





































29

deVeloPMenTal 
disabiliTy

Americans with developmental and other disabilities are often excluded 
from society due to the assumption that they cannot or do not wish to work. This 
paper examines the possibilities for and benefits of creating jobs for persons 
with developmental disabilities through the lenses of policy, law, evidence-based 
practice and social work ethics. While different perspectives on this issue exist, 
it is important to reframe our assumptions about the employment of people who 
have developmental disabilities, taking our cues from these individuals, rather 
than personal, professional, or societal notions. These notions, if they frame 
people as unable to participate in our culture, can undermine the many achieve-
ments that those with disabilities have fought for in law and public perception. 
Including people with developmental disabilities in the workplace is beneficial 
to these individuals and society in a variety of ways. This paper provides an 
overview of some excellent models of how to create space for people with de-
velopmental disabilities who wish to be employed in the workplace and outlines 
reasons why this type of economic inclusion is essential in order for these indi-
viduals to be included in American society. As specialists in understanding the 
gap between society and those who are typically rejected from it, social workers 
are well positioned to find creative solutions for this problem.

       ccording to the United States Administration on Developmental Dis-
abilities (ADD), developmental disabilities are “severe, life-long disabilities at-
tributable to mental and/or physical impairments, manifested before age 22. De-
velopmental disabilities result in substantial limitations in three or more areas of 
major life activities: capacity for independent living, economic self-sufficiency, 
learning, mobility, receptive and expressive language, self-care, and self-direc-
tion” (ADD, 2004, p. 1). There are approximately 4.5 million individuals with 
developmental disabilities in the United States. National rates of developmental 
disabilities, including Autism Spectrum Disorders, are thought to be rising. Ac-
cording to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), currently 
one in 150 children born will have autism as compared with one in every 222 
in 2000 (CDC, 2007). People with developmental disabilities have an unem-
ployment rate of 72 percent, in comparison with five percent of the population 

Katie Cox

A

develoPmenTal disabiliTy & emPloymenT: a social 
Work PrioriTy



30

Journal of sTudenT 
social Work, Vol. Vi     

as a whole (United States Census Bureau, 2006; United States Department of 
Labor, 2008). As people of a nation that claims to allow citizens life, liberty and 
the pursuit of happiness, and as social workers who adhere to a code of ethics 
which espouses social justice, the dignity and worth of each person, and client 
self-determination, it is crucial that we work toward the inclusiveness of people 
who have developmental disabilities (National Association of Social Workers 
[NASW], 1999). 

While pushing away that which may create cognitive dissonance and allow 
people who are not affected by developmental disabilities (DDs) to live more 
comfortable lives in the short-term, the relegation of people with DDs to special 
facilities excludes them from adequate and equal education, employment, trans-
portation, recreation and other activities, harming us all (Whitehead & Hughey, 
2004). The Administration on Developmental Disabilities (ADD) recently re-
leased a report entitled, “The American Dream Belongs to Everyone,” which 
describes the purposes and implications of the Developmental Disabilities As-
sistance and Bill of Rights Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-402) and highlights the im-
portance of the societal inclusion of developmentally disabled (DD) individuals 
(ADD, 2004).  Details of this report, discussed later in this paper, demonstrate 
the steps that the United States government is taking to ensure the rights of 
people with DDs. Social workers might tend to agree that the “American Dream” 
should belong to everyone; however, programs for and treatment of people with 
DDs do not always reflect our code of ethics (NASW, 1999). 

