Skip to main content Skip to chatbot

Competitive Integrated Employment

  • Butterworth, J., & Fesko, S. (Eds.). (1998). Conversion to Integrated Employment: Case Studies of Organizational Change (Volume 1). Boston. (Retrieved) 
    This monograph contains a description of agencies who have converted from sheltered/enclave employment to integrated employment. It provides history of the conversion to integrated employment, participant perspectives on the conversion process, critical conversion process themes, and current organizational challenges form three organizations who made the conversion from a sheltered workshop environment to community-based employment services: Bonney Enterprises (Corvallis, Oregon), United Cerebral Palsy Association of the Capitol Area (Austin, Texas), and the Independence Association (Brunswick, Maine).
  • Cimera, R. E., Wehman, P., West, M., & Burgess, S. (2012). Do sheltered workshops enhance employment outcomes for adults with autism spectrum disorder? Autism: The International Journal of Research and Practice, 16(1), 87–94.
    Researchers compared two groups of 215 people living with ASD. The first group transitioned from a sheltered workshop into integrated employment. The second group began with integrated employment. Although there was no difference in employment rates, those who only participated in integrated employment (without sheltered workshop experience) earned more than $60/week (on average) than their peers. Those who did not participate in sheltered workshops cost tax payers an average of $3625 less per person than their peers who first participated in sheltered workshops.
  • Fesko, S. L. Butterworth, J. (Eds.). (1999). Conversion to Integrated Employment: Case Studies of Organizational Change (Volume 2). Boston: Institute for Community Inclusion. Retrieved from
    This monograph contains a description of agencies who have converted from sheltered/enclave employment to integrated employment. It provides history of the conversion to integrated employment, participant perspectives on the conversion process, critical conversion process themes, and current organizational challenges form three organizations who made the conversion from a sheltered workshop environment to community-based employment services: Community Enterprises, (Northampton, Massachusetts), Life Skills Foundation (St. Louis, Missouri), MetroWest Human Services (Ashland, Massachusetts). It also provides organizational perspectives on closing a facility based program.
  • Fesko,S. L., & Butterworth, J. (Eds.). (2001). Conversion to Integrated Employment: Case Studies of Organizational Change (Volume 3). Boston: Institute for Community Inclusion. Retrieved from 
    This monograph is the third in a series of three. It provides the conclusion to a project which studied agencies who have converted from sheltered/enclave employment to integrated employment. It provides history of the conversion to integrated employment, participant perspectives on the conversion process, critical conversion process themes, and current organizational challenges form three organizations who made the conversion from a sheltered workshop environment to community-based employment services: Emory Valley Center (Oak Ridge, Tennessee), Ranch Community Services (Menomonee Falls, Wisconsin), Rural Employment Alternatives (Conroy, Iowa), Valley of the Sun School (Phoenix, Arizona).
  • Gidugu, V. & Rogers, E. S. (2012). Review of Employment Services for Individuals with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities: A Comprehensive Review of the State-of-the-Field from 1996–2011. Boston: Boston University, Sargent College, Center for Psychiatric Rehabilitation.
    Literature review which outlines key findings and conclusions about integrated employment for people with ID/DD. Provides an explanation of sheltered workshops including historical background, legislation and federal policy regarding funding for employment services utilized by people with ID/DD. Defines customized employment, discusses the lack in growth within nonsegregated work environments due to what is referred to as a "Dual System" of funding and practical application. Outlines factors which create barriers to providing integrated employment for people with ID/DD despite policies and legislative changes which encourage integrated employment. Discusses the disparities of working in an integrated work setting and not achieving a wage which allows an individual to become financially self-sufficient. Discusses the lack of employment models with strong research designs referenced in published literature specific to integrating people with ID/DD into community settings. Discusses the funding rates of segregated vs integrated employment. Discusses the vide variations in employment service delivery across the state and federal VR system in terms of outcomes and employment rates. Defines the types and qualities of integrated employment, barriers to employment and predictors of successful employment outcomes.

