Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Service provider compliance with regional center service agreement: a gap analysis
(USC Thesis Other)
Service provider compliance with regional center service agreement: a gap analysis
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
Running Head: SERVICE PROVIDER COMPLIANCE 1
SERVICE PROVIDER COMPLIANCE WITH REGIONAL CENTER SERVICE
AGREEMENT: A GAP ANALYSIS
by
Taniko N. Woods
A Dissertation Proposal Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
August 2015
Copyright 2014 Taniko N. Woods
SERVICE PROVIDER COMPLIANCE 2
Acknowledgements
The completion of this dissertation would not have been possible without the support,
direction, and guidance of so many people, placed in my life at different times and for different
reasons. Although I am and will always be a proud Bruin, I had heard great things about USC’s
Rossier School of Education. After having a conversation with my husband Andy, he encouraged
me to apply. In fact, USC was the only school to which I submitted an application. When I
learned of my acceptance in 2012, I called Andy and cried tears of joy. He has always been
extremely supportive of everything I do. Pursuing a doctorate changed not only my life but also
our entire family. He assumed a larger role in almost every area of our lives in order to allow me
time to study, write, read, and research. I also want to acknowledge my son Cameron. I decided
to pursue my doctorate at the same time he entered middle school. The preteen and teenage years
are a challenge for any adolescent, and he was patient and understanding of the fact that
mommy’s academic obligations meant that his needs sometimes took a backseat to my studies. I
am deeply and eternally grateful for these two and their unyielding support and love is something
I’ll cherish forever. Thank you my loves! I dedicate this work to you.
I also want to thank April Parker, my USCEDDBFF. I met April during orientation for
the 2012 cohort and I had the pleasure of having April in every single course I took at USC.
April’s friendship throughout this process has been a blessing, and being able to go through this
process with her is an experience I’ll never forget. She started out as my cohort but I now
consider her a fellow doctor, mentor, and big sister.
I will be forever indebted to the faculty of USC, and in particular, Dr. Kimberly
Hirabayashi. Under her tutelage, I have been challenged to be the absolute best researcher and
writer I can possibly be. Dr. Hirabayashi pushed me to do my very best work, and I know I am
SERVICE PROVIDER COMPLIANCE 3
going into the world with a deeper sense of the impact I can have within the field of education
and beyond. I am leaving USC with the confidence that I can and will make a difference. She
never allowed me to settle for subpar work and I greatly appreciate her patience and feedback on
my work.
I also want to acknowledge Dr. Slayton, Dr. Rousseau, Dr. Kezar, Dr. Pascarella, Dr.
Tynes, Dr. Seli, and Dr. Tobey. The faculty at the Rossier School of Education exemplify USC’s
commitment to excellence and have all contributed to the completion of this dissertation project,
whether they realize it or not. Although this is without question the most intellectually rigorous
endeavor I have ever undertaken, I will cherish this experience for the rest of my life. I have
grown in so many ways during the past three years, and I thank the faculty in the Rossier School
for equipping me with the practical and theoretical tools to be an effective educational leader.
I also want to acknowledge the many family and friends who, during the past three years,
offered a word of encouragement and support. You have no idea how much those words meant
to me and helped me get through this process. I am forever indebted to all of you for believing in
me. As the first person in my family to earn a doctorate, you were confident in my abilities to
blaze this trail. I hope to utilize what I’ve learned at USC to make you all proud.
Finally, I want to acknowledge the many young adults in this world who live every single
day with the challenge of a developmental disability. This research is for you, and I hope that my
work sheds light on the importance of “getting it right.” Working with you during the process of
earning this degree inspired me to pursue this study. You are dynamic, you are worthy, and you
are capable of achieving your goals!
Fight on!
SERVICE PROVIDER COMPLIANCE 4
Table of Contents
List of Tables 6
List of Figures 7
Abstract 8
Chapter One: Statement of the Problem 9
Introduction of the Problem 9
Organizational Context and Mission 11
Organizational Performance Problem 14
Related Literature 15
Importance of the Problem 16
Organizational Goal 17
Stakeholders and Stakeholders’ Goals 17
Stakeholder for the Study and Stakeholder Performance Gap 18
Purpose of the Project and Questions 19
Methodological Framework 19
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature 20
Developmental Disabilities 20
Lifespan Issues for Individuals with Disabilities 22
Health Issues 22
Health Care Access 22
Academics 23
Employment 23
Supports and Interventions 24
California Department of Developmental Services 24
Transition Planning for Autism Spectrum Disorder 26
Educational Interventions 26
Employment Interventions 27
Other Supports and Interventions 27
Challenges in Providing Supports 28
Policy and Funding 30
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 30
Americans with Disabilities Act 31
Frank Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Services Act 31
DDS and the Regional Centers 31
Funding 33
Purchase of Service 34
Purchase of Service Accountability 34
Summary 36
Chapter Three: Methodology 37
Purpose of the Project and Questions 37
SERVICE PROVIDER COMPLIANCE 5
Framework for the Study 37
Assumed Causes of the Performance Gap 38
Scanning Interviews 39
Learning and Motivation Theory 40
Summary 43
Validation of the Causes of the Performance Gap 44
Knowledge 44
Motivation 46
Organization 49
Participants 52
Data Collection 52
Chapter Four: Results and Findings 56
Results and Findings for Knowledge Causes 57
Results and Findings for Motivation Causes 60
Results and Findings for Organizational Causes 63
Discussion and Interpretation of Significant Results and Findings 68
Summary 70
Chapter Five: Solutions, Implementation, and Evaluation 73
Recommended Solutions for Validated Causes 73
Implementation Plan 81
Evaluation Plan 83
Limitations 85
Future Research 86
Conclusions 87
References 88
Appendix A: Survey Items 99
Appendix B: Fact Sheet 103
SERVICE PROVIDER COMPLIANCE 6
List of Tables
Table 1: Summary of sources about assumed causes 43
Table 2: Summary of assumed knowledge causes and validation 46
Table 3: Summary of assumed motivation causes and validation 48
Table 4: Summary of assumed organizational causes and validation 51
Table 5: Assumed knowledge causes, knowledge items, results, and findings 59
Table 6: Assumed motivation causes, motivation items, results, and findings 62
Table 7: Assumed organization causes, organization items, results, and findings 65
SERVICE PROVIDER COMPLIANCE 7
List of Figures
Figure 1. Gap analysis process. 38
Figure 2. Implementation plan 82
Figure 3. Evaluation plan 84
SERVICE PROVIDER COMPLIANCE 8
Abstract
The purpose of this dissertation research study was to conduct a gap analysis to determine the
root causes of the organizational problem of regional center noncompliance at Viable
Options, an adult service provider that is vendored by its local regional center. Viable
Options is a year-round program that provides individualized social, academic, career, and
life skills instruction to young adults with learning disabilities. Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap
analysis methodology was implemented for this study and assumed causes for the
performance gap were generated based on personal knowledge and related literature. Causes
were validated by using surveys, document analysis, literature review, and content analysis.
The findings from this study indicate that regional center noncompliance at Viable Options is
the result of organizational, motivational, and knowledge causes. Four organizational causes
were validated, one motivation cause was validated, and a total of five knowledge and
motivation causes were somewhat validated. The validated causes indicate that several
organizational barriers contribute to the problem of regional center noncompliance. These
barriers include high employee turnover, a culture of lack of accountability within the
organization, a culture of disdain for regional centers within the organization, and staff
members overwhelmed by other tasks. In order to address these causes, research-based
solutions were recommended. Solutions are based on gap analysis methodology, Pintrich’s
(2003) motivation framework, and the information processing, social cognitive, cognitive
load, and self-regulation principles of learning. The study concludes with implementation
and evaluation plans.
SERVICE PROVIDER COMPLIANCE
9
CHAPTER ONE: STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
Introduction of the Problem
According to Larson et al. (2000), approximately five million Americans have a
developmental disability. Public funding is utilized to fund a considerable amount of the supports
and interventions received by individuals with disabilities and according to the Legislative
Analyst’s Office, special education is among the most significant areas of K–12 expenditures
(Legislative Analyst’s Office, 2013). As school-aged students with disabilities transition into
adulthood, there is a continued need for support services that will help prepare these young
adults for life after high school. These supports are most effective when they offer a wide range
of services and are individualized (Hendricks & Wehman, 2009).
For adolescents and young adults with developmental disabilities, support programs play
an even more critical role in both career development and increased potential for academic
success. Without these supports in place, these young adults will face limited internship and
employment opportunities, difficulties in a variety of social settings, and limited opportunities
for postsecondary academic success. These experiences can negatively impact the overall quality
of life for these young people.
In California, the Department of Developmental Services (DDS) is the agency through
which the State of California delivers support services and interventions for individuals with
developmental disabilities. DDS provides services via the Lanterman Developmental Disabilities
Services Act and the Early Intervention Services Act. Both acts safeguard management and
service provision for people with developmental disabilities in order to lead more independent
and productive lives (Department of Developmental Services Fact Book, 2008). One way in
SERVICE PROVIDER COMPLIANCE
10
which the DDS provides supports to individuals with disabilities is through regional centers.
Regional centers are publicly-funded, nonprofit private corporations. The role of regional centers
is to contract with the Department of Developmental Services to manage services and supports
for individuals with developmental disabilities (California Department of Developmental
Services, [DDS], 2003). There are regional center offices throughout the state of California, and
the local offices serve as resources to help individuals with disabilities and their families find and
access services. Regional centers provide individuals who have a developmental disability with
services within their own community and offer supports to allow children to live in their family
homes. Regional centers offer these supports by vendoring various service providers throughout
California.
Existing literature suggests that for students with developmental disabilities such as
autism spectrum disorder, times of transition are critical (VanBergeijk, Klin, & Volkmar, 2008).
The transition from high school to young adulthood presents challenges for these students, and
community-based direct service providers can provide supports to help ease this transition. Adult
service programs typically provide support in the areas of academics, careers, navigating and
integrating into the community, and independent living skills.
Direct service providers that are vendored through regional centers have an obligation to
ensure that they are compliant with regional center requirements in the delivery of services to
individuals with disabilities (State of California Department of Developmental Services, 2014).
When direct service providers are not in compliance with regional center expectations they risk
SERVICE PROVIDER COMPLIANCE
11
losing funding, which leads to individuals with disabilities not having access to critical support
services.
Organizational Context and Mission
Viable Options is a pseudonym that will be used to discuss the organization that is the
focus of this study. It is vendored by its local regional center and is a year-round program that
provides individualized social, academic, career, and life skills instruction to young adults with
learning differences. The mission of Viable Options is to promote independence and lay the
groundwork on which young adults with learning differences can develop the skills to lead
productive lives. Viable Options is a for-profit, private organization that is meeting the needs of
the publicly funded regional centers. Essentially, regional centers subcontract with Viable
Options to provide support services for individuals with developmental disabilities.
Viable Options Background. Viable Options was opened in August 2011. It is one of
six Viable Options programs around the country. Prospective students are between the ages of 18
and 26 and must have a documented diagnosis of Asperger’s syndrome, high-functioning autism,
pervasive developmental disorders (PDD), attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD),
nonverbal learning disorder (NLD), dyslexia or other learning difference. In addition,
prospective students must be highly motivated to meet program goals, have low average to high
intelligence, have the potential to live and attend college or a career program independently, and
be emotionally, behaviorally, and psychologically stable.
SERVICE PROVIDER COMPLIANCE
12
Students and Staffing. At its largest capacity, Viable Options can accommodate up to 30
students. A student population of this size enables the program to offer individualized and
comprehensive services to its students. At the time of the study, there were 22 male and five
female students for a total enrollment of 27 students. Based on current student applications,
Viable Options anticipates having 25 students enrolled for the Fall 2015 term.
Families pay for Viable Options out of pocket and via scholarships. In California,
regional center funds can pay for the entire program if a family does not have the financial
means to fund the program. Of the 27 students enrolled at the time of the study, 18 are regional
center clients. While a student typically stays in the program for two to three years before
transitioning out, regional center clients are funded for and can remain in the program for a
maximum of four years. While some return home upon exiting the program, others are able to
live independently.
At the time of the study, Viable Options employed 25 staff members across eight
departments: administrative, academics, advising, career, social skills, life skills, therapy, and
wellness. The primary role of staff members in each department is helping each student develop
the skills necessary for successful independent living. Skill development is accomplished via
various classes, or modules, that take place daily in both Viable Options offices and in student
apartments. A Department Head, or Coordinator, who oversees instructors as they teach
individual and small group modules, supervises each department. Department Heads also teach
SERVICE PROVIDER COMPLIANCE
13
modules, and the National office on the east coast develops the curriculum. Department Heads
are also encouraged to use their expertise and input in the curriculum development process.
Programming. When students enroll at Viable Options, they have the option of choosing
a career track or an academic track. Regardless of the track students choose, it is the goal of
Viable Options to place all students in internships in order to gain work experience. The services
offered at Viable Options are comprehensive in that students receive support across all
departments (Administrative, Academics, Advising, Career, Social Skills, Life Skills, Therapy,
and Wellness). Students receive modular instruction and therapy during the day and live in
Viable Options-leased apartments adjacent to the program offices. In the evenings, they receive
residential services in their apartments from Viable Options’ Life Skills staff. These services
include menu planning, deep cleaning, and individual and cooperative cooking instruction. The
primary goal of all departments is to support and prepare students for successful independent
living once they leave the program.
Regional Center Contract. Viable Options entered into its service agreement with its
assigned regional center on August 18, 2011. The contract was signed by the regional center’s
Director of Community Services and by Viable Options’ founder and president. The service
agreement detailed the regional center’s expectations of Viable Options and outlined the terms of
the agreements between both organizations. The service agreement documented Viable Options’
agreement to “continuously comply with all requirements identified in the regional center
Vendor Agreement, Titles 17 and 22 of the California Code of Regulations, and the Program
SERVICE PROVIDER COMPLIANCE
14
Design developed under this agreement” (Regional Center Service Agreement, 2011). In
essence, when Viable Options entered into this service agreement with the regional center, the
organization was agreeing to abide by the provisions set forth in this contract in order to remain
in good standing with the regional center. When a service provider does not comply with the
specific terms of its service agreement, the conditions of the purchase of service authorization,
rules governing the service program, or the provision of services, the State Department of
Developmental Disabilities and/or the regional center has the authority to terminate the contract
it has with the service provider. A service provider will be held financially responsible for any
audit findings and/or recommendations disclosed by an audit and must repay all vendoring
regional centers (State of California Department of Developmental Services, 2014).
Organizational Performance Problem
The organizational performance problem at the root of this study is regional center
noncompliance. Per the service agreement with the regional center, Viable Options agreed to
ensure that 100% of regional center clients in the program would have an academic plan and be
enrolled in a community college or state university and be working to obtain an Associate of Arts
degree or a Bachelor’s degree. During the 2012-2013 academic year, twelve regional center
clients were enrolled at Viable Options. Of those twelve, nine (75%) were enrolled in college
courses. Only one regional center client enrolled at Viable Options had an academic plan,
representing a gap of 91.7%. Viable Options also agreed to “continuously comply with all
requirements identified in the regional center Vendor Agreement, Titles 17 and 22 of the
SERVICE PROVIDER COMPLIANCE
15
California Code of Regulations, and the Program Design developed under this agreement”
(Regional Center Service Agreement, 2011). Viable Options has failed to continuously comply
with Titles 17 and 22. The gap analysis methodology (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011) is best
suited to frame this problem.
Related Literature
Numerous studies have suggested that while support services are critical for individuals
with developmental disabilities, there are barriers to accessing these services (Larson & Hewitt,
20005; Chou, Lee, Lin, Chang, & Huang, 2008; Samuel, Hobden, LeRoy, & Lacey, 2011).
Barriers include lack of awareness of services, lack of knowledge about the process of acquiring
services, waiting lists, financial costs, and services of poor quality. With the increase in
developmental disabilities such as autism spectrum disorder, accessing services is critical for
skill acquisition and quality of life. From 1992 to 2002, the number of children with autism
reported to the U.S. Department of Education increased from 5,415 to 118,602, representing an
increase of over 2,000 percent (U.S. Department of Education, 2003). Thus, there exists an ever-
growing need to provide supports and interventions for individuals with developmental
disabilities.
Normative social role transitions for youth leaving high school and entering young
adulthood include postsecondary education and seeking employment (Shattuck, Narendorf,
Cooper, Sterzing, Wagner, & Taylor, 2012). The challenges faced by individuals with
developmental disabilities make these transitions even more difficult, making the need for
comprehensive services even more critical. Service providers can aid students with autism and
other developmental disabilities in successfully navigating postsecondary educational settings,
obtaining internships and paid employment, successfully integrating into the community, and
SERVICE PROVIDER COMPLIANCE
16
developing the skills to live independently. Research suggests, however, that young adults with
developmental disabilities often do not receive the services and supports needed to address the
complex set of challenges they face (Samuel, Hobden, LeRoy, & Lacey, 2011).
Many adults with developmental disabilities wish to develop skills that provide
opportunities to increase personal independence and social responsibility (Kavale & Forness,
1999). Adult service providers are one way in which these skills can be developed. There are a
variety of tailored supports and interventions available to adults with developmental disabilities
in the form of direct service providers, and both national and local policies ensure that these
services are appropriate and that the public monies used to fund these programs are used in an
appropriate manner.
