Abstract
BACKGROUND:
Project SEARCH is a widely popular vocational training program serving young adults with intellectual disabilities, with more than 500 program sites in 45 states and nine countries. Project SEARCH incorporates many best practices for school-to-work programs, including responsiveness to employer needs, but very little research has been conducted on the impact of the Project SEARCH model.
OBJECTIVE:
This study evaluates employer satisfaction with Project SEARCH interns, hires at the host business site, and support received from Project SEARCH teams.
METHODS:
We surveyed 114 employers across four Project SEARCH sites.
RESULTS:
Findings indicate that on average, employers were highly satisfied with both the quality of Project SEARCH interns and employees hired through Project SEARCH, as well as with the support received from Project SEARCH teams. Findings further indicate that employers appreciated receiving a wide range of accommodations and/or supports from Project SEARCH teams, and that in spite of initial employer concerns regarding the hiring of individuals with disabilities, Project SEARCH teams did a good job of addressing these concerns.
CONCLUSIONS:
The Project SEARCH model, which takes a “demand-side” approach, appears to result in high levels of employer satisfaction.
Keywords
Introduction
Over the past several decades, a number of laws have been enacted to increase competitive employment for individuals with disabilities, including the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act (TWWIIA, Pub. L. 106–170), and Workplace Innovation and Opportunity Act of 2014. In spite of these legislative efforts, however, individuals with disabilities— especially those with intellectual disabilities (ID) such as cognitive impairment or autism— remain woefully underrepresented within the workforce (`Newman et al., 2011).
Employer perceptions have been identified as a key barrier to and/or facilitator of employment of individuals with disabilities, and a small but significant body of literature has emerged over the last few decades which focuses on employer attitudes toward the hiring and retention of employees with disabilities, including ID (e.g., `Gilbride et al., 2003; `Graffam et al., 2002; `Hernandez et al., 2008; `Kaye et al., 2011; `Peck & Kilbride, 2001).
Although studies suggest that employers’ willingness to hire individuals with disabilities has increased over time, `Hernandez et al. (2000) found that while employers’ global attitudes toward the hiring of individuals with disabilities (i.e., attitudes towards individuals with disabilities as a class) tended to be positive, when it came to the hiring of actual individuals with disabilities, employers’ specific attitudes (i.e., attitudes towards specific individuals with disabilities) tended to be more negative. Several studies suggest that “soft” skills are extremely important to employers, including the ability to engage in socially appropriate interactions, and maintain good grooming/hygiene (`Gilbride et al., 2003; `Graffam et al., 2002; `Hanley-Maxell et al. 1986). However, employers’ primary concerns about hiring individuals with disabilities related to the perceived costs associated with accommodating employees with disabilities (`Hernandez et al., 2008; `Kaye et al., 2011; `Peck & Kirkbride, 2001), fear of having to provide too much supervision (`Peck & Kirkbride, 2001); and fear of legal liability (`Kaye et al., 2011). Several survey-based studies also found evidence of persistent manager bias that seemed to impact hiring decisions, and authors generally found this bias to be related to a lack of awareness of disability and accommodation issues, including discomfort and/or unfamiliarity with individuals with disabilities (`Hernandez et al., 2008; `Kaye et al., 2011). Several studies indicated that employers also differentiated between physical and intellectual disabilities, and tended to view job candidates with ID and/or autism more negatively than job candidates with physical impairments (`Luecking, 2008; `Unger, 2002).
On the other hand, however, several studies based on surveys or individual/focus group interviews identified a number of perceived benefits associated with hiring employees with disabilities, most commonly diversification of the workplace (`Hernandez et al., 2008; `Morgan & Alexander, 2005; `Olson, 2001; `Unger, 2002), but also low rates of absenteeism (`Hernandez et al., 2008; `Morgan & Alexander, 2005), long term employment (`Hernandez et al., 2008; `Morgan & Alexander, 2005); increased productivity (`Hernandez et al., 2008; `Olson, 2001), and improved public image for the business/company (Olson, 2001; Unger, 2002).
One of most consistent findings from the literature on employer perspectives was the fact that experience employing one or more individuals with disabilities was a strong predictor of being willing to do so again (`Hernandez et al., 2000, `2008; `Luecking, 2008; `Morgan & Alexander, 2005; `Smith et al., 2004b; `Unger, 2002). This suggests that if supported work programs can manage to “get a foot in the door,” employees with disabilities will have a good chance of being retained and appropriately accommodated. According to one study by `Olson (2001), for example, which focused exclusively on employers of individuals with ID, 47% reported providing some type of coworker or supervisor training in order to better support new employees with ID. Employers found these accommodations to be well worth the effort/investment, with collateral effects including allowing the company to retain a qualified employee (93.3%), increased worker productivity (79.8%), increased company morale (72.2%), and increased interactions between employees with disabilities and their nondisabled coworkers (`Hartnett et al., 2011).
