Brown S.D., Lent R. (Editors). Career development and counseling: putting theory and research to work

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

546 S

PECIAL

EEDS AND

PPLICATIONS

Attending to the personal and social well-being of at-risk students is another

important aspect of their career development. Facilitating students’ access to so-

cial and cultural enrichment activities (e.g., workshops in leadership develop-

ment and confidence building, recreational and cultural field trips, community

service) is one way to help them develop a positive sense of self and to motivate

them to improve their academic achievement. Student participation in these ac-

tivities will facilitate the development of peer groups that support academic and

career aspirations, another important predictor of college attendance. Career

counselors may also need to offer personal emotional counseling to students who

experience specific stressors or refer these students to counseling and social ser-

vices in the community.

In sum, the program evaluation literature indicates that to increase at-risk stu-

dents’ access to college, counselors will need to add to their career counseling ef-

forts the support and collaboration of school administrations, teachers, parents,

local businesses, and social service agencies. College-access programs, like the

ones described here, exist in many communities. Career counselors working in

schools may establish partnerships with community agencies or institutions of

higher education to seek funding to implement college access programs on their

campuses.

SUMMARY

Research findings consistently show that parental income and education are

among the strongest predictors of academic achievement at any point in the

child’s life and of career attainment in adulthood. At the same time, students who

complete an academically rigorous high school curriculum are much more likely

than their peers to attend college and obtain a degree. These findings suggest

that parents transmit the advantages of higher education and income, at least in

part, through the educational decisions they make for their children early on in

their school careers. Highly educated parents tend to maximize the opportunities

of exposing their children to demanding curricula, which in turn, translate into

substantial academic advantages as the children attend higher grades (Schanabel,

Alfeld, Eccles, Koller, & Baumert, 2002). While low-income parents may lack the

educational resources to effectively monitor their children’s academic develop-

ment and successfully coach them in the process of getting ready for college,

schools in low-income areas often lack the resources needed to compensate for

the students’ lack of individual guidance and coaching at home.

Fortunately, researchers have identified protective factors associated with

high school graduation and college enrollment among low-income and at-risk

students. Adolescents who have a positive attitude toward school, a cohesive

family, and who report parental and peer support for schooling are more likely

to graduate from high school than their peers who lack these characteristics.

Similarly, friends seem to exert a strong influence on the chances of actual col-

lege enrollment among at-risk students who graduate from high school. Acade-

mically successful at-risk students who report that most or all of their friends

plan to attend college are more likely to enroll in college than their peers whose

friends do not have similar plans. Other factors that increase the odds of attend-

ing a four-year college among at-risk high school graduates include participating

in high school outreach programs, receiving help with college applications from

c22.qxd 8/5/04 9:32 AM Page 546

Promoting the Career Development and Academic Achievement of At-Risk Youth 547

school staff or counselors, and preparing for college entrance exams. Once in col-

lege, the factors most strongly related to degree completion include continuous

enrollment and the quality and intensity of the student’s high school academic

curriculum.

Numerous public and private initiatives have been implemented to promote

the academic achievement of at-risk and low-income students. College access pro-

grams specifically help students acquire occupational information, identify ca-

reers of interest, increase their academic skills, enroll in college preparatory high

school classes, and complete the steps in the college pipeline. Evaluations of these

programs suggest that even though they are not very effective in dramatically in-

creasing students’ school grades or scores on standardized achievement tests, col-

lege access programs do help students better use the skills that they have and

increase their enrollment in college. These efforts are important in reducing the

educational and occupational attainment gap experienced by low-income popula-

tions because the at-risk youth of today who beat the odds and obtain a college

degree will tomorrow be able to offer their children a great advantage: college-

ucated parents.

REFERENCES

Adelman, C. (1999). Answers in the toolbox: Academic intensity, attendance patterns, and bach-

elor’s degree attainment. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Edu-

cational Research and Improvement.

Advancement via Individual Determination. (n.d.). About us. 2002–2003 AVID Program

overview. Retrieved June 30, 2003, from http://www.avidonline.org/info/?ID=286.

