Identifying the knowledge,skills,and barriers for self-employment

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

While self-employment is a viable and beneficial employment strategy for people with disabilities, there seems to be considerable variation in how state rehabilitation agencies support self-employment. Because of this variation, research is needed to identify the critical elements for facilitating self-employment.

OBJECTIVE:

The purpose of this study is to gather information from vocational rehabilitation counselors about what they believe are the knowledge and skills essential to facilitating self-employment and the barriers to business ownership throughout key phases of the vocational rehabilitation process, including (a) application and intake, (b) plan development and service delivery, and (c) employment and closure.

METHODS:

A Delphi method with three iterations was used to identify information from VRCs and managers about what they believe are the knowledge, skills, and barriers when facilitating self-employment and business ownership during the vocational rehabilitation process.

RESULTS:

Respondents rated 15 knowledge and skill items for the application and intake domain, 19 knowledge and skill items in the plan development and service delivery domain, and 12 knowledge and skill items in the employment and closure domain. Respondents also rated three barriers for application and intake, six plan development and service delivery barriers, and three barriers were rated in employment and closure.

CONCLUSION:

The VRCs identified a wide range of knowledge and skills and barriers across each area of the rehabilitation process. More research should be conducted to further operationalize the skills and proficiencies for self-employment.

Keywords

Self-employment Delphi rehabilitation counseling knowledge and skill barrier

1 Introduction

Even though the United States has a healthy and robust economy with an unemployment rate of 3.8% (U.S. Department of Labor, 2022a), individuals with disabilities are not entering the workforce at the same rate as those without disabilities. In fact, the unemployment rate for people with disabilities between the ages of 16– 64 is 10.8% and roughly eight in 10 individuals with disabilities are excluded from the labor force (U.S. Department of Labor, 2022b). The perennially low employment rates for people with disabilities are concerning, and specific federal legislation has been enacted to mitigate employment disparities including amendments to the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 outlined in the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act of 2014. Specifically, the Rehabilitation Act contains specific provisions designed to promote competitive integrated employment (CIE). One way for individuals with disabilities to obtain meaningful CIE is through self-employment. The Rehabilitation Act references self-employment in its definition of CIE and description of vocational outcomes. Specifically, CIE is defined as work performed on a full- or part-time basis, including self-employment, for which an individual earns an income commensurate to income received by other self-employed individuals without a disability (29 USC §705(5)). The Act also includes self-employment as satisfying a vocational employment outcome for vocational rehabilitation (VR) agency purposes.

Self-employment is a viable alternative for people with disabilities because it offers (a) more flexibility in scheduling, (b) more control over the work environment, coworkers, and collaborators, (c) more opportunities to remain close to support networks, (d) more opportunity to earn higher wages, and (e) more opportunities to reduce environmental barriers to employment (VRTAC-QE, 2021). Griffin et al. (2014) also describe several advantages to self-employment such as opportunities under Social Security and Medicaid systems to accumulate wealth; the potential to create work opportunities designed specifically to fit a person’s strengths, interests, and conditions of employment; and tremendous flexibility in designing workplace accommodations.

While a larger proportion of people with disabilities are self-employed (9.6%) compared to those without disabilities (6.4%) (U.S. Department of Labor, 2022b), there is sparse research on self-employment for individuals with disabilities and limited research about access to VR services to support a self-employment pathway (Castillo & Fisher, 2019; Dotson et al., 2013; Yamamoto & Olson, 2016). Ashley and Graff (2018) suggest there are systemic VR issues that stifle self-employment opportunities including the lack of self-employment business development training for VR counselors, agency follow-up and implementation of monitoring policies, and clarifications on funding levels. In addition, Revell et al. (2009) conducted an analysis of self-employment outcomes in VR programs and found that VR self-employment cases make up a relatively small percentage of all VR closures. Specifically, Revell and colleagues found that in aggregate 2007 data, state self-employment closures made up 1.7% of the overall number of status 26 closures with states with the highest percentage of self-employment closures clustered in more rural and dispersed populations. A more recent analysis conducted by Revel et al. (2022) from the Rehabilitation Services Administration Case Service Report (RSA-911) for Federal Fiscal Years 2018 and 2019 indicates that closure in self-employment remains at 1.7%.

