Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation 29 (2008) 165–171 165

IOS Press

The power and relativity of Social Capital

Angela N. Parris∗ and Tamara A. Granger
The Arc of Monroe County, The Institute for Social Inclusion, Rochester, NY, USA

Abstract. The Arc of Monroe County recently developed two major initiatives designed to increase the social capital of individuals
we serve, our staff and our organization. One Good Turn was established in 2004 to demonstrate our commitment to volunteerism.
Only two years later our constituents had reported over 10,000 hours of community service in the Rochester area. Through this
reporting, we witnessed new relationships, shared knowledge and expanded resources. Community neighbors and businesses
understood more about people with disabilities and they began to see individuals we serve and our organization in a different
light – a useful and functional light; and our community was strengthened because of it. Soon after, The Institute for Social
Inclusion was established to begin driving the concepts of social capital throughout our community. This article shares what
we have learned about the power and impact that social capital has for people with disabilities. Throughout, there are examples
to document the critical relativity to vocation, school-to-work transition, and the role of service providers for individuals with
disabilities. WHY . . . ? The Arc of Monroe County has dedicated so many resources to furthering our person-centered services
through the cultivation of social capital.

Keywords: Disability, person-centered, social capital, inclusion, service providers

1. Introduction program, one job placement program and employs a

At The Arc of Monroe County in New York (The
Arc), we believe the people we serve, our employees,
and volunteers shall be contributing members of the
communities in which they live and work. We believe
in a community where all members are included and
valued as contributing members. We believe in the
abilities and dignity of all members. We believe in the
power of social capital for the individuals we serve, our
staff, volunteers and our community.
The Arc offers a variety of services that allow for
an individual’s optimal independence and full partic-
ipation and contribution to the community. With an
operating budget of over $32 million, The Arc has been
in business for over 50 years and currently serves 3,500
individuals with intellectual and developmental disabil-
ities and their families. The Arc operates 29 residences,
four day service programs, one vocational employment
∗ Address
for correspondence: Angela N. Parris, The Arc of Mon-
roe County, The Institute for Social Inclusion, 985 Elmwood Avenue,
Rochester, NY 14620, USA. Tel.: +1 585 672 2202; Fax: +1 585
672 2215; E-mail: a parris@arcmonroe.org.
staff of 850 full and part-time employees.
In recent years, The Arc has developed two new ini-
tiatives designed to increase the social capital of those
we serve, our staff and the agency – One Good Turn and
The Institute for Social Inclusion (ISI). The One Good
Turn Program began in 2004 in an effort to grow our
social capital as individuals and collectively through
volunteerism. Each member of The Arc family (in-
dividuals served, staff, board members) is encouraged
to give back to the local community that has given so
much to our agency over the years. Each Arc employee
is offered ten paid hours per year during their regular-
ly scheduled work shift to volunteer for another com-
munity organization. Those volunteering through the
program have been surveyed to determine impact areas
of interest and One Good Turn staff seek out and co-
ordinate agency sponsored volunteer activities that fall
within range of these areas of interest. Our numbers
have grown substantially over the last three years. The
2007 third quarter report shows over 10,000 hours of
service given to the Rochester community by members
of The Arc family.
Most recently, The Arc is in the midst of developing
The Institute for Social Inclusion (ISI). ISI will serve

1052-2263/08/$17.00  2008 – IOS Press and the authors. All rights reserved
166 A.N. Parris and T.A. Granger / The power and relativity of Social Capital
as a bridge to connect The Arc of Monroe County and
the community. By cultivating the social roles of peo-
ple with intellectual and developmental disabilities, ISI
develops the social capital of the individuals we serve
and the communities in which they live. ISI, a division
of The Arc of Monroe County, is a community resource
for opportunities to connect people with disabilities and
their surroundings. Parties served by ISI will grow so-
cial capital networks in order to progress through life
more easily and strengthen community building. The
Arc is currently working to open ISI’s facility. The fa-
cility will be a greeting space that will include a small
public lending library and a variety of resources about
the Rochester community, including online resources.
Additionally, assistance will be provided for those look-
ing to form connections within their community and the
space will be available for use by community groups
and businesses.
2. The Social Capital reality
Those with the least access to social capital are the
same people who could benefit the most from the help,
sympathy, fellowship and health benefits it offers [3].
