An international scoping review of factors impacting self-employment outcomes for individuals with disabilities

1.1 Previous literature reviews on self-employment

Literature reviews investigating the topic of self-employment for individuals with disabilities are both sparse and limited nationally or diagnostically in terms of inclusion criteria. Existing reviews have focused on 1) the viability of self-employment only within the U.S. for a variety of disabilities (Yamamoto et al., 2012), 2) barriers and facilitators to self-employment in an international sample of individuals with only intellectual disability (Hutchinson et al., 2021), and 3) exclusively identifying motives rather than other impactful variables for individuals with any disability pursuing self-employment using an international sample (Norstedt & Germundsson, 2021). Across these previous reviews, Yamamoto et al. (2012) reported that success in self-employment may be attributed to the personal characteristics of the individual, level of support required and received, and accountability systems present in the individual’s life (Yamamoto et al., 2012). Hutchinson et al. (2021) found that informational trainings, formal and informal supports (e.g., job coaches, family, friends), and a person-centered planning approach helped facilitate self-employment for people with intellectual disability. In addition, business owners with intellectual disability also experienced increased engagement with their community, had greater flexibility and autonomy, and experienced increases in quality of work life as a result of creating a small business (Hutchinson et al., 2021). Norstedt and Germundsson (2021) reported that individuals with disabilities were economically motivated to start their own business as a vehicle to avoid workplace discrimination. Individuals with disabilities were attracted to self-employment because it afforded business owners the opportunity to lead self-determined lives and engage in work that fosters personal growth (Norstedt & Germundsson, 2021). Collectively, these three reviews point to a myriad of factors that influence likelihood of self-employment and offer a solid basis for broader inquiry that includes a more representative diagnostic and global sample of articles related to individual level and systems level, programmatic and experience-based factors.

1.2 Purpose of the current study

The existing literature on self-employment for people with disabilities is limited in breadth and scope (Hutchinson et al., 2021; Norstedt & Germundsson, 2021; Yamamoto et al., 2012). To better understand the current state of self-employment across different geographical areas and disability groups, as well as to identify who is currently benefiting most by self-employment practices and procedures, additional research is needed. The current scoping review sought to build upon previous investigative findings reported by Hutchinson et al. (2021), Norstedt and Germundsson (2021) and Yamamoto et al. (2012) by providing a more comprehensive synthesis of the literature which includes all physical and cognitive disability categories and both national and international research studies. This scoping review aimed to identify factors that impact the overall success of PWD who pursue self-employment via three different levels: individual/systems level, programmatic-level, and key themes within lived experiences that help individuals with disabilities achieve successful outcomes. The following research questions were used to guide our investigation:

What individual level and systems level characteristics are associated with self-employment outcomes for individuals with disabilities?

2.1 Inclusion/exclusion criteria

The primary purpose of this review was to broadly chart the literature on factors associated with successful self-employment outcomes for individuals with disabilities. Therefore, only studies reporting an employment outcome were included (e.g., successful VR case closure, reporting on established businesses or indication of profit). Studies that only included program descriptions with no outcomes, or focused on applicants, early-stage developers or unestablished self-employment ventures were not included. Several variations of the term self-employment are apparent in the empirical literature including entrepreneur, micro-enterprise, business owner, independent contractor, etc., and these nuances were accounted for in our inclusion criteria. Table 1 presents the search terms used to guide this review with respect to outcome and population. The target population for this scoping review examined a range of disability, focusing on both cognitive and physical disabilities. Due to the divergent factors impacting the engagement and outcomes of individuals with mental illness in self-employment, this population was excluded from our sample. Included studies reflect participants of any working age self-employed within the community as defined by businesses that require collaborative partnerships with customers without disabilities in the community at large. Studies describing self-employment ventures that were not integrated within the community at large (e.g., high school businesses run only within a school) were excluded.

Peer-reviewed journal sources were examined by searching the following databases: Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINHAL), Web of Science, and Academic Search Complete. Data collection was restricted to articles published during or after 1998 on account of The Workforce Investment Act (1998) legislation advancing self-employment as a work option. Empirical studies published both nationally and internationally were included for review. All articles were written in English or English translated. Articles representing all levels of methodology (e.g., quantitative, qualitative, case study) were considered.

