The Roeher Institute gratefully acknowledges the financialfrom the Canadian Association for Community Living. The conclusions drawn are the responsibility of The Roeher Ins

Employment and Related Issues for People with Intellectual Disabilities

L’Institut Ro

Researched aCameron

Marc

eher Institute nd Written by Crawford h 2004

support for this research views expressed and titute.

Contents

I. Introduction .................................................................................................................. 1 II. General Demographics ............................................................................................... 1

A. Definition and Prevalence ....................................................................................... 1 B. Age and Gender ...................................................................................................... 3

III. Functional Limitations and Other Difficulties .............................................................. 4 A. Multiple Disabilities.................................................................................................. 4 B. Range of Cognitive Difficulties................................................................................. 5

IV. Labour Force Status, Employment Needs and Issues ............................................... 6 A. Level of Employment............................................................................................... 6 B. Work History............................................................................................................ 7 C. Earnings and Low Income....................................................................................... 7 D. Skill Utilization ......................................................................................................... 8 E. Type of Work........................................................................................................... 8 F. Hours of Work.......................................................................................................... 8 G. Volunteer Work ....................................................................................................... 9 H. Difficulty Making Changes in Employment .............................................................. 9 I. Job Accommodations Needed................................................................................ 10 J. Barriers to Labour Force Participation ................................................................... 11 K. Employment-Related Discrimination ..................................................................... 14

V. Needs and Issues Related to Training and Education .............................................. 14 A. Low Level of Education ......................................................................................... 14 B. Difficulties in Formal Education ............................................................................. 14 C. Extent of Participation in Work-Related Training................................................... 16 D. Reasons for Not Taking Training........................................................................... 16 E. Accommodations Needed in Training/Education................................................... 18 F. Literacy.................................................................................................................. 18

VI. Improving Job Prospects ......................................................................................... 21 A. Formal Supports.................................................................................................... 21 B. Informal Supports .................................................................................................. 23

VII. Highlights and Conclusion ...................................................................................... 25

I. Introduction

This report looks at the employment status and issues concerning people with

intellectual disabilities.

The report is based on the Health and Activity Limitation survey of 1991 (HALS).

It focuses on people who self-identified on that survey as having been told by someone

else that they have a mental handicap, are developmentally delayed or mentally

retarded. The question on intellectual disability takes place in the context of another

question on professional assessment, i.e., by a teacher or health professional, such as

a doctor, nurse, social worker or counsellor. That context suggests that people who

answered "yes" to the question on intellectual disability had been identified as such by a

professional. The report includes comparisons with people with disabilities who

answered "no" to the question on intellectual disability.

The report provides general demographic information, as well as a brief

exploration of functional limitations and other difficulties that people with intellectual

disabilities may be experiencing. That information serves as important context for the

sections of the report that explore labour force and job accommodation issues, and

issues and accommodations relating to education and training.

The focus of the report is on working-age people, i.e., 15 to 64 years of age.

II. General Demographics

A. Definition and Prevalence

There is no single definition of intellectual disability or commonly agreed upon

prevalence estimate. The definition adopted by the American Association on Mental

1

Retardation, and which the American government and advocacy groups in the United

States also use, is as follows:

Mental retardation is a disability characterized by significant limitations

both in intellectual functioning and in adaptive behavior as expressed in

conceptual, social, and practical adaptive skills.

This disability originates before age 18.1

Of some interest, President George W. Bush recently renamed what had been

the President's Committee on Mental Retardation the President's Committee on

Intellectual Disabilities.2

Depending on the source, the estimated prevalence of intellectual disability

ranges from less than 1 per cent to nearly 3 per cent of the population. 3

Rates of intellectual disability tend to be higher in developing countries.4

1 http://www.aamr.org/Policies/faq_mental_retardation.shtml. An extensive formal assessment of cognitive and adaptive functioning is implied in the definition. 2 http://www.heraldsun.com/nationworld/14-374673.html (Associated Press, July 26, 2003). 3 See, for example, http://www.uic.edu/depts/idhd/ced/Reports/Publication_Abstracts/prevalence_MRDD.htmhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=3322329&dopt=Abstract http://www.thearc.org/faqs/mrqa.htmlhttp://www.cpa-apc.org/Publications/Archives/CJP/2002/september/bradley.asp4 The World Health Report 2001 ― Mental Health: New Understanding, New Hope. (2001). Burden of Mental and Behavioural Disorders ― Mental Retardation. Available at http://www.who.int/whr2001/2001/main/en/chapter2/002e6.htm

2

The question on intellectual disability that was used in HALS yields in a fairly low

prevalence estimate (0.8 per cent of the working-age population). The more recent

Participation and Activity Limitation Survey (PALS) also yields a low prevalence

estimate of 0.5 per cent.5

B. Age and Gender

People with intellectual disabilities tend to be younger than others with disabilities,

with 53.4 per cent in the 15 to 34 age group compared with 28.1 per cent among others

with disabilities. In part this finding may be due to the shorter life expectancy of people

with intellectual disabilities at the time when HALS was conducted.6

A larger share of people with intellectual disabilities are males (57.9 compared with

