1. ABSTRACT
LET’S WORK: EMPLOYMENT EXPERIENCES OF ADULTS WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES
By
Jennifer Quigley
December 2014
The present study investigated the employment experiences of adults with mild developmental disabilities. The study’s sample consisted of 45 participants with developmental disabilities who were over the age of 18. Participants were recruited from two Regional Centers in Southern California and either phone interviews or in-person interviews were conducted.
A structured interview protocol examined each participant’s current work experience, along with several items exploring facilitators and obstacles to employment. Data from this qualitative investigation were organized into categories using inductive content analysis. Descriptive statistics were computed for quantitative items. Overall, it was discovered that: participants found money as the most rewarding aspect of employment, relied on outside support in obtaining and maintaining employment and found few obstacles of which to overcome, worked with others with developmental disabilities, and utilized workplace supports in entry level positions making an average wage of $8.92 a hour during a 20.72 hour work week.

3. LET’S WORK: EMPLOYMENT EXPERIENCES OF ADULTS WITH
DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES
A THESIS
Presented to the Department of Psychology
California State University, Long Beach
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
Master of Science in Psychology
Option in Industrial and Organizational Psychology
Committee Members:
Dave J. Whitney, PhD (Chair)
Christopher Warren, PhD
Chi-Ah Chun, PhD
College Designee:
Mark Wiley, Ph.D.
By Jennifer Quigley
B.A., 2010, California State University, San Marcos
December 2014

4. iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to express my sincerest gratitude to my thesis chair, Dr. Whitney. Through his continuous feedback and guidance I was able to complete my thesis, and accomplish a feat that I am immensely proud to have achieved. I would also like to thank my committee members for their support and advisement throughout the entire process.
Above all, I would like to thank my family; without them I would not be where I am today. It was through their encouragement and constant support that I felt the motivation to keep moving forward. Their positive attitudes and high expectations of what I was capable of achieving only motivated me to push myself and reach higher.

5. iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ......................................................... iii
TABLES ....................................................... vi
FIGURES ..................................................... vii
CHAPTER
1. INTRODUCTION AND LITERATURE REVIEW .......................................... 1
Overview .................................... 1
Benefits of Employment ............................................ 3
Benefit: Satisfaction ............................................ 4
Benefit: Additional Emotional/Psychological Areas Impacted .......... 5
Benefit: Behavioral ............................................. 6
Benefit: Social Networks .................................... 6
Benefit: Financial ................................................ 7
Obstacles to Employment .......................................... 8
Obstacle: The Severity of Developmental Disability ......................... 8
Obstacle: Poor Social Skills ................................ 9
Obstacle: Lack of Transportation ........................................................ 11
Obstacle: Lack of Work Supports ....................................................... 11
Obstacle: Lack of Educational Preparation......................................... 12
Obstacle: Decrease in Benefits ........................................................... 13
Obstacle: Prejudice ............................................. 13
Types of Employment ................................................ 14
Volunteer Work .................................................... 14
Sheltered Workshops/Facility Based Work .......................................... 14
Competitive Employment .................................... 15
Preparation for Work .................................................. 16
Transition Programs ............................................. 16
Regional Centers .................................................. 17
Purpose of Current Study ........................................... 17

6. v
CHAPTER Page
2. METHODOLOGY ............................................................ 20
Participants ................................. 20
Measures .................................... 21
Employment History Questionnaire .................................................... 21
Procedure ................................... 22
Analysis...................................... 24
3. RESULTS ........................................... 26
Descriptives................................ 26
Research Questions .................................................... 29
4. DISCUSSION .................................... 33
Typical Job Characteristics ........................................ 33
Benefits of Employment ............................................ 35
Facilitators of Obtaining and Maintaining Employment ........................... 36
Obstacles to Obtaining and Maintaining Employment .............................. 36
Practical Implications................................................. 38
Strengths and Limitations .......................................... 41
Future Directions for Research .................................. 44
APPENDICES ............................................. 47
A. EMPLOYMENT HISTORY QUESTIONNAIRE ............................................ 48
B. RESEARCH QUESTIONS OF THE CURRENT STUDY .............................. 51
C. CODING OVERVIEW OF PARTICIPANT RESPONSES .............................. 53
REFERENCES ............................................ 55

7. vi
TABLES
TABLE Page
1. Summary of Differences Between Regional Centers ........................................ 31
2. Coding Overview of Participant Responses ...................................................... 54

8. vii
FIGURES
FIGURE Page
1. Distribution of types of employment among participants.................................. 28

9. 1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION AND LITERATURE REVIEW
Overview
In 2010, the percentage of employed (full or part-time) working age, non-disabled individuals (18-64 years old) was 59%, a percentage two times greater than the 21% employment percentage reported for working age individuals with disabilities (Kessler Foundation and National Organization on Disability, 2010). In August 2014 the unemployment rate for adults with a disability was 12.8%, whereas the U.S. unemployment rate for adults without a disability was 6.0%; a 6.8% differential (United States Department of Labor Statistics, 2014b).
From the above data it is clear that there is an employment disparity between those with disabilities and those without. Employment disparities are even more startling when examining the subset of adults with developmental disabilities. Between 1990- 1991, only 27.6% of adults (ages 22-65) with developmental disabilities were employed, compared to 75.1% of adults without a developmental disability in the United States; a 47.5% differential (Yamaki & Fujiura, 2002). The current employment figures for those with developmental disabilities may be even smaller, as the above unemployment statistic for the month of August, as reported by the U.S. Department of Labor, refers to all forms of disability, including physical disabilities with no mental impairment.

10. 2
According to the United States government, a developmental disability exists when the disability can be attributed to a mental or physical impairment (or both) that is most likely lifelong and occurs before the age of 22. Three or more of the following categories must also be impaired by the developmental disability: (1) self-care, (2) receptive and expressive language, (3) learning, (4) mobility, (5) self-direction, (6) capacity for independent living, (7) and/or economic self-sufficiency. Further, the individual must require assistance that stretches throughout their lifetime (or for an extended period of time) and requires individually planned and coordinated support (as cited in Warren, 1986).
In California, eligibility for receipt of state services under the general category of “developmental disability” is limited to the following diagnoses: (1) mental retardation (2) epilepsy, (3) cerebral palsy, (4) autism, and (5) conditions that require similar services as provided to those with mental retardation (California State Council on Developmental Disabilities, 2011). A developmental disability can lead to impairment in physical and sensorimotor development, cognitive and psychological processes, verbal and nonverbal communication, social functioning and adaptive behavior (Rice, Schendel, Cunniff, & Doernberg, 2004). Despite such life impairments, many individuals with developmental disabilities desire work for economic, social, and self-esteem reasons. Indeed, a recent survey of adults with developmental disabilities conducted by the Regional Center of Orange County found that nearly 68% reported a desire to work for pay (Christian, Gillman, White, & Whitney, 2009).
Work holds important significance in all of our lives (Sandys, 2007). Individuals with developmental disabilities want to work, want fair pay, and desire to move into the

11. 3
workforce with as little attention as possible focused on their disability (McConkey & Mezza, 2001; Reid & Bray, 1998; Riches & Green, 2003; Schwamm, 1986). While an individual’s developmental disability may pose a significant challenge to employment, there are many work-related benefits for those individuals with developmental disabilities that successfully find suitable employment. In the following pages, this paper will step through the benefits of employment and the obstacles to employment, the types of employment and the types of work preparation available to adults with developmental disabilities.
The present study focused on working adults with developmental disabilities (aged 18 and older) from two Regional Centers in southern California: Harbor Regional Center in Torrance and the Regional Center of Orange County in Santa Ana. The researcher was interested in both the challenges and facilitators to finding and securing a job, as well as the types of work obtained, the amount of pay received, any supports received, and the level of satisfaction with work experiences. The current study aims to provide additional insight into the work experiences of those with developmental disabilities by supplementing quantitative data with qualitative information garnered from personal interviews.
Benefits of Employment
A job can be more than something to occupy one’s time, it can also be a conduit through which an individual’s life can be improved. Through work, adults with developmental disabilities may discover benefits impacting many areas of their lives (e.g., social, emotional, financial, etc.). Work provides routine activity, access to the outside world, and a chance to lead a more purposeful and active life (Jahoda, et al.,

12. 4
2009; Sandys, 2007). The benefits of work also go beyond the individual. Employment fulfills the societal expectation that each person become a productive citizen (Holmes & Fillary, 2000). With so many possible benefits to be attained, it is understandable why adults with developmental disabilities are motivated to find employment.
Benefit: Satisfaction
In a study done by Eliason (1998), adults with developmental disabilities and their primary caregivers were interviewed to investigate the relationship between social integration and consumer satisfaction.1 The collected data revealed a moderate, positive correlation between level of consumer satisfaction and social integration. In other words, the greater the number of possible interaction opportunities, the higher the level of consumer satisfaction for adults with developmental disabilities.
Increased social integration can also be obtained through employment, and therefore it makes sense that employment has been found to lead to an increase in satisfaction (Test, Carver, Ewers, Haddad, & Person, 2000). In fact, adults with developmental disabilities consistently report increased satisfaction as one of the benefits of working. Other work related factors found to raise satisfaction levels include increased respect from others (Siporin & Lysack, 2004), greater autonomy (Wehmeyer & Garner, 2003), opportunities to take on new challenges (Reid & Bray, 1998), the ability to demonstrate capabilities, and more recognition being given to the adult status of the individual (Jahoda et al., 2009).
1 Not all individuals in the study were employed. Consumer satisfaction is defined as satisfaction with residential setting and available interactions.

