Abstract
Although “community conversations” are a promising approach to address employment outcomes for young people with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDDs), little research has addressed how these events are tailored to address the unique needs, assets, and resources of communities. Through in-depth interviews, organizers from seven diverse communities addressed their motivations for involvement, their pathways of personalization, and the factors contributing to the success of the events. Collectively, attendees generated more than 2,000 strategies to expand integrated employment locally, falling across six primary areas. Attendees considered these events to be a good investment of their time; however, they reported that additional action, education, and partnerships were needed in their communities. Following the events, attendees reported taking a variety of follow-up actions including sharing information, developing new relationships, talking with neighbors, and educating employers. We offer implications for policy, practice, and research aimed at expanding integrated employment for young people with disabilities.
Employment is a primary marker of a successful transition to adulthood for young people with and without disabilities. A meaningful career contributes to financial independence, a sense of belonging, valued roles in the community, and overall life satisfaction (e.g., Hagler, Hamby, Grych, & Banyard, 2015). Yet disparities in employment outcomes persist. For example, employment rates for young adults with disabilities are half those of young adults without disabilities (36% vs. 72%; Butterworth et al., 2015). Among individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD), those who do secure jobs after high school often receive low wages, have limited work hours, and experience segregated settings (Carter, Austin, & Trainor, 2012).
Amidst this disappointing employment landscape, service systems, families, individuals with disabilities, employers, and communities appear to be primed for change. First, federal and state policies increasingly aim toward improving the employment outcomes of youth and adults with disabilities (Novak, 2015). The Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act of 2014 calls on vocational rehabilitation agencies to improve supported employment outcomes by increasing the coordination of services and reducing sheltered workshop placements. Likewise, public schools are charged with—and held accountable for—carrying out a coordinated set of activities that transition students with disabilities to integrated employment and postsecondary education after high school (Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004). Numerous states are now initiating systems change efforts by adopting Employment First policies, establishing “model employment programs,” and obtaining grants to provide technical assistance and funding to further competitive employment (e.g., Partnerships in Employment Systems Change Project). Collectively, these laws and policies establish competitive integrated employment as the first and desired outcome for youth and young adults with disabilities.
Second, families hold high expectations for integrated employment. Among parents of transition-age youth with disabilities surveyed as part of the National Longitudinal Transition Study–2, 88% said that they definitely expected their child to obtain paid employment after high school (Wagner, Newman, Cameto, Levine, & Marder, 2007). Similarly, Blustein, Carter, and McMillan (2016) found that 80% of parents of children with IDD considered part-time work in the community to be somewhat or very important for their daughter or son after high school. Amidst this strong support for integrated employment, many families express considerable uncertainty about how best to pursue these goals and obtain needed support from formal and informal sources (Gilson, Bethune, Carter, & McMillan, 2017).
Third, people with disabilities desire and expect paid employment. Among high school students receiving special education services, 61% have post-school transition goals focused on obtaining supported or competitive employment (Cameto, Levine, & Wagner, 2004). In their secondary analysis of the General Social Survey, Ali, Schur, and Blanck (2011) found no significant differences in the extent to which nonemployed Americans with and without disabilities (ages 18 and older) wanted to work or viewed the importance of income, job security, and other valued job characteristics. The aspirations of young people with disabilities are not aimed at unemployment or underemployment. However, many report encountering barriers of opportunity, attitude, accessibility, and support that hinder their attainment of these goals (e.g., Timmons, Hall, Bose, Wolfe, & Winsor, 2011).
Fourth, more employers are receptive to hiring individuals with disabilities (see Gewurtz, Langan, & Shand, 2016). For example, Morgan and Alexander (2005) reported that 97% of employers who had previously hired people with disabilities reported that they would do so again. Among employers with no history of hiring people with disabilities, 80% were open to making such a hire in the future. Although reluctance to hiring people with disabilities still persists, barriers to employment have diminished substantially (Erickson, von Schrader, Bruyére, & VanLooy, 2013). Many employers are now affirming how hiring people with disabilities can bring new innovations, lower costs, higher productivity, and improved community image to their business or organization (Henry, Petkauskos, Stanislawzyk, & Vogt, 2014).
Fifth, communities are willing to take action to improve local employment outcomes. As described in the introduction to this special issue (Carter & Bumble, IN PRESS), a growing number of communities are hosting “community conversations” aimed at spurring local change. In their survey of community conversation event attendees, Carter et al. (2016) found that most left the event with specific steps they planned to take to increase employment opportunities. Bumble, Carter, McMillan, and Manikas (2017) found that many individuals attending these events took specific actions to improve employment outcomes in subsequent weeks (e.g., conversing with others about employment, checking to see whether the places they frequent were committed to hiring people with disabilities, speaking with local employers about the importance of hiring). Although these individual actions reflect a promising shift in public attitudes and expectations, communities will need to coordinate efforts to begin large-scale change.