Importance of the Problem
Individuals with developmental disabilities are vulnerable to higher rates of health risks
including inadequate emotional support, physical inactivity, obesity, and disability-related health
conditions that can be detrimental to functioning and quality of life (Havercamp & Scott, 2015).
Support services can aid individuals with developmental disabilities in acquiring the independent
living skills that are critical to managing their overall health and well-being.
As a result of the social and interpersonal challenges faced by individuals with
developmental disabilities such as ASD, rates of unemployment and underemployment are
higher among young adults with this disability (Shattuck et al., 2012). Experience has proven,
however, that these young adults can work in a variety of businesses and industries when
provided with appropriate training and support (Hendricks & Wehman, 2009). Thus, in addition
to acquiring independent living skills, vocational support provided by programs such as Viable
SERVICE PROVIDER COMPLIANCE
17
Options play a key role in helping young adults enter the workforce and contribute to the vitality
of the United States economy.
In order to fulfill its mission and continue providing services for young adults with
developmental disabilities, it is imperative that Viable Options remain in compliance with its
regional center service agreement at all times. Failure to do so can result in a loss of funding,
leading many students who rely on these crucial services to lose the support that is vital to
successful community integration and independent living.
While there is a considerable amount of literature on the role of service providers and
support services for adults with disabilities, research on service provider noncompliance and how
this can adversely affect access to services and supports is limited. Thus, this study is significant
in that it contributes to the knowledge base of service provider compliance with public funding
sources.
Organizational Goal
Viable Options’ goal is that it will be compliant with 100% of regional center
requirements by June 2016. The Program Director established this goal after an initial meeting
with regional center directors outlined several key areas that need improvement in order for
Viable Options to fulfill the terms of the service agreement. The achievement of Viable Options’
goal in this matter will be measured by the results of regional center audits through June 2016.
Stakeholders and Stakeholders’ Goals
The stakeholders at Viable Options include the regional center, the Program Director, the
student body, and all Viable Options staff members. Each stakeholder makes a unique
SERVICE PROVIDER COMPLIANCE
18
contribution to achieving Viable Options’ organizational goal. The stakeholders’ goals in the
context of the organizational global goal are presented below.
Organizational Mission
The mission of Viable Options is to promote independence and lay the groundwork on which
young adults with learning differences can develop the skills to lead productive lives.
Organizational Global Goal
By June 2016, Viable Options will be compliant with 100% of regional center requirements.
Viable Options Staff
By June 2015, 100%
of Viable Options
staff will be able to
articulate regional
center requirements.
Students
100% of regional
center clients will
develop an Academic
Plan by the end of
their second week in
the program.
Program Director
Program Director will
develop an action plan
to address regional
center concerns by
January 2015.
Regional Center
By January 2015,
regional center will
conduct an audit of
Viable Options to
determine progress
toward compliance.
Stakeholder for the Study and Stakeholder Performance Gap
While the joint efforts of all stakeholders will contribute to the achievement of the overall
organizational goal of compliance with 100% of regional center requirements, it is important to
understand the barriers faced by Viable Options staff members as they attempt to implement the
policies and procedures that align with regional center expectations. Therefore, the stakeholder
of focus for this study was all Viable Options staff members. The stakeholders’ goal, supported
by the Program Director, is that 100% of Viable Options staff will be able to articulate regional
center requirements by June 2015. Scanning interviews reveal that currently, only 6.7% of
Viable Options staff members are able to articulate regional center requirements. The
organizational goal is that 100% of Viable Options staff will be able to articulate regional center
requirements. The gap in performance, therefore, is 93%.
SERVICE PROVIDER COMPLIANCE
19
Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this project was to conduct a gap analysis to examine the root causes of
the organizational problem described above. The analysis focused on causes for this problem due
to gaps in the areas of knowledge and skill, motivation, and organizational issues. The analysis
began by generating a list of possible or assumed causes and then by examining these
systematically to focus on actual or validated causes. While a complete gap analysis would focus
on all stakeholders, for practical purposes the stakeholders focused on in this analysis were all
Viable Options staff members.
As such, the questions that guided this study were the following:
1. What are the knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational causes that are barriers
to achieving the goal of 100% of Viable Options staff being able to articulate regional
center requirements?
2. What are the knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational solutions to those
barriers?
Methodological Framework
Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis, a systematic, analytical method that helps to clarify
organizational goals and identify the gap between the actual performance level and the preferred
performance level within an organization, was implemented. Assumed causes for the
performance gap were generated based on personal knowledge and related literature. These
causes were validated by using surveys, document analysis, literature review, and content
analysis. Research-based solutions were recommended and evaluated in a comprehensive
manner.
SERVICE PROVIDER COMPLIANCE
20
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Reviewed in this chapter are the types of developmental disabilities covered by the
California Department of Developmental Services (DDS), lifespan issues for individuals with
developmental disabilities, types of supports and interventions funded by DDS, and the benefits,
outcomes, and challenges of these supports. Finally, policy, funding, and accountability related
to support services for young adults with developmental disabilities in the state of California is
reviewed.
Developmental Disabilities
According to the California Department of Developmental Services (2014), the term
developmental disability refers to “a severe and chronic disability that is attributable to a mental
or physical impairment that begins before an individual reaches adulthood” (p. 1). Disabilities
listed under the umbrella of developmental disability include intellectual disability, cerebral
palsy, epilepsy, autism, and incapacitating conditions related to intellectual disability. DDS funds
support services for individuals diagnosed with a developmental disability. Each of these
conditions will be discussed in greater detail.
Intellectual disability. Intellectual disability is categorized by significantly below
average intellectual functioning and an IQ of 70 or below (Department of Developmental
Services [DDS], 2014). Impairments in adaptive functioning or coexisting deficiencies are also
present in individuals with intellectual disability.
Cerebral palsy. Cerebral palsy includes two types of motor dysfunction (CDC, 2014).
The first is non-progressive lesion or disorder in the brain. This occurs during in utero or during
the perinatal phase. Paralysis, spasticity, or abnormal control of movement or posture is common
SERVICE PROVIDER COMPLIANCE
21
in this type of cerebral palsy. These characteristics appear prior to two or three years of age. The
second type of cerebral palsy is other significant motor dysfunction and manifests prior to age
18.
Epilepsy. The DDS also provides support for individuals with epilepsy. According to the
National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (2015), epilepsy is a brain disorder and
the severity can range from severe, life threatening and disabling, to non life threatening. In
epilepsy, normal patterns of neuronal activity become unstable, causing inexplicable feelings,
emotions, and behavioral patterns. An epileptic episode sometimes involves convulsions, muscle
spasms, and loss of awareness. There are several possible causes and there are several types of
seizures. Brain damage, illness, and abnormal brain development can all lead to seizures
(National Institutes of Health, 2015).
Other developmental disabilities. Other developmental disabilities are those that require
care and support similar to the types of supports and interventions required by individuals with
intellectual disability (DDS, 2014). The disabling conditions must occur before the age of 18,
result in a significant handicap, be likely to continue throughout life, and involve brain damage
or malfunction. Degenerative brain disease or traumatic brain injury caused by accidents fall
within this category.
Autism spectrum disorder. Autism spectrum disorder refers to a neurodevelopmental
disorder with multiple causes or origins. Current literature refers to autism spectrum disorders as
a group of neurodevelopmental disorders that affect behavioral, social skills, and communicative
development (Adreon & Durocher, 2007; VanBergeijk, Klin, & Volkmar, 2008). The word
spectrum refers to the varying degrees of severity of the disorder and as a result, symptoms can
present in any amalgamation and can range from very mild to severe (Adreon & Durocher,
SERVICE PROVIDER COMPLIANCE
22
2007). Compared to other developmental disabilities covered by the DDS, autism is the costliest
developmental disability for all age groups within the state of California (Department of
Developmental Services Fact Book, 2015).
In summary, the California Department of Developmental Services funds support
services for individuals diagnosed with a developmental disability. While DDS funding supports
various types of developmental disabilities, autism is the primary disability for which services
are utilized in California.
Lifespan Issues for Individuals with Developmental Disabilities
Life span issues for individuals with developmental disabilities range from health issues
and equitable access to health care to academic, vocational, and community integration
challenges (Havercamp & Scott,2015; LeBlanc, Riley, & Goldsmith, 2008). Current research
focuses on outcomes across the lifespan and includes physical development, behavioral
challenges, social skills development, academic aptitude, employment considerations, and the
ability to safely integrate into the community (LeBlanc, Riley, & Goldsmith, 2008).
Health issues. According to Havercamp and Scott (2015), developmentally disabled
individuals experience worse health and poorer access to health care than the general population.
Individuals with developmental disabilities are vulnerable to various health risks, both related
and unrelated to the disability itself. These risks include physical inactivity, obesity, mental
health issues, diabetes, high blood pressure, arthritis, chronic pain, and heart disease. Adults with
developmental disabilities are described as having a “thinner margin of health” when compared
to adults with no disability (DeJong, Batavia, & Griss, 1989).
Health care access. Despite having a greater need for health care services, adults with
developmental disabilities have decreased access to health care services (Havercamp & Scott,
SERVICE PROVIDER COMPLIANCE
23
2015). Barriers to health care access include physical inaccessibility of health care facilities,
communication difficulties with health care personnel, lack of adequate medical information, and
lack of knowledge and understanding of disabilities on the part of health care providers (Dovey
& Webb, 2000). Also contributing the problem of health care access is the difficulty that some
adults with developmental disabilities have in advocating for themselves in health care settings
(Havercamp & Scott, 2015). This is especially true for adults with ASD, where communication
barriers are a key feature of the disability.
Academics. While federal education policy requires that students with disabilities be
educated to the highest degree possible with nondisabled students, many students with
developmental disabilities are isolated in self-contained classrooms or in specialized programs,
with little or no chances of integrating academically and socially in the general education setting.
This is true for both the classroom experience and school activities (The Arc, 2015). A 2010
study by The Arc of the United States found that the majority of individuals with developmental
disabilities were not being fully included in their schools (Hewitt, Agosta, Heller, Williams, &
Reinke, 2013). Many students do not have access to the same academic and social activities and
services provided to nondisabled students. The same study, which included 4,962 caregivers and
558 individuals with disabilities, found that over time, families experienced a decrease in support
and were not prepared for life after high school. More often than not, these students leave school
unprepared for successful independent living.
Employment. Social and behavioral challenges prevent many adults with developmental
disabilities from finding meaningful work and from being successful in higher educational
settings. Adults developmental disabilities face higher unemployment rates and
SERVICE PROVIDER COMPLIANCE
24
underemployment, switch vocations frequently, struggle to adjust to new job settings, and earn
less money than their counterparts (Hendricks & Wehman, 2009).
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (2013), half of all individuals with a
disability who were unemployed described barriers to gainful employment. These barriers
included lack of training or professional development, lack of transportation to and from the
work site, the need for special accommodations or flexibility in the workplace, and the nature of
the disability itself. Among individuals who are employed, over half had some trouble finishing
work tasks as a result of the disability.
In summary, adolescents and adults with developmental disabilities face several
challenges across the lifespan. These challenges include increased risk for poor health outcomes,
equitable access to health care, and lack of continued access to academic and vocational
supports. Supports and interventions in the form of state-funded service providers can aid young
adults with developmental disabilities in overcoming these challenges.
Supports and Interventions for Young Adults with Developmental Disabilities
A wide range of supports and interventions have been recognized in research as possible
aids for the unique needs of individuals with developmental disabilities (Gitlin, Szanton, &
DuGoff, 2011). These support services aim to help individuals with developmental disabilities
access the community, improve academic and vocational skills, and live a dignified, higher
quality life with independence.
California Department of Developmental Services (DDS)
There are several types of support services available to individuals with developmental
disabilities through the DDS (2015). Services include in-home support services, transportation
services, day programs, education services, work services programs, supported employment
SERVICE PROVIDER COMPLIANCE
25
programs, and work activity programs. The DDS maintains statistics on the individuals it
supports in the form of Client Development Evaluation Reports (CDER). The CDER details
which types of supports and interventions are accessed throughout the state of California by
individuals with developmental disabilities.
From 2004 to 2014, CDER indicated that the number of individuals with developmental
disabilities served by DDS increased from 201,001 to 276,888 (California Department of
Developmental Services Fact Book, 2015). Of these, adolescents transitioning into adulthood
increased from 15,269 to 24,375. Nearly 90% of adults receiving services through DDS live in
their own home with a family member or guardian, a community care facility, independent living
settings, or supported living settings (California Department of Developmental Services Fact
Book, 2015). Specific types of supports received by young adults with developmental disabilities
in the form of transition planning, independent living support and supported living services are
described in the next section.
Many adults with developmental disabilities wish to develop skills that provide
opportunities to increase personal independence and social accountability (Kavale & Forness,
1999). For individuals with special needs, acquiring skills in academics, community integration,
language and communication, self-management, self-determination, independent living, and
employment can lead to this independence (Hendricks & Wehman, 2009). In order to acquire
these skills, these individuals with developmental disabilities rely on various support services.
These supports and interventions include transition planning and programs designed to support
students with disabilities as they navigate higher educational and vocational settings.
Programmatic interventions also include support in independent living, social skills acquisition,
SERVICE PROVIDER COMPLIANCE
26
and community integration. Each of these supports and interventions will be discussed in greater
detail.
Transition planning. According to the National Council on Disability (2000), effective
transition plans from high school to postsecondary settings require active participation from a
multidisciplinary team. A study commissioned by the U.S. Department of Education researched
transition planning for students with disabilities and found that 85% of high school students with
a developmental disability had a transition plan and 71% had received training on the skills
necessary for appropriate transition planning (Cameto, Levine, & Wagner, 2004). While
effective transition planning equips young adults with the skills to set goals and plan for future
endeavors, one study found that less than one third of students with a developmental disability
were actively involved in transition development, and only three percent of students led the
discussion (Cameto, Levine, & Wagner, 2004). Various supports have been utilized to increase
the participation of adolescents with disabilities during transition planning, including the use of
assistive technology and visual, social, and organizational supports (Held, Thoma, & Thomas,
2004).
Educational interventions. While intellectually capable to succeed in higher education,
some young adults with developmental disabilities need supportive accommodations to address
the challenges associated with their disability. Harris, Handleman, and Jennett (2005) describe
three basic models of educational interventions for students with ASD and other learning
disabilities: home-based, center-based, and school-based programs. Home-based services at the
college level occur in the student’s residence, which is in most cases a dormitory. Center-based
programs in a college or university setting aid students in learning classroom-based social skills
in a monitored setting that specializes in service provision and interventions for young adults
SERVICE PROVIDER COMPLIANCE
27
with learning disabilities. In school-based programs at the university level, service provision
takes place in the general education setting (VanBergeijk, Klin, & Volkmar, 2008).
Also effective for college-aged students with developmental disabilities are peer training
and support models (Krohn & Goetz, 2005). The primary advantage of peer training is that it
allows the student to enjoy the maximum degree of college life and all of the experiences offered
at this stage in life. When selecting a postsecondary educational setting, young adults with
learning disabilities and their families should consider if the university is an appropriate fit for
the student based on the size of the university, the models of intervention offered, and the
student’s unique challenges and needs.
Employment interventions. In order to address the employment barriers described
earlier, a variety of employment options are now available for young adults with developmental
disabilities (Hendricks & Wehman, 2009). These options include segregated training centers,
supported employment, and competitive employment (Smith, Belcher, & Juhrs, 1995). The
supported employment structure offers a variety of tailored supports and interventions in order to
increase participation in various employment settings. The supported employment model is
positively correlated with increases in employment rates, salaries, and quality of life for
individuals with disabilities (Hendricks & Wehman, 2009).
Other supports and interventions. In addition to educational and employment supports,
young adults with developmental disabilities can benefit from support designed to enhance
successful engagement in social activities, organizations, agencies, and institutions. While
supports vary in structure and method of implementation, three elements are essential to all
successful programming: a) individualizing the level of proximal support, b) providing
enhancements in the environment, and c) the inclusion of personal goals, hobbies, and interests
SERVICE PROVIDER COMPLIANCE
28
(LeBlanc, Riley, & Goldsmith, 2008). The level of proximal support provided to young adults
with special needs should correspond to each individual’s skills and needs.
In conclusion, effective support structures take into consideration the unique needs,
interests, and personal goals of the individual. Efforts should be made to match the individual
with appropriate work, educational, and living environments. The more closely aligned a
particular setting is to the individual with special needs, the greater the potential for successful
community participation (Hawkins, 2004). With effective support structures in place, individuals
with developmental disabilities can integrate meaningfully into the community and work
competitively (Hurlbutt & Chalmers, 2004). These outcomes benefit not only individuals with
disabilities, but society as a whole. For the individual, supported employment is linked to
enhanced cognitive functioning (García-Villamisar & Hughes, 2007). Individuals with
disabilities who participate in both the workforce and higher education have the opportunity to
enhance society’s view of individuals with disabilities and how they can contribute to society
(Howlin, 2005).
