READINGS
in Independent Living

Introduction

IL NET, a collaborative project of Independent Living Research Utilization (ILRU) and the National Council on Independent Living, provides technical assistance to private, non profit Centers for Independent Living (CIL) and Statewide Independent Living Councils (SILC) throughout the United States. One of the questions most frequently received by IL NET deals with the salaries and work experience of CIL executive directors. Comprehensive national and regional information regarding salary ranges, work experience and educational background of CIL executive directors has not been readily available to date. In employing new CIL executive directors, governing boards (e.g., board of directors) have had to rely on fragmented and inconsistent information regarding typical salaries of directors. Salary histories of outgoing directors and information gathered from other local non profit organizations have typically been used to set salary and experience criteria for new CIL executive director positions.

To address this lack of information and enable IL NET to provide better technical assistance to both CILs and SILCs on these issues, IL NET contracted with the Center for Persons with Disabilities (CPD) at Utah State University to conduct a nationwide survey of CIL executive directors. The purpose of the survey was to gather descriptive data regarding CIL executive directors' salaries, work history, educational background, number of employees supervised, number of consumers served monthly, and other related information.

Survey Design and Procedure

IL NET and the Center for Persons with Disabilities collaboratively developed a 17 question survey with input from several consumers of CIL services. The 17 questions were designed so that individuals could choose from a list of possible answers (e.g., yes/no, less than one year/ 2 5 years/ and so on). Every effort was made to ensure that the ranges for possible answers (e.g., years experience as an executive director) were easy to interpret and small enough to support useful data interpretation.

Sample

The list of 406 CILs (not including satellite offices) throughout the United States and its territories with relevant contact information (telephone numbers, mailing addresses, website URLs, and email addresses) was downloaded from the IL NET website. Staff from the CPD contacted the 406 CILs by phone or email to verify the contact information including the name of the current executive director. The CPD staff also inquired about the executive director's preferred format for completing a short survey (i.e., by telephone, through electronic means Internet, paper/pencil, or computer disk).

Survey Method

Upon verification of the contact information and survey format preference, a letter inviting the executive directors to complete the survey was sent to each of the 406 CILs in late October 2002. The introductory letter was followed five days later by the actual survey in the format requested by each individual director. Those requesting an electronic survey were sent an email message with instructions for completing the survey online. The message included a secure Internet URL to enable online completion of the survey. Surveys sent in electronic format were accessible to screen reader software enabling executive directors who use this accommodation to complete the survey independently. A paper copy of the survey, or computer diskette with a text version, along with a cover letter containing instructions for completing and returning the survey, and a postage paid return envelope, were sent to those requesting these formats. To ensure the anonymity of executive directors' responses, identifying information such as the city, state and zip code of the CIL s/he was representing was used to track survey completion and avoid duplicate responses. Individual names were not solicited or recorded on any format of the survey.

Three weeks following the initial invitation, a reminder to complete the survey was sent by email to the CILs that had a verified email address. Our goal was to ensure that at least 50% of the CIL executive directors in each of the ten Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA) regions responded to the survey. Within one month after the initial invitation, over 50% of the executive directors in half of the RSA regions had responded to the survey. To ensure an overall response rate of at least 50%, CPD staff generated a list of CILs that had not yet responded in those regions that had a less than 50% response rate. From this list, CILs were randomly selected and contacted by telephone. Executive directors from each of the randomly selected CILs were asked to complete a telephone version of the survey. All surveys were completed by mid December of 2002.

Although every effort was made to verify email addresses for those who requested the survey in electronic format, there were 17 email addresses that came back undeliverable. These executive directors, along with the executive directors from the nine CILs that the CPD staff were unable to contact prior to sending out the survey, were mailed a paper/pencil version of the survey so that they would have an opportunity to respond.

Data Treatment

Survey responses, regardless of format, were entered into a secure database from which data analysis occurred. Electronic responses were automatically entered into the database while paper/pencil responses (i.e., by fax or surface mail), computer disk, and telephone responses were entered into the web based database by CPD staff. After paper/pencil responses were entered, the paper copies were destroyed. Over two thirds (175) of the surveys were completed online. CPD researchers preferred the online survey completion format for two reasons. First, we programmed the survey so that all questions had to be answered before it was submitted.