While self-employment is a viable and beneficial employment strategy for people with disabilities, there seems to be considerable variation in how state rehabilitation agencies support self-employment. Some states have internal self-employment subject matter experts or external vendors to support the self-employment process, some states have well-defined self-employment policies and processes, and in other states have little guidance or support for self-employment. Because of this variation and the dearth of research about how rehabilitation professionals effectively support people with disabilities seeking self-employment, research is needed to identify the critical elements for facilitating self-employment throughout key phases of the VR process, including (a) application and intake, (b) plan development and service delivery, and (c) employment and closure. The purpose of the Delphi study is to gather information from vocational rehabilitation counselors (VRCs) about what they believe are the knowledge and skills essential to facilitating self-employment and business ownership. The study will also seek to understand specific barriers to facilitating the self-employment process. The following research questions will guide this study:

What are the knowledge and skills essential to facilitating self-employment and business ownership during the vocational rehabilitation process? Knowledge in this context is the concepts and resources a VRC needs to know to support self-employment. Skills in this context are the actions a VRC must be able to take to support self-employment.

What are the barriers to facilitating self-employment and business ownership during the vocational rehabilitation process?

2 Method and procedure

2.1 Sample

We used a multiple-step process to recruit the Delphi respondents. First, we used RSA 911 to select states with 1.2% or higher successful closure rates in 2019. These states include Arkansas, Colorado, Texas, Mississippi, South Carolina, Florida Blind VR agency, Missouri, New York, Washington, Massachusetts, Michigan, Puerto Rico, Maine, Pennsylvania, Utah, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Oregon. We also contacted Tribal Vocational Rehabilitation. Second, we sent a recruitment email to each state’s vocational rehabilitation director or other administrator. The email explained the intent of the study and asked the administrator to forward the recruitment email to vocational rehabilitation counselors (VRCs) in their state who (a) have a minimum of two years experience with the self-employment process and (b) have assisted four or more VR clients in pursuing self-employment in the past five years. The email asked VRCs to contact the researchers if they would like to participate. A total of 19 VRCs responded to the recruitment email and were sent a link to participate in the online Delphi.

2.2 Design

We used the Delphi method with three iterations to identify information from VRCs and managers about what they believe are the knowledge, skills, and barriers when facilitating self-employment and business ownership during the vocational rehabilitation process, including (a) application and intake, (b) plan development and service delivery, and (c) employment and closure. This method was selected as the appropriate research method because it elicits and refines group judgments to improve the quality of estimates, especially when exact knowledge about an issue is not available (Hsu & Sanford, 2007). In addition, the Delphi method uses multiple iterations designed to develop consensus concerning a specific topic. Other relevant characteristics of this method include the ability to provide anonymity to respondents, a controlled feedback process, and the range of statistical analysis techniques to interpret the data (Hsu & Sanford, 2007). We sent each round of the Delphi to respondents using the survey platform, Qualtrics©. Procedures for each round are described below.

2.2.1 Round 1

We sent an email invitation introducing the purpose of the study and a link to the online survey to the 19 VRCs who agreed to participate in the study. During the first round, we collected demographic information including job position, type of credential, geographic location, years of experience facilitating self-employment, and education level. Delphi panel members were subsequently asked to list the knowledge and skills needed for application and intake, plan development and service delivery, and employment and closure. We defined concepts and resources a VRC needs to know to support self-employment and we defined skills as actions a VRC must be able to take to support self-employment. We also asked the respondents to identify barriers encountered during application and intake, plan development and service delivery, and employment and closure. There was no space limitation, and each respondent could list an unlimited number of knowledge, skills, and barriers items. A total of 14 VRCs (73.68%) responded to round 1.

At the conclusion of Round 1, the study authors independently reviewed summaries of the responses for each section to eliminate redundant responses, collapse similar items, and identify patterns or themes in the data. After the independent review, the authors reviewed the data to build consensus on key knowledge, skills, and barriers gleaned from the independent review. From this review, we identified 15 knowledge and skills and 11 barriers for application and intake, 20 knowledge and skills and 18 barriers for plan development and service delivery, and 12 knowledge and skills and 14 barriers for employment and closure. This information was used to build the second round of the Delphi survey.

2.2.2 Round 2

The 14 respondents who completed round one were sent an email invitation to participate in round two. The second iteration of the Delphi was organized into sections: application and intake, plan development and service delivery, and employment and closure. In each section, we listed the corresponding knowledge, skills, and barriers identified in round one. For the knowledge and skills items, we asked respondents to rate each item using a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from (1) not essential, (2) slightly essential, (3) moderately essential, (4) essential, and (5) very essential. For the barrier items, we asked respondents to rate each barrier using a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from (1) no barrier, (2) slight barrier, (3) moderate barrier, (4) frequent barrier, and (5) very frequent barrier. Thirteen (92.85%) of the first-round respondents completed round two. After the survey was closed, we calculated the mean, median, and standard deviation for each response and eliminated items with low means and medians (below 3.00). Based on these criteria, four barriers in the application and intake, 11 barriers in plan development and service delivery, and eight barriers in employment and closure were eliminated and not included in the third round.