A number of studies, including some already mentioned, solicited recommendations from employers and/or generated recommendations based on employer responses. These recommendations included the following:
Over the past few decades, there has been a marked shift within the field of vocational rehabilitation towards what is referred to as a “demand side approach.” This approach focuses on identifying and meeting employer needs, and is increasingly recognized as a compliment to the more traditional “supply side approach” that focuses exclusively on the strengths and needs of the individual with disabilities (`Luecking, 2008; `Peck & Kirkbride, 2001; `Smith et al., 2004b). According to `Luecking (2008), this “dual customer approach”— which treats both job seekers and employers as clients— is especially critical in situations where individuals with disabilities are unable to compete for “off the shelf” or standardized jobs.
Project SEARCH
One model that incorporates all of the recommendations just identified, is Project SEARCH, an innovative employment training model for young adults with disabilities— especially ID— that is currently being implemented in more than 350 locations throughout the United States. For example, according to Rutkowski et al. (2006), Project SEARCH is unique in that it 1) takes a business-led, demand-side approach that is responsive to the needs of each employer/jobsite, 2) offers full immersion of interns in the workplace environment (the goal of which is competitive employment), 3) includes explicit instruction in skills considered necessary for employment success in a classroom that is located at the jobsite (e.g., hospital, hotel, museum), and 4) provides follow-along job coaching support for both interns and hires. 1
Project SEARCH is a one year program that includes three consecutive 10-week internship rotations, as well as daily classroom instruction designed to support job success. Interns attend class for one hour each day and with the support of a classroom teacher, work on developing entry-level job skills (e.g., using MS Word and Excel, building a professional portfolio, and interviewing), as well as necessary workplace behaviors or “soft skills” (e.g., remaining on task, interacting appropriately with supervisors and coworkers, punctuality, coping with frustration). Interns then work at their jobsites five hours each day with training and support as needed from a job coach. Project SEARCH sites are usually located at hospitals, hotels, and other large businesses offering a wide range of entry-level internship options appropriate for young adults with disabilities.
A few studies of Project SEARCH indicate that the program can result in positive outcomes for participants. For example, a study by `Müller & VanGilder (2014) used pre/post measures to assess growth in job readiness skills, including both specific entry-level job skills and workplace behaviors/“soft skills.” Findings from this study indicated that there was significant growth in skill levels in the majority of areas measured, and although amount of growth varied from intern to intern, all 10 demonstrated growth in skills overall. Furthermore, 60% of interns received offers of paid employment within three months of completing the program. A second, controlled study by Wehman and colleagues (Wehman, Schall, & McDonough, 2012; Wehman, Schall, McDonough, Molinelli, Riehle et al., 2012) looked at the impact of participating in Project SEARCH on young adults with autism. Authors found that 82% of program participants were placed in paid positions within three years of completing the Project SEARCH program, whereas none of the control participants were placed in such jobs.
Purpose
Given the widespread implementation of Project SEARCH (PS) programs and the dearth of information on the program’s impact, as well as the lack of recent publications exploring employer perceptions of employees with ID, we believe an examination of employer satisfaction with the Project SEARCH model is warranted.
To this end, authors surveyed employers participating in four DC metro region Project SEARCH programs in order to answer the following six research questions: 1) Are employers satisfied with the quality of their PS interns and PS hires? 2) Are employers satisfied with the quality of support they receive from PS teams? 3) What are the most significant benefits and challenges related to participation in PS? 4) Which supports provided by PS teams did employers value most highly? 5) What were employers’ reasons for choosing to participate in PS? And 6) What were employers’ initial concerns about hiring employees with ID, and did PS adequately address these concerns? Each of these Project SEARCH sites represented a collaborative partnership among the individual business (in this case, a hospital, county government, museum, or hotel), Ivymount School & Programs which provided the classroom instructor and SEEC, a local adult service provider which provided job coaching services to both PS interns and hires.
