Exploring the Outcomes of an Advocacy Program for Latino Families of Children With Autism

• In Event: Parenting, Diversity and Autism: Implications for General Education

Abstract

1. Objective
This study aimed to explore the primary and secondary outcomes of an advocacy program for Latino families of children wtih autism spectrum disorder (ASD). The research questions (RQs) were: (RQ1) Using a proxy, did the number of words used and turns taken in IEP meetings increase after participating in the advocacy program?; (RQ2) Using a proxy, did the number of the appropriate responses in IEP meetings increase after participating in the advocacy program; and (RQ3) To what extent did advocacy program graduates advocate for other families?

2. Framework
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act encourages parents to participate in Individualized Education Program (IEP) meetings and to advocate for children with disabilities. However, Latino families of children with ASD face systemic barriers making it difficult to participate in meetings and to advocate (Spann et al., 2003; Shapiro et al., 2004). Although advocacy programs are becoming common (Burke, 2013), there are few programs in Spanish for Latino families. Given the barriers to participation and advocacy, it is important to develop and test advocacy programs for Latino families.

3. Method & Data sources
There were 28 participants. All participants were Latino family members of individuals with ASD. Most participants had annual incomes of less than $49,999. See Table 1. Participants completed the Latino Parent Leadership Support Project (LPLSP, Puente & Castillo, 2015), a 36-hour advocacy program. The purpose of the LPLSP is to enable families to become advocates for their offspring with ASD and other families.

For RQ1 and RQ2, we created a proxy transcript for an IEP meeting. The transcript focused on the school refusing to provide services. Along with the transcript, the authors created an answer key with ten expected participant responses to the transcript. Participants completed the pre-transcript before the first LPLSP session and the post-transcript after completing the last session. The pre and post-transcripts were identical and in Spanish. For RQ3, in a six-month, phone follow-up survey conducted in Spanish, participants were asked “How many families have you advocated for since the training?”. Participants were then asked a ten item advocacy scale comprised of two factors: Family-Focused and School-Focused Advocacy Activities (Goldman et al., 2017). For RQ1, two authors independently counted the responses and words in each transcript. T-tests were conducted to determine pre/post change; effect sizes (ESs) were calculated using Cohen’s d. For RQ2, two authors independently compared the responses to the answer key. For RQ3, descriptive statistics were conducted.

4. Results
For RQ1, with large ESs, participants demonstrated significant increases regarding the number of words used and responses. For RQ2, with a medium ES, participants demonstrated significant increases of appropriate responses. See Table 2. For RQ3, on average, participants advocated for 3.25 families (SD = 3.64). Altogether, participants advocated for 91 families. See Table 3.

5. Significance
This study suggests that advocacy programs may be effective in increasing participation and advocacy. However, participation and advocacy may be less school-based than other advocacy actions (Burke & Goldman, 2017). Implications for research, practice, and policy are discussed.

Authors

• Meghan Burke, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

• Kristina Rios

• Marlene Garcia

• Molly Buren, University of Illinois at Chicago

• Sandra Magaña