Published for the British Institute of Learning Disabilities
Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities 2014, 27, 489–492
BRIEF REPORT
Knowledge Translation in Job Development: Strategies for Involving Families Allison Hall, Jennifer Bose, Jean Winsor and Alberto Migliore Institute for Community Inclusion, University of Massachusetts, Boston, MA, USA
Accepted for publication 9 October 2013
Background Although United States employment policies have increased support for people with disabilities working in community settings, the unemployment rate for this population remains very high, particularly for people with intellectual or developmental disabilities. Research shows that job developers (direct support professionals who assist people with disabilities to secure, maintain, and advance in employment) are critical to achieving quality employment outcomes. However, the extent to which job developers use practices that are considered promising in their field (such as engaging families) is not well known. Methods This brief report summarizes findings from a qualitative study about the extent to which job developers use the recommended promising practices when working with individuals and family members.
Introduction Although United States employment policies have shifted towards increasing support for people with disabilities working in community settings, the unemployment rate for this population remains very high, particularly for people with intellectual or developmental disabilities (Butterworth et al. 2011). Research shows that job developers, direct support professionals who assist people with intellectual or developmental disabilities to secure, maintain and advance in employment, are critical to achieving quality employment outcomes (Fabian et al. 2011). In addition, family factors play an important role as well (BurkeMiller et al. 2006). But the extent to which job developers use practices that are considered promising in their field (such as engaging families) is not well known. Thus, training for job developers, or the transfer © 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
Results Qualitative analysis identified the following themes among job developers: factors affecting family involvement, perceptions of family involvement, and the influence of expectation on strategies. Conclusions The field of job development faces a challenge common to many professions: translating research on best practices to those who need this knowledge the most and can use it to greatest effect. Future research should address how community rehabilitation providers (CRPs) communicate about and instill best practices, including effective family engagement, within their organizations. Keywords: direct support professional, family involvement, supported employment, training
of knowledge around best practices, is a key factor in increasing employment outcomes. Job developers are responsible for understanding the needs of individuals, their families and employers. Despite this important charge, job developers often receive outdated training (Hewitt & Larson 2007) that is largely focused on health and safety within residential and sheltered employment settings rather than on job development skills such as individualized assessment, or communicating about employment with individuals with disabilities, family members and employers. However, the role of job developers is undergoing a significant change as policy and practice emphasize community inclusion. Changes in service delivery for adults with intellectual or developmental disabilities have led to greater complexity in the expectations for job developers and in the supports they provide. Efforts have been made to increase the availability of formal 10.1111/jar.12077
490 Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities
training for community employment support. Highline Community College in Washington offers a threesemester certification programme of classes and field experience. The National Alliance for Direct Support Professionals is proposing a national agenda to strengthen the direct support workforce through opportunities for professional development and a national credentialing system (NADSP 2011). Charged with the responsibility of designing jobs with the maximum opportunity for integration, job developers must find a match between the job seeker’s skills, the employer’s need and the culture of the workplace (Rogan et al. 2003). This brief report summarizes findings from a qualitative study about the extent to which job developers use the recommended promising practices when working with individuals, family members and employers. Participants came from Migliore et al. (2010) online survey of job development practices, which was conducted with participants from a national sample of 170 programmes that provide employment services to people with intellectual or developmental disabilities. A pool of participants completed the survey and agreed to be contacted for more in-depth information. These participants were then sorted into two categories: ‘high performing’, having placed at least ten individuals into jobs in 2008; and ‘low performing’, having placed fewer than five individuals into jobs in 2008. The pool was further sorted into groups based on whether the participants provided employment services on a fulltime or part-time basis. Researchers randomly chose two respondents from each of four categories: high performing/part-time, high performing/full-time, low performing/part-time and low performing/full-time. In total, eight job developers participated in telephone interviews. Researchers developed the protocol that guided the interviews based on findings from the job development survey. Questions pertaining to the role of family members in the job development process provoked much discussion and generated a wide variety of responses. Job development literature suggests that family engagement is important to high-quality employment outcomes for people with intellectual or developmental disabilities. While some job developers saw the benefits of engaging family members, others were reluctant to involve families because of negative experiences and perceptions. Job developers also discussed demographic factors that they perceived as impacting family involvement.