Arbona, C. (1994). First generation college students: A review of needs and effective interven-

tions. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning and Evalua-

tion.

Arbona, C. (1996). Career theory and practice in a multicultural context. In M. Savickas &

B. Walsh (Eds.), Integrating career theory and practice (pp. 45–54). Palo Alto, CA: Davies-

Black Publishing Press.

Baker, T., & Velez, W. (1996). Access to and opportunity in postsecondary education in

the United States: A review. Sociology of Education [extra issue], 82–101.

Berkner, L., & Chavez, L. (1997). Access to postsecondary education for the 1992 high school

graduates (NCES 98–105). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National

Center for Education Statistics.

Borman, G. D., & Rachuba, L. T. (2001). Academic success among poor and minority students:

An analysis of competing models of school effects (Report No. 52). Baltimore: Johns Hop-

kins University Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed At Risk

(CRESPAR).

Campbell, P. B., Wahl, E., Slater, M., Iler, E., Moeller, B., Ba, H., et al. (1997). Make it possi-

ble for students to succeed and they will: An evaluation of the Gateway to Higher Education

program. New York: Education Development Center.

Cave, G., & Quit, J. (1990). Career Beginnings impact evaluation: Findings from a program

for disadvantaged high school students. New York: Manpower Demonstration Research

Corporation.

Chen, X., & Kaufman, P. (1997). Risk and resilience: The effects of dropping out of school. Paper

presented at the American Association of Education Research annual meeting,

Chicago.

Choy, S. P. (2002). Access and persistence: Findings from 10 years of longitudinal research on

students. Washington, DC: American Council on Education.

Cunningham, A., Redmond, C., & Meritosis, J. (2003). Investing early: Intervention programs

in selected U.S. states. Montreal: Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation.

Delgado-Gaitán, C. (1990). Literacy for empowerment: The role of parents in children’s educa-

tion. London: Falmer Press.

c22.qxd 8/5/04 9:32 AM Page 547

548 S

PECIAL

EEDS AND

PPLICATIONS

Dryfoos, J. G. (1990). Adolescents at risk: Prevalence and prevention. New York: Oxford Uni-

versity Press.

Dykeman, C., Herr, E. L., Ingram, M., Pehrsson, D., Wood, C., & Charles, S. (2001). A tax-

onomy of career development interventions that occur in US secondary schools. Columbus,

OH: National Dissemination Center for Career and Technical Education.

Finn, S. J. (1993). School engagement and students’ at risk. Washington, DC: U.S. Department

of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.

Fitzgerald, L. F., & Betz, N. E. (1994). Career development in cultural context: The role of

gender, race, class, and sexual orientation. In M. L. Savickas & R. Lent (Eds.), Conver-

gence in theories of career development (pp. 103–108). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychol-

ogists Press.

Flaxman, E. (1992). Evaluating mentoring programs. Institute for Urban and Minority Edu-

cation (IUME) Briefs, 1, 1–4.

Gándara, P. (2001). Paving the way to postsecondary education: K-12 intervention programs for

underrepresented youth (Report of the National Postsecondary Education Cooperative

Working Group on Access to Postsecondary Education). Washington, DC: U.S. Depart-

ment of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.

Gándara, P., Mejorado, M., Gutiérrez, D., & Molina, M. (1998). Final report of the evaluation

of High School Puente: 1994–1998. New York: Carnegie Corporation of New York.

Gottfredson, L. S. (1981). Circumscription and compromise: A developmental theory of

occupational aspiration. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 28, 545–579.

Guthrie, L. F., & Guthrie, G. P. (2000). Longitudinal research on AVID 1999–2000: Final re-

port. Burlingame, CA: Center for Research, Evaluation, and Training in Education

(CREATE).

Ham, S., Doolittle, F. C., Holton, G. I., Ventura, A. M., & Jackson, R. (2000). Project GRAD

Newark. Building the foundation for improved student performance: The pre-curricular phase

of Project Grad. New York: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation.

Higgins, C., Furano, K., Toso, C., & Branch, A. Y. (1991). I Have a Dream in Washington, DC:

Initial report. Chicago: Public/Private Ventures. (ERIC Document Reproduction Ser-

vice No. ED 337 523).

