Abstract
BACKGROUND:
Expanding competitive, integrated employment opportunities for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) has remained an enduring emphasis of policy, advocacy, and research.
OBJECTIVE:
The purpose of this study was to examine the pathways identified by two diverse communities for expanding employment opportunities for individuals with disabilities. Our particular interest was in comparing and contrasting rural and urban communities.
METHODS:
We used a mixed methods approach to examine (a) the ideas generated at two distinct “community conversation” events involving a diverse group of 146 stakeholders and (b) the findings from end-of-event and follow-up surveys.
RESULTS:
Although attendees at both events suggested actions surrounding a common set of themes (i.e., developing employment opportunities, undertaking community-wide efforts, enhancing inclusive workplaces, equipping competitive applicants, strengthening school and transition services, supporting families in transition), they varied somewhat in how they proposed applying those actions locally. Most attendees affirmed the value of this structured approach to community dialogue and many later reported enacting ideas they learned at the community conversation.
CONCLUSIONS:
We offer recommendations for guiding communities in identifying local pathways for increasing competitive, integrated employment opportunities.
Introduction
The power of a good job—as both a valued outcome and a pathway to thriving in other dimensions of life—has been widely affirmed in policy, advocacy, and research. State and federal policies increasingly reflect a commitment to competitive integrated employment as an alternative to the pervasiveness of sheltered workshops (e.g., LEAD Center, 2015; Martinez, 2013; Novak, 2015). Numerous national and local organizations have crafted compelling statements calling for the expansion of integrated employment opportunities and supports (e.g., Nord et al., 2015; TASH, 2009; The Arc, 2012). And a profusion of research has explored predictors and practices linked to better employment outcomes for people with disabilities (e.g., Canella-Malone & Schaefer, 2015; Mazzotti et al., 2015; Nord et al., 2013).
But it is at the local level where policy, advocacy, and research are enacted in everyday practice. Communities across the country are both striving and struggling to make movements toward expanding meaningful employment opportunities for their residents with disabilities. Where might a particular community begin? What movements would make the most sense for that community? Which allies and partners could be drawn upon to help? “Community conversations” have emerged as a promising pathway for answering these questions and identifying possible avenues for community-level change. Recognizing that most individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities remain outside of their local workforce or experience underemployment (e.g., Butterworth et al., 2015; Newman et al., 2011), new mechanisms are needed for guiding individual communities toward becoming places where paid, integrated employment is the expectation rather than the exception.
A “community conversation” is an asset-based approach for engaging a diverse group of stakeholders in addressing a pressing problem or need facing their community (Carter, Owens, et al., 2009; Carter et al., 2012). Using an adaptation of the World Café model (Brown & Isaacs, 2005), these structured community dialogues are designed to uncover a range of informal and formal solutions reflecting the priorities, available resources, and culture of a particular community. A local planning team identifies and invites a cross-section of diverse community members (e.g., disability professionals, civic leaders, parents, self-advocates, educators, employers) to participate in a two-hour “community conversation.” An event typically is launched with an introduction to the conversation process and a personal presentation addressing why the issue being discussed is so salient to the community. Attendees then participate in three distinct rounds of small-group conversations during which they identify ideas, resources, and personal connections that could be drawn upon when tackling the issue. The evening culminates with a whole-group discussion in which attendees share the most relevant and promising strategies they heard throughout the three rounds of conversation. Detailed notes are taken to capture the full spectrum of ideas generated by attendees during small- and whole-group discussions. These ideas—especially those prioritized during the whole-group discussion—comprise possible avenues through which the community can work to change the local employment landscape for people with disabilities.
