Research Project

Young people with learning difficulties and / or disabilities (LDD) have consistently expressed a desire to work yet face considerable disadvantages in gaining paid employment in the open job market. A supported internship programme (SIP) featuring a substantial work placement at a community-based employer and work based learning helps bridge the gap between education and employment. This report is interested in SIPs for young people with LDD, what graduate interns are doing after completing a SIP and if programmes that lead to particular outcomes (education, employment, unemployment) have identifiable features. Research on SIPs in the UK and their efficacy of supporting young people with LDD to gain employment is at a relatively undeveloped stage. Using recently published research on UK SIP trials, this report gives an insight into the variation between SIPs and identifies features that may be worth replicating locally, where a SIP does not exist. This report presents research demonstrating approximately 1 in 3 interns will gain paid employment of some kind. As this is an increase on current estimates of employment rates for people with LDD, having a SIP is more effective at supporting interns to gain paid employment than not having a SIP. This report finds that 1 in 2 interns will be unemployed or in voluntary work after completing a SIP and calls for further research, particularly longitudinal studies, supporting an evidence based approach to their development.

Introduction

I teach young people aged 16-25 at a medium sized, general college of Further Education (FE) in London. The college offers two general vocational courses designed for learners with LDD to equip them with the skills needed for employment. The courses offer fully accredited, national qualifications at Entry Level 3; learners study employment, personal and social development modules, Functional Skills in maths, English and ICT; participate in an enterprise in college and external work experience placement. Success rates and retention rates are typically 85% or higher on both courses and informal feedback from learners, families and staff suggests positive progress is made in learners’ confidence, social skills and ability to perform tasks independently.

Local problem

Since 2010/11 teaching staff believed that by completion of the courses, no learners progressed to paid employment, some returned to college to continue non-vocational education and some were not in employment, education or training. Most students and their families expressed a desire to gain employment. Learners are not tracked after exiting college and a comprehensive understanding of learner outcomes is unknown. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the vast majority of learners continue to not be in paid employment years after successful graduation. FE colleges report two national performance indicators to quantify ‘success’. Retention / participation rate is the percentage of learners who attend until the end of a course. Success / achievement rate is the number of learners registered on a course who successfully achieve the qualification. Ambitious about Autism (AAA) in Finished at School (2011, p.22) recommend reforming Government data collection to “focus on outcomes, destinations and satisfaction rather than purely on accreditation.” Ofsted (2011) found post-compulsory education provision for young adults with LDD is not monitored for its effectiveness by funding agencies or local authorities. While our college courses are, in educational terms, successful, arguably they appear to be failing to achieve the goal of supporting young people with LDD to gain paid employment.

National problem

Beyer (2012) reports, in surveys people with learning disabilities have consistently expressed their desire to be employed. Quality of life outcomes are substantially poorer for people with disabilities compared to the general population in education, housing, income, and employment (Parckar, 2008). In the final quarter of 2011, the employment rate for people with disabilities was 47% in comparison to 77% for people without disabilities (Labour Force Survey, Q4 2010, cited in Sayce, 2011). In 2009, an estimated 22% of learners with a declared disability and 13% of their peers were not in any form of education, employment or training (NEET) when they reached the age of 18 (Ofsted, 2011). Unemployment in early adulthood can have a negative effect on future employment outcomes (Gregg, 2001, cited in Burchardt, 2005). Emerson et al. (2012) report there are only estimates of the number of people with learning disabilities in England, some putting this at 1.5 million of working age. Estimates of the prevalence of people with LDD in employment vary from 8% to 16% (Labour Force Survey, Q2, 2011, cited in Purvis, Small, Lowrey, Whitehurst, & Davies, 2012) to, “7% amongst adults known to social services with moderate to severe learning difficulties” (CooperGibson Research & Disability Rights UK, 2013, p.93). Beyer (2012), estimates employment rates of 28% for people with mild / moderate learning disabilities, 10% for people with severe and 0% for people with profound learning disabilities.

Britain (2011, cited in Little, 2012, p.33) reports:

“…supporting one person with learning disabilities into employment could, in addition to improving their independence and self-esteem, reduce lifetime cost to the public purse by around £170,000 at today’s prices (£80,000 Net Present Value), and increase their income by between 55 and 95 per cent.”

Beyer (2012) reports nearly £70 million could be saved by supporting adults with an Autistic Spectrum Disorder (ASD) into employment and providing supported employment often costs less than day service places. Education can play a crucial role in improving the standard of living for people with disabilities by providing opportunities to gain skills and qualifications to increase employability (Sayce, 2011). The Sayce Report (2011) and the Wolf Report (2011) promote the importance of work experience as part of vocational learning to enable employability.

