- Email: [email protected]
Tensions experienced by employment support professionals when seeking meaningful employment for persons with developmental disabilities
Research in Developmental Disabilities 99 (2020) 103603
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Research in Developmental Disabilities journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/redevdis
Tensions experienced by employment support professionals when seeking meaningful employment for persons with developmental disabilities
T
Marghalara Rashida, Sandra Thompson-Hodgettsb,*, David Nicholasc a
Department of Paediatrics, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Faculty of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Alberta, 2-64 Corbett Hall, 8205-114 St, Edmonton, Alberta, T6G 2G4, Canada c Faculty of Social Work, University of Calgary, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada b
A R T IC LE I N F O
ABS TRA CT
Number of reviews completed is 2
Purpose: Current research suggests that supported employment for people with developmental disabilities offers significantly higher rates of employment, personal satisfaction, and employer satisfaction. This study focuses on tensions experienced by employment support professionals while working with employers regarding employment for persons with developmental disabilities. These tensions experienced by employment support professionals is an area that is currently under researched and needs further exploration. Method: In-depth interviews and focus group sessions were conducted with employment support professionals (n = 34) from a variety of organizations in two Canadian provinces. Theoretical sampling was used to recruit study participants. Data were thematically analysed, informed by a grounded theory approach. Results: Four main themes emerged: (i) Hire for capabilities, not pity, (ii) The bottom line: profit versus moral code, (iii) Education and concerns about accommodations and costs, and (iv) Pros and cons of incentives. Conclusions: Our study highlights some of the tensions experienced by employment support professionals when they work with employers considering employing persons with developmental disabilities. This information can be used to help employment support professionals, and others, target approaches and supports aimed at building employers’ capacity to support meaningful employment for people with developmental disabilities.
Keywords: Adult Autism spectrum disorder Developmental disability Employment Employment support
What this paper adds? This study adds to the literature on understanding facilitators and barriers to supported employment for adults with developmental disabilities (DD), and in particular, tensions experienced by employment support professionals who are working with employers to support meaningful employment for persons with DD. These nuanced findings portray differing perspectives related to acknowledging and addressing challenges, financial benefits, perceived cost of accommodations, and pros and cons of incentives. This information can be used to help employment support professionals, and others, consider multiple perspectives on supported employment, and target supports and other approaches aimed at building employers’ capacity to support meaningful employment for people with DD.
⁎
Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (S. Thompson-Hodgetts).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2020.103603 Received 16 July 2019; Received in revised form 29 January 2020; Accepted 2 February 2020 0891-4222/ © 2020 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Research in Developmental Disabilities 99 (2020) 103603
M. Rashid, et al.
1. Introduction Individuals with developmental disabilities (DD) often experience difficulties adapting to traditional education and employment settings. Estimates of the unemployment rate for individuals with DD vary between 70 % and 85 % versus around 8 % for the general population (Nicholas & Roberts, 2012; Nicholas, Attridge, Zwaigenbaum, & Clarke, 2015). A lack of community and employer focus on ensuring sustainable job opportunities for persons with DD is one factor that may contribute to low employment rates. The result is that many people with DD remain unemployed or function in jobs below their skill level (Cederlund, Hagberg, Billstedt, Gillberg, & Gillberg, 2008; Hurlbutt & Chalmers, 2004; Marriage, Wolverton, & Marriage, 2009; Romoser, 2000; Taylor & Seltzer, 2010). Employers’ understanding of and perspective on the strengths and challenges of hiring employees with DD will undoubtedly influence their willingness and desire to support meaningful employment (Kaye, Jans, & Jones, 2011; Unger, 2002). Relatively limited research has investigated employers’ perspectives, but previous research suggests that employers’ greatest concerns are perceived cost of accommodations, understanding of disability, fear about the ability to discipline or fire someone with a disability, and questions of employee job competence (Kaye et al., 2011). Factors that contribute to more favorable employment outcomes are still not well understood (Marriage et al., 2009), although support services have demonstrated improved outcomes (Ellenkamp, Brouwers, Embregts, Joosen, & van Weeghel, 2016). Benefits of employment supports for adults with DD have been recognized, yet tensions and challenges faced by service providers as they seek to support employment success are understudied and research evidence is lacking (Nicholas & Roberts, 2012; Richards, 2012; Van Wieren, Reid, & McMahon, 2008). Challenges that employment support professionals face may vary. For example, a range of job supports, communication, social and/or adaptive processes may be of priority, and these domains may shift given individual needs, family life circumstances, and changes over time while providing employment support services to people with DD. However, a scoping review revealed that despite the many challenges faced by employment support professionals, their involvement played a significant role in supporting individuals with DD in the workforce and their presence was perceived as vital in increasing employers’ comfort in hiring individuals with DD (Rashid, Hodgetts, & Nicholas, 2017). A lack of employment support services and vocational resources may result in uncertainty and stress for adults with DD, their families, and professionals seeking to ensure that the most effective interventions are provided (Autism Society Canada, 2007; Farrell, 1997). This study will advance this under-developed area of optimizing strategies and supports aimed at building capacity for meaningful employment for persons with DD. This study is critical given increasing evidence that suggests that employment support services for persons with DD may significantly increase rates of employment, personal satisfaction, and employer satisfaction (Robertson & Emerson, 2006). Gaps in knowledge remain related to how best to support individuals with DD in the workforce. To address these gaps, the aim of this study is to explore tensions that existed for employment support professionals as they worked with employers in offering employment support to persons with DD. For this paper, we specifically focused on the tensions that were reported by the employment support professionals stakeholder group from our multisite and multi-stakeholder project. For the purpose of our study we defined ‘tension’ as a conflict that was caused due to interpersonal or intrapersonal mismatches (Acar, 2011). 2. Methods Given the need for an in-depth understanding of tensions experienced by employment support professionals as they relate to advancing vocational opportunity for individuals with DD, a qualitative approach was used. This study is part of a large multisite project that used grounded theory (Strauss & Corbin, 1998) as a methodology to explore strategies to build employer capacity to support meaningful employment for persons with DD. This broader study included the perspective of multiple stakeholder groups: employment support providers, employers, persons with DD, and family caregivers. The employment support professionals recruited for this study served people with a variety of DD, including, but not limited to, intellectual disability, and/or autism spectrum disorder (ASD). We received ethics approval from the Research Ethics Boards at the University of Alberta (Edmonton, AB, Canada) and the University of Calgary (Calgary, AB, Canada). 2.1. Participants and recruitment Theoretical sampling was used to recruit study participants, to target diversity of participants and saturation of data (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). Participants from two Canadian provinces, Ontario and Alberta, were recruited through a study invitation email to advocacy agencies, employment support agencies, and developmental service agencies in these provinces. Additionally, recruitment posters containing study information and researcher contact information, were posted at targeted employment support, developmental services, and advocacy agencies in Ontario and Alberta. 2.2. Data collection Researchers (MR, STH) conducted three individual and five group interviews (focus groups), each of which lasted 45−60 min. There were approximately six participants in each focus group. The interviews were conducted at a time and place that was convenient for participants. Participation in the study and any follow-up was completely voluntary, and participants were instructed that they may refuse to participate in parts of the study, may decline to answer any or all questions, and may withdraw from the study at any time. Up to the point of data analysis, they were also instructed that their interview and transcript could be removed from the 2