Perceptions of family involvement Families were described by several job developers as valuable to the job development process. One job developer noted that family members can contribute insights about an individual’s talents, gifts and support needs. Other job developers mentioned that family members could suggest work environments that had worked well for job seekers in the past, provide valuable ideas for job leads or share their goals for job seekers. Job developers often spoke about family members offering specific types of support, such as ensuring that job seekers were dressed appropriately for interviews and had access to transportation. Three job developers recounted times when they had worked more extensively with family members to help job seekers become employed. In one instance, a job seeker’s mother had helped him find a paying job while he did volunteer work in his field of interest, assisting teachers in classrooms. In another situation, a young woman with intellectual or developmental disabilities was hired by her parents to work in their family business, Not all job developers actively engaged families. One job developer said that she did not speak with family members unless she needed more information beyond what was provided to her by the job seeker and vocational rehabilitation counsellor. A few job developers said that involving families could be difficult because family members sometimes focused too heavily on their own connections to find jobs and not enough on the job seekers’ skill sets, interests and support needs. One respondent recounted working with an individual whose mother had helped him find a job in a bank. His skills did not match this position, and he was ultimately terminated. Another job developer talked about how a family member helped a job seeker find a job in a hospital. On-site supports were lacking and the job did not work out. One job developer said that he no longer engaged families because he felt that families tended to be overly restrictive—for example, not allowing individuals to take public transportation. While noting the involvement of families as ‘best practice’, this job developer said that for his own professional practices, he prefers that families not be involved. In some instances, job developers were negative about family involvement because of their perceptions of what family members want in an employment situation. Job developers talked about parents who acted as advocates while their children
© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 27, 489–492
Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities
were in school and expected to continue that same level of advocacy in employment settings (e.g. parents being able to meet with employers, etc.).
Factors affecting family involvement Several demographic factors seemed to affect the extent to which job developers involved families. Job developers reported that when they worked with younger job seekers who lived at home, family members were more likely to be involved. Job developers said that family members also tended to be involved if job seekers had severe disabilities or intellectual or developmental disabilities, while family members of job seekers with less significant disabilities, mental health issues or learning disabilities seemed to see them as more independent. If a job seeker was under legal guardianship, there typically would be involvement of the family member or guardian. The extent to which family members supported employment as a goal also seemed to affect job developers’ overall engagement. One respondent stressed that involving supportive family members could be very useful, and several mentioned that some family members offered good suggestions for job possibilities. One job developer spoke about parents becoming more supportive of employment as they aged, perhaps realizing that they might not have the energy or finances in the future to care for their adult children with disabilities. However, job developers also encountered family members who were reluctant to embrace employment. This was often related to the real fear that even small amounts of money earned from a job would eliminate or substantially decrease the job seeker’s social security income (SSI) and social security disability income (SSDI).
The influence of expectation on strategies Job developers shared a variety of strategies for working with families based on their expectations for family involvement. Not surprisingly, job developers with low expectations for family involvement were less likely to reach out to families. In some cases, job developers expressed a preference for communicating primarily with the job seeker, but speaking with parents if they are ‘running interference’ or ‘screening’ the job seeker’s phone calls. Job developers with neutral expectations tended to invite families to participate in the process at the job seeker’s request. Job developers with high expectations of family involvement reached out to family members and described their strategies for doing so. Some job developers focused on delegating specific tasks © 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 27, 489–492
491
to family members, such as helping to prepare job seekers for interviews and researching travel options for work. Working with families was described as a ‘balancing act’ of being adequately involved during the job development phase but scaling back family involvement once the job seeker was hired and successfully maintaining a job.
Implications While the literature encourages family involvement in the process of job development, the responses within this small sample reflected their past experiences working with families rather than any formal efforts to involve them. Family involvement in job development was seen as optional, with only about half the respondents seeing any benefit of working with families to the job development process. The sample was stratified by number of employment outcomes achieved and full-time or part-time job developer status, but was not large enough to meaningfully compare responses across groups. Moreover, this was not the intention of the research. The groups were chosen to ensure adequate diversity among the sample. However, some of the data suggested differences in the perspectives and practices of job developers based upon the number of people they place in employment, specifically with respect to engaging families. While these differences are suggestive, further research with a larger sample would yield insights into how job developers perceive the benefits of working with families and the impact on job development outcomes. Quantitative findings from Migliore et al. (2010) revealed that job developers with a greater number of employment outcomes were less likely to involve family members in aspects of job development. This qualitative research sought to shed light on this negative correlation. Data from the current study suggest that involving families is seen as very time- and labour-intensive and that when families are involved, the perception may be that it slows down the job development process. The field of job development faces a challenge common to many professions: translating research on best practices to those who need this knowledge the most and can use it to greatest effect. It typically requires buy-in from a host of stakeholders to drill best practices down to a practitioner level. For instance, if best practice suggests that it is critical to involve family members, how are job developers held to (or rewarded for) doing this? Future research could address how
492 Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities
CRPs communicate about and instil best practices, including effective family engagement, within their organizations.