Although there is now substantial support for expanding integrated employment for individuals with disabilities, employment outcomes have hardly moved in the last two decades (Butterworth et al., 2015). One reason for this stagnation may be the dearth of coordinated action at the local community level. The professional literature includes limited guidance on how stakeholders within a particular community might work in tandem to expand local employment opportunities for their citizens with disabilities. Likewise, educators, agencies, employers, and families regularly report uncertainty about how to move forward—individually and collectively—in ways that lead to measurable change (Gilson et al., 2017; Trainor, Carter, Owens, & Swedeen, 2008). Finally, efforts to expand employment opportunities often emphasize the efforts of the formal service system to the exclusion of natural community partners (Hall, Butterworth, Winsor, Gilmore, & Metzel, 2007). Such a focus inadvertently overlooks the breadth of assets, resources, and relationships that could be drawn upon to support employment.
Community conversations are a practical approach for bringing local citizens together in new ways that address these key concerns (Carter et al., 2009; Swedeen, Cooney, Moss, & Carter, 2011; Trainor, Carter, & Swedeen, 2012). Based on the World Café model (Brown & Isaacs, 2005), these structured events engage a diverse group of stakeholders (e.g., employers, educators, people with disabilities) in sharing their knowledge of opportunities, approaches, and social capital to address an issue important to their community. Events typically last about 2 hr and include three rounds of small-group discussions and one whole-group discussion focused on carefully crafted questions (e.g., What can we do as a community to increase employment opportunities for individuals with IDD?). Attendees switch tables after each round and all the ideas shared at each table are written down. The diverse experiences and viewpoints of attendees ensure practical strategies emerge that are grounded in the priorities and values of that community. Events are carried out by local planning teams spearheaded by one to two lead organizers (a more in-depth description of the community conversation approach is found in the introduction to this special issue; Carter & Bumble, IN PRESS).
The purpose of this mixed-method study was to (a) examine the diverse ways local planning teams applied the approach to expand employment opportunities for people with disabilities in their community and (b) analyze the recommendations and viewpoints of community members who participated in these community conversations. We sought to answer the following research questions:
Although prior studies have focused primarily on the outcomes of these events (i.e., the ideas and actions they produce), we place our accent on the community conversation process (i.e., how planning teams individualized and focused each event). Community conversations are advocated as a flexible tactic that can be tailored to reflect a community’s culture and character (Swedeen et al., 2011). However, the ways in which these events are personalized has not been addressed in prior studies. Because these events can vary widely in the depth and breadth of ideas they generate, understanding the features that impact the quality of community dialogue could provide guidance for the design and delivery of future applications of this approach in other communities. This more intensive focus on both process and impact has been called for in prior studies (e.g., Bumble et al., 2017).
Method
Community Selection
Communities across Tennessee self-selected to participate through a mini-grant application process. We allowed each applicant to define the boundaries of their community; all used geographic markers (i.e., city or county lines; neighborhoods within a city). To identify diverse communities, we shared the announcement through members of our statewide employment consortium, on our website, through our monthly newsletter, and at local disability-focused events. Four members of the research team and three independent reviewers evaluated the 18 applications using a rubric (available by request) addressing their (a) representation of diverse community roles within the self-selected planning team, (b) attendee recruitment strategy, (c) proposed use of funds, (d) goals for change within the community, and (e) understanding of the event structure and project expectations. Among the highest scoring applications, we considered geographic locale and community demographics to involve communities reflecting the diversity of our state. We selected seven communities to receive mini-grants. Each community planning team committed to sending two lead organizers to an initial training, hosting two community conversation events 12 to 18 months apart, and implementing some of the best ideas generated at their first event. We offered each team US$2,000 to cover project-related expenses (e.g., mileage to the training, refreshments, and advertising for events), technical support as they undertook their events, and help analyzing event data.
Participants
The individuals contributing data to this study were (a) lead organizers from each planning team and (b) community members attending each event (see Table 1 for demographics).
Information About Communities, Events, and Lead Organizers.
Note. EA = European American; N = Native American or Aleut; M = male; F = female.
Indicates local organizers who attended the initial group training with the research team.
Organizers
We interviewed the two lead organizers from each planning team. All lived in their community at least 1 year. Four previously attended a community conversation event.
Attendees
We analyzed ideas and feedback shared by the 548 community members who attended the seven events (M per event = 78; range = 12–161). On end-of-event surveys, attendees identified their role as a family member of a person with a disability (29.2%), educator or school staff (25.7%), representative of disability agency or organization (22.2%), employer or business representative (13.7%), person with a disability (11.2%), member of local faith community (10.4%), representative of community organization or nonprofit (9.7%), member of community civic group (4.0%), civic or county leader (3.8%), or other (6.6%; e.g., college student, peer mentor, interested community member, journalist; multiple roles could be selected).
Preparation and Training
Two lead organizers from each planning team attended a group-based, 6-hr training with the research team. We held three separate trainings to accommodate schedules. The training focused on helping organizers (a) identify an employment-centered topic for their event (e.g., more jobs in the arts, reaching out to veterans and wounded warriors), (b) develop a plan for recruiting attendees (e.g., engage mostly employers, create high-quality flyers), (c) craft questions to be addressed at their event (see Table 1), and (d) address any remaining questions or concerns. Prior to the training, lead organizers received resources outlining the elements of a community conversation. Each training included a presentation, group discussion, hands-on activities, and planning time.
