Pride in Work: Perceptions of Employers, Service Providers and Students Who Are Mentally Retarded and Learning Disabled

C. BURNHAM WARREN F. HOUSLEY

SONJA

By 1995, the first full generation of children with disabilities will have completed special education programs and will exit high school. Most of these graduates will expect to be employed and take their place in adult society. However, the transition from school to the work world is not always a smooth one. &dquo;Joblessness, rather than employment, is the norm among persons who have disabilities&dquo; (Will, 1984, p. 15). Alarming unemployment statistics exist for students with disabilities when they graduate from high school. Recent studies (Hasazi, Gordon, & Roe, 1985; Mithaug, Horluchi, & Lanning, 1983; Wehman, Kregel, & Seyfarth, 1985) indicate that 50-65% of these graduates are unemployed, or underemployed. Identifying the reasons why youth with disabilities have difficulty finding and keeping jobs is important for several reasons. First, social service programs in the United States require large amounts of federal monies. Individuals with disabilities who are not employed receive aid from a variety of social service agencies. &dquo;In 1985, the federal government spent $62 billion on subsidies, medical care, and other programs for disabled persons, of which

support out of work individuals&dquo; the Handicapped, 1986, p. 4).

to

more

than 93 %

was

(President’s Committee on Employment of

Additionally, there is a growing awareness of why it is good business to recruit persons with disabilities to fill jobs. The end of the baby boom has reduced the pool of young adult workers, and census reports show that the number of young adult workers will decline still further in the future. The number of young workers

SONJA C. BURNHAM is Assistant Professor in the Department of Behavioral Sciences, Delta State University; WARREN F. HOUSLEY is Professor in the Department of Counselor Education, Mississippi State University.

Preparation of this manuscript was supported in part by a grant from the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services Project No. H078C800064 awarded to the Department of Counselor Education at Mississippi State University. 101

between the ages of 16-25 declined by 450,000 between 1987 and 1988 and by 3.1 million since 1980 (Rochlin, 1988). The emerging shortage of workers will force employers to search elsewhere to fill their needs. Human resource personnel will need to seriously consider hiring people with physical and mental impairments (Feldman, 1988). &dquo;Hiring the handicapped is no longer going to be a question of Affirmative Action, it is going to be a necessity. This valuable human resource has been too long overlooked by employers&dquo; (Lindroth, 1982, p. 270). The transition from school to work initiative (Will, 1984) focused on the need to investigate what is required for youth with disabilities to be successful in the work place. Additional research is needed to better understand the expectations of educators and service providers who are working to prepare this special population for work. Knowing employer expectations is critical if these youth are to become effective employees. Also, research should examine the expectations of youth who are making the school to work transition to determine their perceptions of the work world and how they might fit into that environment. Glasser (1990) suggested that students who are not managed well in school come to accept their own mediocre academic performance as their standard of quality. Glasser further explained that students will work for academic quality only when they see the connection between the classroom and the outside world. This is of particular relevance to youth with disabilities who experience academic difficulties because they need to be aware of which skills and behaviors are needed to succeed in the workplace. Numerous factors contribute to success on the job. The level of importance that these skills and behaviors assume may differ according to whatever group is questioned: employers, service provider or students. Each group has its own goals and different perceptions of what needs to be accomplished. If this is true, then initiatives to facilitate the employment of youth with disabilities may conflict with each other.

PURPOSE Numerous researchers have examined employment rates of youth with disabilities. Other studies examined the skills and behaviors being taught by special educators to prepare these youth for work. However, little research has focused on the perceptions of youth with disabilities toward successful employment. Students with mild mental disabilities or learning disabilities belong to a category of individuals who can be effectively trained and retained in a wide variety of jobs (Brickey & Campbell, 1981). This study compared the perceptions of employers, service providers, and mentally disabled and learning disabled students as related to successful employment. The perceptions of these groups were investigated using the Successful Employment Survey.