Developmental Disability: History and Legislation

Traditionally, people with disabilities have often been considered unable to 
contribute to society because they have been labeled “sick” or “dependent.” Ear-
ly public policies reflected this social construct of disability. Public benefits pro-
gram requirements have tended to disenfranchise and disempower recipients by 
requiring that they fall below certain functional benchmarks in order to receive 
services (Whitehead & Hughey, 2004). Since the 1960s, the disability rights 
movement has helped individuals with disabilities re-label themselves as whole 
people and participants in society capable of making choices for themselves. 
This movement eventually led to government-funded sheltered workshops and 
vocational programs, set up to provide work experience for individuals with DDs 
(Kregal, Wehman, & Banks, 1989). In the 1980s, the use of sheltered workshops 
began to evoke wide criticism due to the degree in which they isolated people 
with DDs from mainstream society. In the late 1980s, supported employment 

k
a

T
ie

 c
o

x



31

began to replace sheltered workshops as the generally accepted method of skill-
building and employment for people with DDs (Bond et al., 2001). This shift 
toward supported employment fits appropriately in a society where the centrality 
of work is undeniable (Akabas & Kurzman, 2004). 

The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) was one important 
milestone in the effort to ensure that those with DDs are able to participate in 
the workforce (PL 101-336). Some see the ADA as an attack on the welfare 
state and an attempt to push people off of welfare rolls. They cite the possibil-
ity that individuals with disabilities are still extremely limited by the courts’ 
stricter-than-intended interpretation as skepticism of ADA law. Judges some-
times decide that people with disabilities do not qualify for as many provisions 
as the law was originally intended to provide. Further, those who challenge the 
law feel that the ADA’s enforceable accommodation standards (e.g., making a 
large company install a ramp for wheelchair access) may create negative em-
ployer reactions because they are averse to making the necessary and required 
accommodations (Bagenstos, 2004). While proponents of this view believe that 
improved social welfare services are a better answer to barriers than the ADA, 
they fail to recognize that the dominance of these services alone was the very 
system disability activists fought to change. The reality that people who have 
DDs may still be discriminated against despite ADA legislation should not stop 
DD individuals and their guardians from working toward a society that recog-
nizes DD individuals’ civil rights. TASH (formerly The Association for Persons 
with Severe Handicaps), an international association of people with disabilities, 
their family members, and advocates, has outlined a variety of lobbying and edu-
cational efforts designed to include people with DDs in the workplace, based on 
the belief that “no one with a disability should be forced to live, work, or learn in 
a segregated setting; that all individuals have the right to direct their own lives” 
(TASH, 2008). 

  The Social Security Administration offers special provisions that ensure 
that people with disabilities can work and continue to receive Social Security 
Disability Insurance (SSDI). These provisions, called work incentives, include 
provisions for individuals to set aside money, resources, and expenses that are 
excluded from earned income calculations (Fichthorn & Scott-Gilmore, 2005). 
The ADA is focused on ensuring that those with disabilities are able to enjoy 
an equal opportunity to participate in society—including the culturally-valued 
realm of employment. The Equal Opportunities Employment Commission seeks 
to eliminate barriers to employment for individuals with DDs by providing 
de-incentives in the form of fines to those employers who discriminate (Equal  

k
a

T
ie c

o
x

deVeloPMenTal 
disabiliTy



32

Journal of sTudenT 
social Work, Vol. Vi     

Employment Opportunity Commission, 2008). Unfortunately, there is a growing 
body of evidence that people with developmental disabilities are discriminated 
against at higher levels than people with physical disabilities (Gouvier, Mayville, 
& Sytsma-Jordan, 2003). Overall, the ADA is an important progression within 
our society that furthers the cause of people who have DDs and wish to work. 
Importantly, the ADA furthers this cause without reducing (or failing to advocate 
for) the much-needed benefits of those individuals who may not wish to or who 
are not able to work. 

This paper proposes that gainful employment is an excellent way to ensure 
that DD individuals are given the self-determination valued by society. While 
some individuals are treated for their developmental disabilities during child-
hood, others carry their developmental disabilities into adulthood. As their par-
ents age, and less-than-adequate caretaking facilities remain the norm, these in-
dividuals’ life options are severely limited (Pruncho, 2003). As the ADD (2004) 
report notes, “locating and/or maintaining reliable and stimulating employment 
is one of the most important steps individuals can take towards personal and 
financial independence” (p.3). Not only does this employment benefit society, it 
also allows fellow citizens the personal choice to decide what degree of indepen-
dence they wish to have. While the ADA champions the right of DD individuals 
to work, which is significant for their inclusion in society, the provision of this 
right does not necessarily create the opportunity for work.

The Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act of 2000 
proposes that  “individuals with developmental disabilities and their families 
participate in the design of and have access to needed community services, in-
dividualized supports, and other forms of assistance that promote self-determi-
nation, independence, productivity, and integration and inclusion in all facets of 
community…” (Title 1 P.L. 106-402) (ADD, 2004, p.2). Other important legisla-
tion that aids people with developmental disabilities include the Americans with 
Disabilities Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-336), the Social Security Act (P.L. 74-271), the 
Rehabilitation Act (P. L. 93-112), and the Individuals with Disabilities Education 
Act (IDEA) (P. L. 101-476), each of which addresses one or more of the forms 
of discrimination faced by individuals with disabilities (ADD, 2004). These poli-
cies put into place important supports for people with DDs: the ADA ensures ap-
propriate workplace accommodations and outlines penalties for discriminatory 
practices; the Social Security Act provides funds for living and medical care; 
the Rehabilitation Act attends to vocational and rehabilitation services; and the 
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act addresses the educational needs of 
children with disabilities from birth to age 21. Another recent piece of legislation 

k
a

T
ie

 c
o

x
 



33

that aims to benefit people with developmental disabilities is the New Freedom 
Initiative, launched by President George W. Bush on February 1, 2001. The goal 
of this initiative is to promote full access to community life for people with DDs 
through the collaboration of federal agencies in removing barriers to indepen-
dent living (ADD, 2004). Together, these pieces of legislation seek to empower 
individuals with disabilities to advocate for themselves, build social capital and 
increase support and choice within the service organizations that affect them and 
society as a whole.

The Administration on Developmental Disabilities is responsible for the 
implementation and administration of the Developmental Disabilities Assistance 
and Bill of Rights Act of 2000 (DD Act). Federal funding from the ADD allows 
for programs, including State Councils on Developmental Disabilities (SCDD), 
to pursue systems changes in service or support availability. Further, the legisla-
tion makes it possible for Protection and Advocacy (P&A) systems to protect 
the legal and human rights of individuals with disabilities and for University 
Centers for Excellence in Developmental Disabilities (UCEDDs) to provide in-
terdisciplinary pre-service preparation and disseminate research findings. Proj-
ects of National Significance (PNS), also made possible by this legislation, ad-
dress areas of emerging concern through discretionary funds (ADD, 2007). This 
funding, along with private donations and corporate and foundation grants, has 
allowed for the creation of a wide range of programs for individuals with DDs. 
However, the number of people with DDs that states serve through employment 
programs remains low as compared to beneficiaries of programs such as educa-
tion and quality assurance that are also designated for people with DDs (ADD, 
2006). 

While the existing programs provide important services to people with de-
velopmental disabilities, the talk of empowerment in the legislation and human 
service literature is inconsistent with the fact that there are not more programs 
devoted to employment. Employment can lead to empowerment through skill 
and creativity-building, earning wages, having control over one’s money and 
contributing to the economy and to the social work environment. Despite the 
fact that 14 percent of people with disabilities who are seeking work are unem-
ployed compared with five percent of the population as a whole, the provision of 
employment programs for people with disabilities is insufficient (CDC, 2007). 
While people with DDs have benefited from the programs provided by the above 
mentioned legislation, recent research has shown that these have not been enough 
to ensure that individuals with DDs are participating in the American workplace 
through integrated jobs (Metzel, Boeltzig, Butterworth, Sullivan-Sulewski, & 

k
a

T
ie c

o
x

deVeloPMenTal 
disabiliTy



34

Journal of sTudenT 
social Work, Vol. Vi     

Scott-Gilmore, 2007). In other words, while legislation and non-employment 
programs are plentiful, real jobs are few.