Research in Developmental Disabilities 99 (2020) 103603
M. Rashid, et al.
study. All participants chose to participate in all aspects of the process. Interviews explored experiences, needs, and processes related to participants’ employment support, with subsequent recommendations for the enhancement of experience specific to building employer capacity. Example questions were “What were some strengths related to finding and retaining meaningful work for adults with DD?”, “What were some gaps related to these processes?”, “What were some existing resources that supported this process”, and “What are some potential resources to help support this process?” Focus groups provided vital information because they created interactive environments where participants were invited to talk with each other, respectfully disagree with each other, and build on each other’s points of discussion. This process elicited common knowledge and shared understanding, as well as differing perspectives about employers’ capacity to support meaningful employment for individuals with DD. Through individual and group interviews our participants voiced their concerns, perceived gaps, and needs of employers and employment support professionals to optimize employment for persons with DD. 2.3. Data analysis Data collection and data analysis were conducted simultaneously. All interviews and focus group sessions were digitally recorded, transcribed verbatim for immediate analysis, and subsequently entered as verbatim transcripts into N-Vivo 11 (QRS International; Melbourne, Australia), a qualitative data management software programme. We used Braun and Clarke (2006) six phases of data interpretation, which are cyclic in nature: (1) familiarizing oneself with the data, (2) generating initial codes, (3) searching for themes, (4) reviewing themes, (5) defining and naming themes, and (6) producing the report. This process enabled in-depth analysis of our data and led to greater understanding about processes involved in improving employment opportunities for individuals with DD. Details of steps one to five are outlined below. Step six is enacted through this manuscript. One researcher (MR) did preliminary analyses of these transcripts. During the preliminary analysis this researcher (MR) read and re-read all transcripts (step 1), and identified and assigned codes within N-Vivo that emerged from the data related to tensions experienced by employment support professionals in relation to building employer capacity for adults with DD (step 2). Following this preliminary analysis, three researchers (DN, MR, STH) then carried out a second analysis of the data based on the highlighted codes in N-Vivo. In the second analysis, the codes that were identified in the preliminary analysis were discussed and aggregated to create a basic thematic schema. All codes were initially written on separate sticky post-it notes, which were moved around a large whiteboard based on similarities/overlap in concepts. In this stage, we actively engaged in removing codes that were not rich enough to be considered for inclusion within themes, and we re-named and grouped codes to better represent the data into themes (step 3). We continued a process of refining themes by group discussion (DN, MR, STH), allowing time for reflecting on and revisiting themes (which stayed posted on the whiteboard). Further review and discussion occurred at a follow-up meeting approximately two weeks later (steps 4 and 5). At this point, all researchers were comfortable with the four themes that emerged from the data. We aimed for, and indeed achieved, data saturation – the point at which no new information emerges from new participants. Data saturation is often seen as a marker of rigour in qualitative research. This is usually achieved through theoretical sampling whereby researchers seek new participants to add data in areas they consider ‘thin’ (Morse, Barrett, Mayan, Olson, & Spiers, 2002). Throughout our data analysis we looked for thin data. If present, we continued collecting data in an attempt to reach saturation. At our fourth focus group session our data was saturating, however, to make sure that we were truly achieving situation, we conducted a fifth focus group session to see if any new information was emerging. It was at that point we stopped collecting data as no new information was emerging. 2.4. Methodological rigour Rigour was demonstrated by following the techniques proposed by Lincoln and Guba (1985). 1) Credibility was established through prolonged engagement with our participants during the focus groups, and by presenting our work to our stakeholders via peer debriefing to discuss our findings. 2) Transferability was achieved by providing a ‘thick’ (comprehensive) description of the project’s methods, sample, and findings. 3) Dependability and confirmability were achieved through an audit trail, which was created by maintaining: a) a reflexive journal to highlight our biases to make sure that we objectively analysed our data; b) memos during analyses to keep track of decisions made in regards to coding and abstraction; and c) operationally defining criteria for codes, categories and themes. Codes were the labels that we attached to the text that was analysed. Categories were grouping that we imposed on the coding to reduce the number of codes. Themes were the higher/abstract level of the categories that we achieved during our analysis. 3. Results There were four emergent main themes related to tensions experienced by employment support professionals in their role of working with employers to attain meaningful employment for adults with DD: 1) Hire for capabilities, not pity, 2) The ‘bottom line’: profit versus moral code, 3) Education needed and concerns about accommodations and costs, and 4) Pros and cons of incentives. Table 1 provides a summary of these themes. 3.1. Study participants A total of 34 employment support professionals participated; the majority (84 %) were female, with a mean age of 43.2 years 3
Research in Developmental Disabilities 99 (2020) 103603
M. Rashid, et al.
Table 1 Identified themes. Themes
Description of Themes
Example Quotes
Hire for capabilities, not pity
The motivation to hire should relate to capacities and capabilities of people with DD, yet many hiring decisions are perceived to be based on favors for others or pity.
The ‘bottom line’: profit versus moral code
Employers often worry that they may lose profits by hiring a person with DD, yet feel a moral obligations to employing people with disabilities.
Education and concerns about accommodations and costs
Employers often have a lack of understanding about the cost and extent of accommodations to support employees with DD.
Pros and cons of incentives
There is debate among employment support professionals about whether incentives for hiring people with DD should be promoted or discouraged.
“…one of the things is to find the business champion who can talk to the other business owners [that] they’ve got employees that are really valuable employees, right? They have lower absentee rates, they stay employed longer…” “This person might have special needs, but they’re actually good at a specific task at the job, right…. I’m just, thinking somebody who’s just so profit driven would look at hiring somebody with special needs as actually a disadvantage.” “I always like employers to know that making a few accommodations is not going to cost them tons of money, it’s not going to destruct the whole workplace. If anything, it is going to make it better.” “There should be an incentive for employers that they go talk to other franchisees. So we get into [job 1], now if we offer an incentive to the owner of that [job 1], the manager of that [job 1] should go talk to other managers about the success of the program. I think peer-to-peer they will listen to each other a little bit more than us saying ‘well no they like us, they have good stories.’ If they’re going to their peers and saying, like ‘look this truly works.’ I think that will hold a lot more weight.” “We don’t believe in [incentives] because we, I mean [incentives] get people jobs if we were just doing sales and could just talk an employer into it, but then [the employee with DD] be back through our doors in a month after they lost their job and we’ve lost that employer. So what we’re doing is we’re selling to employers obviously the benefits and showing them all the pieces, but we’re setting someone up for success by giving them a job that they can do.
(SD = 9.97; range = 24–71). They had worked a mean of 14.2 years (SD = 10.63; range = 0.5–33) in employment support services. The types of employment support services offered, as identified by participants, included: job searching, life skills and social skills development, employment readiness, job coaching, facilitation of community participation, family resource navigation support, mentorship, advocacy, on-the-job support, and outreach.
3.2. Theme 1. Hire for capabilities, not pity Participants acknowledged a wide range of views about people with disability due to the complex nature of DD. They proposed that employers need to focus on the competencies and abilities that people with DD can bring to the workplace. Some participants felt that people with DD may have challenges that should be acknowledged, but they also supported “focusing on what people’s capacities are and what people with disabilities can do”. Other participants emphasized that people with DD should not be hired out of a sense of pity, as illustrated in the following statement: I remember hearing somewhere there is some car wash and [the owner] only hires people with disabilities and autism. The reason he does is because they are such good workers, they are honest, and they never slack off, right? So if people are aware of how valuable they can be, they are not just hiring them out of pity; they are hiring them because they can actually be very good workers. Participants consistently reported that it is unnecessary and inappropriate to pity people with DD related to employment. Participants reinforced that individuals with DD have capacities that need to be realized, although the tension between not pitying, yet acknowledging challenges, was discussed. The following quote highlights that some supports may be needed to make the employment experience go smoothly. … ‘don’t take pity on them and don’t give them the janitor job or the stocking shelves job’ because you’re ‘pulling on their heart strings’. They do have more capacity, once you do maybe ‘pull on their heart strings’ and you get in there and they see that they’re capable, you have to make sure that the right supports are there to maintain the job because if they start drifting into their skill deficits, they’re going to lose their jobs if there’s not the right supports in there to maintain it. Further, many participants reported that employment support professionals and employees with DD are not looking for charitable help and pity during employment seeking, and that the employers need to understand that charity and pity are not the base upon which to hire someone with DD. For example, a participant stated, “So you wouldn’t see the mandates being charitable. You’d see 4
Research in Developmental Disabilities 99 (2020) 103603
M. Rashid, et al.
them as being inclusive.” In addition, it was recommended that employers must not hire individuals with DD as token employees: You’re not doing them any favours by having them as the token employee because if the new manager comes in or policies change and there is no one to educate the employer about ‘keep them up to the same standards, expect more from them’ and then you can coach the employer and go in and maybe support the individual with some of the change. If that’s not there, they get written up or fired or they just keep them in the token shuffle. There are clear tensions within the above statements. These statements indicate that we have to address the issue of employment for individuals with DD, yet issues need to be resolved through inclusive employment and recognition of individuals’ own merits, rather than on pity for people with DD or exclusively charitable mandates. 3.3. Theme 2. The bottom line: profit versus moral code Participants discussed multiple values of inclusion, including good business-sense, business morale, and social justice. Tensions were evident related to the stance of employment support professionals when seeking meaningful work for people with DD. For example, participants had to balance their passion to increase employment opportunities for people with DD to promote social justice with the realization that employers need to consider financial implications for their business. As such, some participants thought that promoting the potential financial benefits for employers may be strategic: There are a lot of people in this sector who are very passionate about what we do. But we sometimes forget that when we are talking to the community and employers that they are a business. They are about what their company does and the bottom line and making money, and we often forget that a little bit when we are approaching to find an individual a job and see if it is a right fit. We are coming at it from our perspective, which is ‘we love what we do and why would you not want to include this amazing person in the community?’ Participants reported that employers express concerns that an employee with DD may become a liability on the employer. The employment support professionals reported that they often feel that they play a role of mediator between an employer and employee. On one hand, they are actively involved in educating employers about the practices and regulations pertaining to hiring individuals with DD, yet on the other hand, they play the role of an advocate and coach/mentor to assist employees with DD transition and adjust to their new job: It’s what an accommodation typically looks like in our program. Not costly. You don’t pay for it… [Agency name] covers the liability insurance on me while I’m in your business. Put those things on the table. So employers often want to know ‘OK, so if I give this person a chance and they are the worst employee I’ve ever hired in my life, am I going to get sued for firing them?’ No. I’m going to sit down at the table with you. Part of my role is to help the person understand what expectations they didn’t meet. I’m going to ask that you followed all of those standards, that you’ve done your documentation, that you’ve made the attempt to let the employee know what behaviour needs to stop… and what it needs to be replaced with. I will come in and coach. I will… do you know what I mean? We’ll go through that process with the employer because while it’s bad for the employee to lose their job, it’s hard for employers to do it too. And so we kind of sit in the middle and we try to be very objective. Participants further perceived that the primary decision-making factor for employers is the extent to which they would financially benefit from hiring an individual with DD: Talking about bottom line though, I mean that’s one of the challenges that you run into, because a lot of the doors that we knock on…it comes down to the businesses’ bottom line and they want to make sure that we just want someone here that can do the job. It’s so ingrained in our everyday practices, right? And our assumptions about who we see and what they look like. We have a lot of assumptions about someone’s exterior or someone’s cognitive ability. How does that affect my bottom dollar? Participants indicated that, regardless of the amount of effort and the lens through which employment support professionals offer job support for individuals with DD, they always must reinforce employer/business benefits that come with employing people with DD: Research will tell you that people with intellectual disabilities are more reliable. They rarely miss work. Once they’re trained, you don’t need to be going back and retraining and retraining, and they’ll stay for long periods of time…recruitment is really expensive. 3.4. Theme 3. Education and concerns about accommodations and costs Participants also reported issues with employers’ knowledge of accommodations, including pervasive misconceptions about the extent and costs of most accommodations. Participants frequently discussed how a large part of their role is providing education to mitigate employers’ concerns related to their inaccurate overestimations about accommodations. Many participants reported that employers express fear and anxiety regarding the extent and cost of accommodations when employing an individual with DD: Employers have a lot of fears around what accommodations are. You know, most accommodations are 25–50 dollars, but when an employer thinks accommodations, they’re thinking thousands of dollars or they’re going to completely renovate my office space 5
