The Tyranny of Fit: Yet another Barrier to Mainstream Employment for Disabled People in Sheltered Employment

Abstract

Policies that encourage the aspirations of disabled people for mainstream employment might be an effective way to increase their workforce participation rate. This study aims to determine which people in sheltered employment aspire to a job beyond their current sheltered employment job. We asked 64 people with sheltered employment jobs about their workplace and job fit, their intentions to stay in their current job and their future job aspirations. The key finding is that perceptions of fit indirectly and adversely affect aspirations via intention to stay. Participants who felt they fitted planned to keep working at their sheltered workplace, but a stronger intention to stay made it less likely that they could identify an alternative to sheltered employment. These results were not influenced by age or the time spent in sheltered employment. Policy should therefore support people in sheltered employment to develop realistic job aspirations. Helping disabled people to identify opportunities beyond sheltered employment can avoid complacency and free up sheltered job opportunities for other disabled people. But policy changes are required to leverage sheltered employment as a first step for disabled people to develop mainstream job aspirations and facilitate transitioning beyond sheltered employment job options.

Successful employment outcomes for people with disabilities: A proposed conceptual model.

“…The term mainstream employment refers to “work in the regular workforce for which workers with disability receive wages and conditions of employment commensurate with workers without disability” (Cheng et al, 2018; p.318). In contrast, sheltered employment refers to situations in which work is offered to people with a disability who experience severe barriers to working in mainstream employment (Hemphill & Kulik, 2017). Our focus on the former follows the global trend of governments prioritizing mainstream employment because the segregation of people with disabilities in sheltered employment settings is detrimental to the creation of an inclusive labor market (Burge et al, 2007; Hemphill & Kulik, 2017).…”

“…The determinants of motivation include financial remuneration, the need for social connections, and having confidence in one's ability to work (Andrews & Rose, 2010). The personal motivation of people with disabilities is constrained by their self-perception, family and peer expectations, and the broader workforce (Hemphill & Kulik, 2017).…”

Trends and opportunities in research on disability and work: An interdisciplinary perspective

“…“Performance and employment outcomes,” includes issues related to PwD’s situation in the labor market (Ettner et al, 1997; O’Brien, 2013), sheltered employment for them (Hemphill & Kulik, 2017), as well as the management of public policies and trade unions to favor the employment of workers with disabilities (Vall Castelló, 2017). In addition, the results of absenteeism and labor productivity are presented in some articles (Lysaght et al, 2017; Malo & Pagan, 2012).…”

“…Less examined topics have been identified as new avenues for further research. Such topics are related to issues such as the socialization of employees with disabilities in organizations (Kulkarni & Lengnick-Hall, 2011), strategies to be followed by the PwD to find employment (Kulkarni, 2016), supported employment (Hemphill & Kulik, 2017), the development and learning of PwD to become entrepreneurs (Bagheri & Abbariki, 2017), and studies on deficiently studied predictors of employment of minorities with disabilities, such as autism and intellectual disability (Lysaght et al, 2017).…”

From Criminalisation to Individual Choice: Policy Responses to Changing Constructions of Intellectual Disability in Western Australia

“…Tuckerman et al (2012) suggest that sheltered workplaces disadvantage people with ID by providing little choice, low pay, repetitive work and reduced contact with the broader community. Nevertheless, they can offer enhanced workplace safety, workplace and task support, socialisation, job satisfaction and job security for people who would otherwise be unemployed (Hemphill & Kulik 2017).…”