In order for individuals with developmental disabilities to truly be included 
in society and reap the benefits that work can offer, this paper proposes a shift 
toward integrated employment in federally-funded projects. While the reality 
is that some persons with developmental disabilities may need a great deal of 
assistance or even full-time care, the majority of DD individuals is able to per-
form some work. Unfortunately, studies have shown that individuals with DDs 
in program care settings exhibit a significant amount of “learned helplessness” 
in language use, adaptation and behavior. This raises concerns regarding health, 
physical safety and individual development, because individuals with DDs learn 
to accept substandard living conditions and lower expectations regarding their 
potential (Reynolds & Miller, 1985; Domingo, Barrow, & Amato, 1998; Janssen, 
Schuengel, & Stolk, 2005). While caregivers and those who shape programs tend 
to see the developmentally disabled as having little ability to develop without a 
sheltered environment, studies have shown that even severely autistic individu-
als have personal preferences for certain tasks in the workplace (e.g. vacuuming 
vs. dusting) (Lattimore, Parsons, & Reid, 2002). This ability illustrates that even 
those individuals typically considered lowest functioning can acquire skills to 
make choices, learn, and interact in a social or work setting. Is it really these 
individuals’ disabilities that keep them from productive employment, or it is so-
ciety’s view that they have no potential to contribute that isolates DD individu-
als and consigns them to lives of segregated stagnation outside the traditional 
bounds of our work-centered society?

Inclusive Education and Inclusive Employment

In recent years, following a national debate about educational inclusive-
ness, the movement for Inclusive Education for people with developmental and 
intellectual disabilities in our nation’s classrooms has experienced much success. 
This achievement is evidenced in the surge of opportunities for children with and 
without disabilities to be educated together, under the clause of IDEA legislation 
that requires free and appropriate education in the least restrictive environment 
(Klierwer, 1998). Klierwer (1998) explains: 

“Segregated education separates people from their own culture. 
It denies them the right to participate in the complex and ever-
changing realities that constitute regular lives. Segregation does 
not lead to community participation; it leads to the need for fur-

k
a

T
ie

 c
o

x



35

ther restrictive placements. On the other hand, inclusion is about 
full membership; and in that active participation, the form and 
shape of the community itself is changed as traditionally banished 
people alter the very appearance of who and what constitute val-
ued and effective membership” (p. 318).
The concept of inclusive education can also be extended to incorporate 

inclusive employment. It is important to continue to address the negative impacts 
of separation from culture and membership in society as people with develop-
mental disabilities complete their educational programs. Is it not cruel to educate 
people in an integrated manner only to send them out into a cultural reality where 
they find no place to belong due to the lack of employment options? Laying the 
groundwork for inclusive employment may be difficult in a culture so permeated 
by capitalistic ideals. Advocates and scholars have laid a solid foundation of 
research and program ideas in the past decade; yet proposing practical, creative 
and effective programs that serve both society and individuals remains a contem-
porary challenge for social workers.

Building toward Employment: Skills and Preparation

Wehman (2006) has stressed that the developmentally disabled population 
is heterogeneous and that each group of people with specific developmental dis-
abilities has unique strengths and barriers. This reality highlights the importance 
of understanding each type of developmental disability while taking care to focus 
on the person, not solely on the disability. To that end, Wehmeyer, Garner, Yea-
ger, and Lawrence (2006) have identified a multi-stage, multi-component model 
to promote DD student involvement in transition planning and implementation. 
This model incorporates social interaction, community inclusion, outcome mea-
surements, skill-building and family/caretaker involvement to help ensure the 
participation and perspectives of people with developmental disabilities.