Research in Developmental Disabilities 99 (2020) 103603
M. Rashid, et al.
and make it look different. So a lot of the job that we tend to do as well is just that type of education…they may need an accommodation, but it means ‘can you move your desk two feet to the left’ because they have difficulty in small, tight spaces. But again, it’s the bottom line.
3.5. Theme 4. Pros and cons of incentives There were significant tensions related to financial incentives, such as government subsidies, to support hiring someone with DD. Some participants expressed and focused on the positive aspects of incentives, while others expressed negative aspects of providing incentives to employers for hiring individuals with DD. Some employment support professionals indicated that the idea of giving incentives to employers to hire someone with DD undermined the employee’s abilities. Participants felt that employer incentives may damage the whole purpose of advocating for the potential contributions of employees with DD: “because incentive is about kind of, you know ‘please take this person on’. Right?” Hence, incentives were not viewed as a positive strategy to attract employers to hire people with DD: … So we actually try to promote [fair wage] rather than saying, ‘it’s an incentive’ because then you may look past what the abilities are and it’s just a matter of getting that incentive. I would rather that you see the abilities of that person, and you’re hiring them because they’re going to bring something valuable to the workplace. However, others viewed government incentives as positive, particularly for small and medium business owners: I personally think it would be beneficial, at a government level, to financially incentivize the employer because I find the employer is willing. And in many cases, many of the employers that are most successful [in diverse employmet] are our small to medium employer groups. So in large enterprises, they get lost and they don’t get the one-on-one personal attention that they need. So I find that it is the small ‘mom and pop shops’ that they could have a meaningful employment experience and they could contribute and the employer is happy to have them. But there is a very real dollar concern that they [employers] just don’t have the wages to pay someone to do part of the job but then someone else to do the full job. It’s just that the logistics of it are not there, so even if the willingness is there, they can’t… you know what I mean? They just don’t have the finances to do that. So I think if there was an incentive from higher up that might help offset it. As illustrated above, some participants recommended incentives to improve opportunities for hiring individuals with DD. They generally conveyed that these incentives should be exclusively for employers who are actively involved in endorsing inclusive employment to other employers. One participant stated that this level of cooperation and communication in employment support, “would go so much further than [us] pounding the pavement, knocking down doors, begging for a chance to get [our] message out there.” Other participants also supported this sentiment: There should be an incentive for employers that they go talk to other franchisees, so we get into [job]…now if we offer an incentive to the owner of [job 1], the manager of [job 1] can go talk to other managers about the success of the program. I think peer-to-peer…they will listen to each other a little bit more than us… If they’re going to their peers and saying things like ‘look this truly works.’ It was also recommended that the employers who are willing to speak with other employers about the benefits and effectiveness of employing individuals with DD and involving employment support professionals should not do so out of pity or sympathy, but focus on the fact that individuals with DD are smart and intelligent people who bring unique skills and proficiencies: And making sure the CEO dedicating three hours is not doing so out of pity…. We need to do this…because this is meaningful employment, they can bring a skill set to you, but … we’re not going to have this to meet some value statement that we’re an inclusive setting.
4. Discussion This is the first study to explore tensions experienced by employment support professionals related to their interactions with employers when seeking employment for people with DD. Four main themes emerged from our analysis. The first theme, “Hire for capabilities, not pity” reflects the perspective of employment support professionals that the capabilities of people with DD are often unrecognized, and rather they are hired based on charitable motivations. The second theme, “The ‘bottom line’: profit versus moral code” reflects the perceived struggle that many employers experience between wanting to hiring individuals with DD to support social justice and equal opportunities, yet worrying about negative financial implications of these hires. These tensions appear to persist even though employment support professionals often reinforce the potential financial benefits of hiring individuals with DD. Somewhat related to the second theme, the third theme reflects the education needed and concerns about the extent and costs of accommodations required to support employees with DD. The fourth theme reflects the extensive discussion among our study participants about the advantages and disadvantages of incentives to entice employers/companies to hire individuals with DD into the workforce. Employment support services have demonstrated many positive outcomes for creating and sustaining meaningful employment opportunities for people with DD (Ellenkamp et al., 2016). Employing people with DD has been shown to have many positive 6
Research in Developmental Disabilities 99 (2020) 103603
M. Rashid, et al.
outcomes for employers such as higher job retention rates (Hernandez et al., 2008). However, our findings demonstrate that employment support professionals experience multiple tensions due to their diverse values and focus while providing employment support to people with DD, as well as their perceptions of some employers’ lack of accurate understanding of the realities and value of hiring employees with DD. Our findings suggest that employment support professionals prioritize reinforcing the financial and social added-value of hiring employees with DD. Moreover, findings based on our study point to reported good intentions of many employers, but a more troublesome lack of understanding about people with DD, who too commonly may be viewed predominantly through the vantage point of disability, rather than as good workers who bring important contributions to a workplace. Although many employers value social justice and equal opportunities for individuals with DD in the workforce, employment support professionals in our study perceived that employers are primarily concerned that people with DD will be a disadvantage for their company’s bottom line, which they perceive as the primary cause of decreased employment opportunities. This erroneous perception often is to the detriment of the organization, given varying reports of people with DD indeed being strong workers (Nicholas et al., 2015), and in some cases, exemplary employees who are loyal and fastidious, with attention to detail and pride in their work (Fraser et al., 2010). Such qualities indeed benefit employers and organizations in regards to productivity, as well as a limited need for additional training and accommodation costs (Hernandez et al., 2008). The perspective of employment support professionals who participated in our study is contrary to previous research suggesting that employers are driven by charitable and altruistic motives (Ellenkamp et al., 2016; Fabian, Luecking, & Tilson, 1995). We found greater depth in our participants’ layered perspective positing that indeed, people with DD can be effective employees, with ‘bottom line’ benefits to organizations. Their perspectives seemingly align with Luecking’s (2008, 2011) thoughtful comments that employers are primarily motivated by productivity needs, regardless of whether a disability label exists. Luecking (2011) also notes that employers who want to support hiring of individuals with DD for altruistic reasons are often burdened by daunting disability employment systems. Another tension expressed in our study related to employers’ perceptions of the extent and costs associated with accommodations required to employ people with DD. Such finding are in line with previous research (Kaye et al., 2011) as our data illuminated incorrect perceptions about the need to invest significant monetary and other resources to support people with disabilities. Employment support professionals in our study were actively involved in educating employers about the minimal costs typically associated with accommodations for individuals with DD. Even when costs were not minimal, some employers were reported to willingly provide more extensive accommodations than required when they received helpful assistance from employment support professionals (Unger, 2002). Our findings indicate a perception by employment support professionals that education about workforce inclusion and diversity will reduce employer fear in relation to costs associated with accommodations that, in turn, is expected to improve inclusive hiring practices and supportive strategies. These findings are consistent with current studies that indicate that education is vital in hiring people with DD (Fabian et al., 1995; Rashid, Hodgetts, & Nicholas, 2017); however, they are inconsistent with Luecking (2011) suggestion that, rather than provide disability awareness and education, employment supports should focus on a deeper level of employer engagement to determine workforce needs for individuals with DD. Lastly, there was extensive discussion among our study participants about the advantages and disadvantages of incentives for employers/organizations hiring individuals with DD. Some participants favored some form of incentives to initially attract more employers to inclusively hire people with DD. This finding is consistent with some literature that indicates that having incentives for employers will attract more employers to hire individuals with disabilities into the workforce (Kaye et al., 2011; Lengnick‐Hall, Gaunt, & Kulkarni, 2008; Willis, 1994). Similar findings were reported by Lengnick‐Hall et al. (2008), in which the study participants echoed perspectives about the value of incentives for hiring people with disabilities: “I really think tax incentives are the one thing that will get management’s attention. There has to be an economic reason for people in management to put their heart in action—I mean they may have a sincere desire to do it, to help the disabled find employment, but there has to be some incentive, some reason to give that priority attention” (p. 269). However, other participants reported that incentives will negatively reinforce employers to hire individuals with DD. In this case, the employer will only focus on the monetary incentives, without focusing on the abilities and strengths that employees with DD bring to the workforce. Furthermore, there is concern that the financial incentives could negatively impact the perceived value of the employee in a company. Gustafsson, Peralta, and Danermark (2014) reported that subsidies can act as a signal to employers that they are being compensated for hiring a fundamentally “second class employee” rather than an individual with a unique skill set (p. 262). Placing the necessary accommodations in the workplace may be overlooked because hiring was seen as an act of charity, leaving the employee unsupported and possibly more likely to confirm lower expectations (Gustafsson et al., 2014). It is a concern that these initiatives have the potential to further stigmatize employees with DD, and that the subsidized opportunities may perpetuate only menial, low-pay positions, with little opportunity for advancement (Jongbloed, 2010). 5. Limitations and future directions This study has provided novel information on perceived tensions that exist for employment support professionals as they engage with employers in seeking to build capacity for inclusive employment. However, as in any study, there are limitations. Our study only reported on perceived tensions from a single stakeholder group (employment support professionals). It will be valuable to explore perspectives on these perceived tensions with other stakeholder groups to examine if and how perspectives may be similarly or differentially experienced, and as relevant, are navigated both within and between various stakeholder groups. Addressing these questions may ultimately serve in developing strategies for enhancing employment opportunities for people with DD. In particular, we recommend that future research focuses on the perspectives of employers from a variety of workplaces, who have and have not, 7
