Perspectives on people with intellectual disabilities as business owners

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Microenterprise is emerging as an employment pathway for people with intellectual disabilities, but there is little published research in this area.

OBJECTIVE:

To identify the facilitators, barriers and outcomes from microenterprises owned by people with intellectual disabilities from several stakeholder perspectives.

METHODS:

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with seven business owners and 22 other stakeholders with data analysed using content analysis.

RESULTS:

A key facilitator for successful microenterprise was the availability of, and continued access to, three pillars of formal support (microenterprise consultant, personal assistant, and an enterprise management group). Key barriers identified were funding limitations, role confusion between supports, and problems recruiting supports with business skills. Outcomes for business owners included personal/emotional growth, skills development, autonomy, having a meaningful role, and contributing to their communities. Other stakeholders experienced personal rewards and an increased expectation of the capacities of people with intellectual disabilities. Income generation and cessation of benefits was not the goal of the model or noted as a main consideration by stakeholders.

CONCLUSIONS:

Microenterprise can provide people with intellectual disabilities with an employment pathway highly tailored to their goals, capacities and interests. With consistent formal support, people with intellectual disabilities can run businesses over many years.

Keywords

Microenterprise people with intellectual disabilities formal support informal support qualitative

1 Introduction

Globally the prevalence of intellectual disability is thought to be underestimated at 1% of the population (Lysaght et al., 2015), with data from Australia indicating that 2.9% of people live with an intellectual disability (Australian Bureau of Satistics, 2014). People with intellectual disabilities both in Australia and globally experience a range of disadvantages including poorer health and socio-economic outcomes when compared to both the general population and people with other disabilities (Department of Health Victoria, 2011; Myers et al., 1998). Economic participation is often cited as a route to social inclusion, improved health and better quality of life outcomes (Eggleton et al., 1999a; Jahoda et al., 2008; Robertson et al., 2019; World Health Organisation, 2011) despite this, the rate of employment for this population remains low in Australia and internationally (Dempsey & Ford, 2009; Domin & Butterworth, 2013).

The Australian National Disability Insurance Scheme, introduced in 2013, aimed to establish greater choice and control for people with disabilities through individualised, self-directed funding and tailored support services, aligned with global trends in disability policy (Chenoweth & Clements, 2011; Productivity Commission, 2011; Reddihough et al., 2016). One of the central objectives of the scheme is to improve social inclusion and economic participation for people with disabilities. Despite this aim, and the acknowledged significance of economic participation for the wellbeing of people with disabilities, a 2-year evaluation of the scheme reported no significant improvement in employment rates of people with disabilities (Mavromaras et al., 2018).

The workforce participation rates for people with intellectual disability in Australia is currently 32%; significantly lower than that for people with other disabilities (53.4%) and for those without disabilities (84.1%) (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2020). While data availability limitations and the lack of common metrics create significant problems with obtaining, compiling and comparing reliable employment data across different countries (Lysaght et al., 2015), it is estimated that, globally, people with intellectual disability are 3 to 4 times less likely to be employed than people without a disability (Dempsey & Ford, 2009; Verdonschot et al., 2008).

1.1 The employment of people with intellectual disability

Historically employment for people with disabilities in Australia has centred around the sheltered workshop employment model, known as ‘Disability Enterprises’ (Parmenter, 2011). A hallmark of sheltered employment has been low wages, aimed at supplementing rather than replacing disability pensions, and repetitive and menial work (National Disability Rights Network, 2011). Sheltered workshops are, by nature, segregated workplaces limiting the social benefits of community workforce participation and the flow on impacts on community inclusion, health and wellbeing (Blick et al., 2016; Dean et al., 2018; Kober & Eggleton, 2005). Open employment (employment in mainstream businesses working with people with and without disabilities) –known as supported employment in international contexts - has been promoted as a way of increasing social inclusion and connections to community as well as financial independence (Beyer et al., 2010; Bond et al, 2001; Wehman et al., 2018). In the US, customized employment has evolved from supported (open) employment as a way of designing roles which meet the needs of people with disability and their employers (Griffin et al., 2008). The Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (2014) formally recognises customized employment as an employment pathway for people with disability (Riesen et al., 2015) and this framework now encompasses self-employment as well as paid employment through an employer as outlined in the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (2014) (Callahan et al., 2011; Condon & Callahan, 2008; Heath et al., 2013).

Research has demonstrated that open employment results in better quality of life and wellbeing outcomes for people with intellectual disabilities, whereas those employed in sheltered workshops have been reported to have quality of life experiences similar to those who are unemployed (Eggleton et al., 1999b). Recognising the personal, social, and economic benefits of the employment of people with disabilities in community settings and acknowledging the abilities and rights of people with disabilities has seen a push in both policy and practice toward open employment in Australia and globally (Lysaght et al., 2009; Nord et al., 2013; Tuckerman et al., 2012). Embedded in this approach is the assumption that people with intellectual disabilities can be capable and desirable employees (United Nations, 2008). Support to access employment opportunities in the open labour market typically adopts a person-centred approach and provides intensive support to find employment in a community setting, aligned with the skills and interests of the potential employee with a disability (Wehman et al., 2012). To this end, resources have been mobilised to improve participation in open employment through education and training of potential employers and co-workers to help break down stigma and assumptions about the capabilities of people with disabilities (Butterworth et al., 2012; Migliore et al., 2008).

Despite expectations and intentions however, evidence that participation in employment is occurring in community settings as a path to inclusion into the workplace or wider social networks is limited (Dearing, 2021) and discrimination against and segregation of people with intellectual disabilities by managers and co-workers persists (Akkerman et al., 2014; Kocman et al., 2018; Meacham et al., 2017). Additionally, despite many years of policy intended to increase open employment opportunities for people with disabilities and demand for employment positions, there has been no noticeable increase in the open employment of people with intellectual disabilities in Australia nor in other developed nations such as the UK and the United States (Butterworth et al., 2015; Riches & Macdonald, 2016; Tuckerman et al., 2012).

A development in integrated or open employment has been the rise of the social enterprise sector (Lysaght et al., 2018; Meltzer et al., 2018; Smith et al., 2018). The social enterprise model features dual-purpose social and entrepreneurial objectives, trading goods and services on the open market within a financially sustainable business while supporting the primary goal of providing employment and training opportunities for marginalised communities (Lysaght 2018). Social enterprises have the potential to combine some of the benefits of a supported environment found in sheltered employment with the benefits of open employment, such as market level payment, opportunities for skills development via traineeships, interaction with community and enjoyable work (Hall, 2010; Kay et al., 2016; Lysaght et al., 2014; Smith et al., 2018). Research by Meltzer et al. (2018) suggests that, as a sector, opportunities are often still limited, and people with disability face long wait periods during which they work unpaid in volunteer positions. A lack of clarity in Australia around the definition of social enterprise and a move by sheltered employment workshops to redefine themselves as social enterprises further complicates the current utility of the social enterprise model (Smith et al., 2018).

