, 8, 1–68.
13.
KochT. (1994). Establishing rigour in qualitative research: The decision trail. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 19(5), 976–986.
14.
KohnN. A.BlumenthalJ. A.CampbellA. T. (2012). Supported decision-making: A viable alternative to guardianship. Penn State Law Review, 117(4), 1111–1157.
15.
LandetaJ. (2006). Current validity of the Delphi method in social sciences. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 73(5), 467–482.
LindseyP.GuyB.WehmeyerM. L.MartinJ. (2001). Age of majority and mental retardation: A position statement of the Division on Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 36, 3–15.
18.
MacLeodK. (2017). “I should have big dreams”: A qualitative case study on alternatives to guardianship. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 52(2), 194–207.
19.
MartinisJ.HarrisJ.FoxD.BlanckP. (2023). State guardianship laws and supported decision-making in the United States after Ross and Ross v. Hatch: Analysis and implications for research, policy, education, and advocacy. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 34, 8–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/10442073211028586
20.
MartinisJ. G.BlanckP. (2019) Supported Decision-Making: From Justice for Jenny to Justice for All. Printed by authors.
21.
MillarD. S. (2003). Age of majority, transfer of rights and guardianship: Considerations for families and educators. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 38(4), 378–397.
22.
MillarD. S. (2009). Comparison of transition-related IEP content for young adults with disabilities who do or do not have a legal guardian. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 151–167.
23.
MillarD. S. (2007). “I never put it together”: The disconnect between self-determination and guardianship-implications for practice. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 42, 119–129.
24.
MillarD. S. (2014). Extending transition to address guardianship alternatives: An issue concerning students who have intellectual disability. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 49(3), 449–463.
25.
National Council on Disability (Ed.). (2018). Beyond guardianship: Toward alternatives that promote greater self-determination. U.S. Government Printing Office.
26.
PerlinM. L. (2012). Striking for the guardians and protectors of the mind: The convention on the rights of persons with mental disabilities and the future of guardianship law. Penn State Law Review, 117(4), 1159–1190.
27.
PlotnerAWaltersC. (2022). Perceptions of district- and school-level special education leaders on guardianship and adult decision-making support. Journal of Disability Policy Studies. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/10442073211006395
28.
RaleyS. K.ShogrenK. A.MartinisJ. G.WehmeyerM. L. (2023). Age of majority and alternatives to guardianship: A necessary amendment to the individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 34, 17–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/1044207320932581
29.
RoodC. E.KanterA.CaustonJ. (2014). Presumption of incompetence: The systematic assignment of guardianship within the transition process. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 39(4), 319–328.
30.
SalzmanL. (2010). Rethinking guardianship (again): Substituted decision making as a violation of the integration mandated of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. University of Colorado Law Review, 81, 157.
31.
ShogrenK. A.PlotnerA. J. (2012). Transition planning for students with intellectual disability, autism, or other disabilities: Data from the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 50(1), 16–30.
32.
ShogrenK. A.RaleyS. K.RifenbarkG. G.LaneK. L.BojanekE. K.KarpurA.QuirkC. (2021). The self-determined learning model of instruction: Promoting implementation fidelity. Inclusion, 9(1), 46–62.
33.
ShogrenK. A.WehmeyerM. L. (2015). A framework for research and intervention design in supported decision-making. Inclusion, 3(1), 17–23.
34.
ShogrenK. A.WehmeyerM. L.MartinisJ.BlanckP. (2018). Supported decision-making: Theory, research, and practice to enhance self-determination and quality of life. Cambridge University Press.
35.
ShogrenK. A.WehmeyerM. L.UyanikH.HeidrichM. (2017). Development of the supported decision making inventory system. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 55(6), 432–439.
36.
TrevelyanE. G.RobinsonN. (2015). Delphi methodology in health research: How to do it?European Journal of Integrative Medicine, 7(4), 423–428.
37.
TrotterR. T.II. (2012). Qualitative research sample design and sample size: Resolving and unresolved issues and inferential imperatives. Preventive Medicine, 55(5), 398–400.
38.
von der GrachtH. A. (2012). Consensus measurement in Delphi studies: Review and implications for future quality assurance. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 79(8), 1525–1536.
39.
WallaceS. J.WorrallL.RoseT.Le DorzeG. (2016). Core outcomes in aphasia treatment research: An e-Delphi consensus study of international aphasia researchers. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 25(4S), S729–S742.
40.
WaltersC.PlotnerA.AllisonM.MojicaA. (2022). An exploratory study of special education director experiences with issues related to age of majority, guardianship, and alternative options for adult decision-making support. Journal of Special Education Leadership, 35(1), 18–32.
41.
WaltersC.PlotnerA.OertleK. (2023). Perceptions of special education teachers on guardianship and alternative options for adult decision-making support. Journal of Rehabilitation, 88(3), 4–10.
42.
WehmeyerM. L.PalmerS. B.AgranM.MithaugD. E.MartinJ. E. (2000). Promoting causal agency: The self-determined learning model of instruction. Exceptional Children, 66(4), 439–453.
43.
WehmeyerM. L.ShogrenK. A.PalmerS. B.Williams-DiehmK. L.LittleT. D.BoultonA. (2012). The impact of the self-determined learning model of instruction on student self-determination. Exceptional Children, 78(2), 135–153.