In Stage One, high-quality supports enable students to establish short- and 
long-term goals based on their own preferences, abilities and interests. Students 
were involved in “Whose Future is it Anyway?”, a curriculum designed to in-
crease DD students’ self-awareness and build problem-solving, decision-mak-
ing, goal-setting and small group communication skills (Wehmeyer & Kelchner, 
1995). The Self-Determined Learning Model of Instruction allows students to 
become self-regulated problem-solvers and to self-direct transitional goal-set-
ting, action planning and program implementation (Wehmeyer, Palmer, Agran, 
Mithaug, & Martin, 2000). 

k
a

T
ie c

o
x

deVeloPMenTal 
disabiliTy



36

Journal of sTudenT 
social Work, Vol. Vi     

Stage Two involves convening a student-directed, person-centered planning 
meeting that incorporates stakeholders in the learning process to help students 
refine goals (such as, “I will make a budget based on my paycheck and learn 
to use my budget”) and provides support for the second phase of the Self-De-
termined Learning Model of Instruction. In the final stage of the model, the 
student, along with supports identified in the second stage, implements the plan, 
monitors his or her own progress, and evaluates his or her own success, making 
revisions to the goal or the plan as desired (such as, “I will ask my vocational 
counselor for help if I cannot understand my paycheck”). 

This curriculum provides an excellent model of employment preparation 
for people with disabilities. With proper planning, this model can foster many of 
the skills needed in an integrated workplace, including group communication, 
goal-setting, action-planning, self-determination and self-awareness. In fact, af-
ter the intervention, students demonstrated significant increases in autonomy and 
independent living skills and lower levels of learned helplessness (Wehmeyer 
et al., 2006). It is imperative that students learn these skills as they transition 
to the workplace because they are important for self-determination, which has 
been sought by DD individuals and is crucial for transitioning to supported em-
ployment. Additionally, individuals with DD typically work with a vocational 
counselor, whose job it is to assist them in implementing their plans as well as 
in gaining and maintaining employment (Palmer & Wehmeyer, 1998; Wehman, 
2006).  It is these vocational counselors who help students transition to employ-
ment in an inclusive setting.

Inclusive Employment

Several researchers have outlined approaches to integrated employment 
programs that offer positive outcomes. By contrast, sheltered employment pro-
grams have drawn criticisms due to lack of staff knowledge about job and per-
sonal development, low expectations, and low integration with communities 
(Rusch & Hughes, 1989). Rusch & Hughes (1989) describe several positive 
models for job placement and transition: (a) the individual placement model, 
in which an individual is placed in a workplace with the continuing support of 
a vocational counselor; (b) the clustered placement model, in which a group 
of individuals works in close proximity within a workplace, often performing 
the same task; (c) the mobile crew model, in which a group of fewer than eight 
employees provide contract services (e.g., grounds work) in the community; and 

k
a

T
ie

 c
o

x



37

(d) the entrepreneurial model, in which a group of fewer than eight emplop-
ees provide a product or service (e.g., electronics assembly) to a manufacturing 
company. The group models (b, c, and d) are considered appropriate only for 
extremely low-functioning individuals because mean hourly wages and levels of 
integration, two important positive outcomes, are greater for workers who have 
been individually placed (Kregel, Wehman, & Banks, 1989).

Wehman (2006) outlines job-searching steps for DD individuals and rec-
ommends job coaches that can further integration. Researching the job market, 
working with the potential employee to identify and build a network of business 
contacts, presenting to the employer in a positive manner that showcases the 
potential employee while answering any questions or concerns, and educating 
the employer on relevant legislation are important steps toward obtaining em-
ployment. Steps that will formalize and finalize employment include ensuring 
that job development activities are being implemented effectively and efficiently, 
conducting a meeting with the employer and employee in which expectations 
are presented and choices are given, ensuring that the employee and employer 
understand the terms of the contract, and (later) asking the employee if she or he 
would like to take the job. 

Another important quality for job searchers to consider about potential 
places of employment for DD individuals is the degree to which workplace 
inclusion is possible. The number of opportunities for physical and social in-
tegration, whether all employees (including DD workers) participate in these 
opportunities, and whether the workers are satisfied with the job setting and the 
opportunities it offers should all be evaluated. Particular value should be placed 
on whether the DD workers are comfortable with other employees, included in 
general workplace activities, and provided with opportunities to develop new 
skills and learn new tasks. Each of these aspects of a work environment must be 
monitored during the follow-up process, in which a vocational counselor contin-
ues to work with and support the individual who has been placed for employment 
(Wehman, 2003). 

