You are here

Section 511’s 14(c) Special Certificate & Supported Employment

Back to top

  • Butterworth, J., Hall, A., Hoff, D., & Migliore, A. (2007). State and international efforts to reform or eliminate the use of subminimum wage for persons with disabilities. Boston. Retrieved from http://www.inclusionbc.org/sites/default/files/SubminimumWage_0.pdf
    Report written for Wisconsin’s Department of Work Force Development Subminimum Wage Advisory Council to analyze how various states and international efforts to eliminate SMW increases the self-sufficiency and employability of people living with disabilities.  Delves into SMW policies and efforts to integrate people living with disabilities into the communities of Vermont, New Hampshire, Washington, Tennessee, Arizona, British Colombia, and New Zealand.
  • Cimera, R. E. (2006). The future of supported employment: Don’t panic! Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 24(3), 129–136.
    Author explores the validity of other literature’s proposed ways to improve supported employment by analyzing the state of supported employment from both the perspective of cost efficiency to provide services and the need to better research how employers benefit from hiring people participating in supported employment programs.
  • Cimera, R. E. (2011). Does being in sheltered workshops improve the employment outcomes of supported employees with intellectual disabilities? Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 35(1), 21–27. http://doi.org/10.3233/JVR-2011-550
    Explores the differences of two groups of 4,904 people with intellectual disabilities. One group worked in sheltered workshops before their placement in a supported employment program and the other group only participated in sheltered workshops. People in both groups were compared to someone with a similar primary/secondary disability and gender. Researcher discovered that there were no significant differences in the rate of employment within the community—refuting that people with who are first trained through a sheltered workshop are more capable of obtaining work than those who do not participate in sheltered workshops. Non-sheltered workers earned an average of $18.65/week more than those who were first trained in sheltered workshops. People who did not work in sheltered workshops first worked more hours per week than those who first participated in sheltered workshops and required nearly more than $3,000 less training per placement than those who first participated in sheltered workshops.
  • Cimera, R. E. (2014a). Agency setting as a factor in the effectiveness of supported employment programs. Journal of Rehabilitation, 80(2), 41–46.
    Researchers explored whether the type of agency setting (sheltered vs supported) influenced participants’ employment outcomes. Compared 31 supported employees from agencies without sheltered workshops with 31 employees receiving supported employment services through a facility-based agency with a sheltered workshop using 10 variables to ensure a proper match (disability, severity, demographics, etc). Discovered that people who received supported employment through a facility-based agency have a greater likelihood (55.6%) to be placed in a sheltered workshop than those who received services from an independent agency (7.7%). Researcher hypothesizes that job coaches from facility-based supported employment agencies are less motivated to help clients obtain competitive employment because they can rely on the sheltered workshop if competitive employment does not initially work or is too difficult. Services provided by sheltered facility-based agencies are more expensive because although the services provided last approximately 2.5 months longer, the employee placements are shorter, they earned less money, worked less hours and cost more to provide services than receiving services from an independent agency. Explores possible explanations for the differences between type of agencies.
  • Cimera, R. E., Burgess, S., Novak, J., & Avellone, L. (2014). Too disabled to work: A crossroad once thought passed. Research & Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities,39(3), 240–248.
    Study of 6.8 million participants in state VR programs over a decade (2002-2012) to identify the rate of VR deeming clients "too disabled to work." All types of disabilities are sorted into 4 categories: Sensory/communication, physical impairments and mental impairments to identify common characteristics of those "too disabled to work" and whether things are changing over time. Study discovered that people with "mental impairments" constitute the highest proportion of people deemed “too disabled," even among declining rates of services declined. Identifies which states have the highest and lowest decline rate. Percent of applicants denied is steadily declining. Numbers obtained through study demonstrate growing inclusion. Cites an increase of self-referrals and referrals from high schools. People with disabilities are more limited by the perceptions of others. They are capable of learning vocational skills.

