of 10

Employment

Published on March 2017 | Categories: Documents | Downloads: 12 | Comments: 0
281 views

Comments

Content

29

Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation 26 (2007) 29–37
IOS Press

Public views on employment of people with
intellectual disabilities
Philip Burgea,b,∗ , H´el`ene Ouellette-Kuntza,b,c and Rosemary Lysaght b,d
a

Department of Psychiatry, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada
South Eastern Ontario Community-University Research Alliance in Intellectual Disabilities, Canada
c
Department of Community Health and Epidemiology, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada
d
School of Rehabilitation Therapy, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada
b

Accepted /Revised October 2006

Abstract. Understanding the views of the public is an important factor in building effective programs that promote integrated
employment. This article presents the results of a study conducted by an alliance of researchers and community partners to
elucidate public perceptions regarding work inclusion of people with an intellectual disability. The study consisted of a telephone
poll conducted throughout a large region of the Province of Ontario, Canada. A majority of the 680 respondents believed that
some form of integrated work is best for most adults with an intellectual disability. About 87% of respondents believed that hiring
people with intellectual disabilities would not negatively affect the image of workplaces. Respondents indicated that a lack of
employment training programs for people with intellectual disabilities was a major obstacle to increased inclusion.
Keywords: Employment, work, attitudes, intellectual disabilities, developmental disability, mental retardation, integration, inclusion

1. Introduction
Employment is a central feature of life for the majority of adults. Work provides an opportunity for economic self-sufficiency, fosters social connectedness to
others in society, contributes to a sense of dignity and
self worth, and serves as a means of self-expression [3,
6]. Research indicates that the perceived benefits of
work for persons with intellectual disabilities 1 (ID) are
similar to those of the non-disabled population; namely,
the sense of feeling productive and staying busy, having relationships with co-workers, feeling important,
increased income, and having opportunities for continued growth and advancement [7,11,14]. There are also
∗ Address for correspondence: Philip Burge, Queen’s University,
c/o Ongwanada, 191 Portsmouth Ave, Kingston, Ontario, Canada
K7M 8A6. Tel.: +1 613 548 4417; Fax: +1 613 549 7387; E-mail:
[email protected]
1 ID is increasingly the term which is replacing developmental disabilities (Canada), learning disabilities (UK) and mental retardation
(USA).

economic benefits to society of employment for persons with disabilities, reflected in lower support costs
and income from tax revenues paid by those earning
over the minimum wage [15,29,35].
In most western economies, however, people with
ID are under-represented in the labour market. Reported employment rates for the general populations
of the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom
range from 75% to 95% [24,32,33], while rates for persons with ID in those countries, are reported at anywhere from 9–28%, depending on the location, sample
composition and definition of “work” [25,28,36]. Few
of these employees work full time [10,28,36] and the
majority work in service occupations, which offer low
wages and little opportunity for advancement [9,10,17,
18,36]. Research has yet to report on rates of adults
with ID who are potentially employable and seeking
work.
While a number of sheltered employment options remain for people with ID, the trend over the past 30 years
has been to move people into mainstream employment

1052-2263/07/$17.00  2007 – IOS Press and the authors. All rights reserved

30

P. Burge et al. / Public views on employment of people with intellectual disabilities

settings [19]. Supported employment has offered opportunities for increasing the number of workers with
disabilities who otherwise could not enter mainstream
employment. The movement towards integrated employment suggests that the general public will come
into increasingly greater contact with people with ID
as potential employers, supervisors, or as co-workers.
Given the predominance of persons with ID in service
sector jobs, the public may also be provided services
by people with ID.
Public attitudes toward the integration of workers
with ID are salient on several levels. Successful employment outcomes depend on the availability of suitable employment options, the willingness of employers
to hire, and the presence of adequate support systems
in the workplace [5,18]. In addition, for true inclusion
to occur, workers with special needs must become part
of the workplace and interact meaningfully with other workers [14,18,21]. Despite the growing recognition of the role of attitudes in employment, research
on attitudes towards workers with ID in particular has
been rather limited. Several studies have addressed
employer views, and have revealed that favourable attitudes towards hiring are associated with previous contact with people with disabilities, larger company size,
and female gender [5,16,22,26,27]; however there remains a paucity of research examining the attitudes of
co-workers or the general public towards people with
ID in mainstream jobs.
A number of questions addressing attitudes towards
employment were included in a poll of the general public on attitudes toward the inclusion in society of people with ID conducted in the fall of 2004. Results relating to the public’s views on employment for people
with ID, including perceived impacts and barriers, were
analyzed and are reported here.