Supporting employment

Under the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act of 1944 people with disabilities in the UK gained paid employment in segregated factories or workshops known as sheltered employment. As a social model of disability and government legislation (notable in USA and UK since the 1990s) have increased integration and inclusion in the workplace, opportunities for people with disabilities have extended to community based, competitive employment as segregated employment diminishes (Beyer, 2012). Competitive employment refers to open employment were all people will compete for jobs based on merit. In the UK, Remploy is a government supported, national provider of sheltered employment and is transitioning to a privately owned, community-based, supported employment provider. Supported employment for a variety of cohorts, such as disabled or disadvantaged people, has a strong research base (for example Wehman, Keller, Kochany, & Williams, 1981; Kregel & Wehman, 1989; Wehman & Kregel, 1995; Bond, 2004; Beyer & Robinson, 2009) predominantly emanating from USA since the 1980s. Supported employment, sometimes referred to as ‘place, train and maintain’, has identifiable features that will include:

“…vocational profiling; job finding; employer engagement; and on / off job support measures, including the provision of an Employment Support Worker / Job Coach where needed.” (Beyer, 2012, p.185)

A significant amount of evidence has correlated work experience and work based learning with subsequent employment (Colley & Jamison, 1998, cited in Beyer & Robinson, 2009; Luecking & Fabian, 2000; Beyer, Kaehne, Grey, Sheppard & Meek, 2008) and identification of support required (Hughes & Carter, 2000, cited in Beyer & Robinson, 2009). Luecking and Fabian (2000, p.220) used logistic regression analysis and found a successful “structured employer-based paid internship” is, “strongly associated with improved post-school outcomes.” Beyer et al. (2008) also used logistic regression analysis that suggested work experience with well-designed, work awareness training, was significantly related to later employment for young people with learning disabilities.

Learners with LDD will require work experience with support, if they are to benefit from placements in relation to employability (Beyer & Robinson, 2009; Sayce, 2011). Ofsted (2011, p.9) recommended work experience providers should, “explore ways to provide job coaching and internships to prepare learners for open or supported employment and apprenticeships”.

The work placement allows contextual learning to take place helping interns to construct knowledge and meaning from new information through experience. While Piaget’s theories of individual constructivism are relevant to interns’ cognitive growth, Vygotsky’s ideas of social construction are perhaps more pertinent. A Job Coach is a temporary support and SIP staff should plan for fading out of the support they provide to eventual extinction (Rogan & Held, 1999). As with the person-centred approach to profiling and matching interns to a placement based on strengths, abilities and interests, scaffolding of support is guided by the contingency of the intern. Of great importance is the Job Coach’s role in allowing natural workplace supports to develop and social learning to take place allowing interns to reach their zone of proximal development through interactions with co-workers.

National work experience programmes in the UK

Apprenticeships is a national scheme managed by The National Apprenticeship Service, funded by the Skills Funding Agency. An Apprenticeship consists of paid work experience (minimum 30 hours per week) at a host employer with learning (national qualification), lasting one to four years for people aged 16 and above. Apprenticeships are available to people working at Level 2 (equivalent to 5 GCSEs grade A-C) and above. This entry criterion excludes people with qualifications below Level 2 from taking part and arguably excludes the majority of those with a learning disability. Access to Work provided by Jobcentre Plus provides a portion of funding required and advice for employers to support people with learning difficulties / disabilities in, though not limited to, Apprenticeships. Quantitatively, 85% of people completing Apprenticeships gain employment, with 64% staying with the same employer (Department for Business, Innovation & Skills, 2012, cited in Apprenticeships, 2012). Inclusive Apprenticeships (with support from a Job Coach and available at all academic levels) would appear to be an ideal opportunity to create employer based, paid, supported internships of up to four years.

For those with a Statement of Special Educational Needs (SEN) for whom “an Apprenticeship is not a realistic option” (Department of Education [DfE], 2012, p.9) the UK government committed £3 million to support trials of ‘supported internships’ and £4.5 million to 16 and 17 year olds NEET for “high quality work placements” or ‘traineeships’ as they have now been branded. Traineeships, also managed by The National Apprenticeship Service and launched during the writing of this report, are unpaid, learning (pre-employment training, English and maths) with work experience (6 weeks to 5 months of work experience, no hours per week quantified) for young people aged 16-24 with qualifications below Level 2, lasting up to 6 months (Traineeships, 2014).