Back to top

  • Cimera, R. E., Wehman, P., West, M., & Burgess, S. (2012). Do sheltered workshops enhance employment outcomes for adults with autism spectrum disorder? Autism: The International Journal of Research and Practice, 16(1), 87–94.
    Researchers compared two groups of 215 people living with ASD. The first group transitioned from a sheltered workshop into integrated employment. The second group began with integrated employment. Although there was no difference in employment rates, those who only participated in integrated employment (without sheltered workshop experience) earned more than $60/week (on average) than their peers. Those who did not participate in sheltered workshops cost tax payers an average of $3625 less per person than their peers who first participated in sheltered workshops.
  • Dague, B. (2012). Sheltered employment, sheltered lives: Family perspectives of conversion to community-based employment. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 37(1), 1–11.
    This qualitative study takes a look at the perspectives of family members and people living with disabilities through the process of converting the person from a sheltered workshop facility into community-based, supported employment. It explores the correlation between the attitudes of closing the sheltered workshops and the history a person has with the sheltered workshop culture. It identifies notable strategies for success and discusses what (in some cases) was an evolution of thought for parents and family members who initially feared the unknown and gradually saw positive differences in the lives of their loved ones due to being integrated in society.
  • Davis, K., & Valencia, L. (2014). Workforce Investment Act of 2013.
    This policy brief was written to encourage people to vote for the Workforce Investment Act of 2013. It provides a concise, outline breaking down the prevalence and rate of employment for people with developmental disabilities, details the growing support for employment of people with disabilities, describes past and current (circa 2013) policies which fund employment for people with developmental disabilities, explains the opposition to the Workforce Investment Act of 2013 and describes how passage of the act can potentially impact the people of Maine.
  • Fesko, S. L. Butterworth, J. (Eds.). (1999). Conversion to Integrated Employment: Case Studies of Organizational Change (Volume 2). Boston: Institute for Community Inclusion. Retrieved from http://www.communityinclusion.org/article.php?article_id=107
    This monograph contains a description of agencies who have converted from sheltered/enclave employment to integrated employment. It provides history of the conversion to integrated employment, participant perspectives on the conversion process, critical conversion process themes, and current organizational challenges form three organizations who made the conversion from a sheltered workshop environment to community-based employment services: Community Enterprises, (Northampton, Massachusetts), Life Skills Foundation (St. Louis, Missouri), MetroWest Human Services (Ashland, Massachusetts). It also provides organizational perspectives on closing a facility based program.
  • Fesko, S. L., & Butterworth, J. (Eds.). (2001). Conversion to Integrated Employment: Case Studies of Organizational Change (Volume 3). Boston: Institute for Community Inclusion. Retrieved from http://www.communityinclusion.org/pdf/mon30.pdf
    This monograph is the third in a series of three. It provides the conclusion to a project which studied agencies who have converted from sheltered/enclave employment to integrated employment. It provides history of the conversion to integrated employment, participant perspectives on the conversion process, critical conversion process themes, and current organizational challenges form three organizations who made the conversion from a sheltered workshop environment to community-based employment services: Emory Valley Center (Oak Ridge, Tennessee), Ranch Community Services (Menomonee Falls, Wisconsin), Rural Employment Alternatives (Conroy, Iowa), Valley of the Sun School (Phoenix, Arizona).

