Abstract
Purpose: The objective of this study was to identify and understand the Ohio County Boards of Developmental Disabilities (CBDD) service coordination models for youths with developmental disabilities who need community residential services. This research also sought to identify challenging conditions that make it difficult to serve youths with developmental disabilities in community residential programs, and studied the internal and external factors that affect Ohio CBDDs in providing residential services to youths.Theoretical Framework: This study's theoretical framework is guided by Allison's (1971, 1972) Models I and II of the theories of bureaucratic politics to identify and understand the Ohio County Boards of Developmental Disabilities (CBDD) service coordination models. The theories of bureaucratic politics were used to help determine the policymaking role of and the policies that CBDDs and their administrators make to create service coordination models for youths.Methodology: The research method used for this study was exploratory because of the extremely limited literature on Ohio County Boards of Developmental Disabilities (CBDD) or similar administrations. The research design thus is descriptive. The researcher applied a two-step sampling process. The first step was to design a cluster sampling of the 85 CBDDs by geographical location, as mapped by the Ohio Association of County Boards, to ensure the needed probability sampling for purposes relating to generalizability of findings to the entire State of Ohio. Second, survey questionnaires were submitted to all 85 superintendents of the CBDDs via University of La Verne Qualtrics and this researcher's student account email.Findings: The research discovered similarities and distinct differences among the Ohio CBDDs service coordination models, including differential definitions for 'youth' and a Consensus Service Coordination Model identified from CBDD procedural processes. The study also found that the CBDDs involvement in the legislative policymaking process varies at four different levels of participation.Conclusions and Recommendations: The 14 different definitions of youth by CBDDs suggest the need to develop a standardized age range for youths with developmental disabilities in Ohio. The study therefore recommended the assessment and utilization of the identified Consensus Service Coordination Model that all CBDDs can use to unvaryingly align with State initiatives. Examples of challenges identified by this study include: insufficient number of qualified service providers Ohio counties to serve the needs of youths; the lack of suitable care facilities in Ohio; and shortage of service providers with specialized residential programs, all of which cause CBDDs to refer their youths to out of state care facilities and state-owned developmental centers. Further research on CBDDs is recommended with the same methods used for this research.