48.9 per cent among others with disabilities).7

5 Statistics Canada (December 2002). 2001 Participation and Activity Limitation Survey A Profile of Disability in Canada, 2001 – Tables. Ottawa: Minister of Industry, Tables 1 and 5. The author of the present report had a chance to review the results of field tests of the question on the PALS survey. Many who were asked the question were disinclined to answer it or answered “no”. People who took part in the field testing were people identified as having intellectual disabilities and either living in group homes or working in various employment situations under the auspices of local Associations for Community Living. 6 See Eyman, RK, et al (August 30, 1990). "The life expectancy of profoundly handicapped people with mental retardation." The New England Journal of Medicine, Volume 323:584-589, Number 9. Available at http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/323/9/584 7 This finding is consistent with research in genetics. See, for example, Hans-Hilger Ropers et al. (June 2003). "Nonsyndromic X-linked mental retardation: Where are the missing mutations?" in Trends in Genetics Vol.19, No.6, pp. 316-320. Available at http://www.molgen.mpg.de/~abt_rop/mr/mr19316.pdf See also Encarta, Mental Retardation ― Introduction (2003). Available at http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/RefArticle.aspx?refid=761552226&pn=1#s1

3

III. Functional Limitations and Other Difficulties

A. Multiple Disabilities

People with intellectual disabilities are much more likely than others to be dealing

with more than one disability, with 77.2 per cent reporting more than one disability

compared with 52.1 per cent of others.

The other disabilities of those with intellectual disabilities are shown on Table 1.

Table 1. People with intellectual disabilities reporting other disabilities as well Intellectual Disability Others with Disabilities Agility 42.2% 51.2% Mobility 32.6% 53.9% Seeing 12.4% 9.1% Hearing 21.6% 25.0% Speaking 43.2% 5.5% Psychiatric8 41.4% 23.9%

Given the high proportion of people with intellectual disabilities who also have

other disabilities, job accommodation and other supportive measures need to be framed

with a view to addressing multiple needs, particularly agility, speaking and

emotional/psychiatric in addition to cognitive issues.

8 This includes major depression, manic episodes or manic depression, drinking or drug problems, schizophrenia, nervous breakdown/nervous condition or any other serious emotional problem.

4

B. Range of Cognitive Difficulties

People with intellectual disabilities are likely to be dealing with a range of

cognitive difficulties. For instance, on average they have had difficulty with 3 out of 4

basic academic tasks such as learning how to read, write, spell or do basic mathematics

(e.g., adding and subtracting). Others with disabilities have had difficulty with only one

of these tasks on average. As well, on average people with intellectual disabilities have

difficulty with 4 out of a total of 7 tasks that include: telling right from left; doing the right

thing at the right time; explaining ideas when speaking; doing activities that involve

many steps (such as following a recipe); solving day to day problems; understanding

people they don't know very well; and talking to people they don't know very well.

Others with disabilities have difficulty with only one of these tasks on average.

On any one of these tasks, people with intellectual disabilities are much more

likely to report difficulties (Table 2).

Table 2. Learning and other cognitive difficulties experienced by people with intellectual disabilities and others with disabilities

Intellectual Disability

Others

Difficulty learning how to read 69.8% 11.4%Difficulty learning how to write 69.2% 9.2%Difficulty learning how to spell 72.1% 15.8%Difficulty learning basic mathematics 64.7% 11.4%Have difficulty telling right from left 35.6% 5.6%Often told not doing right thing at right time 48.9% 8.9%Have difficulty explaining ideas when speaking 66.4% 20.1%Difficulty doing activity with many steps 55.9% 10.0%Often have difficulty solving day to day problems 55.4% 9.4%Need help to understand people you do not know 53.7% 10.7%Need help to talk to people you do not know well 57.1% 10.3%Respondents may report more than one difficulty.

Job accommodation measures, then, need to take into account the difficulties

that people with intellectual disabilities are likely to have with literacy and numeracy,

5

possible confusion in carrying out everyday tasks and following instructions, and

possible difficulties in social interactions and communication with others.

IV. Labour Force Status, Employment Needs and Issues

A. Level of Employment

People with intellectual disabilities were considerably less likely than others with

disabilities to be employed when HALS was conducted ― 38.1 compared with 49 per

cent respectively. They are more likely than others to consider themselves completely

prevented from working because of their condition (36.1 compared with 26 per cent).

The level of employment varies by age. Younger people with intellectual

disabilities are more likely to be employed than older people (Table 3). The vast majority

of people with intellectual disabilities aged 55 and older are outside of the labour force.