During the training, we asked organizers to adhere to an overarching structure that included three rounds of small-group discussions and one whole-group discussion focused on two primary questions. We also required they have attendees switch tables after each round, table hosts record strategies generated at each table, and facilitators provide some form of presentation outlining the current state of employment in their community. Beyond these components, we encouraged lead organizers to personalize their attendee recruitment, planning, and event to fit the unique goals and characteristics (e.g., strengths, priorities, needs) of their communities. We recommended lead organizers discuss the decisions they made during the training with their full planning team for discussion and final decision. We provided the organizers ongoing technical assistance via phone and e-mail (e.g., conference calls, planning tools, feedback on recruitment).
Community Conversation Events
The first round of community conversations—the focus of the present article—took place between July and November 2015. The lead organizers and their planning teams planned and carried out each event. At least two members of the research team attended each event to observe the conversation, provide any needed on-site support, and collect data.
Recruitment
Each local planning team set an initial goal of 40 to 80 attendees, aiming for representation across nine stakeholder groups: people with disabilities, family members of people with disabilities, educators and school staff, employers, civic groups, faith community members, city/county leaders, disability agencies, and community organizations or nonprofits. They used a combination of recruitment strategies including flyers, personal invitations, press releases on local radio, community calendars, and dissemination through disability service providers and community organizations.
Structure
All events were 2 hr in length, used an adaptation of the World Café model (Brown & Isaacs, 2005), and followed a similar structure. Upon arrival, attendees signed in and sat at small tables with four to eight people. Each table had an assigned table host to lead introductions, promote a solutions-focused discussion, and document all strategies voiced by attendees. They also encouraged attendees to record their ideas, concerns, and questions on paper placemats. Organizers identified table hosts prior to the event, and we provided a brief overview of facilitation strategies and the importance of thorough table notes during registration.
An event facilitator welcomed everyone and briefly explained the purpose and agenda of the event. An employer or individual with a disability then shared their personal employment story to illustrate the salience of the conversation to the community. Following the initial presentation, attendees took part in three 15 to 20 min rounds of conversation (switching tables between rounds) to generate strategies related to two questions. Questions varied across communities (see Table 1), but all addressed employment opportunities for people with disabilities. Attendees answered the first question during the first two rounds; the third round addressed the second question. After the three rounds of conversation, the facilitator led a whole-group discussion (10–15 min) during which attendees shared the best strategies they heard throughout the event. Each strategy was typed and projected onto a screen; organizers collected these strategies to supplement data from table host notes and attendee placemats. At the end of the event, attendees completed anonymous surveys.
Post Event Project Support
We provided copies of all transcribed data (i.e., table host notes, placemats, whole-group discussion notes) and survey results to organizers following each event. The organizers worked with their planning teams to identify at least one promising idea to implement (e.g., develop a parent advocacy group, create window stickers for employers who hire people with disabilities) prior to their second community conversation 12 to 18 months later. We provided ongoing technical assistance and requested progress updates from organizers every 60 to 90 days.
Data Sources
We analyzed several data sources to answer our research questions: (a) in-depth interviews with lead organizers, (b) research team reflections from observing each event, (c) table host notes from small- and large-group conversations, (d) anonymous end-of-event and follow-up surveys, and (e) permanent products from each event.
Individual interviews
To address RQ1 to RQ3, we conducted interviews with two lead organizers from each planning team (M = 59 min; range = 53–70). Our semistructured interview protocol (available upon request) addressed their (a) reflections on planning and the event, (b) next steps for moving forward as a community, and (c) anticipated technical assistance needs. Two interviews were conducted by a single researcher; the remainder involved two researchers. Four interviews occurred within 6 weeks of the event, two occurred within 12 weeks of the event, and one occurred 16 weeks after the event. We audio-recorded, transcribed, and deidentified all interviews.
Researcher observations
To address RQ2 and RQ3, at least two members of the research team attended each event. We used post event reflection forms to record (a) our overall impressions of the event, (b) the atmosphere and tone of the event, (c) elements that promoted or inhibited a successful conversation, (d) the format and pacing of the facilitator, and (e) any feedback we personally received from attendees. We discussed these reflections as a research group after the events.
Conversation notes
To address RQ4, we transcribed the discussion notes recorded by table hosts from each event, organizing them by community, table host, and round of conversation (e.g., Round 1, whole-group discussion). Across events, we identified 2,012 strategies captured by 77 table hosts. We defined a strategy as a distinct action a community member might take to address employment barriers for people with disabilities.
Surveys
To address RQ5 and RQ6, we collected anonymous end-of-event surveys and follow-up surveys. Each end-of-event survey asked attendees to identify their community role and rate both their views on the community conversation event and perceptions of their community related to employment for people with disabilities (see items in Table 2). Ratings were provided on a 4-point Likert-type scale: 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = agree, and 4 = strongly agree. An option of “I don’t know” was also available. These surveys were completed by 419 of 548 attendees (76.5%).
End-of-Event Survey Findings Across Seven Communities (n = 419).
Note. Percentages are based on number of persons completing each item. Means and standard deviations based on a 4-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = agree, and 4 = strongly agree).