1.2 Microenterprise

Another possible and underutilised employment pathway for people with disability, is that of microenterprise. Microenterprise evolved from a model designed to lift people out of poverty in developing nations and can be defined as very small business, requiring little start-up capital, often employing less than 4 staff, and developed around the interests, capabilities and goals of the person who owns the business (Ouimette & Rammler, 2017; Walls et al., 2001). In developed nations such as the US, microenterprise has not only provided financial resources to business owners without disability, but also other valuable outcomes such as skills development, increased confidence and self-esteem and social outcomes (Dumas, 2001; Walcott et al., 2019). A recent Australian study identified that people with physical disabilities were 40% more likely to own their own business than those without disabilities (Darcy et al., 2020). However, the authors noted that people with intellectual disabilities had the lowest incidence of business ownership (Darcy et al., 2020), despite making up 70% of all NDIS participants (Bonyhady, 2016).

A recent systematic review of international peer-reviewed papers on microenterprise for people with intellectual disabilities found only six papers published to date (Hutchinson, Lay, Alexander & Ratcliffe, 2020), with only one Australian study (Thoresen et al., 2018). The systematic review identified consistent evidence for the potential of microenterprise to deliver a wide range of psychosocial benefits such as engagement with the community, increased enjoyment of work, development of practical skills, a feeling of engaging in meaningful or valuable work, improved self-image, a sense of identity, pride and improved confidence (Hutchinson et al., 2020). Despite these many positive benefits, the review found that, in contrast to microenterprises ran by people with physical disabilities (Anderson & Galloway, 2012; Darcy et al., 2020; Holub, 2001; Hwang & Roulstone, 2015) few microenterprises run by people with intellectual disabilities, produced the sole or main income for the business owners (Hutchinson et al., 2020). This is attributed, in part, to the need to maintain a safety net and avoid triggering the cessation of welfare benefits. It was also identified that many microenterprise owners with intellectual disabilities relied on considerable formal and informal support to set up and maintain their businesses (Hutchinson et al., 2020).

The small number of previous studies on microenterprise for people with intellectual disability have recruited business owners from diverse channels and predominantly focused on the views of business owners and family members, with few including other stakeholders and none including customers of microenterprise (Hutchinson et al., 2020). The current study uniquely explores and considers perspectives from a wide-range of microenterprise stakeholders. It is also singular in focussing on microenterprise for people with intellectual disability within one specific service model, responsible for setting up and providing ongoing support for each business, known as the “Microenterprise Project”.

1.3 Microenterprise project

The Microenterprise project is operated by Community Living Project, an organisation that provides a range of support and capacity building services to people with disability under the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS). One of their core initiatives is the Microenterprise Project which aims to support people with high support needs to start their own small business and has been operating since 2012. Community Living Project have capacity to support up to 20 microenterprises. The service focuses on providing opportunities for people who have significant disabilities and is underpinned by five key principles: 1) to build social capital through community participation and inclusion, 2) to support individuality by discovering each person’s skills, interests and passions, 3) to nurture a unique talent that could be turned into a product or service, 4) to support people to develop their social networks and form new social bonds, and 5) to help people to contribute to social and economic life in their community. The project employs one manager and two microenterprise consultants.

The organisation follows a four-stage framework. This starts with a ‘discovery’ process whereby the microenterprise team work with the person with intellectual disability to identify their passions, skills and capacities, as well as to identify the person’s financial, materials and social resources. This stage is to determine whether a microenterprise would meet the person with intellectual disabilities needs and goals.

The second stage is for ‘exploration’, that is beginning to identify and craft ideas for a product or service and whether there is a market for this product or service locally. At this stage an Enterprise Management Group is formed. This group typically has three to five members who meet regularly (e.g. monthly or bi-monthly) and will support the business owner for as long as the business operates. Members can include people with expertise in the product or service which will be the focus of the microenterprise as well as people with other relevant skills such as business, marketing, or accounting. The required skills for the business owner’s personal assistant are identified as well as the funding source to pay for this support. Personal assistants typically work the same hours as the business owner, providing one to one support and are employed by the business owner. Personal assistants are not disability support workers but rather people who have experience relevant to the product or service.

Stage three is the ‘creation’ phase where the business is launched, the roles of the Enterprise Management Group members embedded, and the service or product is trialled. Perceptions and assumptions made during discovery and exploration are revisited and any low expectations being placed on the business or their owner are challenged. Stage four is ‘operation’. This is where the business is in full operation mode, systems are embedded including pricing and marketing, and there is ongoing monitoring of success including monitoring the quality of the product or service, and the efficiency and effectiveness of the business operations. The performance of the personal assistant is regularly monitored by the Enterprise Management Group and the microenterprise consultant. A learning loop back through stages 2 (exploration) and 3 (creation) are needed to support product or service improvement, changes, or expansion.

1.4 The current study

Focusing on a single microenterprise support program, this qualitative study sought to investigate the barriers, facilitators, and outcomes from microenterprise for people with intellectual disabilities from multiple perspectives. As well as the business owners themselves, we sought the perspectives of their personal assistants, family members, Enterprise Management Group members, customers and microenterprise support staff.

2 Materials and methods

2.1 Recruitment

Business owners were recruited through Community Living Project’s Microenterprise Project. The study commenced with interviews with the project Manager and two consultants to obtain background on the project, the framework used, and ongoing support provided.

Following this, the microenterprise consultants approached business owners, personal assistants, and parents / family members of business owners to inform them about the research and to distribute Participant Information Sheets and consent forms to those who were interested in participating. Once verbal consent to participate was provided, the consultants passed on contact details to the first author so that interviews could be organised at a time that was convenient to the participants. The microenterprise consultants worked with business owners to identify other participants involved in their business (Enterprise Management Group member, customer) and to ascertain their interest in participating in the research. Again, Participant Information Sheets and consent forms were distributed and contact details passed onto the research team following verbal consent.

Formal written consent to participate was sought from all participants before interviews commenced. Interviews with microenterprise staff, business owners, family members and personal assistants were conducted face to face, with two later interviews conducted via video conferencing call due to COVID-19 restrictions. Interviews with Enterprise Management Group members and customers were conducted face to face or over the telephone.

2.2 Materials

A semi-structured interview schedule was developed for each of the participants roles: microenterprise staff, business owners, personal assistants, family members, Enterprise Management Group Members, and customers. The main focus was to gain perspectives on what facilitated success in the microenterprise, what presented barriers to success and what outcomes were experienced by business owners as well as other people supporting the microenterprise.

