Beyond Assistive Technology
Technological Resources in Supported Employment

By David Hammis, Organizational Consultant with the Rural Institute

Employment consultants think of assistive technology devices first—augmentative communication devices, switches, power wheel chairs, etc.—when they imagine technology helping people accused of having the most severe or profound developmental disabilities achieve employment goals. But assistive technology, or technology adapted to a disability, is an attempt to "fix the person" and if you emphasize "fixing the person," you may ignore other technological resources that can make employment possible for people with even the most severe disabilities.
Instead of "fixing a person," "fix" the environment. Go beyond the unspoken rules of traditional employment development efforts and search for an answer to the following question:

What technological resources would improve a potential employer's business (increased profits) and simultaneously use an employee's gifts and talents to achieve his/her career goals and dreams (increased inclusion, personal choice, meaningful work, individual wealth)

Jane's job profile was developed using the Marc Gold vocational profile format. This is similar to Personal Futures Planning, and yields an "ideal" job description for a person based on the person's gifts and dreams. Jane's ideal job was sewing. When Jane's employment consultant applied the above question to Jane's situation, the answer was: "Purchase an employment-specific resource—a computer controlled industrial sewing machine—that enhanced the employer's profit potential and simultaneously used Jane's gifts and sewing talents."

Money for Jane's sewing machine ($2,800) came from a Plan for Achieving Self Support (PASS) submitted to Social Security. The PASS money meant Jane owned the sewing machine, not her employer or a state agency. If she left the job, her equipment left with her. The sewing machine would be located at her employer's plant and the employer agreed to insure and maintain the equipment. Jane's employment consultant created a position for her through "job carving" or job restructuring, successfully marketed the position, provided systematic instruction task training, and developed some assistive technology related to the tasks.

The answer to Jane's employment problem had more to do with universal technology than assistive technology. Assistive technology was introduced because it was appropriate, and also partial participation and job carving. But the primary answer was not assistive technology.

Results

Jane's quality of life increased with her employment. She worked in the community in an individual position for the first time in her 52 years in the system. She developed friendships at work and participated in after-hours Christmas parties and moved from an eight-bed group home to a "supported lifestyle" two-bedroom home with a roommate she was able to choose. She was able to fly to California for the first time in years (and paid for the trip herself) to visit her only living relative, an older sister.

She was often frustrated when she could not go to work on Saturday.

After a four-month intense on-site job training and a two-month fading period, Jane received about two to four hours of follow up per month for the length of her employment. Her position was terminated after two years when the employer unsuccessfully merged with another company and went out of business. Her loss of employment was not related to her skills or performance, but was simply an outcome of a failed business decision.

The power of employment related resources to transform the lives of people who have rich internal gifts and resources, yet are externally resource poor, is tremendous. Even if the person decides to change careers or loses his/her job, that person still owns a significant resource, which can be converted to cash and reinvested in another career goal in the future. The person with a disability retains the value of the resource. We are not just giving the employer some sort of financial reimbursement, such as Targeted Jobs Tax Credits (TJTC), On the Job Training (OJT), or Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA), which can never be recovered.

Values

I have struggled for years with the values and concerns related to purchasing technological resources, such as:

Are we buying the job with the resource?
My experience and my own values tell me no—if the job match is based on the person's dreams and gifts.
Ownership is more empowering to the employee than the employer. The resource makes practical sense to the employee, employer, and funding source.
Does the employer just want the resource and not the person?
The employers I have dealt with deny this with their words and their actions. They do admit they are concerned about profits as well as employees.
Will someone distort this concept and find an employer that needs something and then find someone capable of purchasing the resource regardless of the person's gifts and dreams (instead of starting with the person)?
No one has yet, to my knowledge, but I believe it will happen.
Is purchasing resources for employment purposes a questionable practice?

I believe we all purchase resources without questioning if it is appropriate. Some jobs require a car, such as real estate sales. Some jobs require significant investment in college degrees. Mechanics generally are required to have a significant investment in hand tools. Carpenters are required to have resources. This is commonly accepted practice and not questioned for people without disabilities, who have not been stripped of all personal resources because they receive government assistance.

Ask the resource question in your supported employment efforts. Ownership is power. Think about it. Ask the question and the answer will surprise you.