Methods
Participants
Eligible participants included employers from Project SEARCH internship sites across four Project SEARCH programs located within the greater Washington, DC metro region who had 1) hosted at least one PS intern, and/or 2) hired at least one PS graduate in a paid capacity. Over the course of three years of data collection, a total of 294 employers met these eligibility criteria. Of these, 114 completed the online survey, for an overall response rate of 38.8%. Reasons for non-responses included contact information that was no longer current, and employers who were no longer working in their original positions.
Instrumentation and data collection
A 20-item, online survey protocol was developed with extensive input from key stakeholders (e.g., help formulating questions, confirmation of accuracy and thoroughness). Based on a review of existing research on employer perceptions of employees with disabilities, we generated an interview protocol that addressed questions about employers’ satisfaction with the quality of interns and employees hired through Project SEARCH, satisfaction with the quality of services and supports received from Project SEARCH teams, the most significant benefits and challenges related to participation in Project SEARCH, reasons for choosing to participate in Project SEARCH, initial concerns about hiring employees with ID, and whether Project SEARCH teams adequately addressed these concerns (see Appendix for a copy of the survey questions). The surveys consisted of a combination of multiple choice, open-ended, and Likert-type questions (e.g., based on 5-point scales such as 1 = “very dissatisfied,” 2 = “somewhat dissatisfied,” 3 = “neutral,” 4 = “somewhat satisfied,” and 5 = “very satisfied”). Three waves of data collection were conducted during the first few months of 2014 (n = 30), 2015 (n = 39) and 2017 (n = 45). Reminders were sent out each week to non-respondents, with everyone given at least a six-week window to respond.
Data analysis
Quantitative data were analyzed using Excel and SAS. Authors calculated frequencies for most questions, and used linear regressions to measure the strength of relationships between various factors (e.g., “Was satisfaction with the communication with PS teams related to employers’ satisfaction with interns?”).
Qualitative data were analyzed thematically, using the method established by Strauss and Corbin (1999). First, the first and second authors read and analyzed open-ended survey responses, and all comments pertaining to 1) benefits of having a PS intern/hire, 2) challenges of having a PS intern/hire, or 3) supports employers would like to see more of, were identified and labeled accordingly. Authors then met to compare and consolidate findings, and to develop a coding structure. Any differences of opinion were resolved by going back and consulting the actual survey responses. During the second phase of analysis, the first author recoded responses using the agreed upon coding structure. Only major themes (i.e., those mentioned by 10 or more survey respondents) were included in this report.
Findings
Project SEARCH interns
When asked how many interns employers had had through Project SEARCH for one or more 10-week job rotations, responses were as follows: one intern (45%), two interns (23%), three interns (15%), and four or more interns (17%) (see Table 1). Employers for the most part reported being “very satisfied” with their Project SEARCH interns (68%), or “somewhat satisfied” (23%) (see Table 2). A few reported being either “neutral” (8%), or “somewhat dissatisfied” (2%). None reported being “very dissatisfied.”
Summary of quantitative data broken down by frequencies and percentages
Summary of quantitative data broken down by frequencies and percentages
Summary of employer satisfaction data broken down by frequencies and percentages
Only 46 of the 114 responding employers reported that they had hired an employee through Project SEARCH (40.4%). 2 The majority of employers who had hired a paid employee reported being “very satisfied” (75%) or “somewhat satisfied” (16%). A few reported being “neutral” (7%) or “somewhat dissatisfied” (2%). None reported being “very dissatisfied” (see Table 2).
Benefits and challenges
Employers were asked to identify the most significant benefits of having a Project SEARCH intern and/or hire, and the following six themes emerged: Most commonly, employers mentioned the benefit of having additional assistance with backlogged tasks and/or ongoing office maintenance. Typical comments included, “Computer entry tasks that had not been accomplished in the previous three years were completed by our intern in eight weeks,” and “[Our PS intern] has been able to work on some key projects for the department, and to allow us to get ahead of the backlog much more than expected.” A second very common theme was the opportunity to contribute to the advancement of individuals with ID. Typical comments included, “Staff learned several lessons, and were grateful for the opportunity to participate. This was my first experience working with someone with an intellectual disability, and it was as rewarding for our staff as it was for our [intern.]” A third major theme was the opportunity to employ conscientious, hard workers with a strong work ethic. Typical descriptors included, “reliable and prompt,” “performed the work quickly and without errors,” “learned quickly and was always excited to feel he was contributing,” “dedicated to work,” “works very hard,” and “prodigious work ethic.” A bit less frequently, employers mentioned improved disability awareness on the part of staff. Typical comments included, “I got to meet a great, competent individual who changed my assumptions about disabilities,” and “We learned a lot. We became more aware of the strengths individuals with disabilities can bring to the workplace, as well as a better understanding of the struggles they face on a daily basis.” Related to this, another theme had to do with an improved sense of team morale. Typical comments included, “Having a PS intern actually creates a team building environment,” “Staff morale was boosted,” and “[Our PS intern] was a motivation to other team members to work harder.” And finally, a sixth common theme was how pleasant it was to work with PS interns. Typical comments included, “We really enjoyed working with [our PS interns],” and “[Our interns] bring a great spirit to the office.”