In brief, business owners were asked about what prompted them to become a business owner, the nature of their business, their interests, the activities they undertook in running the business, positive aspects of being a business owner as well as things they found challenging, their aspirations, the formal and informal support their received, the learning and development they had experienced since being a business owner, their social and community engagement, and any other positive or negative outcomes they have experienced. Family, personal assistants and Enterprise Management Group Members were primary asked about their perceptions of the facilitators, barriers and outcomes from the microenterprise as well as their own roles in setting up and/or supporting the business. They were also asked if they received any positive or negative outcomes from their involvement in the microenterprise.

Customers were asked how they first became aware of the microenterprise and what made them want to support the business. They were asked how the product/service compared to others on the market, whether they would (or have) recommended the business to others, and whether they see the business being successful over the next five years. Finally, they were asked if (and how) supporting the business had changed their perceptions of the capacities of people with intellectual disability.

2.3 Analysis

All interviews were recorded with the permission of participants and the digital recordings imported into NVivo 12 to support the analysis. Qualitative content analysis was conducted (Graneheim et al., 2017; Vaismoradi et al., 2013, 2016) directly from the audio files and was informed by the project aims. In the first round of coding, the second author coded all transcripts, with no new codes emerging before the final transcripts had been coded, indicating data saturation had been achieved. The first and second author then met to discuss the codes and to map the initial codes into categories based on whether the codes represented facilitators, barriers, or outcomes of microenterprise, creating subcategories as required. Interrelated codes and how codes differed by participant type were also discussed as part of the interpretation process and to finalise the themes.

3 Results

3.1 Participants

Seven business owners participated in the study along with 22 other participants (Table 1). Two of the business owners were providing a service, that is, gardening and delivering groceries. The other five business owners were distributing a product that they produced themselves, such as fresh produce, dried fruit and wooden furniture and other items of décor made from recycled timber (Tables 1 2). Five of the business owners were male and two were female and they ranged in age from 21 years to 54 years (Table 2). Six business owners were born with an intellectual disability or had their intellectual disability diagnosed in early childhood. One business owner has acquired an intellectual disability as an adult due to a traumatic brain injury. The youngest of the business owners had only been operating his business for one year but three of the business owners had been operating their microenterprises for seven to eight years (Table 2).

Table 1
Participant type by business

Business Owner PA Family/advocate Enterprise Management Group member Customer Microenterprise staff

1. T-shirt design ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

2. Gardening service ✓ ✓ ✓ [A] ✓ [A] 2 consultants

3. Flower arrangements ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 1 manager [C]

4. Grocery deliveries ✓ ✓ ✓ [B] ✓ [B]

5. Timber furniture and décor ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

6. Growing and selling fresh produce ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

7. Selling dried fruit ✓ ✓ ✓ [C] ✓ [D] ✓ [D]

Business	Owner	PA	Family/advocate	Enterprise Management Group member	Customer	Microenterprise staff
1. T-shirt design	✓	✓	✓	✓
2. Gardening service	✓		✓	✓ [A]	✓ [A]	2 consultants
3. Flower arrangements	✓	✓	✓	✓		1 manager [C]
4. Grocery deliveries	✓	✓	✓ [B]	✓ [B]
5. Timber furniture and décor	✓	✓	✓		✓
6. Growing and selling fresh produce	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
7. Selling dried fruit	✓	✓	✓ [C]	✓ [D]	✓ [D]

Note. [A] to [D] denotes interviewees who fulfilled more than one role, n = 33 interviews, n = 29 participants.

Table 2

Business owner demographics and prior work history

Business owner	Gender	Age	Business type	Time trading	Work prior to commencing microenterprise
1. Billy	Male	21	T-shirt design	1 year	Part-time open employment while in high school
2. Tim	Male	23	Gardening service	4 years	Part-time open employment
3. Rose	Female	53	Flower arrangements	8 years	Sheltered workshop, day program
4. Ian	Male	19	Grocery deliveries	< 1 year	Part-time open employment while in high school
5. Doug	Male	54	Timber furniture and décor	7 years	Day program
6. Martin	Male	43	Selling produce	4 years	Sheltered workshop, open employment via a transition project
7. Joanna	Female	51	Selling dried fruit	7 years	Sheltered workshop, day program

Some of the participants in the study fulfilled two roles, for example, in one business the family member was also on her son’s Enterprise Management Group. Indeed, at the time of the interviews, the Enterprise Management Group for that particular business consisted entirely of family members, as all members of the business owner’s immediate family were entrepreneurs themselves. Two of the participants were customers that were also members of the business owner’s Enterprise Management Group. In both instances, the participants had sought to become involved in supporting the business owner following their experiences as customers of the business.

All business owners had been employed previously with four experiencing part-time or temporary open employment and three having previously worked in sheltered workshops. The business owner with an acquired disability had not been employed since his injury and had been in a day program prior to starting his business. Furthermore, two were in day programs, and one had been long-term unemployed immediately prior to starting their business. Business owners reported that they wanted to do something meaningful that would keep them motivated and engaged. In addition, business owners wanted skills development, better financial rewards, and a place in the community.

In the next sections we outline the themes identified from the analysis as the facilitators, barriers and outcomes associated with microenterprise in this sample. Pseudonyms have been used.

3.2 Facilitators

The main themes identified as facilitators of microenterprise were business characteristics and practices, formal support, informal support and networks. Business characteristics included having a local focus, a product with a story, and focusing on providing one good product or service. As one customer noted ‘people are looking for something local and the [local] businesses generally want to have a different offering if you like, you know, not Target’ (Doug’s Customer, Business #4).

Successful business practices identified included having clear boundaries between the different roles supporting the business owner, for example, between family members and the personal assistant, and between the personal assistant and the Enterprise Management Group. All roles were defined as part of the third ‘creation’ stage of setting up the microenterprise, and the participants recognised the importance of everyone sticking to their roles and performing them well. Other business practices that were key facilitators were formal business processes and procedures, and in some cases, using technology to support the business. One personal assistant identified that an app on the business owner’s phone provided sales information and supported business planning.

We [put] what’s he’s sold into the app and that goes onto a spreadsheet so we can see who’s bought what and then we can predict what we need to plant and how much of each produce we need to plant, so there’s a bit of planning involved and stuff like that. (Martin’s PA, Business #6)

In addition to business planning, contingency planning was also identified as important, such as for example, how to keep the business going if the owner experienced a health issue meaning they could not work for a period of time. Maintaining a local focus to support the embedding of the business owner in the community in which they lived, keeping the business size manageable, and having regular customers were also key facilitators identified as supporting business longevity. For example, one customer observed the potential of the microenterprise to expand but recognised that making the business bigger may not be a primary aim of the business owner.