2.2. Instrument
The questionnaire, used in the Multinational Study
of Attitudes toward Individuals with Intellectual Disabilities and originally developed by researchers at the
Center for Social Development and Education at the
University of Massachusetts at Boston [31], was modified for use in Ontario. Developed for administration
by telephone, the interview measured public perceptions of the competence of individuals with ID and beliefs about their inclusion in the workplace, community,
and schools. Modifications were made to better reflect
Canadian concepts and common terms. Items were
added to the employment section and a social distance
scale [2] was included. The concept of social distance
expresses a willingness to recognize, live near, or be
associated with persons belonging to different groups.
The modified survey was pilot tested with five adults
and completion required about 16 minutes.
2.3. Participants
A stratified random sample of adults residing in the
six county area of Southeastern Ontario, population
519,200 [12], was obtained. Following stratification
of the region into 27 geographic areas, a random telephone contact list of individuals to be called was created using InfoCanada’s electronic databank of telephone white pages residential phone numbers (i.e., Select Phone Canada). To ensure representation from
each area, sampling across strata was based on the following quota rule: 1 in 440 households or a minimum
of 25 households per geographic area.
In total 2949 potential respondents were contacted.
The final sample included 680 respondents and the proportion from each county very closely approximated
the proportion of citizens living within each county of
the region. The actual completion rate was 23%. The
margin of error for a sample of 680 is ± 3 percentage
points for most responses, 19 times out of 20.
2.4. Analysis

2. Method
2.1. Objectives
The objectives of the study were to determine the
public’s perception of the best type of employment for
adults with ID, and to explore views on the perceived
effects of integrated employment and barriers to such
inclusion. We also examined whether opinions were
associated with respondent characteristics.

Responses were tabulated to reflect the public’s perception of (a) the best type of employment for most
adults with ID, (b) the impacts of people with ID working alongside workers without ID, and (c) barriers to
workplace inclusion. The relationship between perceptions and respondent characteristics was examined using proportions, Chi square statistics, odds ratios and
confidence intervals. A significance level of 0.05 was
set a priori for all analyses conducted. All statistical
analyses were carried out using SPSS version 12 for
Windows.

P. Burge et al. / Public views on employment of people with intellectual disabilities

3. Results
Respondents were presented with four types of employment and asked to indicate which was best for most
adults with ID. Of the four options presented to respondents, an “unskilled job with workers without ID” was
most often identified as the best type of employment for
most adults with ID (43.7%). Less than 1% believed
most adults with ID should not work (see Fig. 1).
To better understand the characteristics of those who
did not favour integration, further analyses were conducted. Respondent surveys were divided into two
groups based on the response concerning the “best type
of employment for workers with ID”: integrated employment and segregated employment. Respondents
who favored a segregated workplace for most adults
with ID (34.1%) differed from those favouring an integrated workplace on a number of sociodemographic
characteristics. They tended to be male, older, have
a lower level of education, and not be employed (see
Table 1). No significant differences were observed
based on level of income, geography, or having a family
member with ID.
Those who favoured segregated employment were
also more likely to perceive most adults with ID to
function at a moderate to severe range of disability,
and to report a higher degree of social distance (see
Table 2).
When presented with seven potentially negative impacts when people with ID are hired into jobs and working alongside individuals without ID, the majority of
respondents (72%) believed that workers with ID would
likely require more monitoring to ensure the job is correctly completed. However, a minority of between approximately 12–45% rated the other six as “likely” or
“very likely” to occur (Table 3).
Respondents who favoured segregated employment
were two to over three and a half times more likely to
identify these potential impacts as likely or very likely,
and all between group differences were significant at
the 0.01 level (Table 4).
Respondents were also asked about views on four
possible major obstacles to hiring people with an ID.
The two possible major obstacles most frequently endorsed were “there are no job training programs in the
community to prepare them for work” (71.7%) and
“bosses thinking people with ID don’t have the required
job skills” (69.2%) (Table 5). Approximately half of
respondents endorsed the view that negative attitudes
of other employees would be a barrier to hiring.