We sent a follow-up survey 6 weeks after each event to all attendees who provided an e-mail address. A reminder e-mail went out 2 and 4 weeks later. Surveys asked attendees (a) whether they still felt the event was a good investment of their time, (b) whether their community should host similar events in the future, and (c) whether they felt the event would “launch real changes in the community.” We also asked whether attendees had taken any of 15 action steps related to improving employment outcomes for people with disabilities after the event (see Table 3). These surveys were completed by 267 of 548 attendees (range = 32.4%–71.3% across communities).
Follow-Up Actions Reported by Community Members (n = 267).
Note. Percentages refer to the percentage of attendees who completed the survey and reported each action in the months following their event.
Permanent products
To address RQ1, we examined the original mini-grant applications from each community, revisiting the initial goals they outlined for the project. To address RQ2, we collected recruitment flyers and event materials (e.g., table cards, décor) to document the diverse approaches used to carry out the events.
Data Analyses
To answer our research questions, we used a mixed-methods approach that combined qualitative, quantitative, and observational elements. We answered RQ1 to RQ3 by analyzing organizer interviews, permanent products, and researcher observations. Two members of the research team analyzed the lead organizer interviews using constant comparative techniques (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). After examining all transcripts, we created a tentative set of codes emerging from the data. We independently applied this set of codes to one transcript and met afterward to discuss, compare, and revise our codes to craft a basic framework of themes and categories. We completed this process for two more transcripts, meeting each time to update the framework to reflect new categories or themes that surfaced, collapse similar codes, and write preliminary definitions for each code. We repeated this coding and consensus process for each of the remaining transcripts, continually fine-tuning code definitions to incorporate any revisions. Once all transcripts went through one round of coding, we independently coded each interview a second time using our latest framework. Afterward, we met and made final modifications to the coding framework through consensus, coding each category into an overarching theme and refining definitions. A third member of the research team conducted a peer review of the coding framework and suggested edits to improve clarity. Once we developed a final coding framework, we applied it to the researcher reflection observations and permanent products. The final framework included 16 themes with 84 underlying categories across the three research questions. The “Results” section outlines our findings at the level of each theme.
We addressed RQ4 by coding each community-generated strategy (n = 2,012) recorded by table hosts during small- and large-group rounds. We began our coding by adopting an existing coding framework (see Table 4) from a previous study of community conversation events focused on improving employment outcomes for people with disabilities (i.e., Carter et al., 2016). In the previous study, three researchers used constant comparative techniques (Strauss & Corbin, 1990) to code 1,556 strategies across eight community conversation events. Their analyses resulted in 25 distinct categories within six overarching themes.
Community-Generated Strategies Organized by Theme Across Events.
Note. Frequency (%). Frequency refers to the number of times each theme and category occurred. Percentage refers to the percentage each frequency occurred out of the overall representation of data for that particular event(s). Total row refers to the overall number of strategies analyzed from each event.
For our current study, we chose to only code strategies to the level of these six overarching themes. We listed each strategy in a spreadsheet, removing vague strategies (n = 498) without an evident action (e.g., “jobs,” “make things better”). Two researchers then independently coded strategies from two community conversation events, discussing any discrepancies to consensus, and refining coding definitions as needed. One researcher coded the strategies from the remaining events, with the second researcher independently coding 10% of the strategies across conversations to ensure consistency in coding.
We addressed RQ5 and RQ6 through analyses of end-of-event and follow-up surveys. We used descriptive statistics (i.e., frequencies, means, and standard deviations) to examine the categories of strategies generated at each community conversation event (Table 4), as well as responses from end-of-event (see Table 2) and follow-up surveys (see Table 3). We reviewed data across and within community conversation events.
Results
RQ1: What Motivated Each Planning Team to Launch Employment Change Efforts in Their Community?
Although lead organizers from each planning team shared copious reasons for hosting a community conversation, we present only the most prominent themes in this section.
Improve employment outcomes
All the organizers planned to address common barriers to employment, hear out-of-the box ideas from individuals outside the disability community, and begin discussions about large-scale issues that impact employment, like accessible transportation. Greer (see Table 1 for community and organizer demographics) structured its event as a “big needs assessment” to inform employment initiatives. Other communities (e.g., Marlow, Monrovia, Norton) endeavored to engage small business owners or niche occupations like art galleries and studios through their event. The Kline organizers saw job creation as critical: “It’s [about] having enough employers and jobs . . . I think we have some pretty good job training programs now and my understanding is that even those really good programs still have trouble placing people.”
Increase community awareness
All organizers expressed the importance of educating the community on the benefits of hiring people with disabilities. Monrovia organizers focused on “changing the disability into the ability.” They identified “lack of education about working with people with disabilities” as a primary concern, and sought to “get the information out into the community.” Some organizers also targeted overall acceptance and visibility. Marlow organizers felt that “acceptance of our group into the community at large . . . is the biggest thing we can get.” Although Greer had a long history of disability inclusion the organizers explained, “It is not disability awareness—it’s not that kind of an issue. It’s how can we really move to make the employment opportunities happen.”
Streamline the transition process
The majority of organizers sought to streamline the transition from high school to community life. One Norton organizer shared that her son “will be moving into a community-based education training program in another couple of years and I wanted him to have more options.” Some organizers also expressed the need for parent and family training to help them understand the transition process. Although most communities aimed to enhance school-based transition programs, the Brighton organizers felt their event should focus on enhancing post school services because schools were “doing good as far as work-based learning and job skill development and then it just drops off.”
