![Sample our Health and Social Care journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5938/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Health-Social-Care.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
All students have the right to be safe at school. Regulations mandate that schools must establish procedures to ensure the safety of all students during emergency situations. Twenty years ago, a Midwestern school district created Individualized Emergency Evacuation Plans (IEEPs) to address unique safety needs of students with disabilities. A mixed methods design program evaluation was conducted to study its effectiveness. It examined the extent to which these practices align with the needs of students with disabilities, and what changes might be implemented to improve the program. Participants were multiple levels of District personnel. Data were collected using a quantitative online survey and qualitative individual semi-structured interviews and two focus groups. Most survey participants felt that current plans meet needs of students with disabilities; however, the plans could be updated to better support student safety. Interview analyses produced three emergent themes: We will do whatever it takes; There is always room for improvement; and “It might be helpful to … .” District Q continues to implement some practices from the original framework of the Individualized Emergency Evacuation Plans. The program evaluation produced suggestions for more effectively and efficiently meeting the safety needs of students with disabilities in emergency situations.
Acknowledgement
We thank the Director of Student Services, District Q, for coordinating the data collection, including selecting appropriate interview participants; and the staff of District Q for sharing their insights with the team.
Disclosure statement
A potential personal competing interest could be perceived as the first author, Asha Asher, was formerly employed at the district, and was one of the two authors who initiated the development of the IEEP. This was mitigated by having five other research team members affiliated with a separate and non-related institute. These five authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.