The objective of a SIP is to transition young people with significant or atypical needs from education to sustainable, paid employment. Supported internships programmes exist in the UK, often on a local, ad-hoc basis. SIPs are generally identifiable by featuring a person-centred work placement fulfilling real business needs at a community-based employer, lasting a significant period of time with intensive, personalised in-job support (Job Coach using systematic instruction) and a learning element (Beyer & Robinson, 2009; Purvis et al., 2012; CooperGibson Research & Disability Rights UK, 2013).

Most features of a SIP are variable; for example, the client group, paid or unpaid, length of time at the employer, participating organisations and a single local programme to international model. Supported internships have also been called supported work experience or supported apprenticeships and share many features similar to supported employment.

I have identified 2 SIPs trialled in the UK within the previous 3 years and UK government policy (DfE, 2012) is currently proposing to extend this type of provision.

Project SEARCH SIP

Project SEARCH is a SIP founded at Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Centre in Cincinnati, USA in 1986, has over 200 sites and has been exported internationally (Project SEARCH, 2014). A trial of the Project SEARCH model was conducted in 2010-11 at 14 sites in the UK by Purvis et al. (2012) of the Centre for Economic and Social Inclusion (CESI) on behalf of the Office for Disability Issues. Project Search is an established, licenced model of SIP for young people with learning disabilities or ASD. Interns are based at a single employer which must be an organisation of 200 or more employees where both internship and learning element take place. Interns are at the employer for a minimum of 6 hours per day, 20-25 hours per week, full academic year (approximately 36 weeks) or until employment is gained. Interns rotate positions to try different roles. Interns learn an, “employability skills curriculum taught each morning and customised to the host employer and local labour market.” (Purvis et al., 2012, p.135) Monthly reviews are held with interns and families to discuss progress. Project SEARCH is a three way partnership with host employer, education provider and supported employment provider and each partner has specified, defined roles and responsibilities. The employer has significant involvement in running the SIP and supported employment providers (SEPs) give post-programme support.

Support and Aspiration SIP

Following proposed legislation, the DfE published ‘Support and Aspiration’ (2012) proposing trials of supported internships. In 2013, CooperGibson Research and Disability Rights UK on behalf of the DfE published ‘Supported internship trial for 16 to 24 year old learners with learning difficulties and/or disabilities: An evaluation’. The trial began in 2012 and all 15 sites chosen were UK FE colleges. Colleges were free to design their own programme while being guided by four underpinning principles; a substantial proportion of learning to take place in the workplace, additional learning to be provided outside of the workplace, the job roles undertaken to meet learner and employer needs and appropriate support to be offered throughout to both learner and employer (CooperGibson Research & Disability Rights UK, 2013). Most programmes meet all four principals. Most programmes used multiple host employers of varying sizes and hours spent at employers varied for each intern and programmes. The programmes were managed by colleges who were the lead partner, identifying placements, provided supporting staff (e.g. Job Coaches) and some used a third partner such as a
SEP or Jobcentre Plus. Learning usually took place at college 1 day per week, as a group of interns or individually integrated into other college courses.

My research proposal

The original purpose of this report’s research proposal was to analyse SIPs by identifying evidence of relationships between types of programme structure that produce particular outcomes for interns. Using an evidence based approach, should the college at which I teach create a SIP, and if so, could I suggest a SIP design to increase the number of students gaining paid employment?

A number of questions that I could not find answers to within the current literature included: Will more interns be in paid employment after attending a SIP at a single host employer compared to a programme with multiple employers? Could internships in a particular industry lead to more interns opting for employment, education or to not seek work? If the learning element is hosted at a college, will more interns return to education compared to learning element hosted externally? Are interns who spend significantly less time at an employer, more likely to not be in education, training or employment? Is a study of approximately 200 participants at 14 SIPs generalizable?

Design

I used a multi-strategy (mixed method) design. Firstly, collecting data on programme participant’s outcomes by fixed design, producing quantitative results through a questionnaire. Secondly, identifying SIP features using flexible design, producing qualitative data from case studies of a small number of programmes by semi structured interview. Response rates from SIPs were too low (n=3) to consider generalizable conclusions, therefore this report uses available literature to compare two models of SIP recently trialled in the UK.

Measuring outcomes

The evaluation report of Project SEARCH by Purvis et al. (2012) sets out criteria for evaluating the Project SEARCH SIP. The criterion is straightforward; three months after the completion of the programme, were the participants in paid employment? If the objective of employability programmes is to equip and support students into paid employment, then the employment rate for students after completing a programme is, arguably, an important method of measuring the efficacy of an internship model.

