Microenterprise Options for People with Intellectual and

Developmental Disabilities: An Outcome Evaluation

Submitted to:

Network180 Administrative Office 728 Fuller Avenue NE

Grand Rapids, MI 49503

Submitted by: James W. Conroy, Ph.D., Ron Irvine, & Charles S. Ferris

Center for Outcome Analysis 426B Darby Road

Havertown, PA 19083

September, 2009

CONTENTS

THE NATURE OF THE OUTCOME EVALUATION 1

THE NATURE OF MICROENTERPRISE IN THIS CONTEXT 2

THE PERCEIVED NEED FOR MICROENTERPRISE OPTIONS 3

RELEVANT RESEARCH 5

METHODS 8

PROCEDURES 8 PARTICIPANTS 8 INSTRUMENTS 9

RESULTS 14

RESULTS 1: DID THE MEASUREMENT SCALES WORK WELL? 14 RESULTS 2: DID THE PARTICIPANTS PERCEIVE CHANGES IN QUALITIES OF WORK LIFE? 15 RESULTS 3: DID SUPPORT WORKERS PERCEIVE CHANGES IN QUALITIES OF WORK LIFE? 18 RESULTS 3: CHANGES IN HOW TIME IS SPENT 21 RESULTS 4: CHANGES IN EARNINGS 24

DISCUSSION 26

REFERENCES AND NOTES 28

1

The Nature of the Outcome Evaluation

Do microenterprise options offer a viable alternative to “adult day

programs” and “sheltered workshops” for citizens with disabilities? Opportunities

for employment of people with intellectual and developmental disabilities are poor,

and have not improved over the past quarter century of interest and effort.

Competitive and supported employment rates are extremely low and have not

increased.i Can individual owner-operated business enterprises become another

realistic tool in the range of options?

This report provides the findings from one of the only outcome studies of

this issue in the developmental disability field. The outcome evaluation effort was

designed to measure whether microenterprise participants and their direct support

workers experienced changes in the qualities and quantities of work life – as well

as in time spent engaged, and income.

2

The Nature of Microenterprise in This Context A microenterprise is defined in the developmental disabilities field as a very

small entrepreneurial activity. The four guiding principles advocated by

IncomeLinks (Rosimos & Wilson, 2009) are:ii

More examples of innovative and lasting microenterprises are available at

1. Begin with very small amounts of money. 2. Get it up and running within a short time frame. 3. Your time is worth money. 4. One person at a time.

The “small amounts of money” definition may vary somewhat across regions and

with individual and family resources, but it is certainly intended to suggest less

than $500 startup costs, and much less than that in most cases.

Examples of Microenterprise’s that have been successful in the Kent County

service area include “Lakes View Fine Arts.” Lakes View Fine Arts was born

from a business owner’s strong interest in art, particularly painting. While the

paintings themselves have been sold it was evident that the paintings alone could

not sustain the business. Lakes View Fine Arts worked with local printers to

develop a series of fine art products to meet a variety of market needs; including

post cards, prints, calendars, etc.

Program participants have reportedly found that it is not always the income

profits that drive business owners in their quest for microenterprises. “Scott’s

Colorful Cones” is a simple business in which Pine Cones are collected, soaked in

various salts, and sold to consumers for relaxing and colorful campfires and home

fireplace enhancement. For Scott the business is more about having quality

activities, relationships with others and a purpose and pride in his daily activities.

http://www.incomelinks.biz/projects.htm.

3

The Perceived Need for Microenterprise Options

In the field of developmental and intellectual disabilities, microenterprise

has gathered momentum as an option for productive activities primarily in

response to the bleak, boring, segregated nature of traditional “day activity

programs” and “sheltered workshops.” The current generation of families, who

have had access to a “free and appropriate” public education (unlike prior

generations) tend to envision and seek more engaging and rewarding life careers

than repetitive piecework in large rooms with dozens or hundreds of other citizens

with disabilities.

Moreover, there is compelling evidence that sheltered and segregated

models are less cost-effective than more community and integrated approaches.iii

One of the mottos of a national consulting group in this area is “It doesn't take

much to make more than nothing.”iv

Although it is well recognized that all of Federal disability policy is in need

of an overhaul,v

• Increased range of choices

the issue of work disincentives founded in Social Security and

Medicaid policy remains an overwhelming barrier to real jobs for people with

developmental and intellectual disabilities. A microenterprise can be structured as

a simple corporation of any type, offering the possibility of holding assets in the

corporation, rather than in the individual’s name – direct income to whom could

threaten his or her SSI benefits and Medicaid eligibility.

