Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
ABSTRACT
LET’S WORK: EMPLOYMENT EXPERIENCES OF ADULTS WITH
DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES
By
Jennifer Quigley
December 2014
The present study investigated the employment experiences of adults with mild
developmental disabilities. The study’s sample consisted of 45 participants with
developmental disabilities who were over the age of 18. Participants were recruited from
two Regional Centers in Southern California and either phone interviews or in-person
interviews were conducted.
A structured interview protocol examined each participant’s current work
experience, along with several items exploring facilitators and obstacles to employment.
Data from this qualitative investigation were organized into categories using inductive
content analysis. Descriptive statistics were computed for quantitative items. Overall, it
was discovered that: participants found money as the most rewarding aspect of
employment, relied on outside support in obtaining and maintaining employment and
found few obstacles of which to overcome, worked with others with developmental
disabilities, and utilized workplace supports in entry level positions making an average
wage of $8.92 a hour during a 20.72 hour work week.
LET’S WORK: EMPLOYMENT EXPERIENCES OF ADULTS WITH
DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES
A THESIS
Presented to the Department of Psychology
California State University, Long Beach
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
Master of Science in Psychology
Option in Industrial and Organizational Psychology
Committee Members:
Dave J. Whitney, PhD (Chair)
Christopher Warren, PhD
Chi-Ah Chun, PhD
College Designee:
Mark Wiley, Ph.D.
By Jennifer Quigley
B.A., 2010, California State University, San Marcos
December 2014
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to express my sincerest gratitude to my thesis chair, Dr. Whitney.
Through his continuous feedback and guidance I was able to complete my thesis, and
accomplish a feat that I am immensely proud to have achieved. I would also like to thank
my committee members for their support and advisement throughout the entire process.
Above all, I would like to thank my family; without them I would not be where I
am today. It was through their encouragement and constant support that I felt the
motivation to keep moving forward. Their positive attitudes and high expectations of
what I was capable of achieving only motivated me to push myself and reach higher.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ......................................................................................... iii
TABLES ....................................................................................................................... vi
FIGURES ..................................................................................................................... vii
CHAPTER
1. INTRODUCTION AND LITERATURE REVIEW .......................................... 1
Overview .................................................................................................... 1
Benefits of Employment ............................................................................ 3
Benefit: Satisfaction ............................................................................ 4
Benefit: Additional Emotional/Psychological Areas Impacted .......... 5
Benefit: Behavioral ............................................................................. 6
Benefit: Social Networks .................................................................... 6
Benefit: Financial ................................................................................ 7
Obstacles to Employment .......................................................................... 8
Obstacle: The Severity of Developmental Disability ......................... 8
Obstacle: Poor Social Skills ................................................................ 9
Obstacle: Lack of Transportation ........................................................ 11
Obstacle: Lack of Work Supports ....................................................... 11
Obstacle: Lack of Educational Preparation......................................... 12
Obstacle: Decrease in Benefits ........................................................... 13
Obstacle: Prejudice ............................................................................. 13
Types of Employment ................................................................................ 14
Volunteer Work .................................................................................... 14
Sheltered Workshops/Facility Based Work .......................................... 14
Competitive Employment .................................................................... 15
Preparation for Work .................................................................................. 16
Transition Programs ............................................................................. 16
Regional Centers .................................................................................. 17
Purpose of Current Study ........................................................................... 17
v
CHAPTER Page
2. METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................ 20
Participants ................................................................................................. 20
Measures .................................................................................................... 21
Employment History Questionnaire .................................................... 21
Procedure ................................................................................................... 22
Analysis...................................................................................................... 24
3. RESULTS ........................................................................................................... 26
Descriptives................................................................................................ 26
Research Questions .................................................................................... 29
4. DISCUSSION .................................................................................................... 33
Typical Job Characteristics ........................................................................ 33
Benefits of Employment ............................................................................ 35
Facilitators of Obtaining and Maintaining Employment ........................... 36
Obstacles to Obtaining and Maintaining Employment .............................. 36
Practical Implications................................................................................. 38
Strengths and Limitations .......................................................................... 41
Future Directions for Research .................................................................. 44
APPENDICES ............................................................................................................. 47
A. EMPLOYMENT HISTORY QUESTIONNAIRE ............................................ 48
B. RESEARCH QUESTIONS OF THE CURRENT STUDY .............................. 51
C. CODING OVERVIEW OF PARTICIPANT RESPONSES .............................. 53
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................ 55
vi
TABLES
TABLE Page
1. Summary of Differences Between Regional Centers ........................................ 31
2. Coding Overview of Participant Responses ...................................................... 54
vii
FIGURES
FIGURE Page
1. Distribution of types of employment among participants.................................. 28
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION AND LITERATURE REVIEW
Overview
In 2010, the percentage of employed (full or part-time) working age, non-disabled
individuals (18-64 years old) was 59%, a percentage two times greater than the 21%
employment percentage reported for working age individuals with disabilities (Kessler
Foundation and National Organization on Disability, 2010). In August 2014 the
unemployment rate for adults with a disability was 12.8%, whereas the U.S.
unemployment rate for adults without a disability was 6.0%; a 6.8% differential (United
States Department of Labor Statistics, 2014b).
From the above data it is clear that there is an employment disparity between
those with disabilities and those without. Employment disparities are even more startling
when examining the subset of adults with developmental disabilities. Between 1990-
1991, only 27.6% of adults (ages 22-65) with developmental disabilities were employed,
compared to 75.1% of adults without a developmental disability in the United States; a
47.5% differential (Yamaki & Fujiura, 2002). The current employment figures for those
with developmental disabilities may be even smaller, as the above unemployment statistic
for the month of August, as reported by the U.S. Department of Labor, refers to all forms
of disability, including physical disabilities with no mental impairment.
2
According to the United States government, a developmental disability exists
when the disability can be attributed to a mental or physical impairment (or both) that is
most likely lifelong and occurs before the age of 22. Three or more of the following
categories must also be impaired by the developmental disability: (1) self-care, (2)
receptive and expressive language, (3) learning, (4) mobility, (5) self-direction, (6)
capacity for independent living, (7) and/or economic self-sufficiency. Further, the
individual must require assistance that stretches throughout their lifetime (or for an
extended period of time) and requires individually planned and coordinated support (as
cited in Warren, 1986).
In California, eligibility for receipt of state services under the general category of
“developmental disability” is limited to the following diagnoses: (1) mental retardation
(2) epilepsy, (3) cerebral palsy, (4) autism, and (5) conditions that require similar services
as provided to those with mental retardation (California State Council on Developmental
Disabilities, 2011). A developmental disability can lead to impairment in physical and
sensorimotor development, cognitive and psychological processes, verbal and nonverbal
communication, social functioning and adaptive behavior (Rice, Schendel, Cunniff, &
Doernberg, 2004). Despite such life impairments, many individuals with developmental
disabilities desire work for economic, social, and self-esteem reasons. Indeed, a recent
survey of adults with developmental disabilities conducted by the Regional Center of
Orange County found that nearly 68% reported a desire to work for pay (Christian,
Gillman, White, & Whitney, 2009).
Work holds important significance in all of our lives (Sandys, 2007). Individuals
with developmental disabilities want to work, want fair pay, and desire to move into the
3
workforce with as little attention as possible focused on their disability (McConkey &
Mezza, 2001; Reid & Bray, 1998; Riches & Green, 2003; Schwamm, 1986). While an
individual’s developmental disability may pose a significant challenge to employment,
there are many work-related benefits for those individuals with developmental disabilities
that successfully find suitable employment. In the following pages, this paper will step
through the benefits of employment and the obstacles to employment, the types of
employment and the types of work preparation available to adults with developmental
disabilities.
The present study focused on working adults with developmental disabilities
(aged 18 and older) from two Regional Centers in southern California: Harbor Regional
Center in Torrance and the Regional Center of Orange County in Santa Ana. The
researcher was interested in both the challenges and facilitators to finding and securing a
job, as well as the types of work obtained, the amount of pay received, any supports
received, and the level of satisfaction with work experiences. The current study aims to
provide additional insight into the work experiences of those with developmental
disabilities by supplementing quantitative data with qualitative information garnered
from personal interviews.
Benefits of Employment
A job can be more than something to occupy one’s time, it can also be a conduit
through which an individual’s life can be improved. Through work, adults with
developmental disabilities may discover benefits impacting many areas of their lives
(e.g., social, emotional, financial, etc.). Work provides routine activity, access to the
outside world, and a chance to lead a more purposeful and active life (Jahoda, et al.,
4
2009; Sandys, 2007). The benefits of work also go beyond the individual. Employment
fulfills the societal expectation that each person become a productive citizen (Holmes &
Fillary, 2000). With so many possible benefits to be attained, it is understandable why
adults with developmental disabilities are motivated to find employment.
Benefit: Satisfaction
In a study done by Eliason (1998), adults with developmental disabilities and
their primary caregivers were interviewed to investigate the relationship between social
integration and consumer satisfaction.1 The collected data revealed a moderate, positive
correlation between level of consumer satisfaction and social integration. In other words,
the greater the number of possible interaction opportunities, the higher the level of
consumer satisfaction for adults with developmental disabilities.
