Self-Employment in Vocational Rehabilitation: Introduction

Nancy L. Arnold, Ph.D., Editor, email Nancy
email the Rural Institute
Research and Training Center on Disability in Rural Communities,
The University of Montana Rural Institute: A Center of Excellence in Disability Education, Research and Services,
52 Corbin Hall,
Missoula, MT 59812-7056

January, 1996

Dedication
This monograph is dedicated to people with disabilities who are achieving independence through becoming self-employed, to those who want to follow in their path, and to the rehabilitation agencies and counselors who are assisting people with disabilities fulfill their goals of personal independence.

Foreword

The study of rural rehabilitation has two important benefits.First, it contributes directly to the improvement of rehabilitation services available in rural areas by developing innovations tailored specifically to the problems and resources in rural communities. Second, it offers lessons about disability and rehabilitation, in general. The study of self-employment is one example of these two benefits.

Our interest in self-employment emerged from our efforts to identify and develop innovations of particular utility in rural rehabilitation. Our work led us to ask questions about the relationship between rural vocational rehabilitation and rural economic development. It has also led to a set of much broader questions of importance in rehabilitation.

The first set of broader questions stems from the observation that, compared to the general population, proportionately more people with disabilities report being self-employed. Who are these people? How did they become self-employed? What do they do? How much money do they make? How long does self-employment last? Are they satisfied with their employment? How does being self-employed change the perception of disability? What role do business owners with disabilities play in the disability movement? What roles do they play in their communities?

The second set of questions involves the relationship between vocational rehabilitation and economic development. These questions point out, by contrast, that the VR model is based on serving individuals, and point toward the possibility of an alternative, community model.

The intent of this monograph is to raise questions and spark discussion on the opportunities that rural economic development, self-employment, and vocational rehabilitation offer each other. Perhaps, like a barn-raising, these articles can bring us together to build something useful.

--- Tom Seekins, Ph.D., Director,
Research and Training Center on Disability in Rural Communities

Acknowledgments: There were many people who contributed to this monograph on self-employment. An observation by Bob Donaldson, past Director of the Montana Division of Vocational Rehabilitation and Visual Services, that self-employment appeared to be used as an employment outcome more frequently in rural areas, sparked the interest of Tom Seekins, Director of the Research and Training Center on Disability in Rural Communities (RTC: Rural). It was because of Dr. Seekins' interest in this predominately essential role that entrepreneurship and self-employment play in many rural individuals pursuit of economic independence that the RTC: Rural's research was conducted and this monograph was published.

Articles co-authored by and describing the pioneering work of other programs also need to be acknowledged. RTC: Rural gratefully acknowledges the collaboration and contributions of Kay Schriner, Dale Verstegen, and Ann Temkin.

Within RTC: Rural, Craig Ravesloot, Cheryl Vandenberg, and Peg Plimpton contributed to the research effort. Thanks go to Alexandra Enders, RTC: Rural's Training Director, for her input on public policy and self-employment, and to Nick Baker, RTC: Rural's staff writer, for editing and preparing the monograph for publication.

RTC: Rural would like to acknowledge the contributions of Joe Mathews, John Balsam, and Paul Larson. Joe Mathews, administrator of Montana's Rehabilitative/Visual Services Division was interested in and supportive of RTC: Rural's work in self-employment. It was through the efforts of Montana's State Vocational Rehabilitation agency, and its Missoula office in particular, that much of the background information on the use of self-employment as a vocational rehabilitation employment outcome was developed. John Balsam, regional director of Montana Business Connections at The University of Montana spent many hours with the editor discussing the prevalence, importance, and role of self-employment in rural areas. Paul Larson, professor of management at The University of Montana, provided his expertise in the area of entrepreneurship and business development.

Others who are pioneering in the area of self-employment for people with disabilities contributed.