2.2.3 Round 3

Respondents were sent an email invitation to complete the final round of the Delphi. For this round, each item contained the mean and standard deviation obtained in round two. Respondents were asked to consider the statistical information and rerate each knowledge, skill, and barrier item. A total of 13 respondents completed round three.

2.3 Data analysis

Hakim and Weinblatt (1993) suggest that to achieve consensus among respondents, data should be analyzed to (a) determine the stability of responses across rounds and (b) determine the amount of variation or dispersion of response between iterations. We established data stability by calculating the absolute value of the difference between the means in round two and round three responses (X2 – X3). We set the stability measure at .50. Scores that had a positive or negative shift equaling more than .50 were determined to not meet consensus. We also examined the standard deviation of each score to determine variation; items with a standard deviation greater than 1.00 were considered to have high response variability and were determined to not meet consensus.

3 Results

Demographic information from round one is reported in Table 1. Table 2 provides information about knowledge and skills and Table 3 provides information about the barriers for the three domains. Respondents rated 15 knowledge and skills for the application and intake domain. Ten of these items did not meet established criteria for consensus. Respondents rated 19 knowledge and skill items in the plan development and service delivery domain; two items did not meet criteria for consensus. Respondents rated 12 knowledge and skill items in the employment and closure domain with all items meeting criteria for consensus. Three barriers were rated for application and intake; two of these barriers did not meet criteria for consensus. Six plan development and service delivery barriers were rated; one item did not meet criteria for consensus. Finally, three barriers were rated in employment and closure and one item was deleted.

Table 1
Panel demographics

Question Variable N %

N = 14

Current position VRC 8 57.14

Business development specialist 3 21.42

Rehabilitation manager 2 14.28

Program analyst for self-employment 1 7.14

Type of ycertification Certified rehabilitation counselor 6 42.85

Licensed rehabilitation counselor 1 7.14

Other 5 35.71

LLPC, CBPS, MSW, MSW, PHR/MPA

No response 2 14.28

Years employed in VR 4 to 6 5 35.71

7 to 11 4 28.57

11+ 5 35.71

Years of experience in self-employment 3– 5 5 35.71

6– 10 4 28.57

11+ 4 28.57

Other 1 7.14

Off and on

Have you assisted or provided consultation/supervision for four or more vocational rehabilitation clients pursuing self-employment in the three past years? Yes 14 100

No 0 0

Location Region I: Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont 1 7.14

Region V: Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Wisconsin 2 14.28

Region VI: Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas 2 14.28

Region VII: Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska 2 14.28

Region VIII: Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming 4 28.57

Region X: Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, Washington 3 21.42

Highest degree you have received Bachelor’s degree 1 7.14

Master’s degree 12 85.71

Doctoral degree 1 7.14

Question	Variable	N	%
Current position	VRC	8	57.14
	Business development specialist	3	21.42
	Rehabilitation manager	2	14.28
	Program analyst for self-employment	1	7.14
Type of ycertification	Certified rehabilitation counselor	6	42.85
	Licensed rehabilitation counselor	1	7.14
	Other	5	35.71
	LLPC, CBPS, MSW, MSW, PHR/MPA
	No response	2	14.28
Years employed in VR	4 to 6	5	35.71
	7 to 11	4	28.57
	11+	5	35.71
Years of experience in self-employment	3– 5	5	35.71
	6– 10	4	28.57
	11+	4	28.57
	Other	1	7.14
Off and on
Have you assisted or provided consultation/supervision for four or more vocational rehabilitation clients pursuing self-employment in the three past years?	Yes	14	100
No	0	0
Location	Region I: Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont	1	7.14
	Region V: Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Wisconsin	2	14.28
	Region VI: Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas	2	14.28
	Region VII: Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska	2	14.28
	Region VIII: Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming	4	28.57
	Region X: Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, Washington	3	21.42
Highest degree you have received	Bachelor’s degree	1	7.14
	Master’s degree	12	85.71
	Doctoral degree	1	7.14