Figure 1. A comparison of outcomes for interns from Project SEARCH and Support and Aspiration trial SIPs

	Project SEARCH SIPs (Purvis et al., 2012)	Support and Aspiration SIPs (CooperGibson Research & Disability Rights UK, 2013)
Data recorded	3 months after the internship finished	in the final 2 months of the internship
Number of interns started the programme	132	222
Number in paid employment (of all interns starting)	41	68
% in paid employment (of all interns starting)	31%	31%
	Project SEARCH SIPs	Support and Aspiration SIPs
Number of interns completed the programme	101	190
% in paid employment	41%	36%
% of interns in education or training	3%	14%
% of interns NEET	43%	25%
% of interns in voluntary work / work experience	6%	26%
% of interns unknown outcome	8%	0%
Retention rate (% of interns completing the programme)	77%	85%
Success Rate (% of interns awarded a pass for the learning element)	not available	not available

Using frequency distribution to analyse employment rates, similar percentages of interns in paid employment were recorded for both programmes. Employment rates based on number of interns starting the programmes were both 31% with 5% more interns in paid employment after completing Project SEARCH SIPs than Support and Aspiration SIPs based on interns who completed their programme. The retention rate (percentage of interns who completed their programme) was greater for Support and Aspiration (85%) than Project SEARCH SIPs (77%) by 8%.

The following are percentages based on interns completing their SIP. Graduate interns returning to education or training were 14% for Support and Aspiration SIP interns and 3% for Project SEARCH SIPs a difference of 11%. This report will discuss if less variance in data collection dates may increase the difference of interns in education between SIP models.

Interns NEET, or to use more universal language, ‘unemployed’, were 43% for Project Search SIPs 3 months after the programme finished compared to 25% for Support and Aspiration SIPs in the last 2 months of the programme, a difference of 18%. This report will discuss if the structure of a programme may lead to greater numbers of NEET interns.

Interns gaining voluntary work (Purvis et al., 2012, prefer ‘Personal development including work experience’) were 26% for Support and Aspiration SIPs interns and 6% for Project SEARCH SIPs. A breakdown of voluntary work into part-time (1-15 hours) or full-time (16+ hours) was not available. Beyer and Robinson (2009) state evidence is mixed on the benefits of voluntary work leading to paid employment and were unable to find research specifically for people with LDD. It could be argued there is little difference in status between voluntary work and unemployed, in comparison to being in paid employment, the primary objective of a SIP. Combining NEET and voluntary work outcomes gives similar figures (49% Project SEARCH SIPs, 51% Support and Aspiration SIPs) and it could be said 1 in 2 graduate interns for both SIP models were either unemployed or in voluntary work.

Outcomes for 8% of interns were unknown for Project SEARCH SIPs and all interns had their outcome recorded by Support and Aspiration SIPs. Using the number of interns starting the programmes, outcomes for 40% of interns is unknown for Project SEARCH SIPs and 14% of Support and Aspiration SIPs. A study with 40% of outcomes for interns is unknown raises questions of validity, however, I can find no evidence that attempts were made to record outcomes for interns who did not complete the programme.

Structure of programmes

Data from the two reports chosen for comparison suggests no conclusion can be drawn on the efficacy of one SIP model over the other to support interns into paid employment as both report about 1 in 3 interns will gain paid employment of some kind. This is an increase on recent best-case estimates of employment rates for people with LDD of 16% and both featured reports conclude that having a SIP is more effective at supporting people with LDD to gain paid employment than not having a SIP.

Both models of SIP share features such as a cohort of young people with LDD, a significant period of time spent at work placements fulfilling real business needs, community based host employers, involvement of an educational provider, learning programme, vocational profiling of interns, job matching, personalised support and on the job support from specialist staff often using systematic instruction.

There are identifiable differences between the models worth highlighting. Project SEARCH has an eighteen year history and programmes featured in Purvis et al. (2012) were a mix of newly created and established programmes. The programme model is a trademark, licensed from Project SEARCH Cincinnati and all programmes are expected to follow the model’s defined, organisational structure. SIPs featured in the Support and Aspiration trial were newly created, with autonomy to design their own approach.

A Project SEARCH intern spends a specified minimum number of hours per day and per week at the host employer, for example, a hospital or local authority, fulfilling real business needs (Purvis et al., 2012). Based on a 36 week academic year, an intern would expect to complete at least 720 hours per year at the employer for a minimum of 6 hours per day, 20-25 hours per week. Interns rotate positions trying different roles based on vocational profiling and jobs available at the employer, for example, completing 3 different job rotations in 1 academic year. The intern would have 1 classroom based learning session at the host employer at the beginning of each day or 1 full day.

A Support and Aspiration intern spends a “substantial proportion” of the internship at a host employer typically based on their vocational profile and most positions fulfil real business needs (CooperGibson Research & Disability Rights UK, 2013, p.9). Interns have flexibility with time at their placement, depending on each employer, allowing a more personalised programme and for most interns this will be between 3 and 25 hours per week. Employment could be faded in and hours increased as appropriate or employment hours reduced, if considered appropriate. The intern will have classroom based learning, usually a day at college with other interns.