Proponents of microenterprise options for people with intellectual and

developmental disabilities have suggested that some of the favorable outcomes

might be:

• Equal or more income • More time & engagement • Increased integration

4

• Enhanced self-esteem • Improved qualities of life • Less costly than traditional models (workshop, supported employment) • Possibility of growth into serious income • Chance of creating passive income • Prospect of becoming an employer

To date, however, there has been very little research that rigorously tested

these proposed benefits of microenterprise. Moreover, we have found no outcome

studies of entrepreneurism among people with intellectual and developmental

disabilities.

The idea, however, has been supported at the highest levels. Yet, as stated in

1999 by the Entrepreneurship Committee of the Presidential Task Force on

Employment of Adults with Disabilities, microenterprise was neither easy nor

welcomed by the existing services structure:

“People with disabilities often lack information on how to start a business or write a business plan. Existing programs for people with disabilities frequently do not support or encourage self-employment and entrepreneurship, and programs promoting self-employment and small business development historically have not been marketed to people with disabilities.”

5

Relevant Research

Microenterprise has gained prominence in recent years on the international

stage. Its associated innovations include microfinance, sometimes referred to as

microcredit or microloans. These practices have targeted people in extreme

poverty, and have often emphasized encouragement of women to start small

business ventures. According to Wikipedia, the World Bank estimates that there

are now more than 7,000 microfinance institutions, serving some 16 million poor

people in developing countries. Bank experts estimate that 500 million households

benefit from these small loans. Grameen Bank and its founder Muhammad Yunus

were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for 2006. The press release stated

“Every single individual on earth has both the potential and the right to live a decent life. Across cultures and civilizations, Yunus and Grameen Bank have shown that even the poorest of the poor can work to bring about their own development.”

This kind of approach to the problem of pervasive, persistent poverty can

easily be extended to people with intellectual and developmental disabilities in

America, because they too have been subject to enduring and enforced poverty.vi

The increase in attention to alternatives to segregated workshops evolved in

parallel with the deinstitutionalization movement. As more and more people

moved from large public institutions to small community homes, it was necessary

to create options for productive activities. By the early 1980s, it was well known

that daily routines mirroring those of the general population supported

engagement, growth, and integration.vii In contrast, remaining 24 hours 7 days a

week on the “residential unit” fostered regression and loss of interest, skills, and

interactions. Workshops and day activity programs burgeoned during that period,

largely with the advocacy and partnership of the Arc moment.

6

Community integrated employment models came next, and have been

described in historic context as largely a failure in terms of supported and

competitive employment.viii As stated by Mank, “…access to supported

employment is severely limited, the quality of the outcomes is challenged, and the

investment in change appears to be dwindling.”

Closely paralleling the rise of self-determination models in the 1990s, the

emphasis on jobs began a small and slow transformation to an emphasis on

income. Supports, training, encouragement, and funding to small entrepreneurial

initiatives began to be promulgated.

In 2000, the first known study of the impacts of microenterprise

development among people with a broad range of disabilities, primarily physical,

was performed by Blanck and colleagues in Iowa.ix

• the economic implications of self-employment

This study of Iowa's

Entrepreneurs with Disabilities (EWD) program focused on organizational

characteristics of the EWD program, characteristics of EWD applicants and their

motivations for choosing self-employment, the impact of disability on potential

success as an entrepreneur, the impact of participation in the EWD program, and

questions for future study of entrepreneurs with disabilities.

The Blanck et al. study included literature review, policy analysis,

examination of 500 applications to the program, and a telephone survey of 30

participants. Most of the participants had incomes before the onset of their

disabilities. The study identified these recurring themes:

• independence and commitment to self-employment • health care and insurance needs associated with self-employment • encountering discrimination before and after self-employment • the challenges of staying self-employed.

7

While the findings were strongly positive, the Blanck et al. study did not

focus on people with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Instead, it dealt

with people who had physical disabilities.

Holub (2001) performed a literature review, and described a survey that

found 91% of people with disabilities engaged in microenterprises reported that

they enjoyed it. Further, more than half of the people involved in that study

reported their business as successful. Additionally, almost a third of participants

reported that their small business provided over half of the income to their

household, reinforcing the success of these microenterprises.x

Once again, though valuable, the Holub review did not focus on people with

intellectual and developmental disabilities, thus leaving the research literature

without any rigorous analysis of how well people do in microenterprise initiatives.