Challenges in Providing Supports
There are several challenges associated with providing supports and interventions for
young adults with developmental disabilities (Chou, Lee, Lin, Chang, & Huang, 2008; Larson &
Hewitt, 2005; Samuel, Hobden, LeRoy, & Lacey, 2011). These challenges are the result of the
disability itself--the unique circumstances of developmental disabilities require treatment and
coordination among a large number of personnel, including health, primary care, education,
rehabilitation, and behavioral health services (Kogan et al, 2009). Another challenge in providing
support is the amount of available information. Parents reported lack of information, lack of
SERVICE PROVIDER COMPLIANCE
29
availability, transportation challenges, conflicts with scheduling, and poor quality services as
barriers to their son or daughter receiving adequate services (Levine, Marder, & Wagner, 2004).
One challenge in providing support is the limited information on which strategies are
most effective for successful work with adults with specific learning disabilities (Hendricks &
Wehman, 2009). In particular, few approaches have undergone laborious assessment of their
effectiveness with adolescents and young adults with ASD, and according to Odom, Collet-
Klingenberg, Rogers, and Hatton (2010), many service programs fail to test intervention
practices in high quality research designs. Odom et al. (2010) argue that focused intervention
practices are empirically based and supported when the practice has been evaluated in an
experimental research study with learners who significantly resemble the target students.
Another challenge in providing supports is the cost associated with programmatic
interventions (Yazbak, 2003). As learning disabilities are diagnosed earlier and more often,
increasing numbers of children are enrolled in early intervention programs that can be expensive
to start and maintain. Educational programs must be able to accommodate the increase in
students with ASD, and as these individuals transition into adulthood, it is likely that taxpayer
funds will be needed to fund the growing costs of providing services to the number of adults with
ASD (Yazbak, 2003). Funding will be discussed in greater detail later in the chapter.
In summary, there are various types of supports and interventions for adolescents and
young adults with developmental disabilities. These supports include transition planning and
educational, vocational, community, and residential supports that are aligned to the unique needs
of these individuals. While there are several benefits associated with support programs for young
adults with developmental disabilities, there are challenges that must be overcome in order to
provide effective programming. These challenges are a result of the nature of the disability itself
SERVICE PROVIDER COMPLIANCE
30
and include limited information, lack of evidence-based practices among service providers, and
financial challenges.
Policy and Funding
The final section of this chapter reviews policies and funding related to funding for
individuals with disabilities. It includes a brief overview of the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA), the American with Disabilities Act (ADA), Frank Lanterman and the
Developmental Disabilities Services Act, DDS, and the regional centers. The chapter concludes
with an overview of funding for regional center services.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) was approved in 1990 and
provided a federal order to educate children with disabilities. This legislation was first passed in
1975 as P.L. 94-142 and was subsequently re-authorized as IDEA (VanBergeijk, Klin, &
Volkmar, 2008). Prior to 1975, states were not legally required to provide educational services
to children with a developmental disability. At the time P.L. 94-142 was enacted there were eight
million handicapped children in the United States, and over half of them were inadequately
served or not receiving any educational services (Allen- Meares, 2004).
IDEA recognized the legal policy known as Free and Appropriate Public Education
(FAPE). FAPE guaranteed the right of all children to be educated. As a result of IDEA and
FAPE, children with developmental disabilities are entitled to support services and interventions
that can help them remain in public schools (Turnbull, Wilcox, Stowe, 2002). Funding via IDEA
covers students until they receive a high school diploma and provides funding for independent
living and vocational skills supports until the student turns 22 (VanBergeijk, Klin, & Volkmar,
SERVICE PROVIDER COMPLIANCE
31
2008). IDEA also requires school districts to create a transition plan for students as the final
component of their Individualized Education Plan (IEP).
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
In 1990 Congress re-authorized and renamed the Vocational Rehabilitation Act as the
Americans with Disabilities Act (VanBergeijk, Klin, & Volkmar, 2008). While IDEA provides
funding for special education services until a student with developmental disabilities receives a
high school degree, ADA informs how colleges and universities provide services to these
students. The ADA forbids any public institution from discriminating against individuals with
disabilities. Furthermore, in order to conform with the ADA, universities must be able to address
the social and organizational difficulties of students with developmental disabilities.
Frank Lanterman and the Developmental Disabilities Services Act
Frank Lanterman, a California assemblyman from 1950 to 1978, was a staunch supporter
and advocate for individuals with disabilities and their families. He authored the Lanterman
Developmental Disabilities Services Act, more commonly known as the Lanterman Act. Passed
in 1969, the Lanterman Act set forth the rights and responsibilities of individuals with disabilities
and their families (Department of Developmental Services [DDS], 2008). The Lanterman Act
stated the values, philosophy, and intent in providing a wide array of services and supports for
individuals with disabilities and their families. The statute also created regional centers, which
are responsible for planning and coordinating these services and supports. Regional centers are
private, nonprofit community agencies and contract with providers to offer services to
individuals with disabilities. Frank Lanterman is considered the forefather of the California
service system for individuals with disabilities and their families. Prior to the Lanterman Act,
SERVICE PROVIDER COMPLIANCE
32
individuals with disabilities were institutionalized and received very little personalized care and
support.
DDS and the regional centers. The state of California provides services and supports to
individuals with developmental disabilities via the California Department of Developmental
Services (DDS) (DDS, 2008). All 21 regional centers in the state contract with the DDS to
provide services and support for individuals with developmental disabilities (DDS, 2008). Under
the guidance of DDS, regional centers provide local points of contact in the community for
persons with developmental disabilities and their families to ensure they have access to the
services they need. The DDS ensures that regional centers coordinate appropriate services for its
consumers, including preparing, implementing, and monitoring individual plans, obtaining and
coordinating services and supports, and providing placement.
Regional centers were developed as a community-based alternative to institutional care.
In 1965, AB 691 established two pilot regional centers in Los Angeles and San Francisco to
serve individuals with mental retardation (DDS, 2008). In 1969, the Lanterman Mental
Retardation Services Act (AB225) established the regional center system for all of California. In
1973, the Lanterman Act proposed expanding eligibility categories for regional centers beyond
serving individuals with mental retardation (AB846). It also established an individualized
planning process (IPP) for individuals with disabilities. The IPP process is currently used by
young adults with developmental disabilities who receive services through regional centers. In
1978, administration of the developmental services program was removed from the California
Department of Health and placed with the newly formed Department of Developmental Services
(DDS).
SERVICE PROVIDER COMPLIANCE
33
In 2008, additional provisions established guidelines for how regional centers must serve
its consumers (Regional Center of Orange County, 2014). When securing services and supports,
regional centers must assist individuals with developmental disabilities in achieving the highest
self-reliance possible and in exercising individual options (Regional Center of Orange County,
2014). In implementing an IPP, regional centers must utilize a planning team to consider service
delivery in natural community, home, work, and recreational settings. Services and supports
must also be adaptable and individually suited to the consumer and his or her family. Finally, a
regional center may purchases services or supports for a consumer from any vendor, which the
regional center and consumer determines will best achieve all or any part of the consumer’s IPP.
Regional centers offer supports and services to individuals with developmental
disabilities by vendoring various service providers throughout California. When selecting a
service provider, the regional center, along with the consumer and his or her family, considers
several factors: a) the provider’s ability to deliver services that can support the consumer’s IPP,
b) a provider’s ability to achieve the objectives established in the IPP, c) the existence of
licensing, accreditation, or other professional certifications, and d) the cost of service provision
or supports of similar quality by different providers, if available (DDS, 2008).
When service providers enter into service agreements with regional centers, they agree to
abide by the provisions set forth in the service agreement. Service agreements detail a service
provider’s duty to provide services within the context of Title 17. Title 17 is a portion of the
California Code of Regulations that contains the guidelines relating to the DDS as well as other
regulations. Those relating to DDS cover parental fees, conflict of interest code, client rights,
financial audits and appeals, vendorization procedures, regional center administrative practices
and procedures, standards and rate-setting procedures for community-based programs and in-
SERVICE PROVIDER COMPLIANCE
34
home respite services, and residential facility care and services (Central Valley Regional Center,
2014).
Funding
Regional centers are publicly-funded and when providing services for consumers, the
regional center must also explore all options for its consumers and select the least expensive
available provider of services that is able to meet the consumer’s IPP (Department of
Developmental Services, [DDS], 2014). The Lanterman Act requires that regional centers be
accountable for the money received from the state to provide services and supports for
individuals with disabilities. In addition, the regional center is required to maintain and operate
within its budget and develop and identify cost-effective ways to achieve desired outcomes for
its clients. Finally, a regional center must ensure that service providers provide quality services
for an appropriate cost (DDS, 2014).
Purchase of service. In order to carry out its responsibility of providing services and
supports to individuals with developmental disabilities, regional centers purchase services for its
consumers from vendors within the catchment area in which the regional center is located.
Purchase of service agreements detail what services will be provided by the vendor to the
consumer, and the regional center oversees this process to ensure the services the regional
centers are funding are being delivered to the consumer (DDS, 2014). For adults with
developmental disabilities, services generally fall into two categories: supported living (SLS) and
community integration (CI) (DDS, 2014). Supported living services aid adults with
developmental disabilities in developing the skills to live independently. These skills include
cooking, cleaning, and other assistance within the home. Community integration services support
adults with developmental disabilities in integrating into the community, most notably via
SERVICE PROVIDER COMPLIANCE
35
academic support for success in higher educational settings. Purchase of service agreements are
aligned with each consumer’s IPP to ensure that the services provided are tailored to the
consumer’s needs and goals.
Purchase of service accountability. California Code of Regulations Title 17, Division 2,
lays the groundwork for accountability for service providers receiving funds from regional
centers. The regulations set forth in Title 17 require audits of service provider records in order to
ensure that service providers can provide accurate documentation, including invoices, attendance
records, time sheets, and service records (State of California Department of Developmental
Services, 2014). In essence, regional centers perform audits of the service providers they
subcontract with in order to ensure that the funds being paid to service providers accurately
reflect the services received by regional center clients in accordance with the service agreement.
Therefore, in order for service providers to remain in good standing as subcontractors with the
regional centers, regional centers hold service providers accountable for maintaining proper
documentation in the form of client attendance records, invoices, service records, and time
sheets. When a service provider does not fulfill the stipulations of its contract, applicable
regulations governing the service program, the terms of the purchase of service authorization,
and/or the provision of services to persons with developmental disabilities, the State Department
of Developmental Disabilities and/or the regional center will determine whether the conditions
exist to terminate the service contract. A service provider will be obligated to repay amounts
owed to all vendoring regional centers if audit findings determine that the service provider
SERVICE PROVIDER COMPLIANCE
36
violated the terms of its contract (State of California Department of Developmental Services,
2014).
In summary, both federal and state laws provide provisions for services and support for
individuals with disabilities. These laws also ensure that individuals with disabilities are not
discriminated against and have access to agencies and programs that are equipped to support
them across the lifespan. The Lanterman Act of 1969 established a statewide network of regional
centers to help coordinate services and supports for individuals with developmental disabilities
and their caregivers. While these publicly funded regional centers contract with the DDS,
services are provided to consumers through vendors throughout the state of California. Purchase
of service agreements between regional centers and vendors ensure that consumer needs are met
and that plans are tailored to the unique needs of each consumer.
Conclusion
In conclusion, there are various types of developmental disabilities covered by the
California Department of Developmental Services (DDS). They include intellectual disability,
cerebral palsy, epilepsy, and autism. Lifespan issues for individuals with developmental
disabilities include equitable access to health care, a thinner margin of health, and academic,
vocational, and community integration challenges. Support services and interventions funded by
DDS focus on improving outcomes for individuals with developmental disabilities in the areas of
community integration, independent living, academics, and employment. These support services
are administered to individuals through the 21 regional centers throughout the state of California.
While supports and interventions can aid individuals with disabilities in acquiring the skills to
live an independent and fulfilling life, there are barriers to effective supports. These barriers
include lack of awareness of services, lack of knowledge about the process of acquiring services,
SERVICE PROVIDER COMPLIANCE
37
waiting lists, financial costs, coordination among a large number of caregivers, and services of
poor quality. While regional centers subcontract these support services through local service
providers, providers are accountable to DDS to provide adequate services, maintain proper
documentation of those services, and are bound by the terms of their service agreements with
DDS.
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this study was to conduct a gap analysis to examine the root causes of the
organizational problem of regional center noncompliance. The analysis focused on causes for
this problem due to gaps in the areas of knowledge and skill, motivation, and organizational
issues. The questions that guided this study are the following:
1. What are the knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational causes that are barriers
to achieving the goal of 100% of Viable Options staff being able to articulate regional
center requirements?
2. What are the knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational solutions to those
barriers?
Framework for the Study
Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis, a systematic, analytical method that helps to clarify
organizational goals and identify the gap between the actual performance level and the preferred
performance level within an organization, was implemented. The gap analysis process begins
with defining measurable goals. Once goals have been identified, determining gaps in
performance is the next step in the process. Hypothesizing about possible causes for those gaps is
the next step, followed by validating and prioritizing causes. After causes are validated and
SERVICE PROVIDER COMPLIANCE
38
prioritized, the final two steps in the gap analysis process are developing solutions and
evaluating outcomes (Clark & Estes, 2008). Kirkpatrick’s (2006) four levels of evaluation model
will be used to evaluate outcomes.
Assumed causes for the performance gap were generated based on personal knowledge
and related literature. As the gap analysis methodology utilizes several different types of
gathering and analyzing data, surveys were used to validate causes along with document
analysis, literature review and content analysis. Research-based solutions were recommended
and evaluated in a comprehensive manner.
Figure 1. Gap analysis process.
Assumed Causes of the Performance Gap
Clark and Estes (2008) define the gap analysis process as a systematic problem-solving
approach to improve performance and achieve organizational goals. According to Rueda (2011),
the gap analysis process “provides a way to clarify both short-term and long-term organizational
goals, assess them, and describe gaps from the actual levels of performance or achievement to
SERVICE PROVIDER COMPLIANCE
39
the desired levels” (p. 73). Often times, individuals assume causes for problems within
organizations without appropriately validating those causes. This “jumping to conclusions” often
leads to the application of inappropriate solutions or inaction as a result of perceived complexity
in solving the problem. As a result, individuals may omit or misdiagnose causes for performance
gaps. As such, a thorough investigation into the causes of performance gaps should include three
components: (a) scanning (informal) interviews with stakeholders; (b) learning, motivation, and
organization/culture theory; and (c) a review of related literature on adult service provision.
Causes from related literature were discussed in Chapter 2 but will be included in the tables in
Chapter 3. What follows is a discussion of the knowledge, motivation, and organizational
assumed causes for regional center noncompliance at Viable Options.
Scanning Interviews
Knowledge and skills. At Viable Options, several staff members are unaware of what
information is contained in the service agreement between the regional center and the
organization. Department Coordinators have shared inaccurate information with support staff
members, leading many Viable Options personnel to make choices in student programming that
are not in compliance with the service agreement. One such instance is Department Coordinators
informing other staff members that regional students can enroll in any college course in order to
meet the regional center requirements. However, this information is not accurate. Students must
be enrolled in an academic course that fits into an overall academic plan leading to a two-year or
four-year degree.
Motivation. At Viable Options, Department Coordinators seem to be unmotivated to due
to the uncontrollable nature of the learning disabled student population. Thus, no matter how
much effort staff members devote to a task, it remains a difficult process due to the nature of the
SERVICE PROVIDER COMPLIANCE
40
challenges facing young adults with learning disabilities. Staff members have reported allowing
difficult students to leave sessions early in order to avoid having to put in the effort required to
work with more challenging students.
Department Coordinators have also reported not seeing the value in helping our students
acquire the skills to live independently and are thus not motivated to assist our students. One
Coordinator in particular stated that most Viable Options students will never live independently,
so she did not see the value in helping them acquire independent living skills.
Organization. Several organization issues contribute to this problem. At the National
level, the president of the organization has stated that the solution to the problem is reducing the
amount of regional center students or refusing to accept regional center clients into the program.
Executive personnel has demonstrated an unwillingness to establish a positive relationship with
regional center personnel and have repeatedly accused the regional center of trying to
micromanage Viable Options. Thus, a culture of disdain for regional centers has been cultivated
and perpetuated by the organization.
When the organization opened in California in 2011, the regional center offered staff
training to Viable Options in order to help the program launch successfully and be in compliance
with the service agreement. The president stated that Viable Options decided not to provide this
training for its initial staff due to the cost of the training. Thus, a key learning opportunity was
missed.
Learning and Motivation Theory
Knowledge and skills. Anderson and Krathwohl (2001) discuss the four major types of
knowledge: factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive. Factual knowledge refers to the
knowledge of facts, details, and elements. Conceptual knowledge refers to knowledge of
SERVICE PROVIDER COMPLIANCE
41
principles, theories, and models. Procedural knowledge refers to familiarity with procedures,
techniques, and methods. Metacognitive knowledge emphasizes knowledge of cognition and
awareness of one’s own thoughts and actions.
A number of factors might contribute to the organizational problem at Viable Options.
From a factual knowledge perspective, Department Coordinators and support staff may not know
that a regional center service agreement exists. It would be difficult for staff members to abide
by the service agreement if they are unaware that it exists. From a conceptual knowledge
perspective, staff members may not know the various service categories contained within the
service agreement and what program model Viable Options utilizes. From a procedural
knowledge perspective, staff members might be unfamiliar with the steps involved in helping a
student enroll in college courses. Department Coordinators cannot support students in enrolling
in college courses if they do not know the enrollment process for students with learning
disabilities. From a metacognitive perspective, staff members might not accurately assess the
importance of regional center compliance, causing staff members to make programming
decisions that lead to noncompliance. Additionally, staff members might be unable to reflect on
their own actions and the challenges they are facing in carrying out job tasks.