13. 5
Benefit: Additional Emotional/Psychological Areas Impacted
In a study by Irvine and Lupart (2008), 10 employers of adults with developmental disabilities were interviewed regarding their thoughts on inclusion of adults with developmental disabilities in the workplace. The interviews with the 10 employers revealed that employees with developmental disabilities displayed increased self-confidence, the development of a sense of purpose, pride in work performed and richer social lives. In a study by Cramm, Finkenflügel, Kuijsten, and van Exel (2009), employed adults with developmental disabilities reported an increase in independence and social engagement. All of the positive changes experienced by those with developmental disabilities were attributed to workplace inclusion.
Jiranek and Kirby (1990) conducted a study comparing the level of job satisfaction and psychological well-being of young adults (ages 20-25) with a developmental disability, against the level of job satisfaction and psychological well- being of a sample of young adults without a developmental disability. Fourteen individuals from both groups were unemployed. Participants completed a questionnaire on job satisfaction and psychological well-being. Results indicated that both groups of employed adults reported being less bored, having higher self-esteem, less depression, stronger internal locus of control, and experiencing less time alone than those who were unemployed. Examining just those with a developmental disability, workers reported greater self-esteem and spending fewer hours watching television than their unemployed counterparts.

14. 6
Benefit: Behavioral
Employment has substantial behavioral benefits. Stephens, Collins, and Dodder (2005) examined individuals receiving services from the Developmental Disabilities Division of the Oklahoma Department of Human Services. In total, data for 2,760 adults with developmental disabilities were analyzed to determine the impacts of employment on adaptive skills at two points in time (1997 and 1998).2 Results revealed that when employed, individuals with developmental disabilities were found to display increases in such adaptive behaviors as bathing, reading, telling time, interaction, group activities, and care of belongings.
Benefit: Social Networks
Working also allows adults with developmental disabilities to develop stronger social networks (Hutchison, 1994). Without work, individuals with developmental disabilities are often isolated, with little opportunity to interact with others. Through work, adults with developmental disabilities increase their levels of social interactions, make friends and even find role models (Hutchison, 1994; Jahoda et al., 2009).
For individuals with developmental disabilities, work can enrich one’s social life and provide an opportunity to meet people (Irvine & Lupart, 2008; Jahoda et al., 2009). Working provides a built in social experience; adults with developmental disabilities who were infrequently exposed to new people, become provided with an abundance of social interactions through work. In a study conducted by Cramm et al. (2009), the Q- methodology was utilized to allow employed, developmentally disabled participants to
2 Individuals in the data set were not necessarily employed at the two points in time analyzed.

15. 7
rank-order 22 statement cards in order of importance. The participants then placed the cards into five categories, one of which was social integration. The top two statement cards for the social integration category addressed (1) interacting with coworkers and (2) receiving appreciation from them. Cramm et al. found that participants desired to achieve social integration in the workplace through the interaction and acceptance of coworkers. With that said, the desire for social integration and societal participation goes beyond making friends, it also includes making money.
Benefit: Financial
Working provides obvious monetary benefits. Reid and Bray (1998) found that adults with developmental disabilities wanted to make a living in order to have more control in partaking in common life decisions. Such decisions included buying clothes, saving for a home, and attending social events. Siporin and Lysack (2004) also found that moving out of their parent’s house, and into their own place, was a common goal sought to be achieved through employment as reported by adults with developmental disabilities.
Jahoda et al. (2009) conducted a longitudinal study over an 18 month period, where participants with developmental disabilities were interviewed before beginning employment and then 9 to 12 months after finding employment. From the interviews conducted with the 35 participants, the researchers ascertained that with increased financial independence, adults with developmental disabilities experienced increased autonomy and social status (Jahoda et al., 2009).

16. 8
The benefits of working are clearly life changing as they impact various areas of an individual’s life. Nevertheless, a number of obstacles to employment exist for adults with developmental disabilities.
Obstacles to Employment
Obstacle: The Severity of Developmental Disability
The severity of a developmental disability affects one’s ability to find appropriate employment. As such, the disability itself is the most pressing obstacle that an adult with a developmental disability must face (Dusseljee, Rijken, Cardol, Curf, & Groenewegen, 2011).
According to Mank, Cioffi, and Yovanoff (1998), the level of severity of a developmental disability strongly impacts one’s employment experience. Mank et al. (1998) analyzed questionnaire data completed by 462 employed adults ranging in level of mental retardation from severe to mild. With the assistance of a job coach (a non- disabled individual that helps an individual with developmental disabilities obtain and/or maintain employment), the participants answered questions addressing general demographic information, information specific to their disability, and information regarding employment outcomes and features. Results indicated that as the severity of the disability increased, wages decreased, interaction with coworkers decreased, others’ perceived ability of the individual to produce quality work decreased, and more atypical employment procedures increased.3 Nevertheless, as cited in Mank et al. (1998) when the severity of the disability was controlled for in the data, those individuals with
3 Atypical employment procedures in hiring disabled individuals are procedures that are different from those followed when hiring an individual without a disability.

17. 9
developmental disabilities that were better socially integrated had higher wages and experienced more typical employment procedures than their coworkers without disabilities. Overall the study revealed that with increased societal integration, a more positive work experience can be created. Nevertheless, some individuals with developmental disabilities have a hard time assimilating into the workplace due to social inadequacies.
Obstacle: Poor Social Skills
Chadsey and Beyer (2001) found that the social factors of work are just as important as the other job requirements (e.g., productivity). Ford, Dineen, and Hall (1984) analyzed 6 years’ of employment records of 82 intellectually disabled adults who had gone through an employment training program at the University of Washington. Results indicated that, among other things, a lack of social skills contributed to job loss. The most frequently cited social skill deficits included poor interpersonal skills, emotional outbursts, and inappropriate language.
Without the necessary social skills to interact successfully with coworkers, adults with developmental disabilities may experience brief tenures of employment. In order to determine why adults with developmental disabilities (specifically adults with an intellectual disability) were being terminated from employment, Greenspan and Shoultz (1981) gathered data on 30 adults who were intellectually disabled who had been terminated from competitive employment positions between January 1978 and June 1980. Data were gathered from three sources: (1) a community office (Eastern Nebraska Community Office on Retardation: ENCOR) offering vocational services to the 30 adults who were intellectually disabled, (2) interviews with ENCOR staff and job coaches, and

18. 10
(3) phone interviews with the former employers of the participants. Results revealed that individuals were terminated for both social reasons (nine individuals were terminated for social awareness deficiencies, five individuals due to temperament issues, and three due to character issues) and nonsocial reasons (eight individuals were terminated due to layoffs, four due to the rate and quality of their productivity, and one due to health issues). While the majority of terminations for nonsocial reasons were out-of-the-hands of the terminated employees (i.e., layoffs), the terminations for social reasons may have been addressable through additional training (e.g., individual social skill improvements).
Martin, Rusch, Lagomarcino and Chadsey-Rusch (1986) examined the employment records of eight intellectually disabled adults and 133 non-handicapped adults who had lost their jobs, in order to determine the reason for their termination. Martin et al. found that for the eight intellectually disabled adults, job loss could be attributed to social factors. Talking too much, complaining about job tasks, or pestering other employees were some of the social factors listed in the employment records of the employees with an intellectual disability as reasons why they were terminated. Martin et al. labeled such obstacles as awareness problems. For the 133 non-handicapped adults, problems of character were most often cited as reasons for termination (e.g., stealing, tardiness, etc.).
Despite the close proximity of working with others, social skill inadequacies of some adults with developmental disabilities impact the quality of relationships they share with their coworkers (Riches & Green, 2003). Examples of social skills inadequacies include poor interpersonal skills and inappropriate comments, both of which create difficulty in making friends at work (Chadsey & Beyer, 2001; Holmes & Fillary, 2000;

19. 11
Irvine & Lupart, 2008). A hindrance in friendship making can be devastating to adults with developmental disabilities, as it has been found that adults with developmental disabilities cite “making new friends” as one of their top reasons for working (Jahoda et al., 2009). Social skill deficiencies threaten not only one’s job, but also the opportunity to develop coworker relationships.
Obstacle: Lack of Transportation
Lack of accessibility to reliable transportation is a major obstacle to obtaining employment for adults with developmental disabilities (Lemaire & Mallik, 2008). Schmidt and Smith (2007) recruited 60 individuals with a variety of types of disabilities who were currently taking courses at a college at an independent living center. Results revealed that transportation was identified as one of the greatest obstacles to employment for both employed and unemployed adults with disabilities.
Obstacle: Lack of Work Supports
Without the necessary job supports, an adult with developmental disabilities may struggle to maintain a position of employment. The overwhelming effect of inadequate support from employers is compounded by the loss of support from family, friends, or agencies. Support is often removed by agencies once it is believed an individual with developmental disabilities can work independently (Ford et al., 1984).
Appropriate support at work is necessary for continued employment success for adults with developmental disabilities (Jahoda et al., 2009; Lemaire & Mallik, 2008; Siporin & Lysack, 2004). Types of possible work supports include a job coach, pre-job training, transportation, and assistive technology.