It is estimated that between 40–70% of job seekers find
their jobs through contact with persons in their social
network [17]. Through interviews with the New York
State office of Vocational and Educational Services for
Individuals with Disabilities (VESID) and job place-
ment service providers, ISI learned that a minuscule
fraction of job seekers with disabilities find their jobs
through contact with persons in their social network.
In fact, most often, job seekers with disabilities re-
ly on the social capital of agencies or their individual
employment specialists to find employment. There is
currently little hard data around the role social capital
plays in the chances of a person with disabilities find-
ing employment. There is also no evidence that lo-
cal job placement service providers inquire about peo-
ple’s connections when initially assisting individuals
with finding employment. The disparity between the
amount of social capital job seekers with and without
disabilities possess and the clearly documented benefits
of relationships and social connections leads us to con-
clude that agencies providing services to people with
disabilities need to focus more time and resources in
the realm of social capital for individuals served. Our
agencies are in crisis, our communities are in crisis,
the people we support are in crisis and one common
denominator could help to change the situation – social
capital.
As the face of employment in America moves
through another evolutionary cycle, so do work options
for people with disabilities. Decreases in manufactur-
ing and industrial jobs have significant impact on to-
day’s rehabilitative options for vocational placement.
Job seekers in places like Western New York who re-
lied heavily upon large corporations such as Kodak and
Xerox for years are forced to consider alternative in-
dustries and smaller businesses. Rochester, New York,
has weathered an accelerated version of an economic
shift that has been happening nationally for 50 years.
In the process, our economic prospects have shifted
increasingly from a reliance on backs to a reliance on
brains [19]. These and other changes in the labor mar-
ket will create new opportunities for people with phys-
ical disabilities, but may also exclude those who can’t
access the technologies or the points of entry [21].
As social capital tends to do on a messo or mi-
cro scale, it presents practical benefits for individu-
als and communities. On a macro level, it also has
what economists call “positive externalities” which can
evolve into ways to dismantle more significant social
ills. That is, networks of trust and reciprocity not on-
ly benefit those within them, but also those outside
them [14]. The disparities which exist within the em-
ployment and vocational industries are a perfect ex-
ample of how social capital for people with disabili-
ties could bridge the gap between labor trends and the
employment of people with disabilities. Between now
and 2015 American industry will need between 10 and
15 million new workers [5]. Even so, our experience
continues to demonstrate that people with disabilities
are still struggling to enter the labor market. In fact,
while a job provides many opportunities to form strong
bonds with co-workers, individuals with special needs
have alarmingly high unemployment rates. There are
approximately 29 million Americans with disabilities
that are of working age, however, 67% are not par-
ticipating in the labor force despite reports that 79%
who are not working want to work [16]. The Arc of
Monroe County, through its experience in serving peo-
ple with disabilities through employment and vocation-
al services, attributes much of this gap to two signifi-
cant considerations, 1) the ability of employers to see
people with disabilities as a viable labor source and
2) the job-readiness or “employability” of people with
disabilities.
A largely untapped pool of human capital exists
among the collective groups of people with physical
 A.N. Parris and T.A. Granger / The power and relativity of Social Capital
and intellectual disabilities. A longstanding history of
segregation and stigmas associated with mental retar-
dation and developmental disabilities continues to be
prominent among the reasons people with disabilities
feel excluded from the labor market. As part of a study
conducted to increase understanding of employer atti-
tudes toward hiring people with disabilities, employers
in the Southeastern and Midwestern states were asked
to identify the most difficult position to staff, and the
likelihood that a person with a disability could perform
the job successfully. A majority of the employers inter-
viewed thought someone with a cancer diagnosis, heart
impairment or living with HIV could fill the position
and perform the job duties more easily than someone
with moderate or severe mental retardation. For this
particular study, cashier and food service were most
frequently cited as the job identified. This study further
cites three major reasons employer attitudes negatively
impact their ability to see people with disabilities as a
viable labor source:
– ineffective rehabilitation placement methods;
– employer hiring procedures designed solely to
avoid making risky hires; and
– negative attitudes kept in place by myths regarding
people with disabilities [9].
The passing of The Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA) laws and amendments have provided tremen-
dous opportunity for employers to learn how to recruit,
place and support people with disabilities in their busi-
nesses. However, the unknown or unfamiliar language
and practice of ADA remains a hurdle for employers’
ability to better understand cost, systems and implica-
tions of ADA. Many vocational rehabilitation (VR) pro-
fessionals do not approach the employer market with
the same aggressiveness as human resource profession-
als. Vocational Rehabilitative professionals often do
not capitalize on the value already identified by current
supportive employers; value such as job coaches, the
supports, the follow-up, the incentives and ease of ac-
commodations that come with supportive employment
relationships, but VRs don’t necessarily “push those
sales tactics.” As a result, employers’ fears or igno-
rance about systems cost and support go unanswered
or dimly responded to [20].