Table 3. Labour force status of people with intellectual disabilities and others with disabilities, by age group

Labour Force Status

Age

Group Employed Unemployed

Not in the labour force Total

Intellectual disabilities 15 - 34 37.8 13.0 49.1 100.0 35 - 54 41.3 6.9 51.7 100.0 55 - 64 – 84.4 100.0 Total 38.1 9.8 52.1 100.0 Others w/ disabilities 15 - 34 56.1 12.3 31.6 100.0 35 - 54 58.4 7.8 33.9 100.0 55 - 64 28.0 4.5 67.5 100.0 Total 49.0 8.1 42.9 100.0

6

B. Work History

People with intellectual disabilities are much more likely than others to indicate

that they have never worked in their lives (38.2 compared with 6.7 per cent). Over half

(58 per cent) had never worked or had last worked a year or more before HALS was

conducted, compared with about a third (34 per cent) of others with disabilities.

People with intellectual disabilities were half as likely as others with disabilities

(15.3 compared with 30 per cent) to have worked 49 to 52 weeks full time in the year

when HALS was conducted.

C. Earnings and Low Income

For people with intellectual disabilities with any employment income in 1991, their

average earnings were $14,994 compared with $22,761 among others with disabilities

and $24,535 among people without disabilities.

Nearly half of people with intellectual disabilities (45.1 per cent) have total

incomes below Statistics Canada's low income cut-off (LICO), an unofficial yet widely

used measure of poverty. Some 20.5 per cent of others with disabilities have incomes

below the LICO. Among people with intellectual disabilities who were working when

HALS was conducted, 41.4 per cent had incomes below the LICO, compared with only

12.2 per cent of others with disabilities who were working.

Among people with intellectual disabilities, 61.6 per cent had received income

from the disability income system in the previous year, compared with only 29.5 per

cent of others with disabilities. For people with intellectual disabilities who were

employed when HALS was conducted, half (50.2 per cent) received income from the

disability income system in the previous year, compared with only 13 per cent of others

with disabilities who were employed.

7

D. Skill Utilization

While the level of employment is low among people with intellectual disabilities,

most who are employed (70.1 per cent) feel that their job gives them the opportunity to

use all their skills, education or experience. This is slightly higher than among others

with disabilities (67.4 per cent). In other words, under-employment is not a major

problem for people with intellectual disabilities who have jobs.

E. Type of Work

Employed people with intellectual disabilities are twice as likely as others with

disabilities to have unskilled manual labour jobs (39.2 compared with 18 per cent).

There is also a fairly high concentration of people with intellectual disabilities in semi-

skilled manual labour employment (9.4 per cent), service jobs (16.1 per cent), sales (8.4

per cent) and clerical jobs (12.4 per cent).

Employed people with intellectual disabilities are about as likely as other

employed people with disabilities to be working for wages, salary, tips or commission

(87.6 compared with 85.2 per cent, respectively). They are less likely to be self-

employed alone or in partnership with someone else (8.2 compared with 12.6 per cent).

F. Hours of Work

People with intellectual disabilities who reported any hours of work in a typical

week reported fewer hours of work than others with disabilities in 1991 (33 compared

with 38 hours). Those with intellectual disabilities who were available for work when

HALS was conducted were more open than others to taking full-time or part-time job

8

(35.8 compared with 20 per cent). Other people with disabilities were more likely to want

a full-time job only (51.3 compared with 35.2 per cent).

G. Volunteer Work

People with intellectual disabilities are less likely than others with disabilities to

have taken part in unpaid volunteer work in the past year, such as teaching, coaching,

fundraising, canvassing or providing care (15.7 compared with 21.6 per cent).

H. Difficulty Making Changes in Employment

Employed people with intellectual disabilities are more likely than others to report

that, because of their disability, it is difficult or very difficult to change jobs or advance in

their present job (43 compared with 32.4 per cent, respectively). Accordingly, they are

less likely (17.4 compared with 20.4 per cent) to have changed jobs because of their

condition, less likely (19.6 compared with 24.4 per cent) to have changed the kind of

work they are doing, and less likely (16.4 compared with 27.1 per cent) to have changed

the amount of work they are doing because of their disability.

9

I. Job Accommodations Needed

In terms of accommodations needed for employment, people with intellectual

disabilities are considerably more likely than others to need human support and job

redesign. They are also more likely to need modified hours of work. They are about as

likely as others to need various architectural modifications in the workplace (Table 4).

Overall, more than half need at least one job accommodation, compared with a little

more than one-third of other people with disabilities.

Table 4. Job accommodations needed by people with intellectual disabilities and others

Intellectual Disability

Others

Human support for employment (e.g., reader, interpreter, job coach, personal assistant) 20.3% 3.0%

Technical aids / devices 2.8% 2.1%Communication services (e.g., Brailling, text conversion to audio tape or to enlarged print) 3.7% 1.7%

Job redesign 31.0% 19.1%Modified hours 29.4% 21.7%Accessible transportation 19.5% 8.0%Other non-architectural 8.1% 4.1%Handrails, ramps 6.3% 5.6%Appropriate parking 5.8% 5.9%Accessible elevator 7.3% 7.1%Accessible workstation 8.1% 6.3%Accessible washroom 7.2% 5.2%Other architectural 1.6% 1.6%Any job accommodation is needed 52.5% 36.2%Respondents may need more than one accommodation.