Increased social integration can also be obtained through employment, and
therefore it makes sense that employment has been found to lead to an increase in
satisfaction (Test, Carver, Ewers, Haddad, & Person, 2000). In fact, adults with
developmental disabilities consistently report increased satisfaction as one of the benefits
of working. Other work related factors found to raise satisfaction levels include
increased respect from others (Siporin & Lysack, 2004), greater autonomy (Wehmeyer &
Garner, 2003), opportunities to take on new challenges (Reid & Bray, 1998), the ability
to demonstrate capabilities, and more recognition being given to the adult status of the
individual (Jahoda et al., 2009).
1 Not all individuals in the study were employed. Consumer satisfaction is defined
as satisfaction with residential setting and available interactions.
5
Benefit: Additional Emotional/Psychological Areas Impacted
In a study by Irvine and Lupart (2008), 10 employers of adults with
developmental disabilities were interviewed regarding their thoughts on inclusion of
adults with developmental disabilities in the workplace. The interviews with the 10
employers revealed that employees with developmental disabilities displayed increased
self-confidence, the development of a sense of purpose, pride in work performed and
richer social lives. In a study by Cramm, Finkenflügel, Kuijsten, and van Exel (2009),
employed adults with developmental disabilities reported an increase in independence
and social engagement. All of the positive changes experienced by those with
developmental disabilities were attributed to workplace inclusion.
Jiranek and Kirby (1990) conducted a study comparing the level of job
satisfaction and psychological well-being of young adults (ages 20-25) with a
developmental disability, against the level of job satisfaction and psychological well-
being of a sample of young adults without a developmental disability. Fourteen
individuals from both groups were unemployed. Participants completed a questionnaire
on job satisfaction and psychological well-being. Results indicated that both groups of
employed adults reported being less bored, having higher self-esteem, less depression,
stronger internal locus of control, and experiencing less time alone than those who were
unemployed. Examining just those with a developmental disability, workers reported
greater self-esteem and spending fewer hours watching television than their unemployed
counterparts.
6
Benefit: Behavioral
Employment has substantial behavioral benefits. Stephens, Collins, and Dodder
(2005) examined individuals receiving services from the Developmental Disabilities
Division of the Oklahoma Department of Human Services. In total, data for 2,760 adults
with developmental disabilities were analyzed to determine the impacts of employment
on adaptive skills at two points in time (1997 and 1998).2 Results revealed that when
employed, individuals with developmental disabilities were found to display increases in
such adaptive behaviors as bathing, reading, telling time, interaction, group activities, and
care of belongings.
Benefit: Social Networks
Working also allows adults with developmental disabilities to develop stronger
social networks (Hutchison, 1994). Without work, individuals with developmental
disabilities are often isolated, with little opportunity to interact with others. Through
work, adults with developmental disabilities increase their levels of social interactions,
make friends and even find role models (Hutchison, 1994; Jahoda et al., 2009).
For individuals with developmental disabilities, work can enrich one’s social life
and provide an opportunity to meet people (Irvine & Lupart, 2008; Jahoda et al., 2009).
Working provides a built in social experience; adults with developmental disabilities who
were infrequently exposed to new people, become provided with an abundance of social
interactions through work. In a study conducted by Cramm et al. (2009), the Q-
methodology was utilized to allow employed, developmentally disabled participants to
2 Individuals in the data set were not necessarily employed at the two points in
time analyzed.
7
rank-order 22 statement cards in order of importance. The participants then placed the
cards into five categories, one of which was social integration. The top two statement
cards for the social integration category addressed (1) interacting with coworkers and (2)
receiving appreciation from them. Cramm et al. found that participants desired to
achieve social integration in the workplace through the interaction and acceptance of
coworkers. With that said, the desire for social integration and societal participation goes
beyond making friends, it also includes making money.
Benefit: Financial
Working provides obvious monetary benefits. Reid and Bray (1998) found that
adults with developmental disabilities wanted to make a living in order to have more
control in partaking in common life decisions. Such decisions included buying clothes,
saving for a home, and attending social events. Siporin and Lysack (2004) also found
that moving out of their parent’s house, and into their own place, was a common goal
sought to be achieved through employment as reported by adults with developmental
disabilities.
Jahoda et al. (2009) conducted a longitudinal study over an 18 month period,
where participants with developmental disabilities were interviewed before beginning
employment and then 9 to 12 months after finding employment. From the interviews
conducted with the 35 participants, the researchers ascertained that with increased
financial independence, adults with developmental disabilities experienced increased
autonomy and social status (Jahoda et al., 2009).
8
The benefits of working are clearly life changing as they impact various areas of
an individual’s life. Nevertheless, a number of obstacles to employment exist for adults
with developmental disabilities.
Obstacles to Employment
Obstacle: The Severity of Developmental Disability
The severity of a developmental disability affects one’s ability to find appropriate
employment. As such, the disability itself is the most pressing obstacle that an adult with
a developmental disability must face (Dusseljee, Rijken, Cardol, Curf, & Groenewegen,
2011).
According to Mank, Cioffi, and Yovanoff (1998), the level of severity of a
developmental disability strongly impacts one’s employment experience. Mank et al.
(1998) analyzed questionnaire data completed by 462 employed adults ranging in level of
mental retardation from severe to mild. With the assistance of a job coach (a non-
disabled individual that helps an individual with developmental disabilities obtain and/or
maintain employment), the participants answered questions addressing general
demographic information, information specific to their disability, and information
regarding employment outcomes and features. Results indicated that as the severity of
the disability increased, wages decreased, interaction with coworkers decreased, others’
perceived ability of the individual to produce quality work decreased, and more atypical
employment procedures increased.3 Nevertheless, as cited in Mank et al. (1998) when
the severity of the disability was controlled for in the data, those individuals with
3 Atypical employment procedures in hiring disabled individuals are procedures
that are different from those followed when hiring an individual without a
disability.
9
developmental disabilities that were better socially integrated had higher wages and
experienced more typical employment procedures than their coworkers without
disabilities. Overall the study revealed that with increased societal integration, a more
positive work experience can be created. Nevertheless, some individuals with
developmental disabilities have a hard time assimilating into the workplace due to social
inadequacies.
Obstacle: Poor Social Skills
Chadsey and Beyer (2001) found that the social factors of work are just as
important as the other job requirements (e.g., productivity). Ford, Dineen, and Hall
(1984) analyzed 6 years’ of employment records of 82 intellectually disabled adults who
had gone through an employment training program at the University of Washington.
Results indicated that, among other things, a lack of social skills contributed to job loss.
The most frequently cited social skill deficits included poor interpersonal skills,
emotional outbursts, and inappropriate language.
Without the necessary social skills to interact successfully with coworkers, adults
with developmental disabilities may experience brief tenures of employment. In order to
determine why adults with developmental disabilities (specifically adults with an
intellectual disability) were being terminated from employment, Greenspan and Shoultz
(1981) gathered data on 30 adults who were intellectually disabled who had been
terminated from competitive employment positions between January 1978 and June
1980. Data were gathered from three sources: (1) a community office (Eastern Nebraska
Community Office on Retardation: ENCOR) offering vocational services to the 30 adults
who were intellectually disabled, (2) interviews with ENCOR staff and job coaches, and
10
(3) phone interviews with the former employers of the participants. Results revealed that
individuals were terminated for both social reasons (nine individuals were terminated for
social awareness deficiencies, five individuals due to temperament issues, and three due
to character issues) and nonsocial reasons (eight individuals were terminated due to
layoffs, four due to the rate and quality of their productivity, and one due to health
issues). While the majority of terminations for nonsocial reasons were out-of-the-hands
of the terminated employees (i.e., layoffs), the terminations for social reasons may have
been addressable through additional training (e.g., individual social skill improvements).
Martin, Rusch, Lagomarcino and Chadsey-Rusch (1986) examined the
employment records of eight intellectually disabled adults and 133 non-handicapped
adults who had lost their jobs, in order to determine the reason for their termination.
Martin et al. found that for the eight intellectually disabled adults, job loss could be
attributed to social factors. Talking too much, complaining about job tasks, or pestering
other employees were some of the social factors listed in the employment records of the
employees with an intellectual disability as reasons why they were terminated. Martin et
al. labeled such obstacles as awareness problems. For the 133 non-handicapped adults,
problems of character were most often cited as reasons for termination (e.g., stealing,
tardiness, etc.).
Despite the close proximity of working with others, social skill inadequacies of
some adults with developmental disabilities impact the quality of relationships they share
with their coworkers (Riches & Green, 2003). Examples of social skills inadequacies
include poor interpersonal skills and inappropriate comments, both of which create
difficulty in making friends at work (Chadsey & Beyer, 2001; Holmes & Fillary, 2000;
11
Irvine & Lupart, 2008). A hindrance in friendship making can be devastating to adults
with developmental disabilities, as it has been found that adults with developmental
disabilities cite “making new friends” as one of their top reasons for working (Jahoda et
al., 2009). Social skill deficiencies threaten not only one’s job, but also the opportunity
to develop coworker relationships.