Research in Developmental Disabilities 99 (2020) 103603
M. Rashid, et al.
employed persons with DD. Indeed, our research team has subsequently embarked on a study to address employers’ perspectives in addressing these tensions. Despite this limitation, our study was strengthened by the inclusion of diverse employment support participants from multiple sites and regions. To our knowledge, this is the first study to examine tensions that persisted among employment support professionals in relation to building employer capacity for people with DD. Until employer perspectives are better understood, it is incumbent upon employment support professionals to ensure that they continue to use a strengths-based perspective to reinforce the capabilities and benefits of hiring individuals with DD, be knowledgeable about costs of a variety of accommodations, and appreciate employers’ perspectives and reassure employers about potential financial implications of hiring individuals with DD. 6. Conclusions Working-age adults with DD unfortunately remain disproportionately un- or under-employed. This study builds on the limited available research on employment support professionals’ experiences and views on hiring individuals with DD, and is the first to explore impeding tensions for employment support professionals who are actively engaged in building employment support capacity for people with DD. These findings have revealed perceived tensions between employment support professionals and employers, with impacts on employment-related processes and likely job access and retention outcomes for adults with DD. These findings further portray differing perspectives related to employment inclusion challenges, including the financial benefits of inclusive employment, the perceived cost of accommodations, and pros and cons of incentives, contributing to the literature on employment inclusion for people with DD. This knowledge can inform approaches to meaningful employment, and the development of effective supports, services, and policies to help reduce barriers and improve employment outcomes for people with DD. CRediT authorship contribution statement Marghalara Rashid: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis, Resources, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing, Project administration. Sandra Thompson-Hodgetts: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing, Funding acquisition, Supervision. David Nicholas: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis, Writing - original draft, Funding acquisition, Supervision. Acknowledgement This study was funded by Ontario Ministry of Community and Social Services-Developmental Services Research Grant (2015MCSS-DS006; Co-PI: Nicholas and Thompson-Hodgetts). References Acar, S. (2011). Asynchronicity. In M. Runco, & S. Pritzker (Eds.). Encyclopedia of creativity (pp. 3–6). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Autism Society Canada (2007). Report of the advisory committee of adults with autism spectrum disordersRetrieved from: autismsocietycanada.ca/general_info/download_resources/index_e.hml/. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77–101. Cederlund, M., Hagberg, B., Billstedt, E., Gillberg, I., & Gillberg, C. (2008). Asperger syndrome and autism: A comparative longitudinal follow-up study more than 5 years after original diagnosis. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 38, 72–85. Ellenkamp, J. J. H., Brouwers, E. P. M., Embregts, P. J. C. M., Joosen, M. C. W., & van Weeghel, J. (2016). Work environment-related factors in obtaining and maintaining work in a competitive employment setting for employees with intellectual disabilities: A systematic review. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 26, 56–69. Fabian, E. S., Luecking, R. G., & Tilson, G. P. (1995). Employer and rehabilitation personnel perspectives on hiring persons with disabilities: Implications for job development. Journal of Rehabilitation, (January–March), 42–49. Farrell, P. (1997). The integration of children with severe learning difficulties: A review of the recent literature. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 10, 1–14. Fraser, R. T., Johnson, K., Hebert, J., Ajzen, I., Copeland, J., Brown, P., et al. (2010). Understanding employers’ hiring intentions in relation to qualified workers with disabilities: Preliminary findings. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 20(4), 420–426. Gustafsson, J., Peralta, J. P., & Danermark, B. (2014). The employer’s perspective: Employment of persons with disabilities in wage subsidized employment. Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research, 16(3), 249–266. https://doi.org/10.1080/15017419.2013.785976. Hernandez, B., McDonald, K., Divilbiss, M., Horn, E., Velcoff, J., & Donoso, O. (2008). Reflections from employers on the disabled workforce: Focus groups with healthcare, hospitality and retail administrators. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 20, 157–164. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10672-008-9063-5. Hurlbutt, K., & Chalmers, L. (2004). Employment and adults with Asperger syndrome. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 19(4), 215–222. Jongbloed, L. (2010). Wage subsidies for people with disability. Retrieved from:Canadian Disability Policy Alliancehttp://69.89.31.83/∼disabio5/wp-content/uploads/ 2010/09/Wage_Subsidies_Review_Sept_2010_REVISED.pdf. Kaye, H. S., Jans, L. H., & Jones, E. C. (2011). Why don’t employers hire and retain workers with disabilities? Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 21, 526–536. 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. Lincoln, S. Y., & Guba, G. E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. California: Sage Publications Inc. Luecking, R. G. (2008). Emerging employer views of people with disabilities and the future of job development. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 29, 3–13. Luecking, R. G. (2011). Connecting employers with people who have intellectual disability. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 49, 261–273. Marriage, S., Wolverton, A., & Marriage, K. (2009). Autism spectrum disorder grown up: A chart review of adult functioning. Canadian Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 18(4), 322–328. Morse, J. M., Barrett, M., Mayan, M., Olson, K., & Spiers, J. (2002). Verification strategies for establishing reliability and validity in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods in Services, 1(2), 13–22. Nicholas, D., & Roberts, W. (2012). Autism care Ontario findings. presentation at “on the job: Advancing vocational opportunities for persons with autism spectrum disorder”
8
Research in Developmental Disabilities 99 (2020) 103603
M. Rashid, et al.
conference. Nicholas, D. B., Attridge, M., Zwaigenbaum, L., & Clarke, M. (2015). Vocational support approaches in autism spectrum disorder: A synthesis review of the literature. Autism, 19, 235–245. Rashid, M., Hodgetts, S., & Nicholas, D. (2017a). A synthesis review of employer needs and strategies to build employment capacity for persons with developmental disabilities. Review Journal in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 4, 165–173. Rashid, M., Hodgetts, S., & Nicholas, D. (2017b). Building employer capacity to support meaningful employment for persons with developmental disabilities: A grounded theory study of employment support perspectives. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 47(11), 3510–3519. Richards, J. (2012). Examining exclusion of employees with Asperger syndrome from the workplace. Personal Review, 41(5), 630–646. Robertson, J., & Emerson, E. (2006). A systematic review of the comparative benefits and costs of models of providing residential and vocational supports to adults with autistic spectrum disorder. Lancaster, UK: Lancaster University. Romoser, M. (2000). Male employment in autism. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 15(4), 246–247. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Taylor, J., & Seltzer, M. (2010). Employment and post-secondary educational activities for young adults with autism spectrum disorders during the transition to adulthood. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 40(12), 1431–1446. Unger, D. (2002). Employers’ attitudes towards people with disabilities in the workforce: Myths or realities? Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 17, 2–10. Van Wieren, T. A., Reid, C. A., & McMahon, B. T. (2008). Workplace discrimination and autism spectrum disorders: The National EEOC Americans with Disabilities Act research project. Work, 31(3), 299–308. Willis, C. J. (1994). Title I of the Americans with disabilities act: Disabling the disabled. Cumberland Law Review, 25, 715.