Back to top

  • Gidugu, V. & Rogers, E. S. (2012). Review of Employment Services for Individuals with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities: A Comprehensive Review of the State-of-the-Field from 1996–2011. Boston: Boston University, Sargent College, Center for Psychiatric Rehabilitation.
    Literature review which outlines key findings and conclusions about integrated employment for people with ID/DD. Provides an explanation of sheltered workshops including historical background, legislation and federal policy regarding funding for employment services utilized by people with ID/DD. Defines customized employment, discusses the lack in growth within nonsegregated work environments due to what is referred to as a "Dual System" of funding and practical application. Outlines factors which create barriers to providing integrated employment for people with ID/DD despite policies and legislative changes which encourage integrated employment. Discusses the disparities of working in an integrated work setting and not achieving a wage which allows an individual to become financially self-sufficient. Discusses the lack of employment models with strong research designs referenced in published literature specific to integrating people with ID/DD into community settings. Discusses the funding rates of segregated vs integrated employment. Discusses the vide variations in employment service delivery across the state and federal VR system in terms of outcomes and employment rates. Defines the types and qualities of integrated employment, barriers to employment and predictors of successful employment outcomes.
  • Griffin, D., Rosenberg, H., Cheyney, W. & Greenberg, B. (1996). A comparison of self-esteem and job satisfaction of adults with mild mental retardation in sheltered workshops and supported employment. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities. 31(2), 142-150.
    Discusses role of work setting and living situation in the development of self-esteem and job satisfaction for those living with Intellectual Disabilities. Researchers compared two groups of 100 people with mild intellectual disabilities and discovered that those who lived in a semi-independent living situation and worked in a supported employment setting had higher self esteems and job satisfaction than those who lived with family and attended a sheltered workshop.
  • Henn, J., & Henn, M. (2007). Facilitating integrated employment outcomes for individuals with significant disabilities: Parents’ perspective. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 26(1), 1–3. (Permission Received).
    Parents of a daughter who tests in the bottom 10% of all those who have autism write an editorial about her ability to maintain full-time community integrated employment for 12 years. They address concerns, misconceptions and outline nine initiatives which can make integrated employment a reality for people living with severe disabilities. They also set forth the challenge to question the supposed advantages of sheltered workshops and explain how their daughter uses her own income to help support having a one-to-one job coach, outlining funding source percentages.
  • Hughes, C., & Avoke, S. K. (2010). The elephant in the room: Poverty, disability, and employment. Research & Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 35(1/2), 5–14.
    After 40 years of legislation to help students (with and without disabilities) living in poverty achieve improved educational outcomes, our nation doesn’t recognize the relationship between disability and poverty. Discusses the systematic underestimation of poverty in the US, including availability of food and health insurance. Discusses changes in poverty rates among ethnic and racial groups and in communities and schools. One fourth of children living with disabilities live in poverty. Students in poverty who are racially/ethnically diverse and those living with the most severe disabilities are less likely to receive appropriate services. Segregated, impoverished environments prevent students from developing self-determination skills (self-advocacy, choice making, etc). If students with disabilities are served in impoverished environments they are less likely to develop capacity to live a self-directed, independent