Obstacle: Lack of Transportation
Lack of accessibility to reliable transportation is a major obstacle to obtaining
employment for adults with developmental disabilities (Lemaire & Mallik, 2008).
Schmidt and Smith (2007) recruited 60 individuals with a variety of types of disabilities
who were currently taking courses at a college at an independent living center. Results
revealed that transportation was identified as one of the greatest obstacles to employment
for both employed and unemployed adults with disabilities.
Obstacle: Lack of Work Supports
Without the necessary job supports, an adult with developmental disabilities may
struggle to maintain a position of employment. The overwhelming effect of inadequate
support from employers is compounded by the loss of support from family, friends, or
agencies. Support is often removed by agencies once it is believed an individual with
developmental disabilities can work independently (Ford et al., 1984).
Appropriate support at work is necessary for continued employment success for
adults with developmental disabilities (Jahoda et al., 2009; Lemaire & Mallik, 2008;
Siporin & Lysack, 2004). Types of possible work supports include a job coach, pre-job
training, transportation, and assistive technology.
12
A job coach not only helps an individual with developmental disabilities perform
the daily tasks of their job, but can also help in developing work appropriate behaviors,
social competencies and personal growth through the experience of working. Eventually,
the job coach reduces their level of involvement on the job once the individual
demonstrates competency and independence in their position (Jiranek & Kirby, 1990).
Pre-job training experience could include the adult with developmental
disabilities practicing a specific job. This can help in determining if a specific job is of
interest.
Transportation is sometimes provided by a job coach or the transition center
where the adult with developmental disabilities is currently receiving services.
Assistive technology includes anything that will allow an adult with
developmental disabilities to effectively perform their job. Assistive technology can
include: an audio recorder that lists an individual’s job tasks for the day, a label maker
that can be used to label various materials with their purpose, or even a digital camera
that holds photos of the appropriate types of clothing the individual is to wear to work
each day.
Obstacle: Lack of Educational Preparation
Research has found that the attainment of a higher education level can lead to
increased opportunities for employment for adults with developmental disabilities
(Achterberg, Wind, de Boer, & Frings-Dresen, 2009; Lengnick-Hall, Gaunt, & Kulkarni,
2008). Nevertheless, it must be kept in mind that the severity of one’s developmental
disability will affect educational progression. Unfortunately, this means that an
13
unavoidable lack of advanced educational credentials can severely inhibit job attainment
for adults with developmental disabilities.
Obstacle: Decrease in Benefits
Paid employment can reduce governmental benefits received by an individual
with a developmental disability, acting as a strong disincentive to work. Restrictions on
the number of hours that can be worked and the amount of income that can be achieved
before benefits are negatively impacted, act as strong deterrents against adults with
developmental disabilities to engage in work. Surprisingly, perhaps, a person with
developmental disabilities may actually earn less when employed than they would earn
through remaining on Social Security Income (SSI) had they not chosen to work (as cited
in Ford et al., 1984). Once individuals reach the income bracket where they no longer
qualify to receive SSI, they may find that their new income is consumed by having to pay
for living expenses that were once covered by the state (Ford et al., 1984).
Obstacle: Prejudice
A final barrier to employment is that of prejudice in society. Prejudiced attitudes
towards adults with developmental disabilities continue to result in high jobless rates
(Schwamm, 1986). Schmidt and Smith (2007) found that along with transportation,
employer and coworker prejudice was a major hindrance to the job success of an
individual with developmental disabilities. If prejudice towards adults with
developmental disabilities does not change, these individuals may never get the
opportunity to show that they can make a positive contribution in the workplace
(Hutchison, 1994).
14
Types of Employment
Work opportunities for adults with developmental disabilities vary across a
number of settings, including (1) volunteer work, (2) sheltered workshops, (3)
competitive employment with workplace supports and (4) competitive employment
without workplace supports. The type of work performed by an adult with
developmental disabilities is meant to match their current abilities. Some abilities can be
linked to IQ, and Wehmeyer and Garner (2003) reported that IQ level influenced the type
of employment an individual with a developmental disability performed (sheltered or
competitive).
Volunteer Work
Volunteer work is not only an altruistic activity, but it is also an activity in which
an individual can develop new skills, meet others and have fun. Volunteer work is a non-
paid activity with the goal of getting individuals out of their homes and into the
community. An individual can volunteer full-time or part-time and can obtain volunteer
opportunities through community channels (e.g., city departments––parks and recreation)
or an organization (e.g., a non-profit company).
Sheltered Workshops/Facility Based Work
Sheltered workshops (i.e., facility based work or adult training centers/worksites)
are designed to equip an adult with a developmental disability with basic vocational
skills, and address an individual’s behavioral concerns (Siporin & Lysack, 2004). The
goal of sheltered workshops is to increase work-related skill development by providing
training and opportunities to work (Jiranek & Kirby, 1990; Siporin & Lysack, 2004).
15
Employment in sheltered workshops is substantially different from other forms of
employment. Nearly all co-workers also have developmental disabilities. The work
itself tends to involve menial/assembly tasks, irregular hours, and low wages. Further,
the training provided is rarely applicable to competitive employment (Riesen, 2010;
Siporin & Lysack, 2004).
Competitive Employment
Competitive employment refers to the familiar work assignments typically
experienced by neurotypical individuals. Such settings are substantially different from
sheltered workshops in that the pay is better (as cited in Riesen, 2010), and the individual
with a developmental disability typically has the opportunity to socialize with non-
disabled peers (Jahoda, Kemp, Riddell, & Banks, 2008). The goal of competitive
employment is to help adults with developmental disabilities become better integrated
into society as active, contributing citizens (Cramm et al., 2009). Competitive
employment is based on the concepts of normalization and mainstreaming workers with
developmental disabilities (Siporin & Lysack, 2004). These two concepts address the
movement towards incorporating adults with developmental disabilities into the general
population through employment.
Competitive employment has been found to decrease feelings of anger with the
world (Jiranek & Kirby, 1990) and increase autonomy (Jahoda et al, 2008) for adults with
developmental disabilities. Overall, most disability advocates consider competitive
employment to be preferable to sheltered workshops. In addition, Smith (2012) found
that Regional Center consumers expressed a strong preference for competitive
employment over sheltered workshops.
16
Competitive employment can be further broken down into competitive
employment with workplace supports, and competitive employment without workplace
supports. In competitive employment with workplace supports, a job coach often helps
the individual find and maintain employment (Siporin & Lysack, 2004). Additional
workplace supports might include provision of transportation, assistive technology,
supportive relationships from supervisors or co-workers, and/or pre-employment training
to help ensure job success (Jiranek & Kirby, 1990).
Competitive employment without workplace supports is also a possibility. Such
employment is equivalent to that experienced by any individual that does not receive
accommodations at work.
Preparation for Work
Transition Programs
Transition programs help individuals with developmental disabilities transition
from school to work environments. While in high school, transition programs expose
individuals with developmental disabilities to careers and encourage entry into
postsecondary education. Transition programs are also to help individuals with
developmental disabilities find and keep employment after high school. Benz,
Lindstrom, and Yovanoff (2000) found that for high school students with disabilities,
employment stayed above 80% during the first 2 years after having completed a
transition program for individuals with disabilities. Through transition programs
individuals with developmental disabilities obtain independence, increase productivity,
and engage in full societal participation within their community (Schwamm, 1986). They
17
are taught the basic skills they will need in order to join the workforce (e.g., behavioral
and social skills).
Regional Centers
Preparation to enter into the workforce is a real possibility for adults with
developmental disabilities, in part due to Regional Centers. Throughout the state of
California there are 21 Regional Centers providing services to individuals with
developmental disabilities and their families. These nonprofit, private corporations
contract with the Department of Developmental Services to diagnose and assess the
eligibility of individuals to receive services and support. Eligibility requirements are that
a person must have a disability that begins before age 18 and is expected to continue
indefinitely and present a substantial disability. The services and support provided by the
Regional Centers include, but are not limited to, assessment and diagnosis, family
support, outreach, assistance in finding and using community resources, transportation,
supported employment, and independent living. Through Regional Centers individuals
with developmental disabilities are taught how to live independent, productive and
fulfilling lives while engaging in full societal participation. This societal participation is
achieved through obtaining competitive employment with support.
Purpose of Current Study
In the wake of the economic recession, the media frequently report the woes of
the unemployed. There are many reasons to believe that the employment outlook for
adults with developmental disabilities is substantially bleaker than what is reported in the
news. The present study sought to capture the work experiences of adults with
developmental disabilities. Previous studies examining the employment experiences of
18
individuals with developmental disabilities have tended to either use a case study
approach with a very limited number of participants, or report statistics based on huge
databases. The present study pursued a more intermediate route. Specifically, the study
accessed a sample of adults with developmental disabilities from two large Regional
Centers in Southern California. The sample was composed of individuals with mild to no
mental retardation. Using phone or in-person interviews, the study examined what was
most rewarding about having a job to these individuals, the types of work obtained, the
amount of pay received, any supports received, and the level of satisfaction with work
experiences; all in order to obtain a profile of the typical work experiences of adults with
mild-moderate developmental disabilities. Through the use of both qualitative and
quantitative data, the present study provides greater confidence of the representativeness
of the data. Conversely, the qualitative nature of the data collection methodology
provides greater depth of understanding than is provided by data mining large empirical
databases. In order to obtain rich data with which to work with, three overall qualitative
research questions were developed, with additional questions to assist in understanding
more clearly the employment experiences of participants. An overall descriptive data
question was addressed as well.