Create connections
A few organizers discussed the importance of developing relationships with families, service providers, faith communities, employers, and other influential community members through their event. Brighton organizers expressed their desire to “un-muddy” the process: Our goal ultimately was just making sure that we were able to discover who all was out there . . . I feel like I have a good grasp on what is available and I turn around and something has changed. And it continues to change . . . but now we have a great database of all these folks.
Monrovia organizers wanted people with disabilities and their families to know that they weren’t alone because they “get really frustrated and think they are the only ones seeing what is going on.” They thought it would be helpful for individuals to “share with each other” to connect families with similar questions and challenges who could “change the conversation of what’s going on in their community.”
RQ2: How Did Planning Teams Personalize Their Events to Build on the Strengths and Unique Features of Their Community?
Although all organizers committed to an overarching structure, each personalized their conversation to reflect the priorities, strengths, and character of their community. Across events, four components proved particularly conducive for individualization.
Recruitment efforts
We required each community to form a central planning team but indicated that they should use recruitment methods that fit their needs and community. Organizers personalized their marketing materials, outreach approach, recruitment message, and target audience based on the community’s preferred method of communication (i.e., phone calls, e-mail, word-of-mouth) and their own conversation goals. Greer organizers knew community members placed high value on presentation and marketing efforts, so they spent a significant amount of the budget on printing flyers and postcards because they “wanted things to look good.” Marlow, a rural county, recruited mostly through phone and in-person meetings because of the limited Internet connectivity in their county. They felt word-of-mouth would be most effective, especially with parents who “wanted to hear from someone else that it would be beneficial [to attend].” Kline organizers promoted their event through social media; Brighton organizers tapped into their student network. Students with disabilities “handed out fliers, asked people to come, and targeted businesses that they went to [for recruitment].” Each planning team identified employers as the most difficult stakeholder to recruit. A Norton organizer shared, “I might have started on employers sooner if I had known—in hindsight that was the hardest piece. We tried to get 50% employers and then 50% everybody else.”
Logistics
We encouraged organizers to use their venue, décor, and refreshments to both make attendees feel welcome and to encourage engaging conversations. Monrovia organizers held their event in the afternoon to encourage employer attendance, but all others were held on a weekday evening. Venues ranged from a church banquet hall to a hotel ballroom. The Norton organizers hosted their event at a local music school because their event focused on employment opportunities “in music and the arts.” They also felt that their unique venue would “stand out to potential employers and attract attendees not typically involved in disability issues.” Greer organizers decorated a prominent community center with the local high school colors (red and black) and enlisted the school’s parent teacher organization to make baked goods. The Gilbert organizers chose to hire people with disabilities to help bake pies for refreshments because “we wanted to set a good example . . . that money would have been spent on catering. Why not give it to the people?” The pies also accentuated their local produce industry. Beyond serving more than eight varieties of pies, this self-identified “little country county” also made their own red and white check décor, cut branches from a local tree to create card holders for the tables, and used positive quotes on each table to “make a statement.” In addition, some communities distributed informational packets, resources, and marketing materials outlining local supports and services.
Conversation questions
Organizers developed unique questions to structure their event and support their goals (see Table 1). For example, Gilbert organizers wanted to start small by focusing on employment outcomes for a few high school seniors with disabilities. They asked attendees, what it would take for every student with a disability in their county to have a paid job experience prior to leaving high school. In contrast, Monrovia organizers sought to address needs within a local military base by developing questions to address employment outcomes for people with disabilities, veterans, and wounded warriors. Norton organizers used their questions as a swift call to action, asking attendees over the first two rounds how the community could create new jobs for people with disabilities, then encouraging attendees to list the resources they could put in place over the following 6 months to support that action. Three communities (i.e., Greer, Kline, Marlow) opted to use questions shared by the research team during the training.
Facilitation
Local organizers facilitated each event with the exception of the Marlow conversation, which involved a state disability agency representative. We provided a presentation template and an illustrative script; however, each facilitator set the focus, tone, and pace of the conversation. For example, the Norton facilitator used humor and led icebreakers to encourage a casual atmosphere. She also emphasized job opportunities in the arts by opening the event with a map of local art galleries to approach about hiring. Other facilitators used raffles and casual jokes to keep attendees engaged. Bringing a more serious tone to the conversation, the Greer facilitator highlighted local employment statistics to emphasize, “these are our individuals with disabilities, these are our neighbors, our students.” Some organizers also brought in opening speakers such as the mayor, school superintendent, or state representatives. Furthermore, most organizers expressed the positive impact of inviting individuals with disabilities to share their employment stories at the start of the event. Brighton had a former student working at a local restaurant to share his employment story noting, it doesn’t matter how much I can talk about how much this means to me as a teacher, but for him [the student with an intellectual disability] to be able to verbalize that to a crowd of people was amazing.