The current research and program evaluation was intended to begin to fill that gap.

8

Methods

Procedures

The Microenterprise efforts were initiated by the Network180 agency in

Kent County, Michigan. In 2004 Network180 began to explore Microenterprise as

a vocational option for those individuals receiving mental health services in Kent

County. Initial planning included training the DD system on microenterprise

through Income Links. Once the system had several vocational staff and

consumers trained, the administrative development advanced to securing small

business loans, development of fiscal intermediary services, talking with

community stakeholders, and building the infrastructure to support the entry of a

new philosophy into the vocational programming. Network180 supported two full

time positions to facilitate the development and growth of microenterprise.

Microenterprise was not presented as a “program” in Kent County, but

rather as an option within the vocational programs of securing vocational skills.

Vocational staff and supports coordinators worked to inform service recipients

about this option. Any individual who expressed an interest in microenterprise

could begin to receive their vocational services through microenterprise efforts and

training. The funding that was committed to supporting skill building was utilized

to support the microenterprise and business development. At the time of this

writing, Network180 has fostered the development of 28 businesses.

Participants

The participants in the microenterprise effort, and therefore in this

evaluation, were 27 people who ranged in age from 23 to 61. Their average

(median) age was 33. There were 14 men and 13 women. In addition to intellectual

9

and developmental disabilities, they had a variety of secondary conditions,

including: Borderline Personality Disorder ADHD Hyperactive Infantile Cerebral Palsy, Legal Blindness Major Depression Personality change due to Prader-Willi syndrome Tourette Syndrome

Instruments

The measurement instruments for this evaluation were derived from the

package of instruments used in the national evaluation of the Robert Wood

Johnson Self-Determination Initiative for Persons with Developmental Disabilities.

They were tested, revised, and used with thousands of people during that project in

the 1990s and early parts of this century.

The first section of the evaluation package focused on qualities of the

microenterprise Participant’s work life, before and during microenterprise

involvement. It is shown on the following page.

10

Qualities of Work Life “Then and Now” Scale For Micro-enterprise Participants

Copyright © James W. Conroy, 2007 (This form should be completed via interview with the micro-enterprise entrepreneur. If the person needs or wants assistance from a friend,

relative, or ally, that is fine.)

Ask the person and/or the person’s chosen ally to say what life was like in each area, first before beginning to work with people to start micro-enterprises, and now, during participation. Use the “Two Either-Or Questions” approach. Ask if each work area was “good or bad” Then and Now. Example: “Before you decided to start your own business, how was your stress, good or bad”? If the answer is “so-so,” “in between,” or something similar, probe and make sure that the best answer is 3, “In Between.” If the answer is either Bad or Good, follow up with a second Either-Or question, like, “Would you say Bad or Very Bad?” Please do reword, rephrase any item to make sure the person’s comprehension is good.

For Each Statement: Bad, Good, or In Between? 1 2 3 4 5 9

Very Bad Bad In Between Good Very Good Don’t Know, N/A

Then, Before Micro

Now, During Micro

Ability to get help in my work when I need it Being good in my work Being proud of what I do Boredom Fear of losing my health care and benefits Getting to and from work Happiness about work I like what I do during the day Loneliness during work Looking forward to work Making enough money Making my own choices about work Relationships with customers/co-workers Relationships with my family Relationships with my friends Wearing what I want to work Working the amount that I want to

This simple format was derived from prior work on self-determination. The

5 point Likert format was based on understanding that two “Either-Or” questions

produces reliable 5 point scales, and that “Yes-No” questions are undesirable with

this and other populations (because of the threat of acquiescence – saying “Yes” to

everything).xi

The approach adopted in this instrument relies on memory, however, and all

results must be interpreted in that light. People reported how they recall their

qualities of work life were before the microenterprise, and now, during

11

microenterprise. Although this approach has been used in dozens of studies with

these instruments, and the “Then and Now” memory method has been found to

yield similar results to those of the true “Pre and Post” method,xii the memory

method should still be considered as a limitation of this study. This topic applies to

the next instruments as well, and will be discussed further in the final section of the

Report.

The second section of the evaluation instruments was for the Support

Workers. It too was aimed at qualities of work life. It was important to learn

whether the participants found their microenterprise involvement to be positive,

but equally important to find out whether Support Workers were positive. The

outcomes of both parties were believed to be important. The Workers scale is

shown below.