The vocational counselor must indicate to the employer the need to return 
for intermittent Job Analysis appointments in which the counselor evaluates the 
fit between the employee’s skills and the job he or she is performing (Wehman, 
2006). “Systematic and ongoing assessment of the job setting and the worker 
is critical if maximum integration is to be achieved and maintained” (Wehman, 
2003, p.139). This is the case because individuals with DDs, more so than non-
DD individuals, can fall behind quickly if they are not receiving an appropriate 
degree of support in the workplace. The counselor should constantly be looking 

k
a

T
ie c

o
x

deVeloPMenTal 
disabiliTy



38

Journal of sTudenT 
social Work, Vol. Vi     

to explore the need for accommodation, information about the company and 
its services, opportunities for development and promotion, how technically and 
socially inclusive the work environment is, and how to proactively and creatively 
provide any other needed support. Menchetti and Garcia (2003) emphasize sup-
portive training for employees, employers and service providers, collaborative 
problem solving, and continuous process improvement as crucial components of 
job stabilization. Conflict resolution skills, positive interviewing and knowledge 
of the indicators of depression and anxiety to ensure an employee’s wellbeing 
throughout his or her employment would also be helpful in providing individu-
als with DDs the support they may need to thrive in an inclusive employment 
setting.

The Cost-Effectiveness of Supported Employment

Not only do many individuals with DDs, their guardians, and scholars 
prefer the shift toward inclusive employment, it is also cost-effective for these 
individuals and for society (Kregel, Wehman, & Banks, 1989; Cimera, 1998). 
Including DD individuals in the workplace can lead to increased understanding 
of the needs of and appropriate responses to a wide variety of consumers, and 
therefore increase company sales or productivity (Mor Barak, 2000). Cimera 
(1998) provides an extensive literature review and economic analysis, which ex-
amines the cost-efficiency of supported employment for individuals with devel-
opmental disabilities. Cost-benefit ratios were used to measure cost-efficiency 
from the perspective of the worker, the tax-payer and society. Costs and benefits 
included supported employee operating costs, alternative program operating 
costs, gross wages, forgone wages, fringe benefits, taxes withheld, interest on 
taxes withheld, taxes refunded, reduced subsidies and targeted job-tax-credits. 
Societal costs were supported employee operating costs, forgone wages, and tar-
geted job tax credits. Societal benefits were alternative program operating costs 
and gross wages. Cimera (1998) concluded that, “supported employment pro-
grams are a good [cost-effective] investment for workers, taxpayers, and society 
in general. Even more important, results showed that regardless of the severity 
and number of disabilities, supported employment is cost-effective for all indi-
viduals.” (p. 89). The above research provides several reasons why employment 
in a real work setting is a cost-effective option for everyone involved.

k
a

T
ie

 c
o

x



39

A Social Work Opportunity

With so much groundwork for supported employment laid by individuals 
with developmental disabilities, advocates, and scholars, there remains an excel-
lent prospect for social workers to bind the policies with the curriculum already 
set forth and create opportunities for work for the developmentally disabled in 
our society. There remains a deep need for workers to provide the actual services 
necessary to take action on the resources provided. At the level of service provi-
sion, social workers can work collaboratively with people who have DDs (and 
their guardians) to create linkages with prospective employers and individually 
tailor supportive services appropriate to their needs (Parish & Lutwick, 2005). 
Social workers can work as liaisons between various parties in the employment 
process, advocating for those DD individuals who wish to be employed in the 
workplace and involved in the community (Akabas & Kurzman, 2004). By doing 
so, social workers are answering the call of the NASW policy to work with indi-
viduals with disabilities and their families to provide services that are respectful, 
appropriate and directed by individuals with disabilities (NASW, 2000).