If VR professionals and service providers are to pro-
vide the most optimal employment and life experiences
to people with disabilities and community businesses
and partners, they must better understand the ability to
enhance the perceived value of individuals with disabil-
ities. Social Role Valorization (SRV) is the responsibil-
167
ity of every VR professional and service provider who
is committed to dismantling those significant myths as-
sociated with people we serve [6]. The major goal of
SRV is to create or support socially valued roles for
people in their society because if a person holds valued
social roles, that person is highly likely to receive those
good things in life that are available in that society
(work, family, friendship, dignity, respect, acceptance,
a decent material standard of living, opportunities for
work and self-support and at least normative place to
live) [6]. This concept is critical if we want to reduce
or eliminate the doubts, fears and misconceptions that
Employers have about people with disabilities in the
workplace.
There are two sides of this coin. This article demon-
strates the ability of VR professionals to positively af-
fect employers’ propensity for bias towards people with
disabilities. Even so, we can all agree that most jobs do
require some combination of skill and education. And
today, numerous barriers exist which limit the chances
for a person with disabilities to obtain the skills and job
readiness identified with success in sheltered, support-
ive or mainstream employment.
It’s a fact that physical disabilities can challenge a
person’s motor skills, affect his/her ability to perform
certain duties associated with physical skill, and impact
the ability to guarantee that no disruption to produc-
tivity will occur. Likewise, intellectual disabilities can
affect a person’s method of learning, ability to focus
and ability to respond to actions outside routine sce-
narios [8]. While important for job success, with some
modifications and supports, these skills can be intro-
duced and learned. However, more significant chal-
lenges occur around soft skills that are just as important
to the success of a person’s vocational experience, such
as managing multiple deadlines and demands, mak-
ing friends, absence of entitlement, and others. But
where are the opportunities for successful vocational
preparedness for people with physical and intellectual
disabilities?
3. The transition to success
Transition planning is planning for change, planning
for the future. Transition planning for individuals with
intellectual and developmental disabilities is designed
to facilitate movement into adulthood. IDEA (Individ-
uals with Disabilities Educational Act) indicates transi-
tion services should be made up of a coordinated set of
activities that promote movement from school to post-
168 A.N. Parris and T.A. Granger / The power and relativity of Social Capital
school activities. These services should be offered to
every student receiving special education services be-
ginning at age 16. These activities include daily liv-
ing skills, as well as employment readiness skills [10].
Transition planning is to be based upon the student’s
needs and takes into account his or her preferences
and interests and should include instruction, related
services, community experiences, the development of
employment and other post-school activities for adult
living. When appropriate, transition planning may ad-
dress the acquisition of daily living skills and function-
al vocational evaluation. A transition plan should also
address community participation or community inclu-
sion. In New York State, the Individualized Education
Program (IEP) serves as the coordinated set of activ-
ities. There is no separate transition plan developed.
Thus, the IEP should reflect the student’s interests, de-
sires and needed supports in relation to each of the
critical areas of transition [11].
Transition services are critical in assisting young
people with disabilities prepare for adulthood and
achieve their maximum level of independence. How-
ever, some students with severe disabilities may be
overlooked by educators during this critical time. Peo-
ple with severe disabilities may have difficulty learn-
ing and retaining job skills which results in perceptions
that this group is not capable of being successful in an
employment situation. In turn, these attitudes cause
further stereotypes and stigma development and reduce
the possibility that employers will realize the value of
considering people with more severe disabilities for
employment [11]. This group is stuck in a revolving
door of little exposure or opportunity.
When students with disabilities are offered a variety
of community experiences as part of their transition
plan and vocational preparation, they simultaneously
have the opportunity to build up their “bank” of social
capital. At this time, students are exposed to members
of the community with and without disabilities. Build-
ing vocational skills is a critical action during transi-
tion time, however, focus must also be given to rela-
tionship building skills, as well as encouraging rela-
tionships formed between students with disabilities and
community members. If relationship skills are taught
and relationships are fostered, these relationships may
come to benefit the student upon graduation or separa-
tion from the school system. These relationships may
lead to employment referrals, tips towards employment
opportunities and/or lasting friendships. Let us remem-
ber, 40–70% of people find employment through their
social networks [17]. People with disabilities should
also have the opportunity to build and benefit from their
connections.