9
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Research in Developmental Disabilities journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/redevdis
Tensions experienced by employment support professionals when seeking meaningful employment for persons with developmental disabilities
T
Marghalara Rashida, Sandra Thompson-Hodgettsb,*, David Nicholasc a
Department of Paediatrics, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Faculty of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Alberta, 2-64 Corbett Hall, 8205-114 St, Edmonton, Alberta, T6G 2G4, Canada c Faculty of Social Work, University of Calgary, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada b
A R T IC LE I N F O
ABS TRA CT
Number of reviews completed is 2
Purpose: Current research suggests that supported employment for people with developmental disabilities offers significantly higher rates of employment, personal satisfaction, and employer satisfaction. This study focuses on tensions experienced by employment support professionals while working with employers regarding employment for persons with developmental disabilities. These tensions experienced by employment support professionals is an area that is currently under researched and needs further exploration. Method: In-depth interviews and focus group sessions were conducted with employment support professionals (n = 34) from a variety of organizations in two Canadian provinces. Theoretical sampling was used to recruit study participants. Data were thematically analysed, informed by a grounded theory approach. Results: Four main themes emerged: (i) Hire for capabilities, not pity, (ii) The bottom line: profit versus moral code, (iii) Education and concerns about accommodations and costs, and (iv) Pros and cons of incentives. Conclusions: Our study highlights some of the tensions experienced by employment support professionals when they work with employers considering employing persons with developmental disabilities. This information can be used to help employment support professionals, and others, target approaches and supports aimed at building employers’ capacity to support meaningful employment for people with developmental disabilities.
Keywords: Adult Autism spectrum disorder Developmental disability Employment Employment support
What this paper adds? This study adds to the literature on understanding facilitators and barriers to supported employment for adults with developmental disabilities (DD), and in particular, tensions experienced by employment support professionals who are working with employers to support meaningful employment for persons with DD. These nuanced findings portray differing perspectives related to acknowledging and addressing challenges, financial benefits, perceived cost of accommodations, and pros and cons of incentives. This information can be used to help employment support professionals, and others, consider multiple perspectives on supported employment, and target supports and other approaches aimed at building employers’ capacity to support meaningful employment for people with DD.
⁎
Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (S. Thompson-Hodgetts).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2020.103603 Received 16 July 2019; Received in revised form 29 January 2020; Accepted 2 February 2020 0891-4222/ © 2020 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Research in Developmental Disabilities 99 (2020) 103603
M. Rashid, et al.
1. Introduction Individuals with developmental disabilities (DD) often experience difficulties adapting to traditional education and employment settings. Estimates of the unemployment rate for individuals with DD vary between 70 % and 85 % versus around 8 % for the general population (Nicholas & Roberts, 2012; Nicholas, Attridge, Zwaigenbaum, & Clarke, 2015). A lack of community and employer focus on ensuring sustainable job opportunities for persons with DD is one factor that may contribute to low employment rates. The result is that many people with DD remain unemployed or function in jobs below their skill level (Cederlund, Hagberg, Billstedt, Gillberg, & Gillberg, 2008; Hurlbutt & Chalmers, 2004; Marriage, Wolverton, & Marriage, 2009; Romoser, 2000; Taylor & Seltzer, 2010). Employers’ understanding of and perspective on the strengths and challenges of hiring employees with DD will undoubtedly influence their willingness and desire to support meaningful employment (Kaye, Jans, & Jones, 2011; Unger, 2002). Relatively limited research has investigated employers’ perspectives, but previous research suggests that employers’ greatest concerns are perceived cost of accommodations, understanding of disability, fear about the ability to discipline or fire someone with a disability, and questions of employee job competence (Kaye et al., 2011). Factors that contribute to more favorable employment outcomes are still not well understood (Marriage et al., 2009), although support services have demonstrated improved outcomes (Ellenkamp, Brouwers, Embregts, Joosen, & van Weeghel, 2016). Benefits of employment supports for adults with DD have been recognized, yet tensions and challenges faced by service providers as they seek to support employment success are understudied and research evidence is lacking (Nicholas & Roberts, 2012; Richards, 2012; Van Wieren, Reid, & McMahon, 2008). Challenges that employment support professionals face may vary. For example, a range of job supports, communication, social and/or adaptive processes may be of priority, and these domains may shift given individual needs, family life circumstances, and changes over time while providing employment support services to people with DD. However, a scoping review revealed that despite the many challenges faced by employment support professionals, their involvement played a significant role in supporting individuals with DD in the workforce and their presence was perceived as vital in increasing employers’ comfort in hiring individuals with DD (Rashid, Hodgetts, & Nicholas, 2017). A lack of employment support services and vocational resources may result in uncertainty and stress for adults with DD, their families, and professionals seeking to ensure that the most effective interventions are provided (Autism Society Canada, 2007; Farrell, 1997). This study will advance this under-developed area of optimizing strategies and supports aimed at building capacity for meaningful employment for persons with DD. This study is critical given increasing evidence that suggests that employment support services for persons with DD may significantly increase rates of employment, personal satisfaction, and employer satisfaction (Robertson & Emerson, 2006). Gaps in knowledge remain related to how best to support individuals with DD in the workforce. To address these gaps, the aim of this study is to explore tensions that existed for employment support professionals as they worked with employers in offering employment support to persons with DD. For this paper, we specifically focused on the tensions that were reported by the employment support professionals stakeholder group from our multisite and multi-stakeholder project. For the purpose of our study we defined ‘tension’ as a conflict that was caused due to interpersonal or intrapersonal mismatches (Acar, 2011). 2. Methods Given the need for an in-depth understanding of tensions experienced by employment support professionals as they relate to advancing vocational opportunity for individuals with DD, a qualitative approach was used. This study is part of a large multisite project that used grounded theory (Strauss & Corbin, 1998) as a methodology to explore strategies to build employer capacity to support meaningful employment for persons with DD. This broader study included the perspective of multiple stakeholder groups: employment support providers, employers, persons with DD, and family caregivers. The employment support professionals recruited for this study served people with a variety of DD, including, but not limited to, intellectual disability, and/or autism spectrum disorder (ASD). We received ethics approval from the Research Ethics Boards at the University of Alberta (Edmonton, AB, Canada) and the University of Calgary (Calgary, AB, Canada). 2.1. Participants and recruitment Theoretical sampling was used to recruit study participants, to target diversity of participants and saturation of data (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). Participants from two Canadian provinces, Ontario and Alberta, were recruited through a study invitation email to advocacy agencies, employment support agencies, and developmental service agencies in these provinces. Additionally, recruitment posters containing study information and researcher contact information, were posted at targeted employment support, developmental services, and advocacy agencies in Ontario and Alberta. 2.2. Data collection Researchers (MR, STH) conducted three individual and five group interviews (focus groups), each of which lasted 45−60 min. There were approximately six participants in each focus group. The interviews were conducted at a time and place that was convenient for participants. Participation in the study and any follow-up was completely voluntary, and participants were instructed that they may refuse to participate in parts of the study, may decline to answer any or all questions, and may withdraw from the study at any time. Up to the point of data analysis, they were also instructed that their interview and transcript could be removed from the 2