Table 2

Knowledge and skills with means above 3.00 by domain

Domain	Mean	SD	Stability X2-X3	Met consensus Y/N
Domain 1: Knowledge and skills for application and intake
1. The VRC has knowledge and skills to determine how customer’s disability impacts employment.	5.00	0.00	– 0.10	Y
2. The VRC is knowledgeable about VR eligibility policies and procedures.	4.80	0.39	0.10	Y
3. The VRC has knowledge and skills to assess the customer’s work history, skills, financial situation, resources, motivation, experiences.	4.50	0.50	0.10	Y
4. The VRC has knowledge and skills to ask open ended questions and use active listening.	4.50	0.50	– 0.10
5. The VRC has knowledge and skills to be culturally competent during application and intake.	4.20	0.57	0.20	Y
6. The VRC is knowledgeable about VR self-employment policies and procedures.	4.20	1.19	0.20	N
7. The VRC has knowledge and skills to provide the applicant with a clear explanation of VR self-employment process and policies.	4.10	1.16	0.00	N
8. The VRC has knowledge and skills to identify community resources and supports necessary to achieve self-employment (i.e., develop business idea, labor market research, outside funding, and technical and ongoing support).	3.90	1.08	0.00	N
9. The VRC has knowledge and skills to determine if self-employment is a viable route to employment for the customer.	3.80	1.03	0.10	N
10. The VRC has knowledge and skills to assess the customer’s understanding of self-employment.	3.70	1.14	0.20	N
11. The VRC has knowledge and skills to genuinely support the customer to achieve self-employment.	3.70	1.14	0.10	N
12. The VRC has knowledge and skills to obtain and review a business feasibility study with customer and determine if a self-employment goal is feasible.	3.60	1.08	– 0.10	N
13. The VRC has knowledge and skills to review and discuss a basic business plan with the customer.	3.60	1.30	0.10	N
14. The VRC has knowledge and skills to conduct motivational interviewing.	3.50	1.16	0.10	N
15. The VRC has knowledge and skills to monitor the business plan and timeline.	3.50	1.30	0.10	N
Domain 2: Plan development and service delivery
1. The VRC has knowledge and skills to obtain agency approval for self-employment.	4.70	0.45	– 0.10	Y
2. The VRC has knowledge and skills to assess how a customer’s disability may impact employment.	4.70	0.62	0.10	Y
3. The VRC has knowledge and skills to assess the customer’s ability to complete tasks necessary to operate a business.	4.60	0.50	– 0.20	Y
4. The VRC has knowledge and skills to explain expectations and responsibilities about self-employment planning and service delivery to the customer.	4.60	0.50	– 0.10	Y
5. The VRC has knowledge and skills to establish a working alliance with the customer to learn how to appropriately support the customer’s ongoing self-employment plan.	4.60	0.50	– 0.30	Y
6. The VRC has knowledge and skills to develop an IPE that identifies the needed supports to achieve self-employment (i.e., business plan development, training, equipment, and other services needed).	4.50	0.50	– 0.20	Y
7. The VRC has knowledge and skills to educate the customer on self-employment, the self-employment process, and common misconceptions about self-employment.	4.40	0.64	0.00	Y
8. The VRC has knowledge and skills to maintain good communication with customers, vendors, and others involved in self-employment planning and service delivery.	4.40	0.48	– 0.20
9. The VRC has knowledge and skills to address customer misconceptions about self-employment.	4.40	0.48	0.00	Y
10. The VRC has knowledge and skills to connect the customer to VR vendors and or business consultants.	4.20	0.72	0.10	Y
11. The VRC has knowledge and skills to develop effective accommodations for the customer.	4.20	0.57	0.00	Y
12. The VRC has knowledge and skills to review and approve a business feasibility study and business plan.	4.10	0.67	– 0.30	Y
13. The VRC has knowledge and skills to implement self-employment planning and service delivery.	4.10	0.67	0.10	Y
14. The VRC has knowledge and skills to conduct motivational interviewing, conduct counseling, and provide guidance.	4.10	0.90	0.50*	N
15. The VRC has knowledge and skills to read and review a business plan.	4.00	0.85	0.10	Y
16. The VRC has knowledge and skills to creatively provide resources and explore self-employment options with the customer.	3.70	0.86	0.50*	N
17. The VRC has knowledge and skills about self-employment resources (loans, business consultation, tools, SBA, SBDC, SCORE, etc.).	3.60	0.88	0.40	Y
18. The VRC has the knowledge and skills to assist the customer with financial aspects of self-employment (i.e., creating a budget, debt management, credit history, benefits planning).	3.40	0.98	0.10	Y
Domain 3: Employment and closure
1. The VRC has knowledge and skills to use counseling and guidance skills (communication skills, problem-solving skills).	4.80	0.39	0.00	Y
2. The VRC has knowledge about VR policy for successful closure in self-employment.	4.50	0.50	– 0.10	Y
3. The VRC has knowledge and skills to follow-up with the customer to ensure success.	4.30	0.62	– 0.10	Y
4. The VRC has knowledge and skills to determine if the customer has reached an appropriate level of independence.	4.00	0.43	0.20	Y
5. The VRC has knowledge and skills to gather the documentation about the customer’s self-employment earnings.	4.00	0.85	– 0.10	Y
6. The VRC has the knowledge and skills to develop a plan for post-employment services if needed.	3.80	0.72	– 0.10	Y
7. The VRC has the knowledge and skills to find resources to support the VR customer if the business is not stable.	3.80	0.83	– 0.10	Y
8. The VRC has knowledge and skills to identify continued skill building for the customer as they implement the small business.	3.80	0.83	0.00	Y
9. The VRC has knowledge and skills to create a plan to evaluate the business in terms of milestones.	3.70	0.86	0.10	Y
10. The VRC has knowledge and skills to use the business plan to monitor progress to determine if business goals were met.	3.60	0.98	0.30	Y
11. The VRC has knowledge and skills to identify long-term business supports for the customer to use after closure.	3.50	0.78	0.10	Y
12. The VRC has the knowledge and skills to read a business financial statement and determine if the business is financially stable.	3.40	0.77	– 0.10	Y