Skilled Job w ith Should not w ork
0.5%
Workers w ithout ID
21.7%

31

Special Workshop
w ith Other People
w ith ID
34.1%

Unskilled job w ith
w orkers w ithout ID
43.7%

* Excluded were 55 individuals out of 677 respondents who did not
know how to respond (47) or refused to answer (8).

Fig. 1. Views on best type of employment for most adults with ID
(n = 622).

Differences in perceptions among respondents on the
four potential major obstacles were analyzed according
to respondents’ preferences for integrated or segregated
employment for most adults with ID (Table 6). Only
views on one obstacle, “people with ID have difficulty
doing their job because of their ID”, were found to be
significantly different between groups. Respondents
who viewed segregated work as appropriate for most
adults with ID were 1.51 times more likely to view this
as an obstacle (df = 1, p = 0.04), although only 30%
of that sample perceived it as a potential problem.

4. Discussion
Measurements of public perceptions of integrated
employment for people with ID can point to potential
sources of societal support, as well as indicate specific
challenges which must be considered when promoting
inclusive employment. Never before has a level of support for integrated employment of people with ID been
reported from a sizable sample of the Canadian public.
Furthermore, the finding of the high level of support for
integrated workplaces was not anticipated and can act
as a baseline against which to compare subsequent similar investigations. The study also met its other objectives regarding exploring the respondents’ views of the
impacts of integrated employment and possible barriers
to achieving this. Nevertheless, the opinion poll results
should be cautiously considered in light of potential
limitations presented by the slight over-representation
of female respondents, a group often reported to have
more pro-social views.

32

P. Burge et al. / Public views on employment of people with intellectual disabilities
Table 1
Differences in attitudes towards employment of adults with ID according to respondent characteristics
Respondent characteristics

Gender (n = 617)
Female
Male

Best type of employment
for most adults with ID1
Segregated2
Integrated3
n (%)
n (%)

Odds ratio
(95% confidence
interval)

Significance
value

χ2 = 9.875
d.f. = 1
p-value = 0.00

121 (58%)
89 (42%)

286 (70%)
121 (30%)

1
1.74 (1.23–2.46)

Age category (n = 601)
18–24 years
25–44 years
45–64 years
65+ years

11 (5%)
47 (23%)
80 (39%)
67 (33%)

27 (7%)
145 (37%)
153 (39%)
71 (18%)

1
0.79 (0.37–1.73)
1.28 (0.61–2.72)
2.31 (1.06–5.02)

Education level4 (n = 614)
Low
Medium
High

94 (45%)
77 (37%)
38 (18%)

145 (36%)
156 (39%)
104 (26%)

1.77 (1.13–2.79)
1.35 (0.85–2.14)
1

84 (43%)
120 (57%)

266 (66%)
136 (34%)

1
2.64 (1.87–3.72)

Income level (n = 520)
<$20,000
$20,000 to <$60,000
$60,000 to <$100,000
$100,000 plus

21 (12%)
90 (52%)
49 (28%)
13 (7%)

30 (9%)
165 (48%)
106 (30%)
46 (13%)

2.48 (1.08–5.68)
1.93 (0.99–3.76)
1.64 (0.68–1.47)
1

χ2 = 5.651
d.f. = 3
p-value = 0.13

Geographic area (n = 619)
Eastern counties
Central counties
Western counties

82 (39%)
74 (35%)
56 (26%)

158 (39%)
143 (35%)
106 (26%)

0.99 (0.64–1.50)
0.98 (0.68–1.47)
1

χ2 = 0.010
d.f. = 2
p-value = 0.99

65 (31%)
144 (69%)

134 (33%)
273 (67%)

