Carl Calkins, PhD, University of Missouri, Kansas City

1
Research Design Workgroup

• Carl Calkins, PhD, University of Missouri, Kansas
  City
• Margaret Nygren, EdD, AUCD

2
Workgroup Members

• Brent Askvig, North Dakota Center for Persons
  with Disabilities, North Dakota
• Carl Calkins, UMKC Institute for Human
  Development, Missouri
• Elisabeth Dykens, Vanderbilt Kennedy UCEDD,
  Tennessee
• Michael Gamel-McCormick, Center for Disabilities
  Studies, Delaware
• Gloria Krahn, Oregon Institute on Disability
  Development, Oregon
• Fred Orelove, Partnership for People with
  Disabilities, Virginia
• Sarah Rule, Center for Persons with Disabilities,
  Utah
• Zolinda Stoneman, Institute on Human Development
  Disability, Georgia
• Barbara Wheeler, USC UCEDD, California

3
Purpose, Plan, and Intended Outcome

• Purpose of Workgroup To assist in the
  development of a research design to explore how
  universities are approaching the recruitment and
  selection of new UCEDD directors
• Plan
• Phase I Conduct a brief survey of the entire
  network to provide initial data and to inform
  phase II
• Phase II Conduct in depth interviews of a small
  cross-section UCEDD Directors and university
  officials on issues of importance in hiring at
  universities today
• Intended Outcome we hope to inform the next
  generation of leaders what credentials they might
  develop, provide opportunities to develop
  expertise in these areas, and to be better
  prepared to supply search committees with
  relevant information.

4
Timeline Activities To Date

• September-October 2007
• Workgroup identified areas of interest and
  discussed data gathering and analysis plan
• November-December 2007
• Reviewed draft survey and suggested revisions
• Determined that a focus group of former Directors
  and retiring Directors should be used to further
  inform the development of Phase I II
  questions.
• January 2008
• Focus group held
• February 2008
• Survey modified in response to focus group
  comments
• March 2008
• UCEDD Directors surveyed Directors/Co-Directs of
  44 UCEDDs responded, a 66 response rate
• April 2008
• Initial results reviewed
• Next steps in data analysis identified
• Thematic areas for Phase II questions identified
• June 2008
• Presenting initial findings at ADD TA Institute

5
Tools and Method

• Focus Group
• The focus group panel was held via a one-hour
  conference call. The group participated in a
  roundtable discussion directed by an experienced
  moderator and observed by members of the
  workgroup examining this issue and the ADD
  project officer..
• Survey
• The survey included 8 quantitative questions, 2
  qualitative questions, and 1 opportunity for
  general comments.
• The survey was organized into 2 sections
• First, addressing elements related to the current
  directors position
• Second, asking respondents to predict how a
  search would be conducted for a new UCEDD
  Director if undertaken today

6
Focus Group

• All UCEDD Directors who had retired in the past
  year or who had announced a plan to retire within
  the next 6 months were invited to participate in
  the focus group.
• Of the 9 invited, 8 participated in the focus
  group.
• The purpose of the focus group interview panel
  was two-fold, to
• Gather feedback on a draft survey designed to
  capture information from UCEDD Director/Co-Directo
  rs on their current job responsibilities and to
  gather their predictions on the candidate
  qualifications and recruitment processes if a new
  UCEDD Director/Co-Director were to be hired in
  the near future.
• Provide a forum for emeritus and near-emeritus
  Directors to share their thoughts on the UCEDD
  Director recruitment and transition processes.

7
The Consensus of Focus Group Participants on the
UCEDD Director Recruitment and Transition
processes

• UCEDD Director recruitment processes are
  determined by the university and often divorced
  from those with knowledge of the UCEDD.
• Variables that affect recruitment are tenure
  status, perceived value of the UCEDD to the
  university (size, project, or infrastructure),
  processes for internal candidates to be
  considered, opportunities to develop or mentor
  junior staff to take on the role, and formal exit
  strategies for retiring Directors.
• Assuring that UCEDD Directors have credibility in
  their university setting is essential to
  navigating the system, securing resources, and
  influencing processes that impact the UCEDD.
  Credibility is conferred by tenure in some
  settings, in other settings there are other
  currencies that confer credibility and respect.
• The diversity of the network makes it impossible
  to have a one size fits all approach, but that it
  may be possible to develop profiles or types of
  UCEDDs for which candidate qualifications and
  recruitment processes could be tailored.

