Individuals assessed as having an intellectual disability often spend a significant amount of time in day treatment/day habilitation programs after they graduate from school. The quality of these programs varies widely and is not federally legislated. The purpose of the current study is both to explore factors that lead to higher satisfaction for participants in these programs and to better understand what participants want in a program. Using a grounded theory approach, researchers interviewed 25 participants, staff, and family members in focus group settings to collect qualitative data. Interviews focused on what worked and what could be improved at a program located in Western New York. Using the constant comparative method, themes emerged from the data that pointed to the importance of dignity and choice in a day program to facilitate empowerment, higher levels of satisfaction and self-confidence.
Al-HamdanZManojlovichMTanimaB (2017) Jordanian nursing work environments, intent to stay, and job satisfaction. Journal of Nursing Scholarship49(1): 103–110.
2.
BallardJKCalhounML (1991) Special olympics: opportunities to learn. Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities35: 78–89.
3.
BigbyC (1997) Later life for adults with intellectual disability: a time of opportunity and vulnerability. Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability22 (2): 97–109.
4.
BrowderDMMinarovicT (2000) Utilizing sight words in self-instruction training for employees with moderate mental retardation in competitive jobs. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities35: 78–89.
ChouY-CWehmeyerMLPalmerSB, et al. (2017) Comparisons of self-determination among students with autism, intellectual disability, and learning disabilities: a multivariate analysis. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities32(2): 124–132.
7.
CookALWilczenskiFLVanderbergL (2017) Inclusive concurrent enrollment: a promising postsecondary transition practice for building self-determination among students with intellectual disability. Journal of the American Academy of Special Education Professionals1: 25–44.
8.
CookeCLongJ (1999) Primary and secondary barriers to physically active healthy lifestyles for adults with learning disabilities. Disability and Rehabilitation21: 409–419.
CurryerBStancliffeRJDewA (2015) Self-determination: adults with intellectual disability and their family. Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability40(4): 394–399.
12.
DattaPTalukdarJ. (2017). The impact of support services on students’ test anxiety and/or their ability to submit assignments: a focus on vision impairment and intellectual disability. International Journal of Inclusive Education21(2): 160–171.
13.
EmersonEKiernanCAlborzA, et al. (2000a) The prevalence of challenging behaviors: a total population study. Research in Developmental Disabilities22(1): 77–93.
14.
EmersonERobertsonJGregoryN, et al. (2000b) Quality and costs of community-based residential supports, village communities, and residential campuses in the United Kingdom. American Journal on Mental Retardation105(2): 81–102.
15.
FarrellP (1995) The impact of normalisation on policy and provision for people with learning difficulties. Issues in Special Education & Rehabilitation10(1): 47–54.
16.
FriedmanC (2016) Day habilitation services for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities in Medicaid home and community-based services waivers. Research & Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities41(4): 244–255.
17.
GarroteA (2017) The relationship between social participation and social skills of pupils with an intellectual disability: a study in inclusive classrooms. Frontline Learning Research5(1): 1–15.
18.
GlaserB (1978) Theoretical Sensitivity. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
19.
HallACFreezeSButterworthJ, et al. (2011) Employment funding for intellectual/developmental disability systems. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation34(1): 1–15.
20.
HawkinsB (1999). Rights, place of residence, and retirement: Lessons from case studies on aging. In: HerrSWeberG (eds) Ageing, Rights and Quality of Life: Prospects for Older People With Developmental Disabilities. Baltimore, MD: Brookes, pp. 93–108.
21.
HendricksonJMTherrienWJWeedenDD, et al. (2015) Engagement among students with intellectual disabilities and first year students: a comparison. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice52(2): 204–219.
22.
KaufmanNL (2006a) Assessing gifted children with the Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children—Second Edition (KABC-II). Gifted Education International21: 99–126.
KleinertHLKearnsJF (1999) A validation study of the performance indicators and learner outcomes of Kentucky’s alternate assessment for students with significant disabilities. Journal of the Association for Persons With Severe Handicap24: 100–110.
25.
KumarASinghRRThressiakuttyAT (2015) Normalization vs. social role valorization: similar or different?International Journal of Special Education30(3): 71–78.
26.
LuckassonRSpitalnikD (1994) Political and programmatic shifts of the 1992 AAMR definition of mental retardation. In: BradleyVJAshbaughJWBlaneyBC (eds) Creating Individual Supports for People With Developmental Disabilities: A Mandate for Change at Many Levels. Baltimore, MD: Brookes, pp. 81–95.