Motivation. Clark (1999) identifies problems using the motivation indexes of
persistence, active choice, and mental effort. Persistence refers to an individual being motivated
to start a goal, but is then distracted by other goals and interests and thus stops working on the
task at hand. Active choice refers to having the intent to act but failing to follow through on the
action. Mental effort refers to individuals failing to utilize new knowledge to solve a problem.
At Viable Options, staff member persistence, active choice, and effort are the likely sources of
motivation issues. Staff members often start tasks but become easily distracted by other goals
SERVICE PROVIDER COMPLIANCE
42
and interests. Lack of persistence is evident when the Program Director assigned to the
Department Coordinators the task of reviewing regional center documents for discussion. Rather
than complete this task, Department Coordinators instead spent the majority of their time on
other tasks that were unrelated to regional center document review. A problem with persistence
is also evident in the number of staff members who are regularly tardy to student appointments.
Effort is evident when Department Coordinators make errors with students’ programming and
rather than take ownership, responsibility is placed on others in the organization or with the
regional centers.
The motivational variables at work here appear to be values, attributions, and interest.
Department Coordinators may not be motivated to learn about the regional center service
agreement because they do not see the value in engaging in this task. Coordinators may think
that no matter how much effort they devote to tasks at Viable Options, learning more about the
regional center is an unnecessary task due to the uncontrollable nature of the learning disabled
student population. The idea of controllability may explain why staff members are not motivated
to complete the task because they perceive its cause as outside of their locus of control. From a
utility value perspective, staff members may not believe that the service agreement is useful to
them in terms of completing daily tasks. Staff members may be more interested in curriculum
planning than they are in regional center knowledge acquisition. In other words, they may simply
not be interested in seeing the task of regional center knowledge acquisition through to
completion.
Organization. Cultural settings refer to the visible aspects of an organization (Gallimore
& Goldenberg, 2001). In essence, cultural settings are concrete and include the employees, their
tasks, how and why tasks are completed, and the social context in which their work is performed.
SERVICE PROVIDER COMPLIANCE
43
The cultural setting at Viable Options, as with many organizations, is dynamic and often
unpredictable due to the student population served. From a cultural settings perspective, two
factors may be at work to explain the current performance gap at Viable Options: (a) Department
Coordinators are overwhelmed by tasks unrelated to regional center compliance and this keeps
them from investing time into learning more about regional center issues, and (b) high employee
turnover prevents staff members from remaining with the organization long enough to develop
expertise in the area of regional center compliance.
Cultural models are also dynamic and refer to cultural practices and shared mental
schema within an organization (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). From a cultural model
perspective, a culture of lack of accountability might also contribute to the performance gap at
Viable Options. Because cultural models help mold organizational structure, practices, and
policies, lack of accountability is a valid organizational issue that might explain performance
gaps.
Summary
A summary of the sources of assumed causes categorized as Knowledge, Motivation, and
Organization is found in Table 1.
Table 1
Summary of sources about assumed causes for knowledge, motivation, and organizational issues
Sources
Knowledge Causes
(indicate for each if it
is (F)actual,
(C)onceptual,
(P)rocedural, or
(M)etacognitive
Motivation Causes Organizational Causes
Scanning interviews,
personal knowledge
Staff members are
unaware that a
regional center service
Staff member
persistence is a likely
motivation cause at
Department
Coordinators are
overwhelmed by tasks
SERVICE PROVIDER COMPLIANCE
44
Validation of the Causes of the Performance Gap
The remaining sections of Chapter 3 will describe how the assumed causes were
validated in order to determine which might require solutions and which turn out not to be
problems and therefore require no solutions.
Validation of the Causes of the Performance Gap: Knowledge
Factual knowledge causes’ validation. In order to assess factual knowledge causes,
staff members were asked to complete open-ended survey questions that assess knowledge about
the regional center. Sample items included:
1. What are the consequences for failure to comply with the regional center service
agreement?
2. List three ways our organization’s relationship with the regional center influences your
daily practices.
agreement exists (F);
Staff members do not
know the various
service categories
contained in the
service agreement
(C); Staff members
are unfamiliar with
the steps involved in
helping a student
enroll in college
courses (P); Staff
members do not
accurately assess the
importance of
regional center
compliance (M).
Viable Options; staff
members often start
tasks but become
easily distracted by
other goals and
interests; Motivational
variables include
values, attributions,
and interest. Staff
members are
unmotivated to learn
about compliance
because they do not
see the value in it;
Department
Coordinators are more
interested in other
tasks than they are in
regional center
compliance.
unrelated to regional
center compliance;
high employee
turnover prevents staff
members from
developing expertise
in regional center
compliance; a culture
of disdain for regional
centers has been
cultivated and
perpetuated by
personnel at the
highest levels of the
organization; a culture
of lack of
accountability exists
within the
organization.
SERVICE PROVIDER COMPLIANCE
45
While open-ended survey items can assess knowledge causes, asking staff members to
read and respond to workplace scenarios will validate factual knowledge. One such scenario
is the following:
3. A regional center client in our program decides to withdraw from both of his classes
because he states that he feels overwhelmed with how busy his days are. He decides to
take the entire semester off and enroll in class at a later date. If our organization allows
him to do this, are we in violation of our service agreement? Why or why not?
Conceptual knowledge causes’ validation. In order to validate conceptual knowledge
causes, staff members were asked to complete open-ended survey questions about the issues
related to compliance with the regional center service agreement. Sample items included:
1. List three ways our organization’s relationship with the regional center influences
your daily practices.
2. List the categories of services that students receive at Viable Options.
Procedural knowledge causes’ validation. In order to validate procedural knowledge
causes, staff members answered open-ended survey items in order to assess procedural
knowledge. Interview items included:
1. What procedures are in place to ensure adherence to the regional center service
agreement?
2. How do you determine which services a student needs in order to be in compliance
with the regional center?
Metacognitive knowledge causes’ validation. In order to assess metacognitive
knowledge causes, staff members answered open-ended survey questions assessing their ability
SERVICE PROVIDER COMPLIANCE
46
to reflect upon and monitor the various strategies they use to complete work tasks. Sample item
included:
1. How do you determine whether or not what you are doing is in compliance with
regional center requirements?
2. Think about the strategies you use to complete your daily work tasks. How often do
you engage in the process of reflection regarding the effectiveness of those strategies?
3. Describe any system or strategies you utilize to organize your daily tasks and work
flow.
Table 2
Summary of assumed knowledge causes and validation
Assumed Knowledge Cause*
How Was it Validated?
Staff members are unaware that a regional
center service agreement exists. (F)
Staff members were asked if they are
aware that a regional center service
agreement exists.
Staff members do not know the various
service categories contained in the service
agreement. (C)
Staff members were asked to list the
service categories.
Staff members are unfamiliar with the
steps involved in helping a student enroll
in college courses. (P)
Staff members were asked to describe
the steps involved in helping students
enroll in classes; staff members
responded to a scenario involving a
student taking college courses.
Staff members do not accurately assess
the importance of regional center
compliance; staff members do not
accurately assess the time it takes to
ensure full compliance. (M)
Staff members were asked to describe
their perception of tasks related to
regional center and which strategies
they utilize to ensure compliance.
*Indicate knowledge type for each assumed cause listed using these abbreviations: (F)actual;
(C)onceptual; (P)rocedural; (M)etacognitive
SERVICE PROVIDER COMPLIANCE
47
Validation of the Causes of the Performance Gap: Motivation
Values Motivation Causes Validation. In order to validate the values motivation causes,
staff members completed a Likert type items. Sample items included:
1. How useful is the regional center service agreement to you in performing your daily
tasks? (not all useful to very useful) This questions addresses utility value.
2. I find the idea of learning more about regional center compliance (very boring to very
interesting). This question addresses intrinsic value.
3. It is important to me be well versed in issues of regional center compliance. (strongly
agree to strongly disagree) This question addresses attainment value.
Attributions Motivation Causes Validation. In order to validate the attributions
motivation causes, staff members completed Likert type items. The survey items addressed
whether or not staff members are motivated based on the attributions they make regarding
various issues within the organization. Sample items included:
1. If Viable Options is not in compliance, it is not because I did not give my full effort in
preparing for audit. (strongly agree to strongly disagree)
2. No matter how much effort I put into the work I do at Viable Options, I occasionally feel
that this effort is pointless due to the challenges faced by our student population.
(strongly agree to strongly disagree)
3. The progress our students make is a direct result of my efforts as a staff member at
Viable Options. (strongly agree to strongly disagree)
Interest Motivation Causes Validation. In order to validate the interest motivation
causes, staff members completed Likert type items and a rank order survey. The rank order item
SERVICE PROVIDER COMPLIANCE
48
illuminated not only what staff members are most interested in, but what staff members are least
interested in as well. Sample items included:
1. How interested are you in learning more about regional center compliance? (very
interested to not at all interested)
2. Below is a list of four tasks that fall within the scope of regional center compliance.
Rank these tasks in order of what you are most interested in (with a rank of 1 being
assigned to the task you are the most interested in engaging in).
a. _____Service agreement review
b. _____Audit preparation
c. _____Student file review
d. _____Regional center report writing
Table 3
Summary of assumed motivation causes and validation
Motivational Problem
Type of Indicator
Possible Cause(s)* How Was it Validated?
Indicate the survey item,
interview question and/or
document analysis focus.
Staff members are
unmotivated to
learn about
compliance because
they do not see the
value in it.
Effort, active choice,
value
• Lack of value
(P)
• Low interest
(P)
Written Likert type items
• I find the idea of
learning more about
regional center
compliance. (very
boring to very
interesting) This
question addresses
intrinsic value.
Learning more
about the regional
centers is
unnecessary task
due to the
Persistence, effort, active
choice, controllability
• Low self-
efficacy (P)
• Attributions-
external,
unstable,
uncontrollable
Written Likert type items
(strongly agree to strongly
disagree)
• If Viable Options is
not in compliance, it
is not because I did
SERVICE PROVIDER COMPLIANCE
49
uncontrollable
nature of the LD
student population.
(P, T)
not give my full
effort in preparing
for audit.
• No matter how
much effort I put
into the work I do at
Viable Options, I
occasionally feel
that this effort is
pointless due to the
challenges faced by
our student
population.
Staff members are
more interested in
other tasks than
they are in regional
center compliance.
Interest, active choice
• Lack of
interest (P, T,)
• Lack of value
(P, T)
Written Likert type items
(very interested to not at
all interested).
• How interested are
you in learning
more about regional
center compliance?
Rank order survey
• Rank the following
items in order of
your interest:
service agreement
review, audit
preparation, student
file review, regional
center report
writing.
Staff members do
not believe the
service agreement is
useful to them in
terms of their daily
tasks.
Utility value • Low utility
value (P)
Written Likert type items
(not all useful to very
useful).
• How useful is the
regional center
service agreement
to you in
performing your
daily tasks?
* Indicate if the source is Personal Knowledge (P) or Related Literature (L) or Motivation Theories (T)
Validation of the Causes of the Performance Gap: Organization/Culture/Context
SERVICE PROVIDER COMPLIANCE
50
Organizational Causes Validation. The assumed organizational causes for the
performance gap at Viable Options included an organizational culture of disdain for regional
centers, high employee turnover, low accountability, and staff members overwhelmed by tasks
unrelated to regional center compliance. In order to validate these causes, staff members
answered open-ended and Likert type items to assess which organizational factors are
contributing to the performance gap. The table below summarizes these causes and how each
cause was validated. Sample interview items included:
1. What is your perception of the regional centers?
2. What do you need in order to do your job more effectively with regional center
clients?
3. Describe any system or strategies you utilize to organize your daily tasks and work
flow.
4. How do you go about getting information in your work environment?
5. What are the most challenging aspects of your job?
6. What are the most rewarding aspects of your job?
Staff members also completed Likert type items. Sample items included:
7. There is a culture of high staff accountability at Viable Options. (strongly agree to
strongly disagree)
8. Staff members at Viable Options are held to high ethical standards. (strongly agree to
strongly disagree)
9. I have ample time each day to accomplish my work tasks. (strongly agree to strongly
disagree)
SERVICE PROVIDER COMPLIANCE
51
10. I have access to the tools I need to effectively do my job. (strongly agree to strongly
disagree)
11. I have received adequate training since joining Viable Options. (strongly agree to
strongly disagree)
Table 4
Summary of assumed organizational/culture/context causes and validation
Organizational Problem
(describe what the
performance issue is by
stating what the
stakeholder is not
doing)
Possible Organizational Cause(s)*
How Was it Validated?
Indicate the survey item, interview
question and/or document analysis
focus.
The organization is not
fostering a culture of
trust and cooperation
with regional centers.
(Culture of disdain)
• The organization is not pleased
with regional center oversight
and wants to do things its own
way. (P)
Document analysis
• Service agreement
• Regional center reports
Interview questions:
• How would you describe
the organization’s
perception of regional
centers?
• What are the most
challenging aspects of your
job?
• How do you go about
getting information in your
work environment?
The organization is
not retaining its
employees and as a
result employees are
not developing
expertise within the
organization. (High
employee turnover)
• Low wages (P)
• Poor system for onboarding
new employees (P)
• Human Resources department
not responsive to staff issues
(P)
Document analysis
• Employee files
• Training documents
Likert type items (strongly agree to
strongly disagree):
• I have ample time each day
to accomplish my work
tasks.
• I have access to the tools I
need to effectively do my
job.
• I have received adequate
training since joining
SERVICE PROVIDER COMPLIANCE
52
Viable Options.
• I am satisfied with my
salary and feel that it is
comparable to other
professionals in the field.
• The Human Resources
Department is responsive
to my issues.
There is a culture of
lack of accountability
within the
organization.
• Poor communication among
staff has led staff members to
“pass the buck” when issues
arise (P)
• Limited use of policies and
procedures has enabled staff
members to operate without
clear expectations for
acceptable & professional
behavior (P)
Likert type items (strongly agree to
strongly disagree):
• Our organization is built
upon a solid foundation of
personal accountability.
• Staff members at Viable
Options are held to high
ethical standards.
* Indicate in this column if the source is Personal Knowledge (P) or Related Literature (L) or Theories
related to culture/context (T)
In summary, there are several issues that must be validated in order to solve the
organizational problem of regional center noncompliance. Each of the critical knowledge,
motivation, and organizational causes was validated using qualitative data.
Participants
The population for the gap analysis included 12 Viable Options staff members. Viable
Options staff members are defined as any staff member who has successfully completed the
interview process and was offered employment within the organization, works directly with the
student population in any capacity, and is currently employed the organization. All staff
members who participated in the study met the above criteria and participated in the study by
completing the Likert, open-ended, and rank order survey items.
SERVICE PROVIDER COMPLIANCE
53
Data Collection
Permission from University of Southern California’s Institutional Review Board (IRB)
was obtained. To validate knowledge, motivation and organizational assumed causes, an online
survey was distributed and document review was conducted. Multiple forms of data collection
ensured triangulation of data for purposes of trustworthiness. Maxwell’s (2013) validity matrix
was used as the basis for the design of the study. To complete the matrix, I began with four
research questions. The four questions were based on what information I need to know in order
to gain a better understanding of the knowledge, motivation, and organizational issues
contributing to the problem. The matrix served as a guide in helping to clarify why I need to
know this information, what types of data will best answer the research questions, plans for
analysis, possible strategies for dealing with validity threats, and a rationale for the selected
design strategies. Once the validity matrix was completed, I was able to develop sample survey
items within the context of the matrix. This ensured that analysis plans and threats to validity
remained a consideration throughout the process of instrument development. Each method of
data collection will be discussed next.
Surveys
Surveys were distributed through online software in November 2014 after approval from
the University of Southern California (USC) Institutional Review Board (IRB) was received. The
online survey option was more feasible due to the nature of the organization’s staffing structure
that limited my ability to gather all participants for one meeting. The survey was administered in
English and distributed to all Viable Options staff members. The survey consisted of 33 items
and included a combination of Likert type items, rank order survey items, and open-ended
SERVICE PROVIDER COMPLIANCE
54
questions. Survey items assessing motivation, specifically, were based on existing valid and
reliable motivation instruments. Knowledge and organization items were designed for the study.
Responses were collected anonymously, tabulated through software, and a copy made for
back up purposes was stored on an external hard drive and maintained in a locked drawer. No
identifiable demographic information was collected during the study and all results were
maintained on a password-protected laptop. Upon completion of the data analysis, all copies of
data were destroyed. The survey instrument can be found in Appendix A.
Document analysis
Multiple documents were analyzed for the purposes of this study. The regional center
service agreement, Title 17 recitals, employee files, Viable Options program design, and Viable
Options training materials were reviewed to triangulate results.
Role of Investigator
I was the Program Director at Viable Options. I oversaw all staff and students in the
program. My role as Program Director consisted of maintaining financial sustainability and
program quality, curriculum review and approval, conducting annual employee performance
evaluations, resolving student and staff issues, conducting outreach for marketing purposes, and
ensuring the program met the expectations of key stakeholders (families and regional center
personnel). As principal investigator in this study, my role was to conduct a gap analysis of the
performance problem and propose solutions to help Viable Options become fully compliant with
its regional center service agreement. Compliance will help the organization establish and
maintain a positive relationship with regional centers, ensure continued funding for the
sustainability of the program, and help students achieve the goals set forth during the
individualized planning process (IPP).