Thanks to the vocational rehabilitation counselors who participated in RTC: Rural's initial interviews, and telephone and mail surveys. Thanks also to the research committee members of the Council of State Administrators of Vocational Rehabilitation for their assistance, and to the state agencies that forwarded self-employment policies and procedures and who granted permission for RTC: Rural to survey counselors in their states.

The RTC: Rural also acknowledges and thanks the Missoulian, the Journal of Rehabilitation Administration, the Goodwill FORUM, and the Journal of Disability Policy Studies for their permission to reprint articles, the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR) for supporting this important work for people with disabilities (grant number G0087C0228), and to RTC: Rural's NIDRR project officer, Delores Watkins, for her encouragement and support.

Introduction

Kay Schriner, Ph.D.
Research and Training Center in Vocational Rehabilitation
University of Arkansas
Fayetteville, Arkansas

With this document, the Research and Training Center on Rural Rehabilitation Services prompts us to think anew about the possibilities of self-employment. Self-employment is a part of the American dream. People are drawn to the notion of working for themselves in a way they are not attracted to working for someone else. Americans think of self-employment as a way to control their own futures and to make work more fulfilling. Self-employment is individualistic, but also has a strong connection to the cultural make-up of the country. It stresses independence and self-sufficiency, but is also believed to promote economic vitality for the country as a whole. It is often thought to be a route to economic well-being, but may be accepted as simply a way to get by without yielding to someone else's control over one's work. In short, the psychological and social dimensions of self-employment speak to some ancient and unshakable part of the human psyche.

For the general U.S. population, self-employment is a more popular option now than it has been since the end of World War I (Aronson, 1991). And, consistent with this trend, the field of rehabilitation is taking a fresh look at self-employment and its fit in today's economy. Rehabilitation agencies are developing new approaches to promoting the development of small businesses and other self-employment opportunities for their consumers.

The University of Montana's Research and Training Center on Rural Rehabilitation Services is playing an important role in conducting research that helps us understand the policy and practice issues that need to be addressed. This monograph is the culmination of several years of research activity devoted to this topic, and will be welcomed by the many individuals and organizations with interests in self-employment.

In the lead article, Allan Forrester challenges us to re-examine our assumptions about jobs. "Jobs" is too narrow a concept for the earnings opportunities that exist in today's economy. Indeed, the "de-jobbing of America"--to use Forrester's phrase--has resulted in countless opportunities for people with innovative ideas, marketable skills, and perseverance to earn money providing needed products and services. This free-wheeling environment is challenging, and often difficult, but is also less structured than the post World War II economic environment. It offers tremendous opportunity for those who are ready to take advantage of it.

The state/federal vocational rehabilitation program historically has relied on placements into existing jobs to create employment opportunities for its consumers, and has had a relatively minor emphasis on self-employment. In fact, my cursory review of the textbooks typically used in rehabilitation counseling training turned up no mention of self-employment, in contrast to the exhaustive (and often excellent) discussion and description of placement techniques. This orientation has been a sensible one, given the long period of economic growth following World War II. During that period, large businesses dominated the landscape, and offered secure employment with advancement opportunities for millions of Americans.

Now, with large corporations shrinking in size and importance, the rise of the small business and service sectors, and the labor market changes that accompany these structural changes, we may want to reconsider the VR reliance on placement. There are fewer jobs in which to place people, and often, these jobs are less desirable than those entry-level positions that VR has typically found for its consumers. Forrester's call to "expand opportunities for consumers to explore self-employment" is a rallying cry for us all to consider ways to reshape VR services in response to economic change.

Forrester's comments indicate that there are many kinds of self-employment. Working for oneself may be temporary, home-based, contractual, or part-time. The story of Don Whitticar provides an example of one of these arrangements. Whitticar has found that home-based employment offers him a chance to earn income and to use his artistic talents. The Montana VR agency helped him identify his strengths and acquire the training and tools he would need to make a go of it as an wildlife engraver. This story demonstrates the potential for a state vocational rehabilitation agency to provide a comprehensive approach to assisting an individual with a disability to implement a rehabilitation program directed to self-employment.