Community conversations are being incorporated into a growing number of intervention and systems change efforts (e.g., Carter et al., 2014; Morrow et al., 2015). For example, Carter et al. (2009) included community conversations within a multi-component intervention package aimed at connecting high school students with severe disabilities to summer jobs. Dutta et al. (2016) organized three community conversations to identify services needed to expand employment access for youth with emotional and behavioral disabilities. Carter, Blustein, et al. (2016) held a series of six community conversations aimed at understanding the array of strategies communities consider toward expanding employment opportunities for young adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Collectively, these studies suggest community conversations are an engaging and feasible approach for identifying potential practices and determining local priorities related to promoting integrated employment opportunities. Moreover, analyses within these studies affirm both the distinctiveness of individual communities as well as the presence of common themes that cut across conversations.
The purpose of the present study was to examine the pathways identified by two diverse communities for expanding employment opportunities for individuals with disabilities. Our particular interest was in comparing and contrasting communities that differed in terms of their geographic locale—one rural and one urban. Descriptive studies have documented state and regional differences in employment outcomes for people with disabilities (Butterworth et al., 2015; Botticello et al., 2012). But little attention has focused on the extent to which differences exist in how communities consider moving forward toward improving employment opportunities locally. We sought to answer the following research questions: What approaches did each community generate for improving employment outcomes of people with disabilities? How did attendees view the capacity of their community to address local employment opportunities? How did attendees view the social validity of the approach to holding this conversation? What actions did attendees take in the weeks following the community conversation? Across all of these questions, we examined the extent to which these two communities—one rural and one urban—converged or diverged.
Method
Community conversations
Community conversation events were held in two counties—one rural and one urban—identified by the state Department of Labor and Workforce Development as central to their employment outreach efforts. According to U.S. Census data, the population of the urban community was 938,803 and the population of the rural community was 24,384. The racial/ethnic composition also differed: White (42.3% urban, 92.6% rural), Black or African American (53.3% urban, 5.1% rural), Hispanic or Latino (6.0% urban, 2.1% rural), Asian (2.6% urban, 0.3% rural), and American Indian and Alaskan Native (0.4% urban, 0.0% rural). The percentage of persons with a disability was 13.3% in the urban community and 21.7% in the rural community. However, the communities were similar in the percentage of persons below the poverty level (20.8% urban, 20.2% rural), employment rates for all persons aged 16–64 (68.5% urban, 62.0% rural), and employment rates for people with disabilities (32.3% urban, 29.2% rural).
Both events were funded through the U.S. Department of Labor’s Disability Employment Initiative Grant, a grant mechanism aimed at increasing the participation of people with disabilities in the workforce through programs within American Job Centers (AJC). Our role as researchers in this project involved supporting local disability resource coordinators who planned each event, attending the events, introducing the event structure to attendees, and analyzing data collected throughout and after the event.
Planning the events
Each local disability resource coordinator identified people with disabilities, parents, educators, employment service providers, representatives of disability organizations, and local legislators within their personal or professional networks to serve on a planning team. These stakeholders offered feedback on event logistics and encouraged attendance through their own networks. We held an initial conference call with each disability resource coordinator, colleagues from their AJC office, and a representative from the state Department of Labor and Workforce Development to discuss the goals of the events, the event format, and recruitment strategies. Throughout the early planning stages, we also communicated with each planning team to shape the overarching questions for their events. Ultimately, both communities chose to use the same two questions focused on identifying new employers and supporting employers already committed to hiring. Planning began about six weeks prior to each spring event.
Community recruitment
Bringing together a cross-section of a community is central to ensuring diverse ideas emerge (Carter, Owens, et al., 2009). We encouraged teams to aim for 75 participants at each event with representation across eight categories of residents: people with disabilities, family members, service providers, educators, employers, civic leaders, faith community members, and other community members. We created electronic invitations and printable flyers for the planning team that (a) described the focus of the event (i.e., identifying and supporting local employers to hire people with intellectual and developmental disabilities), and (b) the time and location of the event. We also provided press release templates for local radio stations, newspapers, and civic organizations. Attendees registered using a free online event management system, which allowed tracking by stakeholder group. The site registration also included a short promotional video and photos of local youth with disabilities working in the community. We provided registration reports from the site to the planning teams on a weekly basis to inform their recruitment efforts. The team planning the rural event opted to also include a neighboring rural county in their invitation efforts.