Each of the following research questions will be addressed in the present study:
1. What has been most rewarding about have a job?
2. What do individuals with developmental disabilities view as facilitators of
obtaining and maintaining employment?
3. What do individuals with development disabilities view as obstacles to
obtaining and maintaining employment?
19
4. What are the typical characteristics of jobs obtained by individuals with
developmental disabilities?
a. What is the typical work setting?
b. What industry is typical for individuals with development disabilities?
c. What is the average wage received?
d. What is the mean number of hours worked per week?
20
CHAPTER 2
METHODOLOGY
Participants
Participants were obtained from both the Harbor Regional Center (HRC) located
in Torrance, California and the Regional Center of Orange County (RCOC) located in
Santa Ana, California. The HRC identified potential participants with developmental
disabilities using five criteria: (a) consumer of HRC services, (b) resident of the city of
Long Beach, (c) 18 years of age or older (d) with mild to no mental retardation, and (e)
currently working. From the HRC, 25 participants were recruited, 13 females and 12
males. The average age was 40.52 years, with an age range from 22–63 years (SD =
11.09). The RCOC identified eligible participants with developmental disabilities based
on the following requirements: (a) consumer of RCOC services, (b) Autism Spectrum
Disorder diagnosis with an IQ of 70 or greater, (c) 18 years of age or older, (d) ability to
provide informed consent, (e) verbal ability, and (f) working in a sheltered workshop or
competitively employed. From the RCOC, 24 participants were recruited, but only data
from 20 participants were utilized, due to researcher concerns of participants’
comprehension of the interview questions. Therefore, of the 20 participants, two were
female and 18 were male. The average age was 34.40 years, with an age range from 21–
58 years (SD = 9.77).
21
In total, participants consisted of 45 adults (15 females and 30 males) ranging in
ages from 21–63 years (SD = 10.86, M = 37.80) with developmental disabilities, but with
only mild to no mental retardation. Self-reported developmental disabilities by
participants included (participants could identify with more than one developmental
disability): 23 participants had an autism spectrum disorder, 16 participants had an
intellectual disability, 9 participants had a form of another developmental disability, 6
participants had epilepsy, and 2 participants had cerebral palsy.
Self-reported ethnicity included: 24 Caucasian, 6 African American, 5 Latino, 3
identified as other, 3 Asian, 2 bi-cultural, 1 Filipino/Pacific Islander, and 1 did not
respond.
Measures
Employment History Questionnaire
All questions on the employment history questionnaire were written in basic,
plain English and required no more than a fifth grade mental comprehension in order to
respond.
The first question of the employment history questionnaire assessed whether a
participant was currently employed. If the participant responded “Yes,” they were asked
questions regarding the number of jobs they currently held, the name of the
organization(s) for which they worked, their job title, hours worked per week and
questions assessing their work setting and workplace supports received. These questions
were repeated for each job currently held. For the job the participant was currently
working the greatest number of hours, several additional questions were asked assessing
the rate of pay, how the participant found the job, and his or her tenure. An additional
22
seven questions were asked about the specific supports they received on the job (see
Appendix A).
If a participant responded “No” to the first question of if they were currently
employed, he or she was asked the same questions for his or her last job held. All
questions in present tense were phrased in the past tense for these participants. For
example, the question of, “What is the name of the organization for which you work for
pay?,” was phrased as, “What was the name of the organization at which you worked for
pay?”.
As the present study was part of a larger investigation examining the employment
experiences of individuals with developmental disabilities, additional variables unrelated
to this study were added to the employment history questionnaire. The additional
questionnaire items used pre-existing measures to assess job satisfaction, affective
commitment, and turnover intentions of the participant’s current job. Additionally,
perceived bias in the workplace was also measured using several open-ended questions
unrelated to this study.
Questions in the employment history questionnaire specific to this study, asked
participants to reflect on their current or most recent job(s) over the past 3 years, and
answer five open-ended questions. Participants were asked about the most rewarding
aspects of their job(s), perceived facilitators, and major obstacles associated with their
employment (see Appendix B).
Procedure
Participants from the HRC were initially recruited through mailed postcards,
which were sent to 200 potential participants that met study criteria for participation. The
23
postcard contained a brief description of the study and contact information (i.e., both the
email and phone number of the interviewers) for those interested in participating. Once a
potential participant reached out via email or phone to express his or her interest in
participating in the study, an interviewer scheduled a phone interview.
At the appointed interview time, the interviewer followed a structured interview
format by following the guidelines of a phone script. The consent form, employment
history questionnaire and the demographic form (in that order) were read and the
participant’s responses were recorded (typed on a computer). After the interview, each
participant was invited to participate in a raffle to win one of five $50 Target gift cards by
providing his or her name and a phone number and or email at which he or she could be
contacted should they be randomly selected in the raffle.
Potential participants from the RCOC were identified through RCOC records.
Potential participants were then verbally informed by RCOC employees of the research,
and asked if they might be interested in participating in the study. If a participant
expressed a potential interest, the interviewers were provided the participant’s name and
contact information, and a time was set up to meet the potential participant in person at a
RCOC vendor’s location.
As with the HRC participants, the interviewers followed a structured interview
format in interviewing all RCOC participants. The consent form, employment history
questionnaire and the demographic form were all read to the participant (in that order).
Participants from the RCOC were videotaped while being interviewed, and the
participant’s responses were typed by the interviewer. At the end of the interview,
participants were each given a $10 Target gift card.
24
Analysis
Qualitative content analysis, implementing the technique of inductive category
development, was used to analyze participant responses to the current study’s five open-
ended questions (see Appendix B). Qualitative content analysis looks to maintain the
value of qualitative data while transforming that data into quantitative output (Mayring,
2000). Inductive category development, a technique of qualitative content analysis, leads
to the identification of categories based on the overall meaning of the material—in this
case the material would be the participant’s responses. These categories are then revised
as needed, being reduced down to precise categorizations of the data (i.e., participant
responses) (Mayring, 2000). Numeric processes can then be performed with the final
categorizations (e.g., frequency count of category reported).
Typically, interjudge reliability is performed to ensure the reliability of the
identified categories. This involves analyzing the agreements and discrepancies of
independent coders in categorizing participant responses (Leiva, Rios, & Martinez,
2006). As there was only one researcher conducting the present study, interjudge
reliability was unable to be performed. Therefore, the researcher examined all category
labels twice to ensure accuracy in the categorization of participant responses.
To begin the process of inductive category development, participant responses
were read by the researcher to identify an overall category for each response provided. In
the creation of a category based on a participant’s response, the researcher noted (1)
whether the category accurately captured the meaning of the participant’s response and
(2) whether the created category fit with the overall goal of the question asked of the
participant.
25
Categories were determined for all participant responses based on the main topic
of a participant’s response. For example, a participant responded, “Being able to make
money,” to the question of “What has been most rewarding about having a job?”. This
response was categorized as “Money” as it accurately captured the meaning of the
participant’s response and it fit with the overall goal of the question asked. Each time a
category was created it was marked down and used thereafter for any participant
responses that fit that category labeling.
Following the generation of category labels, all categories were re-examined to
ensure mutual exclusivity. In some cases, related categories were combined under a
more inclusive label. The responses of all participants for an item were then re-read and
tick marks were recorded under corresponding category labels to determine the frequency
of responses. At the end of the coding process a frequency count analysis was performed
for each category to identify how many times the category was reported by participants
for each of the five open-ended questions.
26
CHAPTER 3
RESULTS
Descriptives
Descriptive analyses answered the broad research question regarding the typical
job characteristics of employment obtained by participants. The typical work setting
involved working in organizations designed to serve those with disabilities, in entry level
positions alongside coworkers with developmental disabilities. The majority of
participants utilized workplace supports in either facility based work or work within
competitive employment. The average wage received per hour was $8.92 for an average
work week of 20.72 hours. All descriptive data was obtained by asking seven
investigative questions.
To begin, participants were asked about their employer and their position at work.
In response to, “What is the name of the organization at which you work for pay?” the
most commonly reported employers were Goodwill (six participants), Orange County
Adult Achievement Center (four participants) and Elwyn (three participants). It is
important to note that Goodwill, the Orange County Adult Achievement Center and
Elwyn are all organizations whose purpose is specifically to support individuals with
developmental disabilities. Overall, the largest employers of participants were: those in
the industry of serving individuals with disabilities (17 participants worked at Elwyn,
Goodwill or a Regional Center), retailers (five participants reported working at Ikea, Old
27
Navy, Pavilions, Doggie Walk Bags or Target) or were in the grocery industry (four
participants reported working for either Albertson’s or Vons). With industry determined,
participants were asked, “What is your job title?”, from which it was revealed that 100%
of the participants worked in entry level positions. Positions reported included, but were
not limited to, courtesy clerk, assembler, greeter, janitor, stock person, and telephone
operator.
