...Click for full report

...Click for full report

Dear Attorney General Kroger:...Click for full report

Thank you for the opportunity to provide input to the Council’s work on Sub-minimum Wage utilization by sheltered workshops in the United States.

I have been fortunate to be involved in the education and vocational employment efforts for persons with significant disabilities for over 3 decades. During that time I have directed several local, state, and federal demonstration and research grants regarding integrated community employment of persons with significant disabilities. I have also led a number of local, state, national, and international private sector corporate initiatives that have resulted in over 20,000 documented integrated work opportunities for persons with disabilities.

During this time, I have been focused as well on community integrated work placements for persons with significant disabilities in Orange County, California. Our local non-profit integrated work organization program, MentorWorks, exclusively offers services to individuals with significant disabilities that have been denied access to local sheltered workshops. These individuals have been labeled as unemployable by the sheltered workshops and/or their referral and funding sources. We also employ a zero reject intake model for clients that are referred to our program. Our sole requirement for admittance to our program is the potential client’s interest in work.

During the first decade of our local integrated work efforts, we experienced hostility, formal human rights complaints, grant revocations, and lawsuits initiated by sheltered workshops, their advocates, and referral/funding sources regarding our efforts to integrate persons with significant disabilities into community private-sector jobs.

These complaints from segregated programs and their supporters included some of the following perceptions regarding community based competitive employment for persons with disabilities: Private sector employers would exploit them, employers would never hire them, they were not productive enough to hold jobs, employers would fire them after the end of hiring tax credits, families would oppose integration, our clients did not choose to be integrated and preferred segregation, they would miss their friends and return to segregated programs, they would loose their SSI, co-workers would abuse them, labor unions would stand in the way, community work was unsafe, customers of businesses would oppose their hiring, workers with disabilities were dangerous and would injure customers with “kitchen knives”, persons with disabilities must be protected from the community, it was God’s will that “ little lambs” remain segregated, they would loose their jobs and return to their segregated program, they don’t want to work, the can make more money in the sheltered workshop, they need more training, they are not ready, they have diseases that will spread to co-workers, etc.

However, during the first 5 years of our efforts in Orange County, CA in the late 1980’s, over 700 persons with disabilities, who had been excluded or expelled from the local sheltered workshops, successfully entered community private sector integrated work settings. During our initial efforts, we promoted sub-minimum wage options to employers as a productivity selling point for some of our clients. In addition, we promoted federal tax credits as an incentive for employment of persons that might be perceived as low producers. During this time period, our wage outcome data showed the average hourly sub-minimum wage paid by employers was 400% higher than the sub-minimum wage paid by the sheltered workshops.

By the 1990’s we learned from employers that there was little or no interest in sub-minimum wages. They did not want to bother with the paperwork or potential visits from the state labor staff. As a result, we stopped presenting sub-minimum wages as a feature of integrated work and hiring a person with disabilities. It also turned out, that small business employers also had little or no interest in other financial incentives for hiring persons with disabilities, including tax credits. While larger employers by then, had seamless internal systems to screen all new employees for any available tax credits.

Into the 2000’s we had no clients involved in sub-minimum wages. Our MentorWorks program now serves over 70 persons with significant disabilities that have been denied services as too disabled by the local sheltered workshops. All of our clients have integrated paid work opportunities in the community. The average hourly wage is around $9.75 per hour. Several of our clients now earn more than our direct service staff hourly rates.

While our clients have seen a substantial increase in hourly wages, the local sheltered workshops have only slightly increased their sub-minimum wages for their clients over the same period. These findings in Orange County reflect available national research findings that compare increases in wages for persons in integrated work settings compared to sheltered workshops.

The results of efforts to monitor or eliminate the use of sub-minimum wages in sheltered workshops have recently been reported. These efforts have included increased monitoring by the U.S. Department of Labor, which has resulted in a few back-wage payments by sheltered workshops to their clients with disabilities. In addition, the elimination of sub-minimum wages has been attempted by: British Columbia, New Zealand and Arizona. These approaches, however, appear to have led to a number of unfortunate consequences that resulted in reduced employment opportunities for persons with disabilities, either through the reclassification of workers as trainees or through the conversion of workshops to non-work programs. 

