Business and Rehabilitation Factors in the Development of Supported Employment Programs for Adults with Developmental Disabilities

TLDR: While the intent of the options for persons with developmental disabilities was to provide work opportunity, in fact, the evolving service system had a negative impact on persons served and their ability to function independently in the natural work environment.

Abstract: Segregated services for persons with developmental disabilities had been the rule and not the exception until the late 1970's (Scheerenberger, 1983). Traditionally services were provided in large or small custodial-like programs and facilities which resulted in severe restrictions on the individual's experience with a variety of non-disabled persons and integrated environments. These services while efficient in the maintenance functions of daily living did not provide a normalized lifestyle as compared to non-handicapped persons (Wolfensberger, 1977). Nevertheless, multiple services options did develop and expand, coinciding with the mandated deinstitutionalization movement (Scheerenberger, 1983) and developmental disabilities (DD) legislation which provided for comprehensive services to meet life-long needs for support-assistance. Within the service delivery system, vocational services was a component that developed late (Kiernan & Payne, 1982). In fact, it was not until the late 1960's that vocational services for persons with developmental disabilities received substantial attention (Kiernan & Payne, 1982, Whitehead, 1979). Williams (1967), in his analysis of renumerative employment for persons with mentally retardation stated, "Discussion of the occupation of profoundly retarded adults is almost nonexistent in the literature" (p. 18). The vocational system that developed, however, followed the same principles of the residential service component. This new system involved the expansion of the existing system to provide services to a population which previously was unserved. The sheltered workshop model in the case of vocational and employment services had gained widespread acceptance in general rehabilitation by 1960. Subsequently, between the late 1960's and 1970's there was a 300% increase in the growth of sheltered programs for persons with disabilities with the bulk of the growth in programs for the developmentally disabled population (Whitehead, 1979). Work and day activity services were added to the sheltered workshop approach to form a continuum or "flow through" system for the development of work skills or for providing a non-work day programming option for persons with developmental disabilities. (Bellamy, Rhodes, Bourbeaux, & Mank, 1986). While the intent of the options for persons with developmental disabilities was to provide work opportunity, in fact, the evolving service system had a negative impact on persons served and their ability to function independently in the natural work environment (Bellamy et al., 1986, Defazio & Flexer, 1983; Greenleigh, 1975; Pomerantz & Marholin, 1977; Whitehead, 1977). The traditional vocational service system that developed for the DD population has been a continuum of sheltered employment services and a variety of near-and non-work options. The basic criticisms of the workshop options (sheltered workshop or work activity) are: lack of training for "real" work, and conflicting service/employment goals or the duality of purpose problem. (Bellamy et al., 1986; Defazio & Flexer, 1983). Lack of training for "real" work can be seen when comparing competitive work or transitional employment programs to sheltered employment services. This training problem evolves, in part, around the types of work that sheltered facilities perform versus what types of work are commonly available in the competitive job market. Generally speaking, the workshop subcontracts work that no other business performs or that other individuals would not want to do (Gold 1973). Much of the work that is performed involves tasks such as collating and sorting of material, which are not major duties in the competitive work place. As a result, skills that are specific to these restricted jobs are not generalizable to competitive jobs. Moreover, according to the data provided by Greenleigh Associates (1975), U.S. Department of Labor (1979), and Bellamy et al., (1986), the national rate of placement out of sheltered facilities was under 10% during the period surveyed. …