SERVICE PROVIDER COMPLIANCE
55
For this study, staff members were made aware of my role as principal investigator and
steps were taken to ensure the anonymity of survey respondents. As part of the survey protocol,
staff members were informed that the primary purpose of the study was to gather information for
the purposes of improving the organization and that any information obtained during this process
is anonymous and utilized for that purpose only. Staff was also informed that no identifiers were
collected to ensure the highest level of participant confidentiality. Staff members were reassured
that participation was voluntary and that there were no consequences for electing not to
participate. Viable Options staff members were also made aware that I was conducting this study
as a doctoral candidate and that findings will be presented to the President of the organization.
Staff members were informed that it is the President who has the authority to decide what to do
with the findings of this study.
Data Analysis
Once all survey results were submitted, frequencies were calculated to identify average
levels of responses. Documents were examined to further triangulate survey results, providing an
in-depth assessment that complemented the statistical output.
SERVICE PROVIDER COMPLIANCE
56
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND FINDINGS
The purpose of this study was to conduct a gap analysis to examine the root causes of the
organizational problem of regional center noncompliance, focusing on causes for this problem
due to gaps in the areas of knowledge and skill, motivation, and organizational issues. The first
three chapters of this dissertation offered an introduction to the problem of regional center
noncompliance, a review of the literature surrounding developmental disabilities, lifespan issues
associated with developmental disabilities, funding and policies regarding service provision for
young adults with developmental disabilities, and the methodological design that was utilized for
this study. This chapter will now present the findings that emerged from the data collected and
analyzed using the gap analysis methodology (Clark & Estes, 2008) that was utilized for this
study.
In order to validate assumed causes, a qualitative study utilizing open-ended, rank order,
and Likert type survey items was conducted with data collected from document analysis.
Assumed causes for gaps in knowledge, motivation and organization were based on scanning
interviews. A pseudonym was used for the study site to ensure the privacy and anonymity of
both the organization and the participants in the study. While the joint efforts of all stakeholders
will contribute to the achievement of the overall organizational goal, the stakeholders of focus
for this study are all Viable Options staff members.
The results and findings of this study will be presented within the gap analysis
framework, using priori categories consisting of the four knowledge types for the validation of
knowledge causes. Prior categories include factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive
knowledge (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001). The results and findings for assumed knowledge
causes will be presented first, followed by results and findings for assumed motivation causes.
SERVICE PROVIDER COMPLIANCE
57
Finally, results and findings for assumed organizational causes will be presented. All findings
presented served to answer the following research questions for this study:
1. What are the knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational causes that are
barriers to achieving the goal of 100% of Viable Options staff being able to articulate
regional center requirements?
2. What are the knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational solutions to those
barriers?
Participating Stakeholders
The survey for this study was distributed via e-mail to all 25 staff members at Viable
Options. Staff members included any employee who had successfully complete the interview
process and was offered employment within the organization, works directly with the student
population in any capacity, and is currently employed by the organization. Of the 25 Viable
Options who received the survey, 56%, or 14 staff members, opened the survey. Of the 14 staff
members who opened the survey, 48%, or 12 staff members, completed the survey in its entirety
within the established timeframe to collect responses. In order to protect the identity of the
participants, no identifiers were collected for this study.
Results and Findings for Knowledge Causes
Survey Results
The survey for this study consisted of 33 survey items. Of these, 10 items were
knowledge questions and included both open-ended and Likert type items. Data triangulation
ensured validity and reliability, with Likert, rank order, and open-ended survey items being
utilized to gain a deeper understanding of the problem of regional center noncompliance.
Measures to ensure participant honesty were also utilized, including informing respondents of his
SERVICE PROVIDER COMPLIANCE
58
or her anonymity during the study and allowing participants the right to withdraw from the study
at any time. Document analysis complemented the data collection for this study.
The results of the survey indicate that three of the four assumed knowledge causes were
somewhat validated, and the fourth assumed knowledge cause was not validated. Survey results
indicate that while 75% of respondents are familiar with the steps to support a student in
enrolling in college courses, the majority of respondents lack the factual knowledge to ensure
students engage in classes in a way that remains in compliance with the service agreement.
Survey item 30 presented respondents with a scenario that asked how to accommodate a
student’s request to move classes while remaining in compliance with the service agreement. Of
the 12 respondents, three answered correctly. To achieve and maintain compliance, it is
imperative that 100% of staff members at Viable Options know how to apply the service
agreement in a way that maintains organizational compliance with the regional center service
agreement.
From a factual knowledge perspective, most staff members know an agreement exists,
and 92% of respondents know the consequences for failure to comply with the service
agreement. Thus, the second knowledge cause that was somewhat validated during data analysis
is that while staff members know an agreement exists, not all staff members know what the
actual regional center requirements are and thus lack the knowledge to articulate those
requirements.
From a conceptual knowledge perspective, 75% of respondents know the service
categories contained in the service agreement. Thus, the assumed cause that staff members do
not know the service categories contained within the service agreement was somewhat validated.
From a procedural knowledge perspective, 75% of respondents know the steps to support a
SERVICE PROVIDER COMPLIANCE
59
student in enrolling in college courses. The assumption that staff members are unfamiliar with
these steps, therefore, was also somewhat validated. Thus, survey results indicate that a quarter
of respondents lack the conceptual and procedural knowledge that is vital to regional center
compliance.
Finally, the assumption that staff members do not accurately assess the importance of
regional center compliance was not validated. Survey results indicate that 100% of respondents
believe that it is important to be knowledgeable about regional center compliance and have
procedures in place to ensure compliance. Solutions for knowledge causes will be recommended
in Chapter 5. Table 5 is a summary of the assumed knowledge causes, knowledge items, results,
and findings.
Table 5
Assumed knowledge causes, knowledge items, results, and findings
Knowledge
Type
Assumed Cause Knowledge Question Percent of
participants
who answered
correctly
Validation
Factual Staff is unaware a
service agreement
exists between RC &
organization &
cannot articulate the
details of the service
agreement
Know consequences for
noncompliance (Q1)
Student withdrawing from
class is a violation of
agreement (Q2)
What staff needs to do job
more effectively with
regional center clients
(Q27)
11 (92%)
9 (75%)
Somewhat
validated
Conceptual Staff members do
not know the service
categories contained
within the service
agreement
How regional center
relationship influences
daily practices (Q3)
List categories of services
(Q4)
9 (75%)
9 (75%)
Somewhat
validated
SERVICE PROVIDER COMPLIANCE
60
Procedural Staff members are
unfamiliar with the
steps involved in
helping a student
enroll in college
courses in a way that
remains in
compliance with the
service agreement.
Procedures in place to
ensure alignment when
enrolling students (Q5)
How to ensure work
procedures are in
compliance (Q6)
Scenario for regional
center client moving
modules to a different day
(Q30)
9 (75%)
3 (25%)
Somewhat
validated
Metacognit
ive
Staff members do
not accurately assess
the importance of
regional center
compliance
Engaging in process of
reflection (Q7)
Obtaining information in
work environment (Q24)
Strategies in place to
organize daily work flow
& ensure compliance
(Q25)
12 (100%)
Not validated
Results and Findings for Motivation Causes
Survey Results
Motivation survey items consisted of seven Likert type items and one rank order survey
item. Survey items measured interest, effort, attainment value, active choice, attributions, and
utility value. The first assumed motivation cause addressed attributions. Study participants were
asked whether or not they agreed with the following statement: “No matter how much effort I put
into the work I do, I occasionally feel that this effort is pointless due to the challenges faced by
our student population.” Survey responses indicate that 83% of respondents believe that their
efforts matter and make a difference in student outcomes, invalidating the assumption that
learning more about the regional centers is unnecessary task due to the uncontrollable nature of
the student population at Viable Options.
SERVICE PROVIDER COMPLIANCE
61
The second assumed motivation cause was based on the motivational construct of interest
and asked respondents how interested they were in learning more about regional center
compliance. Survey responses indicate that of the 12 respondents, eight, or 67%, are interested in
learning more about regional center compliance. Thus, the assumed motivation cause that staff
members are unmotivated to learn about compliance was somewhat validated, as nearly a third
of respondents indicated that they were not interested in learning more.
The third assumed motivation cause addressed utility value. Over half of the respondents
(58%) believe that the regional center service agreement has no utility value in terms of their
daily tasks, validating the assumption that staff members do not believe the service agreement is
useful to them in performing work duties.
The final assumed motivation cause also addressed utility value. Survey results indicate
that just under half of respondents (45%) would rather review the regional center service
agreement than student files. Thus, because staff members do not believe the service agreement
is useful, when presented with the opportunity to learn more about the regional center service
agreement, staff members would instead choose a different task. This means that the assumed
cause is validated.
Findings from Open-Ended Responses
Survey item 27 asked staff members what they felt they needed in order to do their jobs
more effectively with regional center clients. Overall, the common theme among staff members’
needs when working with regional center clients is access to more information, information they
believe will help them to perform more effective work with regional center clients. Responses
indicate that staff members are also interested in learning more about the expectations of the
regional center. One respondent stated, “To be more educated in what regional center expects,”
SERVICE PROVIDER COMPLIANCE
62
while another stated, “A better understanding of how our contract works.” Another respondent
stated that they need “to know exactly what the regional center requires per the contract” the
organization has with the regional center. One staff member also expressed that they want “more
information and a rationale for giving regional center clients modules that they may not
necessarily need,” while another respondent stated that they needed more autonomy and more
training for working with this population, “particularly for regional center clients.” Staff member
interest in learning more about compliance and demonstrating how useful the service agreement
is in performing daily tasks will be the focus of recommended solutions for motivation causes. In
order to achieve full compliance, it is important that staff members understand how the regional
center service agreement can be used to impact their work. The results and findings of the
motivation survey can be found in Table 6.
Table 6
Assumed motivation causes, motivation items, results, and findings
Assumed Cause Motivation Question Results and Findings
for Motivation Items
Validation
Learning more about
the regional centers is
unnecessary task due
to the uncontrollable
nature of the LD
student population
My efforts are pointless
due to the challenges
faced by this student
population (Q12)
Student progress is a
direct result of my efforts
as a staff member (Q13)
2(17%)agree with this
statement
9 (75%)agree or
strongly agree with
this statement
Not validated
Staff members are
more interested in
other tasks than they
are in regional center
compliance
Rank service agreement
review in relation to other
tasks in order of interest
(Q15)
5 (45%) more
interested in service
agreement
Somewhat
validated
Staff members do not
believe the service
agreement is useful to
them in terms of their
daily tasks
How useful is the
regional center service
agreement to you in
performing your daily
tasks? (Q8)
5 (42%)believe
service agreement is
useful or very useful
Validated
SERVICE PROVIDER COMPLIANCE
63
Staff members are not
interested in learning
more about
compliance
Interest in learning more
about regional center
compliance (Q9, Q14)
9 (75%) interested
Staff is interested in
“more information
from regional centers,
more regional center
training, and a better
understanding of how
our contract works.”
Somewhat
validated
Results and Findings for Organization Causes
Survey Results
The survey for this study included 16 items related to assumed organizational causes. The
decision to include a larger number organization items was based on scanning interviews, which
indicated that staff members perceived the organization itself as a barrier in regional center
compliance. Seven items consisted of Likert type items and the remaining nine were open-ended
survey items.
The results of the survey indicate that all four assumed organization causes were
validated. The first assumption was that staff members at Viable Options are overwhelmed by
tasks unrelated to regional center compliance. Half of respondents disagreed with item 18, “I
have ample time each day to accomplish my work tasks,” and no respondent strongly agreed
with this statement. Survey item 26 indicates that staff members view one of their greatest
challenges at Viable Options is “finding time to complete all of the aspects of my job by the time
I am expected to complete them, not having enough time to prepare for the semester, and having
much time devoted to report writing and making up modules.”
Staff members at Viable Options also believe that they have greater work responsibilities
as a result of the organization’s relationship with the regional center. One staff member stated
that “the regional center’s expectations cause staff to do a lot of extra work that goes unnoticed
SERVICE PROVIDER COMPLIANCE
64
because staff simply take the extra work on without complaining about it.” Another staff member
stated, “Because of the information and data we are required to keep track of, our time is more
limited. We may not have the luxury to do many activities other [Viable Options] locations have
the time to engage in.” Thus, the assumption that staff members are overwhelmed with tasks
unrelated to compliance was validated based on the results of the survey.
The second assumption that was validated consisted of how staff members at Viable
Options perceive the regional centers and specifically, that a culture of disdain for regional
centers exists among staff members. Survey item 28 asked respondents to describe their
perception of the regional centers, and survey item 29 asked respondents to describe how they
felt about the role regional centers play within the organization. Half of respondents perceived
the regional centers to be nothing more than a funding source, and various staff members
described the regional centers in negative terms. One respondent stated that regional centers are
“pushy. They use their funding to change our program to be what they want it to be.” Another
respondent stated that regional centers are “negative, making our jobs more difficult, policing
us.” A different respondent stated that the regional centers are a "detriment to some of our
students, forcing them to engage in standardized education when some of the students don’t have
the mental capacity to be successful.” Regional centers were also described as “inhibiting us
from doing what we were designed to do.”
The third organizational assumption that was validated involved staff member perception
of the organizational culture of accountability and ethical behavior. Survey items 16 and 17
asked staff members if they agreed with the statements, “There is a culture of high staff
accountability,” and “Staff members are held to high ethical standards.” Survey results indicate
that while 92% of respondents believe that high ethical standards exist within the organization,
SERVICE PROVIDER COMPLIANCE
65
55% of respondents believe high accountability exists among staff members. Thus, nearly half of
respondents believe that the organization does not hold its staff members to high ethical
standards.
The final assumption that was validated focused on how staff turnover impacts the
organization and specifically, how high employee turnover prevents staff members from
developing expertise in regional center compliance. An analysis of employee longevity data
reveals that employee turnover is a likely cause for the organizational problem of regional center
noncompliance. Document analysis reveals that 52% of staff members have been employed by
the organization for less than one year, and 14% of staff members have been with the
organization for more than two years but less than three years. Just two staff members have been
with the organization since it opened its doors in 2011.
An analysis of training materials revealed that the organization has no training documents
on the regional center service agreement or any other regional center documentation. Thus, while
staff members at Viable Options are expected to apply the contents of the service agreement to
their daily tasks in order to ensure organizational compliance with regional center expectations,
there are no regional center training materials to support staff members in acquiring the
information necessary to successfully execute the details of the service agreement. The results
and findings of the organization survey can be found in Table 7.
Table 7
Assumed organization causes, organization items, results, and findings
Assumed Cause Organization Question Results and Findings
for Organizational
Items
Validation
Staff members are
overwhelmed by
tasks unrelated to
I have ample time each
day to accomplish my
work tasks (Q18)
6 (50%)
Q26 -- most
Validated
SERVICE PROVIDER COMPLIANCE
66
regional center
compliance.
I have access to the tools I
need to effectively do my
job (Q19)
I have received adequate
training since joining the
organization (Q20)
The most challenging
aspects of working at
Viable Options (Q26)
What do you need to do
your job more effectively
with regional center
clients? (Q27)
challenging aspects of
the job as “finding time
to complete all of the
aspects of my job by
the time I am expected
to complete them, not
having enough time to
prepare for the
semester, and having
much time devoted to
report writing and
making up modules.”
A culture of disdain
for regional centers
exists among staff
members.
What are the most
rewarding aspects of your
job? (Q23)
What is your perception of
the regional centers?
(Q28)
How do you feel about the
role the regional centers
play within your
organization? (Q29)
Does your organization
understand the impact
regional centers have on
your work? (Q31)
In what area does the
organization excel? (Q32)
Q28 –
• “Funding
source.”
• “Pushy. They
use their
funding to
change our
program to be
what they want
it to be.”
• “Negative,
making our jobs
more difficult,
policing us.”
• “Too rigid and
doesn’t allow
our
organization to
be doing the job
it could be
doing.”
• “Not always
clear on its own
mission.”
Q29 –
• “A detriment to
some of our
students,
forcing them to
Validated
SERVICE PROVIDER COMPLIANCE
67
engage in
standardized
education when
some of the
students don’t
have the mental
capacity to be
successful.”
• “Negative.”
• “Inhibits us
from doing
what we were
designed to
do.”
• “I wish they
would be more
flexible.”
• “I wish they
would not
demand
students to take
college
classes.”
A culture of lack of
accountability exists
within the
organization.
There is a culture of high
staff accountability (Q16)
Staff members are held to
high ethical standards
(Q17)
Question #16 – 92%
believe high ethical
standards are in place
at the organization
Question #17 – 55%
believe high
accountability exists
among staff members
Validated
High employee
turnover prevents
staff members from
developing expertise
in regional center
compliance.
I am satisfied with my
salary and feel that it is
comparable to other
professionals in the field
(Q21)
4 (33%)
Staff member longevity
data—number of staff
who have been:
Employed for 3 or
more years: 2
Employed for 2 to 3
years: 2
Validated
SERVICE PROVIDER COMPLIANCE
68
Employed for 1 to 2
years: 10
Employed for less than
1 year: 8
Employed for less than
6 months: 7
52% have been
employed for less than
one year; 14% have
been employed for two
or more years.