Horn, L. (1997). Confronting the odds: Students at risk and the pipeline to higher education

(NCES 98-094). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for

Education Statistics.

Horn, L., & Chen, X. (1998). Toward resiliency: At risk students who make it to college. Wash-

ington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and

Improvement.

Horn, L., Nuñez, A., & Bobbitt, L. (2000). Mapping the road to college: First-generation

students’ math track, planning strategies, and context of support (NCES 2000-153). Wash-

ington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and

Improvement.

I Have a Dream Foundation. (n.d.). The “I Have a Dream” Foundation. Retrieved June 30,

2003, from http://www.ihad.org.

Ingels, S. J., Curtin, T. R., Kaufman, P., Alt, M. N., Chen, X., & Owings, J. A. (2002). Com-

ing of age in the 1990s: The eighth-grade class of 1988 12 years later (NCES 2002-321). Wash-

ington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.

James, D. W. (1997). Some things DO make a difference for youth. Washington, DC: Ameri-

can Youth Policy Forum. Retrieved June 30, 2003, from http://www.aypf.org

/compendium/index.html.

James, D. W. (1999). More things that DO make a difference for youth. Washington, DC:

American Youth Policy Forum. Retrieved June 30, 2003, from http://www.aypf.org

/compendium/index.html.

James, D. W., Jurich, S., & Estes, S. (2001). Raising minority academic achievement: A com-

pendium of education programs and practices. Washington, DC: American Youth Policy

Forum. Retrieved June 30, 2003, from http://www.aypf.org/rmaa/index.html.

Jurich, S., & Estes, S. (2000). Raising academic achievement: A study of 20 successful programs.

Washington, DC: American Youth Policy Forum. Retrieved June 30, 2003, from

http://www.aypf.org/RAA/index.htm.

Kahne, J., & Bailey, K. (1999). The role of social capital in youth development: The case of

I Have a Dream. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21, 321–343.

c22.qxd 8/5/04 9:32 AM Page 548

Promoting the Career Development and Academic Achievement of At-Risk Youth 549

Lee, V. E., & Ekstrom, R. B. (1987). Student access to guidance counseling in high school.

American Educational Research Journal, 24, 287–310.

Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Hackett, G. (1994). Toward a unifying social cognitive theory

of career and academic interests, choice, and performance. Journal of Vocational Behav-

ior, 45, 79–122.

Levin, H. (1986). Educational reform for disadvantaged students: An emerging crises. West

Haven, CT: National Education Association.

McDonough, P. M., Korn, J. S., & Yamasaki, E. (1997). Access, equity, and the privatiza-

tion of college counseling. Review of Higher Education, 20, 297–317.

Mehan, H., Villanueva, I., Hubbard, L., & Lintz, A. (1996). Constructing school success: The

consequences of untracking low-achieving students. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Monk, D. H., & Haller, E. J. (1993). Predictors of high school academic course offerings:

The role of school size. American Educational Research Journal, 30, 3–21.

Moore, M. T. (1997). A 1990’s view of Upward Bound: Programs offered, students served, and

operational issues. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evalu-

ation Service.

Myers, D. E., & Schirm, A. (1999). The impacts of Upward Bound: Final report for phase I of the

national evaluation. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Eval-

uation Service.

National Center for Educational Statistics. (2001). Digest of Education Statistics (NCES

2002-130). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Re-

search and Improvement.

National Center for Educational Statistics. (2002). The condition of education 2002. (NCES

2002-025). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Re-

search and Improvement.

Nuñez, A., & Caroll, C. D. (1998). First-generation students: Undergraduates whose parents

never enrolled in postsecondary education (NCES 98-082). Washington, DC: U.S. Depart-

ment of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.

Opuni, K. A. (1999). Project GRAD: Program evaluation report: 1998–1999. Houston, TX:

University of Houston.

Project GRAD, USA. (n.d.). What is Project GRAD? Retrieved June 30, 2003, from

http://www.projectgrad.org.

Puente Project. (n.d.). Welcome to the Puente Project! Retrieved June 30, 2003, from

http://www.puente.net/index.html.