Research in Developmental Disabilities 99 (2020) 103603
M. Rashid, et al.
study. All participants chose to participate in all aspects of the process. Interviews explored experiences, needs, and processes related to participants’ employment support, with subsequent recommendations for the enhancement of experience specific to building employer capacity. Example questions were “What were some strengths related to finding and retaining meaningful work for adults with DD?”, “What were some gaps related to these processes?”, “What were some existing resources that supported this process”, and “What are some potential resources to help support this process?” Focus groups provided vital information because they created interactive environments where participants were invited to talk with each other, respectfully disagree with each other, and build on each other’s points of discussion. This process elicited common knowledge and shared understanding, as well as differing perspectives about employers’ capacity to support meaningful employment for individuals with DD. Through individual and group interviews our participants voiced their concerns, perceived gaps, and needs of employers and employment support professionals to optimize employment for persons with DD. 2.3. Data analysis Data collection and data analysis were conducted simultaneously. All interviews and focus group sessions were digitally recorded, transcribed verbatim for immediate analysis, and subsequently entered as verbatim transcripts into N-Vivo 11 (QRS International; Melbourne, Australia), a qualitative data management software programme. We used Braun and Clarke (2006) six phases of data interpretation, which are cyclic in nature: (1) familiarizing oneself with the data, (2) generating initial codes, (3) searching for themes, (4) reviewing themes, (5) defining and naming themes, and (6) producing the report. This process enabled in-depth analysis of our data and led to greater understanding about processes involved in improving employment opportunities for individuals with DD. Details of steps one to five are outlined below. Step six is enacted through this manuscript. One researcher (MR) did preliminary analyses of these transcripts. During the preliminary analysis this researcher (MR) read and re-read all transcripts (step 1), and identified and assigned codes within N-Vivo that emerged from the data related to tensions experienced by employment support professionals in relation to building employer capacity for adults with DD (step 2). Following this preliminary analysis, three researchers (DN, MR, STH) then carried out a second analysis of the data based on the highlighted codes in N-Vivo. In the second analysis, the codes that were identified in the preliminary analysis were discussed and aggregated to create a basic thematic schema. All codes were initially written on separate sticky post-it notes, which were moved around a large whiteboard based on similarities/overlap in concepts. In this stage, we actively engaged in removing codes that were not rich enough to be considered for inclusion within themes, and we re-named and grouped codes to better represent the data into themes (step 3). We continued a process of refining themes by group discussion (DN, MR, STH), allowing time for reflecting on and revisiting themes (which stayed posted on the whiteboard). Further review and discussion occurred at a follow-up meeting approximately two weeks later (steps 4 and 5). At this point, all researchers were comfortable with the four themes that emerged from the data. We aimed for, and indeed achieved, data saturation – the point at which no new information emerges from new participants. Data saturation is often seen as a marker of rigour in qualitative research. This is usually achieved through theoretical sampling whereby researchers seek new participants to add data in areas they consider ‘thin’ (Morse, Barrett, Mayan, Olson, & Spiers, 2002). Throughout our data analysis we looked for thin data. If present, we continued collecting data in an attempt to reach saturation. At our fourth focus group session our data was saturating, however, to make sure that we were truly achieving situation, we conducted a fifth focus group session to see if any new information was emerging. It was at that point we stopped collecting data as no new information was emerging. 2.4. Methodological rigour Rigour was demonstrated by following the techniques proposed by Lincoln and Guba (1985). 1) Credibility was established through prolonged engagement with our participants during the focus groups, and by presenting our work to our stakeholders via peer debriefing to discuss our findings. 2) Transferability was achieved by providing a ‘thick’ (comprehensive) description of the project’s methods, sample, and findings. 3) Dependability and confirmability were achieved through an audit trail, which was created by maintaining: a) a reflexive journal to highlight our biases to make sure that we objectively analysed our data; b) memos during analyses to keep track of decisions made in regards to coding and abstraction; and c) operationally defining criteria for codes, categories and themes. Codes were the labels that we attached to the text that was analysed. Categories were grouping that we imposed on the coding to reduce the number of codes. Themes were the higher/abstract level of the categories that we achieved during our analysis. 3. Results There were four emergent main themes related to tensions experienced by employment support professionals in their role of working with employers to attain meaningful employment for adults with DD: 1) Hire for capabilities, not pity, 2) The ‘bottom line’: profit versus moral code, 3) Education needed and concerns about accommodations and costs, and 4) Pros and cons of incentives. Table 1 provides a summary of these themes. 3.1. Study participants A total of 34 employment support professionals participated; the majority (84 %) were female, with a mean age of 43.2 years 3
Research in Developmental Disabilities 99 (2020) 103603
M. Rashid, et al.
Table 1 Identified themes. Themes
Description of Themes
Example Quotes
Hire for capabilities, not pity
The motivation to hire should relate to capacities and capabilities of people with DD, yet many hiring decisions are perceived to be based on favors for others or pity.
The ‘bottom line’: profit versus moral code
Employers often worry that they may lose profits by hiring a person with DD, yet feel a moral obligations to employing people with disabilities.
Education and concerns about accommodations and costs
Employers often have a lack of understanding about the cost and extent of accommodations to support employees with DD.
Pros and cons of incentives
There is debate among employment support professionals about whether incentives for hiring people with DD should be promoted or discouraged.
“…one of the things is to find the business champion who can talk to the other business owners [that] they’ve got employees that are really valuable employees, right? They have lower absentee rates, they stay employed longer…” “This person might have special needs, but they’re actually good at a specific task at the job, right…. I’m just, thinking somebody who’s just so profit driven would look at hiring somebody with special needs as actually a disadvantage.” “I always like employers to know that making a few accommodations is not going to cost them tons of money, it’s not going to destruct the whole workplace. If anything, it is going to make it better.” “There should be an incentive for employers that they go talk to other franchisees. So we get into [job 1], now if we offer an incentive to the owner of that [job 1], the manager of that [job 1] should go talk to other managers about the success of the program. I think peer-to-peer they will listen to each other a little bit more than us saying ‘well no they like us, they have good stories.’ If they’re going to their peers and saying, like ‘look this truly works.’ I think that will hold a lot more weight.” “We don’t believe in [incentives] because we, I mean [incentives] get people jobs if we were just doing sales and could just talk an employer into it, but then [the employee with DD] be back through our doors in a month after they lost their job and we’ve lost that employer. So what we’re doing is we’re selling to employers obviously the benefits and showing them all the pieces, but we’re setting someone up for success by giving them a job that they can do.
(SD = 9.97; range = 24–71). They had worked a mean of 14.2 years (SD = 10.63; range = 0.5–33) in employment support services. The types of employment support services offered, as identified by participants, included: job searching, life skills and social skills development, employment readiness, job coaching, facilitation of community participation, family resource navigation support, mentorship, advocacy, on-the-job support, and outreach.
3.2. Theme 1. Hire for capabilities, not pity Participants acknowledged a wide range of views about people with disability due to the complex nature of DD. They proposed that employers need to focus on the competencies and abilities that people with DD can bring to the workplace. Some participants felt that people with DD may have challenges that should be acknowledged, but they also supported “focusing on what people’s capacities are and what people with disabilities can do”. Other participants emphasized that people with DD should not be hired out of a sense of pity, as illustrated in the following statement: I remember hearing somewhere there is some car wash and [the owner] only hires people with disabilities and autism. The reason he does is because they are such good workers, they are honest, and they never slack off, right? So if people are aware of how valuable they can be, they are not just hiring them out of pity; they are hiring them because they can actually be very good workers. Participants consistently reported that it is unnecessary and inappropriate to pity people with DD related to employment. Participants reinforced that individuals with DD have capacities that need to be realized, although the tension between not pitying, yet acknowledging challenges, was discussed. The following quote highlights that some supports may be needed to make the employment experience go smoothly. … ‘don’t take pity on them and don’t give them the janitor job or the stocking shelves job’ because you’re ‘pulling on their heart strings’. They do have more capacity, once you do maybe ‘pull on their heart strings’ and you get in there and they see that they’re capable, you have to make sure that the right supports are there to maintain the job because if they start drifting into their skill deficits, they’re going to lose their jobs if there’s not the right supports in there to maintain it. Further, many participants reported that employment support professionals and employees with DD are not looking for charitable help and pity during employment seeking, and that the employers need to understand that charity and pity are not the base upon which to hire someone with DD. For example, a participant stated, “So you wouldn’t see the mandates being charitable. You’d see 4
Research in Developmental Disabilities 99 (2020) 103603
M. Rashid, et al.
them as being inclusive.” In addition, it was recommended that employers must not hire individuals with DD as token employees: You’re not doing them any favours by having them as the token employee because if the new manager comes in or policies change and there is no one to educate the employer about ‘keep them up to the same standards, expect more from them’ and then you can coach the employer and go in and maybe support the individual with some of the change. If that’s not there, they get written up or fired or they just keep them in the token shuffle. There are clear tensions within the above statements. These statements indicate that we have to address the issue of employment for individuals with DD, yet issues need to be resolved through inclusive employment and recognition of individuals’ own merits, rather than on pity for people with DD or exclusively charitable mandates. 3.3. Theme 2. The bottom line: profit versus moral code Participants discussed multiple values of inclusion, including good business-sense, business morale, and social justice. Tensions were evident related to the stance of employment support professionals when seeking meaningful work for people with DD. For example, participants had to balance their passion to increase employment opportunities for people with DD to promote social justice with the realization that employers need to consider financial implications for their business. As such, some participants thought that promoting the potential financial benefits for employers may be strategic: There are a lot of people in this sector who are very passionate about what we do. But we sometimes forget that when we are talking to the community and employers that they are a business. They are about what their company does and the bottom line and making money, and we often forget that a little bit when we are approaching to find an individual a job and see if it is a right fit. We are coming at it from our perspective, which is ‘we love what we do and why would you not want to include this amazing person in the community?’ Participants reported that employers express concerns that an employee with DD may become a liability on the employer. The employment support professionals reported that they often feel that they play a role of mediator between an employer and employee. On one hand, they are actively involved in educating employers about the practices and regulations pertaining to hiring individuals with DD, yet on the other hand, they play the role of an advocate and coach/mentor to assist employees with DD transition and adjust to their new job: It’s what an accommodation typically looks like in our program. Not costly. You don’t pay for it… [Agency name] covers the liability insurance on me while I’m in your business. Put those things on the table. So employers often want to know ‘OK, so if I give this person a chance and they are the worst employee I’ve ever hired in my life, am I going to get sued for firing them?’ No. I’m going to sit down at the table with you. Part of my role is to help the person understand what expectations they didn’t meet. I’m going to ask that you followed all of those standards, that you’ve done your documentation, that you’ve made the attempt to let the employee know what behaviour needs to stop… and what it needs to be replaced with. I will come in and coach. I will… do you know what I mean? We’ll go through that process with the employer because while it’s bad for the employee to lose their job, it’s hard for employers to do it too. And so we kind of sit in the middle and we try to be very objective. Participants further perceived that the primary decision-making factor for employers is the extent to which they would financially benefit from hiring an individual with DD: Talking about bottom line though, I mean that’s one of the challenges that you run into, because a lot of the doors that we knock on…it comes down to the businesses’ bottom line and they want to make sure that we just want someone here that can do the job. It’s so ingrained in our everyday practices, right? And our assumptions about who we see and what they look like. We have a lot of assumptions about someone’s exterior or someone’s cognitive ability. How does that affect my bottom dollar? Participants indicated that, regardless of the amount of effort and the lens through which employment support professionals offer job support for individuals with DD, they always must reinforce employer/business benefits that come with employing people with DD: Research will tell you that people with intellectual disabilities are more reliable. They rarely miss work. Once they’re trained, you don’t need to be going back and retraining and retraining, and they’ll stay for long periods of time…recruitment is really expensive. 3.4. Theme 3. Education and concerns about accommodations and costs Participants also reported issues with employers’ knowledge of accommodations, including pervasive misconceptions about the extent and costs of most accommodations. Participants frequently discussed how a large part of their role is providing education to mitigate employers’ concerns related to their inaccurate overestimations about accommodations. Many participants reported that employers express fear and anxiety regarding the extent and cost of accommodations when employing an individual with DD: Employers have a lot of fears around what accommodations are. You know, most accommodations are 25–50 dollars, but when an employer thinks accommodations, they’re thinking thousands of dollars or they’re going to completely renovate my office space 5