To resonate with veterans at the conversation, Monrovia opened their conversation by asking a wounded warrior to speak about the challenges of finding employment. Marlow attendees listened to a prominent local employer who discussed how individuals with disabilities had a positive impact on his business. Facilitators also personalized their presentations by showing videos, including photographs of individuals with disabilities working, or highlighting local vendors and community partners.
Community partnerships
Some organizers enlisted the help of the community to assist with recruitment or contribute donations of goods and services. Assistance often came in the form of reduced prices on venues and donated food. Gilbert organizers received pecans from a local farmer for their pies, and the Norton organizers found a business to donate “really nice flavored waters” for their event. Others obtained donated ad space in newspapers or free radio spots. Most organizers also partnered with employment organizations like the Chamber of Commerce and the Rotary club to expand their outreach efforts.
RQ3: What Factors Influenced the Quality of the Events?
Local organizers identified seven factors contributing to their event’s success. We triangulated these factors throughout our researcher observations.
Effective planning team
Each community formed their own local team to assist with recruitment and planning. Although teams varied in size and composition, all organizers agreed that the planning team was critical to their success. They looked for community members who were well-connected, good communicators, responsive, passionate about their role, and from diverse stakeholder groups. Most organizers agreed that finding individuals outside the disability field was important both to bring new voices to the conversation and because service providers and disability organizations were often overextended. Some team members provided emotional support or assisted with logistical tasks while others used their connections to recruit influential community members (e.g., members of city government, well-respected employers). The Gilbert organizers found that delegating tasks made hosting the event more manageable because “many hands makes light work.” Brighton organizers felt that help with recruitment was essential, saying “everything else you can pretty much do yourself . . . but you’ve go to have help to recruit. You can’t do that on your own.” Marlow organizers struggled to form an effective team and suggested other communities “come together as a team more than we were able to, to make your plans and give everybody a role.”
Involvement of people with disabilities
All the event organizers were committed to highlighting the voices of people with disabilities at their conversations. They included people with disabilities on their planning team and specifically recruited their participation at the event. One Greer organizer stated her classroom students wanted to get involved, saying “we can’t just wait for our parents to go knock on everybody’s door to get us a job.” At almost all of the events, individuals with disabilities shared personal employment stories as part of the opening presentation. Most communities felt similar to the Norton organizer—“[the students] did such a wonderful job of self-advocating for themselves that it really just advertised that this is possible.” Furthermore, four communities employed individuals with disabilities to help cater their events, including Gilbert, who “wanted to model that people have skills. They can work. Come watch and see.” As Brighton organizers expressed, the presence of individuals with disabilities “set the tone of positivity . . . set the focus on not looking at the barriers.”
Compelling atmosphere
Although the venue and design varied across events, each community strived to create a comfortable and warm atmosphere for attendees. Norton organizers felt that it was important to give attendees “a safe environment where . . . you could actually ask real questions and get real answers” and Kline wanted a positive space where the tone was “Let’s share. Let’s talk about possibilities.” Community culture determined the level of energy and excitement at each event. A Monrovia organizer described the event as “laid back” and explained that “we have a lot of great things that go on in the community, but it is not going to be . . . ‘hanging from the rafters.’ We don’t do that here.” A Kline organizer said that their event “was just very enthusiastic. People were excited to speak up.” Some organizers discussed the importance of allowing the atmosphere to evolve naturally. The Gilbert team chose to “let [attendees] have their conversation” so it could “move forward in a more natural pace.” Most organizers felt that attendee diversity contributed to overall engagement.
Mix of attendees
We encouraged organizers to recruit attendees with varied roles, backgrounds, and perspectives to enrich the event conversations and encourage new insights. Every organizer described the value of this diversity. For Greer organizers, seeing a cross-section of the community “come together to support an issue like [employment of people with disabilities] changes people’s thinking.” Gilbert organizers felt that having a mixed group at each table helped each person make new connections and “really made the conversation flow in different directions.” Most organizers were disappointed with the relatively small turnout of employers and the overrepresentation of service providers but planned to target this group for recruitment at their next event. Marlow organizers felt that their small event—which had just 12 attendees—still involved key members of the community, including the mayor, the school’s transition coordinator, and business owners. They just wished “more of the community would come and listen to what they had to say.” Although organizers did not express that high attendance influenced the quality of the conversation, we observed that larger groups (i.e., over 100 attendees) could diminish the personalized feel of the event.
Prepared table hosts
Table hosts performed a significant role across community conversations by recording all the strategies generated during the event, keeping attendees focused on solutions, and encouraging participation and equal opportunities for dialogue within their table. Organizers identified most table hosts before the event, but occasionally we recruited individuals during registration if more were necessary. One Brighton organizer felt that “the guidelines for the monitors [table hosts] were really good . . . so that nobody monopolizes the conversation, everybody stays positive, we go around quickly, yet, make sure you are getting stuff from everybody.” Although most organizers did not directly address table host quality as contributing to the overall richness of the event during their interviews, we observed some factors influencing both the table facilitation and the recorded table notes. Table hosts performed better when (a) organizers identified them prior to the event, (b) they were engaged throughout the training session, and (c) they clearly understood and valued their roles.