It’s a sustainable, it’s a beautiful little cottage industry. . .My business mind says grow more and supply to more people, but I don’t actually think that would bring him more happiness and success. (Martin’s Customer, Business #6)

Formal support came from three main sources: the personal assistant, the Enterprise Management Group, and the Microenterprise Project team. Many of the Enterprise Group Members had a range of business development and financial skills and promoted the microenterprise through their own networks to identify new customers. The groups were responsibility for helping recruit the personal assistant and supporting the business owner and personal assistant in relation to future planning and supported decision-making. In the following two quotes, business owners identify how their personal assistant supports them on a day-to-day basis.

We talk about things ... we come up with ideas which you wouldn’t do on your own, you know? When you both share ideas you come up with one good idea which you probably wouldn’t have thought about otherwise. That’s what I find anyway. (Doug, Business #5)

Him [personal assistant] and I go around to people’s houses and we mow the lawns. So, he does the stuff that I can’t currently do, so he does the ‘whipper-snippering’ of the edges of the lawn and also drives the car. (Tim, Business #2)

Personal assistants were employed by the business owner and had knowledge and skills in the business area. Due to their business knowledge, personal assistants were able to help grow the microenterprises customer base and provide quality control and product or service development. They filled in where the owner had skills gaps or limited motor skills, for example, and provided transportation but under the principle of “alongside but not in front” (Microenterprise Consultant 1), that is, the personal assistant’s role was not to lead but to be an employee.

Other resources that business owners drew on to facilitate their microenterprise included informal support, networks, and financial resources. In many of the businesses, families had played a key role in supporting the business owner to start their own business. For the two youngest business owners, their parents had been instrumental in driving the setting up and maintenance of their sons’ businesses, in both cases using some of their own financial resources to do so. The parents support for microenterprise as a pathway for their sons was largely driven by high expectations of post-school life and neither wanting their sons to be placed in sheltered workshops.

3.3 Barriers

The main themes identified under barriers were the issue of scalability and its desirability, funding, role confusion, the problem of recruiting formal supports and, for some businesses, the impact of varying capacity of the business owner due to ongoing health challenges.

Though several interviewees noted that the microenterprises were scalable and had growth potential, for many this was regarded as undesirable or not the main aim of the setting up the microenterprise. One personal assistant working in a business which had only been operating for a year recognised the need to have dreams but to not rush to expand too quickly:

I’m not necessarily saying just people with intellectual disabilities, like everyone has certain limits on what they can do, um, but you know, if someone does have an intellectual disability and you’re trying to create a business that’s too big for what they can handle and it grows too quickly or whatever it could sort of, really, sort of collapse on itself so. . .... it’s good to dream big but you’ve also got to take it one step at a time. (Billy’s Personal Assistant, Business #1)

Several participants noted that NDIS funding was a potential barrier to operating a microenterprise. One business owner reported that he would like to expand his business a bit more but that he is limited by how much transportation funding he can have to deliver his produce, as he only has a small budget for transportation in his current NDIS plan.

I haven’t tried to get new [customers] recently. ‘Cause the ones I’ve got. . .It all revolves around transport, like the kilometres. I’m only allowed to do so many kilometres a fortnight. . .20kms is my limit. (Martin, Business #6)

The parent of one of the younger business owners reported that funding through NDIS was too limited and therefore she could only partially fund a personal assistant and could not afford additional support from the microenterprise consultant at that time, resulting in her having to step in and support her son’s business more herself. This change in circumstance meant that she had to give up her own employment.

Funding all got a bit tricky I wasn’t getting enough funding. . .so I’ve kind of had to take it on and do it myself. . .Ideally if I had more funding, I would have the support of a [micro-enterprise consultant] but I don’t have enough funding to support [the Personal Assistant] and have the support of [a microenterprise consultant] which is why I’m now not working and doing it myself. (Ian’s mother, Business #4)

Despite these impacts upon her own life, she regarded the sacrifice as worth it as “you look at Ian and see what he’s achieving. The proof is in the pudding. I just wish they [NDIS] could come and see” (Ian’s parent, Business #4).

Whereas the above parent was stepping into a role that was not been fulfilled by another person, people stepping out of their roles and encroaching on the functionality of the business and autonomy of the business owner was a problem for some businesses. Attempts to manage this well-meaning but ultimately unhelpful interference were made by family and Enterprise Management Group members. One family member described an example of this dynamic and the role she took in managing it.

. . .it’s to do with his dad coming in the garden too much, his dad’s not allowed in the garden, we feel like if his dad helps out in the garden Martin will stop working, because his dad does like helping him out, so yeah I have to direct that. (Martin’s cousin, Business #6)

Clear guidance on the role of the PA was an important aspect of the work of the Enterprise Management group, with several members reporting having to step in to smooth over role confusion and reinforce boundaries around business practices and plans, keeping the focus on the business owner’s needs. Over involvement in the business or ‘taking over’ and associated problems highlighted the importance of finding PAs and Enterprise Management Group members that were a ‘good fit’. Many participants emphasised the importance of a good working relationship between the Enterprise Management Group, PA, family members and business owner. The necessity of balancing personal rapport with appropriate skills and time availability created difficulties in the recruitment and retention of Enterprise Management Group members and PAs. One Enterprise Management Group member described the difficulty in finding people who have the attributes they need who are also available to join the group.

The kind of people that you automatically think of are people who are quite busy anyway. You know you don’t want to just have the kindly lady from next door you want to get someone with a bit of go in them. (Rose’s EMG member, Business #3)

Whilst a family member described the unique skills they were looking for in a PA and her fear that they would not be able to recruit someone to fulfill the role.

Because to get somebody that maybe wants a part time job and you know, have the combination of supporting someone with a disability in a workplace I thought was just going to be impossible to get the right person. . .... That was, for me, was the biggest thing was how are we going to get the right person? (Tim’s mother, Business #2)

The health and wellbeing of business owners impacted on the functionality of some microenterprises. Absences due to hospital stays, illness or emotional challenges were reported, resulting in difficulties maintaining consistent services or products. One participant, who had profound disabilities combined with significant mental health challenges could have periods of low productivity that clashed with the commitments of the business, as described by her advocate.

Yes if [she] is having a day, so some days it might take two hours to have lunch and the PA just needs to deal with it. . .and then she might soil herself and have to have a shower and there’s all your, most of, could be three hours out of your day and we had to get another box done today because we’ve got some deliveries tomorrow. (Joanna’s advocate, Business #7)

While the discovery process and business customisation are designed to limit the impact of these factors, agility was needed to negotiate unforeseen barriers and additional challenging circumstances as they arose.

3.4 Outcomes

Key themes identified under outcomes were personal and emotional growth (confidence and resilience), soft skill development (communication and social skills), business skills development, enjoyment of work, autonomy, having a meaningful role and contributing to the community. Other participants involved in the microenterprises experienced high level of personal rewards and an increased expectation of the capacities of people with intellectual disabilities.