The implication of these reduced employment opportunities, as well as the discrepancy in hourly wages for persons in integrated work settings vs. sheltered workshops, is that the use of sub-minimum wage is a reflection of sheltered workshops viewing persons with significant disabilities as both unworthy and incapable of being fully integrated into the typical labor force. Sub-minimum wage in sheltered workshops, therefore, is not an actually reflection of a person’s working productivity rate (as intended by statute). Rather it is a direct measure of sheltered workshop negative attitudes and bias toward their clients.

The sheltered workshop conventional wisdom of segregation and unfair wages due to incompetence, is at odds with current disability policy (ADA), and with the reality of a quarter of a million workers with significant disabilities that have left or avoided sheltered workshops over the past quarter century by going to work in the community through supported work strategies. Both ADA and worker capability demonstration has made it very clear that society and service providers should confirm that disability in no way diminishes a person’s right to fully participate in all aspects of life and therefore integrated community work at the same wages as their non-disabled co-workers.

In summary, it is clear that sub-minimum wage options must be eliminated. However, it is also clear, that to guarantee the right of persons with disabilities to have an opportunity get and earn a fair wage in the community, sheltered workshops and other failed segregated work training programs under other altruistic labels must be eliminated as well. Four decades of outcome research has demonstrated that these segregated programs for “vocational training” do not result in functional transition of their clients into community work and access to fair wages. Rather, the data has consistently demonstrated that sheltered workshop clients with disabilities are more likely to die of old age than obtain a job in the community, even at sub-minimum wage.

Disability advocates and self-advocates have made a valiant effort over the past 2 decades to educate and promote progressive change strategies to segregated vocational programs that have resulted in over 200,000 community jobs through supported employment. There has been steady progress in these efforts, but only within a few select states, e.g. WA, OK, CN. The overall national data at the same time indicates a slow reversal in these positive trends toward supported employment over the past few years.

The time for the end of sub-minimum wage and segregated programs is decades overdue. While well meaning progressive professionals in the field have approached changing sheltered workshops by education, demonstration, research, and financial incentives, many hundreds of thousands of persons with disabilities have continued to toil in segregation and wage exploitation. Even many progressive disability professionals have failed to see that segregation and sub-minimum wages are not just a professional development and training issue for sheltered workshops. Rather, they are primarily civil rights issues of community integration and equal pay, and should never have waited for sheltered workshops to “get it” (which they clearly have not). After all, persons with disabilities in these segregated programs are not products with an unlimited shelf life. Any amount of time that persons with disabilities have to wait for sheltered workshops to make the transition to ADA compliance, community integration and fair wages is unacceptable.

As a result, the committee must focus beyond the sub-minimum wage issue. The NCD Committee should recommend that all funding for segregated “training programs” end now, and be re-directed to integrated community work efforts. Further, federal sub-minimum wage options must be practically eliminated at the same time, so segregated programs that choose to participate in integrated community work efforts (and funding) do not project their demonstrated low expectation perceptions of their clients to potential community private and public sector employers.

Running head: Longitudinal Natural Supports

A longitudinal report for three employees in a training consultant model of natural support

Jan S. Weiner

Department of Special Education, California State University, Fullerton, PO Box 6868, Fullerton, CA 92834-6868

Steve Zivolich

Integrated Resources Institute, 5020 Campus Dr., Newport Beach, CA, 92660

Abstract

A twelve year natural support training consultant model is described for a private country club that committed their own employees as initial trainers and long term supports for career opportunities in a variety of positions across multiple departments within their organization. A full range of placement and support services were provided by the corporation including: job development, on the job training, job site modification, job sharing, job matching, development of special aids, family communication, case management and other work related support services. Although the program achieved significant qualitative success, the corporate partner was prepared to train and employ a larger number of employees with disabilities than were referred by the local developmental disability agency. Outcomes of natural support participants when compared to job coach supported consumers indicated superior worker benefits for natural supports in the areas of job tenure, gross wages, and hours worked per week.