Employers were also asked to identify the most significant challenges to workplace success that their Project SEARCH interns and/or hires encountered, and the following two themes emerged: First, a number of employers described social interaction and/or communication difficulties as challenges that got in the way of intern/hires’ work performance. They mentioned deficits in “asking for help when not sure of the task given,” “being more integrated with staff, communicating with the staff,” and “struggling with communication beyond the few of us that regularly work with her.” The second challenge had little to do with the quality or performance of interns/hires themselves, and more to do with job environment. A number of employers noted that the office was unable to provide sufficient work to keep the interns/hires occupied. Typical comments included, “It was sometimes difficult to find meaningful tasks,” and “Initially, we did not have enough work for her to keep her challenged and actively learning.”
Project SEARCH teams
Most employers were “very satisfied” (76%) or “somewhat satisfied” (20%) with communication between Project SEARCH teams and their job sites (see Table 2). A few were either “neutral” (3%) or “very dissatisfied” (1%). None were “somewhat dissatisfied.” When asked to elaborate on their responses, one theme emerged— the fact that almost all employers found Project SEARCH teams to be responsive communicators. Typical comments included, “All of the PS staffers are incredible communicators— they do a great job in this area.”
Most employers were also “very satisfied” (80%) or “somewhat satisfied” (14%) with the support they received from Project SEARCH teams. Only a few reported being “neutral” (4%), “somewhat dissatisfied” (1%) or “very dissatisfied” (1%) (see Table 2). Again, when asked to elaborate on their responses, one key theme emerged: how supportive and professional PS teams had been. Typical comments included, “[PS staff] are the best. They have been accommodating, help whenever an issue comes up, and make sure to continue to check in with the intern we hired. That is one of the main reasons I have been promoting PS in other departments,” “I know that if I needed pretty much anything from PS staff, they would bend over backward to help me,” and “The PS support team was phenomenal and provided training and support the entire internship.”
Most helpful supports
When asked which supports they received from Project SEARCH teams that they had found most helpful, employers selected the following: regular check-ins with job coaches (75%), opportunities to provide feedback to Project SEARCH teams (e.g., supervisor meetings, evaluation of interns) (72%), job coach support in training the intern to complete work tasks (67%), job coach support in developing a schedule and/or checklist of tasks to be performed (64%), job coach training in appropriate workplace behaviors (e.g., social skills, workplace policy) (62%), job development (e.g., helping jobsites identify potential jobs and customize tasks) (61%), staff orientation on specific interns’ characteristics (58%), support for supervisor and/or coworkers on how to work with the intern (55%), trouble-shooting workplace difficulties (52%), communication supports (46%), supervisor manual (29%), support in giving disciplinary feedback (29%), and disability awareness training (23%) (see Table 1)
Although the vast majority of employers reported that they were satisfied with the supports they were currently receiving from Project SEARCH teams, several identified supports they would like to see more of. These fell into two major themes: First, employers asked to have additional job coaching available, especially at the start of an internship rotation or job. Typical comments included, “Staff involvement, especially at the start of an internship, was helpful in that it minimized the work required by us to help the intern acclimate to the job.” A second theme was the need for better orientation to each intern’s characteristics and needs. Typical comments included, “My only suggestion is to provide a brief orientation/Q&A for the whole office in which the PS intern will be assigned,” and “I’d like to know more about the intern’s disability and characteristics.”
Reasons for participating
Employers identified the following reasons for choosing to participate in Project SEARCH: supervisor suggestion that the department get involved in the program (53%), increasing workplace diversity (47%), heard about the program and thought it sounded interesting (35%), improving workplace morale (22%), family member/friend with a disability (21%), and met an intern (14%) (see Table 1).
Willingness to hire project SEARCH interns and/or employees in future
When asked if they would consider hiring additional Project SEARCH interns and/or employees in the future, most said “yes” (91%), although a few said “no” (9%) (see Table 1). Typical comments included, “I am committed to finding a place for disabilities in the workplace. The Project SEARCH program is terrific for this.”