Positive outcomes for business owners were consistently reported by participants. Family members and PAs emphasised personal and emotional growth in areas such as communication, resilience, confidence and social skills. One PA described the growing confidence of a business owner.

When we first started, she didn’t want to go because she didn’t know them, you know? And sometimes she’ll say. . .‘oh I’m really frightened, I’m frightened’ in a place you know? And I say, ‘I’m here it’s ok it doesn’t matter I’m not going to let anything happen to ya’. And things like that but now, she really doesn’t mind you know?. . .I’ve seen her confidence grow. (Rose’s PA, Business #3)

Business owners themselves often reported the development in skills specific to the business but also in relation to money management, customer interaction and technological skills. Martin talks about some of the skills he has developed from running his business for four years.

I’ve learnt a bit more about customer service, I’ve learnt a bit more about presentation and what my products should look like. I’ve learnt how to plant properly like how many seeds to put down and pick out the worst ones. I’ve learnt how to fertilise again properly and when’s the best time and when’s the best time to water and how much water. . .and what I need fortnightly or if I need to buy anything from [DIY store] for the business. (Martin, Business #6)

Aside from growth and development, simple enjoyment of work was an outcome often reported by both business owners themselves and other stakeholders.

He enjoys it and he likes it and he’s happy. So happy. He’s the happiest I’ve seen him. And he jumps out of bed every morning wanting to do it and go. Which is just, win-win. (Ian’s mother, Business #4)

And yeah, I think seeing her kind of thriving and enjoying it. And even just the little things at home like just cutting the fruit, you can tell like, some days she’s just so into it and focussed and it’s like, ‘oh my god this is just, yeah, this is for you and it works’. (Joanna’s PA, Business #7)

Business owners also reported enjoying the autonomy of working for themselves and pride in their business. Participants noted the formation of a sense of identity as ‘business owner’, displacing previous identity as ‘person with a disability’. This had implications not only for how the business owner saw themselves but how they were perceived by others. A family member described the difference this new sense of identity has made in social situations.

. . .[she] introduced herself as [business name] so that was really nice, and to see that actually occur that was really nice, because prior to that you don’t even bother to get introduced. So, it does make a difference, it really does make a difference. (Rose’s sister, Business #3)

The ability to contribute to the community through offering a product and service, speaking about experiences, and even in one case donating services for charity fundraisers, compounded the sense of having an identity within the community based on being an equal, contributing and actively involved community member.

Everybody gets asked when they’re leaving school ‘what are you going to be doing next year’ and straight away he could turn around and say ‘I’m going to have my own business’. And that was a really great thing because perception is everything and so people perceive [him] quite differently as well because of the work he does. ... . It gives him a high level of satisfaction and self-esteem. (Tim’s mother, Business #2)

Positive outcomes were not limited to business owners. Personal Assistants and Enterprise Management Group members reported a high level of personal reward from their involvement in the businesses. Besides the satisfaction of watching the growth, development and enjoyment of the business owner, participants reported that they felt they were contributing to a scheme that was beneficial to the community as a whole.

4 Discussion

This research sought to identify the facilitators, barriers and outcomes for microenterprise for people with intellectual disabilities from multiple perspectives within one particular microenterprise support program. This model of support was established for the express purpose of supporting people with intellectual disabilities to start their own businesses. Notably, the level of informal and formal support required for the success of these businesses was high, in line with previous international findings (Hutchinson et al., 2020). The model of support in the current research provided three pillars of formal support: the day-to-day support of a PA, an Enterprise Management Group and the expertise of microenterprise consultants trained in assisting in the development and operation of microenterprise specifically for people with intellectual disabilities.

Disability employment advisors’ lack of knowledge regarding microenterprise and business and related skills has been identified as a key barrier to people with intellectual disability pursuing microenterprise (Hagner & Davies, 2002; Reddington & Fitzsimons, 2013; Thoresen et al., 2018). This was also found to be the case for people with physical disabilities (Darcy et al., 2020). In the current model, the microenterprise team had substantial knowledge and experience of helping establish and support microenterprise over a period of nine years. Furthermore, specific business, planning and quality control knowledge relating to the product or services was also provided by the Enterprise Management Group members. This model therefore seemed to provide more consistent ongoing support than was evident in the studies included in the systematic review of international microenterprise research (Hutchinson et al., 2020).

When people with intellectual disability did obtain support to start a microenterprise in other studies, their primary formal support was provided by a disability support worker rather than someone who was knowledgeable about business or the microenterprise specific product or service (Hagner & Davies, 2002; Thoresen et al., 2018). The business owners in the current study are not disability workers but rather people with expertise in the service or product being offered. The clear feedback from participants was how important this aspect of the model was. A PA with the right skills and rapport with the business owner was seen as central to business success. However, one of the potential issues with having the three pillars of support was the need for everyone to have clear roles and boundaries. It was clear from the interview data that this was not always the case and that sometimes roles needed to be re-affirmed and re-negotiated over time.

In addition to this formal support, it was evident that many participants also relied on informal support. This was received in the form of resources from personal networks, such as time, knowledge, capabilities and, in some cases, financial support. The reliance on informal support –typically parents - was also a common feature of other microenterprises models for people with intellectual disability (Hutchinson et al., 2020). Previous research into the viability of microenterprise have encouraged a model that does not strain these resources or rely heavily on access to such resources for its operation (Ouimette & Rammler, 2017). Overall, the model of support in the current study provided more structure and formal support than was apparent in other studies, thereby perhaps reducing reliance on informal support. People with intellectual disabilities who have stronger networks and familial support experience better health, education, and work outcomes (Jacobs et al., 2021). A model that relies too heavily on familial or informal support risks exacerbating this divide by embedding inequality of access (Bigby, 1997; Sanderson et al., 2017).

Funding was a key facility for microenterprise in this and other studies (Hagner and Davies, 2002; Reddington & Fitzsimons, 2013) with some microenterprises internationally able to access business related or start up loans. In the current model the funder was predominantly NDIS (with younger business owners receiving some funding from parents), though some participants believed that funding was not always adequate to meet the goals of the business owner. Growth of businesses was observed to be limited by factors such as limited PA hours or travel allowance to deliver products each week. Furthermore, in the case of the two youngest business owners, it was noted that parents had contributed financial and other resources to their sons’ businesses. Not all people with intellectual disabilities may have access to a high level of resources due to families of people with disabilities being more likely to have lower levels of income (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2019) and people with disabilities typically having lower social capital, including smaller social networks; a potential source of informal support (Chan et al., 2018; Leonard et al., 2016).