2.3 Screening procedures

All articles mined from the empirical databases meeting inclusion criteria were subject to two levels of review. First, articles were examined at the title/abstract level to determine a match for inclusion criteria. Then, those articles that passed the title/abstract level of review were subject to a full text screening. Four researchers were trained in the inclusion/exclusion criteria and conducted both levels of review. For title/abstract level review, 98.5% inter-rater agreement was achieved. For full text review, an inter-rater agreement was 96.7%. In instances where disagreement occurred, authors convened to discuss application of inclusion/exclusion criteria until consensus was reached. A critical appraisal of risk bias was not undertaken as this is generally not a recommended or required component of scoping reviews (Peters et al., 2020). The process for removing duplicate articles from the sample and screening process at each level is presented in Fig. 1. The final sample included 40 articles detailing factors that promote or hinder self-employment outcomes for PWD.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Fig. 1

Screening and review process.

Data extracted from the final sample of articles was selected because it aligned with one of the three levels stated in the research questions guiding this review: individual/systems level, programmatic level or key themes within lived experiences associated with self-employment outcomes. The following definitions were applied to categorize extracted data; individual level data was defined as personal level characteristics (e.g., gender, race and ethnicity, educational attainment, or personality traits) identified within the literature as contributing to self-employment outcomes for individuals with disabilities while systems level referred to regional, national, or international systems which support self-employment (e.g., legislation, infrastructure, funding, interagency coordination, etc.). Programmatic level data was defined as self-employment implementation processes and procedures that helped individuals with disabilities establish or maintain their own business (e.g., coursework, seminars, counseling from industry experts, etc.). Key themes within lived experiences referred to motivating factors, barriers, and outcomes that impact self-employment a PWD had personally encountered. Data extracted from the final sample is charted in Tables 2–4. All extracted data were reviewed by two authors to ensure accuracy and comprehensiveness. The final sample of articles was analyzed using descriptive techniques and thematic analysis.

3.1 Individual level characteristics

A total of 19 articles met the inclusion criteria for individual level characteristics of people with disabilities who achieved self-employment (Table 2). Among these, several profile characteristics emerged related to gender, ethnicity, age, educational attainment, and disability (Blanck et al., 2000; Ipsen & Swicegood, 2017; Moore & Cavenaugh, 2003; Pagán, 2009; Pagán-Rodriguez, 2012; Patel et al., 2021; Revell et al., 2009; Yamamoto & Alverson, 2013; Yamamoto & Alverson, 2017; Yamamoto & Alverson, 2018). Of the studies examining gender, all indicated that being male was linked to more favorable self-employment outcomes than being female (Blanck et al., 2000; Ipsen & Swicegood, 2017; Moore & Cavenaugh, 2003; Patel et al., 2021; Yamamoto & Alverson, 2015; Yamamoto & Alverson, 2017; Yamamoto & Alverson, 2018). Yamamoto and Alverson (2018) reported that over half (55%) of all successful self-employment VR case closures were for men. Blanck et al. (2000) reported that while one third of VR applicants in Iowa attempting self-employment were women, only 21% (less than a quarter) were successful. Pagán-Rodriguez (2012) documented higher European workforce exit rates over time for self-employed older women with disabilities. Older age was linked to more successful self-employment outcomes across several studies (i.e., Ipsen & Swicegood, 2017; Pagán-Rodriguez, 2012; Renko et al., 2016). With respect to race and ethnicity, a strong tendency for successful outcomes favoring White rather than non-White individuals with disabilities seeking self-employment was observed (Blanck et al., 2000; Ipsen & Swicegood, 2017; Moore & Cavenaugh, 2003; Yamamoto & Alverson, 2017; Yamamoto & Alverson, 2018). Using a national sample of VR recipient data through the Rehabilitation administration services 911 (RSA-911) database, Yamamoto & Alverson (2018) found that 76% of those with self-employment case closures were White. A combined effect of multiple profile factors was noted in the literature. In summary, White males with at least a high school education experienced the highest rates of self-employment outcomes (Blanck et al., 2000).