1
1.09 (0.76–1.55)

χ2 = 0.210
d.f = 1
p-value = 0.65

Employment status (n = 611)
Employed
Not Employed

Has a family member with ID
(n = 616)
Yes
No

χ2 = 21.184
d.f. = 3
p-value = 0.00
χ2 = 6.433
d.f. = 2
p-value = 0.04
χ2 = 31.422
d.f. = 2
p-value = 0.00

1 Excludes

respondents who said ‘should not work’, ‘don’t know’ or who refused to answer (n = 61).
respondents choosing “in a special workshop only for workers with ID”.
3 Includes respondents choosing “alongside workers without ID in either skilled or unskilled jobs”.
4 Low = High school or less, Medium = post secondary other than university including community
college and trade school, High = university degree.
2 Includes

Results of this poll revealed positive attitudes among
members of the general public towards mainstream employment of people with ID. Perhaps the most significant finding was that 65% of respondents viewed integrated employment as best for most adults with ID. The
majority of respondents who believed that most persons
with ID should work in integrated employment settings
did not perceive potential problems to be likely with respect to safety, productivity, or company image. These
views are consistent with previous studies of employers who have experience with workers with ID, most of
whom report positive contributions of workers with ID
in the workplace, specifically noting improved public
image [8,23,26], cost effectiveness [8], stability [8,22,
23] and contributions related to work performance [23,
26].

Of significant interest is the minority (34%) of respondents who believe that segregated employment is
most appropriate for persons with ID, since understanding the attitudes of this group will direct future research
and efforts by our community research partners toward
breaking down attitudinal barriers towards fully inclusive employment. We questioned why these views exist among some members of the general public. One
explanation may lie in the impression of ID held by persons in this sub-group. Those who favored segregated
employment were significantly more likely to envision
the typical worker with ID as having moderate to severe disability, and to perceive greater social distance
between themselves and persons with ID than did other
respondents. The existence of this viewpoint is of interest, given statistical evidence that moderate to severe
disability accounts for only 13% of the total popula-

P. Burge et al. / Public views on employment of people with intellectual disabilities

33

Table 2
Differences in attitudes towards employment of adults with ID according to views of intellectual
disabilities
Views of intellectual disabilities

Best type of employment
for most adults with ID1
Segregated2
Integrated3
n (%)
n (%)

Odds ratio
(95% confidence
interval)

Significance
value

Level of disability perceived for
most adults with ID (n = 596)
Mild
Moderate/Severe

85 (42%)
118 (58%)

256 (68%)
121 (32%)

1
2.94 (2.06–4.18)

χ2 = 36.910
d.f = 1
p-value = 0.00

Social distance (n = 617)
Low
Moderate/High

23 (11%)
187 (89%)

103 (25%)
304 (75%)

1
2.75 (1.69–4.48)

χ2 =17.565
d.f = 1
p-value = 0.00

1 Excludes

respondents who said ‘should not work’, ‘don’t know’ or who refused to answer (n = 61).
respondents choosing “in a special workshop only for workers with ID”.
3 Includes respondents choosing “alongside workers without ID in either skilled or unskilled jobs”.
2 Includes

Table 3
Percentage of respondents viewing impacts to integrated employment as likely or very
likely
Potential impact
Impacts on the workplace
Negatively impact the image
Create more accidents and safety problems
Lower productivity

n

% of sample

77
150
160

11.6
22.9
24.3

Impacts on workers with ID
Higher rates of absenteeism and lateness
Trouble getting along with others
Trouble controlling their emotions
Require more monitoring to ensure work correctly completed

85
125
277
478

12.9
19.3
45.0
72.0

∗ Between

14 and 66 respondents reported ‘don’t know’, ‘refused’, or had missing data
on each of these items. These responses were omitted from the calculation of results.