Conclusion

The above-mentioned curriculum and programs designed for inclusive em-
ployment outline an effective response that social workers can use to address the 
lack of viable employment opportunities for individuals with DDs. The failure 
for real programmatic shift toward integrated employment despite the pro-auton-
omy language of current legislation, the general attitudes (conscious or uncon-
scious) of caregivers and the American public as exhibited in the history of our 
treatment of DD people, as well as the learned helplessness and latent potential 
of these individuals, reveal a need for stronger emphasis on well-planned, self-
determined employment options. These options must be provided with careful 
preparation and training, supportive transition and detailed follow-up. As experts 
in interpersonal relationships, navigating the space between social systems and 
people’s lives and the great degree of impact legislation has on individuals, so-
cial workers are well-positioned to confront the lack of inclusiveness for citizens 
with DDs who desire to participate in our society through gainful employment.

References

Administration on Developmental Disabilities. (2004). The American dream 

k
a

T
ie c

o
x

deVeloPMenTal 
disabiliTy



40

Journal of sTudenT 
social Work, Vol. Vi     

belongs to everyone: A report to congress, the President, and the National 
Council on Disability. Retrieved November 28, 2007 from www.acf.hhs.
gov/programs/add/adddocs/annualreport2.pdf. 

Administration on Developmental Disabilities. (2006). 2006 State Councils on 
DD program outcomes. Retrieved on December 1, 2007 from http://www.
acf.hhs.gov/programs/add/reports/ddcprogramoutcomes06.html

Administration on Developmental Disabilities. (2007). ADD Programs. Re-
trieved November 29, 2007 from http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/add/
Factsheet.html

Akabas, S. H. & Kurzman, P. A. (2004) Work and the workplace: A resource for 
innovative policy and practice. New York: Columbia University Press.

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Pub. L. No. 101-336§2, 104 Stat. 328 
(1991). Retrieved February 10, 2008 from http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/
ada.html

Bagenstos, S. R. (2004). The future of disability law. The Yale Law Journal, 
114(1), 1-83.

Bond, G. R., Becker, D. R., Drake, R. E., Rapp, C. A., Meisler, N., Lehman, A. 
F., Bell, M. D., & Blyer, C. R. (2001) Implementing supported employ-
ment as an evidence-based practice. Psychiatric Services, 52(3), 313-322.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (February 8, 2007). CDC releases 
new data on Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASDs) from multiple communi-
ties in the United States. Retrieved November 28, 2007 from http://www.
cdc.gov/od/oc/media/pressrel/2007/r070208.htm

Cimera, R. E. (1998).  Are individuals with severe mental retardation and 
multiple disabilities cost-efficient to serve via supported employment 
programs? Mental Retardation, 36(4), 280-292.

Domingo, R. A., Barrow, M. B., & Amato, J. (1998). Exercise of linguistic 
control by speakers in an adult day treatment program. Mental Retarda-
tion, 36(4), 293-302.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (2008). Disability discrimina-
tion. Retrieved February 10, 2008 from http://www.eeoc.gov/types/ada.
html.

Fitchthorn, K. & Scott-Gilmore, D. (2005). SSA work incentives enrollment, 
1990-2004. Retrieved on February 16, 2007 from http://www.community-
inclusion.org/article.php?article_id=169&type=topic&id=10

Janssen, C. G. C., Schuengel, C., & Stolk, J. (2005). Perspectives on quality of 
life of people with intellectual disabilities: The interpretation of discrep-

k
a

T
ie

 c
o

x



41

ancies between clients and caregivers. Quality of Life, 14 (1), 57–69.
Kliewer, C. (1998). The meaning of inclusion. Mental Retardation, 36(4), 317-

322.
Kregel, Wehman, & Banks. (1989). The effects of consumer characteristics and 

type of employment model on individual outcomes in supported employ-
ment. Journal of Applied Behavioral Analysis, 22(4), 407-415.

Lattimore, L. P., Parsons, M. B., & Reid, D. H. ( 2002). A Prework Assessment 
of Task Preferences Among Adults With Autism Beginning a Supported 
Job. Journal of Applied Behavioral Analysis, 35(1), 85-88. 