Attendees
A total of 88 community members attended the urban conversation; 58 attended the rural conversation. Attendees identified themselves as a person with a disability (6.8% urban, 5.2% rural), parent or sibling of a person with a disability (17.0% urban, 18.9% rural), educator or school staff (21.6% urban, 13.7% rural), employer or business representative (6.8% urban, 10.3% rural), city or county leader (3.4% urban, 8.6% rural), representative of a disability agency or organization (23.9% urban, 20.7% rural), representative of a community organization or non-profit (20.5% urban, 18.9% rural), member of a local faith community (4.5% urban, 8.6% rural), and others (1.1% urban, 6.9% rural; e.g., student, state agency representative, media). Nine attendees did not include their community role upon registration at the urban event. [Total percentages exceed 100% because multiple community roles could be chosen].
Event procedures
Although both communities received comparable funding from the Disability Employment Initiative Grant and similar guidance from the research team, each personalized the event to fit the culture of their community. The rural community hosted their conversation on a weekday evening at a small community center. The evening opened with an employer and employee with a disability sharing about their employment journey. A variety of catered desserts and coffee were served, and simple flowers and fabric on the tables created a “coffeehouse” feel. The urban community held their conversation on a weekday evening at a central library and served a full meal to improve outreach. The evening was launched by having a supervisor from a local employment provider, a member of local government, and two people with disabilities speak about the benefits of hiring people with disabilities. A member of the research team facilitated both community conversations.
After signing in, attendees sat at small tables and conversed with other attendees while waiting for the event to begin. Cards on each table included the agenda for the evening and described conversation etiquette (e.g., focus on what matters, link and connect ideas; Brown & Isaacs, 2005). At the urban event, paper placemats were laid out for each attendee to write down any of their own ideas throughout the event. The rural community opted to forgo the paper placemats. A table host was assigned to each table and was responsible for (a) leading initial introductions, (b) writing down all ideas and strategies shared by attendees, and (c) keeping the conversation solution-focused and on topic. Each table host was chosen by the planning team, and met with a member of the research team briefly before the event to learn about their roles. Table hosts also received structured sheets for taking notes in order to standardize data collection.
Both events followed a similar structure. After a member of the planning team greeted attendees, the facilitator presented local disability employment metrics and explained the purpose of the community conversation. Local speakers who were chosen by the planning team then briefly (3–5 min) shared their employment experiences with the group. The facilitator then presented the structure of the event and explained the two questions that would be addressed by attendees: How can we encourage more employers in our community to hire people with disabilities? How should we work together to support these employers (and their employees) well?
This opening segment lasted 20–30 min. The format of our events was adapted from the World Café conversation process (Brown & Isaacs, 2005). We made some variations from the original model to match the culture of each community and our interest in capturing all of the ideas shared throughout the conversation. These variations included having some tables with more than five participants, involving local speakers who highlighted the importance of the topic, writing down all ideas shared at each table, and providing a full meal to attendees at the urban event.
Following the opening segment, attendees participated in three rounds of conversation, each lasting 15–25 min. Attendees changed tables after the first and second round to promote conversations with a broader range of people. The first two rounds addressed the first question; the third round addressed the second question. Table hosts wrote down the ideas shared by everyone at the table; participants could write any additional thoughts on their placemats.
A whole-group discussion lasting about 20 min was then facilitated by a member of the research team. Table hosts and some attendees were asked to share the most promising ideas they heard across all three rounds of conversation; each idea was summarized and projected onto a large screen. At the conclusion of the event, individuals received a short, anonymous survey to provide personal perspectives on their community and the event. After the event concluded, many participants lingered in conversation with their neighbors.
We developed a short report for each event highlighting its purpose, summarizing salient ideas generated by the community, and reporting findings from the end-of-event survey. This report was shared back with all attendees ten weeks after the event.
