Social Inclusion in Supported Employment Settings

Nanho Song Vander Hart

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2021
• ISBN:
  9781000525410
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Negocios y empresa
• Subtopic: Negocios en general

First published in 2000, This book has two purposes. First, it explores inclusion in supported employment by investigating social interactions between supported employees and their non-disabled co-workers, compared to those between non-disabled co-workers in the same work culture. Second, it provides information on how the findings of the study can be used in the areas of supported employment, education, and research.

CHAPTER 1

Introduction

In the 1980s, a new human service approach, supported employment, was introduced. This approach opened doors to new employment opportunities for persons with severe disabilities in community businesses. Supported employment is a personnel service that matches qualified persons with disabilities to entry level, and occasionally advanced, duties within community businesses (Iowa CEO, 1994). The three important aspects in the federal definition of supported employment, according to the Federal Register (1987), are competitive work, ongoing support and an integrated work setting. As described in the definition, the intent of supported employment is to support persons with disabilities in integrated work settings.

Supported employment, therefore, provides opportunities for people with severe disabilities to work along and develop social relationships and friendships with their non-disabled co-workers (Parent, Kregel, Metzler, & Twardzik, 1992). The long-term goal of supported employment regarding social integration is for workers with disabilities to interact with their non-disabled co-workers to the same extent as non-disabled co-workers in comparable positions interact with other non-disabled co-workers in terms of frequency, type, and quality. Such interaction suggests that workers with disabilities are accepted as true peers by their non-disabled co-workers in integrated work settings.

Supported employment programs have resulted in thousands of persons with severe disabilities entering the labor force for the first time (Wehman & Kregel, 1995). Some 73,000 people with disabilities in 1991, and over 135,000 in 1995, benefited through this new service in the United States (Rehabilitation Research and Training Center on Supported Employment, 1991; West, Wehman, Revell, & Kregel, 1997). Through supported employment, persons with disabilities receive the increased opportunities of social inclusion as well as those of employment.

Many studies have identified integration into the work place and community as the most important aspect of supported employment (Nisbet & Hagner, 1988; Shafer, Tait, Keen, & Jesiolowiski, 1988). Co-workers have been recognized as an important source of employment support (Butterworth, Hagner, Kiernan, & Schalock, 1996; Curl & Chisholm, 1993; Mank, Cioffi, & Yovanoff, 1998). There also has been an emphasis on natural support, which values the role of non-disabled co-workers (DiLeo, 1997; Hagner, Rogan, & Murphy, 1992; Nisbet & Collahan, 1987; Rogan, Hagner & Murphy, 1993; Trach, Beatty, & Shelden, 1998). Natural support has been described as any assistance, relationships or social interactions with other employees (Mank, 1996).

In general, typical work routines and non-job related face-to-face interactions among employees naturally enhance people’s working relationships as well as social relationships at work and possibly outside work. For example, Jenny, a temporary employee at a college testing program and computer company, enjoys any possible interactions with her co-workers and has made many friends at work. The intensity of relationships may vary from casual acquaintanceship to friendship (Parent, Kregel, Metzler, & Twardzik, 1992).

On the other hand, the social participation of persons with severe disabilities has been very limited while they worked in segregated work settings such as sheltered workshops and work activity programs. In segregated work settings, people who have severe disabilities socially interact mostly with their co-workers with disabilities and with paid staff. For instance, Mark, who has multiple disabilities, works at a sheltered workshop managed by a human service agency. He interacts only with the staff and other co-workers with disabilities during his work hours.

Although the federal regulations impose a condition of an integrated work setting, physical inclusion of persons with disabilities at work does not always lead to social inclusion. For example, Mary, a supported employee at an insurance company, was not invited for an ice cream social with her non-disabled co-workers at the staff lounge. Instead, due to a lack of space, she had been required to work behind a divider in a corner of the lounge, while her co-workers had the ice cream social. One of the challenges facing supported employment is the ability to provide and sustain employment opportunities that afford workers true and valued integration and not simply physical presence within an integrated setting (Shafer, Rice, Metzler, & Haring, 1989).

Many studies have indicated that outcomes of supported employment have fallen short of expectations. For example, the data suggest that the supported employment program does not serve all of the individuals with severe disabilities for whom the supported employment initiative was intended (Goetz, Lee, Johnston, & Gaylord, 1991; Hagner, 1989; Kregel & Wehman, 1989; Mank, Cioffi, & Yovanoff, 1998; Yan et al., 1990). Other studies have also shown that social interactions between workers with and without disabilities were not as frequent as those between non-disabled workers. Workers with disabilities also received more commands and were less involved in teasing and joking interactions (Chadsey-Rusch, Gonzalez, Tines, & Johnson, 1989; Lignugaris/Kraft, Salzberg, Rule, & Stowitschek, 1988).

Workers with severe disabilities tend to lack the appropriate social skills necessary at work. One of the causes of job termination of workers with disabilities is their maladaptive behaviors such as poor social skills, attitude, and verbal abuse (Ford, Dineen, & Hall, 1984; Hanley-Maxwell, Rusch, Chadsey-Rusch, & Renzaglia, 1986). Little research has been conducted on the relationship of social inclusion of supported employees and their social skills, that are crucial to be successfully employed and included in competitive work. There has been, therefore, a need for research exploring the relationships between social inclusion of supported employees and their social skills.

