Tom Seekins, Ph.D.,
send email
Research and Training Center on Disability in Rural Communities, The University of Montana Rural Institute,  Missoula, Montana.

Reprinted with permission from the Goodwill FORUM, Vol. 8, No. 2, 1994.

---

The U.S. labor market is undergoing a shift toward a pattern that reflects a more contingent employment economy. Vocational rehabilitation service providers should consider their current practices and strategies to ensure that they are in tune with such emerging trends.

Self-employment, a legitimate vocational rehabilitation closure, is one area of significant employment growth and is particularly prevalent in rural areas. Further, significantly more people who report a work disability also report being self-employed than their counterparts who do not report a work disability.

Some general facts about self-employment and disability, culled from the U.S. Bureau of the Census and the Rehabilitation Services Administration, include the following:

A greater percentage of people living in rural than urban areas are self-employed. Nearly 13% of rural workers are self-employed while only 7% of urban workers are so employed.

A greater percentage of people who report a work disability also report being self-employed than those without a disability. Nearly 15% (520,000) of people who report a work disability also report being self-employed, while only 8% of those with no work disability report being self-employed.

Nationally, vocational rehabilitation providers close only about 2 to 3% of their cases to self-employment (4,871 in 1988). These closures cannot account for the high rate of self-employment by people who report a work disability.

Vocational Rehabilitation closures to self-employment are significantly more likely in rural than in urban states.

Vocational Rehabilitation and Self-Employment

The Rural Institute on Disabilities conducted three national studies, from late 1992 through early 1993, on the use of self-employment by vocational rehabilitation (VR) counselors. First, we surveyed VR counselors in a total of 45 urban and rural states about their attitudes toward the use of self-employment, using a mail-based questionnaire. Second, we conducted in-depth phone interviews and mailed questionnaires to counselors, asking them how they went about using self-employment as a closure. Finally, we collected and analyzed policies of each states VR agency in relation to self-employment. Some of our findings include:

Generally speaking, VR counselors who had more positive attitudes toward self-employment were more likely to use it as a closure.

In reviewing state policies on the use of self-employment as a vocational rehabilitation closure, we have identified 16 different frameworks that range from no procedures at all to highly structured and detailed procedures that specify a range of people and programs (e.g., client, counselor, supervisor, agency committee, internal and external business consultants) that are to be involved in such cases, and client eligibility characteristics.

VR closures to self-employment cover a wide range of occupations, including agriculture, health care, automotive services, building and trades, landscaping, animal care services, food and beverage services, hunting and fishing industries, entertainment, clothing, arts and crafts, repair services, furniture services, offices services, personal services, and a host of miscellaneous occupations.

As part of our research, we have identified a number of creative approaches to using self-employment as a vocational rehabilitation closure. They have ranged from simple referrals to ad hoc arrangements with local community and economic development programs that approximate a program of supported self-employment.

Speculation About A Model

Models for providing vocational rehabilitation services have evolved and continue to change in response to changing markets and clienteles, and changes in social goals and technology. One discernable trend appears to be an evolution to more-integrated rehabilitation programs and services. Most recently this evolution has been exemplified by the emergence of supported employment.

Undoubtedly, vocational rehabilitation programs and services will continue to evolve. The direction of this evolution may, to some extent, be both anticipated and shaped. One direction to consider seriously involves an emphasis on the use of self-employment for vocational rehabilitation. The remainder of this paper presents some speculation about how self-employment might be incorporated into the program of services offered by community rehabilitation facilities. This model involves integrating community rehabilitation facility services with economic development programs operated within their catchment areas.

The accompanying chart outlines one model for integrating community rehabilitation facilities with community economic development programs. Traditionally, community rehabilitation facilities, such as Goodwill Industries, have provided employment training and preparation for individuals with disadvantages and less severe disabilities, and sheltered employment for individuals with disabilities.

Typically, these services have been driven by referrals and contracts with such agencies as vocational rehabilitation or the Employment Service. Employment training programs have prepared employees for competing more effectively for jobs in the general community economy. Sheltered employment programs have provided direct, supervised employment (including, more recently, supported employment). This has traditionally involved developing contracts for services (e.g., packaging, assembling, manufacturing) from businesses operating in the general community economy.