Given that people with intellectual disabilities stand in comparatively greater need

than others for job accommodations, it is perhaps not surprising to find that, where

employed, they are more likely than others (43.2 compared with 22.5 per cent) to be

working with employers who have a program to increase the employment of people with

disabilities, such as an employment equity or affirmative action program. This suggests

that supportive workplaces (e.g., that have proactive outreach policies, that provide job

accommodations, etc.) are more effective in attracting and retaining people with

intellectual disabilities.

10

Indeed, 79.6 per cent of employees with intellectual disabilities who are in

workplaces with affirmative action programs have not graduated from high school,

compared with 69.2 per cent in workplaces without such programs. As well, employees

with intellectual disabilities who are in workplaces with affirmative action programs are

slightly more likely than their counterparts in workplaces without such programs to have

taken work-related training to enhance or learn new skills (35 compared with 30.6 per

cent).

Where people with intellectual disabilities are in workplaces with affirmative

action or similar programs, 88.4 per cent say they are fully using their skills, education

and experience, compared with only 58.1 of their counterparts in workplaces without

such programs.

J. Barriers to Labour Force Participation

For people not in the labour force (i.e., neither employed nor seeking/available

for work), those with intellectual disabilities are more likely than others with disabilities to

report being discouraged from looking for work because of concern about losing some

or all of their present income or their current additional supports (e.g., drug plan or

housing). They are considerably more likely to cite inaccessible information,

employment-related discrimination, worry about being isolated by co-workers and

inadequate training as discouraging factors as well (Table 5).

11

Table 5. Barriers faced by people with intellectual disabilities and others with disabilities who are not in the labour force

Intellectual Disabilities

Others

Would lose some or all of current income if worked 26.1% 21.4%Would lose some or all of current additional supports 19.5% 12.7%Family or friends discourage going to work 7.1% 5.5%Family responsibilities prevent work 4.6% 10.6%Information about jobs is not accessible 10.1% 5.6%Worry about being isolated by other workers on job 15.8% 4.1%Have been the victim of discrimination 18.9% 6.7%Feel training is not adequate 33.0% 15.6%Lack of accessible transportation 9.1% 7.3%No jobs available 18.2% 15.1%Other barriers 35.5% 30.4%Respondents may report more than one barrier.

Table 6 shows that people with intellectual disabilities who are out of the labour

force, and who consider themselves completely prevented from working, are about as

likely as others to feel discouraged from seeking employment due to concern about

losing some or all of their income if employed. In contrast, people without intellectual

disabilities, and who do not consider themselves completely prevented from working,

are much less likely to report such discouragement.

12

Table 6. Barriers faced by people with intellectual disabilities and others with disabilities who are not in the labour force and who do/do not consider themselves completely prevented from working because of disability Condition prevents from working at a job or

business Yes No

Intellectual Disabilities Others Intellectual

Disabilities Others

Would lose some or all of current income if worked 26.4% 25.4% 25.5% 14.6%

Would lose some or all of current additional supports 19.8% 15.1% 18.7% 8.7%

Family or friends discourage going to work 7.4% 5.6% 6.5%* 5.4%

Family responsibilities prevent work 3.4%* 6.0% 7.2%* 18.2%Information about jobs is not accessible 9.7% 5.7% 11.1% 5.5%Worry about being isolated by other workers on job 17.2% 3.9% 12.6% 4.4%

Have been the victim of discrimination 18.1% 6.2% 20.7% 7.6%Feel training is not adequate 30.3% 13.2% 39.1% 19.6%Lack of accessible transportation 9.1% 6.6% 9.1%* 8.4%No jobs available 12.8% 12.3% 30.4% 19.8%Other barriers 38.7% 35.4% 27.6% 21.7%Respondents may report more than one barrier. * Small sample size. Use figures with caution.

An inference to be drawn is that people with intellectual disabilities are generally

more likely than others to feel discouraged from working due to concern about income

loss, regardless of whether they feel completely prevented from working because of

their disability.

The same general pattern prevails around the prospect of losing some or all of

present benefits, such as drug plan or housing.

Moreover, regardless of whether they consider themselves completely prevented

from working, people with intellectual disabilities are more likely than others to be

worried about being socially isolated on the job, to feel that they have been

discriminated against in employment and that their training is not adequate.

Of some interest, a comparatively large share of people with intellectual

disabilities who do not consider themselves completely prevented from working feel

discouraged because they believe that no jobs are available.

13

K. Employment-Related Discrimination

Among all working age people with disabilities (i.e., not just those out of the

labour force), 22.1 per cent with intellectual disabilities indicate that they have

experienced employment-related discrimination due to their condition in the past five

years. Such discrimination is defined as being denied employment, a promotion or

access to training programs, or being terminated from employment, because of

disability. Only 12.1 of others with disabilities report such problems.