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

Social inclusion is one of the essential factors for successful employment and quality work life. Outcomes of supported employment have fallen short of the expectations, according to the literature (Nisbet & Hagner, 1988; Yan et al., 1990). For example, supported employees are not socially included as expected by being placed in integrated work settings. There also is a scarcity of descriptive research on social interactions between supported employees and their non-disabled co-workers in a variety of competitive work settings, which is one of the significant goals of supported employment. This study investigates the type (nature) and frequency (quantity) of social interactions between supported employees and their non-disabled co-workers, compared to interactions between non-disabled co-workers, in order to identify aspects of social integration of supported employees in integrated community businesses.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

The purposes of this study were: (a) to identify type and frequency of interactions between employees with and without disabilities compared to those among non-disabled employees in the same work culture; (b) to investigate the nature of the relation between social interactions and the supported employee’s level of disability; (c) to describe the nature of the relation between social interactions and the supported employee’s social skills that are necessary to be naturally included at work and possibly outside work; (d) to describe the nature of the relation between social interactions and the social climate of the business; and (e) to describe other possible factors, such as gender and age, that may affect the social interactions among co-workers. The following research questions are addressed in the study:

Type and Frequency of Interactions at Work

1. 1. What are the types and frequency of interactions at work among non-disabled workers?
2. 2. What are the types and frequency of interactions at work between supported employees and their non-disabled co-workers?
3. 3. Is there a difference between #1 and #2?

Level of Disability and Interactions

1. 4. Does the supported employee’s level of disability (e.g., mild, moderate, severe, or profound mental disabilities) affect the type and frequency of interactions between supported employees and non-disabled co-workers?
2. 5. Is there a difference in social interactions between supported employees and non-disabled co-workers, compared to interactions between non-disabled co-workers, due to the level of disability?

Social Skills and Interactions

1. 6. Does the supported employee’s social skills (e.g., poor, fair, or excellent social skills) affect the type and frequency of interactions between supported employees and non-disabled co-workers?
2. 7. Is there a difference in social interactions between supported employees and non-disabled co-workers, compared to interactions between non-disabled co-workers due to social skills?

Social Climate of Business and Interactions

1. 8. Does the social climate of the business (e.g., minimal, moderate, or high interactions among co-workers) affect the type and frequency of interactions between supported employees and nondisabled co-workers?
2. 9. Is there a difference in social interactions between supported employees and non-disabled co-workers, compared to interactions between non-disabled co-workers due to the social climate of the business?

The types of interactions were specified into categories of brief greetings and small talk, work-related and personal interactions. These categories originally were used in a study by Yan and his colleagues (1993).

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

This study looks at both the nature and frequency of interactions between employees with and without disabilities in terms of the level of disabilities of supported employees, social skills and the social climate of businesses in different work cultures. This adds to the present knowledge of the social inclusion of supported employees. To enhance the quality of the supported employment service, identification of factors (e.g., level of disabilities and social skills) that affect interactions between supported employees and their non-disabled co-workers is necessary. The findings of this study will help increase the possibility and effectiveness of natural support by providing appropriate services to either supported employees or their co-workers, or both.

DEFINITION OF TERMS

For the purpose of this research, the following terms are defined:

• Competitive work is paid employment in the same labor market as the general population, as opposed to sheltered workshops or day-care programs.
• Human service refers to the program that assists persons with disabilities to achieve their dreams and capabilities in the area of employment, life skills, etc.
• Human service agency is an organization that provides human service programs for persons with disabilities, for example, Goodwill Industries.
• Inappropriate social behaviors (skills) refers to interactions exhibited by a person, which are not commensurate to other interactions occurring in the environment and/or not acceptable as normal behavior by others.
• Inclusion/integration is offering persons with disabilities job placement that promotes maximum interaction with other workers in a natural setting. The term inclusion is used in regard to work setting in this study.
• Integrative work settings are those in which people with disabilities work with a majority of co-workers without disabilities. According to the President’s Committee on Employment of People with Disabilities (1995), at integrated work settings, people with disabilities should have the same opportunities to participate in all activities in which other employees participate and to work alongside other co-workers without disabilities.
• A job coach/employment specialist is a person who provides on-going support to supported employees and possibly to the business. The terms job coach and employment specialist are used interchangeably in this study.
• Mental retardation refers to substantial limitations in present functioning. It is characterized by significantly subaverage intellectual functioning, existing concurrently with related limitations in two or more of the following applicable adaptive skill areas: communication, self-care, home living, social skills, community use, self-direction, health and safety, functional academics, leisure, and work. Mental retardation manifests before age eighteen (The American Association on Mental Retardation (AAMR), 1992). The AAMR uses four levels of intellectual functioning to group individuals with mental retardation according to the severity approach: (1) mild, IQ 55 to 70; (2) moderate, IQ 40 to 55; (3) severe, IQ 25 to 40; and (4) profound, IQ 25 or lower (IQ scores based on standard deviation of Wechsler Intelligence Scales). The human service agency records are used for the participants’ levels of disability.
• Natural support refers to providing assistance to the supported employee by a physically proximate co-worker in a natural setting and at naturally occurring times.
• A non-disabled co-worker is an employee who works in the same business with the supported employee and performs the same or similar duties as the supported employee.
• An ongoing service is the provision of necessary support for a supported employee to learn job skills, to better interact with non-disabled co-workers, and to assist with other job-related experiences (e.g., obtaining a different job).
• Persons with s...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• Preface
• List of Tables
• Chapter 1: Introduction
• Chapter 2: Review of the Literature
• Chapter 3: Methodology
• Chapter 4: Results
• Chapter 5: Discussion and Conclusion
• Appendix A List of Agencies That Participated in the Study
• Appendix B Interview Form
• Appendix C Letter to Human Service Agency and Information on Your Participation
• Appendix D Follow-up Letter, Employment Specialist/Job Coach Notes, and Employment Specialist/Job Coach Consent Form
• Appendix E Human Subject Review Committee Material
• References
• Index