A longitudinal report for three employees in a training consultant model of natural support

Jan S. Weiner, Ph.D.

Steve Zivolich

Overview

Over the last two decades the job coach model of supported employment has resulted in community employment for over 139,000 individuals with significant disabilities (Wehman, Revell, & Kregel, 1998; Wehman & Kregel, 1995). Outcomes for persons with significant disabilities has included higher wages, benefits, inclusion, skill development and job satisfaction (Mank, 1995; Albin, Rodes & Mank, 1994).

The job coach model has always promoted the use of employers and co-workers as ongoing support for employees with disabilities (Moon, Goodall, Barcus & Brooke, 1986, Wehman, 1981). In the area of job placement, ongoing employment support has been a major distinguishing mark of supported employment, when compared to historical, non-functional strategies (Bellamy, Rhodes, Mank and Albin, 1988). Extended periods of ongoing support for persons with moderate to severe disabilities in the workplace has been identified as critical to achieve successful community employment (Callahan, 1992, Fabian & Luecking, 1991).

While the job coach model has been highly successful in providing initial employment and training, concerns have been expressed that employers and employees may become too dependant upon the job coach services (DiLeo and Hagner, 1991). More recently, job coach support has become less dependable as a result of increased case loads and incremental reductions in funding for programs. In addition, the resources required to fund the very high staff-to-consumer ratios and to support a job coach for extended periods of consumer training and supervision are always under scrutiny (Rusch, Trach, Winking, Tines, & Johnson, 1989, Cimera , 2001).

Although the empirical findings relative to this issue clearly are not definitive, the presence of a job coach may at times have a potentially negative impact on the relationships between the supported worker and his or her coworkers and supervisor (Hagner, Butterworth & Keith, 1995). This perception is based on the belief that the job coach or supported worker relationship may unintentionally replace or inhibit the development of normal coworker relationships in the work setting. (Nisbet, 1992).

Nisbet and Hagner (1988) proposed a number of natural support models for persons with severe disabilities in the workforce. The “Mentoring” model employs a job coach as an initial trainer who ultimately shifts training responsibilities to a co-worker as mentor. A majority of supported employment agencies have adopted the mentoring model (West, Dregel, Hernadez, and Hock, 1997). Conversely, Cimera (2001), reported that the mentoring model did not result in cost efficiency for the supported employment agency, taxpayer or society since job coaches did not actually fade services. However, Cimara (2001) did find that the mentoring model did appear to positively impact employee tenure.

A second natural support model described by Nisbet and Hagner (1988), the “Training Consultant” approach, implements intensive training and ongoing support directly to the employer and co-workers, with supported employment staff serving as consultants. The findings of Lee, Storey, Anderson, Goetz and Zivolich (1997) suggest that the training consultant model approach helped facilitate more social interaction than job coaches. Miano, Nalven, and Hoff (1996) have described a corporate training consultant program, an internal support strategy within a large insurance company. Co-workers were trained to provide ongoing assistance and training to eleven workers with severe disabilities dispersed throughout the office setting. A similar approach was reported as part of the Pizza Hut corporate effort for 110 workers with severe disabilities (Zivolich, 1991; Zivolich, Shueman, & Weiner, 1997). The results of the Pizza Hut consultant model suggest substantial cost benefits to employees with disabilities, taxpayers, and society.

The present study is an attempt to extend the research of the “Training Consultant” model of natural supports. This study describes twelve years of longitudinal outcomes for three natural support employees with disabilities and their related employer culture. Natural supports in this setting is defined as the use of co-workers, managers and supervisors serving as trainers and support to persons with disabilities from the onset of placement and throughout their employment (Lee, et. al., 1997).

Method

The Employer

The employer is a private membership country club located in Orange County California. Orange County is a suburban community of 800 square miles located directly south of Los Angeles County California. The current population exceeds 3 million, with an annual median family income of $71,200.