Discussion and Interpretation of Significant Results and Findings
The purpose of this study was to conduct a gap analysis to examine the root causes of the
organizational problem of regional center noncompliance. The results of the current study
indicate that the problem of regional center noncompliance at Viable Options is rooted in
knowledge, motivation, and organizational gaps. Factual, conceptual, and procedural knowledge
causes were somewhat validated. The assumed cause addressing interest was somewhat
validated, and the assumed causes addressing utility value and active choice were validated. It is
interesting to note that while staff members can articulate the consequences for failure to comply
with the service agreement, only 25% of respondents feel confident enough to articulate the
regional center requirements. Thus, while staff members know that the organization can lose
funding for noncompliance, they lack a deeper understanding of the regional center service
agreement beyond those consequences.
Survey results indicate that motivation causes are also barriers to all staff being able to
articulate regional center requirements. While staff members are motivated to learn more about
the regional centers and they take the work they do with this student population seriously, they
SERVICE PROVIDER COMPLIANCE
69
do not see the usefulness of the service agreement in their daily tasks. This might be attributed to
the fact that staff members are able to work successfully with students and achieve results, even
without possessing a deep knowledge of the regional center requirements. Additionally, while
loss of funding is the primary consequence of regional center noncompliance, no student at
Viable Options has lost funding as the result of staff member lack of knowledge or motivation.
Several organizational barriers contribute to the problem of regional center
noncompliance. While 75% of staff members believe they have received adequate training since
joining Viable Options, respondents describe the challenges of “having too much time devoted to
the regional center” and the Viable Options “national office not fully understanding how regional
centers impact the workload of its staff members.”
Employee compensation and work culture could explain the high rate of employee
turnover, as staff members leave the organization to find adequate compensation and a suitable
work environment elsewhere. The results of this survey indicate that 67% of respondents are not
satisfied with their salary and believe they are not compensated comparably to other
professionals in the field. From a cultural perspective, a culture of disdain for the regional
centers was also evident in participant responses. One respondent stated that they view the
regional centers as a “detriment to some of our students,” while another stated that regional
centers “demand students take college classes,” students that may not have the cognitive ability
to achieve academic success.
At Viable Options, lack of organizational support is evident in participant responses that
indicate that staff members perceive the national office as having little understanding of how
regional center expectations impact workload. According to one respondent, “More tasks are
piled upon us about regional centers.” Another respondent stated, “I do not believe the national
SERVICE PROVIDER COMPLIANCE
70
office or other locations outside of California have a full grasp regarding the regional center
expectations. Our time is more limited.” Thus, the work environment is impacted by expectations
of the regional centers and staff members perceive the national office as being unaware of how
these expectations adversely affect the work environment.
In order to address the problem of regional center noncompliance, Viable Options must
address the organizational issues of employee turnover, staff members feeling overwhelmed with
their workload, a lack of support at the highest levels of the organization, and a culture of disdain
for the regional centers. The organization must also address the knowledge and motivation gaps
that contribute to this problem. While a culture of disdain for the regional centers is evident,
survey responses indicate that staff members at Viable Options want more knowledge regarding
regional centers. While some staff members are interested in learning more about regional center
compliance, other staff members are not. The validation of all four organizational causes lays the
foundation for a further discussion of how knowledge, motivation, and organizational issues
intersect and contribute to the organizational problem of regional center noncompliance and will
be discussed in greater detail in Chapter 5.
Summary
In summary, the current study sought to answer the following research question:
1. What are the knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational causes that are
barriers to achieving the goal of 100% of Viable Options staff being able to articulate
regional center requirements?
The validated causes for the organizational problem of regional center noncompliance include
four organizational causes, three knowledge causes, and three motivation causes:
SERVICE PROVIDER COMPLIANCE
71
1. High employee turnover prevents staff members from developing expertise in
regional center compliance.
2. A culture of lack of accountability exists within the organization.
3. A culture of disdain for regional centers exists among staff members within the
organization.
4. Staff members are overwhelmed by tasks unrelated to regional center compliance.
5. Staff members do not believe the service agreement is useful to them in terms of
their daily tasks.
6. Staff is unaware a service agreement exists between the regional center and the
organization and cannot articulate the details of the service agreement.
7. Staff members do not know the service categories contained within the service
agreement.
8. Staff members are unfamiliar with the steps involved in helping a student enroll in
college courses in a way that remains in compliance with the service agreement.
9. Staff members are more interested in other tasks than they are in regional center
compliance.
10. Staff members are not interested in learning more about compliance.
The second research question that this study addressed is:
2. What are the knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational solutions to those
barriers?
In response to this research question, Chapter 5 will present recommendations for solutions for
these causes based on empirical evidence. The chapter will also present an implementation plan
that will describe how these solutions will be integrated for implementation. An evaluation plan
SERVICE PROVIDER COMPLIANCE
72
will also be presented that describes how an evaluation system will be used to assess the impact
of recommended solutions. The Kirkpatrick (2006) model will be utilized to assess the impact of
these solutions. The chapter will end with limitations of the study, implications for future
research, and a summary of the gap analysis study.
SERVICE PROVIDER COMPLIANCE
73
CHAPTER FIVE: SOLUTIONS, IMPLEMENTATION AND EVALUATION
The purpose of this study was to conduct a gap analysis to examine the root causes of the
organizational problem of regional center noncompliance, focusing on causes for this problem
due to gaps in the areas of knowledge and skill, motivation, and organizational issues. The first
four chapters of this dissertation offered an introduction to the problem of regional center
noncompliance, a review of the literature surrounding developmental disabilities, funding and
policies regarding service provision for young adults with developmental disabilities, the
methodological design that was utilized for this study, and results and findings. The chapter will
begin with recommendations for solutions for the validated causes based on empirical evidence.
Included in this chapter is an implementation plan and that will describe how these solutions will
be integrated for implementation and an evaluation plan.
Recommended Solutions for Validated Causes
The problem-solving framework for this gap analysis includes Gap Analysis
Methodology (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011), Pintrich’s (2003) motivation framework, the
Anderson and Krathwohl taxonomy for learning (2001), the principles of information processing,
social cognitive, cognitive load, and self-regulation research.
High employee turnover. At Viable Options, high employee turnover prevents the
development of expertise among staff members. According to Pintrich (2003), individuals
motivated to learn are more likely to persist, especially when obstacles are encountered. At
Viable Options, learning occurs very haphazardly, with no clear plan for teaching staff members
about regional center compliance. Thus, in order to reduce employee turnover and promote
persistence among staff members, Viable Options can create learning opportunities for staff
members that are deliberate and meaningful. Formal regional center professional development at
SERVICE PROVIDER COMPLIANCE
74
regular intervals can ensure that both new staff members and veteran staff members have access
to the regional center information they need in order to ensure alignment with the service
agreement. The Program Director should be prepared to fully support staff members through
regularly scheduled professional development and opportunities to network with regional center
personnel. This support, along with adequate training, can help staff members develop expertise
and foster longevity at Viable Options.
Principles of Bandura’s (1993) social cognitive theory can be utilized to increase staff
member value for learning and interest. Social cognitive theory posits that performance
accomplishments, vicarious experiences, and social persuasion positively impact self-efficacy,
which can in turn lead to increased persistence and reduced turnover among staff members at
Viable Options (Bandura, 1993). During the formal training process, the Program Director can
clearly articulate the relationship between Viable Options and the regional centers and model
enthusiasm for learning regional center information. The Program Director can also provide
feedback and regular opportunities to engage in the process of learning about regional center
compliance. Staff members at Viable Options are more likely to persist if staff self-efficacy
increases, thereby reducing employee turnover.
A culture of lack of accountability. Social cognitive theory can also be utilized to
promote a culture of accountability at Viable Options. Program Directors can utilize the strategy
of social persuasion to encourage staff members to take accountability for their actions. This can
be achieved through constant communication regarding the importance of maintaining high
expectations. According to Schunk (1989), evaluative feedback improves both performance and
retention. Program Directors can provide evaluative feedback that shows staff members how
their actions influence outcomes at Viable Options. This feedback can be provided to staff
SERVICE PROVIDER COMPLIANCE
75
members during weekly department meetings and during one-on-one meetings between the
Program Director and staff members.
Self-regulated learning involves planning, goal setting, and self-evaluation (Pintrich,
2003). To promote self-regulated learning, the Program Director can also regularly communicate
to staff members the importance of planning and goal-setting. The Program Director can also
promote “individual ownership of organizational goals” (Rueda, 2011, p. 65). This can be
accomplished by getting staff members actively involved in the creation of goals that relate to
regional center tasks. These goals should be specific, measurable, and time-specific. Goals
should be reviewed on a biweekly basis to ensure objectives are being met. This will foster a
culture of accountability at Viable Options by giving staff members individual ownership of
organizational goals.
A culture of disdain for regional centers. In order to eradicate the culture of disdain
and negativity that exists among staff members at Viable Options regarding regional centers, the
Program Director can implement a new ritual that promotes unity and understanding of regional
center practices. According to Bolman and Deal (2003), rituals enclose and define special forms
of behavior. The goal of rituals is to communicate a deeper meaning beneath visible behaviors.
To that end, the Program Director can invite regional center personnel to Viable Options at the
beginning of every programming year for a luncheon. During this visit, regional center personnel
can meet with Viable Options staff and discuss the important work they do in facilitating support
for individuals with disabilities. The results of this study indicate that Viable Options staff
members take the work they do with autistic young adults very seriously, and this type of
communication from regional center personnel would speak to a cause that staff members fully
support, thereby promoting commonality and unity among the organization and regional centers.
SERVICE PROVIDER COMPLIANCE
76
Bolman and Deal (2003) also describe these types of unifying events as “more important for
what is expressed than what is produced…they form a cultural tapestry of secular myths, heroes
and heroines, rituals, ceremonies, and stories that help people find purpose and passion in their
personal and work lives” (p. 243). Thus, having Viable Options staff members participate in a
luncheon with regional center personnel can serve as a unifying event that can help both
organizations gain a deeper understanding of each other’s roles and can form a cultural tapestry
of positivity and understanding.
Staff members are overwhelmed by other tasks. According to Clark and Estes (2008),
learners will have more time to devote to the task at hand when unnecessary tasks are reduced.
To that end, the Program Director can work to minimize additional tasks and reprioritize existing
tasks for staff members. The Program Director can give staff members more time to learn about
regional center compliance prior to the start of the term, thereby allowing more time for other
work-related tasks during the term.
To strengthen performance, organizations should provide adequate resources to
accomplish goals and “shift resources to match priorities and goals” (Rueda, 2011, p. 64). Clark
and Estes (2008) also discuss the need to “align the structures and the processes of the
organization with goals” (p. 118). The goal at Viable Options is full regional center compliance.
Thus, staff members should be given ample time to learn about compliance issues. The Program
Director should actively search for training materials and resources that will aid staff members in
increasing their self-efficacy in learning about regional center compliance.
Staff members do not believe the service agreement is useful. According to Pintrich
(2003), higher levels of value can aid in motivating learners and utility value is increased when it
is explained what staff members risk by avoiding tasks. In order to address the utility value
SERVICE PROVIDER COMPLIANCE
77
motivation cause, the Program Director can communicate explicitly to staff members what the
organization risks by not being fully compliant with the regional center service agreement.
Regional center funding provides financial stability for Viable Options, and noncompliance can
lead to the loss of that funding. Thus, to increase utility value, the Program Director can explain
to staff members that regional center funding provides job stability for staff members and
provides a much-needed service for young adults with developmental disabilities.
Staff members lack specific knowledge regarding service agreement. In order to close
the knowledge gap identified at Viable Options, staff members will be taught the details of the
service agreement during weekly one-on-one and staff meetings with the Program Director.
Factual knowledge is increased when new information is connected to prior knowledge and
when new information is organized in some kind of mental structure. This solution is based on
the principles of the information processing theory of learning. Based on this theory, Program
Directors should introduce service agreement information to staff members by linking this
information to the organization’s overall goal of full regional center compliance. This solution
facilitates the increase of factual knowledge because it connects the learning of new knowledge,
the service agreement, to the stated goal of full regional center compliance.
According to cognitive load theory, learning is fostered when extraneous cognitive load
is decreased through effective instruction. In order to reduce cognitive load, when professional
development and training programs are implemented, it will take place no more than one time
per week to ensure that staff members have time to process learned information before new
information is presented. Specifically, during weekly department meetings, the Program Director
will discuss with staff members the details of the service agreement and provide opportunities for
staff members to ask questions and to reflect on their own learning.
SERVICE PROVIDER COMPLIANCE
78
While survey results indicate that conceptual knowledge is high, self-efficacy is low
among staff members at Viable Options. According to self-regulation theory, learning is fostered
through self-monitoring and self-evaluation. In order to promote the use of self-regulatory
strategies and increase self-efficacy, the Program Director will introduce the use of goal-setting
and reflective strategies as a regular part of ongoing professional development. Setting goals will
help staff members more accurately monitor and assess the demands of the various tasks
completed throughout the day, and reflection questions will help staff members self-regulate
their own learning of regional center information. The development of goals will be guided by
staff members in order to promote ownership of goals and will be reviewed monthly with the
Program Director. In addition to setting goals, self-regulatory strategies are vital to the learning
process because these strategies help learners plan, monitor, and modifying the cognitive
strategies used during learning.
Staff members are unfamiliar with the steps to help students engage in college.
According to the learning principles of social cognitive theory, learning is fostered through
opportunities to practice and specific feedback. In order to address the procedural knowledge
cause, staff members will be provided with ample time to practice the steps involved in helping
students enroll in college courses. Opportunities to practice allow staff members to engage in the
task, and they can use specific feedback from the Program Director to make adjustments and
improve their performance as necessary. This solution will be introduced during professional
development, and practice and feedback will continue throughout the term.
A revised training manual will also be created and distributed to all staff members at
Viable Options. This manual will detail the steps involved in helping a student enroll in college
courses in a way that remains in compliance with the service agreement. A job aid will also be
SERVICE PROVIDER COMPLIANCE
79
created to provide job knowledge for all staff members. According to Clark and Estes (2008), job
aids summarize key information for staff members and provide opportunities to practice and be
given immediate feedback. The job aid will consist of a one-page, laminated document that
details key information related to regional center compliance. It will include service agreement
information, service categories, and college enrollment information for regional center clients. It
will also be uploaded to Google Drive and shared with all staff members electronically. The
training manual and job aid will ensure that Viable Options staff members have immediate
access to relevant information necessary to remain in compliance.
For new staff members, the onboarding process will be revised to include a review of the
service agreement. During the onboarding process, new staff members will be told that the
service agreement is a critical document and that it is important that they understand its value
within the organization. Incorporating the service agreement into the new hire process will help
build value for the service agreement at the earliest stages of a staff member’s affiliation with
Viable Options and ensure that a foundation is built for ongoing professional development.
Staff members are more interested in other tasks. According to Pintrich (2003),
interest is increased when interest is modeled and when tasks are personally meaningful to
learners. The Program Director can foster staff member interest in the regional center service
agreement by having them visit regional centers in order to speak with regional center
caseworkers, focusing their discourse on the positive experiences and outcomes associated with
the relationship between the organization and regional centers. The Program Director can also
brainstorm with staff members various ways to include their personal interests in the acquisition
of regional center knowledge. Both of these strategies incorporate Pintrich’s motivation
principles.
SERVICE PROVIDER COMPLIANCE
80
Staff members are not interested in learning more about compliance. Survey results
indicate that while some staff members are motivated to learn more about compliance, others are
not. The solution, therefore, must address the dichotomy that exists between staff members
where interest is concerned. According to Clark and Estes (2008), motivating a team requires
different strategies than what is necessary to motivate individuals. Therefore, to maintain interest
among highly motivated staff members at Viable Options while simultaneously motivating staff
members who are not interested in learning more about regional center compliance, a team
approach is the preferred solution. Two strategies in particular can be useful at Viable Options:
first, fostering mutual respect among teammates, and second, requiring team members to
collaborate with others (Clark & Estes, 2008). To foster mutual respect among teammates, the
Program Director can actively attribute successes to each team member’s expertise and assign
mistakes or setbacks to external causes. This can occur in the form of monthly “kudos,” where
the Program Director can publicly praise staff members during Viable Options’ monthly all-staff
meetings. This can boost the confidence of less motivated staff members while maintaining
motivation among staff members who already demonstrate high levels of interest. The Program
Director can foster a collaborative work environment by creating overlaps of prep time in staff
schedules. This will enable staff members to work together on various projects related to
regional center compliance.
Modeled interest increases interest, thereby promoting a highly motivated team (Pintrich,
2003). Staff members who are interested in learning more about compliance can be paired with
staff members who demonstrate little interest. By doing so, a more highly motivated staff
member can model interest. Both solutions address the dichotomy between motivated and non-
SERVICE PROVIDER COMPLIANCE
81
motivated staff members at Viable Options. The next section will describe the implementation
plan for the proposed solutions at Viable Options.
Implementation Plan
The initial implementation of solutions will occur over a period of six months. In order to
integrate knowledge, motivation, and organization solutions into a coherent implementation plan,
several factors must be considered for long-term and meaningful change at Viable Options. The
first factor to consider is when solutions will be introduced to employees. The most appropriate
time to begin integrating solutions is during the non-programming period at end of the summer
term and before the start of the fall term. This will occur in August 2015. During this three-week
period, students are offsite, giving staff members time to focus on planning for the impending
term.