Prior experience
Although the majority of employers (66%) reported that they had no experience hiring and/or supervising employees with ID prior to participating in Project SEARCH, a surprisingly high percentage reported that they had (34%) (see Table 1).
Concerns about employees with disabilities
Employers were asked to identify what types of concerns they initially had about hiring/supervising an employee with ID, and they selected the following: quality control problems (34%), reduced productivity (33%), lack of support from the Project SEARCH job coach (23%), safety concerns (21%), negative attitudes of coworkers (16%), potential behavior or motivational problems (4%) and poor customer skills (1%) (see Table 1). Nineteen employers identified “other” concerns including amount of time necessary to train/supervise an intern, and intern reliability. Seven employers reported that they had not had any initial concerns about hiring/supervising an employee with ID.
When asked how well Project SEARCH teams had addressed employers’ initial concerns, the majority reported that Project SEARCH teams had done “very well” (70%) or “moderately well” (18%). Some were neutral (12%) (see Table 2). None reported that Project SEARCH had addressed concerns either “somewhat poorly” or “very poorly.”
Employers were asked to elaborate on their responses, and typical comments from those who were satisfied included, “PS was very clear about the intern’s strengths and weaknesses— there were no surprises,” and “[PS staff] definitely dispelled some prior concerns.” Those who were less satisfied made the following types of comments: “Working with autistic people is not an issue for me. The lack of availability of time for the job coach and the supervision to ensure quality control of the work being performed is my issue,” and “The coach was supportive, but we still had quality control issues and behavioral/focus problems.”
Relationships among factors
Authors used linear regressions to answer questions regarding the strength of relationship between the following factors: 1) Was satisfaction with the communication with PS teams related to employers’ satisfaction with interns? 2) Was satisfaction with support from PS teams related to how well original concerns about hiring/supervising an employee with disabilities were addressed? 3) Was satisfaction with PS interns related to how well PS teams addressed original concerns about hiring/supervising an employee with disabilities? In each of these cases, authors found virtually no relationship between factors.
Discussion
Findings from this study contribute in a number of significant ways to our understanding of 1) employers’ satisfaction with Project SEARCH programs specifically, and 2) employers’ perceptions of employees with disabilities more broadly. The implications of key findings are discussed in the following section, as are limitations of this study and suggestions for future directions in research.
Satisfaction with PS interns and permanent hires was very high among survey respondents, as was satisfaction with PS teams. This suggests that the PS program— at least at the four sites we examined— is living up to its promise of providing high quality, on-the-job training for young adults with ID, as well as ensuring that employers’ needs are being met. One of the key ways that Project SEARCH appears to do this is via its demand-side approach that treats employers as valued clients. Both qualitative and quantitative data suggest that employers found Project SEARCH teams to be responsive to the needs of the jobsites, and available to provide ongoing consultative services.
Survey responses also validated many of the findings related to employer perceptions of employees with disabilities discussed earlier in this article. For example, survey respondents expressed many of the same concerns identified by earlier studies about hiring individuals with disabilities, including worker productivity, safety, and the need for additional supervision and/or worries about whether job coaches will provide sufficient support for employees with ID (e.g., `Gilbride et al., 2003; `Peck & Kirkbride, 2001). Respondents also reported, however, that PS teams did a good job of addressing these concerns. Given that more than 90% of respondents reported that they would be willing to hire additional PS interns and/or hire interns in the future, it appears that PS teams are doing a good job of assuaging any initial fears on the part of employers about participating in the PS program. This finding also supports existing research (Hernandez et al., 2002, `2008; `Luecking, 2008; `Morgan & Alexander, 2005; `Smith et al., 2004b; `Unger, 2002) suggesting that hiring and working with one individual with a disability is a strong predictor of doing so again. Significantly, two ways in which findings from this study diverged with those from earlier studies (e.g., `Kaye et al., 2011) had to do with the fact that survey respondents identified neither costs nor the possibility of liability as potential concerns about hiring employees with disabilities.