Menchetti, B. M. & Garcia, L. A. (2003). Personal and employment outcomes 
of person-centered career planning. Education and Training in Develop-
mental Disabilities, 38(2), 145-156.

Metzel, D.S., Boeltzig, H., Butterworth, J., Sullivan-Sulewski, J., & Scott-
Gilmore, D. (2007). Achieving community membership through com-
munity rehabilitation provider services: Are we there yet? Intellectual and 
Developmental Disabilities, 45(3), 149-160.

Mor Barak, M. E. (2000). The inclusive workplace: An ecosystem approach to  
diversity management. Social Work, 45(4), 339-352.

National Association of Social Workers. (1999). Code of ethics of the National  
Association of Social Workers. Retrieved December 1, 2007 from http://
www.socialworkers.org/pubs/code/code.asp.

National Association of Social Workers. (2000). People with disabilities. In 
NASW, Social work speaks: National Association of Social Work policy 
statements, 2000-2003. (pp. 244-249). Washington, DC: NASW Press.

Palmer, S. B. & Wehmeyer, M. L. (1998). Students’ expectations of the future: 
Hopelessness as a barrier to self-determination. Mental Retardation, 
36(2), 128-136.

Parish, S. L., & Lutwick  Z. E. (2005). A critical analysis of the emerging crisis 
in long-term care for people with developmental disabilities. Social Work, 
50(4), 345-354.

Pruncho, R.A., (2003). Enmeshed lives: Adult children with developmental dis-
abilities and their aging authors. Psychology and Aging, 18(4), 851-857.

Reynolds, W. M., & Miller K. L. (1985). Depression and learned helplessness 
in mentally retarded and non-mentally retarded adolescents: An initial  
investigation. Applied Research in Mental Retardation, 6(3), 295-306.

Rusch, F. R., & Hughes, C. (1989). Overview of supported employment. Jour-
nal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 22(4), 351-363.

TASH. (2008). Who we are. Retrieved on February 16, 2008 from http://www.

deVeloPMenTal 
disabiliTy

k
a

T
ie c

o
x



42

Journal of sTudenT 
social Work, Vol. Vi     

tash.org/who_we_are.html.
United States Census Bureau. (2006). American fact finder: Employment status 

of persons with disabilities: Mental Disability.  Retrieved on February 27, 
2008 from http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/disability/2006acs.html.

United States Department of Labor (2008). Bureau of Labor Statistics: Labor 
force statistics from the current population survey. Retrieved on March 6, 
2008 from http://www.bls.gov/cps/.

Wehmeyer, M. L., & Kelchner, K. (1995). Whose future is it anyway? A 
student-directed transition planning process. Arlington, TX: The Arc 
National Headquarters.

Wehmeyer, M. L., Palmer, S., Agran, M., Mithaug, D., & Martin, J. (2000).  
Promoting causal agency: The self-determined learning model of instruc-
tion. Exceptional Children, 66, 439-453.

Wehmeyer, Garner, Yeager, & Lawrence. (2006). Infusing self-determination 
into 18-21 services for students with intellectual and developmental dis-
abilities: A multi-stage, multiple component model. Education and Train-
ing in Developmental Disabilities, 41(1), 3-13.

Wehman, P. (2003). Workplace inclusion: Persons with disabilities and cowork-
ers working together. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 18, 131–141.

Wehman, P. (2006). Life beyond the classroom: Transition strategies for young 
people with disabilities. Baltimore: Paul H. Brooks Publishing Company

Whitehead, T. D. & Hughey, J. B. (2004). Exploring self-Advocacy from a so-
cial power perspective. New York: Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Katie Cox is a second-year master’s student at CUSSW within the Social En-

terprise Administration method and Workers in the Workplace field of practice. 

She holds a bachelor’s degree in psychology with minors in English, sociology, 

and child development from California Polytechnic State University, San Luis 

Obispo. She is currently an intern in the Program Planning and Development 

Department at Palladia, Inc. in East Harlem. Her e-mail address is kec2134@

columbia.edu.

k
a

T
ie

 c
o

x