Cimera [4] suggests “the notion that transition be-
gins in high school and ends whenever a student gains
employment or is considered to be ‘adjusted’ within
the community is outdated” [7] In fact, transition hap-
pens at all times in life and transitions affect each oth-
er. Getting an earlier start at transition planning within
the school setting and expanding upon the definition
of transition planning will, in turn, benefit young peo-
ple with disabilities when it comes time to seek em-
ployment. In fact, it can be argued that planning and
decisions made in younger years when students first
enter Special Education Services ultimately affect the
student’s transition into adulthood. Educational pro-
fessionals and service providers should continuously
work towards preparing people for the times these pro-
fessionals will not be present.
Another compounding factor in the future success of
youth is their level of education. Youth with disabilities
have a higher high school drop out rate when compared
to students without disabilities. In fact, the drop out
rate for youth with a disability is estimated at 37%,
whereas the drop out rate for youth without a disability
is about half that rate at 19% [4]. By getting an earlier
start at transition planning, schools could point services
in the direction identified by the student (where the stu-
dent sees themselves upon graduation) and there could
be more investment on the student’s part in their own
education. If the student is constantly reminded of their
end goal throughout their daily lessons and activities, it
might create more motivation and pride with a stronger
sense of direction. This tactic may keep students with
disabilities engaged in the educational process for a
greater duration of time.
Some students with disabilities who have dropped
out of high school cite social alienation as one of the fac-
tors that influenced their decision to discontinue their
education [22]. Along with supporting programs on di-
versity, acceptance, nonviolence and anti-bullying that
touch all levels of educational systems, educational fa-
cilities should also work to promote and enhance the
social and relationship building skills of students with
disabilities.
When young people with disabilities leave the school
system and enter into the world of adult services, the
traditional options available to them in regards to day-
time activity are: day habilitation, sheltered workshops,
pre-vocational services, enclaves and supportive em-
ployment. Our focus for this paper will remain on
supportive employment providers. Supportive employ-
 A.N. Parris and T.A. Granger / The power and relativity of Social Capital
ment (SE) providers spend a great deal of time assisting
people with disabilities in growing human capital, that
is providing training and education to assist individuals
in becoming more marketable in today’s job market.
Providers sometimes also touch on the cultural nuances
of employment such as appropriate attire and common
language used in a desired field. At this time in 2008,
however, it is unclear if providers spend time assisting
individuals in growing their social capital. Because
of levels of education and cognitive abilities, people
with intellectual disabilities are limited in their choices
of possible occupations, so it can be argued that so-
cial capital and relationships are even more critical in
importance for this population.
As pressure from experts in the field and self advo-
cacy groups continues to rise around the push to close
sheltered workshops, transition planning and support-
ive employment reforms need to react to this pressure
and evolve at a pace that keeps up with the needs of
people served and our communities. Sheltered work-
shops were originally developed as protective environ-
ments, environments in which people with disabilities
could work without competition or risk of rejection
or ridicule by co-workers. As we move towards a
more inclusive service system, some would argue that
sheltered workshops “fail to provide ‘normalized’ real
work, wages and least restrictive environments, there-
by perpetuating society’s devaluation of persons with
handicaps.” [18] In 2002, Vermont closed its last shel-
tered workshop [18]. As other states and regions fol-
low suit, sheltered employment providers will need to
prepare to handle an influx of people. Providers will
also need to look at the way they do business today.
Planning for the future earlier in life can begin by
using indicators for success. In 2006, Search Institute
published a document titled “40 Developmental Assets
for Adolescents” (ages 12–18) with the intent to identi-
fy critical factors that increase chances for young peo-
ple to grow up and become healthy, caring and respon-
sible citizens. Child Trends [12] and School Success
Profile [15] are also among the numerous organizations
that have researched indicators of success for youth de-
velopment. Among those documented, the following
‘assets’ were named as critical components in all three
studies:
– Civic Participation (Citizenship, Participation in
Community, Voting and Religious affiliation);
– Positive Identity (self-esteem, sense of purpose
and positive view of future); and
– Supports (Caring school climate, non-parent rela-
tionships and neighborhoods).