Back to top

  • Henn, J., & Henn, M. (2007). Facilitating integrated employment outcomes for individuals with significant disabilities: Parents’ perspective. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 26(1), 1–3. (Permission Received).
    Parents of a daughter who tests in the bottom 10% of all those who have autism write an editorial about her ability to maintain full-time community integrated employment for 12 years. They address concerns, misconceptions and outline nine initiatives which can make integrated employment a reality for people living with severe disabilities. They also set forth the challenge to question the supposed advantages of sheltered workshops and explain how their daughter uses her own income to help support having a one-to-one job coach, outlining funding source percentages.
  • Inge, K. J. (2006). Customized employment : A growing strategy for facilitating inclusive employment. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 24, 191–193.
    The author discusses customized employment and the relation to supported employment. The pitfalls of historical SE such as people still being placed in jobs that are driven by the local labor market rather than identification of negotiated position and non-stereotypical careers is discussed and CE is being suggested as the alternative to SE to ensure that individuals with disabilities become competitively employed in jobs of choice. The field may just need a paradigm shift to make competitive employment "the first choice" vs. segregated facility-based services that still proliferate in the United States.
  • Leahy, M. J., Chan, F., & Lui, J. (2014). Evidence-based best practices in the public vocational rehabilitation program that lead to employment outcomes. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 41(2), 83–86.
    The Author discusses the disparity of employment for able-bodied vs. disabled in the work force and the fact that the numbers have not changed regardless of services from the state rehabilitation programs. He also discusses this problem for people with disabilities in terms of vulnerability to a higher prevalence of depression and anxiety disorders, and alcohol use. Benefit analysis models of service provision and labor market outcomes also demonstrate that VR services have positive long-term labor market outcome effects that substantially exceed the cost of providing service. The program is facing some formidable challenges. For example, the average hourly earnings of all VR customers in competitive employment are only 52% of the general work force and minorities receive only 80% of the services provided to European American customers. The U.S. Office of Management and Budget and Federal agencies (2006) gave the state-federal VR program an adequate performance rating, indicating a strong need for the agency to (a) set more ambitious goals, (b) achieve better results, (c) improve accountability, and (d) strengthen its management practices. Similarly, GAO (2003) indicated the state-federal VR program among other federal disability programs need to keep abreast with scientific advances, and economic and social changes.
  • Migliore, A., Mank, D., Grossia, T., & Rogan, P. (2007). Integrated employment or sheltered workshops: Preferences of adults with intellectual disabilities, their families, and staff. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 26(2007), 5–19.
    Explores the perceptions of both people living with Intellectual Disabilities, family members and caregivers pertaining to working outside a sheltered workshop. Discusses goals of current sheltered workshop environments. Discusses the rationale behind the sheltered workshops. Identifies other names for sheltered workshops. Identifies concerns and attitudes of people living with ID, families and sheltered workshop staff members regarding working in an integrated employment setting. Concludes that the majority of people would prefer integrated employment options over sheltered workshops and that working in the community is possible when appropriate support is available.
  • Migliore, A., Grossi, T., Mank, D., & Rogan, P. (2008). Why do adults with intellectual disabilities work in sheltered workshops? Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 28(1), 29–40.
    Researchers explore factors which influence choosing a sheltered workshop over integrated employment in 210 adults attending sheltered workshops to better understand the discrepancy between the literature indicating that people living with disabilities/family members prefer integrated employment and the growing rates of workers enrolled in sheltered workshops. Researchers included the family members and sheltered workshop staff working with the 210 participants to determine that the most influential factors of choosing a sheltered workshop were for families (Long-term placement, safety, work environment and social environment at work) and staff (social environment at work, safety and long-term placement). Researchers determined that 40% of families, 46% of adults with intellectual disabilities, and 60% of staff said no one had encouraged the adults with disabilities to seek work outside a sheltered setting. The people most likely to encourage work outside of a sheltered environment were case managers (31%), vocational rehabilitation counselors (29%) and mothers (26%). People most likely to encourage sheltered workshops were case managers (43%), Mothers (30%) and residential services staff (30%). 37% of families said that their loved one chose a sheltered workshop on their own. 23% of families did not know there was an option other than sheltered workshops for their family member. In addition to discussing important factors prioritized by participants which influenced the decision to work in a sheltered workshop, researchers discuss how attitudes of family members and service providers have an overarching influence of all the factors deemed important. Researchers discuss how adjusting attitudes of service providers regarding the capacity and abilities of people with intellectual disabilities will directly influence opportunities for employment outside a sheltered workshop for people with intellectual disabilities.
  • Rogers, C., Lavin, D., Tran, T., Gantenbein, T., & Sharpe, M. (2008). Customized Employment: Changing what it means to be qualified in the workforce for transition-aged youth and young adults. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 28(3), 191–207.
    Current school-to-career transition practices are not leading to sufficient levels of competitive employment and post- secondary education outcomes for youth and young adults with significant disabilities. To address this concern, a coalition in a Twin Cities suburban area established an “interagency community of practice” to explore systems change opportunities and to improve school-to-career outcomes. The Anoka County Transition & Customized Employment (TCE) Project was designed to inject an “employment-first” philosophy into transition practices by introducing a range of customized employment strategies.
  • Rogan, P., & Rinne, S. (2011). National call for organizational change from sheltered to integrated employment.Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 49(4), 248–260. View Source
    Explains how and why organizational transition from sheltered workshops is both possible and necessary. Explores civil rights issues involved in the segregating workers with disabilities from society. Discusses average pay rates of people in sheltered workshops and disincentive funding policies Compares sheltered workshops and integrated employment. Outlines organizational change components, resistance/barriers and how to circumvent them, and strategies to complete the change process.
  • Rudstam, H., Hittleman, M., Pi, S., & Gower, W. S. (2013). Bridging the knowing-doing gap: Researching a new approach to disability and employment programming. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 39(1), 43–60.
    This study looks at the causes behind the disappointing outcomes of ADA and other legislation on the impact of the number of PWD who are unemployed. The reasons are multi-facetted and complex. This study proposed that it is clear that a knowing-doing gap has limited the effectiveness of efforts to change these disappointing statistics. That is, though employers have a basic knowledge of the ADA, this knowledge is largely not being translated into actions or practices. Approaches are needed that go beyond merely disseminating information to actively engage employers in bringing about organizational change.

Back to top