Clear structure
Most organizers felt the overall structure contributed to the quality of the conversation. In addition, we observed richer conversations when facilitators provided clear instruction to the attendees and kept an even pace throughout the event. As one Kline organizer noted, “it really allowed people who would not have shared as much to contribute.” Likewise, a Greer organizer said, “it really kept the conversation going and got more ideas out there.” In contrast, one Brighton organizer expressed that they “got a lot of good ideas right out there at the beginning . . . but by the time we got to the third [round] it seemed like it dragged a little bit.”
Targeted technical assistance
Each team of local organizers participated in a full-day training with our research team. In addition, we provided them with periodic technical assistance via phone and e-mail, as well as online printable resources to help plan and carry out their events. Most organizers indicated the involvement and support of the research team gave them the confidence to move forward with the planning process. Kline organizers left the initial training “really feeling that there was a lot of work to do, but also that we knew what we needed to do.” One Monrovia organizer “liked being able to just shoot off an email . . . and y’all had the answers. That had a calming effect on me.”
RQ4: What Community-Generated Strategies Emerged Within and Across Events?
Table 4 summarizes the number of strategies generated at each event that fell within each of the six existing themes. Developing employment opportunities was the dominant theme across conversations (30.3% of strategies) and included recommendations to recruit and train new employers; match individual skills and preferences to existing jobs; create collaborations across providers and agencies; develop employment portals to house job openings, resumes, and resources; and form opportunities for mentoring between employers. Equipping competitive applicants represented 18.8% of strategies and incorporated strategies to prepare people with disabilities for employment such as build social and professional networks, develop relevant skills and attitudes, access community supports, and communicate strengths. A similar number of strategies, 18.6%, addressed enhancing inclusive workplaces, which focused on ways to assist current employers committed to hiring people with disabilities through education, training, and mentorship opportunities. Undertaking community-wide efforts represented 15.4% of strategies, and suggestions centered on ways to move beyond the disability community to increase awareness and expectations while improving employment outcomes. Recommendations on transportation, civic leader engagement, and sharing employment success stories were also included under this theme. Strengthening school and transition services comprised 12.6% of strategies and encompassed recommendations for streamlining the transition process, improving the quality of transition planning and programs, and increasing the diversity of diploma offerings. Finally, 4.3% of strategies fell under the theme supporting families in transition, which concentrated on strategies to increase family participation in the employment process through education, advocacy, and engagement opportunities.
RQ5: How Did Attendees View These Events and Their Communities?
As shown in Table 2, nearly all the attendees (96.4%) agreed or strongly agreed that the event was a good investment of their time, and most (93.1%) learned about resources, opportunities, or connections they previously did not know about. When asked about their community, less than half of attendees expressed that community members were open to hiring people with disabilities (44.4%) and that strong partnerships existed to support employment efforts (42.0%). Almost all attendees (97.6%) agreed follow-up events and actions were needed.
RQ6: What Follow-Up Actions Did Attendees Report Taking After the Events?
Follow-up survey responses reflected a strong commitment to action (see Table 3). The most prominent actions reported across attendees including having a conversation with a neighbor about the event (78.3%), sharing an idea or resource with others that were unable to attend (68.5%), and talking with someone else in the community about the importance of employment for people with disabilities. One quarter (25.5%) of attendees talked directly with employers about the importance of hiring people with disabilities and 10.5% helped a person with a disability secure employment in the community following the event.
Discussion
Recent policy changes in the United States are elevating the importance of expanding access to integrated work for individuals with IDD. Communities hold considerable capacity to improve employment outcomes for people with disabilities by launching local efforts grounded in the strengths, assets, and goals of their community (Carter & Bumble, IN PRESS). We equipped seven local teams to carry out community conversations events and followed their planning and implementation efforts. Our findings provide important insights into how the design and delivery of these events can identify new pathways to employment and spur community change efforts.
First, lead organizers across communities reported that robust planning teams are integral to a successful event. Organizers emphasized selecting team members with a strong commitment and sufficient time to assist with each phase of the project. They also valued planning team members with varied backgrounds, community roles, and perspectives. This diversity produced rich contributions throughout each stage of the planning process and more available resources to overcome potential challenges. Research in the fields of organizational psychology also affirms the value of assembling diverse backgrounds, knowledge, and skills when designing effective work groups (e.g., Mannix & Neale, 2005). The community conversation approach—which encourages the inclusion of distinctive groups and individuals throughout the process—offers a promising approach for effectively organizing change agents.
At the same time, we observed that lead organizers within each team took on a disproportionate share of responsibility for the events—unsure of when or how to delegate tasks. This overreliance on one or two individuals may impede the sustainability of follow-up efforts in a community, particularly if they have a change in status in the subsequent months (e.g., relocating, taking on new professional roles). Encouraging more shared responsibility for tasks and outcomes across planning team members may promote individual empowerment and strengthen relationships that could contribute to longer-term impact. Future research should explore long-term outcomes of the community conversation approach to better understand how planning teams influence project outcomes.
Second, organizers personalized conversations to reflect the culture and characteristics of their community in diverse ways. Most variations occurred across recruitment strategies including who was invited, how planning teams reached out to community members, and the materials they used to market their event. However, organizers also used décor, venue, facilitation style, and refreshment choices to create a welcoming space for attendees. We observed that deeper levels of personalization contributed to a more comfortable atmosphere, which might encourage attendees to share personal stories and experiences (Carter, Swedeen, Walter, & Moss, 2012). In addition, events with more personalized environments created a compelling, energetic atmosphere that carried over into attendee conversations.