Richardson, M. S. (1993). Work in people’s lives: A location for counseling psychologists.

Journal of Counseling Psychology, 40, 425–433.

Rosenbaum, J. E., Miller, S. R., & Krei, M. S. (1996). Gatekeeping in an era of more open

gates: High school counselors’ views of their influence on students’ college plans.

American Journal of Education, 104(4), 257–279.

Schanabel, K. U., Alfeld, C., Eccles, J. S., Koller, O., & Baumert, J. (2002). Parental influ-

ence on students’ educational choices in the United States and Germany: Different

ramifications—same effect. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 60, 178–198.

Sewel l, W. H., Haller, A. O., & Ohlendorf, G. W. (1970). The educational and early occu-

pational status attainment process: Replication and revision. American Sociological

view, 35, 1014–1027.

Slater, M., & Iler, E. (2000). Science and Technology Entry Program: 1999–2000 final report.

New York: City University of New York Medical School.

Snyder, J., Morrison, G., & Smith, C. (1996). Dare to Dream: Educational guidance for excel-

lence. Indianapolis, IN: Lilly Endowment.

Southern Regional Education Board. (2000). State-funded merit-based scholarship programs: Why

are they popular? Can they increase participation in higher education? Retrieved June 30, 2003,

from http://www.sreb.org/main/publications/meritbased/meritbasedscholarship.asp.

Spade, J. Z., Columba, L., & Vanfossen, B. E. (1997). Tracking in mathematics and science:

Courses and course-selection procedures. Sociology of Education, 70, 108–127.

Steinberg, L. (1996). Beyond the classroom: Why school reform has failed and what parents need

to do. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Super, D. E., Savickas, M. L., & Super, C. M. (1996). The life-span, life-space approach to

careers. In D. Brown, L. Brooks, & Associates (Eds.), Career choice and development (3rd

ed., pp. 121–178). San Francisco, Jossey-Bass.

c22.qxd 8/5/04 9:32 AM Page 549

550 S

PECIAL

EEDS AND

PPLICATIONS

Swail, W. S. (2000). Preparing America’s disadvantaged for college: Programs that in-

crease college opportunity. New Directions for Institutional Research, 107, 85–101.

Upward Bound Program. (n.d.). Federal trio programs: Upward Bound. Retrieved June 30,

2003, from http://www.ed.gov/offices/OPE/HEP/trio/upbound.html.

U.S. Census Bureau. (1998). Population profile of the United States: 1997 (Current Population

Reports, Series P23-194). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

U.S. Department of Labor. (2002). Occupational outlook handbook, 2002-03. Washington, DC:

Bureau of Labor Statistics, Office of Occupational Statistics and Employment.

Vondracek, F. W., Lerner, R. M., & Schulenberg, J. E. (1986). Career development: A life-span

developmental approach. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Warburton, E., Bugarin, R., & Nuñez, A. (2001). Bridging the gap: Academic preparation and

postsecondary success of first-generation students (NCES 2001-153). Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.

Wat t, K. M., Yanez, D., & Cossio, G. (2002–2003). AVID: A comprehensive school reform

model for Texas. National Forum of Educational Administration and Supervision Journal, 19,

43–59.

c22.qxd 8/5/04 9:32 AM Page 550

551

CHAPTER 23

Promoting the Career Potential

of Youth with Disabilities

Ellen S. Fabian and James J. Liesener

NDERSTANDING THE CAREER

development of youth and young adults with

disabilities requires knowledge of both individual and environmental fac-

tors. One of the challenges of trying to conceptualize the impact of dis-

ability on career development is the enormous heterogeneity among individuals

with disabilities, suggesting that no theory can be fully applicable or nonapplica-

ble to this group (Szymanski, Hershenson, Enright, & Ettinger, 1996). As a result,

disability is best viewed not as a static construct that has a similar effect on all in-

dividuals, but as a socially defined construct that can be a risk factor to the

achievement of career and social participation (Pledger, 2003). From this perspec-

tive, we can understand that while the career development of individuals with

disabilities follows the same processes and is impacted by the same factors as the

career development of nondisabled individuals, having a disability exposes the

individual to unique experiences that influence their career development.