To get at participants’ specific work settings, four questions were asked. From
the question, “I’d like to learn more about the place at which you work. Do you work
with other individuals with developmental disabilities?”, it was revealed that of those
interviewed, 29 reported working with coworkers with developmental disabilities and 15
reported they did not work with coworkers with developmental disabilities (one
participant did not answer this question). Responses to the follow-up question, “ Do you
receive any supports to help you do your work, such as a job coach, specialized training,
assistive technology, transportation, etc.?”, revealed that 29 participants reported
receiving supports of some form and 11 participants did not receive any forms of support
at their job (five participants did not answer this question). At this point, interviewers
were instructed to record their best guess as to the type of employment the participant
performed. Of the 45 participants interviewed, 18 were evaluated to participate in
competitive employment with workplace supports, 17 were evaluated to perform facility
based work and 9 were evaluated to participate in competitive employment without
workplace supports and 1 participant’s work was unable to be classified (see Figure 1).
28
FIGURE 1. Distribution of types of employment among participants.
Lastly, in regards to the work setting, participants were asked, “In your job as
(position title), how many hours do you work per week in that job?”. The average hours
worked per week were 20.72 hours with a range of hours worked per week from 2.50-
40.00 hours.
Lastly, participants were asked “How much money do you make in dollars per
hour?” Results revealed an average wage of $8.92 per hour (SD = 3.25). The highest
wage identified was $18.10, and the lowest wage identified was $2.10. Minimum wage
in the state of California was $8.00 per hour at the time data was collected (2013),
nevertheless employers in the United States are legally allowed to pay workers with
developmental disabilities at a lower rate.
Competitive Employment with
Workplace Supports
Facility Based Work
Competitive Employment
without Workplace Supports
Unclassified
29
Research Questions
With the descriptive data capturing the analytical side of the employment picture
for participants, the following questions looked at each participant’s experience in their
work role. The facilitators of obtaining and maintaining employment and the obstacles to
obtaining and maintaining employment were examined. Five open-ended questions,
addressing three overall research questions, were asked of each participant. Participants
could provide more than one response for each question. Findings are reported based on
category labeling. A chart of number of responses analyzed for each open-ended
question can be found in Table 2 (see Appendix C).
The first research question inquired as to the most rewarding aspects of a job for
those with developmental disabilities. When asked “What has been most rewarding
about having a job?”, the most common response, as reported by 15 participants, was
Money: “I would say, I would say, having enough money to take care of yourself, to be
independent.”. The second most common response, as reported by eight participants was
Friendship: “I have enjoyed the friendships I have made while on the job,” “Making new
friends,” and “I like my friends so much. Come in my friends are there.”.
The second research question explored what individuals with developmental
disabilities viewed as facilitators of obtaining and maintaining employment. The
following two interview questions helped answer this. The first question was, “What has
been most helpful in helping you find a job?”. Twelve respondents identified their
Regional Center. The next most commonly reported response (as reported 11 times), was
Support of Others: “My mother helped me find this job,” “My school and regional center
and my family,” “My [aunts]. They helped me get into the program, Vocational Visions.
30
It was a little while process, but we got in.”. To probe further, this question was then
followed up by, “What has been most helpful in helping you keep a job?”. Twelve
participants reported that Successfully Performing Role was the most helpful, and eight
participants reported their Job Coach as most helpful: “Doing well on my tasks,”
“Advice of my job coach. If I get in any sort of situation, my boss goes to my job coach
and the job coach helps me to correct the problem.”.
The third research question examined the obstacles individuals with
developmental disabilities viewed as most problematic to obtaining and maintaining
employment. Two questions were formulated to assess obstacles within the work place.
The first question, “What has been most problematic in finding a job?” most frequently
elicited the responses of Nothing (as reported by eight participants) and Finding a Job (as
reported by seven participants): “There was nothing really problematic in finding the
job,” “Well, finding a job. I have to be patient like everybody else,” “Just trying to find
one.” The second probing question was, “What has been most problematic in keeping a
job?”. To this question, the most commonly reported response was Nothing (as reported
by 13 participants), followed by Interpersonal Skills (three responses): “I don’t have any
[problems]. Everyone is just so helpful and everyone understands I have a learning
disability. And they are willing to work with me,” “Losing attention, not getting along
with people,” “The problem’s just learning to communicate with people and talking with
them.”.
Although not part of the original research questions, a closer look was taken into
the potential differences between participants at the two Regional Centers. The lowest
paid participant of the RCOC earned $3.40 per hour and worked three hours per week.
31
This RCOC participant made more money per hour, but worked less per week than the
lowest paid participant of the HRC, who earned $2.10 per hour and worked 40 hours a
week. The highest paid participant working at the RCOC earned $14.40 per hour and
worked 25 hours a week. This RCOC participant made less per hour and worked less per
week than the highest paid participant at the HRC, who earned $18.10 per hour and
worked 40 hours a week.
The below chart reveals that 72% of the participants from the HRC participated in
some form of competitive employment, as compared to 47% of the participants from the
RCOC who participated in competitive employment with workplace supports (see Table
1).
TABLE 1. Summary of Differences Between Regional Centers
RCOC HRC
Work Setting Female Male Female Male
Facility Based Work 1 9 3 4
Competitive Employment with
Workplace Supports 1 8 5 4
Competitive Employment
without Workplace Supports 0
a 0
5 4
Total 2/19* 17/19* 13/25 12/25 aRCOC: No participants were identified for that work setting.
Note: One of the 20 participants from the RCOC was unable to be coded for by the
interviewer as to which work setting applied to the work the participant performed.
Therefore, only 19 participants for the RCOC are represented in the above table.
32
Nevertheless, when averaged out, the mean hours worked per week and the
average hourly wages received at the RCOC and at the HRC were not much different:
20.8 hours a week with an $8.63 per hour rate at the RCOC, and 20.7 hours a week with a
$9.14 per hour rate at the HRC. It should be noted that of the 20 RCOC participants, five
failed to report a wage and one failed to report their hours worked per week. Of the 25
HRC participants, five failed to report a wage and one failed to report their hours worked
per week.
33
CHAPTER 4
DISCUSSION
Typical Job Characteristics
It was not surprising to find that the majority of participants in this study worked
with coworkers with developmental disabilities. It seems logical that this population of
individuals would find employment opportunities where other individuals with
developmental disabilities are currently working. A developmental disability can
severely limit the type of work an individual can perform. Therefore, companies that can
work with an individual’s developmental disability, especially companies that can also
accommodate workplace supports, would naturally draw others with a similar disability
to that field of work.
This finding of similarly situated coworkers is even less surprising when
recognizing that the majority of participants worked in entry level positions utilizing
workplace supports in either facility based work or work in competitive employment.
Facility based work is setup primarily to establish vocational skills for adults with
developmental disabilities (Siporin & Lysack, 2004). Competitive employment with
workplace supports affords individuals with developmental disabilities the experience of
working in the same competitive employment environment as individuals that are
neurotypical, but with some form of added job assistance (e.g., job coach, assistive
technology, etc.). Both types of employment are geared to help employ individuals with
34
developmental disabilities, and therefore, again, finding such individuals working in
similar lines of work should not be surprising given the types of employment they are in
and the job resources they are utilizing.
The average hourly wage reported for participants of $8.92 per hour is significant.
Participants from this study were interviewed in 2013, when the minimum wage in
California was $8.00 per hour (State of California Department of Industrial Relations,
2014). It is reassuring to see that, on average, participants were being paid slightly above
minimum wage, especially when it is possible to pay individuals with a developmental
disability below Federal minimum wage. In Section 14(c) of the Fair Labor Standard
Act, employers are allowed to pay individuals with disabilities below the Federal
minimum wage after having received a certificate from the Wage and Hour Division
allowing them to do so (United States Department of Labor, 2014). This section can be
used almost to the point of exploitation of disabled workers. In fact, in 2009, Goodwill
Industries was found to be paying some of its disabled workers 22 cents an hour via the
Section 14(c) provisions (NBC News Investigations, 2013).
As a developmental disability can lead to impaired cognitive and psychological
processes (Rice et al., 2004), it was not expected to find, and was in fact not found, any
reportings of participants working in positions requiring education beyond a high school
diploma. Therefore, salary data of participants was looked at based on data of individuals
in the United States, who had no more than a high school diploma. The United States
data reported workers performing an average of 35 hours or more of work a week, and
earning a median weekly earnings of $651 in 2013 (United States Department of Labor
Statistics, 2014a). From the above U.S. statistic, we can glean that the U.S. hourly rate is
35
equivalent to about $16.28 per hour ($651 per week divided by 40 hours—as 40 hours is
the typical standard for calculating hourly wages). Participants in the current study made
around $8.92 per hour, which is 55% less an hour than the government statistic for the
average U.S. full-time worker’s hourly pay. In terms of yearly income, the averages for
participants cannot be compared to governmental data, as data reported by the
government looks at median household income which is based on the income of the
householder and all other individuals living at that location who are at least15 years of
age. This study only looked at the participants’ wage.