Data Sources
We used multiple data sources to address our research questions, including end-of-event surveys, table host notes, paper placemats, and ideas shared during whole-group discussion.
Conversation notes
After each event, we compiled a full list of every distinct idea attendees shared throughout each round of the conversation. Data were collected from table host notes, final group discussions, and paper placemats. We defined ideas as a strategy or actionable step the community could take to support and encourage employers in their hiring efforts or increase employment opportunities. Across events, 813 distinct ideas were shared.
End-of-event survey
After the whole-group discussion, we invited attendees to complete an anonymous, 12-item survey addressing their perceptions of the event, the capacity of employers in their community, and future action they may take in their community as a result of the conversation; 69.2% of attendees (72.2% urban, 63.8% rural) did so. Attendees rated their agreement with each statement (see Table 1) using a 4-point, Likert-type rating scale (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = agree, 4 = strongly agree). The option of “I don’t know” was also available.
Overall community conversation evaluation findings across events
Overall community conversation evaluation findings across events
Note. N = 101. Percentages are based on number of persons completing each item. Means and standard deviations based on a 4-point, Likert-type scale: 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = agree, 4 = strongly agree.
Ten weeks after each event, attendees received an online follow-up survey to complete. We asked them to rate the extent to which they agreed the event was a good investment of their time, if the community should host similar events in the future, and if they anticipated “real change” would occur as a result of the event. Questions were rated on a 4-point, Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = agree, 4 = strongly agree). We provided a list of 15 potential follow-up actions (see Table 2), and asked which (if any) attendees had taken to improve employment outcomes for people with disabilities in their community since the event. Attendees could also write in actions not listed. Follow-up surveys were completed by 54.5% of attendees at the urban event and 50.0% at the rural event.
Follow-up action reported by attendees across events
Follow-up action reported by attendees across events
Note. Percentages refer to the proportion of responding attendees reporting they had taken each action step when surveyed up to 10 weeks after the event. Percentages based on the number of attendees completing this follow-up survey question (n = 28, rural; n = 38, urban).
Our primary goal was to compare and contrast the ideas generated at each event—one rural and one urban. First, we transcribed a complete list of the ideas in table host notes (275 urban, 269 rural), group harvest notes (16 urban, 34 rural), and on paper placemats (219 urban only). Each individual item was then placed in a spreadsheet and labeled by event and source. A total of 813 ideas were generated across both community conversations. We eliminated vague or incomplete items that required the research team to infer meaning (e.g., “what should we do next,” “give them guidance,” “talk to joe”). This resulted in 259 unique entries from the rural conversation and 405 unique entries from the urban conversation.
Our analysis used an existing set of themes and categories (see Table 3) developed from a previous study of community conversation research on a similar topic in the same state. Carter, Blustein, et al. (2016) coded 1,556 unique ideas from 6 events involving 393 attendees. In this prior study, two research team members coded each idea and, after an independent review by a faculty member, developed a shared coding system to be used across all 6 events. After coding each event, revisions were made to tighten definitions, collapse overlapping codes, and add new codes. The final list of 73 codes was clustered into an overarching framework of 25 distinct categories and six broader themes (see Tables 3 and 4).
Summary of themes and categories with definitions
Summary of themes and categories with definitions
Note. Themes and categories were developed in a previous study of community conversation research (Carter, Blustein, et al., 2016). *indicates a definition modified from the existing framework. **indicates a new category added to the existing framework.
Community-generated strategies organized by theme and category across events
Note. Frequency (percentage). Frequency refers to the number of times each theme and category occurred. Percentages refer 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.
In the present study, two graduate students in special education used this prior framework to independently assign each idea to specific categories and themes. We labeled vague items and flagged for review any items that did not fit within the prior framework. Any discrepancies in theme or category went to a third reviewer—a special education faculty member—who independently coded each item. Our team met to clarify their initial coding decisions and discuss any revisions to existing operational definitions of codes. As a result, we amended some prior category definitions to be slightly more inclusive. We evaluated each code and revised it based on group consensus. We created three new codes to address ideas that did not fit into the existing framework (see Table 3). The final coding framework included 28 distinct categories encompassed within 6 themes. Since the topic of these conversations (supporting and identifying employers of people with disabilities) differed from our previous events (how the community can improve employment outcomes for people with disabilities) some categories within the strengthening school and transition services and supporting families in transition themes were not addressed at either or both of the events.