20. 12
A job coach not only helps an individual with developmental disabilities perform the daily tasks of their job, but can also help in developing work appropriate behaviors, social competencies and personal growth through the experience of working. Eventually, the job coach reduces their level of involvement on the job once the individual demonstrates competency and independence in their position (Jiranek & Kirby, 1990).
Pre-job training experience could include the adult with developmental disabilities practicing a specific job. This can help in determining if a specific job is of interest.
Transportation is sometimes provided by a job coach or the transition center where the adult with developmental disabilities is currently receiving services.
Assistive technology includes anything that will allow an adult with developmental disabilities to effectively perform their job. Assistive technology can include: an audio recorder that lists an individual’s job tasks for the day, a label maker that can be used to label various materials with their purpose, or even a digital camera that holds photos of the appropriate types of clothing the individual is to wear to work each day.
Obstacle: Lack of Educational Preparation
Research has found that the attainment of a higher education level can lead to increased opportunities for employment for adults with developmental disabilities (Achterberg, Wind, de Boer, & Frings-Dresen, 2009; Lengnick-Hall, Gaunt, & Kulkarni, 2008). Nevertheless, it must be kept in mind that the severity of one’s developmental disability will affect educational progression. Unfortunately, this means that an

21. 13
unavoidable lack of advanced educational credentials can severely inhibit job attainment for adults with developmental disabilities.
Obstacle: Decrease in Benefits
Paid employment can reduce governmental benefits received by an individual with a developmental disability, acting as a strong disincentive to work. Restrictions on the number of hours that can be worked and the amount of income that can be achieved before benefits are negatively impacted, act as strong deterrents against adults with developmental disabilities to engage in work. Surprisingly, perhaps, a person with developmental disabilities may actually earn less when employed than they would earn through remaining on Social Security Income (SSI) had they not chosen to work (as cited in Ford et al., 1984). Once individuals reach the income bracket where they no longer qualify to receive SSI, they may find that their new income is consumed by having to pay for living expenses that were once covered by the state (Ford et al., 1984).
Obstacle: Prejudice
A final barrier to employment is that of prejudice in society. Prejudiced attitudes towards adults with developmental disabilities continue to result in high jobless rates (Schwamm, 1986). Schmidt and Smith (2007) found that along with transportation, employer and coworker prejudice was a major hindrance to the job success of an individual with developmental disabilities. If prejudice towards adults with developmental disabilities does not change, these individuals may never get the opportunity to show that they can make a positive contribution in the workplace (Hutchison, 1994).

22. 14
Types of Employment
Work opportunities for adults with developmental disabilities vary across a number of settings, including (1) volunteer work, (2) sheltered workshops, (3) competitive employment with workplace supports and (4) competitive employment without workplace supports. The type of work performed by an adult with developmental disabilities is meant to match their current abilities. Some abilities can be linked to IQ, and Wehmeyer and Garner (2003) reported that IQ level influenced the type of employment an individual with a developmental disability performed (sheltered or competitive).
Volunteer Work
Volunteer work is not only an altruistic activity, but it is also an activity in which an individual can develop new skills, meet others and have fun. Volunteer work is a non- paid activity with the goal of getting individuals out of their homes and into the community. An individual can volunteer full-time or part-time and can obtain volunteer opportunities through community channels (e.g., city departments––parks and recreation) or an organization (e.g., a non-profit company).
Sheltered Workshops/Facility Based Work
Sheltered workshops (i.e., facility based work or adult training centers/worksites) are designed to equip an adult with a developmental disability with basic vocational skills, and address an individual’s behavioral concerns (Siporin & Lysack, 2004). The goal of sheltered workshops is to increase work-related skill development by providing training and opportunities to work (Jiranek & Kirby, 1990; Siporin & Lysack, 2004).

23. 15
Employment in sheltered workshops is substantially different from other forms of employment. Nearly all co-workers also have developmental disabilities. The work itself tends to involve menial/assembly tasks, irregular hours, and low wages. Further, the training provided is rarely applicable to competitive employment (Riesen, 2010; Siporin & Lysack, 2004).
Competitive Employment
Competitive employment refers to the familiar work assignments typically experienced by neurotypical individuals. Such settings are substantially different from sheltered workshops in that the pay is better (as cited in Riesen, 2010), and the individual with a developmental disability typically has the opportunity to socialize with non- disabled peers (Jahoda, Kemp, Riddell, & Banks, 2008). The goal of competitive employment is to help adults with developmental disabilities become better integrated into society as active, contributing citizens (Cramm et al., 2009). Competitive employment is based on the concepts of normalization and mainstreaming workers with developmental disabilities (Siporin & Lysack, 2004). These two concepts address the movement towards incorporating adults with developmental disabilities into the general population through employment.
Competitive employment has been found to decrease feelings of anger with the world (Jiranek & Kirby, 1990) and increase autonomy (Jahoda et al, 2008) for adults with developmental disabilities. Overall, most disability advocates consider competitive employment to be preferable to sheltered workshops. In addition, Smith (2012) found that Regional Center consumers expressed a strong preference for competitive employment over sheltered workshops.

24. 16
Competitive employment can be further broken down into competitive employment with workplace supports, and competitive employment without workplace supports. In competitive employment with workplace supports, a job coach often helps the individual find and maintain employment (Siporin & Lysack, 2004). Additional workplace supports might include provision of transportation, assistive technology, supportive relationships from supervisors or co-workers, and/or pre-employment training to help ensure job success (Jiranek & Kirby, 1990).
Competitive employment without workplace supports is also a possibility. Such employment is equivalent to that experienced by any individual that does not receive accommodations at work.
Preparation for Work
Transition Programs
Transition programs help individuals with developmental disabilities transition from school to work environments. While in high school, transition programs expose individuals with developmental disabilities to careers and encourage entry into postsecondary education. Transition programs are also to help individuals with developmental disabilities find and keep employment after high school. Benz, Lindstrom, and Yovanoff (2000) found that for high school students with disabilities, employment stayed above 80% during the first 2 years after having completed a transition program for individuals with disabilities. Through transition programs individuals with developmental disabilities obtain independence, increase productivity, and engage in full societal participation within their community (Schwamm, 1986). They

25. 17
are taught the basic skills they will need in order to join the workforce (e.g., behavioral and social skills).
Regional Centers
Preparation to enter into the workforce is a real possibility for adults with developmental disabilities, in part due to Regional Centers. Throughout the state of California there are 21 Regional Centers providing services to individuals with developmental disabilities and their families. These nonprofit, private corporations contract with the Department of Developmental Services to diagnose and assess the eligibility of individuals to receive services and support. Eligibility requirements are that a person must have a disability that begins before age 18 and is expected to continue indefinitely and present a substantial disability. The services and support provided by the Regional Centers include, but are not limited to, assessment and diagnosis, family support, outreach, assistance in finding and using community resources, transportation, supported employment, and independent living. Through Regional Centers individuals with developmental disabilities are taught how to live independent, productive and fulfilling lives while engaging in full societal participation. This societal participation is achieved through obtaining competitive employment with support.
Purpose of Current Study
In the wake of the economic recession, the media frequently report the woes of the unemployed. There are many reasons to believe that the employment outlook for adults with developmental disabilities is substantially bleaker than what is reported in the news. The present study sought to capture the work experiences of adults with developmental disabilities. Previous studies examining the employment experiences of

26. 18
individuals with developmental disabilities have tended to either use a case study approach with a very limited number of participants, or report statistics based on huge databases. The present study pursued a more intermediate route. Specifically, the study accessed a sample of adults with developmental disabilities from two large Regional Centers in Southern California. The sample was composed of individuals with mild to no mental retardation. Using phone or in-person interviews, the study examined what was most rewarding about having a job to these individuals, the types of work obtained, the amount of pay received, any supports received, and the level of satisfaction with work experiences; all in order to obtain a profile of the typical work experiences of adults with mild-moderate developmental disabilities. Through the use of both qualitative and quantitative data, the present study provides greater confidence of the representativeness of the data. Conversely, the qualitative nature of the data collection methodology provides greater depth of understanding than is provided by data mining large empirical databases. In order to obtain rich data with which to work with, three overall qualitative research questions were developed, with additional questions to assist in understanding more clearly the employment experiences of participants. An overall descriptive data question was addressed as well.
Each of the following research questions will be addressed in the present study:
1. What has been most rewarding about have a job?
2. What do individuals with developmental disabilities view as facilitators of obtaining and maintaining employment?
3. What do individuals with development disabilities view as obstacles to obtaining and maintaining employment?