Club membership is often provided as a fringe benefit by the member’s corporate employer. Most of the 700 members are Corporate Executive Officers (CEO’s), Corporate Financial Officers (CFO’s), or presidents of their respective private sector organizations.

The employer retains a staff of 110 part and full time staff. Staff are designated to the following areas: administrative, clerical, food service, child care and health club.

The Training Consultant

Integrated Resources Institute (IRI) is a non profit organization that has established multiple local, regional, and national corporate employment initiatives for persons with severe disabilities (Zivolich & Bamberg, 1991; Zivolich, et. al., 1997), (Weiner & Zivolich, 1998). IRI established a working relationship with the CEO, personnel department, supervisors and co-workers of the corporate partner. IRI was contracted at the initiation of this project with the local developmental disability agencies (LDDA) to develop innovative employment options and services for persons with severe disabilities. At the conclusion of the contract, IRI staff have continued to provide consultation support to the corporate partner without a direct reimbursement strategy.

Employer Needs Assessment

In 1987, the employer hired an employee with disabilities. A local non-profit vendor of the department of rehabilitation supplied a job coach for the employee. The vendor provided job coaching services to a small minority of its consumers, while the majority continued to be provided programming in sheltered workshops. The vendor continues to deliver this model of services to this date.

The CEO of the country club contacted IRI to express displeasure with the job coach model for the employee with disabilities hired as a food server. The CEO was seeking alternatives to a job coach approach to recruiting, training and supporting employees with disabilities. He had already dismissed the job coach from the site and directed his staff to assume all training and support needs of the employee with disabilities. He expressed concerns that the job coach was intrusive to the work setting and not as prepared and skilled as his own staff to support employees with disabilities in their unique work setting. In addition, he stated that his major interest in employing persons with disabilities was to reduce his turn-over rate of employees in his company, which at the time exceeded 100% annually. This initial employee was not included in reported outcomes, since his initial placement occurred with the use of a job coach, and therefore does not meet this studies definition of a training consultant model of natural supports.

IRI met with the employer and recommended additional training for the director of personnel in the training, support and integration of persons with severe disabilities in the workforce. At the conclusion of this training, which was provided as part of a university graduate course on supported employment, IRI committed to assisting the employer with the recruitment of additional candidates with severe disabilities and continued consultation with the employer on their ongoing program support needs.

IRI conducted a number of needs assessment meetings with the employer CEO and human resources staff. Several potential issues were identified by the employer and IRI that would require support to meet the successful employment needs. First, as with many companies, the employer had a successful experience hiring and maintaining an employee with mild disabilities, but lacked knowledge or a history of recruiting, training and supporting candidates with severe disabilities.

Second, the employer felt that all employees with disabilities needed strong customer relation skills. At the same time the employer expressed a strong commitment to demonstrating the competence of employees with severe disabilities to the club’s membership.

Third, work hours were often not typically 9 to 5, since evening and weekend events were scheduled at the club. As a result, work hours are often assigned for week-ends, evenings, and during traditional holiday periods. These non-traditional scheduling requirements would impact employees with disabilities e.g. reliance on public transportation.

In addition to the specific consultant support issues identified, the motivation and potential benefits to the corporation of employing persons with severe disabilities were explored during these meetings as well. First, substantial tax credits could be earned for each employee hired with severe disabilities. However, the employer ultimately felt that this government program would be too involved with government control and chose not to participate.

Second, a partial wage reimbursement was available from a federally funded department of labor grant during the employees training period (first 320 hours). This could be a source of revenue to reimburse the company for additional training time or lower productivity of workers with disabilities if needed. This program was implemented for one participant of this research project.

Third, the company needed assistance in filling its labor needs as the number of available workers continues to diminish. Persons with severe disabilities were seen as an untapped labor source for the company. Based on data from other supported employment programs, it was assumed that employees recruited through this project could be expected to have lower turn-over rates than non-disabled coworkers (Zivolich, Shueman, & Weiner, 1997). Lower turnover would result in recruitment and training cost savings for the company.