The second factor to consider is which solutions will be integrated first. For deep and
meaningful change to take effect, it is important to first address the organization’s cultural and
motivational barriers to success (Clark & Estes, 2008). A common theme among the solutions
proposed here is increased and effective communication between Program Director and staff
members. This communication must become a regular part of the culture at Viable Options
before knowledge and motivation solutions can be implemented. A two-day staff retreat will take
place during the first week of the three-week break period in August 2015. This retreat will focus
on building trust and effective communication among staff members at Viable Options.
Motivational principles and strategies will also be introduced to staff during this time. Activities,
strategies, and practices introduced during the retreat will be reinforced throughout the term
during weekly meetings and monthly professional development. During the implementation
period and beyond, the Program Director must model expected behaviors in order to facilitate
SERVICE PROVIDER COMPLIANCE
82
cultural change within the organization. The entire staff will have the third week of the break
period to utilize for planning specific to their respective departments. The implementation of
organizational and motivational solutions will occur during the first three months of the
implementation plan, from August through November.
Knowledge solutions will also be introduced in August 2015, reinforced during the term,
and fully implemented by January 2016. During the Fall 2015 term, Department Coordinators
will work closely with the Program Director in preparing for the implementation and utilization
of revised training manuals and job aids for use during the Spring 2016 term. Staff members will
be able to utilize monthly professional development and weekly meetings to fine-tune their
knowledge of the regional center service agreement. Monthly reviews of staff member goals will
ensure the organization’s objectives are being met. The implementation plan can be found in
Figure 2.
Figure 2. Implementation plan.
Organization
• Non-programming period
• Two-day staff retreat
• Viable Options culture
• August 2015 through November 2015 & reinforced throughout term
Motivation
• Introduction of motivational principles/strategies at retreat
• Motivational principles/strategies reinforced throughout term
• August 2015 through November 2015 & reinforced throughout term
Knowledge
• Monthly professional development
• Introduction of regional center duties during new hire process
• Job aids, revised training manual
• August 2015 through January 2016
SERVICE PROVIDER COMPLIANCE
83
Evaluation Plan
Kirkpatrick’s (2006), four-level model evaluates the implementation of solutions to
organizational problems. These four steps include reactions, learning/performance, transfer of
behavior, and the results, or impact of the solutions. Level 1, or reactions, involve the
participants’ reactions to the intervention. Learning and performance, or level two, refers to what
participants learned as a result of the intervention, and level three, transfer of behavior, refers to
changes in job performance that resulted from the intervention. The fourth and final level,
impact, refers to the tangible results of the learning process in terms of reduced cost, improved
quality, increased production, and efficiency. Level four assessment addresses whether or not the
performance gap has closed in the organization. What follows is a discussion of what one would
expect to see at each level of evaluation if the implementation of the proposed solutions is
effective at Viable Options.
Reactions. Staff members will complete a perceived value and interest survey after the
first three months and then every six months in order to evaluate their reactions to the
implementations of solutions. If the implementation of solutions is effective, one would expect
positive responses to the following items:
1. The implementation of regional center professional development is a valuable tool in my
support of our students. (strongly agree to strongly disagree)
2. I am interested in furthering my knowledge of issues related to regional center
compliance (strongly agree to strongly disagree).
In order to track changes over time, the same survey items will be used to gage staff reactions.
Learning and Performance. If the implementation of the solutions is effective, one
would expect staff members to be able to articulate details of the service agreement, specifically
SERVICE PROVIDER COMPLIANCE
84
the service categories and the hourly service requirements for regional center clients. This will be
assessed twice during every programming year, at the start of the Fall and Spring terms. This will
be assessed in a fun way, utilizing a jeopardy-type game during professional development and
training.
Transfer of Behavior. If the implementation of the solutions is effective, one would
expect staff members to be able to successfully explain the steps involved in helping a student at
Viable Options enroll in college courses in a way that remains in compliance with the service
agreement. This will be assessed prior to the start of the Fall term using a short multiple choice
survey. Results will be shared and discussed during professional development.
Impact. At the fourth and final level of evaluation, one would expect that by June 2016,
Viable Options will be compliant with 100% of regional center requirements.. The organizational
global goal is that Viable Options will be compliant with all aspects of the service agreement. If
the implementation of solutions is effective, then the organizational global goal will be achieved.
The evaluation plan can be found in Figure 3.
Figure 3. Evaluation plan.
Reactions
Perceived value &
interest survey
Assessed after
first 3 months,
then every 6
months thereafter
Learning/performance
Describe service
categories
Assesed at start of
Fall & Spring
Use Jeopardy
game to assess
Transfer of behavior
Explain steps in
helping student
enroll in college
Fall term
Use multiple
choice survey to
assess
Results/Impact
Viable Options
will be compliant
with 100% of
regional center
requirements.
Assess using
multiple choice
survey items; June
2016
SERVICE PROVIDER COMPLIANCE
85
Limitations
Some limitations result from the design of this study. First, the study is limited by the
social desirability bias resulting in participants providing answers they believe to be socially
desirable and not a true presentation of their experience. Second, the study is limited by the fact
that it assumes that all participants understood and interpreted the interview questions and survey
items in the manner intended. Third, any statistical analysis will be based on a correlational, not
a causational relationship. The fourth limitation is the small size of respondents and available
participants to interview. Additionally, questions generated for this study were for assumed
causes. Thus, there might be others that were not identified because this study focused only on
causes assumed by the researcher. Finally, as I was the direct supervisor of all participants, my
role in the organization might have influenced their responses.
The focus of this study was to conduct a gap analysis to examine the root causes of the
organizational problem of regional center noncompliance. The primary delimitation of the study
is that it is context specific to Viable Options and addressed this specific organization’s mission
and organizational goal and cannot be generalized. However, it should be noted that other
institutions might benefit from the application of this study’s use of Clark and Estes (2008) gap
analysis process to bring about performance improvement.
The study is also delimited to examining one key stakeholder group’s experience that
may or may not be representative of that of other stakeholder groups. While other stakeholders
groups’ experiences and contributions are important to the organization, an in-depth
investigation of those lies outside the scope of the current study.
SERVICE PROVIDER COMPLIANCE
86
Future Research
Future research includes conducting gap analysis studies in order to examine the
experiences of various stakeholder groups. The current study examined the experiences of staff
members, but in order to fully address the problem of regional center noncompliance, an in-depth
investigation of the experiences of executive staff, regional center personnel, Viable Options
students, and Viable Options families is necessary. Understanding how the experiences of all key
stakeholder groups intersect and contribute to regional center noncompliance is a necessary task
if this problem is to be fully addressed.
Additionally, future research includes exploring other causes that might need to be
validated for the stakeholder group of focus for this study. While multiple knowledge,
motivation, and organizational causes were presented in this study, other assumed causes
include:
• Staff members at Viable Options are instructed to disregard regional center
obligations, thus leading to noncompliant practices.
• Staff members at Viable Options lack a basic understanding of the concept of
compliance and thus are unable to meet regional center expectations.
• Staff members at Viable Options are not motivated to work with regional center
clients because compliance issues create a heavier workload.
• Staff members at Viable Options do not receive an increased pay rate for regional
center duties and therefore neglect compliance issues because they are not
compensated for these tasks.
SERVICE PROVIDER COMPLIANCE
87
Conclusion
The performance problem that was the focus of this gap analysis is regional center
noncompliance. This problem hinders the organization’s ability to accomplish its mission
statement of graduating young men and women of confidence and character and puts the
organization at risk of loss of funding. The purpose of this project consisted of conducting a gap
analysis to examine the root causes of the organizational problem described above. The analysis
focused on causes for this problem due to gaps in the areas of knowledge and skill, motivation,
and organizational issues. The problem-solving framework for this gap analysis included Gap
Analysis Methodology (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011), Pintrich’s (2003) motivation
framework, the Anderson and Krathwohl model (2001), and the principles of Information
Processing, Social Cognitive, Cognitive Load, and Self-Regulation theories of learning.
The analysis here reveals that the problem of regional center noncompliance among adult
service providers is multifaceted and worthy of attention. It also reveals how important the
process of analysis is in examining the various causes of organizational problems and integrating
solutions that align with those problems.
SERVICE PROVIDER COMPLIANCE
88
References
Aarons, G. A., & Sawitzky, A. C. (2006). Organizational climate partially mediates the effect of
culture on work attitudes and staff turnover in mental health services. Administration and
Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 33(3), 289-301.
Abbeduto, L., Seltzer, M. M., Shattuck, P., Krauss, M. W., Orsmond, G., & Murphy, M. M.
(2004). Psychological well-being and coping in mothers of youths with autism, down
syndrome, or fragile X syndrome. Journal Information, 109(3).
Adreon, D., & Durocher, J. S. (2007). Evaluating the college transition needs of individuals with
high-functioning autism spectrum disorders. Intervention in School and Clinic, 42(5),
271-279.
Allen-Meares, P. (2004). School social work: Historical development, influences, and practices.
Social work services in schools, 23-51.
American Psychiatric Association. (1987). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders
(3rd ed.). Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing.
American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders
(4th ed.). Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing.
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders
(5th ed.). Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing.
Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring Network. (2014). In centers for disease
control and prevention. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/addm.html
Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring Network Surveillance Year 2002
Principal Investigators; Center for Disease Control and Prevention 2007 Prevalence
of autism spectrum disorders–autism and developmental disabilities monitoring
SERVICE PROVIDER COMPLIANCE
89
network, 14 sites, United States, 2002. MMWR Surveill Summ 56:12–28.
Autism Spectrum Disorders. (2003). In California department of developmental services.
Retrieved from http://www.dds.ca.gov/Autism/docs/AutismReport2003.pdf
Baker, J. P. (2013). Autism at 70--redrawing the boundaries. The New England journal of
medicine, 369(12), 1089.
Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning.
Educational psychologist, 28(2), 117-148.
Barnhill, G., Hagiwara, T., Myles, B. S., & Simpson, R. L. (2000). Asperger Syndrome A Study
of the Cognitive Profiles of 37 Children and Adolescents. Focus on Autism and Other
Developmental Disabilities, 15(3), 146-153.
Bellini, S. (2006). The development of social anxiety in adolescents with autism spectrum
disorders. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 21(3), 138-145.
Billstedt, E., Gillberg, C., & Gillberg, C. (2005). Autism after adolescence: population-based 13-
to 22-year follow-up study of 120 individuals with autism diagnosed in childhood.
Journal of autism and developmental disorders, 35(3), 351-360.
Bolman, L. G., & Terrence, E. Deal. 2003. Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and
leadership.
Cameto, R., Levine, P., & Wagner, M. (2004). Transition Planning for Students with Disabilities:
A Special Topic Report of Findings from the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2
(NLTS2). National Center for Special Education Research.
Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Steca, P., & Malone, P. S. (2006). Teachers' self-efficacy
beliefs as determinants of job satisfaction and students' academic achievement: A study at
the school level. Journal of school psychology, 44(6), 473-490.
SERVICE PROVIDER COMPLIANCE
90
Centers for Disease Control (2006). In Morbidity and mortality weekly report. Retrieved from
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5810a1.htm
Central Valley Regional Center. (2014). Retrieved from http://www.cvrc.org/index.php?c=11
Chou, Y. C., Lee, Y. C., Lin, L. C., Chang, A. N., & Huang, W. Y. (2008). Social services
utilization by adults with intellectual disabilities and their families. Social Science &
Medicine, 66(12), 2474-2485.
Church, C., Alisanski, S., & Amanullah, S. (2000). The social, behavioral, and academic
experiences of children with Asperger syndrome. Focus on Autism and Other
Developmental Disabilities, 15(1), 12-20.
Cimera, R. E., & Cowan, R. J. (2009). The costs of services and employment outcomes achieved
by adults with autism in the US. Autism, 13(3), 285-302.
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Atlanta, GA: CEP Press.
DeJong, G., Batavia, A. I., & Griss, R. (1989). America's neglected health minority: working-age
persons with disabilities. The Milbank Quarterly, 311-351
Department of Developmental Services Fact Book. (2008). Retrieved from
http://www.dds.ca.gov/FactsStats/docs/factbook_11th.pdf
Department of Developmental Services Fact Book (2015). Retrieved from
http://www.dds.ca.gov/FactsStats/docs/factBook_12th.pdf
Department of Developmental Services. (2014). Retrieved from
http://www.dds.ca.gov/FCPP/Index.cfm
SERVICE PROVIDER COMPLIANCE
91
Dovey, S., & Webb, O. J. (2000). General practitioners’ perception of their role in care for
people with intellectual disability. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 44(5), 553-
561.
Farrugia, S., & Hudson, J. (2006). Anxiety in adolescents with Asperger syndrome: Negative
thoughts, behavioral problems, and life interference. Focus on Autism and Other
Developmental Disabilities, 21(1), 25-35.
Fombonne, E. (2003). Epidemiological surveys of autism and other pervasive developmental
disorders: an update. Journal of autism and developmental disorders, 33(4), 365-382.
García‐Villamisar, D., & Hughes, C. (2007). Supported employment improves cognitive
performance in adults with autism. Journal of intellectual disability research, 51(2), 142-
150.
Gitlin, L. , Szanton, S., & DuGoff, E. (2011). Supporting individuals with disability across the
lifespan at home: social services, technologies, and the built environment. Retrieved from
http://www.thescanfoundation.org/sites/default/files/TSF_CLASS_TA_No1_Supporting_
Individuals_At_Home_FINAL.pdf
Glennon, T. J. (2001). The stress of the university experience for students with Asperger
syndrome. Work: A Journal of Prevention, Assessment and Rehabilitation, 17(3), 183-
190.
Gurney, J. G., Fritz, M. S., Ness, K. K., Sievers, P., Newschaffer, C. J., & Shapiro, E. G. (2003).
Analysis of prevalence trends of autism spectrum disorder in Minnesota. Archives of
Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 157(7), 622-627.
Regional Center Service Agreement. (2011).
SERVICE PROVIDER COMPLIANCE
92
Harris, S. L., Handleman, J. S., & Jennett, H. K. (2005). Models of Educational Intervention for
Students with Autism: Home, Center, and School‐Based Programming. Handbook of
Autism and Pervasive Developmental Disorders, Volume 2, Third Edition, 1043-1054.
Hawkins, G. (2004). How to find work that works for people with Asperger syndrome. New
York: Jessica Kingsley.
Held, M. F., Thoma, C. A., & Thomas, K. (2004). “The John Jones Show” How One Teacher
Facilitated Self-Determined Transition Planning for a Young Man With Autism. Focus
on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 19(3), 177-188.
Hendricks, D. R., & Wehman, P. (2009). Transition from school to adulthood for youth with
autism spectrum disorders: Review and recommendations. Focus on Autism and Other
Developmental Disabilities.
Hewitt, A., Agosta, J., Heller, T., Williams, A. C., & Reinke, J. (2013). Families of individuals
with intellectual and developmental disabilities: Policy, funding, services, and
experiences. Intellectual and developmental disabilities, 51(5), 349-359.
Howlin, P. (2005). Outcomes in autism spectrum disorders. In Handbook of Autism and
Pervasive Developmental Disorders, Volume One: Diagnosis, Development,
Neurobiology, and Behavior (Third Edition) (F.R. Volkmar, R. Paul, A. Klin, and D.
Cohen, eds.) pp. 201-220. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Hurlbutt, K., & Chalmers, L. (2004). Employment and adults with Asperger syndrome. Focus on
autism and other developmental disabilities, 19(4), 215-222.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act. (2004). Retrieved from
http://www.p12.nysed.gov/specialed/idea/
SERVICE PROVIDER COMPLIANCE
93
Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee (2011). Retrieved from
http://iacc.hhs.gov/strategic-plan/2011/index.shtml
Kanner, L. (1943). Autistic disturbances of affective contact. Nervous child, 2(3), 217-250.
Kanner, L. (1965). Infantile autism and the schizophrenias. Behavioral Science, 10(4), 412-420.
Kavale, K. A., & Forness, S. R. (1999). Efficacy of special education and related services.
Washington, DC: American Association on Mental Retardation.
Keyes, K. M., Susser, E., Cheslack-Postava, K., Fountain, C., Liu, K., & Bearman, P. S. (2012).
Cohort effects explain the increase in autism diagnosis among children born from 1992 to
2003 in California. International journal of epidemiology, 41(2), 495-503.
Kim, J. A., Szatmari, P., Bryson, S. E., Streiner, D. L., & Wilson, F. J. (2000). The prevalence of
anxiety and mood problems among children with autism and Asperger syndrome. Autism,
4(2), 117-132.
Krauss, M. W., Seltzer, M. M., & Jacobson, H. T. (2005). Adults with autism living at home or
in non‐family settings: positive and negative aspects of residential status. Journal of
intellectual disability research, 49(2), 111-124.
Krohn, F. B., & Goetz, K. M. (2005). The Goetz Plan: A Practical Smoking Cessation Program
for College Students. College Student Journal, 39(2), 260.
Larson, S. A., & Hewitt, A. S. (Eds.). (2005). Staff recruitment, retention, and training strategies
for community human services organizations. Paul H Brookes Publishing Company.