Despite decades of advances in special education and rehabilitation legisla-

tion and policy, the postschool outcomes for many youth with disabilities exiting

from special education programs remain dismal (Benz, Yovanoff, & Doren, 1997;

National Council on Disability [NCD], 2000). This state of affairs not only limits

opportunities to these youth but also guarantees that the financial and social

costs of their unfulfilled potential will be ones that the entire country continues

to pay well into this century. For example, information from the Social Security

Administration (SSA) indicates that about 350,000 youth ages 18 to 25 are receiv-

ing social security income supports rather than working. This alone costs tax-

payers more than $10 billion annually (NCD, 2000).

School reform initiatives popularized at the turn of the current century may

have limited impact on the more than 5.6 million special education students in

America, where, for example, less than 30% of them earn a high school diploma

(Wittenburg & Stapleton, 2000). In general, students who receive special educa-

tion certificates are more likely to be unemployed, more likely to earn less money

c23.qxd 8/5/04 9:31 AM Page 551

552 S

PECIAL

EEDS AND

PPLICATIONS

when they eventually secure work, and more likely to receive public assistance

than they would if they had obtained a high school diploma (Wagner, Blackorby,

Cameto, Hebbeler, & Newman, 1993; Yelin & Katz, 1994).

Unfortunately, the bleak future encountered by these youth is not improved

upon their entry to adulthood. The economic and labor force achievements associ-

ated with working age adults with disabilities significantly lag behind that of

adults without disabilities in America. Census data indicate that just over 30% of

individuals with work-related disabilities were in the labor force in 1998, com-

pared to the labor force participation of 82% of the general population. Of those

30% who were attached to the labor force, meaning that they were employed, re-

ceiving unemployment, or actively seeking a job, only 26% were working, com-

pared to 78% of their nondisabled peers (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000). The National

Longitudinal Transition Study (NLTS), the largest study of school-to-adult-life

transition of students leaving secondary special education programs, found that

only 20% of these students achieved what they considered successful adult ad-

justment by five years after graduation. Successful adult adjustment was defined

as independent functioning in three domains: (1) employment, (2) residential,

and (3) social activities (Wagner et al., 1993).

The barriers to work participation for youth and young adults with disabilities

have been addressed by federal legislation, policy initiatives, and vocational pro-

gram advances. Still, employment and educational data associated with this

group suggest that they continue to fare worse than any other group in America.

The purpose of this chapter is to review the context and issues confronted by

youth and young adults with disabilities as they manage their careers and work

lives. Specifically, we describe characteristics of the population, review signifi-

cant legislative and policy issues that influence career and employment, summa-

rize effective programmatic interventions, and recommend best practices.

DEFINITIONS OF DISABILITY

The U.S. Census (2000) reported that approximately 49.7 million Americans re-

port some type of disability. It requires little imagination to see the enormous

heterogeneity of abilities, limitations, and experiences that exist within this large

group. There are multiple types of disabilities (e.g., spinal cord injuries, develop-

mental disabilities, psychiatric disorders, sensory disorders, AIDS), all of which

exist along a continuum of severity in terms of their impact on the functional ca-

pacities of the individual. In addition, myriad factors influence an individual’s

reaction to disability, such as personality, age, intelligence, educational level,

family factors, gender, and exposure to discrimination and prejudice. All of these

factors, in turn, influence careers and employment (Patterson, DeLaGarza, &

Schaller, 1997). Given these factors, any definition of disability needs to be broad

enough to encompass them and to take into account the interaction of disability

and its functional attributes with the environment.

Although there is no one accepted or universal definition of disability, today

disability is understood as a multifaceted experience representing an interaction

of the person and the environment. Older definitions of disability equated the

idea of having an impairment, or a pathology, with having a handicap (Hahn,

1993). There was a presumed medical model assumption within this definition in

the sense that the problems and barriers the individual with a disability encoun-

tered could all be attributed to the impairment. The medical model solution to

c23.qxd 8/5/04 9:31 AM Page 552

Promoting the Career Potential of Youth with Disabilities 553

cational training was either to change the person by ameliorating the condition

to the extent possible or, where not possible, to compensate for the disability by

training the person to function in an alternative way.