Research in Developmental Disabilities 99 (2020) 103603
M. Rashid, et al.
and make it look different. So a lot of the job that we tend to do as well is just that type of education…they may need an accommodation, but it means ‘can you move your desk two feet to the left’ because they have difficulty in small, tight spaces. But again, it’s the bottom line.
3.5. Theme 4. Pros and cons of incentives There were significant tensions related to financial incentives, such as government subsidies, to support hiring someone with DD. Some participants expressed and focused on the positive aspects of incentives, while others expressed negative aspects of providing incentives to employers for hiring individuals with DD. Some employment support professionals indicated that the idea of giving incentives to employers to hire someone with DD undermined the employee’s abilities. Participants felt that employer incentives may damage the whole purpose of advocating for the potential contributions of employees with DD: “because incentive is about kind of, you know ‘please take this person on’. Right?” Hence, incentives were not viewed as a positive strategy to attract employers to hire people with DD: … So we actually try to promote [fair wage] rather than saying, ‘it’s an incentive’ because then you may look past what the abilities are and it’s just a matter of getting that incentive. I would rather that you see the abilities of that person, and you’re hiring them because they’re going to bring something valuable to the workplace. However, others viewed government incentives as positive, particularly for small and medium business owners: I personally think it would be beneficial, at a government level, to financially incentivize the employer because I find the employer is willing. And in many cases, many of the employers that are most successful [in diverse employmet] are our small to medium employer groups. So in large enterprises, they get lost and they don’t get the one-on-one personal attention that they need. So I find that it is the small ‘mom and pop shops’ that they could have a meaningful employment experience and they could contribute and the employer is happy to have them. But there is a very real dollar concern that they [employers] just don’t have the wages to pay someone to do part of the job but then someone else to do the full job. It’s just that the logistics of it are not there, so even if the willingness is there, they can’t… you know what I mean? They just don’t have the finances to do that. So I think if there was an incentive from higher up that might help offset it. As illustrated above, some participants recommended incentives to improve opportunities for hiring individuals with DD. They generally conveyed that these incentives should be exclusively for employers who are actively involved in endorsing inclusive employment to other employers. One participant stated that this level of cooperation and communication in employment support, “would go so much further than [us] pounding the pavement, knocking down doors, begging for a chance to get [our] message out there.” Other participants also supported this sentiment: There should be an incentive for employers that they go talk to other franchisees, so we get into [job]…now if we offer an incentive to the owner of [job 1], the manager of [job 1] can go talk to other managers about the success of the program. I think peer-to-peer…they will listen to each other a little bit more than us… If they’re going to their peers and saying things like ‘look this truly works.’ It was also recommended that the employers who are willing to speak with other employers about the benefits and effectiveness of employing individuals with DD and involving employment support professionals should not do so out of pity or sympathy, but focus on the fact that individuals with DD are smart and intelligent people who bring unique skills and proficiencies: And making sure the CEO dedicating three hours is not doing so out of pity…. We need to do this…because this is meaningful employment, they can bring a skill set to you, but … we’re not going to have this to meet some value statement that we’re an inclusive setting.
4. Discussion This is the first study to explore tensions experienced by employment support professionals related to their interactions with employers when seeking employment for people with DD. Four main themes emerged from our analysis. The first theme, “Hire for capabilities, not pity” reflects the perspective of employment support professionals that the capabilities of people with DD are often unrecognized, and rather they are hired based on charitable motivations. The second theme, “The ‘bottom line’: profit versus moral code” reflects the perceived struggle that many employers experience between wanting to hiring individuals with DD to support social justice and equal opportunities, yet worrying about negative financial implications of these hires. These tensions appear to persist even though employment support professionals often reinforce the potential financial benefits of hiring individuals with DD. Somewhat related to the second theme, the third theme reflects the education needed and concerns about the extent and costs of accommodations required to support employees with DD. The fourth theme reflects the extensive discussion among our study participants about the advantages and disadvantages of incentives to entice employers/companies to hire individuals with DD into the workforce. Employment support services have demonstrated many positive outcomes for creating and sustaining meaningful employment opportunities for people with DD (Ellenkamp et al., 2016). Employing people with DD has been shown to have many positive 6
Research in Developmental Disabilities 99 (2020) 103603
M. Rashid, et al.
outcomes for employers such as higher job retention rates (Hernandez et al., 2008). However, our findings demonstrate that employment support professionals experience multiple tensions due to their diverse values and focus while providing employment support to people with DD, as well as their perceptions of some employers’ lack of accurate understanding of the realities and value of hiring employees with DD. Our findings suggest that employment support professionals prioritize reinforcing the financial and social added-value of hiring employees with DD. Moreover, findings based on our study point to reported good intentions of many employers, but a more troublesome lack of understanding about people with DD, who too commonly may be viewed predominantly through the vantage point of disability, rather than as good workers who bring important contributions to a workplace. Although many employers value social justice and equal opportunities for individuals with DD in the workforce, employment support professionals in our study perceived that employers are primarily concerned that people with DD will be a disadvantage for their company’s bottom line, which they perceive as the primary cause of decreased employment opportunities. This erroneous perception often is to the detriment of the organization, given varying reports of people with DD indeed being strong workers (Nicholas et al., 2015), and in some cases, exemplary employees who are loyal and fastidious, with attention to detail and pride in their work (Fraser et al., 2010). Such qualities indeed benefit employers and organizations in regards to productivity, as well as a limited need for additional training and accommodation costs (Hernandez et al., 2008). The perspective of employment support professionals who participated in our study is contrary to previous research suggesting that employers are driven by charitable and altruistic motives (Ellenkamp et al., 2016; Fabian, Luecking, & Tilson, 1995). We found greater depth in our participants’ layered perspective positing that indeed, people with DD can be effective employees, with ‘bottom line’ benefits to organizations. Their perspectives seemingly align with Luecking’s (2008, 2011) thoughtful comments that employers are primarily motivated by productivity needs, regardless of whether a disability label exists. Luecking (2011) also notes that employers who want to support hiring of individuals with DD for altruistic reasons are often burdened by daunting disability employment systems. Another tension expressed in our study related to employers’ perceptions of the extent and costs associated with accommodations required to employ people with DD. Such finding are in line with previous research (Kaye et al., 2011) as our data illuminated incorrect perceptions about the need to invest significant monetary and other resources to support people with disabilities. Employment support professionals in our study were actively involved in educating employers about the minimal costs typically associated with accommodations for individuals with DD. Even when costs were not minimal, some employers were reported to willingly provide more extensive accommodations than required when they received helpful assistance from employment support professionals (Unger, 2002). Our findings indicate a perception by employment support professionals that education about workforce inclusion and diversity will reduce employer fear in relation to costs associated with accommodations that, in turn, is expected to improve inclusive hiring practices and supportive strategies. These findings are consistent with current studies that indicate that education is vital in hiring people with DD (Fabian et al., 1995; Rashid, Hodgetts, & Nicholas, 2017); however, they are inconsistent with Luecking (2011) suggestion that, rather than provide disability awareness and education, employment supports should focus on a deeper level of employer engagement to determine workforce needs for individuals with DD. Lastly, there was extensive discussion among our study participants about the advantages and disadvantages of incentives for employers/organizations hiring individuals with DD. Some participants favored some form of incentives to initially attract more employers to inclusively hire people with DD. This finding is consistent with some literature that indicates that having incentives for employers will attract more employers to hire individuals with disabilities into the workforce (Kaye et al., 2011; Lengnick‐Hall, Gaunt, & Kulkarni, 2008; Willis, 1994). Similar findings were reported by Lengnick‐Hall et al. (2008), in which the study participants echoed perspectives about the value of incentives for hiring people with disabilities: “I really think tax incentives are the one thing that will get management’s attention. There has to be an economic reason for people in management to put their heart in action—I mean they may have a sincere desire to do it, to help the disabled find employment, but there has to be some incentive, some reason to give that priority attention” (p. 269). However, other participants reported that incentives will negatively reinforce employers to hire individuals with DD. In this case, the employer will only focus on the monetary incentives, without focusing on the abilities and strengths that employees with DD bring to the workforce. Furthermore, there is concern that the financial incentives could negatively impact the perceived value of the employee in a company. Gustafsson, Peralta, and Danermark (2014) reported that subsidies can act as a signal to employers that they are being compensated for hiring a fundamentally “second class employee” rather than an individual with a unique skill set (p. 262). Placing the necessary accommodations in the workplace may be overlooked because hiring was seen as an act of charity, leaving the employee unsupported and possibly more likely to confirm lower expectations (Gustafsson et al., 2014). It is a concern that these initiatives have the potential to further stigmatize employees with DD, and that the subsidized opportunities may perpetuate only menial, low-pay positions, with little opportunity for advancement (Jongbloed, 2010). 5. Limitations and future directions This study has provided novel information on perceived tensions that exist for employment support professionals as they engage with employers in seeking to build capacity for inclusive employment. However, as in any study, there are limitations. Our study only reported on perceived tensions from a single stakeholder group (employment support professionals). It will be valuable to explore perspectives on these perceived tensions with other stakeholder groups to examine if and how perspectives may be similarly or differentially experienced, and as relevant, are navigated both within and between various stakeholder groups. Addressing these questions may ultimately serve in developing strategies for enhancing employment opportunities for people with DD. In particular, we recommend that future research focuses on the perspectives of employers from a variety of workplaces, who have and have not, 7