Project SEARCH specifies defined roles and responsibilities for each of the three partners involved in managing the programme; host employer, education provider and supported employment provider. The employer has significant involvement in running the SIP and like all partners, is, “committed to the aims of securing employment for interns” (Purvis et al., 2012, p.116). The organisational structure of the Support and Aspiration SIP trials has an FE college as the dominant partner although there is no evidence to suggest an FE college must either be involved or be the leading party. CooperGibson Research and Disability Rights UK, (2013) discussed some employers seeing their role as offering a work experience placement and not the opportunity of paid work. They state, finding appropriate host employers was a major difficulty for Support and Aspiration SIPs and the use of multiple employers of varying sizes offered significant challenges in comparison to a single host employer. It is perhaps unsurprising some Support and Aspiration SIPs reported plans to move from multiple employers towards the majority of internships coming from a single employer and a minority of individual internships at individual employers.

CooperGibson Research and Disability Rights UK (2013), reported Support and Aspiration SIP staffs’ general agreement of the need for the SIP to be distinct from college courses and this report suggests following the Project SEARCH model of holding classroom learning at the employer would further increase the gap between SIP and college.

There is some variation in the content of classroom based learning element. Some evidence from both reports recommends this should include experiential learning, i.e. learning through reflection on doing (Kolb, 1984) and other evidence suggests interns’ social skills have affected job retention (Beyer & Robinson, 2009).

A significant quantity of research (Luecking & Fabian, 2000; Beyer et al., 2008; Beyer & Robinson, 2009; Beyer, 2012; Purvis et al., 2012; CooperGibson Research & Disability Rights UK, 2013) states the need for ongoing support after graduation from a SIP. This may include job searches and support in employment, such as intensive support from a Job Coach. Responsibility for graduated interns should be clearly defined, perhaps at governmental level. Project SEARCH suggest the supported employment provider (such as a national organisation as Remploy) should manage and track graduate interns and could support graduates in employment, however, I am unclear if SEPs in the UK provide the same level of individual support (job profiling, individual support, systematic instruction), as SIPs.

Purvis et al. (2012) and CooperGibson Research and Disability Rights UK (2013), reported some SIPs were unable or chose not to strictly adhere the guidelines of each model. Some programmes chose to manage the programme differently for reasons including individual intern needs, funding constraints, local labour markets, location, partnership agreements and staffing constraints. Evidence in both reports would suggest Project SEARCH is the tighter model with specific ‘top-down’ directions on “model fidelity” (Purvis et al., 2012, p.116) if SIPs want to retain the Project SEARCH brand, while Support and Aspiration SIPs appear a much looser model. An indicator that interns find their SIP ‘too tight’ may be in the retention rate and further research is suggested to investigate a relationship between flexibility of model and drop-out rate. If interns find working 20 hours per week or more followed by a day in the classroom too challenging, then they may vote with their feet and leave the SIP. Project SEARCH SIP’s retention rate was lower with 23% of interns not completing programmes while 15% of interns did not complete Support and Aspiration SIPs. Conversely, as previously discussed, some evidence (Luecking & Fabian, 2000) suggests a relationship between length of internship and employment rates. An indicator that SIPs are ‘too loose’ may be a decreasing employment rate and further research is suggested to examine a relationship between flexibility of SIP model and employment rates. Fullan (2007) may advocate the answer to the tightness / looseness conundrum is a balance of the two and perhaps a top-down approach to retain fidelity of a SIP with programmes given some freedom to adapt the model to meet local needs.

Figure 3. A comparison of programme features of Project SEARCH and Support and Aspiration trial SIPs