tion of persons with ID [1]. Indeed, other researchers
have consistently reported that samples of the general
public typically hold images of people with ID as less
capable than they are in reality [20]. According to one
expert in this field of research, explanations for such
findings relate both to the strong influence of frequent
media portrayals of people with moderate to severe ID
along with the relative unrecognizability by the general public of people with mild ID (Siperstein, personal
communication, May 3, 2006).
Equally intriguing is the fact that respondents favoring segregated employment had roughly similar levels of personal contact with people with ID as those
favouring integrated employment,who as a group, were
more likely to perceive people with ID as mildly disabled. Mental images concerning the average level of
disability may relate to the nature of previous exposure
or contact with people with ID. The research literature
on attitudes and contact with people with ID has often
noted the complex relationship between these two variables [4,13]. If the primary past exposure of a respondent had been indirect through the media or direct with

someone who was severely disabled, this experience
may have shaped a negative attitude and belief that the
average person with ID was moderately to severely impaired. Indeed, an Israeli study of corporate executives
indicated that employers whose previous experiences
had been primarily with individuals who had mild ID
held more favourable attitudes toward employability
than those who lacked such contact, and this tendency
towards increased favorability was not present when
the previous contact had been to people with moderate
ID [27].
Even individuals with in-depth knowledge of ID may
have reservations about integrated employment, as seen
in one study of special education teachers whose students had been involved in community work placements [30]. While this highly aware group was generally in favour of integrated employment, they indicated some ambivalence, based on their awareness of the
potential problems for the workers with ID themselves,
including social exclusion in the workplace, lack of
sufficient supports, parental opposition, and frustration
in the workplace. These influences on perception may

34

P. Burge et al. / Public views on employment of people with intellectual disabilities
Table 4
Differences in perceptions of impact on workplaces and workers with ID based on attitudes towards
integration
Impact

Best type of employment
for most adults with ID1
Segregated2
Integrated3
n (%)
n (%)

Odds ratio
(95% confidence
interval)

Significance
value

Negatively impact the image
of workplace (n = 610)
Yes
No

44 (21%)
162 (79%)

30 (7%)
374 (93%)

3.39 (2.06–5.58)
1

χ2 = 24.849
d.f = 1
p-value = 0.00

Lower productivity (n = 601)
Yes
No

82 (40%)
122 (60%)

65 (16%)
332 (84%)

3.43 (2.33–5.05)
1

χ2 = 41.393
d.f = 1
p-value = 0.00

Create more accidents and
safety problems (n = 599)
Yes
No

80 (40%)
121 (60%)

61 (15%)
337 (85%)

3.65 (2.47–5.41)
1

χ2 = 44.447
d.f = 1
p-value = 0.00

Higher rates of absenteeism
and lateness (n = 606)
Yes
No

46 (22%)
162 (78%)

35 (9%)
363 (91%)

2.94 (1.83–4.75)
1

χ2 = 20.94
d.f = 1
p-value = 0.00

Trouble getting along
with others (n = 593)
Yes
No

53 (26%)
149 (74%)

57 (15%)
334 (85%)

2.08 (1.37–3.18)
1

χ2 = 11.984
d.f = 1
p-value = 0.00

Trouble controlling their
emotions (n = 566)
Yes
No

111 (59%)
76 (41%)

141 (37%)
238 (63%)

2.47 (1.72–3.53)
1

χ2 = 24.884
d.f = 1
p-value = 0.00

Require more monitoring
to ensure work correctly
completed (n = 609)
Yes
No

168 (81%)
40 (19%)

272 (68%)
129 (32%)

1.99 (1.33–2.98)
1

χ2 = 11.436
d.f = 1
p-value = 0.00

1 Excludes

respondents who said ‘should not work’, ‘don’t know’ or who refused to answer (n = 61).
respondents choosing “in a special workshop only for workers with ID”.
3 Includes respondents choosing “alongside workers without ID in either skilled or unskilled jobs”.
2 Includes

Table 5
Percentage of respondents endorsing major obstacles to hiring people with ID
Major obstacle
People with ID have difficulty doing their job because they’re ID
Employees negative attitudes and non-acceptance of people with ID
Bosses thinking people with ID don’t have the required job skills
There are no job training programs in the community to prepare them for work

n
161
351
452
459

% of sample
25.0
53.4
69.2
71.7

∗ Between

23–40 respondents reported ‘don’t know’, ‘refused’, or had missing data on each of these
items. These responses were omitted from the calculation of results.

help explain why views in favor of segregation emerged
even among many of those in our sample who reported
having a family member with ID.
Public attitudes are a key area to address, particularly if in-roads are to be made with respect to public
policy. In order to build positive attitudes, it is important to address misconceptions, and to attend to issues
that are reasonable concerns of those in the workforce.