Research in Developmental Disabilities 99 (2020) 103603
M. Rashid, et al.
employed persons with DD. Indeed, our research team has subsequently embarked on a study to address employers’ perspectives in addressing these tensions. Despite this limitation, our study was strengthened by the inclusion of diverse employment support participants from multiple sites and regions. To our knowledge, this is the first study to examine tensions that persisted among employment support professionals in relation to building employer capacity for people with DD. Until employer perspectives are better understood, it is incumbent upon employment support professionals to ensure that they continue to use a strengths-based perspective to reinforce the capabilities and benefits of hiring individuals with DD, be knowledgeable about costs of a variety of accommodations, and appreciate employers’ perspectives and reassure employers about potential financial implications of hiring individuals with DD. 6. Conclusions Working-age adults with DD unfortunately remain disproportionately un- or under-employed. This study builds on the limited available research on employment support professionals’ experiences and views on hiring individuals with DD, and is the first to explore impeding tensions for employment support professionals who are actively engaged in building employment support capacity for people with DD. These findings have revealed perceived tensions between employment support professionals and employers, with impacts on employment-related processes and likely job access and retention outcomes for adults with DD. These findings further portray differing perspectives related to employment inclusion challenges, including the financial benefits of inclusive employment, the perceived cost of accommodations, and pros and cons of incentives, contributing to the literature on employment inclusion for people with DD. This knowledge can inform approaches to meaningful employment, and the development of effective supports, services, and policies to help reduce barriers and improve employment outcomes for people with DD. CRediT authorship contribution statement Marghalara Rashid: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis, Resources, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing, Project administration. Sandra Thompson-Hodgetts: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing, Funding acquisition, Supervision. David Nicholas: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis, Writing - original draft, Funding acquisition, Supervision. Acknowledgement This study was funded by Ontario Ministry of Community and Social Services-Developmental Services Research Grant (2015MCSS-DS006; Co-PI: Nicholas and Thompson-Hodgetts). References Acar, S. (2011). Asynchronicity. In M. Runco, & S. Pritzker (Eds.). Encyclopedia of creativity (pp. 3–6). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Autism Society Canada (2007). Report of the advisory committee of adults with autism spectrum disordersRetrieved from: autismsocietycanada.ca/general_info/download_resources/index_e.hml/. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77–101. Cederlund, M., Hagberg, B., Billstedt, E., Gillberg, I., & Gillberg, C. (2008). Asperger syndrome and autism: A comparative longitudinal follow-up study more than 5 years after original diagnosis. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 38, 72–85. Ellenkamp, J. J. H., Brouwers, E. P. M., Embregts, P. J. C. M., Joosen, M. C. W., & van Weeghel, J. (2016). Work environment-related factors in obtaining and maintaining work in a competitive employment setting for employees with intellectual disabilities: A systematic review. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 26, 56–69. Fabian, E. S., Luecking, R. G., & Tilson, G. P. (1995). Employer and rehabilitation personnel perspectives on hiring persons with disabilities: Implications for job development. Journal of Rehabilitation, (January–March), 42–49. Farrell, P. (1997). The integration of children with severe learning difficulties: A review of the recent literature. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 10, 1–14. Fraser, R. T., Johnson, K., Hebert, J., Ajzen, I., Copeland, J., Brown, P., et al. (2010). Understanding employers’ hiring intentions in relation to qualified workers with disabilities: Preliminary findings. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 20(4), 420–426. Gustafsson, J., Peralta, J. P., & Danermark, B. (2014). The employer’s perspective: Employment of persons with disabilities in wage subsidized employment. Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research, 16(3), 249–266. https://doi.org/10.1080/15017419.2013.785976. Hernandez, B., McDonald, K., Divilbiss, M., Horn, E., Velcoff, J., & Donoso, O. (2008). Reflections from employers on the disabled workforce: Focus groups with healthcare, hospitality and retail administrators. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 20, 157–164. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10672-008-9063-5. Hurlbutt, K., & Chalmers, L. (2004). Employment and adults with Asperger syndrome. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 19(4), 215–222. Jongbloed, L. (2010). Wage subsidies for people with disability. Retrieved from:Canadian Disability Policy Alliancehttp://69.89.31.83/∼disabio5/wp-content/uploads/ 2010/09/Wage_Subsidies_Review_Sept_2010_REVISED.pdf. Kaye, H. S., Jans, L. H., & Jones, E. C. (2011). Why don’t employers hire and retain workers with disabilities? Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 21, 526–536. 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. Lincoln, S. Y., & Guba, G. E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. California: Sage Publications Inc. Luecking, R. G. (2008). Emerging employer views of people with disabilities and the future of job development. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 29, 3–13. Luecking, R. G. (2011). Connecting employers with people who have intellectual disability. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 49, 261–273. Marriage, S., Wolverton, A., & Marriage, K. (2009). Autism spectrum disorder grown up: A chart review of adult functioning. Canadian Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 18(4), 322–328. Morse, J. M., Barrett, M., Mayan, M., Olson, K., & Spiers, J. (2002). Verification strategies for establishing reliability and validity in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods in Services, 1(2), 13–22. Nicholas, D., & Roberts, W. (2012). Autism care Ontario findings. presentation at “on the job: Advancing vocational opportunities for persons with autism spectrum disorder”
8
Research in Developmental Disabilities 99 (2020) 103603
M. Rashid, et al.
conference. Nicholas, D. B., Attridge, M., Zwaigenbaum, L., & Clarke, M. (2015). Vocational support approaches in autism spectrum disorder: A synthesis review of the literature. Autism, 19, 235–245. Rashid, M., Hodgetts, S., & Nicholas, D. (2017a). A synthesis review of employer needs and strategies to build employment capacity for persons with developmental disabilities. Review Journal in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 4, 165–173. Rashid, M., Hodgetts, S., & Nicholas, D. (2017b). Building employer capacity to support meaningful employment for persons with developmental disabilities: A grounded theory study of employment support perspectives. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 47(11), 3510–3519. Richards, J. (2012). Examining exclusion of employees with Asperger syndrome from the workplace. Personal Review, 41(5), 630–646. Robertson, J., & Emerson, E. (2006). A systematic review of the comparative benefits and costs of models of providing residential and vocational supports to adults with autistic spectrum disorder. Lancaster, UK: Lancaster University. Romoser, M. (2000). Male employment in autism. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 15(4), 246–247. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Taylor, J., & Seltzer, M. (2010). Employment and post-secondary educational activities for young adults with autism spectrum disorders during the transition to adulthood. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 40(12), 1431–1446. Unger, D. (2002). Employers’ attitudes towards people with disabilities in the workforce: Myths or realities? Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 17, 2–10. Van Wieren, T. A., Reid, C. A., & McMahon, B. T. (2008). Workplace discrimination and autism spectrum disorders: The National EEOC Americans with Disabilities Act research project. Work, 31(3), 299–308. Willis, C. J. (1994). Title I of the Americans with disabilities act: Disabling the disabled. Cumberland Law Review, 25, 715.
9