Project SEARCH SIPs (Purvis et al., 2012)	Support and Aspiration SIPs (CooperGibson Research & Disability Rights UK, 2013)
Founded in 1986	2012 government proposals named ‘Support and Aspiration’ to trial supported internship programmes
Established, specific, licensed model	Programmes free to design own approach, 4 guidelines. No central leadership team. SIPs in trial “broadly similar”
Single host employer which must be an organisation of 200 or more employees	No guidelines. Most colleges used multiple employers. Many had difficulties securing internships
720 hours per year (based on a 36 week academic year) at the employer for a minimum of 6 hours per day, 20-25 hours per week, full academic year	Not quantified. A “substantial proportion” of internship to take place in the workplace. Not all programmes achieved this or believed it appropriate for all interns. Report calls for this to remain open and flexible. “All” colleges emphasise the need for flexibility due to local environment
Interns rotate positions to try different roles	No guidelines
Internship and learning element take place at host employer	Learning element to be provided outside of the workplace, usually at College
Monthly reviews are held with interns and families to discuss progress. Programmes did not feel regular monthly meetings were always required	Meetings take place, no evidence regular meetings held. No guidelines
Learning staff, i.e. Job Coaches to be trained in systematic instruction. Learning support staff recruited by supported employment provider	Learning staff, i.e. Job Coaches to be trained in systematic instruction. Learning support staff recruited by FE college
3 way partnership with host employer, education provider and supported employment provider. Each partner has specified, defined roles and responsibilities	FE College takes lead and matches intern with suitable employment placement. Some colleges developed partnerships with supported employment providers, careers organisations, Jobcentre Plus and used Access to Work (SFA) funding
The employer has significant involvement in organising the SIP	No evidence
Supported employment provider gives post-programme support	Colleges recommended to provide post-programme support

Threats to validity and reliability when comparing the reports

Initially, it could be argued that both types of SIPs produce roughly similar percentages of interns in paid employment and there is no compelling argument for the efficacy of either model over the other. Differences in design of data collection between the reports threaten both the reliability and validity of comparison in this report.

Project SEARCH SIP’s outcome data was collected 3 months after the programmes finished. Support and Aspiration SIPs data was collected in the final 2 months of the programme giving a time spread of up to 5 months, decreasing the reliability of comparisons in this report. During the gap between the programme ending and data collection, factors may affect destination outcomes. Luecking and Fabian (2000) identify a drop in employment rates over 6 month intervals (to 18 months) post-programme for students with disabilities (n=3,024) on a school to work internship programme in USA. It could be argued, that data collected closer to the finish of a programme may produce higher employment rates than data collected later.

Definitions of paid employment vary. Only Purvis et al. (2012) displayed data showing part-time and full-time employment rates achieved. CooperGibson Research and Disability Rights UK (2013) include Apprenticeships as a type of paid employment, whereas Apprenticeships is classified as education / training by Purvis et al. (2012). The Support and Aspiration SIP report authors also noted interns gaining paid employment also included seasonal, agency and temporary contracts. Luecking and Fabian (2000) identified an attrition rate of employed interns as time post-programme lengthened and the temporary nature of some jobs strongly suggests the need for longitudinal research of SIPs to measure the extent of increasing or decreasing employment rates of graduated interns. Additionally, data could be recorded in more detail showing types of paid employment, for example, permanent contracts, temporary contracts, etc.

Mortality may threaten internal validity of this report as 23% of Project SEARCH interns did not complete the programme resulting in outcomes not being recorded and 3 of 14 Project SEARCH SIPs returned no data (Purvis et al., 2012). Robson (2011) states threats to external validity or generalizability are selection, setting, history and construct effects. Selection of groups studied may be determined by those projects or participants that respond to data collection requests. If, for example, ‘successful’ or employed participants are more likely to respond to questionnaires asking for outcome data, reported unemployment rates will appear much lower than in reality. The variance between both models, particularly Support and Aspiration SIPs poses a threat to generalization of results, in both the individual SIP reports and this comparison report.

Measuring success

It has been argued (AAA, 2011; Purvis et al., 2012; CooperGibson Research & Disability Rights UK, 2013) that interns’ employment rate is too narrow a definition of ‘success’ and other positive outcomes could be used to measure success of SIPs such as returning to education, how participants feel about a programme, i.e. satisfaction; independence and confidence. Paid employment may be the measure of a successful internship, however, interns may decide this is not the best outcome and choose an alternative destination, e.g. return to education to learn ICT, a skill deficit identified while an intern. Six months after completing Bridges Internship Program, 43% of participants were in post-secondary education (Luecking & Fabian, 2000). There is real danger that programmes providing data on programme outcomes may perceive pressure to compete with others on ‘success rates’ introducing an affect similar to compensatory rivalry.

Recommendations when creating a SIP

A number of limitations in comparing evidence from the 2 SIP reports has been indicated, however, useful recommendations for SIP organisational structure can be inferred. Based on available evidence, this report recommends creating a SIP with the following features:

Work placement fulfilling real business needs
Community based employer
Vocational profiling
Job matching
Intensive personalised support (e.g. Job Coach) using systematic instruction
Classroom based learning element
Classroom learning located in an environment which increases the distinction from a typical education programme, e.g. at host employer, SEP or alternative environment
A balance between a top-down approach to retain SIP fidelity with the programme staff given freedom to adapt the model to meet local needs. For example, a quantified number of hours at host employer per year rather than per day allows flexibility in varying hours to fade in interns, meet seasonal demand, etc.
A majority of internships coming from a single employer with the capacity to offer multiple internships and a minority of individual internships at individual employers
Managed by a partnership where all parties have an interest in securing employment for young people with LDD
Partnership with defined roles and responsibilities
Partnership with at least a host employer(s), education provider and SEP
Post-programme support from SEP or similar partner