Program Commitments of the Training Consultant to the Employer

As a result of the needs assessment, IRI committed to the following: (a) Contacting and marketing the program to the local developmental disabilities referral organization to recruit persons with severe disabilities for the employer for interviews; (b) providing consultative support during interviews; (c) consultation for job matching; (d) on-site consultation for the CEO, human resource staff and supervisors as requested; and (e) additional training and support for the corporate staff (personnel from human resources, designated supervisors and coworkers) in strategies to integrate, train and maintain employees with severe disabilities.

Training Consultation Implementation and the Local Developmental Disability Agency

The Local Developmental Disability Agency (LDDA) provides overall case management to persons with severe disabilities in 21 California health districts. The LDDA case workers typically make the initial referral of individuals with severe disabilities to local non profit day activity programs to provide non-work services. The individuals with severe disabilities serviced by the LDDA have been determined as unemployable by the California Department of Rehabilitation, and therefore not eligible for supported employment services.

IRI's project staff made marketing presentations to the LDDA supervisors to recruit potential candidates with severe disabilities interested in employment. IRI offered to assist the LDDA case workers with the initial employer interview process, family involvement and program evaluation.

Natural Support Program Implementation

In coordination with IRI staff, the employer CEO and human resources manager interviewed and hired persons with severe disabilities. IRI staff assisted the employer staff with any necessary accommodations related to training or testing of new employees with disabilities. The primary focus of the interview process was the creation of a good job match of applicant skills to available positions or partial positions. One employee was unable to read for a clerical position. The employer subsequently developed a partial position of making copies and distributing materials to staff.

All employees interviewed were offered employment. Each employee was scheduled for the same initial orientation training as other new non-disabled co-workers. With IRI staff consultation, appropriate supervisors were identified to provide all additional training and employment support for the new employees with disabilities.

Corporate Culture and Support Variables

The culture of the work setting is a ubiquitous subject of organization management literature (Roberts & Rollins, 1996). Hagner (2000), has suggested a number of work culture variables that can be assessed to gain an understanding of an employer’s willingness to help employees with disabilities. The following is a list of culture variables exhibited by this employer:

1. The employer does not assist with transportation.

2. Training and support is provided by the employees immediate supervisor (not co-workers).

3. The work schedule has been adjusted for the needs of each employee.

4. The employees participate in company sponsored social events.

5. There are gathering places at work where employees with and without disabilities socialize.

6. Employees with disabilities share meal time settings with non-disabled co-workers.

7. Their workplaces are personalized.

8. All employees wear name badges.

9. Employees with disabilities attend group staff meetings that are scheduled once a month.

10. Employees with disabilities attend all group training meetings.

11. Performance reviews are conducted semi-annually.

12. Employment progress celebrations are held each month.

13. Employees with disabilities attend off work social events.

14. Employees with disabilities socialize with non-disabled co-workers outside of work.

15. The employer is in contact with families of employees with disabilities on a regular basis.

16. The employer is in contact with the LDDA case managers on a regular basis.

17. Average supervisor tenure for the employer is 6 years, 2 months.

18. The prevailing factor identified by the employer, which affect a supporting work environment for persons with disabilities, is their willingness to be flexible and to adjust to each worker’s capabilities.

Participants

Three individuals were recruited, hired and trained in three separate work areas of the company. The first individual, Dillon, was employed as a clerical helper. This position has been modified to include tasks that do not rely on reading skills, e.g. delivery, duplication, and mailing. The second participant, Kyran, was employed as a newsletter editor assistant. Kyran’s task setting has been modified with computer adaptations to accommodated his limited gross and fine motor capability. The third participant, Howard, has been employed in a data input position. Howard’s position has not required modification.

The primary disabilities of the participants were identified in their histories as follows: Dillon was labeled with Down Syndrome, Kyran was diagnosed with Wilson’s Disease, and Howard identified as having Autism and Tourette’s Syndrome (see Table 1). All participants are Anglo-American males and range in age from 37 to 51 years.

All participants had been determined to be non-employable by the California Department of Rehabilitation, as a result they were not eligible for supported employment or a sheltered workshop. Based on this “non-employable” determination they were eligible for the day program services under the direction of the local developmental disabilities agency.