27. 19
4. What are the typical characteristics of jobs obtained by individuals with developmental disabilities?
a. What is the typical work setting?
b. What industry is typical for individuals with development disabilities?
c. What is the average wage received?
d. What is the mean number of hours worked per week?

28. 20
CHAPTER 2
METHODOLOGY
Participants
Participants were obtained from both the Harbor Regional Center (HRC) located in Torrance, California and the Regional Center of Orange County (RCOC) located in Santa Ana, California. The HRC identified potential participants with developmental disabilities using five criteria: (a) consumer of HRC services, (b) resident of the city of Long Beach, (c) 18 years of age or older (d) with mild to no mental retardation, and (e) currently working. From the HRC, 25 participants were recruited, 13 females and 12 males. The average age was 40.52 years, with an age range from 22–63 years (SD = 11.09). The RCOC identified eligible participants with developmental disabilities based on the following requirements: (a) consumer of RCOC services, (b) Autism Spectrum Disorder diagnosis with an IQ of 70 or greater, (c) 18 years of age or older, (d) ability to provide informed consent, (e) verbal ability, and (f) working in a sheltered workshop or competitively employed. From the RCOC, 24 participants were recruited, but only data from 20 participants were utilized, due to researcher concerns of participants’ comprehension of the interview questions. Therefore, of the 20 participants, two were female and 18 were male. The average age was 34.40 years, with an age range from 21– 58 years (SD = 9.77).

29. 21
In total, participants consisted of 45 adults (15 females and 30 males) ranging in ages from 21–63 years (SD = 10.86, M = 37.80) with developmental disabilities, but with only mild to no mental retardation. Self-reported developmental disabilities by participants included (participants could identify with more than one developmental disability): 23 participants had an autism spectrum disorder, 16 participants had an intellectual disability, 9 participants had a form of another developmental disability, 6 participants had epilepsy, and 2 participants had cerebral palsy.
Self-reported ethnicity included: 24 Caucasian, 6 African American, 5 Latino, 3 identified as other, 3 Asian, 2 bi-cultural, 1 Filipino/Pacific Islander, and 1 did not respond.
Measures
Employment History Questionnaire
All questions on the employment history questionnaire were written in basic, plain English and required no more than a fifth grade mental comprehension in order to respond.
The first question of the employment history questionnaire assessed whether a participant was currently employed. If the participant responded “Yes,” they were asked questions regarding the number of jobs they currently held, the name of the organization(s) for which they worked, their job title, hours worked per week and questions assessing their work setting and workplace supports received. These questions were repeated for each job currently held. For the job the participant was currently working the greatest number of hours, several additional questions were asked assessing the rate of pay, how the participant found the job, and his or her tenure. An additional

30. 22
seven questions were asked about the specific supports they received on the job (see Appendix A).
If a participant responded “No” to the first question of if they were currently employed, he or she was asked the same questions for his or her last job held. All questions in present tense were phrased in the past tense for these participants. For example, the question of, “What is the name of the organization for which you work for pay?,” was phrased as, “What was the name of the organization at which you worked for pay?”.
As the present study was part of a larger investigation examining the employment experiences of individuals with developmental disabilities, additional variables unrelated to this study were added to the employment history questionnaire. The additional questionnaire items used pre-existing measures to assess job satisfaction, affective commitment, and turnover intentions of the participant’s current job. Additionally, perceived bias in the workplace was also measured using several open-ended questions unrelated to this study.
Questions in the employment history questionnaire specific to this study, asked participants to reflect on their current or most recent job(s) over the past 3 years, and answer five open-ended questions. Participants were asked about the most rewarding aspects of their job(s), perceived facilitators, and major obstacles associated with their employment (see Appendix B).
Procedure
Participants from the HRC were initially recruited through mailed postcards, which were sent to 200 potential participants that met study criteria for participation. The

31. 23
postcard contained a brief description of the study and contact information (i.e., both the email and phone number of the interviewers) for those interested in participating. Once a potential participant reached out via email or phone to express his or her interest in participating in the study, an interviewer scheduled a phone interview.
At the appointed interview time, the interviewer followed a structured interview format by following the guidelines of a phone script. The consent form, employment history questionnaire and the demographic form (in that order) were read and the participant’s responses were recorded (typed on a computer). After the interview, each participant was invited to participate in a raffle to win one of five $50 Target gift cards by providing his or her name and a phone number and or email at which he or she could be contacted should they be randomly selected in the raffle.
Potential participants from the RCOC were identified through RCOC records. Potential participants were then verbally informed by RCOC employees of the research, and asked if they might be interested in participating in the study. If a participant expressed a potential interest, the interviewers were provided the participant’s name and contact information, and a time was set up to meet the potential participant in person at a RCOC vendor’s location.
As with the HRC participants, the interviewers followed a structured interview format in interviewing all RCOC participants. The consent form, employment history questionnaire and the demographic form were all read to the participant (in that order). Participants from the RCOC were videotaped while being interviewed, and the participant’s responses were typed by the interviewer. At the end of the interview, participants were each given a $10 Target gift card.

32. 24
Analysis
Qualitative content analysis, implementing the technique of inductive category development, was used to analyze participant responses to the current study’s five open- ended questions (see Appendix B). Qualitative content analysis looks to maintain the value of qualitative data while transforming that data into quantitative output (Mayring, 2000). Inductive category development, a technique of qualitative content analysis, leads to the identification of categories based on the overall meaning of the material—in this case the material would be the participant’s responses. These categories are then revised as needed, being reduced down to precise categorizations of the data (i.e., participant responses) (Mayring, 2000). Numeric processes can then be performed with the final categorizations (e.g., frequency count of category reported).
Typically, interjudge reliability is performed to ensure the reliability of the identified categories. This involves analyzing the agreements and discrepancies of independent coders in categorizing participant responses (Leiva, Rios, & Martinez, 2006). As there was only one researcher conducting the present study, interjudge reliability was unable to be performed. Therefore, the researcher examined all category labels twice to ensure accuracy in the categorization of participant responses.
To begin the process of inductive category development, participant responses were read by the researcher to identify an overall category for each response provided. In the creation of a category based on a participant’s response, the researcher noted (1) whether the category accurately captured the meaning of the participant’s response and (2) whether the created category fit with the overall goal of the question asked of the participant.

33. 25
Categories were determined for all participant responses based on the main topic of a participant’s response. For example, a participant responded, “Being able to make money,” to the question of “What has been most rewarding about having a job?”. This response was categorized as “Money” as it accurately captured the meaning of the participant’s response and it fit with the overall goal of the question asked. Each time a category was created it was marked down and used thereafter for any participant responses that fit that category labeling.
Following the generation of category labels, all categories were re-examined to ensure mutual exclusivity. In some cases, related categories were combined under a more inclusive label. The responses of all participants for an item were then re-read and tick marks were recorded under corresponding category labels to determine the frequency of responses. At the end of the coding process a frequency count analysis was performed for each category to identify how many times the category was reported by participants for each of the five open-ended questions.

34. 26
CHAPTER 3
RESULTS
Descriptives
Descriptive analyses answered the broad research question regarding the typical job characteristics of employment obtained by participants. The typical work setting involved working in organizations designed to serve those with disabilities, in entry level positions alongside coworkers with developmental disabilities. The majority of participants utilized workplace supports in either facility based work or work within competitive employment. The average wage received per hour was $8.92 for an average work week of 20.72 hours. All descriptive data was obtained by asking seven investigative questions.
To begin, participants were asked about their employer and their position at work. In response to, “What is the name of the organization at which you work for pay?” the most commonly reported employers were Goodwill (six participants), Orange County Adult Achievement Center (four participants) and Elwyn (three participants). It is important to note that Goodwill, the Orange County Adult Achievement Center and Elwyn are all organizations whose purpose is specifically to support individuals with developmental disabilities. Overall, the largest employers of participants were: those in the industry of serving individuals with disabilities (17 participants worked at Elwyn, Goodwill or a Regional Center), retailers (five participants reported working at Ikea, Old

35. 27
Navy, Pavilions, Doggie Walk Bags or Target) or were in the grocery industry (four participants reported working for either Albertson’s or Vons). With industry determined, participants were asked, “What is your job title?”, from which it was revealed that 100% of the participants worked in entry level positions. Positions reported included, but were not limited to, courtesy clerk, assembler, greeter, janitor, stock person, and telephone operator.
To get at participants’ specific work settings, four questions were asked. From the question, “I’d like to learn more about the place at which you work. Do you work with other individuals with developmental disabilities?”, it was revealed that of those interviewed, 29 reported working with coworkers with developmental disabilities and 15 reported they did not work with coworkers with developmental disabilities (one participant did not answer this question). Responses to the follow-up question, “ Do you receive any supports to help you do your work, such as a job coach, specialized training, assistive technology, transportation, etc.?”, revealed that 29 participants reported receiving supports of some form and 11 participants did not receive any forms of support at their job (five participants did not answer this question). At this point, interviewers were instructed to record their best guess as to the type of employment the participant performed. Of the 45 participants interviewed, 18 were evaluated to participate in competitive employment with workplace supports, 17 were evaluated to perform facility based work and 9 were evaluated to participate in competitive employment without workplace supports and 1 participant’s work was unable to be classified (see Figure 1).