Only 10.5 per cent with intellectual disabilities who feel they have been

discriminated against in employment have taken action to address the problem,

compared with 17.0 of others who have felt discriminated against on the basis of

disability. Lower income, skills and self-confidence may discourage people with

intellectual disabilities more than others from taking such action.

V. Needs and Issues Related to Training and Education

A. Low Level of Education

Not surprisingly, the education level of people with intellectual disabilities tends to be

quite low, with 41.9 per cent having less than grade 9 education compared with 18.4 per

cent of others with disabilities. They are about half as likely as others with disabilities to

have high school graduation or a higher level of education (29.2 compared with 55.1 per

cent).

B. Difficulties in Formal Education

The low education of people with intellectual disabilities cannot be attributed only

to their cognitive difficulties. People with intellectual disabilities are more likely to report

experiencing a range of difficulties in their educational history (Table 7). For the

14

majority, their choice of courses or career has been influenced. Half have changed

schools or have taken fewer courses or subjects than they would have otherwise. More

than a third had their education interrupted for long periods of time or changed their

course of studies. More than a quarter had to leave their community to attend school.

Educators, trainers, co-workers and service providers seeking to establish a

rapport with people with intellectual disabilities would do well to take into account and

make provision for the frustration and failures that many have experienced during their

formal education.

Table 7. Educational difficulties faced by people with intellectual disabilities and others with disabilities because of their condition

Intellectual Disability

Others

Choice of courses or career influenced 68.9% 36.4%Began school later than most people their age 27.2% 8.6%Education interrupted for long periods of time 35.9% 24.0%Changed schools 50.2% 17.8%Changed course of studies 35.8% 16.3%Attended special school or special classes in regular school 60.9% 13.5%Took fewer course or subjects than would have at school, college or university 52.3% 16.5%

Took courses by correspondence or home study 11.4% 11.9%Went back to school for re-training 25.0% 21.3%Left community to attend school 22.8% 9.7%Respondents may have had more than one difficulty.

15

C. Extent of Participation in Work-Related Training

A third of people with intellectual disabilities who are not in the labour force cite

inadequate training as a factor that prevents them from looking for work (Table 5).

Among all working-age people with intellectual disabilities, a little more than a third (34.7

per cent) have ever taken work-related training to enhance skills or learn new skills, or

have returned to school for retraining for other reasons. This is a slightly lower figure

than for others with disabilities (37.8 per cent ― Table 8).

Table 8. Training issues for people with intellectual disabilities and others with disabilities

Intellectual Disability

Others

Ever trained 34.7% 37.8%Were refused training in the past five years 6.1% 1.7%Have not trained and want training 16.2% 13.0%Want training ― reasons for not taking

Not relevant or not what needed 17.5% 15.9%Courses not accessible 61.1% 25.9%Inadequate transportation 10.6%* 11.6%Cost of training 30.8% 30.5%Location too far away 23.5% 21.1%Lack child care ― 7.7%Other reasons 18.3% 20.3%

Respondents may report more than one barrier. * Small sample size. Use figure with caution.

While the numbers are not large, people with intellectual disabilities are more

likely than others to report that they have been refused training in the past five years

(Table 8). They are also more likely than others to indicate that, where they have not

taken training, they would like to do so (16.2 compared with 13 per cent).

D. Reasons for Not Taking Training

Reasons for not taking training are similar for people with and without intellectual

disabilities, except that those with intellectual disabilities are much more likely to say

16

that the inaccessible courses hamper them from taking the training they want (61.1

compared with 25.9 per cent respectively ― Table 8).

Table 8 shows that, the better educated, the more likely people with intellectual

disabilities and others are to have taken training to improve their employment skills or

for other reasons. The finding suggests that the training contributed to higher levels of

educational attainment and/or that higher levels of education may have better equipped

people to apply for and undergo training.

Among those who have not taken training, the likelihood of wanting to do so

tends to decrease as education level increases. However, the decrease is less

pronounced among people with intellectual disabilities, who are more likely than others

to want further training irrespective of education level. This finding suggests that, among

people without intellectual disabilities, once a fairly high level of education is reached

there is no perceived need for further training. People with intellectual disabilities,

however, may continue to feel academically vulnerable and in need of further training

regardless of their education level.

Table 9. Training status by level of education, people with intellectual disabilities and others with disabilities

Trained Highest education level Intellectual Disability Others Less than high school graduation 24.7% 21.1% High school graduate 50.2% 37.0% High school graduate + 62.4% 56.4%

Want but have no employment training

Intellectual Disability Others Less than high school graduation 17.1% 16.9% High school graduate ―* 14.5% High school graduate + 14.3% 8.3% *Very small sample size.

17

E. Accommodations Needed in Training/Education

Based on HALS data for people with disabilities attending educational classes,

people with intellectual disabilities are more likely to need selected accommodations for

training and education (Table 10). These include human supports such as note takers,

scribes, readers and attendants. People with intellectual disabilities are much more

likely than others to need tutors; they are also more likely on average to need

accessible computers.

