A regional survey of rehabilitation cultural diversity within CILs: a ten-year follow-up

Journal of Rehabilitation, April-June, 2005 by Carl R. Flowers, W.S. Forbes, W. Crimando, T.F. Riggar

The Rehabilitation Cultural Diversity Initiative (RCDI), which emanated from Section 21 of the 1992 Rehabilitation Act, targeted all programs within public rehabilitation as a part of a five- year initiative. Section 21 identified issues and problems associated with the provision of services to minorities within the public rehabilitation system. It was noted that "patterns of inequitable treatment of minorities have been documented in all major junctures of the vocational rehabilitation process. Minorities are provided less training than their white counterparts. Consistently, less money is spent on minorities than their white counterparts" (Section 21 (a)(3), Rehabilitation Act Amendments, 1992). Further, Section 704(1) specifically required centers funded under Title VII of the Act to "set forth steps to be taken regarding outreach to populations that are unserved or underserved ... including minority groups, urban and rural populations" (p.101). The intent of the RCDI, as observed by Middleton, Flowers and Zawaiza (1996), was for rehabilitation leaders and organizations "to assume greater responsibility" (p 11).

As Patterson, Allen, Parnell, Crawford and Beardall (2000) reported, "the body of literature contributing to and resulting from Section 21 is extensive" (p.14). Smart and Smart (1997), for example, examined the link between the disproportionately higher disability rates of racial/ethnic minorities. Wilson, Harley and Alston (2001) studied the statistically significant difference in VR acceptance rates between races, while Hasnain, Sotnik and Ghiloni (2003) examined the underutilization of available vocational rehabilitation services by ethnic and cultural diverse individuals with disabilities "as compared to their Caucasian mainstream counterparts" (p. 10). In other professional venues, the theme of cultural diversity as related to equitable rehabilitation facility hiring patterns (Hafer & Riggar, 1981), as part of testing and employment (Riggar, Maki, & Flowers, 1991), and as a management strategy for implementing organizational pluralism (Riggar, Eckert, & Crimando, 1993) has a long history. This study, then, had a two-fold purpose: first, to determine how the RCDI has emerged on the part of public rehabilitation, over a decade of effort; and second, to assess the current level of cultural diversity within CILs. This article includes a comparison of the results of two surveys which described diversity within independent living centers in a federal Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA) region. The surveys were conducted in 1993 and 2003, about 10 years apart, and the results are compared herein.

Independent Living Center Survey

In RSA Region V (Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio and Wisconsin), 53 centers of independent living (CILs) were in operation when the RCDI project was initiated in 1993. Those 53 Region V CILs represent one of the largest groups of centers within any of the 10 RSA Regions. By 2003, the number of CILs within the region totaled had grown to 56, with all centers being contacted to request their participation in a survey of demographics of administration and management personnel. Additionally, the survey requested information on boards of directors and consumer demographics, as well as the disability types among persons receiving services. Also included in the survey were statements designed to assess (a) whether the center's management perceived their staff demographics to be reflective of the communities in which they were located, and (b) whether centers had assessed or implemented strategic plans related to increasing cultural diversity among staff, boards of directors and consumers served. Representatives from the region's Independent Living Council (ILC), comprised of the chairpersons of state independent living center consortium, were originally consulted on key areas and wording of statements in the survey (Flowers et al., 1996). In 2003, the National Centers of Independent Living directory revealed that 56 CILS were in operation in RSA Region V. These 56 centers comprised the sample for the replication study.

The return rate was calculated by first eliminating from the sample the ten 'Unknown' returns/bad addresses which had been obtained from the Directory, leaving a total of 46 in the sample. Of these 46, 11 returned the "Opt Out" cover letter, which university research committee requirements now mandate as a means for potential survey participants to return the cover letter, but not the survey. Following university research requirements, those centers deciding to 'opt out' are thus removed from future survey follow-up mailings lists. Of the total of 46 known and identified from the national registry, and available and willing to participate in this study, a total of 21 useable surveys were returned, representing an effective response rate of 45.6%. This compares in 2003 with the 1993 study in which 32 of 53 centers (60%) of the centers returned the survey instrument in two mailings over a period of three months. Surveys were completed by Executive Directors or their designees.