12

Qualities of Work Life “Then and Now” Scale For Micro-enterprise Direct Support Workers

Copyright © James W. Conroy, 2007

Ask the Direct Support Worker (or Support Coordinator or Case Manager) to say what life was like in each area, first before beginning to work with people to start micro-enterprises, and now, during participation.

For Each Statement: Bad, Good, or In Between? 1 2 3 4 5 9

Very Bad Bad In Between Good Very Good Don’t Know, N/A

Then, Before Micro

Now, During Micro

Ability to deal with bad rules & regulations Ability to get things done on time Ability to help people succeed in earning money Liking your job Number of your responsibilities Pride in your work Relationships with the people receiving services Relationships with people’s families Relationships with co-workers Relationships with your supervisor(s) Resources to do your job Stress Understanding your job Your job security

_____ How many people are you working with right now? _____ How many of them are working in (or toward) Micro-enterprises? ____ ____ About when did you first begin working on Micro-enterprises? Month Year

This form enabled the Workers to respond about 14 areas of quality of their

working situations. Though similar to the form for the Participants, some questions

about self-employment would not apply to the Workers, and others about “Boss”

and “Co-Workers” had to be added.

The third and last section captured how each person’s time was spent, before

becoming involved in microenterprise, and during involvement. It also recorded

Earnings, Then and Now. It is reproduced on the following page.

13

Time & Money – Then & Now Copyright © James W. Conroy, 2008

HOURS PER WEEK OF WORK, JOB, BUSINESS, AND/OR SCHOOL • Please enter the number of hours per week for each activity. • THEN means just before starting work on a Micro-enterprise, no matter when that was. • NOW means in the past week – or a recent “typical week” if last week was unusual. • 0 (zero) if none in the category. • Estimates are fine – not many people can be precise about this. NEXT, estimate how much money per week the person earned or earns from each kind of activity.

# Hours Per Week

THEN

# Hours Per

Week NOW Type of Day Activity

$ Per Week THEN

$ Per Week NOW

Self-Employed: Has His/Her Own Business Regular Job (Competitive Employment) Supported Employment Sheltered Employment or Workshop Employment (segregated) Pre-Vocational Program or Vocational Rehabilitation Program Day Habilitation Program (Adult Day Program, Non-Vocational Day Program) Senior Citizen Program Partial Hospitalization Program - Mental Health Oriented Volunteer Work Public School Private School Adult Education - GED, Adult Ed, Trade School, etc. Community Experience Other _______________________________ TOTAL

2. IF THE TOTAL IS ZERO, PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY (e.g., retired) ____________________________________________________________________________ This form enabled the data collectors to obtain estimates of time spent and

money earned. Changes in how time was spent, and earnings, were the target we

wanted to estimate.

Together, these three forms enabled evaluation of four critical questions:

1) Did the Participants change in their qualities of working life? 2) Did the Support Workers change in their qualities of working life? 3) Did the way Participants spend their time change? 4) Did the money they earned change?

14

Results

Results 1: Did the Measurement Scales Work Well?

First, the scales of quality of working life were tested for one form of

reliability: Internal Consistency. Cronbach’s Alpha is a commonly used statistic for

this purpose; its value tells the degree to which the items in the scale “hang

together” so that we can be confident that we are measuring a single underlying

dimension that includes many aspects of the quality of working life.

The Participant form performed extremely well, with Alpha of 0.941 for the

“Then” scores and 0.924 for the “Now” scores. Values above .80 are generally

accepted as very good. These higher Alpha scores showed that, indeed, the 17

items were tapping into something common. Therefore combining the 17 items

into a single “overall scale score” was justified. The overall score will also be

reported in Results.

The 14-item Support Worker form displayed adequate internal consistency

reliability, but the Alpha procedure revealed that the scale could be made

considerably more reliable by dropping two of the items. When this was done, the

Alpha scores were 0.805 for the “Then” scores, and 0.813 for the “Now” scores.

The results for this 12-item form of the scale will be reported in Results.

15

Results 2: Did the Participants Perceive Changes in Qualities of Work Life?

Using memory as the reporting method, participants reported perceived

improvements in all 17 areas of work life quality. Of the 17 areas, 11 of the

changes were statistically significant, using statistics designed for small samples.xiii

These statistics are quite conservative, so that it is not easy to reach significance

with so few people in the study. Table 1 shows the findings in the same order as in

the survey instrument.

