The viability of self employment for individuals with disabilities in the United States: A synthesis of empirical-research literature

Authors: 
Yao-Jen Chang, Hung-Huan Liu, Shu-Min Peng, Tsen-Yung Wang
Year Published: 
2011
Publication: 
Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation
Volume: 
35
Number: 
2
Pages: 
117-127
Publisher: 
IOS Press
Background: 

The lack of employment opportunities and stable employment for individuals with disabilities continues to pose personal and social difficulties and challenges. Individuals with disabilities experience persistently higher poverty rates. Very little is known about individuals with disability in self employment as compared to the more extensive research literature on individuals with a disability who work for someone else.

Purpose: 

Paper reports on a review, analysis, and synthesis the findings of empirical-research studies on self-employment of individuals with disabilities in the United States. Paper addresses the question: "How viable is self employment for individuals with disabilities in the U.S."

Setting: 

This study is a systematic review. The included studies were undertaken in various locations and settings.

Sample: 

The data search used five large data bases: Academic Search Premier, ERIC, PsycINFO, Sociological Abstracts, and Business Source Premier/Econ-Lit. The database search used the terms self employment, entrepreneurship and micro enterprise as synonymous terms in the search. Results were sorted to identify U.S. empirical literature. Twelve studies met the selection criteria.

Data Collection: 

Coding of selected studies comprised the following steps: First author completed multiple readings noting, for example, research questions, research design, data collection and measurement, and research findings, and limitations. Second and third author evaluated first and second authors evaluated first authors coding for accuracy. Full interobserver accuracy (100%) was established before proceeding to the synthesis of selected studies.

Intervention: 

The study adopted a two part definition of self employed worker:
a) Self employed in own not incorporated business workers. This includes people who worked for profit or fees in their own unincorporated business, professional practice, or trade or who operated a farm.
b) Self employed in own incorporated business workers.

Control: 

There were no comparison or control conditions.

Findings: 

In recent years, approximately 12% of working individuals with disabilities have earned an income from self-employment. The national Vocational Rehabilitation closure rates in self employment have remained around 2-3% since the late 1980s (although the rate varies considerably from state to state). The reasons individuals with disabilities pursue self employment are diverse and vary in complexity. Individuals can derive a range of benefits and challenges in self employment. Primary benefit is financial. Other potential benefits involve having a more of a decision making role in their own lives, and personal control and autonomy. Primary challenge in self employment is the access to adequate capital and financing for funding a business, extending beyond individual and family resources. Support in self employment has typically meant relying on a patchwork of resources.

Conclusions: 

In the 21st century, self employment can be a catalyst for expanding work opportunities and improving outcomes for individuals with disabilities. Tentative indications that Individuals with disabilities can succeed in self employment under certain conditions involve a number of stakeholders. State and federal agencies could expand their support of self employment for individuals with disabilities through the establishment of micro finance development funds outside the VR system.

URL: 
http://content.iospress.com/articles/journal-of-vocational-rehabilitation/jvr559
Outcomes: 
NIDILRR Funded: 
Peer Reviewed: 
Yes

Trends in the employment of disabled people in Britain

Authors: 
Biegel, D. E., Beimers, D., Stevenson, L. D., Ronis, R., & Boyle, P.
Year Published: 
2011
Publication: 
Institute for Social and Economic Research, University of Essex
Volume: 
3
Number: 
1
Pages: 
1-55
Publisher: 
Institute for Social and Economic Research, University of Essex
Background: 

The number of people claiming incapacity benefits increased rapidly to the mid 1990s, and has hardly reduced since then. This paper uses survey data to plot trends over time in the prevalence of disability, and in the employment rates of disabled people, in a way which is independent of, but comparable with, benefit statistics. The research is mainly based on General Household Survey data across the period 1974 to 2005. Much of the analysis is based on a loose definition of disability, but this is effectively complemented by more detailed data on health conditions available in some GHS years.

Purpose: 

Employment trends in the UK over three decades raise important questions about the relationship between disability and employment. The main aim of this paper is to use population survey data to unpack the trends in disability and employment, rather than focus on the published benefit statistics. With regard to intervention, one area was examined was the effect of changes in Social Security Disability policies on employment trends.

Setting: 

The General Household Survey (GHS) is a continuous multipurpose survey of large random samples of households across Great Britain.1 The survey has been conducted, using a new sample each time, every year since 1973, with the exception of 1997 and 1999. The latest year available when the data were downloaded for this analysis related to 2005. In practice the 1973 survey did not have full data on economic activities, and the 1977 and 1978 surveys did not carry the standard question on limiting long-standing illness. These three annual surveys were therefore dropped from the analysis. The database therefore provides 28 annual observations, over a 32 year period.

Sample: 

The analysis in this paper is based on adults aged 20 to 59.

Data Collection: 

Each of the 28 annual GHSs included in the analysis covers between 10,000 and 16,000 men and women within this age range, with an overall total of 360,673 respondents. Where results are shown for a series of years combined, each annual survey has been given a weight based on the number of adults in the population in the years in question, controlling for age and sex.

Intervention: 

The only intervention assessed in this study was change in Social Security Disability policies.

Control: 

There was no control or comparison condition.

Findings: 

The administrative statistics measure the combined outcome of three sets of processes: the prevalence of disability; the effect of disability on employment rates; the number of non-working disabled people who are eligible for, and claim, earnings replacement benefits on grounds of "incapacity". In practice the prevalence estimate (based on the LLI definition) rose gradually between the mid-1970s and the mid-1990s, before falling gradually over the following ten years. It is possible to interpret this as a steady rise followed by an abrupt reversal; or alternatively as a slowly evolving change in trend.
The extent of employment disadvantage faced by disabled people ‚the employment penalty ‚followed a different pattern. It rose very slowly at first, increased rapidly between 1987 and 2000, and then steadied (Figure I). There were no observable and definitive effects of policy changes and employment.

Conclusions: 

This analysis of the trends over three decades has tended to undermine some of the hypotheses frequently put forward to explain the experience of disabled people:
- there is little sign that most of the changes observed over the period have mainly been associated with minor sets of impairments;
- there is little sign that disabled people are especially sensitive to the ups and downs of the business cycle;
- although there was a substantial shift in the ratio of disability-disadvantage (as estimated by the survey) to incapacity-related benefit payments (reported by the DWP) up to about 1990, there is little sign that this ratio was influenced by major changes in the rules governing eligibility for benefits.

URL: 
https://www.iser.essex.ac.uk/files/iser_working_papers/2011-03.pdf
Disabilities: 
Populations: 
NIDILRR Funded: 
Research Design: 
Peer Reviewed: 
Yes