Recommendations for further research

Longitudinal studies may answer a number of open hypotheses proposed in this report. Further research is required to identify if employment rates increase or decrease after interns complete a SIP and if relationships between variables can be identified. Beyer and Robinson (2009) report in research on the variance of job retention rates ranging from 88% over a 12 month period to 28% lasting between 12 and 24 months. We know that interns taking temporary jobs (seasonal, temporary contracts, etc.) are classified in CooperGibson Research and Disability Rights UK (2013) as employed, yet we do not know the interns status after completing the initial temporary contract. Longitudinal research of SIPs would help determine if temporary jobs increase or decrease the probability of further paid employment.

Graduate interns returning to education or training were 14% for Support and Aspiration SIPs and 3% for Project SEARCH SIPs. If Support and Aspiration SIPs had collected data 3 months after the programme finished, which falls during term 1 of the new academic year, would there have been a significant rise in the number of graduated interns classified as ‘in education or training’? Would the 51% of graduated interns surveyed as NEET, voluntary work or work experience outcomes return to college? Would interns originally in paid employment with expired temporary / seasonal contracts return to college, increasing education outcomes further? Data suggests the need for further research of the working hypothesis, that Support and Aspiration SIPs (FE college lead, learning element at college) will have greater numbers of graduates returning to education than Project SEARCH SIPs (partnership model, employer based, learning element at employer). I am interested in testing the hypothesis that the greater the role of the educational partner in a SIP, the greater the numbers of interns returning to education after completing the SIP and variables that may affect this relationship. Differences in SIP models included in this report have been identified as, classroom learning location (employer or college), Job Coach employment backgrounds (SEP or college), post-programme support (SEP or college) and SIP organisational structure (minor college role or lead partner). There are positive reasons for returning to college, for example, an internship could inspire or identify the need for further education. Colleges may encourage graduate interns not in paid employment to return to college and I would rather young people were at college, participating in positive learning activities, than languishing at home or on street corners. Students attending and successfully completing qualifications are the primary source of income for colleges and both students under 25 and students with significant support needs attract higher rates of funding. A primary objective of SIPs is to transition young people with LDD from education to employment and it could be argued, if significant numbers of graduate interns are returning to education and are not actively seeking employment, the SIP is failing.

The evidence examined in this report suggests close to 2 in 3 interns will not be in paid employment up to 3 months after completing a SIP and 1 in 2 will be NEET or in voluntary work. Interns NEET were 43% for Project Search SIPs 3 months after the programme finished compared to 25% for Support and Aspiration SIPs in the last 2 months of the programme. Further research could examine if interns at a SIP less strongly associated with an education provider are more likely to become NEET after graduating. If so, it may be worth discussing if a higher number of ‘job seekers’ is seen as an acceptable outcome of the greater distance travelled in the transition from education to employment. Additionally, if an intern gains voluntary work, will this increase the probability of paid employment?

An indicator that interns find the structure of a SIP ‘too tight’ may be in the retention rate and further research is suggested to investigate a relationship between tightness / looseness of SIP model and drop-out rate. An indicator that SIPs are ‘too loose’ may be a decreasing employment rate and further research is suggested to examine a relationship between flexibility of SIP model and employment rates.

Conclusions

Evidence from reports on Project SEARCH and Support and Aspiration SIPs suggests no conclusion can be drawn on the efficacy of one SIP model over the other to support young people with LDD into paid employment as both suggest approximately 1 in 3 interns will gain paid employment of some kind. As this is an increase on current estimates of employment rates for people with LDD, evidence suggests, having either SIP is more effective at supporting interns to gain paid employment than not having a SIP. This report states that 1 in 2 interns will be unemployed or in voluntary work after completing their SIP.

UK SIPs and research of their efficacy of supporting young people with LDD to gain employment is at a relatively undeveloped stage and some scepticism of the validity and reliability of the comparison of research in this report must be exhibited. This report hopes further research, particularly longitudinal studies, will lead to an evidence based approach to the development of SIPs in the UK.