Higher educational attainment impacted likelihood of successful outcomes with a base level of high school being particularly important (Yamamoto & Alverson, 2013; Yamamoto & Alverson, 2018). More than half of all self-employed persons attained a high school education in one study (i.e., Yamamoto & Alverson, 2018) and a total 95% of those achieving self-employment had at least a high school education in another (i.e., Blanck et al., 2000). Increased education above high school elevated SE outcomes when compared to individuals with a high school degree (Yamamoto & Alverson, 2017). Disability related factors also influenced self-employment outcomes but with more varied results. Generally speaking, having any disability impacted odds of self-employment. For example, individuals without disabilities were 1.8 times more likely to establish a self-owned business than those with disabilities (Renko et al., 2016) and people with significant disabilities were more likely to pursue self-employment than those with less severe disabilities (Pagán, 2009). Across disability categories, those with intellectual disability were the least likely to establish self-employment (0.3%) while those with the visual impairment were most likely (4.9%; Revell et al., 2009). However, disability severity impacted likelihood of self-employment inconsistently across several years of RSA-911 data samples (Yamamoto & Alverson, 2017). Yamamoto and Alverson (2018) found that the majority of clients with self-employment case closures (93-94%) had a significant disability and Blanck et al. (2000) found that self-employed individuals tended to have certain types of impairments (i.e., orthopedic, mental, neurological conditions) that were considered progressive. Having Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder also increased the odds of being self-employed by 32% (Patel et al., 2021).

A second emerging theme across studies related to personality traits that supported self-employment success. A display of perseverance in the face of obstacles was noted across studies (Alroaia et al., 2018; Bagheri et al., 2017). Particular obstacles included developing resiliency in the face of stressors such as disability discrimination as individuals pursued self-employment success and also learning to view their disability constructively and encouragingly in the context of employment (Bagheri et al., 2017; Saxena et al., 2017). Individuals with disabilities achieving self-employment success commonly had high expectations for themselves and their business, and a high degree of entrepreneurial confidence (Bagheri et al., 2017; Yamamoto & Olson, 2016). Those achieving self-employment success also displayed a tendency to continually embrace self-growth by increasing their entrepreneurial competency in business, showing a willingness to learn new skills, being innovative in their ideas, recognizing new business opportunities, committing to quality services and products, and taking advantage of social networking opportunities to advance their business (Bagheri et al., 2017; Yamamoto & Olson, 2016).

Personal social networks also influenced outcomes (Alroaia et al., 2018; Reddington et al., 2013; Renko et al., 2016; Rozali et al., 2021; Saxena et al., 2017). Family dynamics were identified as a factor conducive to establishing self-employment success in a variety of ways including increased parental assistance (Reddington et al., 2013), support from friends and family (Rozali et al., 2021), having flexibility with meeting household or family demands, and having fewer household demands (Alroaia et al., 2018). Compared to individuals without disabilities, those with disabilities in self-employment had significantly smaller average household sizes and had less help via smaller sized start-up teams (Renko et al., 2016).

Previous employment history/financial circumstances also influenced self-employment success. Most individuals who successfully achieved self-employment success actually had limited prior employment histories (Blanck et al., 2001; Reddington et al., 2013). Blanck et al. (2000) reported that in a sample of 509 entrepreneurs, only 33% were competitively employed prior to starting their business and 64% were reportedly unemployed. Many individuals with disabilities reported difficulty securing funding to begin a business via grants or loans (Reddington et al., 2013; Renko et al., 2016; Yamamoto & Olson, 2016), had worse credit ratings and fewer financial resources (Ipsen et al., 2005). Individuals with disabilities put a significantly lower amount of start-up investment into their initial business than those without disabilities (Alroaia et al., 2018; Renko et al., 2016). In some cases where the business was legitimately established and running, individuals with disabilities were not reporting profit in surplus of operation costs, and thus not able to be personally paid from the business in the early stages (Reddington et al., 2016).

3.2 Systems level characteristics

Twelve studies centered on systems-level factors within state or national systems in the U.S. and abroad that promote successful self-employment success outcomes (Table 2). Overall, self-employment success was underused as an employment option by state VR agencies (Revell et al., 2009; Yamamoto & Alverson, 2013), but rural state VR agencies had the highest rates of successful SE outcomes for participants in the U.S. (Ipsen & Swicegood, 2017; Revell et al., 2009). In Europe, Pagán (2009) found higher rates of self-employment success in southern countries (i.e., Greece, Italy, Portugal, and Spain) where there were more self-employed agricultural workers and unpaid family workers.