The column at the right shows the interpretation of the level of significance

in ordinary English. The columns headed Z and p are intended for statisticians and

researchers.xiv

Average Then, Before Micro

Table 1: Changes in Qualities of Working Life for Participants

Average Now,

During Micro

Quality Area Z p Signif-icance

3.59 4.29 Ability to get help in my work when I need it -1.59 0.056 (Close) 3.47 4.73 Being good in my work -2.99 0.001 High 3.50 4.89 Being proud of what I do -2.79 0.003 High 2.13 3.80 Boredom -2.56 0.005 High 4.00 4.25 Fear of losing my health care and benefits -0.45 0.327 No 3.85 4.15 Getting to and from work -0.82 0.207 No 3.06 4.65 Happiness about work -2.56 0.005 High 3.41 4.71 I like what I do during the day -2.38 0.009 High 3.23 4.15 Loneliness during work -1.70 0.045 Yes 3.41 4.59 Looking forward to work -2.34 0.010 High 2.39 3.61 Making enough money -2.32 0.010 High 3.12 4.29 Making my own choices about work -2.11 0.017 Yes 3.71 4.57 Relationships with customers/co-workers -1.54 0.062 No 3.87 4.20 Relationships with my family -1.34 0.090 No 3.94 4.17 Relationships with my friends -0.60 0.273 No 3.82 4.53 Wearing what I want to work -2.03 0.021 Yes 2.50 3.44 Working the amount that I want to -2.02 0.022 Yes 56.03 82.55 Overall Scale Score -2.85 0.002 High

The last row, at the bottom, shows that when all 17 items are combined into

one overall 0 to 100 point scale, the average “grade” for qualities of work life went

16

up from 56.03 to 82.55, or about 27 points. The magnitude of this increase, on a

100 point scale, is impressive. Changes this large, over a short period of time, are

rare in the experience of this program evaluation team.

Deeper understanding of the pattern of perceived changes emerges from

sorting the data by the amount of change reported. The areas that changed the most

are at the top of Table 2.

Table 2: Changes in Qualities of Working Life for Participants

Sorted by Amount of Change

Average Then, Before Micro

Average Now,

During Micro

Amount of

Change Quality Area Signif-

icance

2.13 3.80 1.67 Boredom High 3.06 4.65 1.59 Happiness about work High 3.50 4.89 1.39 Being proud of what I do High 3.41 4.71 1.29 I like what I do during the day High 3.47 4.73 1.27 Being good in my work High 2.39 3.61 1.22 Making enough money High 3.41 4.59 1.18 Looking forward to work High 3.12 4.29 1.18 Making my own choices about work Yes 2.50 3.44 0.94 Working the amount that I want to Yes 3.23 4.15 0.92 Loneliness during work Yes 3.71 4.57 0.86 Relationships with customers/co-workers No 3.59 4.29 0.71 Ability to get help in my work when I need it (Close) 3.82 4.53 0.71 Wearing what I want to work Yes 3.87 4.20 0.33 Relationships with my family No 3.85 4.15 0.31 Getting to and from work No 4.00 4.25 0.25 Fear of losing my health care and benefits No 3.94 4.17 0.22 Relationships with my friends No 56.03 82.55 26.52 Overall Scale Score High

The largest perceived change was in “Boredom.” Compared to the person’s

previous day program, whether it was vocational or nonvocational, participants

reported being much less bored with microenterprise. This change of 1.67 points

on a 5 point scale was very large, in terms of typical results in 5 point Likert scale

survey items like this one.

17

The second largest change was “Happiness about work,” the third was

“Being proud of what I do,” and the fourth was “Boredom.” All of these were

large and statistically significant. They represent differences between the memory

of how things used to be and the perception of how things are now.

Looking at Table 2 and scanning downward shows which dimensions of

work life changed the most, changed but not as much, and those that did not

change. Taken together, they reveal a clear pattern that will be discussed at the end

of this Report.

The best summary of the overall findings on the question of outcomes from

the Participants’ perspective is given by the bottom line of Tables 1 and 2. Both

Tables show that the overall “grade” on a 100 point scale jumped from 56 to 83

(rounded off). This gain of 27 points must be seen as a report of vastly improved

engagement, happiness, pride, and many other qualities that make working

fulfilling and meaningful. In that sense, these 27 participants in microenterprises

believe that they are a great deal “better off” then they were before

18

Results 3: Did Support Workers Perceive Changes in Qualities of Work Life?

Consideration of microenterprise as a viable option demands that we know

whether this model yields working conditions that are “good” for Support Workers

as well as participants. Therefore we needed to ask the Support Workers how

working with entrepreneurs compared to working with people in standard day

programs and workshops.