In terms of hours worked per week, participants in the current study worked part-
time hours (20.72 hours a week) which thereby reduced their take home income. These
part-time hours may be a reflection of the availability of work hours for their position or
the availability of reliable transportation to and from work, or both. It should be noted
that participants may actually choose to work a set number of hours as employment
income can reduce their Social Security Income (SSI). Therefore, these individuals may
seek part-time hours to avoid losing their SSI benefits. Should participants exceed the
allowable hours worked to qualify for Social Security Income, they risk losing any
medical and monthly income benefits that were once provided to them on behalf of the
government.
Benefits of Employment
Participants stated that the most satisfying aspects of employment were Money,
and Friendship. The finding of money being the number one reason participants enjoyed
working was expected as it reflects current literature findings. According to Reid and
Bray (1998), financial benefit was an important reason as to why individuals with
36
developmental disabilities worked. The money they earned could help pay for daily
living as well as small splurge expenses. The finding of friendship being a top contender
is too an expected finding. As reported in current literature, the ability to make friends at
work is a strong reason adults with developmental disabilities seek employment (Jahoda
et al., 2009).
Facilitators of Obtaining and Maintaining Employment
The most commonly cited responses for facilitators of obtaining employment
were the individual’s Regional Center, and the Support of Others. The most commonly
cited responses for facilitators of maintaining employment were Successfully Performing
Role and the individual’s Job Coach. It appears as though the Regional Center, along
with the support of others, is most critical during the initial stages of looking for
employment. It was probably during the job hunt that participants in this study were
counting on the support and guidance of others to help them obtain suitable employment.
Once employed, participants appear to have relied more on their own abilities (internal
focus) and the assistance of others at work in helping them develop their workplace skills
(e.g., relying on their job coach). Participants went about performing the job as best as
they could in conjunction with possessing a developmental disability.
Obstacles to Obtaining and Maintaining Employment
When asked what has been most problematic in finding employment, the most
common responses were Nothing and Finding a Job. When it came to obstacles to
maintaining employment, Nothing and Interpersonal Skills were reported most
frequently. For both of the obstacle related questions the number one response was
Nothing. The finding of nothing being an obstacle to employment for this population is
37
new to the literature. While on the other hand the two obstacles reported, one being just
finding a job and the other being utilizing interpersonal skills while in the workplace, are
in line with what is already known. It is interesting to note that the challenge of
overcoming interpersonal skills was something participants experienced while in the
workplace, but not while looking for a job. The effects of a lack of interpersonal skills
while employed have been documented in past literature as job detrimental, and as
holding the potential to be job terminating (Ford et. al, 1984).
It is also interesting to point out that, as captured in the facilitators of finding a
job, participants labeled an obstacle to obtaining employment that was beyond
themselves as an individual, in this case it was the mere action of finding a job. When
asked what was an obstacle once employed, again as in the facilitators of maintaining
employment, participants turned inward in their thinking and talked about a personal
struggle tied to their disability. Both findings make sense. It is once employed that
interpersonal skills will appear more clearly, as participants were probably initially tested
only on their ability to perform the duties of the job, and not on how they would interact
with others over a period of time.
Overall, the finding that the majority of participants felt that there were no issues
in finding and maintaining employment stands out. Current research paints a picture that
employment for adults with developmental disabilities is extremely difficult. Major
obstacles noted in prior literature were the severity of the disability, lack of
transportation, lack of educational preparation, a decrease in benefits, and workplace
prejudice. It is possible that these were obstacles, but that the participants did not think
of them at the time of the interview, were unable to verbalize the obstacle, did not
38
understand the purpose of the questions asked or may have been unaware that they had
experienced such obstacles (e.g., prejudice related to hiring). Nevertheless, some of these
obstacles were mentioned, but not in such a frequency that they stood out among the
other responses provided. For example transportation was mentioned once and disability
was mentioned twice as an obstacle to maintaining employment.
Finally, a deeper look was taken into the experiences of participants at the two
Regional Centers utilized in the current study. The hourly rate for participants from the
RCOC ($8.63/hour) was lower than the hourly rate for participants from the HRC
($9.14/hour). This is not surprising as there were more participants engaged in facility
based work at the RCOC (10 participants) than there were at the HRC (seven
participants). With competitive employment generally comes higher wages, as compared
to wages in facility based work. On average participants in facility based work made
$6.94 per hour compared to the $9.71 per hour rate of those participants in competitive
employment with workplace supports, and the $10.92 per hour rate of those participants
in competitive employment without workplace supports. The reason as to why there
were more participants overall in competitive employment positions, with and without
workplace supports, from the HRC is not determinable based on current study data. It
should be noted that the HRC sample size was five participants larger overall than the
sample sized obtained from the RCOC.
Practical Implications
Many individuals, whether with or without developmental disabilities, view their
work as one way of defining who they are (Harbor Regional Center, 2012). The findings
in this study indicate that individuals with developmental disabilities desire to work, and
39
find many positives to being employed, most notably earing a paycheck. In addition to
income growth potential, the workplace can act as a place for personal growth.
Employment provides an opportunity to gain exposure to the larger world through
various role opportunities, and as reported by participants of the current study, brings
rewards in the form of both monetary as well as social; making new friendships. The
results of this study also shed light on how to guide adults with developmental disabilities
through the employment process so that they can continue to achieve the rewards they
value from finding employment.
This transition of participants from relying solely on outside resources at the
beginning of the job hunt, to relying on their own individual abilities once employed, is
important to note. Such findings suggest how resources should be utilized when an adult
with developmental disabilities decides to enter into the workforce, or change jobs. Of
course additional research is needed, but it is beneficial to keep the findings of the current
study in mind. Regional centers and family members of adults with developmental
disabilities can benefit from these findings by ensuring they are actively involved at the
very beginning of the job searching process. Once an individual finds employment, it is
then that the resources available to them in the workplace become important. Knowing
such information can help initially in determining if a specific job will be suitable for an
individual with developmental disabilities if they are ultimately hired.
Once hired, participants reported that interpersonal skills were a barrier to
maintaining employment. As Chadsey and Beyer’s (2001) research found, social factors
of work can be just as important as productivity in determining performance. Although a
lack of interpersonal skills can be potentially detrimental to employment in the
40
workplace, working also offers an avenue in which to enhance these skills. Through
employment, individuals with developmental disabilities are given continuous interaction
with customers and with other employees. Individuals with developmental disabilities
can refine their interpersonal skills through the increased use of those skills within the
workplace (Stephens et al., 2005).
This is not to say though, that they can do all this improvement on their own. The
correct work supports need to be in place. One of the top facilitators to maintaining
employment for participants was that of a job coach. With a job coach’s guidance,
individuals with developmental disabilities can work on developing socially appropriate
interpersonal skills. Continued action in this area could result in those with
developmental disabilities thriving in the workplace and experiencing greater satisfaction
in their role. Role satisfaction is an important factor in measurement of the overall
quality of life for those with developmental disabilities (Eliason, 1998).
Overall, the results of this study suggest that through the resources of Regional
Centers and through the support of others (e.g., family), adults with developmental
disabilities can find success in employment. The services of a Regional Center include a
job coach, job skill training, and assistance with job placement, all of which are
invaluable resources for those with developmental disabilities seeking employment.
These resources can help to reduce the number of instances an individual with
developmental disabilities loses a job due to interpersonal skills. These potential positive
changes brought on by Regional Centers, may already be showing in the present study.
The fact that so many participants reported encountering no obstacles, may speak to the
41
ability of Regional Centers, and potentially to the other supports participants noted, in
helping them find and keep employment.
Strengths and Limitations
The greatest strength of the present study was that through individual interviews
driven by structured questions, participants were able to share their experiences in the
workplace. Such a methodology both confirmed past research findings as well as
contributed new knowledge. The benefit of having qualitative data in the form of open-
ended questions is that participants were able to express themselves autonomously,
allowing for richer, and more in depth responses (Leiva et al., 2006). Open-ended
questions also afforded the participants to provide their own individualized responses,
free from cues or forced choice answers. It was to be expected, and hoped for, that there
would be overlap in responses to the questions asked, but there was also a chance for
greater diversity in responses as well.
This same freedom in allowing participants to speak their mind in answering the
research questions is also a limitation of sorts. No two participants are the same, and how
they understand the meaning of a question being asked can differ significantly. As the
participants of this study had a developmentally disability, the impact of their disability in
their understanding and response to the questions asked of them cannot be fully
determined. Should there have been alternate ways of asking a question, example stories
or various ways of phrasing the same question, perhaps more in-depth responses would
have been uncovered. Although contrary to the prior paragraph, it is possible that the
format of open-ended responses worked more as a restriction than as a response freeing
mechanism. It is possible that the participants in this study required a bit more prompting
42
in order for them to fully articulate a response that fully encompassed their experience
when answering a question.
Despite a potential unforeseen restriction, the study was able to add new
information to the current literature on adults with developmental disabilities and their
employment experiences. It was noted for the obstacles to obtaining and maintaining
employment that the majority of participants reported no obstacles in these two areas.