life. This impacts their ability to develop needed job skills including limiting their ability to develop critical employment-based self-determination. After leaving high school, students living in poverty who have disabilities score much lower in post-school indicators (employment, post-school education, independent living, and having a checking account. Looks at disability as both a cause and consequence of poverty. Job training programs for people with intellectual disabilities are more likely low-paying, part-time, entry level jobs without career ladder. "Service providers must challenge themselves to look beyond entry-level, low paying jobs for employment options for people with severe disabilities." Proposes recommendations to change the system.
  • Migliore, A. (2010). Sheltered Workshops. In J. H. Stone & M. Blouin (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of Rehabilitation. The Center for International Research Information.
    Brief encyclopedic definition of sheltered workshops including type of work performed. What qualifies as a sheltered workshop. Provides international historical background. Describes the both the pros and cons of the controversy surrounding sheltered workshops.
  • Migliore, A., Grossi, T., Mank, D., & Rogan, P. (2008). Why do adults with intellectual disabilities work in sheltered workshops? Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 28(1), 29–40.
    Researchers explore factors which influence choosing a sheltered workshop over integrated employment in 210 adults attending sheltered workshops to better understand the discrepancy between the literature indicating that people living with disabilities/family members prefer integrated employment and the growing rates of workers enrolled in sheltered workshops. Researchers included the family members and sheltered workshop staff working with the 210 participants to determine that the most influential factors of choosing a sheltered workshop were for families (Long-term placement, safety, work environment and social environment at work) and staff (social environment at work, safety and long-term placement). Researchers determined that 40% of families, 46% of adults with intellectual disabilities, and 60% of staff said no one had encouraged the adults with disabilities to seek work outside a sheltered setting. The people most likely to encourage work outside of a sheltered environment were case managers (31%), vocational rehabilitation counselors (29%) and mothers (26%). People most likely to encourage sheltered workshops were case managers (43%), Mothers (30%) and residential services staff (30%). 37% of families said that their loved one chose a sheltered workshop on their own. 23% of families did not know there was an option other than sheltered workshops for their family member. In addition to discussing important factors prioritized by participants which influenced the decision to work in a sheltered workshop, researchers discuss how attitudes of family members and service providers have an overarching influence of all the factors deemed important. Researchers discuss how adjusting attitudes of service providers regarding the capacity and abilities of people with intellectual disabilities will directly influence opportunities for employment outside a sheltered workshop for people with intellectual disabilities.
  • Migliore, A., Mank, D., Grossia, T., & Rogan, P. (2007). Integrated employment or sheltered workshops: Preferences of adults with intellectual disabilities, their families, and staff. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 26(2007), 5–19.
    Explores the perceptions of both people living with Intellectual Disabilities, family members and caregivers pertaining to working outside a sheltered workshop. Discusses goals of current sheltered workshop environments. Discusses the rationale behind the sheltered workshops. Identifies other names for sheltered workshops. Identifies concerns and attitudes of people living with ID, families and sheltered workshop staff members regarding working in an integrated employment setting. Concludes that the majority of people would prefer integrated employment options over sheltered workshops and that working in the community is possible when appropriate support is available.