We summarized end-of-event and follow-up surveys using descriptive statistics (see Tables 1 and 2). We analyzed these surveys by event and compared across events to identify the extent to which ideas varied across urban and rural communities. Frequencies of community-generated themes and categories raised at each event are reported in Table 4 as well as those occurring in both events. Reviewing these frequencies allowed us to identify patterns and differences in the strategies suggested within and across events.
Strategies generated across events
Table 4 summarizes the ideas generated at each event by theme and category. In the following narrative sections, we describe similarities and differences in the focus of the conversations held in each of the two communities.
Developing employment opportunities
Both rural and urban communities emphasized recommendations to expand community employment opportunities by connecting stakeholders, strengthening existing collaborations, and equipping new employers. This theme captured 30.7% of all ideas generated at both conversations (29.6% urban, 32.4% rural). Both communities expressed the importance of reaching out to new employers to educate them on the benefits of hiring people with disabilities. Attendees at the rural event felt employers were concerned about liability and suggested enlisting individuals from the insurance industry to provide employer training. A different approach was emphasized at the urban event, where employer training topics centered on tax incentives.
The urban community also raised the importance of mentoring new employers and creating a network of support to share success stories and advice. Both conversations suggested reaching human resources professionals through The Society for Human Resources Management as a strategy to develop new work opportunities. Other recommendations in this category included: hosting transition fairs for employers, providing training at Rotary or Lions clubs meetings, and identifying an individual or organization who employers could contact when interested in hiring.
Undertaking community-wide efforts
The next most prominent theme focused on local involvement beyond the disability community to increase expectations and improve employment opportunities by sharing resources and successes (27.2% urban, 25.1% rural). Two categories of recommendations surfaced in the urban community, but not in the rural community: inform community leaders of needed resources and advocate for policy changes. Although the urban event focused on civic engagement, the rural event pointed to churches and faith-based organizations as avenues for educating employers. Discussions from both communities mentioned grassroots efforts to build awareness, including individuals talking to businesses they frequent. To highlight employment success stories, attendees at each event suggested innovative ideas like using window stickers to celebrate employers who have already hired people with disabilities, using billboards to feature local employment rates, and running public service announcements on local television stations. They also recommended reaching out to civic and business organizations including the Chamber of Commerce to educate potential new employers and recognize employers who had already hired people with disabilities.
Enhancing inclusive workplaces
This theme represented 17.3% of strategies across both events (17.8% urban, 16.6% rural) and centered on ways to assist current employers in their efforts to support employees with disabilities in the workplace through education, training, and mentorship opportunities. Both communities identified job coaching and workplace accommodations as a training need for current employers, and recommended modifying application and interview processes to accommodate those with significant disabilities. At the urban conversation, attendees also suggested improvements in physical accessibility and training current employees to support coworkers with disabilities well. Both events raised the idea of job-sharing (i.e., hiring two part-time workers to share the duties of one full-time position based on their strengths) as one solution to low employment rates. Other areas of overlap included bringing large groups of employers together to enhance networking opportunities, providing disability-specific trainings, and sharing ideas and resources through employer mentorships.
Equipping competitive applicants
Across both events, 16.1% of the ideas generated (15.8% urban, 16.6% rural) addressed preparing people with disabilities for employment through interpersonal development, including teaching vocational skills and supporting networking throughout the community. Rural and urban community members considered it important to support people with disabilities throughout the hiring process by offering mock interviews and training in creative marketing techniques such as video resumes. To build on these job search skills, the urban community also recommended self-advocacy training while rural citizens suggested using social media to expand personal and professional networks. To develop relevant skills and attitudes, strategies from the rural event focused on volunteer opportunities and job shadowing while the urban event proposed paid internships. Other strategies highlighted across events included bringing employers and job-seekers together through transition fairs, participation in Disability Mentoring Day events, promoting entrepreneurship, addressing learned helplessness, and connecting individuals to community supports and organizations.