36. 28
FIGURE 1. Distribution of types of employment among participants.
Lastly, in regards to the work setting, participants were asked, “In your job as (position title), how many hours do you work per week in that job?”. The average hours worked per week were 20.72 hours with a range of hours worked per week from 2.50- 40.00 hours.
Lastly, participants were asked “How much money do you make in dollars per hour?” Results revealed an average wage of $8.92 per hour (SD = 3.25). The highest wage identified was $18.10, and the lowest wage identified was $2.10. Minimum wage in the state of California was $8.00 per hour at the time data was collected (2013), nevertheless employers in the United States are legally allowed to pay workers with developmental disabilities at a lower rate.
Competitive Employment with
Workplace Supports
Facility Based Work
Competitive Employment
without Workplace Supports
Unclassified

37. 29
Research Questions
With the descriptive data capturing the analytical side of the employment picture for participants, the following questions looked at each participant’s experience in their work role. The facilitators of obtaining and maintaining employment and the obstacles to obtaining and maintaining employment were examined. Five open-ended questions, addressing three overall research questions, were asked of each participant. Participants could provide more than one response for each question. Findings are reported based on category labeling. A chart of number of responses analyzed for each open-ended question can be found in Table 2 (see Appendix C).
The first research question inquired as to the most rewarding aspects of a job for those with developmental disabilities. When asked “What has been most rewarding about having a job?”, the most common response, as reported by 15 participants, was Money: “I would say, I would say, having enough money to take care of yourself, to be independent.”. The second most common response, as reported by eight participants was Friendship: “I have enjoyed the friendships I have made while on the job,” “Making new friends,” and “I like my friends so much. Come in my friends are there.”.
The second research question explored what individuals with developmental disabilities viewed as facilitators of obtaining and maintaining employment. The following two interview questions helped answer this. The first question was, “What has been most helpful in helping you find a job?”. Twelve respondents identified their Regional Center. The next most commonly reported response (as reported 11 times), was Support of Others: “My mother helped me find this job,” “My school and regional center and my family,” “My [aunts]. They helped me get into the program, Vocational Visions.

38. 30
It was a little while process, but we got in.”. To probe further, this question was then followed up by, “What has been most helpful in helping you keep a job?”. Twelve participants reported that Successfully Performing Role was the most helpful, and eight participants reported their Job Coach as most helpful: “Doing well on my tasks,” “Advice of my job coach. If I get in any sort of situation, my boss goes to my job coach and the job coach helps me to correct the problem.”.
The third research question examined the obstacles individuals with developmental disabilities viewed as most problematic to obtaining and maintaining employment. Two questions were formulated to assess obstacles within the work place. The first question, “What has been most problematic in finding a job?” most frequently elicited the responses of Nothing (as reported by eight participants) and Finding a Job (as reported by seven participants): “There was nothing really problematic in finding the job,” “Well, finding a job. I have to be patient like everybody else,” “Just trying to find one.” The second probing question was, “What has been most problematic in keeping a job?”. To this question, the most commonly reported response was Nothing (as reported by 13 participants), followed by Interpersonal Skills (three responses): “I don’t have any [problems]. Everyone is just so helpful and everyone understands I have a learning disability. And they are willing to work with me,” “Losing attention, not getting along with people,” “The problem’s just learning to communicate with people and talking with them.”.
Although not part of the original research questions, a closer look was taken into the potential differences between participants at the two Regional Centers. The lowest paid participant of the RCOC earned $3.40 per hour and worked three hours per week.

39. 31
This RCOC participant made more money per hour, but worked less per week than the lowest paid participant of the HRC, who earned $2.10 per hour and worked 40 hours a week. The highest paid participant working at the RCOC earned $14.40 per hour and worked 25 hours a week. This RCOC participant made less per hour and worked less per week than the highest paid participant at the HRC, who earned $18.10 per hour and worked 40 hours a week.
The below chart reveals that 72% of the participants from the HRC participated in some form of competitive employment, as compared to 47% of the participants from the RCOC who participated in competitive employment with workplace supports (see Table 1).
TABLE 1. Summary of Differences Between Regional Centers
RCOC
HRC
Work Setting
Female
Male
Female
Male
Facility Based Work
1
9
3
4
Competitive Employment with Workplace Supports
1
8
5
4
Competitive Employment without Workplace Supports
0a
0
5
4
Total
2/19*
17/19*
13/25
12/25
aRCOC: No participants were identified for that work setting.
Note: One of the 20 participants from the RCOC was unable to be coded for by the interviewer as to which work setting applied to the work the participant performed. Therefore, only 19 participants for the RCOC are represented in the above table.

40. 32
Nevertheless, when averaged out, the mean hours worked per week and the average hourly wages received at the RCOC and at the HRC were not much different: 20.8 hours a week with an $8.63 per hour rate at the RCOC, and 20.7 hours a week with a $9.14 per hour rate at the HRC. It should be noted that of the 20 RCOC participants, five failed to report a wage and one failed to report their hours worked per week. Of the 25 HRC participants, five failed to report a wage and one failed to report their hours worked per week.

41. 33
CHAPTER 4
DISCUSSION
Typical Job Characteristics
It was not surprising to find that the majority of participants in this study worked with coworkers with developmental disabilities. It seems logical that this population of individuals would find employment opportunities where other individuals with developmental disabilities are currently working. A developmental disability can severely limit the type of work an individual can perform. Therefore, companies that can work with an individual’s developmental disability, especially companies that can also accommodate workplace supports, would naturally draw others with a similar disability to that field of work.
This finding of similarly situated coworkers is even less surprising when recognizing that the majority of participants worked in entry level positions utilizing workplace supports in either facility based work or work in competitive employment. Facility based work is setup primarily to establish vocational skills for adults with developmental disabilities (Siporin & Lysack, 2004). Competitive employment with workplace supports affords individuals with developmental disabilities the experience of working in the same competitive employment environment as individuals that are neurotypical, but with some form of added job assistance (e.g., job coach, assistive technology, etc.). Both types of employment are geared to help employ individuals with

42. 34
developmental disabilities, and therefore, again, finding such individuals working in similar lines of work should not be surprising given the types of employment they are in and the job resources they are utilizing.
The average hourly wage reported for participants of $8.92 per hour is significant. Participants from this study were interviewed in 2013, when the minimum wage in California was $8.00 per hour (State of California Department of Industrial Relations, 2014). It is reassuring to see that, on average, participants were being paid slightly above minimum wage, especially when it is possible to pay individuals with a developmental disability below Federal minimum wage. In Section 14(c) of the Fair Labor Standard Act, employers are allowed to pay individuals with disabilities below the Federal minimum wage after having received a certificate from the Wage and Hour Division allowing them to do so (United States Department of Labor, 2014). This section can be used almost to the point of exploitation of disabled workers. In fact, in 2009, Goodwill Industries was found to be paying some of its disabled workers 22 cents an hour via the Section 14(c) provisions (NBC News Investigations, 2013).
As a developmental disability can lead to impaired cognitive and psychological processes (Rice et al., 2004), it was not expected to find, and was in fact not found, any reportings of participants working in positions requiring education beyond a high school diploma. Therefore, salary data of participants was looked at based on data of individuals in the United States, who had no more than a high school diploma. The United States data reported workers performing an average of 35 hours or more of work a week, and earning a median weekly earnings of $651 in 2013 (United States Department of Labor Statistics, 2014a). From the above U.S. statistic, we can glean that the U.S. hourly rate is