The results of a recent study of employer attitudes [22]
revealed safety issues to be the greatest reported concern among even those employers who had previously hired a person with an ID, despite evidence to the
contrary [26,34]. Research has also demonstrated that
enhanced understanding of disability within the workplace is key to the success of inclusive employment.
Repeated studies have shown that supported workers

P. Burge et al. / Public views on employment of people with intellectual disabilities

35

Table 6
Differences in perceptions of major obstacles to inclusion in the workplace according to opinion of best
type of employment
Major obstacle

Best type of employment
for most adults with ID1
Segregated2
Integrated3
n (%)
n (%)

Odds ratio
(95% confidence
interval)

Significance
value

Bosses thinking people with
ID don’t have the required
job skills (n = 603)
Yes
No

142 (70%)
61 (30%)

278 (70%)
122 (30%)

1.02 (0.71–1.48)
1

χ2 = 0.013
d.f = 1
p-value = 0.91

There are no job training
programs in the community to
prepare them for work (n = 588)
Yes
No

151 (75%)
50 (25%)

278 (72%)
109 (28%)

1.18 (0.80–1.75)
1

χ2 = 0.726
d.f = 1
p-value = 0.39

People with ID have difficulty
doing their job because of their
ID (n = 591)
Yes
No

60 (30%)
142 (70%)

85 (22%)
304 (78%)

1.51 (1.03–2.22)
1

χ2 = 4.427
d.f = 1
p-value = 0.04

Employees have negative
attitudes and will not
be accepting (n = 606)
Yes
No

120 (57%)
89 (43%)

202 (51%)
195 (49%)

1.30 (0.93–1.82)
1

χ2 = 2.348
d.f = 1
p-value = 0.13

1 Excludes

respondents who said ‘should not work’, ‘don’t know’ or who refused to answer (n = 61).
a sheltered workplace only for workers with ID.
3 Alongside workers without ID in either skilled or unskilled jobs.
2 In

with ID have better levels of workplace integration
and higher wages in situations where supervisors and
co-workers have received training and have been involved in the worker’s orientation to the job [18]. Our
study’s finding that views supporting segregated employment were associated with some misperceptions
reinforces the need for education, as do the high rates
of endorsement for the view that “others” (employers
and co-workers) would likely have negative views of
workers with ID. These findings lend support to efforts to expand availability of job training programs –
perceived by most of our sample to be inadequate –
which could include a focus on training for supervisors
and co-workers to include them as part of the natural
support system for workers with ID.
Valid concerns with respect to employment placement are important for counsellors to address to ensure success from both employer and employee perspectives. Cooper [8] noted that many of the concerns voiced by employers, such as the requirement
for greater supervision and more time required to learn
work tasks, are reasonable. Factors reported to be most
important to making a positive hiring decision by employers were work quality, safety behaviours, emotional control and reliability [5], as well as the availability

of jobs at lower skill levels [8]. From this perspective,
it may be that an appropriate match of worker skills, interests and attributes to job requirements is as important
as other efforts to overcome negative stereotypes. Successful placement is likely to then contribute to building positive perceptions of workers with ID, creating a
positive upward spiral.
It should be noted that the available research concerning employer attitudes toward hiring has studied
only attitudes towards hiring, rather than actual hiring
practices, and as such, the link between attitudes and
hiring behaviour is unclear. Further, while a strong
relationship has been established between previous experience with workers or trainees with ID and positive
attitudes toward hiring, this has not been established as
a causal relationship. It is not known, for example, if
positive previous experience builds positive attitudes,
or if a receptive attitude leads to hiring of a person with
ID in the first place. It is of interest, however, that in
interviews with employers, the most frequently reported incentives for hiring workers with ID were “social
altruism, personal satisfaction, and assistance with performing menial tasks” [5, p. 216] indicating that at least
in some markets, it may be a propensity towards social
responsibility rather than business needs that guides

36

P. Burge et al. / Public views on employment of people with intellectual disabilities

decision making. However, relatively few respondents
(25%) to our study perceived that the average person
with ID would have difficulty with the job because of
the ID itself.