Now, however, Whitticar faces the challenge of making the transition from dependence on Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) payments to economic self-sufficiency. The work penalties of SSDI, as his story indicates, are often a significant barrier to employment, and illustrate the contradictions of our disability policy. Under current policy, we spend far more of our limited resources on income maintenance programs than on vocational rehabilitation programs that could reduce unemployment, poverty, and dependence (Berkowitz, 1987). These are policy issues that we will have to face if we are ever to solve the unemployment problem for people with disabilities.

Don Whitticar's story also raises an interesting question about the criteria for judging self-employment opportunities. Given the history of segregation experienced by people with disabilities, and the rapid shift toward a preference for integrated employment, we may be tempted to argue that public funds should not be used to support home-based job development (Arnold, personal communication, August 28, 1995). Mr. Whitticar's story helps illustrate the tension we face in balancing the need to help individuals achieve their goals( which may not conform to professional ideals) with the need to promote the values of integration and inclusion in public programs.

The next papers report the results of several studies examining the policies and practices of state vocational rehabilitation agencies. The first of these, by Nancy Arnold and Tom Seekins, reviews state agency policies toward self-employment and verifies what we have suspected about the orientation and practices of many agencies. Practices vary widely, self-employment is generally viewed as a risky alternative, and many counselors have not been provided the training necessary to guide consumers into self-employment. Their paper indicates that the organizational culture of VR agencies supports the making of employees, not businesspeople.

The best part of this article may be the appendix, which offers a model policy for state rehabilitation agencies. The model policy emphasizes assessment, training, technical assistance, review, and follow-up--a comprehensive approach to promoting self-employment through the VR service delivery system. State agencies may use this appendix to review and revitalize their own approaches to supporting the self-employment outcomes desired by consumers.

In the next paper, Arnold and Seekins join their colleague, Craig Ravesloot, in reporting three studies of self-employment closures in rural and urban areas. In the first, they find that the use of self-employment is more prevalent in rural states. In the second, they report that rural counselors on average make significantly more self-employment closures than do urban counselors, and view self-employment more positively than do urban counselors on several qualitative dimensions. Their third study indicates that consumers have established a variety of businesses using VR services, ranging from bird and worm farming to appliance repair, and beyond. This research report underscores the point that, in many ways, self-employment is a metaphor for rural rehabilitation. However, their research should not be dismissed as having implications only for rehabilitation practice in rural areas; we should all re-examine our assumptions about self-employment and resolve to make self-employment opportunities available for those consumers who want them, no matter where they live.

Ravesloot and Seekins then present their research on the attitudes of vocational rehabilitation counselors toward self-employment. They find that VR counselors attitudes are influenced by environmental factors that include their past experience with self-employment, the atmosphere of the VR office, and their state's policy toward self-employment. These findings raise important questions about how the kind of training and experience VR counselors should have regarding self-employment and the supports provided for self-employment strategies throughout the vocational rehabilitation agency.

In the next article, Tom Seekins speculates on the possibility that community rehabilitation facilities could operate as small business incubators--a strategy that would integrate the facility's services with economic development efforts of "mainstream" economic and community development programs. This proposed partnership of rehabilitation and economic development is a timely and provocative idea. It responds to the problems of declining resources for public investment and increased pressure for programs to be effective. It is important, however, to remember history when evaluating such ideas. Community rehabilitation facilities are slow to change, and many have not adopted new service modalities such as supported employment (and, typically, those that have, have simply added it to existing services). Any efforts to transform facilities will encounter strong resistance.

The final two papers in the monograph, by Ann Temkin, and Dale Verstegen and Nancy Arnold, are testimony to the power of good ideas executed by committed people. Ann Temkin's work with CORE is an example of a program directed to the expressed needs of consumers, in this case people living in rural areas for whom and the current orientation of vocational rehabilitation agencies and counselors toward self-employment. It offers us glimpses of how self-employment can work for individuals with disabilities, and how innovative programs can promote the effective use of public resources to establish small business opportunities.