102

METHOD The Successful Employment Survey was developed by the researcher specifically for this study. Employers, agency personnel, and special educators were asked to contribute statements to an item pool for the survey which reflected the skills and behaviors considered necessary for successful employment as reflected in current literature. From this item pool, similar items were grouped in clusters. Each cluster was condensed into one statement. The survey contained 15 items. There were two survey forms, A and B. Form A of the survey began each item with &dquo;Success in employment depends on&dquo; ... while Form B of the survey began each item with &dquo;Success in employment for a person with a disability depends on&dquo;. Using a coin toss, the A and B survey forms were randomly stacked before being distributed for completion by any group. Individuals responded to the survey using a Likert-type scale of: 1 Strongly Disagree, 2 Disagree, 4 Agree and 5 = Strongly Agree. The Delphi method was used to determine content and face reliability for the survey. A panel of experts reviewed the survey and found that two survey items were very similar, therefore, one was dropped. This left the survey with 14 items in total. A pilot study was conducted to establish reliability for the instrument. Employers (n 20), masters level special education students (n 18) and high school students in special education classes (n 12) were included in the study. Using Cronbach’s Alpha (Cronbach, 1984), internal consistency was found to be .83 for the survey. =

=

=

=

=

=

SAMPLE Three groups of subjects were used in this study. The first, employers (n 150), were randomly selected using business directories provided by the Chamber of Commerce in Lee and Lowndes Counties in Mississippi. The second group, service providers, consisted of personnel from the Division of Vocational Rehabilitation and Vocational Resources Educators (n 156) who work for local education agencies. Persons in this group were randomly chosen from statewide agency rolls in Mississippi. These service providers work with individuals with a wide variety of disabilities and were employed as counselors, evaluators, job placement specialists, and job coaches. Thirdly, secondary school students (10th-12th grade) with mild mental disabilities and learning disabilities (n 133) from two school districts in Lee and Lowndes Counties in Mississippi were included in this study. Eleven schools were visited and special education students attending these schools were surveyed. Students who were placed in special education and were categorized as educable mentally handicapped (EMH) or learning disabled (LD) were asked to complete the survey. Initially, 150 employers received surveys along with written instructions. After =

=

=

103

several weeks of a very low response rate, 100 additional surveys were mailed. Two hundred surveys were sent to service providers along with written instructions. The student group included 137 responses. Usable responses (completed surveys) from the subject groups were as follows: employers (n 90, 36%), service providers (N 118, 59%), and students with mild mental handicaps and disabilities 130, 93%). learning (n =

=

=

LIMITATIONS The

and service provider groups were mailed surveys. However, because of the range of abilities, especially reading, of the student group, the researcher and an assistant administered the survey to them orally. After distribution of the surveys, Form A and Form B respondent groups were moved to separate rooms so that oral administration of the survey could be completed. Although both the researcher and assistant used the same procedure, some testing bias may have occurred. Employer and service provider respondents were randomly chosen to receive a survey. The possibility for research bias exists because employer and service provider groups were mailed surveys to complete. All special education students attending classes on the day that the researcher collected data were asked to complete a survey. The student groups were not broken down into groups by disabling conditions, therefore, it may limit the generalizability of the findings.

employer

RESULTS The data were analyzed through analysis of variance (ANOVA). An F-ratio was computed for statistical significance. F(2.355) 3.02, p .05. The results indicated significant differences between groups on eight of the survey items of the Successful Employment Survey. Table 1 depicts the adjusted mean scores for each group on each item of the survey. One item, Item 4, although predicted to be significant was not confirmed by a Scheffe post-hoc test. The differences in perceptions among the three groups was greatest for Item 1, &dquo;Feels pride in work&dquo;. Item 13, &dquo;Accepts praise and criticism&dquo;, Item 11, &dquo;Desire to work&dquo; and Item 8, &dquo;Entry-level job skills&dquo; were also found to be significant. Other items found to be significant were Item 2, &dquo;Amount of money made’; Item 3, &dquo;Good attendance at work&dquo;, Item 9, &dquo;Employee likes work&dquo;, and Item 12, ’Job =

=

security&dquo;. The results in overall perception of hiring nondisabled and disabled persons held by students, employers, and service providers are found on Table 2. An F-ratio of 3.02 (2.355), p < .05 was needed for significance. No group showed significant differences in perceptions according to the form of the survey which was com-

104

Table 1

Differences in Perception of Student, Employers, and Service Hiring Persons with Disabilities and Nondisabled Persons

Providers Toward

* p < .05

pleted. The survey items were not viewed differently within the employer, service provider, and EMH/LD student groups. Rank ordering of mean scores for each group is depicted in Table 3. All survey items were ranked above 3.0 on a 5.0 point scale by each group. Examination of the data in Table 3 suggests that the employers, service providers, and stuTable 2

Difference in Overall Perceptions of Hiring Nondisabled and Disabled Persons Held by Students, Employers, and Service Providers

* p > .05.

105

-171, ~

~

}

IF~44

%I ! Z.t

C’)

~ %

s

o

I ~

~ ~ % ~ (Z~

t’fi s

~

# ~~ ~

~# à