Educational and training programs need to attend to such needs or the likelihood

of educational failure will be high. People who indicate that they would like to take

training but have not done so because of inaccessible courses may have had difficulties

accessing the kinds of supports shown on Table 10.

Table 10. Selected accommodations needed by people with intellectual disabilities and others with disabilities attending educational classes

Intellectual Disabilities

Others

Note takers, scribes or readers 13.3% 2.6%Tutor 23.6% 3.6%Computer access 17.7% 3.0%Attendant services 14.1% 1.3%Respondents may need more than one accommodation.

F. Literacy

The self-assessed literacy of people with intellectual disabilities is much poorer

than that of others with disabilities. For instance, on a scale of one to five representing

skills ranging from poor to excellent, 42.2 per cent consider their ability to read or write

as poor, compared with only 7.3 per cent among others with disabilities. Only 7.8 per

cent with intellectual disabilities rate their reading/writing skills as excellent, compared

with 32.9 per cent of others with disabilities.

18

Only 53.4 per cent with intellectual disabilities feel that their reading and writing

skills are adequate for daily life, compared with 89.8% per cent of others with

disabilities.9 Those seeking to communicate in text with people with intellectual

disabilities, then, need to use plain language, simple formatting and easy-to-understand

concepts.

The HALS survey asked those who feel that their reading and writing skills are

not adequate for daily living ― or who simply don’t know one way or another ― whether

they might take additional training to improve those skills. Among people with

intellectual disabilities, 59.3 per cent they had no such plans compared with 54.8 of

others with disabilities.

Table 11 shows reasons for why people answering the question on literacy

upgrading had no such plans.

Table 11. Reason for not taking further literacy training: people with intellectual disabilities and others with disabilities who do not consider their reading and writing skills adequate for daily life (or who don't know)

Intellectual Disability

Others

Not aware of existing programs – 4.7% Training programs not available – 4.5% Available programs not suitable to needs 17.5% 6.0% Too old or too late now 12.2% 47.7% Not interested or lack motivation 14.2% 26.7% Too costly – 7.6% Too embarrassed – 11.4% Do not know – 6.7% Other 52.5% 28.7% Respondents can give more than one reason for not taking such training.

“–“ indicates very small sample size. Source: HALS 1991

The unsuitability of available literacy programs for people with intellectual

disabilities stands out as a significant issue, with 17.5 per cent who have no plans for

literacy upgrading reporting this as a problem compared with only 6 per cent of others

with disabilities.

9 Among people with intellectual disabilities, 7.7% said that they do not know, compared with 1.1% of

19

People with intellectual disabilities are only about a quarter as likely to indicate

that they are too old or that it is too late, now, to undergo literacy upgrading (12.2

compared with 47.7 per cent). This finding squares with the finding that people with

intellectual disabilities tend to be younger on average than others with disabilities. The

finding may also reflect a latent hope for improvement in literacy skills among people

with intellectual disabilities.

The latter suggestion squares with the finding that people with intellectual

disabilities are only about half as likely to indicate that they are not interested in, or lack

motivation to pursue, literacy upgrading (14.2 compared with 26.7 per cent).

While the sample sizes were too small for public release, in other respects

people with intellectual disabilities are about as likely as others to report that they are

not aware of literacy programs that might help them, that such programs are not

available, or that they don't know why they won't pursue such upgrading.

An interesting note is that only 4.8 per cent of people with intellectual disabilities

indicate that they feel too embarrassed to take further literacy upgrading, compared with

11.4 per cent of others with disabilities. The sample size for people with intellectual

disabilities who feel embarrassed is small, so the figure needs to be used cautiously.

Yet, the finding is surprising in view of the many defeats and frustrations on the

employment and educational fronts, and widespread stigma, experienced by people

with intellectual disabilities.

Almost double the share of people with intellectual disabilities report that sundry

"other" problems prevent literacy upgrading. These issues need further clarification in

research and may require public policy responses.

others with disabilities.

20

VI. Improving Job Prospects

A. Formal Supports

In recent research conducted by The Roeher Institute10 on employment and

disability, it was found that, where people with disabilities have the supports needed,

their employment prospects improve.

Using HALS, the research identified two broad groups, each comprising several

sub-groups.

Group A focused on education, training and transportation and comprised the

following sub-groups of people who:

1. Had high school graduation or a higher level of education, and had taken

training, and were not facing local transportation problems;

or

2. Did not meet these criteria.

Group B focused on selected disability supports (help with everyday activities

and aids/devices) and comprised the following sub-groups of people who:

1. Had no need for help with everyday activities and did not need

aids/devices;

2. Had needs for help or aids/devices, all of which were fully met;

3. Had needs for help and/or aids/devices that were not fully met.

The research then combined these sub-groupings into six summary groups, as

follows:

21

1. A1 + B1 (people who have at least high school graduation, have trained,

who don’t seem to face community transportation problems and who do

not need help with everyday activities or aids/devices).