Strengthening school and transition services
Recommendations for streamlining the school-to-work transition process through professional development, work-based experiences for students, and external collaboration represented just 9.0% of all ideas across both events (9.6% urban, 8.1% rural). Ideas raised across events included offering community-based work experiences and encouraging employer engagement through transition or job fairs. To strengthen transition programming, urban attendees emphasized the importance of high school and summer work experiences, while rural attendees recommended increased inclusion in general education classrooms. One additional strategy, found mostly in the urban event data, focused on occupational certificates or alternate diploma options for students with significant disabilities to help build relevant work skills. Neither community addressed the topics of transition assessment and transition planning in their discussions.
Supporting families in transition
The final theme centered on increasing family participation through education, advocacy efforts, and collaboration with community supports. Perhaps due to the framing of community conversations on supporting and identifying employers in the local community, few of the generated strategies fell under this theme (0.5%). The urban community conversation did not recommend any strategies related to this category, and those from the rural community conversation clustered around communication between families, individuals, and employers.
Views of community employment
Because attendees at both events reported very similar perspectives, data are combined in Table 1. Only half of community members completing the anonymous survey agreed or strongly agreed that employers in their area were generally receptive to employing people with disabilities (45.9% urban, 51.4% rural). However, most agreed their community has the capacity to support employers who hire people with disabilities (67.2% urban, 67.5% rural) and the majority identified things they could do to encourage employers to hire as a result of the community conversation (90.5% urban, 100% rural). However, fewer attendees agreed strong partnerships existed between employers, community agencies, schools, and families (34.4% urban, 43.2% rural). Moreover, most agreed employers in their community needed help learning how to hire and support people with disabilities in community jobs (90% urban, 96.9% rural).
Views of community conversation event
As shown in Table 1, almost all attendees across events agreed or strongly agreed the community conversation was a good investment of their time (95.3% urban, 97.3% rural) and indicated they would invite someone to attend a similar event in the future (93.7% urban, 97.1% rural). The majority also agreed future follow-up and action was needed in their community (91.7% urban, 96.9% rural). When asked if their views regarding the capacity of their community to increase employment improved, 88.3% of urban community members agreed while all (100%) of rural community members agreed. In addition, the majority (93.6%) of rural citizens left the event with specific steps they planned to do to increase employment for people with disabilities; only 72.4% or urban citizens indicated the same. Overall, most individuals in both communities agreed that they learned about resources, opportunities, and connections (93.8% urban, 97.3% rural) and that the event would contribute to increased employment for people with disabilities in their community (82.6% urban, 88.6% rural).
Follow-up views and action
Ten weeks later, the majority (85.4% urban, 93.1% rural) of attendees who responded to the survey still agreed the event was a good investment of their time. More than half of these attendees viewed the community conversation as launching real change in their community (60.9% urban, 64.3% rural). Most indicated the community should host similar events in the future (85.4% urban, 89.7% rural). In addition to these reflection questions, community members were asked to identify specific action steps (from a provided list) that they had taken since the event (see Table 2). The three most common actions were the same across events.
Discussion
Expanding opportunities for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities to thrive in competitive, integrated jobs is at the core of calls by policymakers, advocates, and researchers. But is ultimately up to individual communities to move in ways that create local opportunities for their friends, family members, and neighbors with disabilities. Our goal in this study was to identify similarities and differences in the approaches generated by rural and urban communities during each of their community conversation events. Our findings offer important insights on community-level change efforts aimed at addressing the pervasive problem of unemployment and underemployment for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities (Butterworth et al., 2015).