43. 35
equivalent to about $16.28 per hour ($651 per week divided by 40 hours—as 40 hours is the typical standard for calculating hourly wages). Participants in the current study made around $8.92 per hour, which is 55% less an hour than the government statistic for the average U.S. full-time worker’s hourly pay. In terms of yearly income, the averages for participants cannot be compared to governmental data, as data reported by the government looks at median household income which is based on the income of the householder and all other individuals living at that location who are at least15 years of age. This study only looked at the participants’ wage.
In terms of hours worked per week, participants in the current study worked part- time hours (20.72 hours a week) which thereby reduced their take home income. These part-time hours may be a reflection of the availability of work hours for their position or the availability of reliable transportation to and from work, or both. It should be noted that participants may actually choose to work a set number of hours as employment income can reduce their Social Security Income (SSI). Therefore, these individuals may seek part-time hours to avoid losing their SSI benefits. Should participants exceed the allowable hours worked to qualify for Social Security Income, they risk losing any medical and monthly income benefits that were once provided to them on behalf of the government.
Benefits of Employment
Participants stated that the most satisfying aspects of employment were Money, and Friendship. The finding of money being the number one reason participants enjoyed working was expected as it reflects current literature findings. According to Reid and Bray (1998), financial benefit was an important reason as to why individuals with

44. 36
developmental disabilities worked. The money they earned could help pay for daily living as well as small splurge expenses. The finding of friendship being a top contender is too an expected finding. As reported in current literature, the ability to make friends at work is a strong reason adults with developmental disabilities seek employment (Jahoda et al., 2009).
Facilitators of Obtaining and Maintaining Employment
The most commonly cited responses for facilitators of obtaining employment were the individual’s Regional Center, and the Support of Others. The most commonly cited responses for facilitators of maintaining employment were Successfully Performing Role and the individual’s Job Coach. It appears as though the Regional Center, along with the support of others, is most critical during the initial stages of looking for employment. It was probably during the job hunt that participants in this study were counting on the support and guidance of others to help them obtain suitable employment. Once employed, participants appear to have relied more on their own abilities (internal focus) and the assistance of others at work in helping them develop their workplace skills (e.g., relying on their job coach). Participants went about performing the job as best as they could in conjunction with possessing a developmental disability.
Obstacles to Obtaining and Maintaining Employment
When asked what has been most problematic in finding employment, the most common responses were Nothing and Finding a Job. When it came to obstacles to maintaining employment, Nothing and Interpersonal Skills were reported most frequently. For both of the obstacle related questions the number one response was Nothing. The finding of nothing being an obstacle to employment for this population is

45. 37
new to the literature. While on the other hand the two obstacles reported, one being just finding a job and the other being utilizing interpersonal skills while in the workplace, are in line with what is already known. It is interesting to note that the challenge of overcoming interpersonal skills was something participants experienced while in the workplace, but not while looking for a job. The effects of a lack of interpersonal skills while employed have been documented in past literature as job detrimental, and as holding the potential to be job terminating (Ford et. al, 1984).
It is also interesting to point out that, as captured in the facilitators of finding a job, participants labeled an obstacle to obtaining employment that was beyond themselves as an individual, in this case it was the mere action of finding a job. When asked what was an obstacle once employed, again as in the facilitators of maintaining employment, participants turned inward in their thinking and talked about a personal struggle tied to their disability. Both findings make sense. It is once employed that interpersonal skills will appear more clearly, as participants were probably initially tested only on their ability to perform the duties of the job, and not on how they would interact with others over a period of time.
Overall, the finding that the majority of participants felt that there were no issues in finding and maintaining employment stands out. Current research paints a picture that employment for adults with developmental disabilities is extremely difficult. Major obstacles noted in prior literature were the severity of the disability, lack of transportation, lack of educational preparation, a decrease in benefits, and workplace prejudice. It is possible that these were obstacles, but that the participants did not think of them at the time of the interview, were unable to verbalize the obstacle, did not

46. 38
understand the purpose of the questions asked or may have been unaware that they had experienced such obstacles (e.g., prejudice related to hiring). Nevertheless, some of these obstacles were mentioned, but not in such a frequency that they stood out among the other responses provided. For example transportation was mentioned once and disability was mentioned twice as an obstacle to maintaining employment.
Finally, a deeper look was taken into the experiences of participants at the two Regional Centers utilized in the current study. The hourly rate for participants from the RCOC ($8.63/hour) was lower than the hourly rate for participants from the HRC ($9.14/hour). This is not surprising as there were more participants engaged in facility based work at the RCOC (10 participants) than there were at the HRC (seven participants). With competitive employment generally comes higher wages, as compared to wages in facility based work. On average participants in facility based work made $6.94 per hour compared to the $9.71 per hour rate of those participants in competitive employment with workplace supports, and the $10.92 per hour rate of those participants in competitive employment without workplace supports. The reason as to why there were more participants overall in competitive employment positions, with and without workplace supports, from the HRC is not determinable based on current study data. It should be noted that the HRC sample size was five participants larger overall than the sample sized obtained from the RCOC.
Practical Implications
Many individuals, whether with or without developmental disabilities, view their work as one way of defining who they are (Harbor Regional Center, 2012). The findings in this study indicate that individuals with developmental disabilities desire to work, and

47. 39
find many positives to being employed, most notably earing a paycheck. In addition to income growth potential, the workplace can act as a place for personal growth. Employment provides an opportunity to gain exposure to the larger world through various role opportunities, and as reported by participants of the current study, brings rewards in the form of both monetary as well as social; making new friendships. The results of this study also shed light on how to guide adults with developmental disabilities through the employment process so that they can continue to achieve the rewards they value from finding employment.
This transition of participants from relying solely on outside resources at the beginning of the job hunt, to relying on their own individual abilities once employed, is important to note. Such findings suggest how resources should be utilized when an adult with developmental disabilities decides to enter into the workforce, or change jobs. Of course additional research is needed, but it is beneficial to keep the findings of the current study in mind. Regional centers and family members of adults with developmental disabilities can benefit from these findings by ensuring they are actively involved at the very beginning of the job searching process. Once an individual finds employment, it is then that the resources available to them in the workplace become important. Knowing such information can help initially in determining if a specific job will be suitable for an individual with developmental disabilities if they are ultimately hired.
Once hired, participants reported that interpersonal skills were a barrier to maintaining employment. As Chadsey and Beyer’s (2001) research found, social factors of work can be just as important as productivity in determining performance. Although a lack of interpersonal skills can be potentially detrimental to employment in the

48. 40
workplace, working also offers an avenue in which to enhance these skills. Through employment, individuals with developmental disabilities are given continuous interaction with customers and with other employees. Individuals with developmental disabilities can refine their interpersonal skills through the increased use of those skills within the workplace (Stephens et al., 2005).
This is not to say though, that they can do all this improvement on their own. The correct work supports need to be in place. One of the top facilitators to maintaining employment for participants was that of a job coach. With a job coach’s guidance, individuals with developmental disabilities can work on developing socially appropriate interpersonal skills. Continued action in this area could result in those with developmental disabilities thriving in the workplace and experiencing greater satisfaction in their role. Role satisfaction is an important factor in measurement of the overall quality of life for those with developmental disabilities (Eliason, 1998).
Overall, the results of this study suggest that through the resources of Regional Centers and through the support of others (e.g., family), adults with developmental disabilities can find success in employment. The services of a Regional Center include a job coach, job skill training, and assistance with job placement, all of which are invaluable resources for those with developmental disabilities seeking employment. These resources can help to reduce the number of instances an individual with developmental disabilities loses a job due to interpersonal skills. These potential positive changes brought on by Regional Centers, may already be showing in the present study. The fact that so many participants reported encountering no obstacles, may speak to the

49. 41
ability of Regional Centers, and potentially to the other supports participants noted, in helping them find and keep employment.
Strengths and Limitations
The greatest strength of the present study was that through individual interviews driven by structured questions, participants were able to share their experiences in the workplace. Such a methodology both confirmed past research findings as well as contributed new knowledge. The benefit of having qualitative data in the form of open- ended questions is that participants were able to express themselves autonomously, allowing for richer, and more in depth responses (Leiva et al., 2006). Open-ended questions also afforded the participants to provide their own individualized responses, free from cues or forced choice answers. It was to be expected, and hoped for, that there would be overlap in responses to the questions asked, but there was also a chance for greater diversity in responses as well.
This same freedom in allowing participants to speak their mind in answering the research questions is also a limitation of sorts. No two participants are the same, and how they understand the meaning of a question being asked can differ significantly. As the participants of this study had a developmentally disability, the impact of their disability in their understanding and response to the questions asked of them cannot be fully determined. Should there have been alternate ways of asking a question, example stories or various ways of phrasing the same question, perhaps more in-depth responses would have been uncovered. Although contrary to the prior paragraph, it is possible that the format of open-ended responses worked more as a restriction than as a response freeing mechanism. It is possible that the participants in this study required a bit more prompting