Table 3

Barriers with means above 3.00 by domain

Domain	M	SD	Stability	Met consensus
			X2-X3	Y/N
Domain 1: Application and intake
1. A barrier to self-employment at application and intake is the VRC perceives self-employment to be difficult to implement.	3.50	1.08	– 0.20	N
2. A barrier to self-employment at application and intake is the customer’s expectations about the VR self-employment process.	3.30	0.75	– 0.10	Y
3. A barrier to self-employment at application and intake is delayed response time when completing necessary steps to achieve self-employment.	3.10	1.16	0.30	N
Domain 2: Plan development and service delivery
1. A barrier to self-employment during plan development and service delivery is the customer’s unrealistic expectations about self-employment.	3.80	0.39	– 0.40	Y
2. A barrier to self-employment during plan development and service delivery is the customer does not pursue information or resources.	3.40	0.77	– 0.20	Y
3. A barrier to self-employment during plan development and service delivery is the customer does not complete steps outlined in the plan.	3.20	0.83	0.00	Y
4. A barrier to self-employment during plan development and service delivery is the customer lacks the necessary skills and motivation.	3.20	0.57	0.10	Y
5. A barrier to self-employment during plan development and service delivery is the slow process for obtaining approval from a VR supervisor or regional manager.	3.00	0.95	– 0.10	Y
6. A barrier to self-employment during plan development and service delivery is the VRC does not believe in self-employment.	3.00	0.82	– 0.80*	N
Domain 3: Employment and closure
1. A barrier during employment and closure is the customer can stall in the process.	3.50	0.66	– 0.20	Y
2. A barrier during employment and closure is the customer is not earning at least minimum wage (or required amount under VR policy).	3.50	0.99	– 0.60*	N
3. A barrier during employment and closure is obtaining necessary documentation for case closure.	3.20	0.94	– 0.10	Y

4 Discussion

This study sought to gather information from VR professionals about what they believe are the knowledge and skills essential to facilitating self-employment and the barriers to facilitating the self-employment VR process, including application and intake, plan development and service delivery, and employment and closure. The VRCs identified a wide range of knowledge and skills and barriers across each area of the rehabilitation process.

4.1 Application and intake: Knowledge and skills

A total of 15 knowledge and skill items were rated for the application and intake process. Only five of these items met criteria for consensus. The highest rated item in this domain focused on understating how the individual’s disability impacts employment. One item focused on understanding vocational rehabilitation eligibility policies; one item focused on understanding how to gather information about an individual’s work history, finances, resources, and experiences; one item focused on using open-ended questions and active listening; and one item focused on being culturally component. It makes sense that VRCs identified these knowledge and skill items for application and intake as the Rehabilitation Act outlines that the VRC is responsible for reviewing information to determine whether an individual is eligible for vocational rehabilitation services. VRCs are required to determine (a) if the individual has a physical or mental impairment, (b) whether the impairment results in a substantial impediment to employment, and (c) whether the applicant requires vocational rehabilitation services to prepare for, secure, and retain employment (34 CFR §361.42). In addition, the enforceable ethical standards created by the Commission of Rehabilitation Counselor Certification (CRCC, 2016) outlines that VRCs develop a counseling relationship with individuals with disabilities and actively attempt to understand the diverse cultural backgrounds of the individuals being served.