Perceived benefits associated with the hiring of individuals with disabilities were also consistent with existing literature. As with findings reported in earlier studies (`Hernandez et al., 2008; `Morgan & Alexander, 2005; `Olson, 2001; `Unger, 2002), we found that a more productive workplace and diversification of the workforce were identified by employers as key outcomes of hiring PS interns and/or hiring interns as employees. Significantly, however, by asking open-ended questions about perceived benefits, we were also able to tease out some nuances in the ways in which employers value their employees with disabilities. Specifically, we found that benefits of employing a PS intern and/or hiring a PS intern appeared to fall into one of two categories. A number of employers identified benefits having to do with employees’ skill sets and abilities to contribute to the workplace in very tangible ways (e.g., helping address work backlogs, or enabling more skilled staff to delegate some of their entry-level tasks to PS interns/hires). Significantly, these are the same types of benefits employers would likely associate with any new employees in entry-level positions— with or without disabilities. The second category of benefits, however, was specific to the experience of hiring and working with an individual with ID. These benefits included the opportunity to contribute to the advancement of individuals with disabilities, improved disability awareness, and improved staff morale. Quotes from employers made it clear that both disability specific and non-disability specific categories of benefits were highly valued.
Two areas where survey respondents requested even more intensive support from Project SEARCH included job coaching at the beginning of the job placement, and more in-depth orientation to interns’ characteristics. This suggests that employers are more inclined to feel positively about hiring an employee with ID if they know they will have the support they need from the adult service provider or vocational support agency, and are willing to spend some time to learn about the employee’s unique strengths and needs profiles, as well as how they— as coworkers and supervisors— can support the new employee’s successful integration into the workplace.
Based on employers’ positive reactions to the four Project SEARCH programs included in this study, we identified the following critical components of employer-friendly school-to-work programs serving young adults with ID. First, as identified earlier by `Hernandez et al. (2008), `Kaye et al. (2011), and `Luecking (2008), the role of employment support staff appears to be key. Employers repeatedly stressed their appreciation of PS job coaches and vocational instructors providing initial training and follow-along support, as well as communicating regularly with employers about their evolving needs. Similar to what was found by `Kaye et al. (2011) and `Müller et al. (2003), several employers noted that it was useful to have PS teams help identify targeted tasks for PS interns and/or hires to complete, essentially to “carve” new jobs where none had existed before. Second, the Project SEARCH’s internship rotations provided a way for employers to get to know interns before committing to them long-term. Again our findings support earlier research by `Hernandez et al. (2008) in this area. This seemed to help address any initial concerns on the part of employers, and ultimately led to the hiring of many interns. Third, many employers alluded to the importance of PS raising their and their coworkers’ disability awareness, confirming the earlier findings of `Kaye et al. (2011) and `Müller et al. (2003). This suggests that Project SEARCH serves an important educational function for individuals without disabilities who come into contact with PS interns, as well as for interns themselves.
Limitations and future directions
Findings from this study should be interpreted with the following limitations in mind: First, the response rate was less than 50%, and it was unclear whether non-respondents differed in significant ways from those who responded to the survey. It is possible, for example, that employers who were dissatisfied with PS may have avoided responding, rather than share their criticisms directly. Another possible (and related) limitation has to do with “social desirability” bias, or the tendency of survey participants to respond in the way they believe researchers want them to. In this case, social desirability bias may have led employers to express more positive feelings about employees with ID, and fewer concerns, than they actually felt. Third, it is important to note that the four PS sites included in this study maintain a high level of program fidelity, which includes intensive training and preparation of staff, and continuous improvement monitoring in terms of both PS participant outcomes and PS employer satisfaction. This means that PS employer satisfaction might be higher for the four PS sites included in this study than for PS sites in general.
In terms of future directions, it would be helpful to conduct research that compares employer satisfaction with Project SEARCH to employer satisfaction with other program models. It would also be helpful to conduct more 1) in-depth qualitative analyses of employer satisfaction that dive more deeply into the question of what they like best about the Project SEARCH model and whether these factors are unique to Project SEARCH or are common across multiple school-to-work programs for young adults with disabilities, as well as 2) controlled, experimental research of Project SEARCH outcomes.
Concluding remarks
Overall, employers appear to be highly satisfied with Project SEARCH interns and/or hires, as well as with PS teams. Findings suggest that a school-to-work model like Project SEARCH, which embodies many of the best practices within the field, seems to meet the needs of both young adults with ID and their employers. Authors attribute employers’ high levels of satisfaction with the PS model to the fact that PS is so responsive to both demand-side and supply-side needs.
Conflict of interest
None to report.
Footnotes
APPENDIX: Copy of Project SEARCH Employer Survey Protocol
In most cases, the job coach providing support for the hired interns is covered by an employee of the cooperating agency providing adult services.
Although only 46 employers had hired an employee through Project SEARCH at the time of this study, these figures can be explained in part by the fact that many of the employers we surveyed were new to Project SEARCH, and hadn’t yet had a chance to offer paid jobs to their interns.