Back to top

  • Mueser, K. T. & Cook, J. (2016). Why can't we fund supported employment?. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal, 39(2), 85-89.  http://doi.org/10.1037/prj0000203
    Report which provides history of sheltered work environments and subminimum wage. Provides various case studies in which people living with disabilities were exploited as workers in sheltered environments and people living with disabilities who are succeeding in competitive employment. Outlines why working in a sheltered workshop is harmful. Discusses customized employment programs through Employment First programs. Explores myths, facts and success stories of individuals living with severe disabilities in the integrated workplace. Discusses the sheltered workshop model and the perpetuation of the status quo.
  • National Disability Rights Network. (2011). Segregated and exploited: A call to action.
    Report which provides history of sheltered work environments and subminimum wage. Provides various case studies in which people living with disabilities were exploited as workers in sheltered environments and people living with disabilities who are succeeding in competitive employment. Outlines why working in a sheltered workshop is harmful. Discusses customized employment programs through Employment First programs. Explores myths, facts and success stories of individuals living with severe disabilities in the integrated workplace. Discusses the sheltered workshop model and the perpetuation of the status quo.
  • National Disability Rights Network. (2012). Beyond segregated and exploited. Retrieved from http://www.ndrn.org/images/Documents/Resources/Publications/Reports/Beyond_Segregated_and_Exploited.pdf
    This is an update of their previous report entitled “Segregated and exploited.” In this update, the NDN details how they worked with Protection and Advocacy System to work with lawmakers on a Federal level to end subminimum wage and exploitation of workers with disabilities. This report provides a summary of activities completed by both groups since their call to action. It also details policy advancements and provides an Ohio case study detailing how State and Federal funding allows sheltered workshops to remain open, regardless of the national policy in place to close them.
  • Nye-Lengerman, K., & Nord, D. (2016). Changing the message: Employment as a means out of poverty. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 44(3), 243–247. http://doi.org/10.3233/JVR-160794
    This article seeks to better understand the poverty rates of people living with disabilities - both unemployed (78% of people with a disability) and employed (52% of employees working with a disability live below poverty level–$11,945/year). 14(c) creates a segregated work environment which systematically keeps people with disabilities from achieving competitive employment, ensuring long-term poverty due to inability to earn a living wage. Recognizes the role of personal and professional bias among service providers related to their expectations of client employment can become the most significant barrier to those living with a disability. Describes the importance of regular reflective personal assessment of a provider’s perspective on the capacities and long-term potential of those they serve. Providers must use empowering language, increase personal exceptions of clients and learn/share accurate information about benefits and work incentive programs. Professional focus for all interactions with clients, family members and care givers must be shifted to creating employment expectations rather than dependence on benefits.
  • Rogan, P., & Rinne, S. (2011). National call for organizational change from sheltered to integrated employment. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 49(4), 248–260.   http://doi.org/10.1352/1934-9556-49.4.248
    Explains how and why organizational transition from sheltered workshops is both possible and necessary. Explores civil rights issues involved in the segregating workers with disabilities from society. Discusses average pay rates of people in sheltered workshops and disincentive funding policies Compares sheltered workshops and integrated employment. Outlines organizational change components, resistance/barriers and how to circumvent them, and strategies to complete the change process.
  • Self Advocates Becoming Empowered. (2009). Policy Statement on Employment: SABE Calls for ending Sub-Minimum Wage in 2012. Retrieved July 25, 2019, from http://www.sabeusa.org/resources/policy-statements/sabe-policy-statement-on-employment/
    This is a policy statement created by the group Self-Advocates Becoming Empowered (SABE) of people who live with intellectual and developmental disabilities outlining seven reasons why SABE is calling for an end to sub-minimum wage. It also provides issues to consider when exploring the closure of enclaves and sheltered workshops.
  • Siperstein, G. N., Romano, N., Mohler, A., & Parker, R. (2006). A national survey of consumer attitudes towards companies that hire people with disabilities. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 24(1), 3–9.
    Researchers conducted a randomized national survey of 803 adults regarding their perceptions of companies who hired people living with disabilities. Results showed that 75% of the participants had direct, positive experiences receiving services from an employee with a disability. Customers also stated overwhelmingly that they would prefer to give their business to companies that hired individuals with disabilities. (This article is included in the WINTAC library because it discusses the importance of helping employers understand the value of hiring people with disabilities from a customer’s perspective. If more employers can better understand how the public positively regards the hiring of people with disabilities, they will be more likely to hire supported employees)
  • Soffer, M., Tal-Katz, P., & Rimmerman, A. (2011). Sub minimum wage for persons with severe disabilities: Comparative perspectives. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 13(3), 265–286.  http://doi.org/10.1080/13876988.2011.565914
    Outlines the history of subminimum wage (SMW), incentives for employers to hire people with disabilities, explains the pros and cons of SMW, details similarities and differences between SMW policies in United States, Israel and Australia.
  • United Nations General Assembly. (2006). Final report of the Ad Hoc Committee on a Comprehensive and Integral International Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Rights and Dignity of Persons with Disabilities. Retrieved from https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/LTD/N06/645/30/PDF/N0664530.pdf?OpenElement
    Report presented to the United Nations’ General assembly pertaining to the protection and promotion of the rights and dignity of individuals living with disabilities. This report touches on employment of people with disabilities in two places: Article 5 of states that "All persons are equal before and under the law and are entitles without any discrimination to the equal protection and benefit of the law." Article 27 (1) (b) State Parties are responsible to "protect the rights of persons with disabilities, on an equal basis with others, to just and favorable conditions of work, including equal opportunities and equal remuneration for work of equal value, safe, and healthy working conditions, including protections from harassment and the redress of grievances.
  • Wehman, P. (Ed.). (2001). Supported Employment in Business: Expanding the Capacity of Workers With Disabilities (1st ed.). St. Augustine: Training Resource Network Inc.
    This book is a collaborative effort of 31 leaders in supported employment who wrote 19 chapters addressing issues specific to supported employment and can be used as a reference book covering topics like implementation, funding, transition,  economics of running a supported employment program, policy, job development and intervention techniques. (We will include several of these articles specific to policy and procedure as separate items in this literature review).

Back to top