[4]

[5]

[6]

5. Conclusion
[7]

Advocates continue to promote enhanced levels of
workplace integration. Our findings on public perceptions of integrated employment for people with ID provide advocates, caregivers and policy makers awareness of potential sources of support in society, as well as
challenges which must be considered when promoting
social inclusion. As these efforts continue, further research into the various perceived and actual impacts and
barriers should be undertaken to inform advocacy and
to guide steps toward addressing the many perceived
and real challenges to achieving inclusive employment
for most people with ID.

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

Acknowledgements
[13]

The authors wish to thank the survey respondents
as well as Gary N. Siperstein and Jennifer Bardon
Norins from the Center for Social Development and
Education (University of Massachusetts at Boston),
project coordinator Beth Peterkin, Kendra Thin and
Lisa Woodcock of Queen’s University and research assistant Megan Hamel. Funding for the South Eastern
Ontario Community-University Research Alliance in
Intellectual Disabilities (www.seocura.org) was provided by a grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities
Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) [#833-200031008]. The views expressed in this article are not necessarily the views of all SEO CURA in ID partners,
researchers, collaborators or of SSHRC.

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

References
[19]
[1]

[2]

[3]

American Psychiatric Association, Diagnostic and Statistical
Manual of Mental Disorders, (4th ed., text revision), Washington, DC: Author, 2000.
R.F. Antonak and R. Harth, Psychometric analyses and revision of the Mental Retardation Attitude Inventory, Mental
Retardation 32 (1994), 272–280.
N.A. Baker, K. Jacobs and L. Tickle-Degnen, A methodology
for developing evidence about meaning in occupation: Exploring the meaning of working, OTJR: Occupation, Participation
and Health 23 (2003), 57–66.

[20]

[21]

M. Begab, Impact of education on social work students’
knowledge and attitudes about mental retardation, American
Journal of Mental Deficiency 74 (1970), 801–808.
L.A. Blessing and J. Jamieson, Employing persons with developmental disability: effect of previous experience, Canadian
Journal of Rehabilitation 12 (1999), 211–221.
A.P. Brief and W.R. Nord, Meanings of Occupational Work – A
Collection of Essays, Chapter 1, Lexington Books: Lexington,
Massachusetts, 1990, 1–19.
B.F. Cooney, Exploring perspectives on transition of youth
with disabilities: Voices of young adults, parents, and professionals, Mental Retardation 40 (2002), 425–435.
B. Cooper, Employment potential of persons with mild intellectual impairments, Canadian Journal of Rehabilitation 2
(1991), 81–92.
J.M. Dale, Employment Outcomes Project, Tillsonburg, ON,
Community Involvement Council and The Employment Outcomes Committee, 2003.
S.L. Fesko, D. Temelini and A. Graham, Unrealized Potential:
Differing employment outcomes for individuals with mental
retardation and other disability groups, Research to Practice
Institute for Community Inclusion, 1997.
R. Freedman and S. Fesko, Research to practice: Consumer
and family perspectives on the meaning of work, MA: Institute
for Community Inclusion, Children’s Hospital, Boston, 1995,
2–3.
Government of Ontario, Canada, Ontario population projections, 1999–2028, 2000. Retrieved July 03, 2002 from
the Ministry of Finance Website: http://www.gov.on.ca/FIN/
hmpage.html.
S. Graffi and P. Minnes, Attitudes of primary school children
toward the physical appearance and labels associated with
Down syndrome, American Journal on Mental Retardation 93
(1988), 28–35.
R. Kober and I.R.C. Eggleton, The effect of different types of
employment on quality of life, Journal of Intellectual Disability Research 49 (2005), 756–760.
J. Kregel, Why it pays to hire workers with developmental
disabilities, Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities 14 (1999), 130–132, 139.
J.M. Levy, Determinants of attitudes of New York State employers towards the employment of persons with severe handicaps, Journal of Rehabilitation 59 (1993), 49–54.
R. Lysaght, H. Ouellette-Kuntz and S. Buzinski, Employment trends of individuals with intellectual disabilities in
South Eastern Ontario: Analysis of placement data from fourteen agencies. Kingston, ON: 2006; South Eastern Ontario
Community-University Research Alliance in Intellectual Disabilities.
D. Mank, A. Cioffi and P. Yovanoff, Supported employment
outcomes across a decade: Is there evidence of improvement in
the quality of implementation? Mental Retardation 41 (2003),
188–197.
D. Mank, C.T. O’Neill and R. Jensen, Quality in supported employment: a new demonstration of the capabilities of people
with severe disabilities, Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation
11 (1998), 83–95.
D.L. MacMillan, G.N. Siperstein and F.M. Gresham, A challenge to the viability of mild mental retardation as a diagnostic
category, Exceptional Children 62 (1996), 356–371.
P. Minnes, K. Buell, M.A. Feldman, M.A. McColl and B. McCreary, Community integration as acculturation: Preliminary
validation of the AIMS interview, Journal of Applied Research
in Intellectual Disability 15 (2002), 377–387.