First, we were surprised by the consistency with which these two communities identified ideas reflecting similar themes and categories of action (see Table 4). In contrast, thematic analyses presented in studies by Dutta et al. (2016) and Trainor et al. (2012) suggested somewhat more variation across community events. Given the substantial differences in population, racial/ethnic background, and geographic locale, we anticipated somewhat more contrast in emphasis. However, both communities were similar in other ways, including their poverty levels (20.2% rural, 20.8% urban) and overall employment rates (62.0% rural, 68.5% urban). It may be that similarities in economic conditions—or other variables we did not capture—were more salient to this topic than those areas in which the communities differed. Future research should explore how various community factors might influence the pathways communities identify as most practical or promising. Knowing more about such could help inform systems change efforts, technical assistance providers, and agencies working to support communities in improving employment opportunities.
Second, amidst these similarities, the specific actions suggested by attendees within these themes and categories are where more individuality was apparent. For example, under the category developing employment opportunities, the rural community suggested creating internship and volunteer opportunities for individuals with disabilities while the urban community recommended streamlining the process to entrepreneurship. Likewise, ideas generated under the theme of equipping competitive applicants in the rural community focused on expanding personal networks through social media while the urban community highlighted disability mentoring day as an opportunity to build social capital. Moreover, two categories of action (i.e., advocating for policy change, informing community leaders of needed resources) were addressed at the urban event, but not at the rural event. Such distinctiveness reinforces the importance of considering the unique context of each community when launching new change or intervention efforts. The community conversation approach—which is held at a local level and involving local stakeholders—offers an effective process for enabling such ideas to emerge.
Third, the overall themes emphasized in both the rural and urban community in many ways mirrored those identified in previous research. For example, the most prominent themes in this study—developing employment opportunities and undertaking community efforts—corresponded to those in the six communities researched by Carter, Blustein, et al. (2016). Among the practical ideas shared under these themes included increasing awareness among employers through the local Chamber of Commerce; hosting town hall meetings to educate employers on incentives and benefits of hiring; annually recognizing employers who hire people with disabilities in the community; and forming a team comprised of community organizations, human resources professionals, and employers to plan long-term change. We found it interesting that most strategies raised by attendees focused on ways of expanding opportunities and supports in the community and less on remediating any deficits or challenges experienced by residents with disabilities. In other words, the nature of most solutions generated at both events suggest attendees placed the “problem” primarily within the environment rather than within the person. This emphasis is consistent with the new disability paradigm in which the interaction between individual and environment becomes the focus of planning, support, and intervention (Thompson et al., 2014).
Fourth, we were surprised by how few ideas fell within the broad theme of supporting families in transition across events (cf., Carter, Blustein, et al., 2016; Dudda et al., 2016). Multiple studies indicate parents report considerable difficulty accessing the information, resources, and guidance they need to support the vocational outcomes of their daughters and sons with IDD (e.g., Blustein, Bethune, Carter, & McMillan, in press; Kraemer & Blacher, 2001). Such muted attention may be due in part to how the core community conversation questions were framed. Prior events have focused conversations around broader questions (e.g., What can we do as a community to increase meaningful employment opportunities for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities? What can our community do to increase summer employment opportunities for transition-age youth with emotional and behavioral disabilities?). In the present project, the local organizers adopted questions more framed around employers and employees with disabilities (i.e., How can we encourage more employers in our community to hire people with disabilities? How should we work together to support these employers [and their employees] well?), which may have steered conversation toward other areas. As emphasized in the World Café process, the nature of the questions shapes the discussion that follows. Future events might be aimed more directly at exploring avenues through which families might be equipped and supported well.