Third, these conversations offer a promising example of how communities—when given the opportunity—can generate pertinent strategies to address gaps in local capacity. In post event surveys, less than half of attendees felt that employers were receptive to hiring people with disabilities, and one third of strategies generated across events were under the theme developing employment opportunities (e.g., connect with the Chamber of Commerce, reach out to small businesses). Another one fifth of strategies focused on equipping competitive applicants for the workforce (e.g., offering internships, resume classes, or soft skills training). Local organizers also sought to increase community awareness by educating others the importance and benefits of hiring. The majority of attendees agreed that members of the community needed help learning how to support people with disabilities in meaningful jobs, and attendees generated ideas focused on undertaking community-wide efforts (e.g., sharing success stories, increasing the visibility of individuals with disabilities). Another one fifth of strategies generated at the events included ideas to enhance inclusive workplaces (e.g., showcase employers already hiring, create an online employer toolkit of best practices).
Local organizers also wanted to develop partnerships to strengthen transition services and spur partnerships by creating connections across stakeholder groups. Only 42.0% of attendees agreed or strongly agreed that partnerships to support employment existed across families, employers, and agencies. Ideas generated by attendees to address this issue (e.g., promote employer-to-employer mentoring, connect employers to transition programs early on) fell under multiple themes. Future research should address whether and how communities might move forward to implement these capacity-building strategies following their event.
Fourth, almost all the attendees who completed our follow-up survey reported taking some kind of action in their community to improve employment outcomes for people with disabilities within 12 weeks of the event. In our previous research, events were somewhat standardized (Bumble et al., 2017; Carter et al., 2016). The current study highlights some key differences across event characteristics and follow-up patterns. For example, when both lead organizers were educators or when questions referred to schools and student outcomes (i.e., Brighton, Greer, and Gilbert), attendees were almost twice as likely to report talking with a teacher or school staff about the importance of preparing students with disabilities for future jobs (see Tables 1 and 3). In contrast, the Kline conversation was organized by two members of a local disability employment consortium. In that community, attendees were more likely to address how their own places of employment could be more inclusive of people with disabilities (see Table 3). These findings indicate follow-up actions may be influenced by the questions, activities, and overall focus of each event.
Limitations and Future Research
Several areas present opportunities for future research. First, our study focused on the perspectives and experiences of two organizers from each community. Interviewing other members of the planning team or event attendees may have provided contrasting or distinct insights into each event. In addition, interviews with attendees could help researchers identify how best to recruit key stakeholder groups or spur follow-up action. This could be particularly applicable to employers, who represented 13.7% of total attendees and are critical stakeholders in conversations about integrated employment. Future research should more deeply explore attendee perspectives to guide how local organizers plan and carry out community conversations.
Second, we have limited demographic information about attendees. To date, we only collected stakeholder roles to ensure the anonymity of end-of-event and follow-up surveys. Future research should incorporate a wider range of demographics variables (e.g., age, race/ethnicity, socioeconomic background) to examine how multiple facets of diversity might affect attendee perceptions, strategies generated at the event, and follow-up actions.
Third, none of the communities implemented their events independent of outside support. All organizers received the initial training, information, and resources from our team; some communities reached out for additional support (e.g., strategies to recruit a diverse cross-section of their community, help developing a marketing flyer, or tips for setting up an efficient registration table). Future studies might explore the level of technical assistance and coaching necessary to achieve levels of fidelity or quality within the community conversation approach.
Implications for Policy and Practice
Findings from this study have important implications for policy and practice at the intersection of employment, transition, and disability. First, community conversations provide an efficient and effective way of listening to diverse stakeholders about pressing needs facing their communities. The context for the present study was a Partnerships in Employment Systems Change grant funded by the Administration on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (Carter, McMillan, Willis, & Tennessee Works Partnership, in press). We drew upon these events to help us identify common concerns evident across communities in different regions of our state. For example, recurring recommendations to expand local employment opportunities led us to deepen our employer outreach initiative; recommendations to strengthen school services led us to develop a new online professional development portal for teachers; and recommendations to better support families led us grow our family coalitions and launch a new blog for parents. Second, findings from community conversations can be drawn upon to guide state-level systems change. Hall et al. (2007) emphasized the importance of adopting data-driven approaches within large-scale change efforts. The data generated across multiple community conversations can be used to confirm stakeholder support for needed changes in policies, legislation, and fiscal structures. Third, local policies and practices can be shaped by the ideas and actions emerging from a cross-section of local citizens. Schools seeking feedback on their transition programming, employment agencies wanting to refine their service delivery, and disability organizations needing input on their strategic planning might consider the ways in which community conversation events can produce such information.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful for the contributions of the more than 50 organizations and agencies comprising the TennesseeWorks Partnership.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Support for this work came through a Projects of National Significance grant from the Administration on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, Administration for Community Living, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, through Grant 90DN0294 to the Vanderbilt Kennedy Center for Excellence in Developmental Disabilities.