Program Evaluation for Postsecondary Disability Services. (2003)

In his New Freedom Initiative President George W. Bush (2001) reported disappointing educational and occupational for many students with disabilities. Problems include high percentages of these students dropping out of high school, failing to attain meaningful employment, not seeking admission to postsecondary education, and not being prepared to succeed in postsecondary education (Horn, Berktold, & Bobbit, 1999; U.S. Department of Education, 2000). Johnson, Stodden, Emanuel, Luecking, and Mack (2002) discussed studies indicating the failure of educational institutions to effectively implement required policies and practices. Critics of special education at the K-12 level have used these concerns to advance a national movement calling for a reduction in services and a greater emphasis on accountability (Finn, Rotherham, & Hokanson, 2001; Palmaffy, 2001). Wolf and Hassel (2001) noted that express purpose of the 1997 IDEA amendments was to focus the oversight system for special education on educational outcomes (p. 65).Postsecondary disability services personnel can benefit from reflection about these substantive policy issues currently under debate as discussion about the reauthorization of the IDEA moves forward. In this era of externally driven reform initiatives, the ability to demonstrate the efficacy of services required by students with disabilities is also relevant for professionals in postsecondary settings.Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) were instrumental in promoting the development of postsecondary disability services for growing numbers of students with disabilities entering postsecondary institutions (Dukes & Shaw, 1998; Henderson, 2001). Brinckerhoff, McGuire, and Shaw (2002) questioned the efficacy of these services because of the haphazard manner in which they evolved.Postsecondary disability professionals can turn to a small but increasing number of helpful resources in response to these concerns. This article draws upon the emerging literature about students who access the Office for Students with Disabilities (OSD) to describe methods for evaluating these services. Although OSD offices are the focus of the examples in this article, the rationale, framework, and recommendations for evaluation activities can be applied to any postsecondary student services office. Program evaluations require careful planning and creative use of time; still, service providers typically do not require additional training to conduct them, often discover existing resources to assist the process, and report results that are well worth the effort. The CAS Standards, originally published in this journal (Materniak & Williams, 1987), include benchmarks for an array of higher education programs (e.g., learning centers, orientation programs, counseling offices) that can form the cornerstone for program review in higher education. In addition, the Program Standards (Shaw & Dukes, 2001) published by the Association on Higher Education and Disability (AHEAD) offer a useful framework for program review. Examples of evaluation activities from five campuses illustrate the use of data to clarify problems, inform solutions, and document successes.The examples come in part from Ruth J. Fink, Maureen C. Reustle, and Sam Goodin. Fink, former Director of Disability Services (DS) at the University of Colorado (CU), is a School of Education faculty member there and conducts program evaluations on other campuses. She has coordinated a formal evaluation of the DS office at CU during 1994-1995. Although dated, this evaluation provides meaningful examples and suggestions that continue to be relevant, given the timeless quality of data-driven approaches to evaluation. Reustle has been Director of the Disability Resource Center (DRC) at Ocean County College in New Jersey for the past 14 years and frequently makes presentations on program evaluations at national conferences. …