Fifth, both conversations emphasized the importance of personal connections and social networks in expanding employment opportunities. Example strategies included having (a) employers mentor other employers, (b) community organizations meet with human resources professionals, (c) people with disabilities discuss career options with employers, and (d) communities developing contexts through which employers and potential employees could more readily connect with one another. Both communities generated concrete ideas for expanding and diversifying the social networks of people with disabilities (e.g., attending job fairs, sharing success stories, identifying mentors). In addition, their ideas on collaboration across stakeholder groups (e.g., forming employment coalitions, reaching out to employers through civic groups) encourage the sharing of resources and information that may lead to increased employment opportunities. Such ideas highlighted the salience of relationships and social capitol in increasing employment opportunities. This theme was also reflected in the post-event actions reported by attendees. Most attendees who completed the follow-up survey (52.1%) indicated they had a conversation with someone else in the community about their thoughts on the community conversation. Other prominent actions taken were sharing ideas about resources or ideas with others in the community that did not attend (68.4% urban, 57.1% rural) and talking to someone else in the community about the importance of hiring people with disabilities (65.8% urban, 50.0% rural). Beyond talking to others in the community, some attendees stepped in to help a person with a disability get a job (28.9% urban, 10.7% rural), connected an employer to a person with a disability (1.1% urban, 14.3% rural), or made the decision to hire a person with a disability at their business (7.9% urban, 3.6% rural). The actions taken by attendees reinforce their understanding of the importance of social networks in increasing awareness, raising expectations, and creating employment opportunities for people with disabilities.
Limitations and future research
Several limitations highlight areas for future research. First, because our data are grounded in two specific communities, we can only offer an illustration of differences and similarities. Such findings cannot be generalized broadly to other rural and urban communities. A core premise of community conversation events is that every community is unique in its assets, needs, and challenges. Future research studies should involve a larger and more diverse cross-section of communities to explore how community characteristics impact how the events are designed and which ideas are generated.
Second, given the anonymous approach to data collection used in this project, we cannot link the individual ideas shared by attendees to the stakeholder group(s) they represent, nor can we ascertain which stakeholder groups were more likely to take follow-up actions in the weeks following the event. Moreover, we are unable to determine how much weight was given to each idea because table hosts did not record the level of enthusiasm expressed for a particular strategy or the amount of time it was discussed. Future studies might explore the extent to which different community members tend to emphasize different strategies for expanding employment opportunities.
Third, the dynamics that influence the conversations at each table and throughout the entire event have received limited empirical attention. For example, we cannot speak to how the charisma and facilitation efforts of table hosts may have influenced the conversations at their tables. Likewise, the mix of stakeholders and individual personalities at each table likely shapes the quality of the conversation. Although we have been reluctant to introduce audio or video recording into the event, such additions—if done unobtrusively—could enable more in-depth study of what takes place during these conversations.
Fourth, local businesses and civic leadership represented less than 10% of all attendees. Because the conversations focused on improving employment outcomes, the perspectives of employers are critical to generating ideas that will be plausible for local businesses and address their concerns. Civic leaders also are in a position to support lasting change in a community through financial allocation, policy changes, and awareness campaigns. Both groups have been challenging to recruit in large numbers (Dutta et al., 2016; Trainor et al., 2012). Future studies should identify strategies to increase the prominence of specific groups central to the issue of expanding employment opportunities (e.g., employers, government leaders, human resources professionals).
Fifth, our findings focus only on the community conversation event itself and actions reported up to 10 weeks later. Future research is needed to examine the longer-term impact of these events and the ways in which community members move to enact their ideas. To date, such longitudinal research has been limited (cf., Carter, Trainor, et al., 2009). Follow-along studies of these communities could provide important insights into the success and struggles communities encounter as they make movements toward expanding meaningful employment opportunities for their members with disabilities.
Conflict of interest
The authors have no conflict of interest to report.
Footnotes
Acknowledgments
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 (Grant 90DN0294) and a Disability Employment Initiative Grant from the U.S. Department of Labor. Partial support for this research also was provided by Vanderbilt Institute for Clinical and Translational Research grant support (UL1 TR000445) from NCATS/NIH. We are grateful for the contributions of Jordan Klein, Marybeth Tew, Jordan Wilson, and the more than 40 organizations and agencies comprising the TennesseeWorks Partnership.