The remaining ten items in this domain did not meet criteria for consensus. Most of these knowledge and skill items specifically addressed self-employment, such as understanding vocational rehabilitation policies, understanding and identifying community resources, understanding the individuals’ disabilities knowledge of self-employment, reviewing business feasibility studies, etc. The lack of consensus on these items may be attributed to the fact VRCs were initially asked to list the self-employment knowledge and skills needed for application and intake during the first round of the Delphi. The VRC had the opportunity to list multiple items which were then organized by the researchers. After reviewing each item in subsequent rounds, the VRCs may have concluded that while the items are important, they are not necessarily a component of the application and intake process. Moreover, many of the items in the knowledge and skill area seem to be related to best practices for VRCs but do not necessarily address areas of self-employment.

4.2 Application and intake: Barriers

VRCs rated three barriers in the application and intake domain, with only one barrier reaching consensus. The barrier stated, “A barrier to self-employment at application and intake is the customer’s expectations about the VR self-employment process.” It is not surprising that VRCs identified expectations as a barrier because research suggests that individuals with disabilities need to possess entrepreneurial self-efficacy to achieve a self-employment goal and an individual’s expectations about self-employment may positively or negatively influence the pathway to employment (Castillo & Fischer, 2019). It is important to highlight, however, that if an individual does not appear to possess entrepreneurial self-efficacy, the individual should not be precluded from exploring self-employment as a viable route to CIE. Therefore, a VRC must be adequately prepared to support individuals with disabilities with little entrepreneurial self-efficacy, who express an interest in self-employment, to explore the full range of self-employment opportunities.

4.3 Plan development and service delivery: Knowledge and skills

A total of 18 knowledge and skill items were identified for plan development and service delivery. Sixteen of these items met criteria for consensus, while two did not. Two of the highest rated items in this domain (mean = 4.7) were the knowledge and skills to obtain agency approval for self-employment and knowledge and skills to assess how the individual’s disability impacts employment. Understanding the agency approval process is critical because there is little statutory guidance about self-employment and there is limited research on the self-employment and vocational rehabilitation process. Understandably, VRCs should be familiar with agency protocol for self-employment prior to developing an individual plan for employment (IPE). Four knowledge and skill items had means above 4.50; these knowledge and skill items focused on (a) assessing the individual’s ability to complete tasks to operate a business, (b) explaining expectations and responsibilities about self-employment service delivery, (c) establishing a working alliance with the individual to appropriately support the individual’s ongoing self-employment plan, and (d) developing an IPE that identifies the needed supports to achieve self-employment. Each of these items is critical as IPE plan development and corresponding service delivery requires a comprehensive assessment of rehabilitation needs. Conducting a comprehensive assessment to fully understand and support an individual’s path to self-employment is an important step in developing a working relationship between the individual with a disability and the VRC (Castillo & Fisher, 2019). Unfortunately, no formal assessments for self-employment have been validated for use with individuals with disabilities, and the types of questions typically asked do not consider the impact of accommodations or supports. Using traditional vocational rehabilitation assessments may hinder self-employment for individuals with more complex support needs because these assessments may not provide accurate information about an individual’s ability to launch and operate a business. The only way to accurately determine the capacity the type of supports an individual needs to operate a particular business is in an applied context of a specific business. As such, a working relationship in the context of self-employment is important because of unique relationship dynamics that are encountered during the self-employment process (Yamamoto & Olsen, 2016). That is, each person has unique characteristics, circumstances, commitments, resources, and expectations for self-employment (Yamamoto et al., 2012). VRCs should utilize strategies that are person-specific and are designed with an accommodation and support framework.

Connection skills emerged as important knowledge and skills for plan development and service delivery. Specifically, a high item (mean = 4.40) indicated that VRCs need to maintain good communication with the individual with a disability, vendors, and others. Another high rated knowledge and skill item (mean = 4.20) indicated that the VRC should possess the knowledge and skills to connect the individual with disabilities to vocational rehabilitation vendors and business consultants. Finally, several knowledge and skill items for plan development and service delivery centered on business planning. These items included the knowledge and skills to (a) review and approve a business feasibility study and business plan, (b) review and read a business plan, and (c) understand self-employment resources such as loans, SBA, SBDC, SCORE, etc. The importance of VRCs having knowledge and skills items for business planning is underscored by survey findings outlined by Ashley et. al. (2018). The authors conducted a survey with individuals with disabilities about self-employment and found that one way an individual with a disability secures self-employment is to engage in business training and education. Unfortunately, the participants seeking self-employment indicated that they were often discouraged and felt undervalued by their VRC. When VRCs thoroughly understand the business planning process, they can provide meaningful feedback and support to individuals with disabilities in a way that does not devalue an individual’s self-employment goals. It is important to note that some individuals who express interest in self-employment may not benefit from standard business training and education. In these cases, the VRC plays a critical role in helping to make that determination and then identify individualized supports to learn about business.