50. 42
in order for them to fully articulate a response that fully encompassed their experience when answering a question.
Despite a potential unforeseen restriction, the study was able to add new information to the current literature on adults with developmental disabilities and their employment experiences. It was noted for the obstacles to obtaining and maintaining employment that the majority of participants reported no obstacles in these two areas. This has not yet been reported in current publications and could be seen as an indication that the employment supports and systems put together for adults with developmental disabilities are in fact working.
Nevertheless, before any strong correlations or conclusions can be drawn, the sample size of the present study may restrict the generalization of results. While the sample size of 45 participants was substantially larger than in some previous research, such a sample size is still smaller than desired. Also, by obtaining participants from two Regional Centers relatively close in proximity, the findings of this study may not be generalizable to populations beyond those regions (HRC and RCOC are only 35.6 miles apart from one another). Reports of findings could be offset due to nuances or experiences shared only at those specific Regional Centers from which participants were obtained. As large a sample size as possible is always preferred as it helps to absorb any abnormalities recorded and provides a more holistic view of a particular population.
With that said, the sample size, although small, does provide access to a population that is otherwise very hard to reach. Contacting participants through Regional Centers allowed for a collection of data that would otherwise have been near impossible to obtain due to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPPA). An

51. 43
individual’s disability status is protected by law (there are some exceptions to this law). Through the assistance of Regional Centers, potential participants were able to be identified and invited to participate. By having the Regional Centers act as the contact conduit, participants were assured of the validity and genuineness of the researcher’s intent. Individuals who decided to participate were then given the opportunity to share their experiences in a comfortable environment. The interviews acted as an opportunity for a voice to be given to a population that is rarely heard from in their own words.
The unique challenges associated with sampling from a population of individuals with developmental disabilities should be considered in the category of limitations as well. Participants sometimes provided responses that were either extremely vague or extremely specific. The extremely vague responses led to the generation of overly broad categories that required refining, while the extremely specific responses led to some responses being uncategorized, as they were unique to the individual respondent. Some participants provided off topic responses or offered a response that did not fit the line of questioning being asked. For example, in response to the question of, “What has been most problematic in keeping a job?”, one participant replied by just nodding his head (this participant was excluded from the study). Some of the data recorded is nonsensical and adds no value to the overall answering of the questions asked. Interviewers did not consistently ask for clarification of convoluted responses. Such oversight may have led interviewers to miss out on opportunities to obtain greater depth into responses, as well as important clarifications. Such a limitation may be unique to studying this particular population.

52. 44
Lastly, although the employment history questionnaire was thorough, and provided several questions to better understand the employment experiences of adults with developmental disabilities, it was also long. Because the questionnaire was comprised of questions from other research studies in addition to the present study, the entire questionnaire, on average, took around 40 minutes for participants to complete. Not only could this long process have fatigued participants and caused them to reply with shorter answers, but the length may also have influenced some interviewers to avoid probing further into responses, as they did not want to extend the length of the interview.
Future Directions for Research
The present study sought to examine the work experiences of adults with developmental disabilities. It is clear that two areas should be further investigated: experiences of adults with developmental disabilities across the country, and the employer side of working with, and considering, adults with developmental disabilities for employment.
Future research should look to amass a larger sampling of participants with developmental disabilities from various states and various regions within those states. A larger sample will allow for a clearer picture of the work experiences of adults with developmental disabilities across the country. It would also be interesting to compare the relative employment experiences of individuals from different Regional Centers within the various states. No doubt the different practices in employment services offered by these Regional Centers would result in interesting differences in employment success of clients. Helping to identify the successful practices related to employment services would be a major contribution.

53. 45
When interviewing future participants with developmental disabilities, alternate methods in asking a question should be deployed. In future studies, interviewers should be cognizant of when a participant does not appear to understand a question, and before moving on to the next question, should try and rephrase the question in a way the participant may better comprehend. As in the study by Cramm et al. (2009), the Q- methodology was utilized allowing participants to rank order statements, and this method worked successfully. Perhaps in future studies a combination of open-ended responses with various ways to phrase the same question, forced choice statements, and q-cards could be used in aiding participants in understanding a question being asked of them. With different forms of media to better express themselves, participants may provide more concrete and comprehensible responses.
It is also worth investigating the reservations employers hold in recruiting individuals with developmental disabilities. Adults with developmental disabilities are an untapped resource that many employers may inadvertently overlook (Harbor Regional Center, 2012). As research and governmental data shows, adults with developmental disabilities want to work, but many struggle to find solid employment. Future research could investigate to what degree does this challenge reflect employer weariness of hiring an individual with developmental disabilities due to misguided fears of what such employment would entail (e.g., extra training, time spent overseeing, reliability, etc.). Further research may discover that, simply, employers are plainly unaware of this workforce resource available to them. An investigation into employer reservations may turn up valuable information as to why employers are not hiring more individuals with developmental disabilities. Findings could possibly lead to public service campaigns

54. 46
promoting the abilities of those individuals with developmental disabilities and thereby better informing employers.

55. 47
APPENDICES

56. 48
APPENDIX A
EMPLOYMENT HISTORY QUESTIONNAIRE

57. 49
EMPLOYMENT HISTORY QUESTIONNAIRE
Do you currently get paid for work?
 If yes:
o How many jobs?
o Ask questions 1.A – 1.E for each current job. If more than one job, be sure to label the responses as “job 1:” “job 2:” etc.
 If not currently working, assess the primary last job held:
o When was the last time you had a job?
o I’d like you to think about that job when answering the next set of questions. Phrase questions in past tense. Ask questions 1.A – 1.E for the primary last job held.
1. Information on employment
A. What is the name of the organization at which you work(ed) for pay?
B. What is (was) your job title?
 Work setting Ask as many of the following questions as necessary to determine which work setting applies: facility-based OR competitive employment with workplace supports OR competitive employment without workplace supports
C. I’d like to learn more about the place at which you work(ed). Do (Did) you work with other individuals with developmental disabilities?
D. Do (Did) you receive any supports to help you do your work, such as a job coach, specialized training, assistive technology, transportation, etc.? Interviewer’s best guess as to type of employment (check one): ___Facility-based workshop ___ Competitive employment with workplace supports

58. 50
___Competitive employment without workplace supports
E. In your job as (position title), how many hours do(did) you work per week in that job?
 Information on primary current job.
IF CURRENTLY WORKING: Ask the below questions for the one job the participant works the greatest number of hours. If no job has more hours than another, ask about the job for which he or she has worked the longest period of time. If unknown, ask him or her to pick one job. Star the job for which he or she is providing the following information.
IF NOT CURRENTLY WORKING, BUT HAS HAD A JOB IN THE PAST: Ask the following set of questions for the last job held.
Let’s just focus on the (position title) job for the following questions.
 How much money do you make in dollars per hour?
 How did you find the job?
 How long have you worked at this job?
 I am about to name a number of possible work supports. For each, please tell me whether or not you have received these forms of support at your job.
[Code: 1 – yes, 0 – no]
1) Pre-employment training?
2) Helping getting to and from work?
3) Help finding the job?
4) Extra support from co-workers or supervisor?
5) Assistive technology?
6) On-the-job coach?
7) Other supports?

59. 51
APPENDIX B
RESEARCH QUESTIONS OF THE CURRENT STUDY

60. 52
RESEARCH QUESTIONS OF THE CURRENT STUDY
In thinking about these last few questions, I’d like you to consider your work experience in general over the past few years.
1. Overall evaluative questions
a. What has been most rewarding about having a job?
b. What has been most helpful in helping you find a job?
c. What has been most helpful in helping you keep a job?
d. What has been most problematic in finding a job?
e. What has been most problematic in keeping a job?

61. 53
APPENDIX C
CODING OVERVIEW OF PARTICIPANT RESPONSES

62. 54
CODING OVERVIEW OF PARTICIPANT RESPONSES
TABLE 2. Coding Overview of Participant Responses
Categories of Coding Responses
Quotable Responses
Code-able Responsesa
Coded
Un-Coded Responses
Not Coded
No Response from Participant
What has been most rewarding about having a job?
59
53
3
3
What has been most helpful in helping you find a job?
49
39
8
2
What has been most helpful in helping you keep a job?
49
40
5
4
What has been most problematic in finding a job?
45
39
4
2
What has been most problematic in keeping job?
45
33
8
4
Note: The table displays each of the five open-ended research questions and the number of responses for each research question.
aThis number indicates the number of individually code-able responses to a question, for those participants that provided one or more code-able responses.