To get at this question, we used the same memory technique as with the

Participants – we asked Workers to recall how things were in working with this

particular individual when he/she was in a traditional day program, and how they

are now. The results, laid out in the same sequence as in the survey form, are

shown in Table 3.

The Table shows that there were 4 statistically significant improvements in

work life quality, and one apparent decrease.

Table 3: Changes in Qualities of Working Life for Support Workers

Average

Then, Before Micro

Average Now,

During Micro

Dimension of Quality Z P Signif-icance

3.14 3.90 Ability to deal with bad rules & regulations -2.95 0.002 High 3.68 3.36 Ability to get things done on time -1.54 0.062 No 3.26 4.05 Ability to help people succeed in earning money -2.54 0.006 High 3.55 4.64 Liking your job -3.31 0.000 High 3.79 3.21 Number of your responsibilities -2.41 0.008 Yes 4.55 4.68 Pride in your work -0.76 0.225 No 4.05 4.77 Relationships with the people receiving services -3.23 0.001 High 4.00 4.29 Relationships with people’s families -1.63 0.051 No 4.05 4.32 Relationships with co-workers -1.41 0.079 No 4.18 4.23 Relationships with your supervisor(s) -0.45 0.327 No 3.27 3.45 Resources to do your job -0.92 0.178 No 3.32 3.32 Stress 0.00 0.500 No 4.36 4.32 Understanding your job -0.33 0.369 No 3.33 3.17 Your job security -1.00 0.159 No 68.77 75.89 Overall Scale Score – 12 items -1.82 0.035 Yes

19

Once again, sorting the Table by the amount of change makes it easier to see what

changed the most and the least. Table 4 presents the same data in that way.

Table 4: Changes in Qualities of Working Life for Support Workers

Sorted by Amount of Change

Average Then, Before Micro

Average Now,

During Micro

Amount of

Change Dimension of Quality Sig

?

3.55 4.64 1.09 Liking your job High 3.26 4.05 0.79 Ability to help people succeed in earning money High 3.14 3.90 0.76 Ability to deal with bad rules & regulations High 4.05 4.77 0.73 Relationships with the people receiving services High 4.00 4.29 0.29 Relationships with people’s families No 4.05 4.32 0.27 Relationships with co-workers No 3.27 3.45 0.18 Resources to do your job No 4.55 4.68 0.14 Pride in your work No 4.18 4.23 0.05 Relationships with your supervisor(s) No 3.32 3.32 0.00 Stress No 4.36 4.32 -0.05 Understanding your job No 3.33 3.17 -0.17 Your job security No 3.68 3.36 -0.32 Ability to get things done on time No 3.79 3.21 -0.58 Number of your responsibilities Yes 68.77 75.89 7.12 Overall Scale Score – 12 items Yes

The largest improvement in the 14 areas was “Liking your job.” That is the

most positive possible outcome in terms of Worker satisfaction, and probably

retention as well. The next three were “Ability to help people succeed in earning

money,” “Ability to deal with bad rules & regulations,” and “Relationships with

the people receiving services.” Once again, these significant changes appear to fall

into a pattern of the most important elements of quality, and that will be discussed

at the end as well.

One area decreased in quality score: “Number of your responsibilities.” This

finding meant that Workers assigned lower rating numbers “Now” than they did

“Then.”xv

When all 14 quality items were combined into a 100 point scale, the average

score increased from 69 to 76 points, for a 7 point increase. This was statistically

20

significant. It was not as large as the increase for the Participants, but the finding

that both groups reported enhance qualities of work life would suggest a win-win

situation with microenterprise.

21

Results 3: Changes in How Time Is Spent

Did Participants change the way they spent their time? Time in any week

could be divided among several kinds of daytime activities. One person could take

part in a microenterprise on one day, a workshop another day, and a supported

employment job another day. This makes tabulating and interpreting difficult for a

group of people, since every individual can have multiple activities with different

spreads of time across them.

One solution that simplifies all this is to report the Total Hours spent in each

kind of day activity “Before” and “Now.” This approach considers all 27 people as

a single group that has been exposed to a “new program” called microenterprise,

and we can ask whether the entire group has changed its time commitments.

With that taken as the approach, Table 5 is the result. Again, the columns

headed Z and p can be ignored, they are important primarily to researchers.