4.4 Plan development and service delivery: Knowledge and skills

Six barriers to plan development and service delivery were rated; five of these barriers achieved criteria for consensus. VRCs identified several barriers that are encountered by the individual with a disability. The highest rated of these barriers (mean = 3.80) was individuals’ unrealistic expectations about self-employment. Other barriers included the individual (a) not pursuing information or resources, (b) not completing steps in the plan, and (c) not having the necessary skills and motivation. A final barrier was a systems barrier related to the slow process of obtaining approval from a supervisor or regional manager. These barriers suggest that more specific training, information, and individualized support should be provided to an individual with a disability who expresses interest in seeking self-employment. In addition, VRCs may need additional information and support to learn how to support the full range of individuals who express interests in self-employment. Without targeted training and support, implicit bias or misunderstanding about who can achieve self-employment may emerge.

4.5 Employment and closure: Knowledge and skills

Twelve knowledge and skill items were rated and met consensus for the employment and closure domain. The highest rated knowledge and skill (mean = 4.8) was for the VRC to use counseling and guidance skills (communication skills and problem-solving skills). The second highest knowledge and skill item (mean = 4.50) was for the VRC to be knowledgeable about VR policy for closure in self-employment. Other items that are related to closure include: (a) the VRC has the knowledge and skill to ensure the individual with a disability is successful, (b) the VRC has the knowledge and skill to determine if the individual has reached an appropriate level of independence, (c) the VRC has the knowledge and skill to determine self-employment earnings. Other knowledge and skill items related to ensuring the individual is successful once self-employed, included the knowledge and skills (a) to develop a plan for post-employment services, (b) to research and find support for an individual if the business is not stable, (c) to identify continued skill building as the small business is implemented, (d) to develop plans for post-employment services, and (e) to develop a plan to monitor progress to determine if goals are met. Finally, one knowledge and skill item was for the VRC to be able to read a business financial statement to determine business stability.

4.6 Employment and closure: Barriers

VRCs rated three barriers. Two of these barriers met criteria for consensus. The first barrier to employment and closure was related to the individual. Specifically, the VRCs indicated that a barrier to employment and closure is the customer can stall the process. The second barrier was system-specific; a barrier is obtaining the necessary documentation for case closure.

4.7 Limitations

While the Delphi methodology is a useful way to collect information and build consensus from a group of experts, there are certain limitations to this type of research method. First, while we tried to identify and select VRCs who are knowledgeable and who had extensive experience with self-employment, their responses reflect opinion rather the fact. Second, the small sample limits the generalizations that can be made about knowledge and skill and barrier items.

5 Conclusions

This Delphi study identified what VRCs believe to be the knowledge and skills essential to facilitating self-employment and the barriers to facilitating the self-employment VR process, including application and intake, plan development and service delivery, and employment and closure. Several of the knowledge and skill items that VRCs identified are related to general best practices in rehabilitation counseling and are not necessarily stand-alone practices to support an individual pursuing self-employment. This may suggest that VRCs have limited knowledge of self-employment best practices. Therefore, future research should extend the finding of this Delphi and expand the knowledge and skill items to include more operationalized detail for self-employment in application and intake, plan development and service delivery, and closure. For example, for application and intake, research should examine how to expand foundational rehabilitation practices to include obtaining information about an individual with a disability’s interest in self-employment and to explore both the advantages and disadvantages of self-employment. Once these items are operationalized, research should examine how VRCs become proficient in implementing self-employment practices. The path to proficiency would entail access to structured formal and informal training and capacity building to develop the knowledge and skills needed to support self-employment and business ownership. Findings from a focus group conducted by Inge (2022) reinforce the need for more targeted training on self-employment as VRCs indicated that they lack the knowledge and skills about self-employment. Specific training should be targeted for each area of the vocational rehabilitation process.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

None to report.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interests to disclose.

Funding

The contents of this manuscript were developed under grant number H263E200005 from the U.S. Department of Education. However, those contents do not necessarily represent the policy of the U.S. Department of Education, and you should not assume endorsement by the Federal Government.

Ethics statement

Ethical approval for this study was provided by Utah State University’s Institutional Review Board (protocol #12112).

Informed consent

Consent was embedded into the online platform and obtained from participants prior to entering the Delphi survey.