Reviewed studies also described key characteristics of systems support of self-employment success usage and their associated successful outcomes. Collaborative efforts to provide self-employment success was a key characteristic highlighted in two studies. Blanck et al. (2000) described a state level SE program in Iowa that relied on interagency collaboration and matched funding between the State Department for Economic Development, the state VR agency, and the Department for the Blind to improve self-employment success outcomes. Ipsen et al. (2005) also found significant relationships between Small Business Development Centers (SBDCs) and state VR agency collaboration, as those SBDCs with formal interagency agreements or informal noninstitutionalized relationships reported more experience and knowledge serving people with disabilities, higher numbers of referrals, and more accommodations use. Multiple studies identified critical components of system-wide self-employment success programs, focusing specifically on financial and technical support provided to potential business owners with disabilities (Alroaia et al., 2018; Blanck et al., 2000; Rozali et al., 2009). Two studies used hierarchical linear modeling and structural equation modeling (i.e., Yamamoto & Alverson, 2013; Yamamoto & Alverson, 2015 respectively) to investigate the relationships between three levels of factors (individual characteristics, accountability systems, and levels of support) and successful VR self-employment success case closures. At the systems level, cost of VR services and amount of public support received were significant predictors of successful self-employment success closures (Yamamoto & Alverson, 2013). However, the model did appear to perform differently over time, and was a better fit for explaining successful self-employment success closures nationally versus regionally (Yamamoto & Alverson, 2015). Finally, the importance of being able to successfully navigate complex VR system cultures and processes was highlighted in a qualitative study by Yamamoto & Olson (2016).

Studies focusing on individual and systems level data described several notable findings related to employment outcomes. These included business retention of up to 10 years (Bagheri et al., 2017), better self-employment success case closure rates for those spending less than 4 years in the VR system (Blanck et al., 2000), and employment in up to 16 different industries (Blanck et al., 2000). Inconsistency in earnings was noted across studies. For example, Revell et al. (2009) and Blanck et al. (2000) both found higher weekly earnings for self-employed workers with disabilities. In their review of state VR agency case records, Ipsen & Swicegood (2017) also found that SE cases involved fewer hours worked per week but at significantly higher hourly wages than traditional employment positions. However, a recent study by Patel et al. (2021) found lower wages among those in self-employment success compared to traditional employment. Overall, outcome data among studies offers evidence of SE as a viable job option for PWD.

3.3 Programmatic level characteristics

Studies included in this sample described both programs and case studies that helped individuals with disabilities establish and maintain self-employment success (Table 3). Most programs or cases (n = 3) were located in large cities across the U.S. (Balcazar et al., 2014; Quinton, 2014; Shaheen, 2016) and one program served individuals located in both rural and urban areas (Heath & Reed, 2013). The remainder of the programs (n = 2) were national programs that served individuals with disabilities across their respective countries (Hoppenfeld et al., 2013; Mulu & Daba, 2019). Programs ranged considerably in the number of individuals they served (from 10 to 565 individuals with disabilities). Individuals with physical disabilities were most frequently reported as attending the reviewed programs and all individuals described in the case studies had acquired physical disabilities.

Often, programs were facilitated by business professionals and mentors who provided training to help individuals with disabilities develop their business concept and create their business plan. Business plans were a hallmark of every program reviewed. Each program seemed to focus their training efforts on conducting market research to inform the business plan (e.g., Balcazar et al., 2014; Mulu & Daba, 2019), creating the plan itself (Balcazar et al., 2014; Shaheen, 2016), and providing mentorship as individuals sought funding for their businesses (e.g., Heath & Reed, 2013). In addition to providing training and support that was closely aligned with the development of a business plan, two of the programs reviewed provided ongoing support and technical assistance as the individual executed their business plan and attempted to grow their business (Hoppenfeld et al., 2013; Shaheen, 2016). Notably, none of the individuals highlighted in the case studies identified the development of a business plan as a factor that aided in establishing or maintaining their business. These individuals did, however, share that ongoing mentorship and opportunities to receive funding contributed to their ability to establish and maintain their business (Maritz & Lafierre, 2016; Quinton, 2014).