One possible mechanism for integrating a community rehabilitation facility's services with community economic development programs is to develop a business/entrepreneurial incubator as part of the organizations services. Business/entrepreneurial incubators provide a range of educational and support services to individuals attempting to start a business. They are funded by a range of mechanisms, including grants, contracts, and fees, depending on their nature and mission. Their clients come from a variety of sources, including self-referral, community development program referrals, and even vocational rehabilitation referrals.

Components of a business/entrepreneurial incubator that most community rehabilitation facilities already have in some form include a business advisory council, a site, business support services, contracted production capacity, trainees, vocational evaluation services and marketing capacity.

A community rehabilitation facility does indeed have many components required of an incubator, or infrastructure that could be easily modified to meet these requirements.

For example, a major characteristic of most community rehabilitation facilities is the facility itself--a portion of which might be set aside, as needed, for incubation. Many rehabilitation facilities even have business advisory councils that can provide overall direction, specific advice, mentoring, and even markets for businesses emerging from the incubator.

Most community rehabilitation facilities have on-site business support services (e.g., bookkeeping) that couldalso be provided to incubating businesses. Perhaps more importantly, they provide training and supported work in other services that new business could use, such as office skills, janitorial services and production work. Community rehabilitation facilities also often have marketing capacities that an incubating business could use to develop and execute a marketing plan.

Components of a business incubator that a rehabilitation facility would probably need to develop or acquire include entrepreneurial training, small business development training and support, entrepreneurial support groups, services to earn development capital, and program funding and support. These components might be developed internally, by hiring or retraining staff. Alternatively, an existing incubator might be acquired in some fashion (e.g., merger).

Some of the goals and benefits of this new linkage, to the rehabilitation facility, would be the expansion of operations and markets, orientation to economic trends, the opportunity to appeal to an expanded client base, increased employment options, greater integration of the general population and individuals with disabilities, the opportunity to generate income through subsidiaries, the repositioning of the organization as one deeply involved in the community's development, the chance to create and launch businesses that have a history of working with the facility, and the provision of work adjustment and training operators.

Potential obstacles that would have to be considered in planning and developing such a new program would be competition with facility services and existing community businesses, turf issues with economic development programs, impaired ability to serve current clients and the ability to secure funding.

Potential sources of revenue for business/entrepreneurial incubators would include vocational rehabilitation services, local or regional community/economic development programs, local development banks, state grants and contracts, private investments, fees for services and federal demonstration grants. Perhaps the most realistic expectation at this point is for a group of interested facilities to seek support for program demonstration from federal or state agencies.

Summary

The focus of vocational rehabilitation has historically involved preparing employees to work at jobs that have been created by entrepreneurs in the private sector. In rural and other economically disadvantaged areas such employment opportunities may be limited.

One alternative for community rehabilitation facilities involves an expansion of their role to include involvement in local community economic development; both creating businesses that may later hire their clients, and directly helping their clients to create businesses that contribute to the local economic base. This direction is speculative in nature, but much of the infrastructure for such a step already exists, and we are trying to develop some demonstrations of this approach.

---

Acknowledgment

Preparation of this paper was supported by grant #G0087C0228. The opinions expressed in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the policy of the Department of Education, and you should not assume endorsement by the Federal government.

References

Rehabilitation Services Administration. (1988). Case Service Reports. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitation Services.

U.S. Bureau of the Census. (1989). Labor Force Status and Other Characteristics of Persons With a Work Disability: 1981 to 1988. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

U.S. Bureau of the Census. (1988). Rural and Rural Farm Population: 1988. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

U.S. Bureau of the Census. (1983). Labor Force Status and Other Characteristics of Persons With a Work Disability: 1982. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Questions? Would you like to receive periodic updates about our research and training activities? Do you have comments or suggestions about this site? E-mail your requests, comments and suggestions to Diana Spas or call 888-268-2743 and ask for the Information Coordinator.