Disability advocates in the 1960s argued against this medical model assump-

tion, proposing that disability could be understood as a barrier in the environ-

ment, not in the individual, and removing obstacles meant modifying the physical

and the social environment, not changing the person. The person-in-environment

construct that has emerged today not only reflects federal definitions of disability

but also provides a framework for rehabilitation and career interventions (Nagi,

1979). Recently, definitions describing disability as a positive attribute have

emerged (Swain & French, 2000). These new definitions (1) challenge the idea that

persons need to develop the skills and have opportunities to succeed despite their

disability and (2) present the possibility that persons can succeed with and because

of their disability, if the social/political environment is changed.

Being aware of emerging disability definitions is important because they af-

fect the attitudes and behaviors of both persons with disabilities and professionals

who provide services to them (Hershenson, 1996). Understanding the

meaning of

disability to the individual is crucial to understanding the impact of the disabil-

ity on his or her career development (Beveridge, Craddock, Liesener, Stapleton,

& Hershenson, 2002). Understanding how professionals define disability facili-

tates the selection of interventions that do not unintentionally impede career

and social participation outcomes of youth and young adults with disabilities.

Although there is consensus today about the multifaceted approach to under-

standing disability, there are still more than 20 different federal definitions of

disability written into various laws (National Institute on Disability and Reha-

bilitation Research, 1995). The most relevant laws, and those that would encom-

pass the majority of youth and young adults, include special education,

vocational rehabilitation, and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

The definition of disability within special education is codified in the Individ-

uals with Disabilities Education Act of 1997 (IDEA; PL 105-17). IDEA defines a

child with a disability as a child:

with mental retardation, hearing impairments (including deafness), speech or lan-

guage impairments, visual impairments (including blindness), serious emotional

disturbance (hereinafter referred to as emotional disturbance), orthopedic impair-

ments, autism, traumatic brain injury, other health impairments, or specific learn-

ing disabilities, and who, by reason thereof, needs special education and related

services.

The definition of disability under IDEA does not presume that the nature or ex-

tent of the disability needs to interfere with functioning in a life domain, as

stip

ulated in other laws, such as those that authorize adult services through the

public vocational rehabilitation services program. This situation can create diffi-

culties and confusion for many students as they leave school and come under the

adult system of services.

The federal vocational rehabilitation program (codified in the Workforce In-

vestment Act of 1998) defines disability as a physical, mental, or emotional im-

pairment that needs to present a “substantial impediment to employment.”

Similarly, the ADA(PL 101-336) definition of disability includes a physical, men-

tal, or emotional impairment that substantially limits functioning in a major life

c23.qxd 8/5/04 9:31 AM Page 553

554 S

PECIAL

EEDS AND

PPLICATIONS

activity, such as walking, learning, or working. Finally, disability is defined by

the SSA as a physical or mental condition that is “marked and severe” and that

can be expected to last not less than 12 months or that may result in death. While

the SSA does not provide services, it does provide income to some 8.1 million

beneficiaries under its disability income support programs (Social Security Ad-

ministration [SSA], 2002).

To an extent, the various definitions of disability have created confusion for

people with disabilities and their families. For example, there are about 5.6 mil-

lion children who meet the special education definition of disability, with the

largest disability category being learning disability (about 41%). However, not all

of these children meet the vocational rehabilitation definition of disability, a sta-

tus that limits their eligibility for certain types of services. This situation has cre-

ated aging-out phenomena for youth with disabilities who graduate or leave

secondary schools (where they have qualified for special services) and then enter

an adult system where their condition no longer meets more stringent require-

ments (Wagner & Blackorby, 1996).

The person-in-environment approach, as reflected in some federal definitions,

has important implications for career planning and vocational interventions.