Case studies and program description also provided information about self-employment success outcomes. Researchers frequently reported descriptive information about the types of businesses created (e.g., hair salon, auto detailing business) or the nature of the work performed (e.g., greeting card design, benefits counseling), but only did so for select program participants (e.g., Balcazar et al., 2014; Heath & Reed, 2013; Hoppenfeld et al., 2013). In addition, few studies provided longitudinal data or additional descriptive information about the program graduate success. While Shaheen (2016) reported that 22.5% of program participants were generating income from their business, information related to their level of income was not reported. Similarly, Hoppenfeld et al. (2013) indicated that 65% of program graduates run their own businesses and highlighted that nine graduates of the program are running multimillion-dollar businesses but did not provide information about average earnings of program participants or business survival rates.

3.4 Key themes within lived experiences

Many of the studies (n = 14) included in this review examined the experiences of entrepreneurs with disabilities and their support personnel in the self-employment process. By and large, research conducted with this broader focus on individuals’ experience used qualitative methodologies. Generally, these studies explored factors related to the self-employment experiences of individuals: their motivations, planning and execution, and outcomes. Table 4 summarizes key themes within each of these studies. These key themes include motivations for engaging in self-employment (Ashley & Graf, 2018; Atkins, 2013; Caldwell et al., 2020a; Hagner & Davies, 2002; Shakespeare et al., 2019; Wehbi & El-Lahib, 2007), barriers faced (Ashley & Graf, 2018; Caldwell et al., 2020b; Ferdiana et al., 2021; Hutchinson et al., 2022; Martinez-Leon et al., 2019), using supports and strategies to achieve self-employment (Ashley & Graf, 2018; Atkins, 2013; Caldwell et al., 2020b; Hagner & Davies, 2002; Harris et al., 2013; Hutchinson et al., 2022; Martinez-Leon et al., 2019; McNaughton et al., 2006; Parker Harris et al., 2014), importance of networks (Ashley & Graf, 2018; Atkins, 2013; Caldwell et al., 2020b; Harris et al., 2013; Hutchinson et al., 2022; Martinez-Leon et al., 2019; Wehbi & El-Lahib, 2007), and the outcomes achieved by entrepreneurs (Caldwell et al., 2019; Hagner & Davies, 2002; Hutchinson et al., 2022). Collectively, this body of research describes entrepreneurs motivated by passion for their business (e.g., Atkins, 2013), as well as a lack of traditional employment opportunities (e.g., Hagner & Davies, 2002). Support through business training and education was identified as a key facilitator of successful outcomes (e.g., Ashley & Graf, 2018) and insufficient education and training often served as a barrier to current and potential entrepreneurs (e.g., Harris et al., 2013).

4.1 Limitations

There are several limitations noted across studies included in the final sample. Although use of risk bias risk is not commonly used for this methodology the review team did note several major limitations in the included research in our descriptive analysis that raise concerns about the potential for bias (Peters et al., 2020). Given the widespread use of convenience sampling (i.e., participants who were already engaged in self-employment success) and quasi-experimental and non-experimental designs, there is a high likelihood of bias across this body of research that should be strongly considered in generalizing findings to the overall experiences of this population. Furthermore, the participants used in some articles (e.g., program descriptions, case studies) were not well described making generalization of findings challenging. In addition, relatively few program descriptions used similar components, thus limiting the potential to compare efficacy and outcomes across programs. Inconsistency in terminology was also noted across studies with respect to self-employment success processes and outcomes complicating inferences from the relationships noted in individual studies. In particular, case studies are intended to provide thick, rich, detailed descriptions of participants and circumstances to promote particularizability (Brantlinger et al., 2005), but the case studies included in this review did not provide sufficient information to situate the findings of the studies within specific contextual factors and situations. Studies often lacked rigorous reporting of outcome data, both in terms of quantifying self-employment success (e.g., income, profitability, hours) or long-term sustainability of the business itself.

Several limitations of the review itself should also be noted. First, the search criteria limited included research to only those published since 1998. This was necessary to reflect a sample of research since the passage of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 and its impact of shaping self-employment success policy. Nevertheless, this restriction of publication date likely omitted meaningful scholarship published before 1998 that may provide additional insight into self-employment success for people with disabilities. Likewise, the sample was restricted to studies published in English (or with English translation in publication). Although none of the articles excluded on these grounds appeared to match the overall inclusion criteria, it is possible that further international studies may exist published in other languages not indexed using the English language terms used in this search.

