Perspectives of people with intellectual disability about open, sheltered and social enterprise employment

Abstract

Purpose People with intellectual disability have a low rate of employment in Australia and internationally. Their low employment rate is set within a context of limited employment choices. Further, the most common types of work currently undertaken by people with intellectual disability – open and sheltered employment – have limitations and may not be suitable for everyone. Expanding the employment choices available represents an important way forward, but evidence is needed to guide the expansion. This paper aims to contribute to the evidence required by comparing people with intellectual disability’s experience and outcomes in open and sheltered employment to their experience and outcomes working in social enterprises, which is becoming an important alternative employment option for this group. Design/methodology/approach The paper uses the qualitative accounts of 51 people with intellectual disability to compare experiences and outcomes in open, sheltered and social enterprise employment in Australia. Findings The paper finds that social enterprises combine some of the benefits of open and sheltered employment and thus expand employment choice. However, the level of business/market development and opportunities for employment in social enterprises are currently limited and require further development and scale to enable social enterprises to be an option for more people with intellectual disability. Policy implications are drawn out for expanding employment choice, in particular through social enterprise employment, for people with intellectual disability. Originality/value The paper offers the first three-way comparison of open, sheltered and social enterprise employment for people with intellectual disability, contributing to both the disability employment and social enterprise literature.

People with intellectual disabilities as business owners: A systematic review of peer‐reviewed literature

“…For most microenterprise owners (in common with sheltered employment options) the income generated tends to be relatively modest and therefore supplements rather than replaces income from welfare benefits. However, unlike sheltered employment, microenterprise seems to support skill development, confidence and greater social inclusion and community participation; outcomes often associated with open employment (Meltzer et al, 2018). Microenterprise appears to offer benefits over and above those of open employment in that it is often more tailored to the interests and passions of people with intellectual disability.…”

“…Though terminology may vary, in many developed nations, the policy debate regarding employment for people with disabilities – particularly intellectual disabilities – has largely centred around segregated employment in sheltered workshops versus integrated employment, that is, mainstream employment working predominantly with co‐workers without disability, usually whilst receiving support (Beyer et al, 2010; Parmenter, 2011). Integrated employment options now also include some social enterprises whose social mission includes the provision of employment opportunities to people with disabilities (Lysaght et al, 2018; Meltzer et al, 2018; Smith et al, 2018). However, a third employment pathway is emerging, that of microenterprise.…”

“…Currently, 20,000 people with intellectual disability are employed in Disability Enterprises (Australian Government, 2020). Sheltered employment is more easily accessible for people with intellectual disabilities than integrated employment, can provide accommodations and support, and maintains eligibility for the disability support pension (Meltzer et al, 2018; Parmenter, 2011). Yet in Australia, as well as internationally, such employment has been criticised as promoting segregation, as people work predominantly with others with disability (Powers, 2008).…”

From social activism to active socialization: The evolution of football ideology in community‐owned football clubs

“…Given this rationale, the work adopts an interpretive, inductive approach with an emphasis on the collation of subjective accounts. The work builds on recent qualitative explorations into SE (Bradford et al, 2018; Meltzer et al, 2018; Sutton, McEachern, & Kane, 2018), and SE and sport (Reid, 2017). Ultimately, these methods offer “flexibility in questioning and the opportunity to direct the conversation to draw out experiences, while maintaining consistency over the concepts discussed” (Sutton et al, 2018, p. 332).…”

“…At a fundamental level, SE is encapsulated by a business mandate that is part traditional and part social (Fotheringham & Saunders, 2014). SE practice has placed emphasis on the eradication of poverty (Fotheringham & Saunders, 2014), homelessness (Gerrard, 2018), gender inequality (Smith, 2013), unemployment (Fioritti, D'Alema, Barone, & Bruschetta, 2014), and the enhancement of mental health (Jeanes, Spaaij, & Magee, 2018; Meltzer, Kayess, & Bates, 2018). Moreover, such practice is said to provide communities with new skills (Barraket, 2014), as well as to provide normative, positive interactions that enhance personal wellbeing (Farmer et al, 2016).…”