22

Table 4: Changes in Qualities of Working Life for Support Workers

Total Hours for All

27 People

“Before”

Total Hours for All

27 People “Now”

Change Z p Signif-icance

Self-Employed: Has His/Her Own Business 0.0 112.5 112.5 -3.52 0.000 High Regular Job (Competitive Employment) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.500 Supported Employment 49.5 23.0 -26.5 -1.37 0.086 Sheltered Employment or Workshop Employment 262.5 86.0 -176.5 -3.07 0.001 High Pre-Vocational Rehabilitation Program 84.5 19.0 -65.5 -2.02 0.022 Yes Day Habilitation Program (Non-Vocational) 35.0 76.5 41.5 -1.07 0.143 Senior Citizen Program 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.500 Partial Hospitalization Program - MH Oriented 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.500 Volunteer Work 14.0 6.0 -8.0 -1.67 0.048 Public School 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.500 Private School 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.500 Adult Education - GED, Trade School, etc. 4.0 4.0 0.0 0.00 0.500 Community Experience 49.5 37.0 -12.5 -1.83 0.034 Yes Other 0.0 5.5 5.5 -1.00 0.159 TOTAL HOURS PER WEEK 498.0 359.0 -139.0 -1.62 0.052 Almost

Looking inside this table, we can see, first, in the top row labeled Self-

Employed, that the total hours per week devoted to microenterprise in the Self-

Employed row used to be 0 (zero), but is now 112.5 hours.

Regular Jobs were at 0 hours before, and still are 0. Supported employment

total hours for the group dropped from 49.5 to 23.0 hours. Sheltered employment

fell sharply from 262.5 to 86.0 hours. The table allows for comparison of Before

and Now hours in every category. On the right is a column headed “Sig. ?” that

tells whether each change was statistically significant. The categories that did

change significantly were Self-Employed, Sheltered Employment, Pre-Vocational,

and Community Experience. Self-Employment increased in total hours, and all the

others decreased.

Taking all day activity hours into account, the 27 people had spent a total of

498 hours in day activities of some kind before getting involved in

23

microenterprise; and now, during microenterprise creation, the total hours

decreased to 359 hours. Roughly speaking, this corresponded to a decrease from 18

hours per week for each person to 13 hours per week.

The conclusion is warranted that, for these 27 participants, the total hours of

so-called day activities decreased by about a fourth during microenterprise

development. What this might mean in terms of engagement, quality, earnings, and

funding, will be explored in the conclusion. But further research will surely be

needed to address all the questions arising from this early finding.

Finally, the involvement in microenterprise for each person translated into

just about 4.2 hours per week that was formally reported in our survey. We wonder

whether more time was spent by the Participant and others in background business

startup activities that were not reported in this survey. If the true number is close to

a mere 4 hours per week, then the changes in perceived quality of work life noted

in Results 2 would be all the more remarkable.

24

Results 4: Changes in Earnings

As in the section above, the clearest and simplest way to treat earnings

before and during the microenterprise efforts is to look at the total dollars earned

by the entire group of Participants. The summarized results are shown in Table 5.

Table 4: Changes in Qualities of Working Life for Support Workers

Total Earnings for all 27 People

“Before”

Total Earnings for all 27 People “Now”

Change Z p Signif-icance

Self-Employed: Has His/Her Own Business $0.00 $207.00 207.00 -3.16 0.002 High Regular Job (Competitive Employment) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.000 N/A Supported Employment 363.00 160.00 -203.00 -0.53 0.593 No Sheltered Employment or Workshop Employment 197.80 59.00 -138.80 -1.97 0.049 Yes TOTAL $560.80 $426.00 -134.80 -0.34 0.732 No

Obviously, dollars earned from Self-Employment increased. The jump from

$0 to $207 was statistically significant. The decrease in earnings from Supported

Employment was not statistically significant, but the decrease in Sheltered

Employment wages was.

Total earnings from all sources, for all 27 Participants, was $560.80 per

week Before, and $426.00 Now during microenterprise. This decrease was not

statistically significant.

The proper conclusion, using the statistics as a guide, is that income from

entrepreneurial activity increased, workshop income declined, but the total income

did not change. Despite the fact that total income fell, the statistics require us to

conclude that we are not sure that change was large enough to make any firm

conclusion about it.

Still, the drop in total dollars earned from Before to Now does stimulate

interest, and leads one to wonder whether the microenterprises were in a kind of

25

“startup” mode – and to wonder whether income will increase in the subsequent

months and years. Only further data collection over longer time periods will yield

answers to these questions.

26

Discussion

This study showed that microenterprise for a sample of people with

intellectual and developmental disabilities and their support workers improved the

qualities of work life for both groups. Analysis indicated that participants

experienced an overall increase in quality of working life of about 27 points on a

100 point scale, a change that was both significant and statistically significant.