This is a time of tremendous opportunity. We can experiment much more with self-employment. We can apply research and development resources to promoting self-employment opportunities that make it possible for individuals to become economically self-sufficient, and that also help make communities more accessible and accommodative. We can try the incubator approach described in this monograph. We can continue to develop and expand interagency collaborations of the kind Dale Verstegen is involved in. We can evaluate the efforts of programs like CORE. And, we can try other approaches not mentioned in this monograph, such as the microenterprise strategy that has shown so much promise for creating jobs, alleviating poverty, and creating social change in communities across the country (Clark & Huston, 1993).

In the microenterprise model, the dual goals of promoting individual economic self-sufficiency and social change are targeted through the provision of small amounts of credit, business training, and group support to individuals who have little or no access to credit and few of the skills necessary for business success. These programs often rely on small borrowing groups to manage loan funds for their members, thereby encouraging individuals and groups to take responsibility for credit-granting decisions and to assist each other in using credit wisely. Early evaluations of microenterprise programs indicate that they may be successful in creating groups of entrepreneurs who have increased status, resources, and access to credit. The microenterprise model may be an additional strategy for assisting individuals with disabilities to become successfully self-employed.

The optimistic, experimental, and outcome-driven tradition of rehabilitation philosophy and practice can be directed to improving the opportunities for people with disabilities to be entrepreneurs and business owners. The people brought together as authors in this monograph are pioneers in this effort. Many others will follow because of their leadership. I thank them for that.

References

Aronson, R.L. (1991). Self-employment: A labor market perspective. Ithaca, NY: ILR Press.

Berkowitz, E.D. (1987). Disabled policy: America's programs for the handicapped. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Clark, P., & Huston, T. (1993). Assisting the smallest businesses: Assessing microenterprise development as a strategy for boosting poor communities. Washington, DC: The Aspen Institute.

This work was supported by grant #G0087C0228. This study is part of a larger effort supported by NIDRR to develop effective strategies for providing rehabilitation services in rural areas.

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.

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.