This has not yet been reported in current publications and could be seen as an indication
that the employment supports and systems put together for adults with developmental
disabilities are in fact working.
Nevertheless, before any strong correlations or conclusions can be drawn, the
sample size of the present study may restrict the generalization of results. While the
sample size of 45 participants was substantially larger than in some previous research,
such a sample size is still smaller than desired. Also, by obtaining participants from two
Regional Centers relatively close in proximity, the findings of this study may not be
generalizable to populations beyond those regions (HRC and RCOC are only 35.6 miles
apart from one another). Reports of findings could be offset due to nuances or
experiences shared only at those specific Regional Centers from which participants were
obtained. As large a sample size as possible is always preferred as it helps to absorb any
abnormalities recorded and provides a more holistic view of a particular population.
With that said, the sample size, although small, does provide access to a
population that is otherwise very hard to reach. Contacting participants through Regional
Centers allowed for a collection of data that would otherwise have been near impossible
to obtain due to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPPA). An
43
individual’s disability status is protected by law (there are some exceptions to this law).
Through the assistance of Regional Centers, potential participants were able to be
identified and invited to participate. By having the Regional Centers act as the contact
conduit, participants were assured of the validity and genuineness of the researcher’s
intent. Individuals who decided to participate were then given the opportunity to share
their experiences in a comfortable environment. The interviews acted as an opportunity
for a voice to be given to a population that is rarely heard from in their own words.
The unique challenges associated with sampling from a population of individuals
with developmental disabilities should be considered in the category of limitations as
well. Participants sometimes provided responses that were either extremely vague or
extremely specific. The extremely vague responses led to the generation of overly broad
categories that required refining, while the extremely specific responses led to some
responses being uncategorized, as they were unique to the individual respondent. Some
participants provided off topic responses or offered a response that did not fit the line of
questioning being asked. For example, in response to the question of, “What has been
most problematic in keeping a job?”, one participant replied by just nodding his head
(this participant was excluded from the study). Some of the data recorded is nonsensical
and adds no value to the overall answering of the questions asked. Interviewers did not
consistently ask for clarification of convoluted responses. Such oversight may have led
interviewers to miss out on opportunities to obtain greater depth into responses, as well as
important clarifications. Such a limitation may be unique to studying this particular
population.
44
Lastly, although the employment history questionnaire was thorough, and
provided several questions to better understand the employment experiences of adults
with developmental disabilities, it was also long. Because the questionnaire was
comprised of questions from other research studies in addition to the present study, the
entire questionnaire, on average, took around 40 minutes for participants to complete.
Not only could this long process have fatigued participants and caused them to reply with
shorter answers, but the length may also have influenced some interviewers to avoid
probing further into responses, as they did not want to extend the length of the interview.
Future Directions for Research
The present study sought to examine the work experiences of adults with
developmental disabilities. It is clear that two areas should be further investigated:
experiences of adults with developmental disabilities across the country, and the
employer side of working with, and considering, adults with developmental disabilities
for employment.
Future research should look to amass a larger sampling of participants with
developmental disabilities from various states and various regions within those states. A
larger sample will allow for a clearer picture of the work experiences of adults with
developmental disabilities across the country. It would also be interesting to compare the
relative employment experiences of individuals from different Regional Centers within
the various states. No doubt the different practices in employment services offered by
these Regional Centers would result in interesting differences in employment success of
clients. Helping to identify the successful practices related to employment services
would be a major contribution.
45
When interviewing future participants with developmental disabilities, alternate
methods in asking a question should be deployed. In future studies, interviewers should
be cognizant of when a participant does not appear to understand a question, and before
moving on to the next question, should try and rephrase the question in a way the
participant may better comprehend. As in the study by Cramm et al. (2009), the Q-
methodology was utilized allowing participants to rank order statements, and this method
worked successfully. Perhaps in future studies a combination of open-ended responses
with various ways to phrase the same question, forced choice statements, and q-cards
could be used in aiding participants in understanding a question being asked of them.
With different forms of media to better express themselves, participants may provide
more concrete and comprehensible responses.
It is also worth investigating the reservations employers hold in recruiting
individuals with developmental disabilities. Adults with developmental disabilities are
an untapped resource that many employers may inadvertently overlook (Harbor Regional
Center, 2012). As research and governmental data shows, adults with developmental
disabilities want to work, but many struggle to find solid employment. Future research
could investigate to what degree does this challenge reflect employer weariness of hiring
an individual with developmental disabilities due to misguided fears of what such
employment would entail (e.g., extra training, time spent overseeing, reliability, etc.).
Further research may discover that, simply, employers are plainly unaware of this
workforce resource available to them. An investigation into employer reservations may
turn up valuable information as to why employers are not hiring more individuals with
developmental disabilities. Findings could possibly lead to public service campaigns
46
promoting the abilities of those individuals with developmental disabilities and thereby
better informing employers.
47
APPENDICES
48
APPENDIX A
EMPLOYMENT HISTORY QUESTIONNAIRE
49
EMPLOYMENT HISTORY QUESTIONNAIRE
Do you currently get paid for work?
If yes:
o How many jobs?
o Ask questions 1.A – 1.E for each current job. If more than one job, be
sure to label the responses as “job 1:” “job 2:” etc.
If not currently working, assess the primary last job held:
o When was the last time you had a job?
o I’d like you to think about that job when answering the next set of
questions.
Phrase questions in past tense. Ask questions 1.A – 1.E for the
primary last job held.
1. Information on employment
A. What is the name of the organization at which you work(ed)
for pay?
B. What is (was) your job title?
Work setting
Ask as many of the following questions as necessary to determine which work
setting applies: facility-based OR competitive employment with workplace
supports OR competitive employment without workplace supports
C. I’d like to learn more about the place at which you work(ed).
Do (Did) you work with other individuals with
developmental disabilities?
D. Do (Did) you receive any supports to help you do your work,
such as a job coach, specialized training, assistive
technology, transportation, etc.?
Interviewer’s best guess as to type of employment (check
one):
___Facility-based workshop
___ Competitive employment with workplace supports
50
___Competitive employment without workplace supports
E. In your job as (position title), how many hours do(did) you
work per week in that job?
Information on primary current job.
IF CURRENTLY WORKING: Ask the below questions for the one job the
participant works the greatest number of hours. If no job has more hours
than another, ask about the job for which he or she has worked the longest
period of time. If unknown, ask him or her to pick one job. Star the job for
which he or she is providing the following information.
IF NOT CURRENTLY WORKING, BUT HAS HAD A JOB IN THE PAST:
Ask the following set of questions for the last job held.
Let’s just focus on the (position title) job for the following questions.
How much money do you make in dollars per hour?
How did you find the job?
How long have you worked at this job?
I am about to name a number of possible work supports. For each, please tell
me whether or not you have received these forms of support at your job.
[Code: 1 – yes, 0 – no]
1) Pre-employment training?
2) Helping getting to and from work?
3) Help finding the job?
4) Extra support from co-workers or supervisor?
5) Assistive technology?
6) On-the-job coach?
7) Other supports?
51
APPENDIX B
RESEARCH QUESTIONS OF THE CURRENT STUDY
52
RESEARCH QUESTIONS OF THE CURRENT STUDY
In thinking about these last few questions, I’d like you to consider your work experience
in general over the past few years.
1. Overall evaluative questions
a. What has been most rewarding about having a job?
b. What has been most helpful in helping you find a job?
c. What has been most helpful in helping you keep a job?
d. What has been most problematic in finding a job?
e. What has been most problematic in keeping a job?
53
APPENDIX C
CODING OVERVIEW OF PARTICIPANT RESPONSES
54
CODING OVERVIEW OF PARTICIPANT RESPONSES
TABLE 2. Coding Overview of Participant Responses
Categories of Coding Responses
Quotable
Responses
Code-able
Responsesa
Coded
Un-Coded
Responses
Not Coded
No Response from
Participant
What has been
most rewarding
about having a
job?
59 53 3 3
What has been
most helpful in
helping you find a
job?
49 39 8 2
What has been
most helpful in
helping you keep a
job?
49 40 5 4
What has been
most problematic
in finding a job?
45 39 4 2
What has been
most problematic
in keeping job? 45 33 8 4
Note: The table displays each of the five open-ended research questions and the number
of responses for each research question. aThis number indicates the number of individually code-able responses to a question, for
those participants that provided one or more code-able responses.
55
REFERENCES
56
REFERENCES
Achterberg, T. J., Wind, H. H., de Boer, A. M., & Frings-Dresen, M. W. (2009). Factors
that promote or hinder young disabled people in work participation: A systematic
review. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 19(2), 129-141.doi:10.1007/s
10926-009-9169-0
Benz, M. R., Lindstrom, L., & Yovanoff, P. (2000). Improving graduation and
employment outcomes of students with disabilities: Predictive factors and student
perspectives. Exceptional Children, 66(4), 509-529.