Table 1

Participant Characteristics

Characteristics	Dillon	Kyran	Howard
Position	Clerical Assistant	Editor Assist.	Data Input
Disability	Down Syndrome	Wilson’s Disease	Autism Tourette’s
Age in years	37	39	51
Ethnicity	Anglo-American	Anglo-American	Anglo-American
Gender	Male	Male	Male

Collection of Employment Outcome Data

Employment outcome data including hours worked per week, tenure, benefits and wages were based on actual employer payroll records. These data were compared to those of individuals participating in available alternative day activity programs in Orange County, California. For the purpose of this study, aggregate self reporting data (Orange County Department of Education, 2001) were obtained on 982 day activity participants working in job coach model settings, at 31programs funded by the local developmental disabilities agency (LDDA) between July 1, 2000 and June 30, 2001. Consumer-specific data were not available other than the designation as unemployable by the California Department of Rehabilitation. Data that could have been used for creating a more appropriate comparison group were not available.

General program information about these day activity programs indicated that they provide some paid and volunteer work supports for their consumers in the community. However, the majority of program time is non-work related. The Day Activity programs were developed over 30 years ago in California, to prepare participants for sheltered workshops, prior to the development of supported work. However, since day program participants were never transitioned to sheltered work, day activity programs in Orange County, California began offering their own supported work supports (Zivolich & Bamberg, 1991). Paid work support services for the day activity programs, that utilize a job coach model vary in emphasis by program from 0% to 100% of participants. No state or local standards address employment or supported employment for these programs. All supported employment provide by these programs utilize a job coach model. No programs reported the use of a training consultant model of natural supports.

Results

Tenure

Dillon had no previous employment history and has retained his employment for 12 years. Kyran had no previous work history and has remained employed for 12 years, 1 month. Howard had no previous work history and has retained his employment for 13 years, 3 months. The average tenure for participants in the study was 12 years, 5 months. Average tenure in comparable job coach settings is 3 years, 2 months for currently employed consumers (Orange County Department of Education, 2001). Worker tenure data indicate that participants in the training consultant model with natural support experience job tenure four times greater than consumers in comparable job coach models (see Table 2).

Hours, Wages and Benefits

Work hours of employees with natural supports range from 17 to 39 hours per week, with an average number of 26.7 per week. Kyran’s medical needs and Dillon’s assignment preference restricted their work hours. In comparable job coach work settings, employee hours range from 12 to 20 hours per week, with an average hours worked per week reported at 13.5 hours. Program participants in the natural support setting are provided approximately twice as many work hours as compared to job coached individuals (see Table 2).

Those employed in a natural support setting receive monthly wages ranging from $460 to $1,092, with an average monthly wage of $648. In comparable job coach settings, monthly wages range from $137 to $ 500, with an average monthly wage reported at $281. Table 2 summarizes the wage comparison outcomes which indicate superior outcomes of $367 per month in gross wages for those in the natural support setting, when compared to the job coach group.

Fringe benefits for the two employees who choose to work part time include: Uniforms, meals, workers compensation, dry cleaning, and health club memberships. The full time employee benefits include the additional benefits of medical, dental, vision, life insurance and a 401k. Comparable fringe benefits for part-time and full time participants in the day activity programs are not available.

Table 2

Mean Comparisons of Employment Models

Employee Benefits	Training Consultant Natural Supports Model	Job Coach Model
Tenure	12yrs, 5 mo.	3yrs, 2 mo.
Monthly Wage	$648.00	$281.00
Hours Worked/ Week	26.7	13.5

Discussion

An analysis of advantages to the worker indicates that a training consultant natural support model provides the potential for significantly superior tenure, work hours, gross income and fringe benefits, when compared to a job coach model. However, the limited number of participants in the natural support setting and the aggregate form of data from similar job coach model programs, limit comparison and necessitate regarding this study as exploratory.