63. 55
REFERENCES

64. 56
REFERENCES
Achterberg, T. J., Wind, H. H., de Boer, A. M., & Frings-Dresen, M. W. (2009). Factors that promote or hinder young disabled people in work participation: A systematic review. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 19(2), 129-141.doi:10.1007/s
10926-009-9169-0
Benz, M. R., Lindstrom, L., & Yovanoff, P. (2000). Improving graduation and employment outcomes of students with disabilities: Predictive factors and student perspectives. Exceptional Children, 66(4), 509-529.
California State Council on Developmental Disabilities (2011). How does council define developmental disability?. Retrieved January 24, 2012 from http://www.scdd.ca.
gov/Developmental_Disabilities.htm
Chadsey, J., & Beyer, S. (2001). Social relationships in the workplace. Mental Retardation And Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews, 7(2), 128-133. doi:10.1002/mrdd.1018
Christian, L., Gillman, B., White, J., & Whitney, D.J. (2009, February). Working toward a brighter tomorrow: Employment expectations and realities. Presentation presented to the Association of Regional Center Agencies, San Francisco, CA.
Cramm, J. M., Finkenflügel, H. H., Kuijsten, R. R., & van Exel, N. A. (2009). How employment support and social integration programmes are viewed by the intellectually disabled. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 53(6), 512- 520. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2788.2009.01168.x
Dusseljee, J. E., Rijken, P. M., Cardol, M. M., Curfs, L. G., & Groenewegen, P. P. (2011). Participation in daytime activities among people with mild or moderate intellectual disability. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 55(1), 4-18. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2788.2010.01342.x
Eliason, S. L. (1998). Social integration and satisfaction among individuals with developmental disabilities: A sociological perspective. Education & Training in Mental Retardation & Developmental Disabilities, 33(2), 162-167.

65. 57
Ford, L., Dineen, J., & Hall, J. (1984). Is there life after placement?. Education & Training of the Mentally Retarded, 19(4), 291-296.
Greenspan, S., & Shoultz, B. (1981). Why mentally retarded adults lose their jobs: Social competence as a factor in work adjustment. Applied Research in Mental Retardation, 2(1), 23-38. doi:10.1016/0270-3092(81)90004-7
Harbor Regional Center. (2012, February). A partnership that works. Retrieved March 24, 2012 from http://www.harborrc.org/about/performance/report
Holmes, J., & Fillary, R. (2000). Handling small talk at work: Challenges for workers with intellectual disabilities. International Journal of Disability, Development And Education, 47(3), 273-291. doi:10.1080/713671114
Hutchison, P. (1994). Work and leisure: Paradoxes and dilemmas for people with developmental disabilities. Journal on Developmental Disabilities, 3(1), 1-15.
Irvine, A., & Lupart, J. (2008). Into the workforce: Employers' perspectives of inclusion. Developmental Disabilities Bulletin, 36(1-2), 225-250.
Jahoda, A., Banks, P., Dagnan, D., Kemp, J., Kerr, W., & Williams, V. (2009). Starting a new job: The social and emotional experience of people with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 22(5), 421- 425. doi:10.1111/j.1468-3148.2009.00497.x
Jahoda, A., Kemp, J., Riddell, S., & Banks, P. (2008). Feelings about work: A review of the socio-emotional impact of supported employment on people with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 21(1), 1-18.
Jiranek, D., & Kirby, N. (1990). The job satisfaction and/or psychological well being of young adults with an intellectual disability and nondisabled young adults in either sheltered employment, competitive employment or unemployment. Australia & New Zealand Journal of Developmental Disabilities, 16(2), 133-148.
Kessler Foundation and National Organization on Disability. (2010). The ADA, 20 years later. [Executive summary]. Retrieved from http://www.2010disabilitysurveys.
org/pdfs/surveysummary.pdf
Leiva, F., Ríos, F., & Martínez, T. (2006). Assessment of Interjudge Reliability in the Open-Ended Questions Coding Process. Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, 40(4), 519-537. doi:10.1007/s11135-005-1093-6
Lemaire, G., & Mallik, K. (2008). Barriers to supported employment for persons with developmental disabilities. Archives Of Psychiatric Nursing, 22(3), 147-155. doi:10.1016/j.apnu.2007.06.014

66. 58
Lengnick-Hall, M. L., Gaunt, P. M., & Kulkarni, M. (2008). Overlooked and underutilized: People with disabilities are an untapped human resource. Human Resource Management, 47(2), 255-273. doi:10.1002/hrm.20211
Mank, D., Cioffi, A., & Yovanoff, P. (1998). Employment outcomes for people with severe disabilities: Opportunities for improvement. Mental Retardation, 36(3), 205-216. doi:10.1352/0047-6765(1998)036<0205:EOFPWS>2.0.CO;2
Mank, D., Cioffi, A., & Yovanoff, P. (2003). Supported employment outcomes across a decade: Is there evidence of improvement in the quality of implementation? Mental Retardation, 41(3), 188-197. doi:10.1352/0047-6765(2003)41<188:
SEOAAD>2.0.CO;2
Martin, J. E., Rusch, F. R., Lagomarcino, T., & Chadsey-Rusch, J. (1986). Comparison between nonhandicapped and mentally retarded workers: Why they lose their jobs. Applied Research in Mental Retardation, 7(4), 467-474. doi:10.1016/S0270- 3092(86)80019-4
Mayring, P. (2000). Qualitative content analysis. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung /Forum: Qualitative Social Research [On-line Journal], 1(2). Retrieved from: http://qualitative-research.net/fqs/fqs-e/2-00inhalt-e.htm
McConkey, R., & Mezza, F. (2001). Employment aspirations of people with learning disabilities attending day centres. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 5(4), 309-318.
NBC News Investigations. (2013, June). Disabled workers paid just pennies an hour – and it’s legal. Retrieved June, 1 2014 from http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_
news/2013/06/25/19062348-disabled-workers-paid-just-pennies-an-hour-and-its- legal
Reid, P. M., & Bray, A. (1998). Real jobs: The perspectives of workers with learning difficulties. Disability & Society, 13(2), 229-239. doi:10.1080/09687599826803
Rice, C., Schendel, C., Cunniff, C., & Doernberg, N. (2004). Public health monitoring of developmental disabilities with a focus on the autism spectrum disorders. American Journal of Medical Genetics Part C, 125C(1), 22-27. doi:10.1002/
ajmg.c.30006
Riches, V. C., & Green, V. A. (2003). Social integration in the workplace for people with disabilities: An Australian perspective. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 19(3), 127-142.

67. 59
Riesen, T. (2010). Postschool employment alternatives. In J. McDonnell, M. L. Hardman, J. McDonnell, & M. L. Hardman (Eds.), Successful transition programs: Pathways for students with intellectual and developmental disabilities (2nd ed., pp. 296-319). Thousand Oaks, CA US: Sage Publications, Inc.
Sandys, J. (2007). Work and employment for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities. In I. Brown & M. Percy (Eds.), A comprehensive guide to intellectual and developmental disabilities (pp. 527-543). Baltimore, MD: Paul H Brookes.
Schmidt, M., & Smith, D. L. (2007). Individuals with Disabilities Perceptions on Preparedness for the Workforce and Factors that Limit Employment. Work: Journal of Prevention, Assessment & Rehabilitation, 28(1), 13-21.
Schwamm, J. B. (1986). Transitional service centers: From school to work for students with developmental disabilities. Rehabilitation Literature, 47(9-10), 236- 239.
Siporin, S., & Lysack, C. (2004). Quality of life and supported employment: A case study of three women with developmental disabilities. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 58(4), 455-465.
Smith, J. (2012). The work expectations of individuals with developmental disabilities (Unpublished master’s thesis). California State University, Long Beach.
State of California Department of Industrial Relations. (2014, January). Minimum wage. Retrieved April 5, 2014 from http://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/faq_minimumwage.htm
Stephens, D. L., Collins, M. D., & Dodder, R. A. (2005). A longitudinal study of employment and skill acquisition among individuals with developmental disabilities. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 26(5), 469-486. doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2003.12.003
Test, D. W., Carver, T., Ewers, L., Haddad, J., & Person, J. (2000). Longitudinal job satisfaction of persons in supported employment. Education & Training in Mental Retardation & Developmental Disabilities, 35(4), 365-373.
United States Census Bureau. (2014, July). State & county quickfacts. Retrieved October 5, 2014 from http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/06059.html
United States Department of Labor. (2014, June). Employment of workers with disabilities. Retrieved June 1, 2014 from http://www.dol.gov/whd/
specialemployment/workers_with_disabilities.htm

68. 60
United States Department of Labor Statistics. (2014a, March). Earnings and unemployment rates by educational attainment. Retrieved October 5, 2014 from http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_chart_001.htm
United States Department of Labor Statistics. (2014b, August). Employment status of the civilian population by sex, age, and disability status, not seasonally adjusted. Retrieved August 9, 2014 from http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t06.htm
Warren, L. (1986). Helping the developmentally disabled adult. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 40(4), 227-229.
Wehmeyer, M. L., & Garner, N. W. (2003). The impact of personal characteristics of people with intellectual and developmental disability on self-determination and autonomous functioning. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 16(4), 255-265. doi:10.1046/j.1468-3148.2003.00161.x
Yamaki, K., & Fujiura, G. T. (2002). Employment and income status of adults with developmental disabilities living in the community. Mental Retardation, 40(2), 132-141. doi:10.1352/0047-6765(2002)040<0132:EAISOA>2.0.CO;2

69. 61