27.
MahoneyWRobertsI (2009) A comparison of two approaches for identifying reinforcers for persons with severe and profound disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis25: 491–498.
28.
MarizCCarterMStephensonJ (2017) Do screen presentations via interactive whiteboards increase engagement in whole-group lessons for students with autism spectrum disorder? A pilot study. Journal of Special Education Technology32(3): 160–172.
29.
McDermottSEdwardsR (2012) Enabling self-determination for older workers with intellectual disabilities in supported employment in Australia. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities25(5): 423–432.
30.
Neely-BarnesSMarcenkoMWeberL (2008) Does choice influence quality of life for people with mild intellectual disabilities?Intellectual & Developmental Disabilities46(1): 12–26.
31.
NirjeB (1994) The normalization principle and its human management implications. The International Social Role Valorization Journal1(2): 19–23.
32.
Overmars-MarxTPeppingBThoméseF (2018) Living apart (or) together—neighbours’ views and experiences on their relationships with neighbours with and without intellectual disabilities. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities31(6): 1008–1020.
33.
ParsonsMB (2004) A review of procedural acceptability in organizational behavior management. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management18(2–3): 173–190.
34.
ParsonsMBReidDH (1993) Evaluating and improving residential treatment during group leisure situations: a program replication and refinement. Research in Developmental Disabilities14: 67–85.
35.
ParsonsMBRollysonJHReidDH (2004) Improving day-treatment services for adults with severe disabilities: a norm-reference application of outcome management. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis37(3): 365–377.
36.
PersheyMGGilbertTW (2002) Christine: a case study of literacy acquisition by an adult with developmental disabilities. Mental Retardation40(3): 219–234.
37.
Petner-ArreyJCopelandSR (2015) ‘You have to care.’ perceptions of promoting autonomy in support settings for adults with intellectual disability. British Journal of Learning Disabilities43(1): 38–48.
38.
RaceDBoxallKCarsonI (2005) Towards a dialogue for practice: reconciling social role valorization and the social model of disability. Disability & Society20(5): 507–521.
39.
ReidDHParsonsMB (1999) Training basic teaching skills to para-educators of students with severe disabilities: a one-day program. Teaching Exceptional Children31: 48–54.
40.
ReidDHParsonsMBGreenCW (2001a) Evaluating the functional utility of congregate day treatment activities for adults with severe disabilities. American Journal on Mental Retardation106(5): 460–469.
41.
ReidDHParsonsMBGreenCW (2001b) Identifying work preferences among individuals with severe multiple disabilities prior to beginning supported work. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis3: 281–285.
42.
SaarinenMHolmLUusitalo-MalmivaaraL (2018) Changes in the social networks of three women with an intellectual disability: a qualitative follow-up study. Journal of Education and Learning7(3): 76–86.
43.
ShogrenKABradleyVJGomezSC, et al. (2009) Public policy and the enhancement of desired outcomes for persons with intellectual disability. Intellectual & Developmental Disabilities47(4): 307–319.
44.
ShogrenKABroussardR (2011) Exploring the perceptions of self-determination of individuals with intellectual disability. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities49(2): 86–102.
45.
StrnadováIJohnsonKWalmsleyJ (2018) “…but if you’re afraid of things, how are you meant to belong?” What belonging means to people with intellectual disabilities?Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities31(6): 1091–1102.
46.
TrentJ (2016) Inventing the Feeble Mind: A History of Intellectual Disability in the United States. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
47.
VlaskampCHiemstraSJWiersmaLA, et al. (2007) Extent, duration, and content of day services’ activities for persons with profound intellectual and multiple disabilities. Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities4(2): 152–159.
48.
WehmeyerMLBoldingN (1999) Self-determination across living and working environments: a matched-samples study of adults with mental retardation. Mental Retardation37: 353–363.
49.
WolfensbergerW (2011) Social role valorization: a proposed new term for the principle of normalization. Intellectual & Developmental Disabilities49(6): 435–440.
50.
WongPKSWongDFK (2008) Enhancing staff attitudes, knowledge and skills in supporting the self-determination of adults with intellectual disability in residential settings in Hong Kong: a pretest–posttest comparison group design. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research52(3): 230–243.