First, it is equally important for counselors to have knowledge of working and

work environments as it is to have knowledge about specific disabilities. This

means that counselors must pay attention to how the physical and attitudinal en-

vironment creates career barriers for persons with disabilities. Second, it pro-

vides a foundation for considering that impairments or the associated symptoms

of impairments are not as relevant to vocational planning as are the functional

manifestations of them in a specific environmental context. For example, the fact

that an individual has schizophrenia with its characteristic symptoms is less im-

portant than how these symptoms are functionally relevant (such as attenuated

concentration) in a particular job context. Functional definitions of impairments

enable counselors and clients to develop strategies that reduce their effect on per-

formance. A final implication of this approach is that it emphasizes the impor-

tance of counselor knowledge about disability law and policy issues in order to

effectively assist youth and young adults in preparing for and securing jobs.

BARRIERS TO WORK

In American culture, work is understood to encompass both a sense of identity

and the primary means of attaining the economic and social benefits that con-

tribute to overall quality of life. Thus, employment has traditionally been among

the most critical measures of the status and progress of various groups in Amer-

ican society, including, for example, women, ethnic minorities, and people with

disabilities. It has also provided a general yardstick against which the quality of

various systems, whether educational, vocational, or social in nature, has been

measured.

For people with disabilities in America, employment has long represented a

significant challenge to full participation in society. For example, national polls

of individuals with disabilities consistently find that even though two-thirds of

working age people with disabilities are not employed, most want to work (Houn-

tenville, 2000). It is interesting that these discrepancies in employment participa-

tion tend to persist even in the face of more positive economic indicators and

higher employment rates in the general population (Schwochau & Blanck, 1999),

c23.qxd 8/5/04 9:31 AM Page 554

Promoting the Career Potential of Youth with Disabilities 555

as well as positive changes in the social and legislative climate for persons with

disabilities over the past decade or so. The persistent lack of employment among

individuals with disabilities suggests a complex array of factors, both intrinsic

and extrinsic, that contribute to this generally bleak picture. It is important for

career counselors to be familiar with the common obstacles to employment, and

those that have received the most attention in the literature are described next.

EDERAL

OLICY

ONCERNING

ISABILITY

ENEFITS AND

CCESS TO

EALTH

NSURANCE

People with disabilities who qualify for income support programs through the

SSA (some eight million adults and 880,000 children) may be discouraged from

considering employment because of fear of loss of benefits, particularly health in-

surance (SSA, 2002). This issue has been cited as one of the most severe in terms

of discouraging people with disabilities to return to work or to leave benefits

rolls and enter employment (Hennessey, 1997).

MPLOYER

TTITUDES AND

ISCRIMINATION

Despite the more positive media depiction of individuals with disabilities and

despite legislative advances such as the ADA, there have been only modest im-

provements noted in the attitudes and practices of employers (Unger, 2001). This

is a particularly salient barrier for individuals with certain highly stigmatized

conditions—such as emotional and mental disabilities, as well as chronic diseases

such as HIV/AIDS. These negative employment attitudes influence the hiring as

well as tenure and promotion of persons with disabilities (Schwochau & Blanck,

1999). More important, negative social attitudes, or stigma, may affect vocational

identity development for youth, thus interfering with several important career

processes described later.

ACK OF

DEQUATE

REPARATION FOR THE

ORKPLACE

The majority of young people with disabilities continue to lag behind their peers

in postsecondary school training and education (Wagner & Blackorby, 1996).

Young people with severe disabilities, such as mental and emotional disabilities,

or multiple ones, tend to receive inadequate preparation for jobs or leave school

before attaining employment (Benz et al., 1997). Inadequate preparation also

affects persons with mild disabilities. For example, the results of studies on the

career development of adolescents with disabilities found that they experienced:

1. Limitations in early career exploratory experiences.

2. Limited opportunities to develop decision-making abilities.

3. A negative self-concept resulting from societal attitudes toward persons

with disabilities (Conte, 1983; Ochs & Roessler, 2001).

ACK OF

OSTSECONDARY

DUCATION AND

OCATIONAL

RAINING

In today’s workforce, “the two new dominant labor groups are knowledge workers

and service workers” (Szymanski, Ryan, Merz, Trevino, & Johnston-Rodriguez,

1996, p. 18). As a result, there are new requirements for education and

the ability

c23.qxd 8/5/04 9:31 AM Page 555