Correspondence Any correspondence should be directed to Allison Hall, Senior Research Associate, Institute for Community Inclusion, University of Massachusetts, Boston 100 Morrissey Boulevard, Boston, MA 02125, USA (e-mail: [email protected]).
References Burke-Miller J., Cook J., Grey D., Razzano L., Blyler C. & Carey M. (2006) Demographic characteristics and employment among people with severe mental illness in a multisite study. Community Mental Health Journal 42, 143–160. Butterworth J., Hall A. C., Smith F. A., Migliore A., Winsor J., Timmons J. & Domin D. (2011). StateData: The National Report on Employment Services and Outcomes. Institute for
Community Inclusion, University of Massachusetts Boston, Boston, MA. Fabian E., Simonsen M., Buchanan L. & Luecking R. (2011). Attitudes and Beliefs of Job Development Professionals toward Employers. Technical Report, John J. Heldrich Center for Workforce Development at Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey. Hewitt A. & Larson S. (2007) The direct support workforce in community supports to individuals with developmental disabilities: issues, implications, and promising practices. Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews 13, 178–187. Migliore A., Hall A., Butterworth J. & Winsor J. (2010) Job development: what do employment specialists really do? A study on job development practices. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities 35, 15–23. National Alliance for Direct Support Professionals. (2011). Guiding Principles. Available at: https://www.nadsp.org/ about/guiding-principles.html (accessed on 11 May 2013). Rogan P., Banks B. & Herbein M. H. (2003) Supported employment and workplace supports: a qualitative study. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation 19, 5–18.
© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 27, 489–492
Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities 2014, 27, 489–492
BRIEF REPORT
Knowledge Translation in Job Development: Strategies for Involving Families Allison Hall, Jennifer Bose, Jean Winsor and Alberto Migliore Institute for Community Inclusion, University of Massachusetts, Boston, MA, USA
Accepted for publication 9 October 2013
Background Although United States employment policies have increased support for people with disabilities working in community settings, the unemployment rate for this population remains very high, particularly for people with intellectual or developmental disabilities. Research shows that job developers (direct support professionals who assist people with disabilities to secure, maintain, and advance in employment) are critical to achieving quality employment outcomes. However, the extent to which job developers use practices that are considered promising in their field (such as engaging families) is not well known. Methods This brief report summarizes findings from a qualitative study about the extent to which job developers use the recommended promising practices when working with individuals and family members.
Introduction Although United States employment policies have shifted towards increasing support for people with disabilities working in community settings, the unemployment rate for this population remains very high, particularly for people with intellectual or developmental disabilities (Butterworth et al. 2011). Research shows that job developers, direct support professionals who assist people with intellectual or developmental disabilities to secure, maintain and advance in employment, are critical to achieving quality employment outcomes (Fabian et al. 2011). In addition, family factors play an important role as well (BurkeMiller et al. 2006). But the extent to which job developers use practices that are considered promising in their field (such as engaging families) is not well known. Thus, training for job developers, or the transfer © 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
Results Qualitative analysis identified the following themes among job developers: factors affecting family involvement, perceptions of family involvement, and the influence of expectation on strategies. Conclusions The field of job development faces a challenge common to many professions: translating research on best practices to those who need this knowledge the most and can use it to greatest effect. Future research should address how community rehabilitation providers (CRPs) communicate about and instill best practices, including effective family engagement, within their organizations. Keywords: direct support professional, family involvement, supported employment, training
of knowledge around best practices, is a key factor in increasing employment outcomes. Job developers are responsible for understanding the needs of individuals, their families and employers. Despite this important charge, job developers often receive outdated training (Hewitt & Larson 2007) that is largely focused on health and safety within residential and sheltered employment settings rather than on job development skills such as individualized assessment, or communicating about employment with individuals with disabilities, family members and employers. However, the role of job developers is undergoing a significant change as policy and practice emphasize community inclusion. Changes in service delivery for adults with intellectual or developmental disabilities have led to greater complexity in the expectations for job developers and in the supports they provide. Efforts have been made to increase the availability of formal 10.1111/jar.12077