As with the international evidence, it seems there was some tension between the desire to expand businesses - which might lead to more financial rewards - and keeping the business manageable and sustainable (Hutchinson et al., 2020). For US based studies in particular the need to preserve access to medical cover was viewed as vital (Caldwell et al., 2019a; Conroy et al., 2010; Hagner & Davies, 2002); though this was not so much of an issue in Australia and many other developed nations that have universal healthcare provision (Hutchinson et al., 2020). Maintaining access to welfare benefits was also a key consideration internationally (Hutchinson et al., 2020). This is especially relevant as people with intellectual disability can have health issues which can make their ability to work regular hours consistently over time –and therefore maintain income - challenging (Hutchinson et al., 2020). Notably the current service model was aimed at building social capital and creating meaningful roles for people with intellectual disability, rather than to generate a living wage. Notably income was not viewed as a large consideration by the business owners or other participants. Instead, beneficial psychosocial outcomes were highlighted as being the main reason for starting and continuing a microenterprise. International studies on microenterprise for people with intellectual disabilities noted that such businesses did not constitute their owners’ main income, though Hagner and Davies (2002) noted that ‘income patching’ from several income sources was not uncommon for mainstream business owners. There is stronger evidence in Australia and internationally that businesses started by people with physical rather than intellectual disability were more financially viable and, in some cases, lead to business owners no longer needing welfare support (e.g. Holub, 2001). Some participants noted that businesses were scalable to some extent (especially if other people were employed by the business). However, some participants acknowledged that this may not be desirable for the owner, and that scaling up may result in the business no longer being focused on the capabilities, goals, needs and preferences of the owner.

The current study addressed a gap identified in a previous systematic review by including the perspectives of customers of the microenterprise businesses. Customers found value in supporting businesses that were owned and operated by people with intellectual disabilities. Customers reported enjoying passing on the ‘story’ of the project and the business owner. There was a perception of benefits to the community as a whole resulting from supporting alternative forms of employment for people with disabilities. However, the quality of the product or service had to be at a level they would expect from any other business. Emphasising that though it’s a business with a story, it is still a business first and foremost as far as customers are concerned.

This study is the first to investigate a single model of microenterprise support and the first to include a broad range of stakeholders, including customers. However, it is noted that the provider helped select the businesses that participated and these therefore may represent businesses that were running well or had experienced particularly good outcomes for business owners. Notably, the microenterprise model focused primarily on building social capital for people with intellectual disability and not on creating income to replace welfare payments (disability pensions). In alignment with this focus, we did not explore the income generated by the businesses, which is a noted limitation of this study.

Future research should include gathering data from microenterprises that have been less successful / closed to identify what facilitators most account for microenterprise success. Further research into the impact of different models of microenterprise support in Australia and internationally would be beneficial and could provide further evidence to funders of the benefits of people with disability having genuine choices in their employment pathways.

5 Conclusion

Whilst the findings of the current study largely align with that of international evidence on microenterprise this current study adds to the literature by considering the perspectives of a broader range of stakeholders, including customers. The key facilitator to microenterprise remains formal support and it is noted that the three pillars of formal support provided by the current model seem more extensive and consistent than that reported in other studies investigating microenterprises by people with intellectual disability. Such support is contingent on ongoing funding from bodies such as the NDIS in Australia. There was some evidence of changing expectations by parents regarding the employment pathways of their children post-school thereby highlighting the potential need for more transition-based education. In the current context, several valuable outcomes were identified by business owners as well as other key stakeholders such as skills development, greater autonomy and having a meaningful and valued role, although it is noted that, at least in the current scheme, income generation is not the key focus of their microenterprise endeavours.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the Community Living Project, the Microenterprise Project team, and all participants for agreeing to be involved in this research project.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical disclosure

Ethical approval was granted by the Human Research Ethics Committee at Flinders University (application number 8456).

Funding

Funding for this research project was provided to the first author by the College of Nursing and Health Sciences, Flinders University establishment grant program (no number associated).

Informed consent

Verbal and written consent was obtained from all participants prior to enrolment.

References

Akkerman,

, Janssen,

C. G. C.

, Kef,

, & Meininger,

H. P.

(2014). Perspectives of employees with intellectual disabilities on themes relevant to their job satisfaction. An explorative study using photovoice. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 27(6), 542–554. https://doi.org/https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1111/jar.12092.

Anderson,

, & Galloway,

(2012). The value of enterprise for disabled people. Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 13(2), 93–101. https://doi.org/10.5367/ijei.2012.0070

Australian Bureau of Satistics. (2014). 4433.0.55.003 Intellectual Disability, Australia, 2012. Retrieved April 13, 2021, from https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/4433.0.55.003main+features102012

Australian Bureau of Statistics (2020). Disability, Ageing and Carers, Australia: Summary of Findings. Retrieved July 22, 2021 from https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/health/disability/disability-ageing-and-carers-australia-summary-findings/latest-release.

Beyer,

, Jordán de Urríes,

F. B.

, & Verdugo,

M. A.

(2010). A comparative study of the situation of supported employment in Europe. Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities, 7(2), 130–136. 10.1111/j.1741-1130.2010.00255.x

Bigby,

(1997). When parents relinquish care: Informal support networks of older people with intellectual disability. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities. 10(4), 333–344.

Blick,

R. N.

, Litz,

K. S.

, Thornhill,

M. G.

, & Goreczny,

A. J.

(2016). Do inclusive work environments matter? Effects of community-integrated employment on quality of life for individuals with intellectual disabilities. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 53-54, 358-366. https://doi.org/https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1016/j.ridd.2016.02.015.

Bond,

G. R.

, Becker,

D. R.

, Drake,

R. E.

, Rapp,

C. A.

, Meisler,

, Lehman,

A. F.

, Bell,

M. D.

, & Blyler,

C. R.

(2001). Implementing supported employment as an evidence-based practice. Psychiatric Services, 52(3), 313–322.

Bonyhady,

(2016). Reducing the inequality of luck: Keynote address at the 2015 Australasian Society for Intellectual Disability National Conference. Research and Practice in Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities. 3(2), 115–123. https://doi.org/10.1080/23297018.2016.1172021.

10.

Butterworth,

, Hiersteiner,

, Engler,

, Bershadsky,

, & Bradley,

(2015). National Core Indicators ©: Data on the current state of employment of adults withIDDand suggestions for policy development. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation. 42, 209–220. https://doi.org/10.3233/JVR-150741.

11.

Butterworth,

, Migliore,

, Nord,

, & GeIb,

(2012). Improving the employment outcomes of job seekers with intellectual and developmental disabilities: A training and mentoring intervention for employment consultants. Journal of Rehabilitation. 78(2), 30–38. https://search.proquest.com/docview/1010282861?pq-origsite=gscholar

12.

Caldwell,

, Parker Harris,

, & Renko,

(2019). Inclusive Outcomes for Social Entrepreneurs With Intellectual Disability: “What Happens When They Act”. Inclusion, 7(4), 204–219. https://doi.org/10.1352/2326-6988-7.4.204

13.