In future studies, particular attention needs to be given to matching participants on potentially relevant variables including type of disability, work experience, and level of functioning. It should be noted that the decision to use the aggregate data for day activity programs as a comparison group for the analysis was based on pragmatic considerations. It should be noted that the individuals being served by the day activity programs have been identified as being a person with more severe disabilities than those served by the California Department of Rehabilitation.

A unique aspect of this model of using a consultant to train natural supports has been the recruitment of candidates with severe disabilities for a wide variety of positions by the employer. The initial and on going efforts have been fostered by the CEO and human resource leadership of the employer. The staff from the human resources department initiated training and continued educational efforts by attending an annual two day training opportunity offered by the natural support consultant agency. This continued contact and training allowed for communication and responsiveness between the non-profit staff and corporate hosts as needed.

While the project did meet with qualitative success for employee participants of the study, employment placement numbers would have been higher had there not been barriers met by IRI and the employer. These barriers were presented by public agency systems that prevented the referral of additional candidates for employment. While the corporation and IRI had hoped to fill a larger number and variety of positions, the Local Developmental Disability Agency (LDDA) system in the region was unable to respond with the requested number of candidates. Lack of responsiveness to a corporate initiative is caused by a number of possible factors including: (a) lack of consumer empowerment and choice, (b) barriers presented by public agencies referral process, (c) lack of employment standards for day activity programs, and (d) low expectations for employment success for person with severe disabilities by case managers of the LDDA.

Conclusion

This study suggests Integrated Resources Institute successfully provided training to a private corporation resulting in the employment of individuals with significant disabilities by applying a training consultant natural support model. This model has the potential to provide a bridge between publicly-funded supported employment programs and corporate employment efforts. The outcomes of this exploratory study indicate a substantial benefit to workers with severe disabilities in the areas of tenure, gross wages, hours worked, and fringe benefits. Continued research is warranted to compare consumer and taxpayer benefits of the training consultant natural support model, job coach natural supports and job coach support.

Future training consultant natural support models may need to consider a limited scope of implementation, due to the apparent lack of capacity of the referral agencies and related case management systems to respond effectively to the availability of employment opportunities in the private sector. For similar training consultant natural support models to flourish, substantial reform of public systems will need to occur in the areas of consumer empowerment and choice, case management efficiency and integrated employment funding priorities.

References

Agosta, J., Brown, L., & Melda, K. (1993b, Summer). Results of a national survey of program administrators. Job coaching and community integrated employment: Present conditions and emerging directions: Brief Report No. 3. Salem, OR: Human Services Research Institute.

Albin, J.M., Rohdes, L., and Mank, D. (1994). Changeover to community employment: The problem of realigning organizational culture, resource and community roles. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 19(2), 105-115.

Bellamy, G. T., Rhodes, L. E., Mank, D. M., and Albin, J., (1988). Supported Employment: A Community Implementation Guide. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Blanck, P. D.., (1995). Transcending compliance: The Sears approach. In the Mainstream, 20(1), 8-10.

Callahan, M. (1992). Job site training and natural supports. In J. Nisbet (Ed.), Natural supports in school , at work and in the community for people with severe disabilities (pp. 257-276). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Cimera, R.E., (2001). Utilizing co-workers as natural supports. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, (11), 194-198.

Fabian, E. S., & Leucking, R. G. (1991). Doing it the company way: Using internal company supports in the workplace. Journal of Applied Rehabilitation Counseling, 22(2), 32-35.

Hagner, D., (2000). Coffee breaks and birthday cakes: Evaluating workplace cultures to develop natural supports for employees with disabilities. St. Augustine, FL: Training Resource Network.

Hagner, D., Butterworth, J., & Keith, G., (1995). Strategies and barriers in facilitating natural supports for employment of adults with severe disabilities. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 20(2), 110-120.

Hill, J. W., Hill, M., Wehman, P., & Banks, D. (1985). An analysis of monetary and non monetary outcomes associated with competitive employment of mentally retarded persons. In P. Wehman & J. Hill (Eds.), Competitive employment for persons with mental retardation: From research to practice: Vol. I , 110-133. Richmond, VA: Rehabilitation Research and Training Center.