8
Consensus continued.

• Changes in UCEDD leadership may reflect or
  provoke the universitys interest in change in
  the qualifications of the next director or
  intention to change the direction of the work of
  the UCEDD. The search may be part of a dynamic
  change that reconceptualizes the division of
  labor of the UCEDD Director and any other hats
  the current person wears.
• Search committees need consultation to help them
  understand what the skills the UCEDD needs in a
  leader to be able to operate.
• The search may take 9-12 months or longer.
• The UCEDD is likely to be at its most vulnerable
  during the recruitment and transition processes,
  as forces in the university may act to
  appropriate UCEDD resources.

9
Focus Group Recommendations

• Universities should engage in a self-study prior
  to initiating the recruitment, that is, determine
  its needs and set goals before it starts looking
  for a new UCEDD Director.
• UCEDD faculty and/or outgoing director should be
  involved in the hiring of a new one.
• AUCD, as an outside source that could not be
  perceived as influencing the search, should
  assist universities in the recruitment processes
  by providing
• Director job descriptions from other UCEDDs
• Consultation to help the search committee
  understand what expertise is required to meet
  UCEDD grant deliverables
• A list of comparable UCEDDs, so that the search
  committee might engage in informational
  interviews with their Directors
• Provide any profile information that might be
  developed on UCEDD types.
• ADD should not offer nor require that its staff
  participate in the recruitment of new UCEDD
  Directors.

10
Initial Results of Survey Current UCEDD Director
Responsibilities

• Scope of Responsibility
• Most (60) both manage the day-to-day operations
  and lead their UCEDD
• Job Description
• Most have a current job description (79)
• Among those with a job description, 53 of those
  descriptions were updated within the past 12
  months 25 reported their job descriptions were
  updated in the last 2-5 years
• Tenure
• Given where their UCEDD was administratively
  housed, 47 reported it was very important, 21
  indicated it was somewhat important
• Narrative comments strongly suggested that to be
  successful, UCEDD Directors need to have
  credibility within the host university, if not
  through tenure, then through alternative
  promotion schedules or other institutional
  currency

11
Initial Results of Survey Predictions on the
Necessary Qualifications and Recruitment Process
for a new UCEDD Director at the University

•  Recruitment processes were predicted to very
  likely entail
• A national search (74)
• The consideration of internal candidates (63),
• Inclusion of UCEDD staff on the search committee
  (64)
• Inclusion of non-university staff such as CAC
  members, community partners, etc. on the search
  committee (64)
• Respondents indicated that the use of a head
  hunting firm was either not very likely (44) or
  not likely at all (46)
• Predictions on the likelihood of the current
  directors inclusion on the search committee for
  the next director was
• 28.5 very likely
• 28.5 somewhat likely
• 24 not very likely
• 19 not likely at all

12
Initial Results of Survey Predictions on the
Necessary Qualifications and Recruitment Process
for a new UCEDD Director at the University

• Qualifications identified as very likely to be
  important
• Capacity to bring in grants/revenue (91)
• Management/leadership credentials (86)
• Disability experience/expertise (82)
• Publication history (52)
• Community outreach/engagement experience (50)
• Tenurability (46)
• Qualifications identified as somewhat likely to
  be important
• Familiarity with UCEDDs (55)
• research (52)
• Teaching (44)

13
Next Steps

• Further analysis of survey data
• The survey responses will be matched with data on
  variables that might be relevant (administrative
  location of the UCEDD university Carnegie
  classification, land grant status, public/private
  status). The resulting dataset will be examined
  to determine what, if any, correlations may be
  observed.
• Begin Phase II
• Themes suggested by the survey and focus groups
  will be used to gather data from in depth
  interviews with a small cross section of UCEDD
  Directors and University leaders
• Report on findings at AUCD Annual Meeting