Callahan,

, Griffin,

, & Hammis,

(2011). Twenty years of employment for persons with significant disabilities: A retrospective. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation. 35(3), 163–172.

14.

Chan,

, Smith,

L. E.

, Hong,

, Greenberg,

J. S.

, Lounds Taylor,

, & Mailick,

M. R.

(2018). Factors associated with sustained community employment among adults with autism and co-occurring intellectual disability. Autism. 22(7), 794–803. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361317703760.

15.

Chenoweth,

, & Clements,

(2011). Participation opportunities for adults with intellectual disabilities provided by disability services in one Australian state. Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities, 8(3), 172–182.

16.

Condon,

, & Callahan,

(2008). Individualized career planning for students with significant support needs utilizing the discovery and vocational profile process, cross-agency collaborative funding and social security work incentives. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation. 28(2), 85–96.

17.

Conroy,

J. W.

, Ferris,

C. S.

, & Irvine,

(2010). Microenterprise options for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities: An outcome evaluation. Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities, 7(4), 269–277. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-1130.2010.00276.x.

18.

Darcy,

, Collins,

, & Stronach,

(2020). Australia’s Disability Entrepreneurial Ecosystem: Experiences of people with disability with microenterprises, self-employment and entrepreneurship, March 2020. University ofTechnology.

19.

Dean,

E. E.

, Shogren,

K. A.

, Hagiwara,

, & Wehmeyer,

M. L.

(2018). How does employment influence health outcomes? A systematic review of the intellectual disability literature. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation. 49, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.3233/JVR-180950.

20.

Dearing,

(2021). Exploring a non-universal understanding of waged work and its consequences: sketching out employment activation for people with an intellectual disability. Evidence & Policy: A Journal of Research, Debate and Practice, 17(2), 261–277.

21.

Dempsey,

, & Ford,

(2009). Employment for people with intellectual disability in Australia and the United Kingdom. Journal of Disability Policy Studies. 19(4), 233–243. https://doi.org/https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1177/1044207308314946.

22.

Department of HealthVictoria. (2011). Victorian population health survey of people with an intellectual disability 2009.

23.

Domin,

, & Butterworth,

(2013). The role of community rehabilitation providers in employment for persons with intellectual and developmental disabilities: Results of the 2010-2011 National Survey. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities. 51(4), 215–225. https://doi.org/https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1352/1934-9556-51.4.215.

24.

Dumas,

(2001). Evaluating the outcomes of microenterprise training for low income women: A case study. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship. 6(2), 97.

25.

Eggleton,

, Robertson,

, Ryan,

, & Kober,

(1999a). The impact of employment on the quality of life of people with an intellectual disability. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation. 13(2), 95–107. http://ovidsovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&PAGE=reference&D=psyc3&NEWS=N&AN=2000-07987-001

26.

Eggleton,

, Robertson,

, Ryan,

, & Kober,

(1999b). The impact of employment on the quality of life of people with an intellectual disability. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation. 13(2), 95–107.

27.

Graneheim,

U. H.

, Lindgren,

B. M.

, & Lundman,

(2017). Methodological challenges in qualitative content analysis: A discussion paper. Nurse education today, 56, 29–34.

28.

Griffin,

, Hammis,

, Geary,

, & Sullivan,

(2008). Customized employment: Where we are; where we’re headed. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation. 28(3), 135–139.

29.

Hagner,

, & Davies,

(2002), “Doing my own thing”: Supported self-employment for individuals with cognitive disabilities. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 17(2), 65–74. http://ovidsovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&PAGE=reference&D=psyc4&NEWS=N&AN=2002-15919-001

30.

Hall,

(2010). Spaces of social inclusion and belonging for people with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research. 54(Suppl 1), 48–57. https://doi.org/https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1111/j.1365-2788.2009.01237.x.

31.

Heath,

K. L.

, Ward,

K. M.

, & Reed,

D. L.

(2013). Customized self-employment and the use of Discovery for entrepreneurs with disabilities. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation. 39(1), 23–27.

32.

Holub,

(2001). Entrepreneurship among people with disabilities. Adjunct ERIC Clearinghouse on Entrepreneurship Education.

33.

Hutchinson,

, Lay,

, Alexander,

, Ratcliffe,

(2021). People with intellectual disabilities as business owners: A systematic review of peer-reviewed literature. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 34(2), 459–470, doi:10.1111/JAR.12836.

34.

Hwang,

S. K.

, & Roulstone,

(2015). Enterprising? Disabled? The status and potential for disabled people’s microenterprise in South Korea. Disability and Society, 30(1), 114–129. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2014.993750

35.

Jacobs,

, Quayle,

, Wilkinson,

, & MacMahon,

(2021). Relationships matter!—Utilising ethics of care to understand transitions in the lives of adults with severe intellectual disabilities. British Journal of Learning Disabilities.

36.

Jahoda,

, Kemp,

, Riddell,

, & Banks,

(2008). Feelings about work: A review of the socio-emotional impact of supported employment on people with intellectual disabilities. . Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities. 21(1), 1–18. http://ovidsovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&PAGE=reference&D=psyc6&NEWS=N&AN=2007-19472-001

37.

Kay,

, Roy,

M. J.

, & Donaldson,

(2016). Re-imagining social enterprise.. https://. Social Enterprise Journal. 12(2), 217–234. https://doi.org/10.1108/sej-05-2016-0018.

38.

Kober,

, & Eggleton,

I. R. C.

(2005). The effect of different types of employment on quality of life. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research. 49(10), 756–760. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/ 10.1111/j.1365-2788.2005.00746.x

39.

Kocman,

, Fischer,

, & Weber,

(2018). The employers’ perspective on barriers and facilitators to employment of people with intellectual disability: A differential mixed-method approach. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities. 31(1), 120–131.

40.

Leonard,

, Foley,

K. R.

, Pikora,

, Bourke,

, Wong,

, McPherson,

,... Downs,

(2016). Transition to adulthood for young people with intellectual disability: the experiences of their families. European child & Adolescent psychiatry. 25(12), 1369–1381.

41.

Li,

E. P. Y.

(2004). Self-perceived equal opportunities for people with intellectual disability. International Journal of Rehabilitation Research. 27(3), 241–245. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004356-200409000-00011.

42.

Lysaght,

, Krupa,

, & Bedore,

(2014). Social Enterprise as an Employment Option for Adults with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities Environmental Scan of Social Businesses in the Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities Sector.

43.

Lysaght,

, Krupa,

, & Bouchard,

(2018). The role of social enterprise in creating work options for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Journal on Developmental Disabilities, 23(3), 18–30.

44.

Lysaght,

, Ouellette-Kuntz,

, & Morrison,

(2009). The Meaning and Value of Prodcutivity to Adults with Intellectual Disabilities. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities. 47(6), 413–424. https://doi.org/10.1352/1934-9556-47.6.413.