Hoff, D. & Nalven, E. B. (1995). A corporate initiative in the hiring of people with disabilities. Supported Employment InfoLines, 6(1), 1-3.

IBM Corporation (1991). IBM corporation program to train disabled persons. Rehabilitation Training Programs, IBM, Gatisburg, MD.

Keirnan, W. E. and Stark J. A. (1989). Pathways to employment for adults with developmental disabilities. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Company.

Lee, M., Storey, K., Anderson, J.L., Goetz, L., and Zivolich, S., (1996). The effect of mentoring versus job coach instruction on integration in supported employment settings. Journal of the Association of Persons with Severe Handicaps, 22(3), 151-158.

Levy, J.M. (1991). Employment of persons with severe disabilities in large business in the united states. International Journal of Rehabilitation Research, 14,(4), 1991.

Mank, D. (1995). The under achievement of supported employment: A call for reinvestment. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 5(2), 1-24.

Miano, M., Nalven, E., and Hoff, D. (1996). The pachysandra project: A public - private initiative in supported employment at the Prudential Insurance Company of America. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation. (6) 107-118.

Moon, M.S., Goodall, P., Barcus, M., and Brooke, V. (1986). The supported work model of competitive employment for citizens with severe handicaps.-A guide for job trainers. Richmond: Virginia Commonwealth University, Rehabilitation Research and Training Center on Supported Employment.

Murphy, S., Rogan, P., & Fisher, E. (1994). Diversity or confusion? National survey of SE natural supports. Supported Employment InfoLines, May, 1-5.

Nisbet, J., and Hagner, D. (1988). Natural supports in the workplace. A reexamination of supported employment. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe handicaps, 13, 260-267

Nisbet, J. (1992). Natural supports in school, at work, and in the community for people with severe disabilities. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brooks.

Orange County Department of Education (2001). Orange county programs for adults with developmental disabilities: Transition planning resource directory 2001-2002. Costa Mesa, California.

Rhodes, L., Sandow, D., Mank, D., Buckley, J., & Albin, J. (1991). Expanding the role for employers in supported employment. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 16,(4), 213-217.

Roberts, D.R., and Rollins, T. (1996). Targeted culture modeling: A new approach to culture assessment and change. Employment Relations Today, 23, 7-19.

Tilson, G.P., Jr., Luecking, R.G., Donovan, M.R. (1994). Involving employers in transition: The bridges model. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, (17), 1, 77-88.

Wehman, P. (1981). Competitive employment: New horizons for severely disabled individuals. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.

Wehman, P., and Melia, R. (1990). A national analysis of supported employment growth and implementation. Richmond, VA: Virginia Commonwealth University, Rehabilitation Research and Training Center.

Wehman, P., Revell, W.G., Kregel, J. (1998). Supported Employment: A decade of rapid growth and impact. American Rehabilitation, 24, 31-43.

Wehman, P., Kregel, J. (1995). At the crossroads: Supported employment ten years later. Journal of The Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 20(4), 286-299.

Wehman, P., Kregel, J., and Shafer, M. S. (1989). Emerging trends in the national supported employment initiative: A preliminary analysis of twenty-seven States. Richmond, VA: Virginia Commonwealth University, Rehabilitation Research and Training Center.

West, M,D., Dregel, J., Hernandez, A., and Hock, T. (1997). Everybody’s doing it: A national study of the use of natural supports in supported employment. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 12, 175-181.

Weiner, J. S., and Zivolich, S., (1998). Universal Access: a natural support corporate initiative at universal studios Hollywood. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 10, 5-14.

Zivolich, S., Shueman, S., and Weiner, J. S. (1997). An exploratory cost-benefit analysis of natural support strategies in the employment of people with severe disabilities. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 8, 211-221.

Zivolich, S., and Weiner, J. S. (1997). A national corporate employment initiative for persons with severe disabilities: A ten year perspective. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 8, 75-87.

Zivolich, S., and Bamberg, E. (1991). Free market strategies for improving employment services: Transitioning segregated day activity programs to integrated employment services. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 4, 65-72.