2. A1 + B2 (people who have at least high school graduation, have trained,

who don’t seem to face community transportation problems and whose

needs for help with everyday activities or for aids/devices are met).

3. A1 + B3 (people who have at least high school graduation, have trained,

who don’t seem to face community transportation problems but who have

unmet needs for help with everyday activities or for aids/devices).

4. A2 + B1 (people who have less than high school education, or have never

trained or who face local transportation difficulties, but do not need help

with everyday activities or aids/devices).

5. A2 + B2 (people who have less than high school education, or have never

trained or who face local transportation difficulties, but whose needs for

help with everyday activities or for aids/devices are met).

6. A2 + B3 (people who have less than high school education, or have never

trained or who face local transportation difficulties, and who have unmet

needs for help with everyday activities or for aids/devices).

Table 12 shows the results. People with intellectual disabilities who meet the

criteria for group 2 are more likely to be employed than those who meet the criteria for

groups 3 through 6. While the total number of people with intellectual disabilities who

meet the criteria for group 2 is quite small, the finding suggests that it makes sense from

a public policy perspective to ensure that people with intellectual disabilities secure a

10 The Roeher Institute (2004). Improving the Odds: Employment, Disability and Public Programs in Canada. Toronto: Author.

22

reasonably decent education, participate in job training, gain access to the

transportation they need and, if they need assistance with everyday activities or aids /

devices, that those needs be met.

Table 12. Percentages employed by summary group number and type of disability Type of disability Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4 Group 5 Group 6 AverageMobility 66.4 45.7 43.8 44.6 26.7 26.5 36.0Agility 72.7 49.6 43.2 47.6 27.9 26.5 38.1Seeing 83.7 71.9 52.1 39.7 42.4 25.3 39.5Hearing 78.1 62.9 56.9 68.0 47.6 36.7 56.1Speaking 60.1 59.1 48.1 48.6 38.8 19.4 35.0Other 59.8 49.9 42.6 44.8 33.3 23.8 37.7- Learning disability 62.2 59.8 46.2 49.4 41.3 29.4 48.9- Intellectual disability 49.3 74.6 34.5* 40.0 46.0 25.0 49.0- Feel limited by a mental health label

45.8 48.6 26.3 34.3 15.6 22.4 29.9

* Very small cell size. Use figure with caution. Source: HALS 1991

B. Informal Supports

Other (unpublished) research conducted by The Roeher Institute identified

people who were in situations of positive and negative social support and probed the

relationship between social support and employment. The research used HALS as the

data source.

Positive social support is defined as situations where, in the past few weeks,

people:

• Only sometimes or never felt lonely or remote from other people (i.e., they were in

relationships); and

• Sometimes (or even often) felt proud because someone gave a complement for

something they had done (i.e., they were in positively reinforcing relationships); and

• Only sometimes or never felt upset because someone criticized them (i.e., they were

not in hostile, judgmental relationships).

23

Situations of negative social support are defined as ones where people often felt

very lonely or remote from other people, or never felt proud because of being

complimented for doing something, or where they often felt upset because of being

criticized.

Where people with intellectual disabilities were in situations of positive social

support, 47.5 per cent were employed, compared with only 27.1 per cent where people

were in situations of negative social support. That general pattern holds regardless of

severity of disability, although is less pronounced as the severity of disability increases

(Table 13).

Table 13. Social support and percentages employed, by intellectual disability status and severity of disability Severity of Disability

Social Support

Intellectual disabilities

Others with disabilities

Mild Negative 46.2 56.2 Positive 68.8 64.8Moderate Negative 22.6 35.8 Positive 36.8 39.4Severe Negative 20.5 13.5 Positive 23.5 20.8Total Negative 27.1 40.5 Positive 47.5 52.0

The finding suggests that the moral and practical support of family, friends and

acquaintances plays an important role in strengthening the self-confidence, positive

self-image, and general buoyancy that improve people’s chances of having a job

(Table 14).

24

Table x. Social support and general outlook on life (percentages) of people with intellectual and other disabilities

Negative social

support

Positive social

support Intellectual disability

Feeling very happy these days 12.7 35.5 Often felt on top of the world in the

past few weeks 18.3 39.6

Have someone to talk to if feeling down/ depressed 83.9 96.3

Others w/ disabilities

Feeling very happy these days 9.4 22.1 Often felt on top of the world in the

past few weeks 18.3 39.6

Have someone to talk to if feeling down/ depressed 88.3 95.5

VII. Highlights and Conclusion

People with intellectual disabilities are less likely than others with disabilities to

be employed in a given year, and are less likely to have ever been employed or to have

been employed within the past year. Where employed, the hours worked in a given

week tend to be somewhat lower those of other people with disabilities. The work of

people with intellectual disabilities tends to be concentrated in unskilled and semi-skilled

manual jobs, and in the service, sales and clerical areas. They are less likely than

others to be self-employed.