There were no missing data points from the online surveys. Second, online submission eliminated data entry error by CPD research staff. When the data were entered by respondents, the data automatically became part of the database no further data entry by CPD research staff was required. Table 1 summarizes the number (and percent) of surveys completed using each response format. Twenty five (25%) percent of the respondents completed and submitted the paper version. The 15 telephone interviews were conducted by CPD staff to ensure that each RSA region was represented by at least 50% of the CIL executive directors. The one computer disk version was an accommodation for a respondent with a visual impairment.

Alternate text format for the following tables

Data from the completed surveys were analyzed using the SPSS software package. Frequency data were compiled for answers to each survey question. Frequency counts were used to define respondent demographics, provide a basis for response rate determinations, and to determine response modes for regional salary data (i.e., most common response for a specific question). Cross tabulations were conducted on selected pairs of data variables to reveal possible relationships. Visual analysis of the data in the tables was also used to detect possible relationships. No other statistical procedures were applied to the data.

Results

Table 2. Regional Responses to Survey.

There were 255 CIL executive directors who completed the survey for an overall response rate of 63%. Regional response rate ranged from 52% (Region II) to 70% (Regions VI and VII). Table 2 illustrates the number of executive directors who responded from each RSA region along with the corresponding response rate for each region.

Table 3. CIL Respondents Primary Service Areas by RSA Region.

Of the 255 CIL executive directors who responded, 119 (46%) indicated that their CIL served primarily rural areas. Ninety one (91) or 36% served primarily urban areas and the remaining 45 (18%) served suburban areas. Figure 1 displays this data. Table 3 shows the number of respondents in each RSA region that reported serving primarily rural, urban or suburban areas.

Table 4. Education Profile of CIL Executive Directors

Table 4 provides a demographic profile of the 255 survey respondents and shows the relationship of gender and disability status to education background. Over half of the respondents were female (144) and more than three fourths self identified as being a person with a disability (196). Three respondents did not report disability status. Of those who self identified as having a disability, nine (5%) reported having an earned doctorate degree and 78 (40%) reported having a masters degree. Respondents without a disability reported one doctorate degree and 24 masters degrees as the highest level of education attained.

Table 5. Summary of Respondent's Experience in Independent Living and as an Executive Director

Table 5 provides additional information about the CIL executive directors regarding their experience in independent living as an executive director. Eleven respondents (4%) reported having less than one year experience in the independent living field and 114 (45%) of the respondents indicated that they had been the executive director for three years or less.

The primary purpose of this survey was to gather information regarding the salaries of CIL executive directors and to look for possible relationships between salary, educational background, work experience, and job responsibilities. This information would be used by IL NET to provide more effective technical assistance to CILs and SILCs. The data that follows are presented in two ways. First, salary levels and related issues are provided as a national summary. Then, basic salary information is presented for each RSA region.

NATIONAL SUMMARY

Table 6. Summary of Salary Ranges and Perceptions of

The most common annual salary range was $41,000 to $45,000 (44 responses). Forty nine (49%) percent of the respondents (124 responses) indicated that their annual salary ranged between $41,000 and $55,000. Figure 2 portrays the national annual salary range summary. One of the survey questions asked how CIL executive directors perceived their salaries in comparison to executive directors of other service organizations in their local communities. Eighty six (34%) respondents indicated that they didn't know how their salaries compared. One hundred twenty three (48%) perceived that their salaries were at least a little lower than their peers. This is the same group who reported annual salary ranges between $41,000 and $55,000. Ten of the respondents whose annual salary range was reported above $61,000 perceived their salaries a little below their peers. Twelve individuals in this salary range perceived their salaries about the same as their peers. Only three in that range indicated that their salaries were at least a little higher than their peers. The national annual salary range summary is included in Table 6. The summary of salary parity responses is also integrated in Table 6.

Table 7. Summary of Salary Ranges by Gender.

Table 7 displays salary cross tabulated with gender. As the data in the table demonstrate, just over half of the respondents (144 or 57%) were female, yet more men than women reported their annual salaries above $61,000. This is particularly true for those with an annual salary over $65,000 (15% of the men versus 3% of the women).

Table 8. Summary of Salary Ranges by Disability Status.