Paul Straitt

References

Ambitious about Autism (2011). Finished at School: Where next for young people with autism? Online. Available at www.AmbitiousAboutAutism.org.uk (accessed 29 December 2012)

Beyer, S., Kaehne, A., Grey, J., Sheppard, K., & Meek, A. (2008). What Works?–Transition to employment for young people with learning disabilities. Final Report, Shaw Trust, Chippenham. Online. Available at http://www.shaw-trust.org.uk/files/shaw_trust_summary_report.pdf (accessed 29 December 2012)

Beyer, S., & Robinson, C. (2009). A Review of the Research Literature on Supported Employment.: A Report for the cross-Government learning disability employment strategy team. Online. Available at http://base-uk.org/sites/base-uk.org/files/%5Buser-raw%5D/11-06/research_literature_review.pdf (accessed 29 December 2012)

Beyer, S. (2012). The progress towards integrated employment in the UK. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 37(3), 185-194.

Bond, G. R. (2004). Supported employment: evidence for an evidence-based practice. Psychiatric rehabilitation journal, 27(4), 345.

Burchardt, T. (2005). The education and employment of disabled young people: frustrated ambition. Online. Available at http://www.jrf.org.uk/publications/education-and-employment-disabled-young-people (accessed 15 Aug 2014)

CooperGibson Research & Disability Rights UK (2013). Supported Internship Trial for 16 to 24 Year Old Learners with Learning Difficulties and/or Disabilities: an Evaluation (DfE Research Report 314). London: DfE [online]. Available: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/263205/DFE-RR314.pdf (accessed 20 January 2014)

DfE (2012). Support and Aspiration - A New Approach to Special Educational Needs and Disability - Progress and Next Steps. Online. Available at https://www.education.gov.uk/publications/standard/publicationDetail/Page1/DFE-00046-2012 (accessed 29 December 2012)

Emerson, E., Hatton, C., Robertson, J., Roberts, H., Baines, S., & Glover, G. (2012). People with Learning Disabilities in England: 2011. Online. Available at http://www.arcuk.org.uk/membersarea/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/IHAL-PWLD-England-2011.pdf (accessed 29 December 2012)

Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change. Routledge.

Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development (Vol. 1). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Kregel, J., & Wehman, P. (1989). Supported employment: Promises deferred for persons with severe handicaps. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 14(4), 293-303.

Little, P. (2012). Creating an Inclusive Apprenticeship Offer. Online. Available at http://www.apprenticeships.org.uk/~/media/documents/AU-CreatingAnInclusiveApprenticeshipOffer-Report-May2012.ashx (accessed 29 December 2012)

Luecking, R. G., & Fabian, E. S. (2000). Paid internships and employment success for youth in transition. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 23(2), 205-221.

Ofsted (2011) Progression post-16 for learners with learning difficulties and/or disabilities. Online. http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/resources/progression-post-16-for-learners-learning-difficulties-andor-disabilities (accessed 29 December 2012)

Parckar, G. (2008). Disability Poverty in the UK. London: Leonard Cheshire Disability. Online. Available at www.lcdisability.org/download.php?id=900 (accessed 29 December 2012)

Purvis, A., Small, L., Lowrey, J., Whitehurst, D. & Davies M. (2012). Project SEARCH Evaluation: Final Report. Office for Disability Issues. Online. Available at http://www.cesi.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/project-search-report.pdf (accessed 29 December 2012)

Robson, C. (2011). Real world research: a resource for users of social research methods in applied settings. Chichester: Wiley.

Rogan, P. M., & Held, M. (1999). Paraprofessionals in job coach roles. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 24(4), 273-280.

Sayce, L. (2011). Getting in, staying in and getting on: disability employment support fit for the future. Online. Available at www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/sayce-report.pdf (accessed 29 December 2012)

Sims, D., Southcott, C., Lynch, S., & Wade, P. (2013). Evaluation of the Work Experience Placement Trials: research report.

Wehman, P., Keller, J., Kochany, L., & Williams, W. (1981). Competitive employment: New horizons for severely disabled individuals (pp. 93-110). Paul H. Brookes, Publishers.

Wehman & Kregel (1995). Supported employment: at the crossroads. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 20, (4), 286-299.

Wolf, A. (2011). Review of vocational education: the Wolf report. Online. Available at https://www.education.gov.uk/publications/standard/publicationDetail/Page1/DFE-00031-2011 (accessed 29 December 2012)

Web sites:

Apprenticeships. Available at http://www.apprenticeships.org.uk/ (accessed 29 December 2012)

Disability Equality Indicators. http://odi.dwp.gov.uk/disability-statistics-and-research/disability-equality-indicators.php (accessed 12 January 2013)

Project SEARCH. Available at http://www.projectsearch.us/About.aspx (accessed 27 July 2014)

Traineeships. Available at http://www.apprenticeships.org.uk/traineeships.aspx (accessed 27 July 2014)

Appendices 1-3

Appendix 1