	Building on Lessons from Rural America
Nancy L. Arnold, Ph.D., Editor, email Nancy email the Rural Institute Research and Training Center on Disability in Rural Communities, The University of Montana Rural Institute: A Center of Excellence in Disability Education, Research and Services, 52 Corbin Hall, Missoula, MT 59812-7056 January, 1996 Dedication This monograph is dedicated to people with disabilities who are achieving independence through becoming self-employed, to those who want to follow in their path, and to the rehabilitation agencies and counselors who are assisting people with disabilities fulfill their goals of personal independence. Foreword The study of rural rehabilitation has two important benefits.First, it contributes directly to the improvement of rehabilitation services available in rural areas by developing innovations tailored specifically to the problems and resources in rural communities. Second, it offers lessons about disability and rehabilitation, in general. The study of self-employment is one example of these two benefits. Our interest in self-employment emerged from our efforts to identify and develop innovations of particular utility in rural rehabilitation. Our work led us to ask questions about the relationship between rural vocational rehabilitation and rural economic development. It has also led to a set of much broader questions of importance in rehabilitation. The first set of broader questions stems from the observation that, compared to the general population, proportionately more people with disabilities report being self-employed. Who are these people? How did they become self-employed? What do they do? How much money do they make? How long does self-employment last? Are they satisfied with their employment? How does being self-employed change the perception of disability? What role do business owners with disabilities play in the disability movement? What roles do they play in their communities? The second set of questions involves the relationship between vocational rehabilitation and economic development. These questions point out, by contrast, that the VR model is based on serving individuals, and point toward the possibility of an alternative, community model. The intent of this monograph is to raise questions and spark discussion on the opportunities that rural economic development, self-employment, and vocational rehabilitation offer each other. Perhaps, like a barn-raising, these articles can bring us together to build something useful. --- Tom Seekins, Ph.D., Director, Research and Training Center on Disability in Rural Communities Acknowledgments: There were many people who contributed to this monograph on self-employment. An observation by Bob Donaldson, past Director of the Montana Division of Vocational Rehabilitation and Visual Services, that self-employment appeared to be used as an employment outcome more frequently in rural areas, sparked the interest of Tom Seekins, Director of the Research and Training Center on Disability in Rural Communities (RTC: Rural). It was because of Dr. Seekins' interest in this predominately essential role that entrepreneurship and self-employment play in many rural individuals pursuit of economic independence that the RTC: Rural's research was conducted and this monograph was published. Articles co-authored by and describing the pioneering work of other programs also need to be acknowledged. RTC: Rural gratefully acknowledges the collaboration and contributions of Kay Schriner, Dale Verstegen, and Ann Temkin. Within RTC: Rural, Craig Ravesloot, Cheryl Vandenberg, and Peg Plimpton contributed to the research effort. Thanks go to Alexandra Enders, RTC: Rural's Training Director, for her input on public policy and self-employment, and to Nick Baker, RTC: Rural's staff writer, for editing and preparing the monograph for publication. RTC: Rural would like to acknowledge the contributions of Joe Mathews, John Balsam, and Paul Larson. Joe Mathews, administrator of Montana's Rehabilitative/Visual Services Division was interested in and supportive of RTC: Rural's work in self-employment. It was through the efforts of Montana's State Vocational Rehabilitation agency, and its Missoula office in particular, that much of the background information on the use of self-employment as a vocational rehabilitation employment outcome was developed. John Balsam, regional director of Montana Business Connections at The University of Montana spent many hours with the editor discussing the prevalence, importance, and role of self-employment in rural areas. Paul Larson, professor of management at The University of Montana, provided his expertise in the area of entrepreneurship and business development. Others who are pioneering in the area of self-employment for people with disabilities contributed. Thanks to the vocational rehabilitation counselors who participated in RTC: Rural's initial interviews, and telephone and mail surveys. Thanks also to the research committee members of the Council of State Administrators of Vocational Rehabilitation for their assistance, and to the state agencies that forwarded self-employment policies and procedures and who granted permission for RTC: Rural to survey counselors in their states. The RTC: Rural also acknowledges and thanks the Missoulian, the Journal of Rehabilitation Administration, the Goodwill FORUM, and the Journal of Disability Policy Studies for their permission to reprint articles, the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR) for supporting this important work for people with disabilities (grant number G0087C0228), and to RTC: Rural's NIDRR project officer, Delores Watkins, for her encouragement and support. Introduction Kay Schriner, Ph.D. Research and Training Center in Vocational Rehabilitation University of Arkansas Fayetteville, Arkansas With this document, the Research and Training Center on Rural Rehabilitation Services prompts us to think anew about the possibilities of self-employment. Self-employment is a part of the American dream. People are drawn to the notion of working for themselves in a way they are not attracted to working for someone else. Americans think of self-employment as a way to control their own futures and to make work