Seventy-seven percent (77% or 196 individuals) of the respondents indicated they were a person with a disability. Salaries tended to be distributed across low to mid salary ranges for these individuals. They were not as well distributed in higher salary ranges (i.e., above $56,000). Twenty-nine percent (29% or 16 individuals) of the CIL executive directors without disabilities reported annual salaries above $56,000. Only sixteen percent (16% or 32 individuals) of the CIL executive directors with disabilities reported annual salaries above $56,000. Proportionally, twice as many CIL executive directors without disabilities than those with disabilities reported annual salary ranges above $56,000. Table 8 summarizes this data. The percent number in the parentheses denotes the proportion of respondents in the specific category (i.e., person with or person without disabilities) who chose the particular response.

Table 9. Summary of Annual Salary Ranges by Education Background.

Table 9 summarizes annual salary ranges cross tabulated with education background. Individuals in the middle salary ranges ($36,000 to $50,000) tended to have a bachelor's or master's degree. A visual analysis of the data appears to indicate that advanced education might be related to higher salary ranges. For example, six respondents in the highest salary range ($65,000 and above) had only an associate or bachelor degree and two respondents with advanced degrees reported annual salary ranges below $26,000.

Table 10. Summary of Salary Range by Primary Service Area

Table 10 presents information on salaries cross tabulated with primary service area. The highest salaries (above $56,000) tended to cluster in CILs that primarily serve suburban and urban areas. Salaries ranging between $26,000 and $50,000 were clustered in CILs that serve primarily rural areas. For example, only 10 respondents (8% of the CIL executive directors in rural areas) reported annual salary ranges above $56,000 while 14 (31% of CIL executive directors in suburban areas) respondents and 25 (27% from urban areas) reported this same salary range.

Table 11. Summary of Annual Salary by the Average Number of People Served in a Month.

Table 11 presents data on annual salaries cross tabulated by the average number of persons served each month. Data in the table indicates that higher salaries tended to cluster around CILs that serve greater numbers of people per month. Two-thirds (20) of the respondents who reported a salary range above $61,000 were from CILs that serve more than 250 consumers per month. Even for these large CILs, however, annual salaries were as low as $31,000 to $35,000. Visual analysis indicated that mid-range salaries (e.g., $36,000-$50,000) were fairly well distributed across CILs of all sizes.

Table 12. Summary of Salary Range by Number of Employees Supervised.

Table 12 summarizes annual salary ranges by the number of employees supervised. Salaries appeared to be distributed evenly (except for the $46,000-$50,000 range) among the CIL executive directors that supervise between 6-10 employees (this group comprised 101 of the 255 respondents). However, the data appear to indicate that as a CIL executive director supervised more employees, the annual salary range increased slightly. Of note, though, is that 12 executive directors with an annual salary over $65,000 supervised 10 employees or less while eight in this same annual salary range supervised more than 20 employees. The relationship between annual salary and number of people supervised, based on visual analysis, appears to be inconsistent for CIL executive directors in the high and low salary range categories.

Table 13. Summary of Annual Salary by Experience in the Independent Living Field.

Finally, annual salary ranges ranked by experience in the independent living field and experience as a CIL executive director are summarized in tables 13 and 14, respectively. Visual analysis indicates that there is a possible relationship between the number of years of independent living experience and annual salary. There also appears to be a possible relationship between years of experience as a CIL executive director and annual salary.

REGIONAL SUMMARY

While national data is helpful, it may be more useful to individual CILs and SILCs to summarize salary data by region.

Table 15. Annual Salary Ranges in Each RSA Region.

Table 15 provides a summary of the most common annual salary ranges and the upper and lower bounds (range of annual salary ranges) reported by CIL executive directors in each RSA region. Annual salaries above $65,000 were reported in all regions except VI and VIII. Regions III, IV, VI, and VIII were the only regions that reported annual salaries below $26,000. Regions III and IV reported the greatest range among annual salaries (i.e., salaries below $26,000 and above $65,000).

Table 16. Independent Living Experience of CIL Executive Directors in Each Region.

National data indicate that experience in the independent living field may have some bearing on salaries. Table 16 summarizes the most common independent living experience ranges (in years) for each region. Overall, nearly one-fourth of the CIL executive directors reported being involved in the independent living field for 6-10 years. Nearly three-fourths had been involved in the independent living field between two and 15 years.

Table 17. Executive Director Experience of CIL Executive Directors in Each Region.

Table 17 summarizes the most common executive director experience ranges for each region. The number of years experience as an executive director may have some bearing on salary, though visual analysis indicates that experience in independent living may have an even greater effect on salary than years experience as an executive director.