Support workers experienced positive outcomes as well. Their overall quality of

working life increased by a more modest 7 points on the same 100 point scale –

less dramatic, but still statistically significant. The magnitude of these gains

suggests that microenterprise should become a work option for people with

intellectual and developmental disabilities.

This study focused on a unique subpopulation that had never been studied in

this way before and showed strong outcomes. There had been no prior published

research on the outcomes of microenterprise opportunities for people with

intellectual and developmental disabilities to our knowledge. Relevant research on

microenterprise has mainly focused on people in poverty, primarily in third world

countries. Recently, there has also been exploration of microenterprise among

people with physical disabilities here in the United States. Both of these bodies of

research have yielded strong positive results but none have concentrated on people

with intellectual and developmental disabilities, who often live with both poverty

and multiple disabilities. Additionally, the advent of at least some limited

flexibility in the use of public funds, via individual budgeting and self-

determination, offer a mechanism for startup funds that parallels the microfinance

institutions that have sprung up in other countries. Via individual budgeting, it is

becoming possible here to use funds to begin very small businesses, even using

27

vocational rehabilitation or Medicaid dollars. This may result in development of

infrastructure for the spread of microenterprise among people with intellectual and

developmental disabilities.

All of the results found within this study affirm that microenterprise options

do offer a viable alternative to “adult day programs” and “sheltered workshops” for

citizens with intellectual and developmental disabilities. However, the study was

small, in a limited geographic area, and there was no control or comparison group.

These limitations, added to the lack of data on the cost of implementing the

microenterprises versus the cost of attending a workshop, mean that conclusions

suggested here can only be preliminary. Additional, larger, longer lasting, and

more rigorous comparative studies are needed.

In sum, although total earnings over all sources of income for the

participants as did not increase, they did not decrease either – and the quality of

work life outcomes were dramatic and positive.

28

References and Notes

i John Butterworth, Frank A. Smith, Allison Cohen Hall, Alberto Migliore, & Jean Winsor (2008). StateData: The National Report on Employment Services and Outcomes 2008. Boston: Institute for Community Inclusion (UCEDD), University of Massachusetts. ii http://www.incomelinks.biz/ iii Cimera, Robert (2007). The cost-effectiveness of supported employment and sheltered workshops in Wisconsin (FY 2002–FY 2005). Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, Volume 26, Number 3, pages 153-158. iv http://www.incomelinks.biz/about.htm v General Accounting Office (August 2007). Highlights of a Forum: Modernizing Federal Disability Policy. Convened by the Comptroller General of the United States. GAO-07-934SP. vi Nerney, T., Callahan, M., Mank, D. (1998). The Importance of Income, The Poverty of Human Services: An Introduction, Choice and Control of Employment for People with Disabilities. Institute on Disability Monograph, University of New Hampshire. vii Conroy, J., & Lemanowicz, J. (1981). Developmental growth among the residents of Pennhurst: What factors are related to growth? Pennhurst Study Brief Report 8. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Developmental Disabilities Center/UAP. viii Mank, D. (1994). The Underachievement of Supported Employment: A Call for Reinvestment. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 5, 2, 1-24. ix Blanck, Peter David, Sandler, Leonard A., Shmeling, James L., Schartz, Helen A. (2000). The Emerging Workforce of Entrepreneurs with Disabilities: Preliminary Study of Entrepreneurship in Iowa. Iowa Law Review, 85, 1583-1661. Retrieved from ERIC database. x Holub, Tamara (2001). Entrepreneurship Among People with Disabilities. ERIC Publications, 71, Retrieved from ERIC database. xi Conroy, J. (2000). On Interviewing People with Developmental Disabilities: Challenges and Best Practices. A Working Paper of the Center for Outcome Analysis. Narberth, PA: Center for Outcome Analysis. xii See the body of work on the Coffelt Deinstitutionalization from 1996 to 2002, and the evaluation of the National Self-Determination Initiative from 1997 to 2001, at www.eoutcome.org, xiii The nonparametric Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilcoxon_signed-rank_test. xiv Z is the standardized Z score associated with the amount of change in scores from “Then” to “Now.” p is the probability that a change that large could have happened by chance alone. xv Unfortunately, because of the wording of the item, we cannot be certain whether some respondents intended to say that the number of their responsibilities went down, or that the quality of work related to amount of responsibility went down. This item has been reworded for enhanced clarity next year.