“This is my life. Put me in the driver’s seat,” says Patrick, an advocate from Tennessee. For Patrick, taking a proactive role is a crucial component of his quality of life, and has a significant impact on every other aspect of his world. The level of authority that someone exercises in making decisions, is directly correlated to the existence of outcomes and how someone experiences them. While everyone is affected by issues of decision-making, the implications are far more complex for those receiving supports in the human services system.
If advocates, families, human service providers, and other stakeholders are able to analyze any potential connection between decision-making authority and outcomes, they can assess ways that changes to guardianship and independence can influence quality of life areas like relationships, employment, services received, health, safety, community inclusion, and more. With CQL’s PORTAL Data System, organizations can review and evaluate that outcomes data at individual and aggregate levels, through five different decision-making/guardianship segments:
- Independent Decision-Making
- Supported Decision-Making
- Limited Guardianship
- Full/Plenary Guardianship
This functionality offers PORTAL users the ability to run comparative analysis across the segments, evaluating various interviewees to better understand the potential effects of decision-making on the achievement of outcomes. Beyond looking into just decision-making issues, PORTAL users can also analyze that data by other demographics, such as age, race/ethnicity, and gender, and filter data across a specific date range.
For example, if an organization wants to examine how well they are supporting people with full/plenary guardianship compared to independent decision making they would pull up the template of their choosing – in this case the Supports in Place chart – and follow the steps listed below. In doing so, they learn that although they about equally good at supporting people of different decision making authorities in terms of safety, there are a number of support indicators that are out of alignment. For example, people with independent decision making are more likely to have supports in place for respect (57%) than people with full/plenary guardianship (46%). Another example of a large difference was between social roles; people with full/plenary had the support in place 18% of the time compared to 30% for people with independent decision making. By examining these differences organizations are better able to determine where they need to target supports to reduce disparities across decision making types.
Independent Decision Making Authority
Analytics By Decision-Making Authority: Tutorial Video
Analytics By Decision-Making Authority: Step-By-Step Directions
- Log in to your PORTAL account
- Click on the ‘Analytics’ tab at the top of your screen
- Select the ‘SURVEYS’ analytical tool
- Select the ‘VIEWS Dashboard’ option
- Select the desired survey analytics view
- Under the ‘Question’ Dropdown box, choose ‘Demo – Decision Making Support’
- Under the ‘Answer’ Dropdown box, choose the desired decision making segment
- Select any additional filtering/sorting options (optional)
- Click on the ‘Filter’ button
- Scroll down to view outcomes data