Where available for work, people with intellectual disabilities are less choosy than

others about whether they work full-time or part-time. They are more likely to experience

difficulties in changing or advancing in their present job, and so are less likely to have

changed jobs, or the kind or amount of work they are doing.

People with intellectual disabilities are likely to be dealing with more than one

disability. They are also likely to be having difficulty with a range of basic educational

25

and cognitive tasks. This helps explain why people with intellectual disabilities are more

likely than others on average to need various accommodations in employment,

education and training. More than one-half of people with intellectual disabilities need at

least one job accommodation and in particular are more likely to need human

assistance (e.g., from co-workers) and stand in relatively high need for modified job

design, modified hours and accessible transportation as well. They are also more likely

than others to need various forms of human assistance in education/training.

Job accommodations and other supportive measures need to be framed with a

view to addressing multiple needs, including agility, spoken communication and

emotional/psychiatric issues in addition to cognitive issues experienced by people with

intellectual disabilities. Supportive measures also need to take into account the possible

confusion that people with intellectual disabilities may be experiencing in carrying out

everyday tasks, in following instructions and the possible difficulties they may be

experiencing in social interactions and communication with others.

Where employed, they are more likely than others to be in workplaces with a

program to increase the employment of people with disabilities, e.g., an employment

equity or affirmative action program. This suggests that supportive workplaces are more

effective in attracting and retaining people with intellectual disabilities. Indeed,

workplaces with affirmative action and similar programs seem to be more effective than

other workplaces in attracting employees with intellectual disabilities who have low

educational attainment and seem to be more effective than workplaces without such

programs in furthering the work-related training of people with intellectual disabilities.

Such workplaces are also more likely to fully utilize the skills, education and experience

that people with intellectual disabilities bring to the job.

People with intellectual disabilities are more likely than others to consider

themselves completely prevented from working because of their condition. However,

where employed, most feel that their job gives them the opportunity to use all their skills,

education or experience.

26

Where employed, the earnings of people with intellectual disabilities tend to be

lower than those of other people with disabilities and of the non-disabled population.

Even where employed, a high proportion (i.e., half) of people with intellectual disabilities

have total incomes below Statistics Canada’s Low Income Cut-Off – an unofficial

measure of poverty. Employed people with intellectual disabilities are also more likely

than other employed people with disabilities to have received income from the disability

income system in the previous year.

Many people with disabilities who are not in the labour force are discouraged

from seeking employment due to concern about losing some or all of their present

income or other disability benefits (e.g., drug plan or housing). Inaccessible information

about available jobs, employment-related discrimination, worry about being isolated by

co-workers and inadequate training stand out as additional problems that are more

pervasive for people with intellectual disabilities who are not in the labour force.

People with intellectual disabilities are nearly twice as likely as others with

disabilities to feel that they have been discriminated against in employment because of

disability. Yet they are less likely than others to have taken action to address that

perception. Perhaps lesser financial resources, lower skills and lack of self-confidence

help account for not taking such action.

The education level of people with intellectual disabilities is much lower than that

of others with disabilities, with less than a third completing high school or attaining a

higher level of education. They have generally had a more troubled educational history

than others with disabilities. For most people with intellectual disabilities, their choice of

careers or courses has been affected in the balance. Many have changed schools, have

left their community to attend school, have taken fewer courses, have changed their

course of studies or had their education interrupted for long periods of time. Frustrations

and failures with the educational process need to be taken into account by educators

and trainers.

27

People with intellectual disabilities are more likely to say that they want training to

develop or improve their employment skills. This aspiration is relatively constant

regardless of education level. Among others with disabilities, the desire to take such

training declines sharply as education level increases.

While people with intellectual disabilities are more likely than others to need

human supports in education/training such as note takers, scribes, readers and

attendants, as well as technological supports such as accessible computers, they are

much more likely than others with disabilities to indicate that inaccessible courses have

prevented them from taking training to improve their employment skills. The lack of

human and technological supports may help account for why people with intellectual

disabilities have not taken the training they might otherwise have sought out.

The literacy level of people with intellectual disabilities is quite low. A leading

reason why those with intellectual disabilities and low literacy have no plans to upgrade

their literacy skills is that available programs are not suitable to their needs. Accordingly,

people seeking to communicate in text with people with intellectual disabilities need to

use plain language, simple formatting and easy-to-understand concepts.

The employment situation of people with intellectual disabilities is generally quite

difficult. Indeed, the lack of needed accommodations and various other supports has

likely contributed to the disadvantages in employment, income and education, training

and literacy that many people with intellectual disabilities have experienced. In contrast,

where people with intellectual disabilities have the needed assistance with everyday

activities and aids/devices, as well as transportation, reasonably good education and

access to job-related training, the job prospects improve significantly. As well, people

fare better where they are in situations of positive social support. From a public policy

and social development perspective, the findings suggest that more adequate provision

of various supports through formal programs, and the development of more robust

28

social networks and supportive informal relationships at the community level, will help to

improve the employment situation of people with intellectual disabilities.

29