References

Ashely,

, Graf,

N. M.

(2018) The process and experience of self-employment among people with disabilities: A qualitative study. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 61(2), 90–100.

Castillo,

Y. A.

, Fischer,

J. M.

(2019) Self-employment as a career choice for people with disabilities: Personal factors that predict entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Rehabilitation,85(1), 35–43.

Commission of Rehabilitation Counselor Certification, (2016) Codeof professional ethics for certified rehabilitation counselors (CRC), https://crccertification.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/CRC_CodeEthics_Eff2017-FinaLnewdiesign.pdf

Dotson,

W. H.

, Richman,

D. M.

, Abby,

, Thompson,

, Plotner,

(2013) Teaching skills related to self-employment to adults with developmental disabilities: An analog analysis. Research in Developmental Disabilities34, 2336–2350.

Griffin,

, Hammis,

, Keeton,

, Sullivan,

(2014) Making self-employment work for people with disabilities (2nd ed). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

Hsu,

C. C.

, Sanford,

B. A.

(2007) The Delphi technique: Making sense of consensus. Practical, Assessment, Research, & Evaluation72(10), 1–8.

Hakim,

, Weinblatt,

(1993) The Delphi process as a tool for decision making: the case of vocational training of people with handicaps. Evaluation and Program Planning16, 25–38.

Inge,

, Keeton,

, Taylor,

(2022) Barriers and facilitators to self-employment for people with disabilities as described by vocational rehabilitation counselors: Report on a focus group Study. [Unpublished report]. National Center on Self-Employment, Business Ownership, and Telecommuting.

Revell,

, Inge,

, Cimera,

, Keeton,

(2022) A summary of the self-employment outcomes withing the Federal/State vocational rehabilitation system: FYs 2018 and 2019. [Unpublished report]. National Center on Self-Employment, Business Ownership, and Telecommuting.

10.

Revell,

, Smith,

, Inge,

(2009) An analysis of self-employment outcomes within the federal/state vocational rehabilitation system. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation,11–18. https://doi.org/10.3233/JVR-2009-0467

11.

Rehabilitation Act as Amended, 34, CFR §361.42. (1973).

12.

U.S. Department of Labor. (2022a). The employment situation – January 2022. https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf

13.

U.S. Department of Labor. (2022b). Persons with a disability: Labor force characteristics – 2021. https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/disabl.pdf

14.

Yamamoto,

S. H.

, Alverson,

C. Y.

(2018) Vocational rehabilitation and self-employment of people with disabilities: Factors of successful outcomes. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation48(2), 269–283. https://doi.org.dist.lib.usu.edu/10.3233/JVR-180937

15.

Yamamoto,

S. H.

, Olson,

(2016) Self-employment success and challenges: Perspectives of vocational rehabilitation clients and counselors. SAGE Open, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244016665892

16.

Yamamoto,

, Unruh,

, Bullis,

(2012) The viability of self-employment for individuals with disabilities in the Untied States: A synthesis of the empirical literature. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation36, 121–134.

17.

Vocational Rehabilitation Technical Assistance Center for Quality Employment (VRTAC-QE). (2021). Supporting self-employment in vocational rehabilitation: VR counselor factsheet. https://tacqe.com/supporting-self-employment-in-vocational-rehabilitation-vr-counselors-factsheet/

18.

Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act 29 U.S.C §705 et seq. (2014).

Question	Variable	N	%
N = 14
Current position	VRC	8	57.14
	Business development specialist	3	21.42
	Rehabilitation manager	2	14.28
	Program analyst for self-employment	1	7.14
Type of ycertification	Certified rehabilitation counselor	6	42.85
	Licensed rehabilitation counselor	1	7.14
	Other	5	35.71
	LLPC, CBPS, MSW, MSW, PHR/MPA
	No response	2	14.28
Years employed in VR	4 to 6	5	35.71
	7 to 11	4	28.57
	11+	5	35.71
Years of experience in self-employment	3– 5	5	35.71
	6– 10	4	28.57
	11+	4	28.57
	Other	1	7.14
Off and on
Have you assisted or provided consultation/supervision for four or more vocational rehabilitation clients pursuing self-employment in the three past years?	Yes	14	100
No	0	0
Location	Region I: Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont	1	7.14
	Region V: Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Wisconsin	2	14.28
	Region VI: Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas	2	14.28
	Region VII: Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska	2	14.28
	Region VIII: Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming	4	28.57
	Region X: Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, Washington	3	21.42
Highest degree you have received	Bachelor’s degree	1	7.14
	Master’s degree	12	85.71
	Doctoral degree	1	7.14