490 Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities
training for community employment support. Highline Community College in Washington offers a threesemester certification programme of classes and field experience. The National Alliance for Direct Support Professionals is proposing a national agenda to strengthen the direct support workforce through opportunities for professional development and a national credentialing system (NADSP 2011). Charged with the responsibility of designing jobs with the maximum opportunity for integration, job developers must find a match between the job seeker’s skills, the employer’s need and the culture of the workplace (Rogan et al. 2003). This brief report summarizes findings from a qualitative study about the extent to which job developers use the recommended promising practices when working with individuals, family members and employers. Participants came from Migliore et al. (2010) online survey of job development practices, which was conducted with participants from a national sample of 170 programmes that provide employment services to people with intellectual or developmental disabilities. A pool of participants completed the survey and agreed to be contacted for more in-depth information. These participants were then sorted into two categories: ‘high performing’, having placed at least ten individuals into jobs in 2008; and ‘low performing’, having placed fewer than five individuals into jobs in 2008. The pool was further sorted into groups based on whether the participants provided employment services on a fulltime or part-time basis. Researchers randomly chose two respondents from each of four categories: high performing/part-time, high performing/full-time, low performing/part-time and low performing/full-time. In total, eight job developers participated in telephone interviews. Researchers developed the protocol that guided the interviews based on findings from the job development survey. Questions pertaining to the role of family members in the job development process provoked much discussion and generated a wide variety of responses. Job development literature suggests that family engagement is important to high-quality employment outcomes for people with intellectual or developmental disabilities. While some job developers saw the benefits of engaging family members, others were reluctant to involve families because of negative experiences and perceptions. Job developers also discussed demographic factors that they perceived as impacting family involvement.
Perceptions of family involvement Families were described by several job developers as valuable to the job development process. One job developer noted that family members can contribute insights about an individual’s talents, gifts and support needs. Other job developers mentioned that family members could suggest work environments that had worked well for job seekers in the past, provide valuable ideas for job leads or share their goals for job seekers. Job developers often spoke about family members offering specific types of support, such as ensuring that job seekers were dressed appropriately for interviews and had access to transportation. Three job developers recounted times when they had worked more extensively with family members to help job seekers become employed. In one instance, a job seeker’s mother had helped him find a paying job while he did volunteer work in his field of interest, assisting teachers in classrooms. In another situation, a young woman with intellectual or developmental disabilities was hired by her parents to work in their family business, Not all job developers actively engaged families. One job developer said that she did not speak with family members unless she needed more information beyond what was provided to her by the job seeker and vocational rehabilitation counsellor. A few job developers said that involving families could be difficult because family members sometimes focused too heavily on their own connections to find jobs and not enough on the job seekers’ skill sets, interests and support needs. One respondent recounted working with an individual whose mother had helped him find a job in a bank. His skills did not match this position, and he was ultimately terminated. Another job developer talked about how a family member helped a job seeker find a job in a hospital. On-site supports were lacking and the job did not work out. One job developer said that he no longer engaged families because he felt that families tended to be overly restrictive—for example, not allowing individuals to take public transportation. While noting the involvement of families as ‘best practice’, this job developer said that for his own professional practices, he prefers that families not be involved. In some instances, job developers were negative about family involvement because of their perceptions of what family members want in an employment situation. Job developers talked about parents who acted as advocates while their children
© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 27, 489–492
Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities
were in school and expected to continue that same level of advocacy in employment settings (e.g. parents being able to meet with employers, etc.).