P. Burge et al. / Public views on employment of people with intellectual disabilities
[22]

[23]

[24]
[25]

[26]

[27]

[28]

[29]

R.L. Morgan and M. Alexander, The employer’s perception:
Employment of individuals with developmental disabilities,
Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation 23 (2005), 39–49.
J. Nietupski, S. Hamre-Nietupski, N.S. VanderHart and K.
Fishback, Employer perceptions of the benefits and concerns
of supported employment, Education and Training in Mental
Retardation 31 (1996), 310–323.
Office for National Statistics. Employment rate up to 74.7%
in 3 months to April 2006. 1–2. 6 A.D.
M.F. Olney and J. Kennedy, National estimates of vocational
service utilization and job placement rates for adults with
mental retardation, Mental Retardation 39 (2001), 32–39.
D. Olson, A. Cioffi, P. Yovanoff and D. Mank, Employers’
perceptions of employees with mental retardation, Journal of
Vocational Rehabilitation 16 (2001), 125–133.
A. Rimmerman, Factors Relating to Attitudes of Israeli Corporate Executives Toward the Employability of Persons with
Intellectual Disability, Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability 23 (1998), 245–255.
J. Rose, K. Saunders, E. Hensel and B.S. Kroese, Factors affecting the likelihood that people with intellectual disabilities
will gain employment, Journal of Intellectual Disabilities 9
(2005), 9–23.
F.R. Rusch, E. Szymanski and J. Chadsey-Rusch, Transition

[30]

[31]

[32]
[33]
[34]

[35]

[36]

37

from School to Adult Life – Models, Linkages, and Policy,
Chapter 1, Brooks/Cole Publishing: Pacific Grove, CA, 1992,
5–15.
L. Schmelkin Pedhazur and D.E. Berkell, Educators’ attitudes
toward the employability of persons with severe handicaps,
CDEI 12 (1989), 40–47.
Special Olympics, 2004. Retrieved April 15, 2004 from the
website http://www.specialolympics.org/special+olympics+
public+website/english/initiatives/research/multinational+
study.htm.
Statistics Canada, Latest release from the labour force survey,
2006.
US Department of Labor, B. o. L. S. (2006). Current labor
statistics.
US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 2004. Questions & Answers about Persons with Intellectual Disabilities
in the Workplace and the Americans with Disabilities Act.
http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/intellectual disabilities.html.
P. Wehman, Work, unemployment and disability: meeting the
challenges, Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation 11 (1998),
1–3.
K. Yamaki and G.T. Fujiura, Employment and income status of
adults with developmental disabilities living in the community,
Mental Retardation 40 (2002), 132–141.

Sponsor Documents


Recommended

No recommend documents

Or use your account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Forgot your password?

Or register your new account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link to create a new password.

Back to log-in

Close