Larson, S. A., Lakin, K. C., Anderson, L., Kwak, N., Lee, J. H., & Anderson, D. (2000).
Prevalence of mental retardation or developmental disabilities: Analysis of the 1994/1995
NHISD. MR/DD Data Brief 1 (2). University of Minnesota, Institute on Community
Integration, Research and Training Center on Community Living, Minneapolis, MN.
SERVICE PROVIDER COMPLIANCE
94
LeBlanc, L. A., Riley, A. R., & Goldsmith, T. R. (2008). Autism spectrum disorders: A lifespan
perspective. Clinical assessment and intervention for autism spectrum disorders, 65-90.
Lord, C., & MaGill-Evans, J. (1995). Peer interactions of autistic children and adolescents.
Development and Psychopathology, 7(04), 611-626.
Kogan, M. D., Blumberg, S. J., Schieve, L. A., Boyle, C. A., Perrin, J. M., Ghandour, R. M., ...
& van Dyck, P. C. (2009). Prevalence of parent-reported diagnosis of autism spectrum
disorder among children in the US, 2007. Pediatrics, 124(5), 1395-1403.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design. An interactive approach. Los Angeles: Sage
Publications, Inc.
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research. A guide to design and implementation. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
National Council on Disability. (2000). Retrieved from http://www.ncd.gov/publications/2000/
Newschaffer, C. J., Falb, M. D., & Gurney, J. G. (2005). National autism prevalence trends from
United States special education data. Pediatrics, 115(3), 277-282.
National Institutes of Health. (2015). Retrieved from
http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/epilepsy/epilepsy.htm
Odom, S. L., Collet-Klingenberg, L., Rogers, S. J., & Hatton, D. D. (2010). Evidence-based
practices in interventions for children and youth with autism spectrum disorders.
Preventing school failure: Alternative education for children and youth, 54(4), 275-282.
Orsmond, G. I., Krauss, M. W., & Seltzer, M. M. (2004). Peer relationships and social and
recreational activities among adolescents and adults with autism. Journal of autism and
developmental disorders, 34(3), 245-256.
SERVICE PROVIDER COMPLIANCE
95
Overview of Special Education in California (2013). In Legislative Analyst’s Office. Retrieved
from http://www.lao.ca.gov/reports/2013/edu/special-ed-primer/special-ed-primer-
010313.aspx
Persson, B. (2000). Brief report: A longitudinal study of quality of life and independence among
adult men with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 30(1), 61-66.
Regional Center of Orange County. (2014). Retrieved from http://www.rcocdd.com/about-
rcoc/mission-statement/
Rogan, P., Banks, B., & Howard, M. (2000). Workplace Supports in Practice As Little as
Possible, as Much as Necessary. Focus on Autism and Other developmental disabilities,
15(1), 2-11.
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance: Finding the right
solutions to the right problems. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Schall, C., Cortijo-Doval, E., Targett, P. S., Wehman, P., & Wehman, P. (2006). Applications for
youth with autism spectrum disorders. Life beyond the classroom: Transition strategies
for young people with disabilities, 535-575.
Schechter, R., & Grether, J. K. (2008). Continuing increases in autism reported to California's
developmental services system: mercury in retrograde. Archives of General Psychiatry,
65(1), 19-24.
Schunk, D. H. (1989). Social cognitive theory and self-regulated learning. In Self-regulated
learning and academic achievement (pp. 83-110). Springer New York.
Shattuck, P. T., Wagner, M., Narendorf, S., Sterzing, P., & Hensley, M. (2011). Post–high school
service use among young adults with an autism spectrum disorder. Archives of pediatrics
& adolescent medicine, 165(2), 141-146.
SERVICE PROVIDER COMPLIANCE
96
Shattuck, P. T., Narendorf, S. C., Cooper, B., Sterzing, P. R., Wagner, M., & Taylor, J. L.
(2012). Postsecondary education and employment among youth with an autism spectrum
disorder. Pediatrics, peds-2011.
Sigman, M., & Ruskin, E. (1999). Change and continuity in the social competence of children
with Autism, Down syndrome, and developmental delays. Monographs of the Society for
Research in Child Development.
Smith, M., Belcher, R. G., & Juhrs, P.D. (1995). A guide to successful employment for
individuals with autism. Baltimore: Brookes.
State of California Department of Developmental Services. (2014). Retrieved from
http://www.dds.ca.gov/
Stone, W. L., & Ousley, O.Y. (1999). Pervasive Developmental Disorders: Autism. In Disorders
of Development and Learning (2 ed.). 379-405. St. Louis: MO: Mosby.
Taylor, J. L., & Seltzer, M. M. (2011). Employment and post-secondary educational activities for
young adults with autism spectrum disorders during the transition to adulthood. Journal
of autism and developmental disorders, 41(5), 566-574.
The Arc. (2015). Education issues for people with disabilities. Retrieved from
http://www.thearc.org/what-we-do/public-policy/policy-issues/education
Thoma, C. A., & Sale, P. (2005). Going to school. In P. Wehman, P. J. McLaughlin, & T.
Wehman (Eds.), Intellectual and developmental disabilities: Toward full community
inclusion (3
rd
ed., pp. 16-29).
Twenty-sixth Annual Report to Congress on the Implementation of the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act. To Assure the Free Appropriate Public Education of All
SERVICE PROVIDER COMPLIANCE
97
Children with Disabilities (Section 618). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of
Education; 2003.
Turnbull, H. R., Wilcox, B. L., & Stowe, M. J. (2002). A brief overview of special education law
with focus on autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 32(5), 479-493.
United States Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2013). Persons with a disability:
barriers to employment, types of assistance, and other labor-related issues. Retrieved
from http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/dissup_04242013.pdf
VanBergeijk, E., Klin, A., & Volkmar, F. (2008). Supporting more able students on the autism
spectrum: College and beyond. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 38(7),
1359-1370.
Van Bourgondien, M. E., Reichle, N. C., & Schopler, E. (2003). Effects of a model treatment
approach on adults with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 33(2),
131-140.
Van Krevelen, D. A. (1971). Early infantile autism and autistic psychopathy. Journal of Autism
and Childhood Schizophrenia, 1(1), 82-86.
Wagner, M., Newman, L., Cameto, R., Garza, N., & Levine, P. (2005). After high school: A first
look at the postschool experiences of youth with disabilities. A report from the National
Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2). Online Submission.
Wagner, M., Newman, L., Cameto, R., Levine, P., & Marder, C. (2007). Perceptions and
Expectations of Youth with Disabilities. A Special Topic Report of Findings from the
National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2). NCSER 2007-3006. National Center
for Special Education Research.
SERVICE PROVIDER COMPLIANCE
98
Where we’ve been and where we’re going: The autism society’s proud history. (2011). Autism
Advocate, 61(3), 7-11. Retrieved from http://www.autism-
society.org/files/2014/04/autism-society-history.pdf
Yazbak, F. E. (2003). Autism in the United States: A perspective. Journal of American
Physicians and Surgeons, 8(4), 103-107.
SERVICE PROVIDER COMPLIANCE
99
Appendix A: Survey Items
Knowledge Items
Factual
1. What are the consequences are for failure to comply with the regional center service
agreement?
2. A regional center client in our program decides to withdraw from both of his classes
because he states that he feels overwhelmed with how busy his days are. He decides that
he will take the entire semester off and enroll in class at a later date. If our organization
allows the student to take off the entire semester, are we in violation of our service
agreement? Why or why not?
3. A regional center client in our program asks if he can move all of his Friday modules
Monday and Tuesday so he can have all of Friday to himself to relax. How can you
accommodate this student’s request while remaining compliant with the regional center
service agreement?
Conceptual
4. List three ways our organization’s relationship with the regional center influences your
daily practices.
5. List the categories of services students receive at Viable Options.
Procedural
6. What procedures are in place to ensure adherence to the regional center service
agreement?
7. How do you determine whether or not what you are doing is in compliance with regional
center requirements?
SERVICE PROVIDER COMPLIANCE
100
Metacognitive
8. How do you go about getting information in your work environment?
9. Describe any system or strategies you utilize to organize your daily tasks and work flow.
10. Think about the strategies you use to complete your daily work tasks. How often do you
engage in the process of reflection regarding the effectiveness of those strategies?
Motivation Items
11. How useful is the regional center service agreement to you in performing your daily tasks?
1 (Very useful) 2 (Useful) 3 (Somewhat useful) 4 (Not at all useful)
12. I find the idea of learning more about regional center compliance
1 (Very interesting) 2 (Interesting) 3 (Somewhat interesting) 4 (Not at all interesting)
13. It is important to me be well versed in issues of regional center compliance.
1 (Strongly agree) 2 (Agree) 3 (Disagree) 4 (Strongly disagree)
14. If Viable Options is not in compliance, it is not because I did not give my full effort in
preparing for audit.
1 (Strongly agree) 2 (Agree) 3 (Disagree) 4 (Strongly disagree)
15. No matter how much effort I put into the work I do at Viable Options, I occasionally feel that
this effort is pointless due to the challenges faced by our student population.
1 (Strongly agree) 2 (Agree) 3 (Disagree) 4 (Strongly disagree)
16. The progress our students make is a direct result of my efforts as a staff member at Viable
Options.
1 (Strongly agree) 2 (Agree) 3 (Disagree) 4 (Strongly disagree)
17. How interested are you in learning more about regional center compliance?
SERVICE PROVIDER COMPLIANCE
101
1 (Very interested) 2 (Interested) 3 (Somewhat interested) 4 (Not at all interested)
18. Below is a list of four tasks that fall within the scope of regional center compliance. Rank
these tasks in order of what you are most interested in (with a rank of 1 being assigned to the
task you are the most interested in engaging in).
a. _____Service agreement review
b. _____Audit preparation
c. _____Student file review
d. _____Regional center report writing
Organization Items
19. There is a culture of high staff accountability at Viable Options.
1 (Strongly agree) 2 (Agree) 3 (Disagree) 4 (Strongly disagree)
20. Staff members at Viable Options are held to high ethical standards.
1 (Strongly agree) 2 (Agree) 3 (Disagree) 4 (Strongly disagree)
21. I have ample time each day to accomplish my work tasks.
1 (Strongly agree) 2 (Agree) 3 (Disagree) 4 (Strongly disagree)
22. I have access to the tools I need to effectively do my job.
1 (Strongly agree) 2 (Agree) 3 (Disagree) 4 (Strongly disagree)
23. I have received adequate training since joining Viable Options.
1 (Strongly agree) 2 (Agree) 3 (Disagree) 4 (Strongly disagree)
24. I am satisfied with my salary and feel that it is comparable to other professionals in the
field.
1 (Strongly agree) 2 (Agree) 3 (Disagree) 4 (Strongly disagree)
SERVICE PROVIDER COMPLIANCE
102
25. How confident are you in your ability to articulate regional center requirements?
1 (Very confident) 2 (Confident) 3 (Somewhat confident) 4 (Not at all confident)
26. What are the most rewarding aspects of your job?
27. What are the most challenging aspects of your job?
28. What is your perception of the regional centers?
29. What do you need in order to do your job more effectively with regional center clients?
30. How do you feel about the role the regional centers play within your organization?
31. In terms of daily tasks, do you feel Viable Options understands the impact regional
centers expectations have on its staff members? Explain.
32. In what area do you feel our organization excels?
33. Have you ever participated in a training regarding the regional requirements? If yes, do
you feel the training you received has adequately prepared you for the work you do with
this student population and the things we said we would do per the regional center?
SERVICE PROVIDER COMPLIANCE
103
Appendix B: Fact Sheet
IRB Template Version: 3-8-13 Page 1 of 2
Last edits made on: 10/15/14 – Information Sheet for Exempt Applications
UPIRB#: UP-14-00543
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
INFORMATION/FACTS SHEET FOR EXEMPT NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH
Service Provider Compliance With Regional Center Service Agreement: A Gap Analysis
You are invited to participate in a research study conducted by Taniko Woods under the
supervision of Kimberly Hirabayashi at the University of Southern California because you are a
CIP Long Beach staff member over the age of 18. Research studies include only people who
voluntarily choose to take part. This document explains information about this study. You should
ask questions about anything that is unclear to you.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The purpose of this study is to conduct a gap analysis to examine the root causes of the
organizational problem of regional center noncompliance. The analysis will focus on causes for
this problem due to gaps in the areas of knowledge and skill, motivation, and organizational
issues.
PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT
If you agree to take part in this study, you will be asked to complete an anonymous online survey
which is anticipated to take about 20-30 minutes. Please complete the survey at home or outside
of normal work hours. You do not have to answer any questions you don’t want to, click “next”
or “N/A” in the survey to move to the next question. The survey link will be emailed to your
staff email address, and will be available for four weeks. Once results are submitted, you will not
have the option to re-enter the survey and modify any responses.
ALTERNATIVES TO PARTICIPATION
Your alternative is to not participate. Your relationship with your CIP Long Beach or the
Program Director will not be affected whether you participate or not in this study.
CONFIDENTIALITY
There will be no identifiable information obtained in connection with this study. Your name,
address or other identifiable information will not be collected.
Responses will be collected anonymously, tabulated through software, and a copy made for back
up purposes will be stored on an external hard drive and maintained in a locked drawer. No
identifiable demographic information will be collected during the study and all results will be
maintained on a password-protected laptop. Upon completion of the data analysis, all copies of
data will be destroyed.
St u d y I D : U P-1 4 -0 0 5 4 3 Va l i d F ro m: 1 0 / 1 7 / 2 0 1 4
SERVICE PROVIDER COMPLIANCE
104
IRB Template Version: 3-8-13 Page 2 of 2
Last edits made on: 10/15/14 – Information Sheet for Exempt Applications
UPIRB#: UP-14-00543
The members of the research team and the University of Southern California’s Human Subjects
Protection Program (HSPP) may access the data. The HSPP reviews and monitors research
studies to protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.
Aggregate anonymous data will be shared with the President of the College Internship Program
who will determine what to do with the findings of the study.
INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact Principal
Investigator Taniko Woods at tanikowo@usc.edu or Faculty Advisor Kimberly Hirabayashi at
hirabaya@usc.edu.
IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have questions, concerns, or complaints about your rights as a research participant or the
research in general and are unable to contact the research team, or if you want to talk to someone
independent of the research team, please contact the University Park Institutional Review Board
(UPIRB), 3720 South Flower Street #301, Los Angeles, CA 90089-0702, (213) 821-5272 or
upirb@usc.edu.
St u d y I D : U P-1 4 -0 0 5 4 3 Va l i d F ro m: 1 0 / 1 7 / 2 0 1 4
Abstract (if available)
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Examining faculty challenges to improve African Americans’ developmental English outcomes at an urban southern California community college using gap analysis model
PDF
Examining teachers' roles in English learners achievement in language arts: a gap analysis
PDF
A gap analysis of employee satisfaction within the National Park Service: Kailuana National Park
PDF
Establishing a systematic evaluation of positive behavioral interventions and supports to improve implementation and accountability approaches using a gap analysis framework
PDF
Gap analysis of employee satisfaction at a national park: Round Hill Park
PDF
Improving instructor skills (IIS): a Needs analysis
PDF
A case study in student retention at a Northern California private Jewish day school: a gap analysis
PDF
Improving math achievement among fourth graders at Al-Corniche Primary For Girls: a gap analysis
PDF
A gap analysis of employee satisfaction within the National Park Service: Casa Linda National Park
PDF
Creating "excellent" learning experiences: a gap analysis of a university extension program
PDF
A gap analysis of employee satisfaction for the National Park Service: Picturesque Park
PDF
A capstone project using the gap analysis model: closing the college readinesss gap for Latino English language learners with a focus on goals and parent involvement
PDF
A gap analysis of employee satisfaction for the National Park Service: Camp Moxie site
PDF
Increasing student performance on the Independent School Entrance Exam (ISEE) using the Gap Analysis approach
PDF
The moderating role of knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences on employee turnover: A gap analysis
PDF
Cognitive task analysis for instruction in single-injection ultrasound-guided regional anesthesia
PDF
Examining the adoption of electronic health records system in patient care and students’ education using the GAP analysis approach
PDF
Preventing excessive force incidents by improving police training: an evaluation study of a use-of-force training program
PDF
Increasing partnerships between education and industry in the United Arab Emirates: a gap analysis
PDF
An examination of tri-level collaboration around student achievement using the gap analysis approach: School site leadership factors
Asset Metadata
Creator
Woods, Taniko Nicole
(author)
Core Title
Service provider compliance with regional center service agreement: a gap analysis
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education (Leadership)
Publication Date
07/31/2015
Defense Date
06/02/2015
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
Compliance,developmental disability,gap analysis,OAI-PMH Harvest,public funding,regional center,service provider
Format
application/pdf
(imt)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Hirabayashi, Kimberly (
committee chair
), Seli, Helena (
committee member
), Tobey, Patricia Elaine (
committee member
)
Creator Email
nickeywoods@gmail.com,tanikowo@usc.edu
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-621805
Unique identifier
UC11304025
Identifier
etd-WoodsTanik-3768.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-621805 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-WoodsTanik-3768.pdf
Dmrecord
621805
Document Type
Dissertation
Format
application/pdf (imt)
Rights
Woods, Taniko Nicole
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA
Tags
developmental disability
gap analysis
public funding
regional center
service provider