more fulfilling. Self-employment is individualistic, but also has a strong connection to the cultural make-up of the country. It stresses independence and self-sufficiency, but is also believed to promote economic vitality for the country as a whole. It is often thought to be a route to economic well-being, but may be accepted as simply a way to get by without yielding to someone else's control over one's work. In short, the psychological and social dimensions of self-employment speak to some ancient and unshakable part of the human psyche. For the general U.S. population, self-employment is a more popular option now than it has been since the end of World War I (Aronson, 1991). And, consistent with this trend, the field of rehabilitation is taking a fresh look at self-employment and its fit in today's economy. Rehabilitation agencies are developing new approaches to promoting the development of small businesses and other self-employment opportunities for their consumers. The University of Montana's Research and Training Center on Rural Rehabilitation Services is playing an important role in conducting research that helps us understand the policy and practice issues that need to be addressed. This monograph is the culmination of several years of research activity devoted to this topic, and will be welcomed by the many individuals and organizations with interests in self-employment. In the lead article, Allan Forrester challenges us to re-examine our assumptions about jobs. "Jobs" is too narrow a concept for the earnings opportunities that exist in today's economy. Indeed, the "de-jobbing of America"--to use Forrester's phrase--has resulted in countless opportunities for people with innovative ideas, marketable skills, and perseverance to earn money providing needed products and services. This free-wheeling environment is challenging, and often difficult, but is also less structured than the post World War II economic environment. It offers tremendous opportunity for those who are ready to take advantage of it. The state/federal vocational rehabilitation program historically has relied on placements into existing jobs to create employment opportunities for its consumers, and has had a relatively minor emphasis on self-employment. In fact, my cursory review of the textbooks typically used in rehabilitation counseling training turned up no mention of self-employment, in contrast to the exhaustive (and often excellent) discussion and description of placement techniques. This orientation has been a sensible one, given the long period of economic growth following World War II. During that period, large businesses dominated the landscape, and offered secure employment with advancement opportunities for millions of Americans. Now, with large corporations shrinking in size and importance, the rise of the small business and service sectors, and the labor market changes that accompany these structural changes, we may want to reconsider the VR reliance on placement. There are fewer jobs in which to place people, and often, these jobs are less desirable than those entry-level positions that VR has typically found for its consumers. Forrester's call to "expand opportunities for consumers to explore self-employment" is a rallying cry for us all to consider ways to reshape VR services in response to economic change. Forrester's comments indicate that there are many kinds of self-employment. Working for oneself may be temporary, home-based, contractual, or part-time. The story of Don Whitticar provides an example of one of these arrangements. Whitticar has found that home-based employment offers him a chance to earn income and to use his artistic talents. The Montana VR agency helped him identify his strengths and acquire the training and tools he would need to make a go of it as an wildlife engraver. This story demonstrates the potential for a state vocational rehabilitation agency to provide a comprehensive approach to assisting an individual with a disability to implement a rehabilitation program directed to self-employment. Now, however, Whitticar faces the challenge of making the transition from dependence on Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) payments to economic self-sufficiency. The work penalties of SSDI, as his story indicates, are often a significant barrier to employment, and illustrate the contradictions of our disability policy. Under current policy, we spend far more of our limited resources on income maintenance programs than on vocational rehabilitation programs that could reduce unemployment, poverty, and dependence (Berkowitz, 1987). These are policy issues that we will have to face if we are ever to solve the unemployment problem for people with disabilities. Don Whitticar's story also raises an interesting question about the criteria for judging self-employment opportunities. Given the history of segregation experienced by people with disabilities, and the rapid shift toward a preference for integrated employment, we may be tempted to argue that public funds should not be used to support home-based job development (Arnold, personal communication, August 28, 1995). Mr. Whitticar's story helps illustrate the tension we face in balancing the need to help individuals achieve their goals( which may not conform to professional ideals) with the need to promote the values of integration and inclusion in public programs. The next papers report the results of several studies examining the policies and practices of state vocational rehabilitation agencies. The first of these, by Nancy Arnold and Tom Seekins, reviews state agency policies toward self-employment and verifies what we have suspected about the orientation and practices of many agencies. Practices vary widely, self-employment is generally viewed as a risky alternative, and many counselors have not been provided the training necessary to guide consumers into self-employment. Their paper indicates that the organizational culture of VR agencies supports the making of employees, not businesspeople. The best part of this article may be the appendix, which offers a model policy for state rehabilitation agencies. The model policy emphasizes assessment, training, technical assistance, review, and follow-up--a