Factors affecting family involvement Several demographic factors seemed to affect the extent to which job developers involved families. Job developers reported that when they worked with younger job seekers who lived at home, family members were more likely to be involved. Job developers said that family members also tended to be involved if job seekers had severe disabilities or intellectual or developmental disabilities, while family members of job seekers with less significant disabilities, mental health issues or learning disabilities seemed to see them as more independent. If a job seeker was under legal guardianship, there typically would be involvement of the family member or guardian. The extent to which family members supported employment as a goal also seemed to affect job developers’ overall engagement. One respondent stressed that involving supportive family members could be very useful, and several mentioned that some family members offered good suggestions for job possibilities. One job developer spoke about parents becoming more supportive of employment as they aged, perhaps realizing that they might not have the energy or finances in the future to care for their adult children with disabilities. However, job developers also encountered family members who were reluctant to embrace employment. This was often related to the real fear that even small amounts of money earned from a job would eliminate or substantially decrease the job seeker’s social security income (SSI) and social security disability income (SSDI).
The influence of expectation on strategies Job developers shared a variety of strategies for working with families based on their expectations for family involvement. Not surprisingly, job developers with low expectations for family involvement were less likely to reach out to families. In some cases, job developers expressed a preference for communicating primarily with the job seeker, but speaking with parents if they are ‘running interference’ or ‘screening’ the job seeker’s phone calls. Job developers with neutral expectations tended to invite families to participate in the process at the job seeker’s request. Job developers with high expectations of family involvement reached out to family members and described their strategies for doing so. Some job developers focused on delegating specific tasks © 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 27, 489–492
491
to family members, such as helping to prepare job seekers for interviews and researching travel options for work. Working with families was described as a ‘balancing act’ of being adequately involved during the job development phase but scaling back family involvement once the job seeker was hired and successfully maintaining a job.
Implications While the literature encourages family involvement in the process of job development, the responses within this small sample reflected their past experiences working with families rather than any formal efforts to involve them. Family involvement in job development was seen as optional, with only about half the respondents seeing any benefit of working with families to the job development process. The sample was stratified by number of employment outcomes achieved and full-time or part-time job developer status, but was not large enough to meaningfully compare responses across groups. Moreover, this was not the intention of the research. The groups were chosen to ensure adequate diversity among the sample. However, some of the data suggested differences in the perspectives and practices of job developers based upon the number of people they place in employment, specifically with respect to engaging families. While these differences are suggestive, further research with a larger sample would yield insights into how job developers perceive the benefits of working with families and the impact on job development outcomes. Quantitative findings from Migliore et al. (2010) revealed that job developers with a greater number of employment outcomes were less likely to involve family members in aspects of job development. This qualitative research sought to shed light on this negative correlation. Data from the current study suggest that involving families is seen as very time- and labour-intensive and that when families are involved, the perception may be that it slows down the job development process. The field of job development faces a challenge common to many professions: translating research on best practices to those who need this knowledge the most and can use it to greatest effect. It typically requires buy-in from a host of stakeholders to drill best practices down to a practitioner level. For instance, if best practice suggests that it is critical to involve family members, how are job developers held to (or rewarded for) doing this? Future research could address how
492 Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities
CRPs communicate about and instil best practices, including effective family engagement, within their organizations.
Correspondence Any correspondence should be directed to Allison Hall, Senior Research Associate, Institute for Community Inclusion, University of Massachusetts, Boston 100 Morrissey Boulevard, Boston, MA 02125, USA (e-mail: [email protected]).
References Burke-Miller J., Cook J., Grey D., Razzano L., Blyler C. & Carey M. (2006) Demographic characteristics and employment among people with severe mental illness in a multisite study. Community Mental Health Journal 42, 143–160. Butterworth J., Hall A. C., Smith F. A., Migliore A., Winsor J., Timmons J. & Domin D. (2011). StateData: The National Report on Employment Services and Outcomes. Institute for
Community Inclusion, University of Massachusetts Boston, Boston, MA. Fabian E., Simonsen M., Buchanan L. & Luecking R. (2011). Attitudes and Beliefs of Job Development Professionals toward Employers. Technical Report, John J. Heldrich Center for Workforce Development at Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey. Hewitt A. & Larson S. (2007) The direct support workforce in community supports to individuals with developmental disabilities: issues, implications, and promising practices. Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews 13, 178–187. Migliore A., Hall A., Butterworth J. & Winsor J. (2010) Job development: what do employment specialists really do? A study on job development practices. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities 35, 15–23. National Alliance for Direct Support Professionals. (2011). Guiding Principles. Available at: https://www.nadsp.org/ about/guiding-principles.html (accessed on 11 May 2013). Rogan P., Banks B. & Herbein M. H. (2003) Supported employment and workplace supports: a qualitative study. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation 19, 5–18.
© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 27, 489–492