45.

Lysaght,

, Šiška,

, & Koenig,

(2015). Employment Statistics for People With Intellectual Disability-The Case for Common Metrics. Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities. 12(2), 112–119. https://doi.org/10.1111/jppi.12113.

46.

Mavromaras,

, Moskos,

, Mahuteau,

, Isherwood,

, Goode,

, Walton,

, Smith,

, Wei,

, & Flavel,

(2018). Evaluation of the NDIS Final Report.

47.

Meacham,

, Cavanagh,

, Shaw,

, & Bartram,

(2017). HRM practices that support the employment and social inclusion of workers with an intellectual disability. Personnel Review, 46(8), 1475–1492. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-05-2016-0105.

48.

Meltzer,

, Kayess,

, & Bates,

(2018). Perspectives of people with intellectual disability about open, sheltered and social enterprise employment: Implications for expanding employment choice through social enterprises. Social Enterprise Journal, 14(2), 225–244. https://doi.org/10.1108/SEJ-06-2017-0034

49.

Migliore,

, Grossi,

, Mank,

, & Rogan,

(2008). Why do adults with intellectual disabilities work in sheltered workshops? In Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation (Vol. 28). IOS Press.

50.

Myers,

, Ager,

, Kerr,

, & Myles,

(1998). Outside looking in? Studies of the community integration of people with learning disabilities. Disability and Society. 13(3), 389–413. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599826704.

51.

National Disability Rights Network. (2011). The Failure of the Disability Service System to Provide Quality Work. http://www.wqad.com.

52.

Nord,

, Luecking,

, Mank,

, Kiernan,

, & Wray,

(2013). The state of the science of employment and economic self-sufficiency for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Intellectual and developmental disabilities, 51(5), 376–384. https://doi.org/10.1352/1934-9556-51.5.376

53.

Ouimette,

, & Rammler,

L. H.

(2017). Entrepreneurship as a means to Employment First: Howcan itwork?Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation. 46(3), 333–339. https://doi.org/https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.3233/JVR-170870.

54.

Parmenter,

T. R.

(2011). Employment Sector Employment Working Paper No. 103 2011 Promoting training and employment opportunities for people with intellectual disabilities: International experience. http://www.ilo.org/publns.

55.

Productivity Commission. (2011). Disability Care and Support: Productivity Commission Inquiry Report. http://www.pc.gov.au.

56.

Reddington,

, & Fitzsimons,

(2013). People with learning disabilities and microenterprise. Tizard Learning Disability Review, 18(3), 124–131. https://doi.org/10.1108/TLDR-02-2013-0013

57.

Reddihough,

D. S.

, Meehan,

, Stott,

N. S.

, Delacy,

M. J.

, & On behalf of the Australian Cerebral Palsy Register Group (2016). The national disability insurance scheme: A time for real change in Australia. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 58, 66–70. https://doi.org/10.1111/dmcn.13007

58.

Riches,

V. C.

, & Macdonald,

(2016). ENHANCED EMPLOYMENT OUTCOMES STUDY. Sydney: Centre for Disability Studies, The University of Sydney.

59.

Riesen,

, Morgan,

R. L.

, & Griffin,

(2015). Customized employment: A review of the literature. Journal of Vocational rehabilitation. 43(3), 183–193.

60.

Robertson,

, Beyer,

, Emerson,

, Baines,

, & Hatton,

(2019). The association between employment and the health of people with intellectual disabilities: A systematic review. In Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities (Vol. 32, Issue 6, pp. 1335–1348). Blackwell Publishing Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1111/jar.12632.

61.

Sanderson,

K. A.

, Burke,

M. M.

, Urbano,

R. C.

, Arnold,

C. K.

, & Hodapp,

R. M.

(2017). Who helps? Characteristics and correlates of informal supporters to adults with disabilities. American Journal on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities. 122(6), 492–510.

62.

Smith,

, McVilly,

K. R.

, McGillivray,

, & Chan,

(2018). Developing open employment outcomes for people with an intellectual disability utilising a Social Enterprise Framework. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation. 48(1), 59–77. https://doi.org/https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.3233/JVR-170916.

63.

Thoresen,

S. H.

, Thomson,

, Jackson,

, & Cocks,

(2018). Meaningful social and economic inclusion through small business enterprise models of employment for adults with intellectual disability. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 49(2), 161–172. https://doi.org/10.3233/JVR-180962

64.

Tuckerman,

, Cain,

, Long,

, & Klarkowski Jobsupport,

(2012). An exploration of trends in open employment in Australia since 1986. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation. 37, 173–183. https://doi.org/10.3233/JVR-2012-0612.

65.

United Nations. (2008). Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. https://www.un.org/disabilities/documents/convention/convoptprot-e.pdf.

66.

Vaismoradi,

, Jones,

, Turunen,

, & Snelgrove,

(2016). Theme development in qualitative content analysis and thematic analysis. Journal of Nursing Education and Practice, 6(5), 100–110.

67.

Vaismoradi,

, Turunen,

, & Bondas,

(2013). Content analysis and thematic analysis: Implications for conducting a qualitative descriptive study. Nursing & health sciences, 15(3), 398–405.

68.

Verdonschot,

M. M. L.

, De Witte,

L. P.

, Reichrath,

, Buntinx,

W. H. E.

, & Curfs,

L. M. G.

(2008). Community participation of people with an intellectual disability: a review of empirical findings. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2788.2008.01144.x.

69.

Walcott,

, Kempf,

M. C.

, Merlin,

J. S.

, Nunn,

, & Turan,

J. M.

(2019). Perceived Value of Microenterprise for Low-Income Women Living with HIV in Alabama. AIDS and Behavior. 23(3), 276–286.

70.

Walls,

R. T.

, Dowler,

D. L.

, Cordingly,

, Orslene,

L. E.

, & Greer,

J. D.

(2001). Microenterprising and people with disabilities: Strategies for success and failure. Journal of Rehabilitation. 67(2), 29–35. https://search.proquest.com/docview/236269972?accountid=10910.

71.

Wehman,

, Lau,

, Molinelli,

, Brooke,

, Thompson,

, Moore,

, & West,

(2012). Supported Employment for Young Adults With Autism Spectrum Disorder: Preliminary Data.

72.

Wehman,

, Taylor,

, Brooke,

, Avellone,

, Whittenburg,

, Ham,

, Brooke,

A. M.

, & Carr,

(2018). Toward competitive employment for persons with intellectual and developmental disabilities: What progress have we made and where do we need to go. Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities. 43(3), 131–144.

73.

Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act of 2014, Pub. L. 113-128 128, STAT, 1634.

74.

World Health Organization. (2011). Summary: World Report on Disability. https://www.who.int/disabilities/world_report/2011/report.pdf.