comprehensive approach to promoting self-employment through the VR service delivery system. State agencies may use this appendix to review and revitalize their own approaches to supporting the self-employment outcomes desired by consumers. In the next paper, Arnold and Seekins join their colleague, Craig Ravesloot, in reporting three studies of self-employment closures in rural and urban areas. In the first, they find that the use of self-employment is more prevalent in rural states. In the second, they report that rural counselors on average make significantly more self-employment closures than do urban counselors, and view self-employment more positively than do urban counselors on several qualitative dimensions. Their third study indicates that consumers have established a variety of businesses using VR services, ranging from bird and worm farming to appliance repair, and beyond. This research report underscores the point that, in many ways, self-employment is a metaphor for rural rehabilitation. However, their research should not be dismissed as having implications only for rehabilitation practice in rural areas; we should all re-examine our assumptions about self-employment and resolve to make self-employment opportunities available for those consumers who want them, no matter where they live. Ravesloot and Seekins then present their research on the attitudes of vocational rehabilitation counselors toward self-employment. They find that VR counselors attitudes are influenced by environmental factors that include their past experience with self-employment, the atmosphere of the VR office, and their state's policy toward self-employment. These findings raise important questions about how the kind of training and experience VR counselors should have regarding self-employment and the supports provided for self-employment strategies throughout the vocational rehabilitation agency. In the next article, Tom Seekins speculates on the possibility that community rehabilitation facilities could operate as small business incubators--a strategy that would integrate the facility's services with economic development efforts of "mainstream" economic and community development programs. This proposed partnership of rehabilitation and economic development is a timely and provocative idea. It responds to the problems of declining resources for public investment and increased pressure for programs to be effective. It is important, however, to remember history when evaluating such ideas. Community rehabilitation facilities are slow to change, and many have not adopted new service modalities such as supported employment (and, typically, those that have, have simply added it to existing services). Any efforts to transform facilities will encounter strong resistance. The final two papers in the monograph, by Ann Temkin, and Dale Verstegen and Nancy Arnold, are testimony to the power of good ideas executed by committed people. Ann Temkin's work with CORE is an example of a program directed to the expressed needs of consumers, in this case people living in rural areas for whom and the current orientation of vocational rehabilitation agencies and counselors toward self-employment. It offers us glimpses of how self-employment can work for individuals with disabilities, and how innovative programs can promote the effective use of public resources to establish small business opportunities. This is a time of tremendous opportunity. We can experiment much more with self-employment. We can apply research and development resources to promoting self-employment opportunities that make it possible for individuals to become economically self-sufficient, and that also help make communities more accessible and accommodative. We can try the incubator approach described in this monograph. We can continue to develop and expand interagency collaborations of the kind Dale Verstegen is involved in. We can evaluate the efforts of programs like CORE. And, we can try other approaches not mentioned in this monograph, such as the microenterprise strategy that has shown so much promise for creating jobs, alleviating poverty, and creating social change in communities across the country (Clark & Huston, 1993). In the microenterprise model, the dual goals of promoting individual economic self-sufficiency and social change are targeted through the provision of small amounts of credit, business training, and group support to individuals who have little or no access to credit and few of the skills necessary for business success. These programs often rely on small borrowing groups to manage loan funds for their members, thereby encouraging individuals and groups to take responsibility for credit-granting decisions and to assist each other in using credit wisely. Early evaluations of microenterprise programs indicate that they may be successful in creating groups of entrepreneurs who have increased status, resources, and access to credit. The microenterprise model may be an additional strategy for assisting individuals with disabilities to become successfully self-employed. The optimistic, experimental, and outcome-driven tradition of rehabilitation philosophy and practice can be directed to improving the opportunities for people with disabilities to be entrepreneurs and business owners. The people brought together as authors in this monograph are pioneers in this effort. Many others will follow because of their leadership. I thank them for that. References Aronson, R.L. (1991). Self-employment: A labor market perspective. Ithaca, NY: ILR Press. Berkowitz, E.D. (1987). Disabled policy: America's programs for the handicapped. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Clark, P., & Huston, T. (1993). Assisting the smallest businesses: Assessing microenterprise development as a strategy for boosting poor communities. Washington, DC: The Aspen Institute. This work was supported by grant #G0087C0228. This study is part of a larger effort supported by NIDRR to develop effective strategies for providing rehabilitation services in rural areas. 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. 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.

Building on Lessons from Rural America

Foreword

Introduction

References