California State Council on Developmental Disabilities (2011). How does council define
developmental disability?. Retrieved January 24, 2012 from http://www.scdd.ca.
gov/Developmental_Disabilities.htm
Chadsey, J., & Beyer, S. (2001). Social relationships in the workplace. Mental
Retardation And Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews, 7(2), 128-133.
doi:10.1002/mrdd.1018
Christian, L., Gillman, B., White, J., & Whitney, D.J. (2009, February). Working toward
a brighter tomorrow: Employment expectations and realities. Presentation
presented to the Association of Regional Center Agencies, San Francisco, CA.
Cramm, J. M., Finkenflügel, H. H., Kuijsten, R. R., & van Exel, N. A. (2009). How
employment support and social integration programmes are viewed by the
intellectually disabled. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 53(6), 512-
520. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2788.2009.01168.x
Dusseljee, J. E., Rijken, P. M., Cardol, M. M., Curfs, L. G., & Groenewegen, P. P.
(2011). Participation in daytime activities among people with mild or moderate
intellectual disability. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 55(1), 4-18.
doi:10.1111/j.1365-2788.2010.01342.x
Eliason, S. L. (1998). Social integration and satisfaction among individuals with
developmental disabilities: A sociological perspective. Education & Training in
Mental Retardation & Developmental Disabilities, 33(2), 162-167.
57
Ford, L., Dineen, J., & Hall, J. (1984). Is there life after placement?. Education &
Training of the Mentally Retarded, 19(4), 291-296.
Greenspan, S., & Shoultz, B. (1981). Why mentally retarded adults lose their jobs: Social
competence as a factor in work adjustment. Applied Research in Mental
Retardation, 2(1), 23-38. doi:10.1016/0270-3092(81)90004-7
Harbor Regional Center. (2012, February). A partnership that works. Retrieved March
24, 2012 from http://www.harborrc.org/about/performance/report
Holmes, J., & Fillary, R. (2000). Handling small talk at work: Challenges for workers
with intellectual disabilities. International Journal of Disability, Development
And Education, 47(3), 273-291. doi:10.1080/713671114
Hutchison, P. (1994). Work and leisure: Paradoxes and dilemmas for people with
developmental disabilities. Journal on Developmental Disabilities, 3(1), 1-15.
Irvine, A., & Lupart, J. (2008). Into the workforce: Employers' perspectives of inclusion.
Developmental Disabilities Bulletin, 36(1-2), 225-250.
Jahoda, A., Banks, P., Dagnan, D., Kemp, J., Kerr, W., & Williams, V. (2009). Starting a
new job: The social and emotional experience of people with intellectual
disabilities. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 22(5), 421-
425. doi:10.1111/j.1468-3148.2009.00497.x
Jahoda, A., Kemp, J., Riddell, S., & Banks, P. (2008). Feelings about work: A review of
the socio-emotional impact of supported employment on people with intellectual
disabilities. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 21(1), 1-18.
Jiranek, D., & Kirby, N. (1990). The job satisfaction and/or psychological well being of
young adults with an intellectual disability and nondisabled young adults in either
sheltered employment, competitive employment or unemployment. Australia &
New Zealand Journal of Developmental Disabilities, 16(2), 133-148.
Kessler Foundation and National Organization on Disability. (2010). The ADA, 20 years
later. [Executive summary]. Retrieved from http://www.2010disabilitysurveys.
org/pdfs/surveysummary.pdf
Leiva, F., Ríos, F., & Martínez, T. (2006). Assessment of Interjudge Reliability in the
Open-Ended Questions Coding Process. Quality & Quantity: International
Journal of Methodology, 40(4), 519-537. doi:10.1007/s11135-005-1093-6
Lemaire, G., & Mallik, K. (2008). Barriers to supported employment for persons with
developmental disabilities. Archives Of Psychiatric Nursing, 22(3), 147-155.
doi:10.1016/j.apnu.2007.06.014
58
Lengnick-Hall, M. L., Gaunt, P. M., & Kulkarni, M. (2008). Overlooked and
underutilized: People with disabilities are an untapped human resource. Human
Resource Management, 47(2), 255-273. doi:10.1002/hrm.20211
Mank, D., Cioffi, A., & Yovanoff, P. (1998). Employment outcomes for people with
severe disabilities: Opportunities for improvement. Mental Retardation, 36(3),
205-216. doi:10.1352/0047-6765(1998)036<0205:EOFPWS>2.0.CO;2
Mank, D., Cioffi, A., & Yovanoff, P. (2003). Supported employment outcomes across a
decade: Is there evidence of improvement in the quality of implementation?
Mental Retardation, 41(3), 188-197. doi:10.1352/0047-6765(2003)41<188:
SEOAAD>2.0.CO;2
Martin, J. E., Rusch, F. R., Lagomarcino, T., & Chadsey-Rusch, J. (1986). Comparison
between nonhandicapped and mentally retarded workers: Why they lose their
jobs. Applied Research in Mental Retardation, 7(4), 467-474. doi:10.1016/S0270-
3092(86)80019-4
Mayring, P. (2000). Qualitative content analysis. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung
/Forum: Qualitative Social Research [On-line Journal], 1(2). Retrieved from:
http://qualitative-research.net/fqs/fqs-e/2-00inhalt-e.htm
McConkey, R., & Mezza, F. (2001). Employment aspirations of people with learning
disabilities attending day centres. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 5(4), 309-318.
NBC News Investigations. (2013, June). Disabled workers paid just pennies an hour –
and it’s legal. Retrieved June, 1 2014 from http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_
news/2013/06/25/19062348-disabled-workers-paid-just-pennies-an-hour-and-its-
legal
Reid, P. M., & Bray, A. (1998). Real jobs: The perspectives of workers with learning
difficulties. Disability & Society, 13(2), 229-239. doi:10.1080/09687599826803
Rice, C., Schendel, C., Cunniff, C., & Doernberg, N. (2004). Public health monitoring of
developmental disabilities with a focus on the autism spectrum disorders.
American Journal of Medical Genetics Part C, 125C(1), 22-27. doi:10.1002/
ajmg.c.30006
Riches, V. C., & Green, V. A. (2003). Social integration in the workplace for people with
disabilities: An Australian perspective. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation,
19(3), 127-142.
59
Riesen, T. (2010). Postschool employment alternatives. In J. McDonnell, M. L. Hardman,
J. McDonnell, & M. L. Hardman (Eds.), Successful transition programs:
Pathways for students with intellectual and developmental disabilities (2nd ed.,
pp. 296-319). Thousand Oaks, CA US: Sage Publications, Inc.
Sandys, J. (2007). Work and employment for people with intellectual and developmental
disabilities. In I. Brown & M. Percy (Eds.), A comprehensive guide to intellectual
and developmental disabilities (pp. 527-543). Baltimore, MD: Paul H Brookes.
Schmidt, M., & Smith, D. L. (2007). Individuals with Disabilities Perceptions on
Preparedness for the Workforce and Factors that Limit Employment. Work:
Journal of Prevention, Assessment & Rehabilitation, 28(1), 13-21.
Schwamm, J. B. (1986). Transitional service centers: From school to work for students
with developmental disabilities. Rehabilitation Literature, 47(9-10), 236-
239.
Siporin, S., & Lysack, C. (2004). Quality of life and supported employment: A case study
of three women with developmental disabilities. American Journal of
Occupational Therapy, 58(4), 455-465.
Smith, J. (2012). The work expectations of individuals with developmental disabilities
(Unpublished master’s thesis). California State University, Long Beach.
State of California Department of Industrial Relations. (2014, January). Minimum wage.
Retrieved April 5, 2014 from http://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/faq_minimumwage.htm
Stephens, D. L., Collins, M. D., & Dodder, R. A. (2005). A longitudinal study of
employment and skill acquisition among individuals with developmental
disabilities. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 26(5), 469-486.
doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2003.12.003
Test, D. W., Carver, T., Ewers, L., Haddad, J., & Person, J. (2000). Longitudinal job
satisfaction of persons in supported employment. Education & Training in Mental
Retardation & Developmental Disabilities, 35(4), 365-373.
United States Census Bureau. (2014, July). State & county quickfacts. Retrieved October
5, 2014 from http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/06059.html
United States Department of Labor. (2014, June). Employment of workers with
disabilities. Retrieved June 1, 2014 from http://www.dol.gov/whd/
specialemployment/workers_with_disabilities.htm
60
United States Department of Labor Statistics. (2014a, March). Earnings and
unemployment rates by educational attainment. Retrieved October 5, 2014 from
http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_chart_001.htm
United States Department of Labor Statistics. (2014b, August). Employment status of the
civilian population by sex, age, and disability status, not seasonally adjusted.
Retrieved August 9, 2014 from http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t06.htm
Warren, L. (1986). Helping the developmentally disabled adult. The American Journal of
Occupational Therapy, 40(4), 227-229.
Wehmeyer, M. L., & Garner, N. W. (2003). The impact of personal characteristics of
people with intellectual and developmental disability on self-determination and
autonomous functioning. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities,
16(4), 255-265. doi:10.1046/j.1468-3148.2003.00161.x
Yamaki, K., & Fujiura, G. T. (2002). Employment and income status of adults with
developmental disabilities living in the community. Mental Retardation, 40(2),
132-141. doi:10.1352/0047-6765(2002)040<0132:EAISOA>2.0.CO;2
61