4.2 Implications for research

There are several important takeaways from this review which inform future research in the area of self-employment success for individuals with disabilities. First and foremost, more robust research designs are needed, which can rigorously examine the relationship between self-employment success processes and the outcomes they seek to promote. There is a great need for researchers to standardize language when reporting components of self-employment interventions, which would allow for more meaningful analysis and comparison between intervention methods. Measures assessing the quality of employment outcomes should also be included in future research as these are critical to better understanding the complex systems at work in the self-employment success process and how they impact outcomes. In particular, data in future studies should include detailed information related to both employment outcomes (e.g., industry worked, hours worked, profit, job retention, etc.) and logistical factors related to establishing and maintaining self-employment success longitudinally (e.g., funding required, hours in start-up, additional supports, etc.) to help clarify the benefits of self-employment and needs of individuals with disabilities to be successful in self-employment.

Additionally, much more research is needed to understand the roles and effective practices of rehabilitation practitioners and other service providers in promoting positive self-employment outcomes for individuals with disabilities. Across studies in this review, which included system- and multiple-level factors on self-employment success, little to no information was provided about the role, knowledge, or skills of service providers, despite extensive literature demonstrating the importance of highly competent and qualified service providers in promoting better outcomes for individuals with more significant support needs (e.g., Wehman et al., 2018). Lastly, given the high level of coordination between agencies needed for self-employment success (e.g., small business development, technical advisors, vendors, funders), there is a pressing need for more research in understanding how these agencies and roles interact and engage to provide better outcomes for entrepreneurs with disabilities.

4.3 Implications for practice and policy

In terms of practice, this review indicated several disparate outcomes among demographic categories that state VR and other service providing agencies should be aware of in order to address service inequity. Women and non-White clients are less likely to achieve self-employment success and therefore service providers at state VR agencies should be particularly attuned to potential biases during the process (e.g., recruiting potential candidates, providing individualized services) and proactive in identifying solutions to overcome obstacles to successful self-employment. Findings from this review also indicated that individuals with intellectual disability are among those displaying the worst self-employment outcomes so it is possible that more diagnostic specific support is needed from service providers at state VR agencies while these clients pursue self-employment success. A tendency for older clients to more successfully achieve self-employment also suggests that better services are needed earlier for most individuals with disabilities, likely focusing more on self-employment as an option during the transition-to-employment phase during late adolescents and young adulthood. Consequently, state VR and other service providing agencies should place greater emphasis on presenting self-employment as option with younger clients. With respect to findings in this review identifying pertinent personality traits, a high degree of confidence and expectations for one’s business was impactful on employment outcomes, suggesting that service providers at state VR agencies can help boost outcomes by finding ways to encourage and support clients during the self-employment process.

In addition, programmatic findings suggest a clear need for more education and training in self-employment for entrepreneurs with disabilities about business start-up and a need for deployable, specialized support that can assist them with business development and retention. The most emergent services identified in this review were assistance in developing a business plan and ongoing mentorship, indicating that these should be priority services provided to clients. To provide better services to clients, VR counselors, community rehabilitation providers, and other practitioners need access to better, more robust, and more individualized training in order to effectively support entrepreneurs with whom they work. Finally, it is essential that individuals with disabilities in self-employment who require long-term supports receive needed services. Given the requirement that VR clients provide proof of feasibility in order to fund self-employment services, it is nonsensical to then deny long-term supports needed for individuals with more significant support needs who require follow-along services to sustain their business.

In terms of policy, there are several important implications at the federal and state level for VR and other agencies affected by employment policy and funding. First, the review reported positive overall outcomes for individuals engaged in self-employment, which validates recent policy efforts to include self-employment as a component of customized employment and a more prominent employment option for individuals with disabilities. The most salient finding across studies was the need for individuals with disabilities pursuing self-employment success to have access to external funding sources such as government grants and loans in order to advance their business plans. With the vast majority of individuals with disabilities pursuing self-employment success having limited prior work histories, and therefore limited personal funds and credit histories, finding funds to start a self-owned business is unattainable. Policy is needed to address this issue. Lastly, future policy efforts to promote self-employment should be mindful of current inequities in service delivery and outcomes in terms of race, gender, disability, and community local (i.e., rural, urban).