169
While many of the studies indicate variances for race,
gender and economic status, these studies do not pro-
vide data for disabilities. Like students without dis-
abilities, concepts of social capital, if introduced earlier
in life, can significantly increase chances for positive
outcomes related to the quality of life for students with
disabilities. Even so, few data systems identify peo-
ple with disabilities as a subpopulation and, therefore,
limited documentation exists to support this statement.
We did manage to learn about a national effort that
was started to set goals concerning children and youth
with disabilities. Managed by the Office of Disease
Prevention and Health Promotion and the U.S. Depart-
ment of Health and Human Services, Healthy People
is a collaboration of Federal Agencies, businesses and
community coalitions that provides a framework of na-
tional health objectives designed to identify the most
significant preventable threats to health and to estab-
lish national goals to reduce these threats. Their 2010
objectives for people with disabilities include:
– Eliminating the use of group care facilities for per-
sons aged 21 and under with disabilities;
– Increasing the proportion of children and youth
with disabilities. . . in regular education programs
to 60 percent (from 45 percent in 1995–96); and
– Reducing the percentage of children and adoles-
cents with disabilities who are reported to be sad,
unhappy, or depressed from 31 percent (in 1997)
to a targeted 17 percent [13].
From the Healthy People 2010 report, Fig. 1 illustrates
the mental status and participation in social activities
for adults with disabilities.
The same trend follows for children and young adults
who were also represented in this research. The indi-
cations of this national study clearly support the value
of introducing social capital concepts and strategies for
people with disabilities. A focus on the future demands
that we begin to look earlier in life at opportunities for
individuals and families of individuals with disabilities
to develop social capital in order to decrease or begin
to dismantle some of the major barriers to health and
wellness related to quality of life.
At The Arc of Monroe County, we continue to see
State Agencies (Office of Mental Retardation and De-
velopmental Disabilities, Finger Lakes DDSO, NYS
Association for Retarded Citizens) begin to reach out
to learn more about social capital and how it can bene-
fit people with disabilities and our communities in the
Western New York region. However, a systems ap-
proach presents many challenges that will take a long
170 A.N. Parris and T.A. Granger / The power and relativity of Social Capital
Mental Status and Participation in Social Activities
(by Disability Status, United States, 1997 and 1998)
Adults reported
satisfaction with life**
Adults reported sufficient
emotional support**
Adult participation in
social activities*
Adults reported feelings
intefering with activities* 7
Children reported sad,
unhappy, depressed* 17
People w ithout disabilities
time, a lot of money and resources, and a substantial
number of successes, before necessary changes can take
root.
Like many non-profits in the human service business
today, almost 95% of our organization’s funding comes
from government sources. With those dollars come
significant mandatory regulations in how services are
provided. Fifty years ago, when people with disabili-
ties and their families demanded safe places and help
to come out of the hidden places of society, dollars
designed to offer risk management and care for peo-
ple who were thought to not be able to do for them-
selves made sense. Today, people with disabilities have
proven their abilities in the workforce, at the voting
polls, in community service roles, in education and,
moreover, they have loudly expressed a desire to con-
tribute and belong. With so many efforts in the areas
of disability law, medical technology, integration into
‘mainstream society,’ and the safety and care for people
with disabilities, one area that has not been developed
in order to further those efforts is the area of social cap-
ital. Beyond services and individuals, as organizations
and communities, we must better understand how to
grow and deploy our social capital to begin dismantling
or working around major obstacles to strengthening our
communities and the people who live in them.
The Office of Mental Retardation and Developmen-
tal Disabilities (OMRDD) is guided by five governing
principles [2] to ensure that people with developmen-
tal disabilities receive supports and services to success-
87
96
70
79
95
100
28
31
People w ith disabilities
Fig. 1.
fully live in their chosen environment. Among those
listed, and continued throughout the theme of this arti-
cle, opportunity, choice and self-determination remain
high priorities for individuals we serve. If we (service
providers) are to live the guiding principles and values
stated in our organizational missions and vision state-
ment, we must, from social activities to habilitation,
not only support social capital concepts, but also get
better at understanding the places where the integra-
tion is taking place – our communities. Human service
providers to people with disabilities do not traditionally
look outside of current government resources for alter-
native funding. We have not historically benchmarked
our service practices with those of the for-profit world,
although we could learn from some of the practices such
as Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment Special-
ist processes cited earlier in this article. Regulations
and funding systems that have been in place for years,
provide very little or no opportunity for forward think-
ing initiatives such as exploring social models of ser-
vice. Thus, we as service professionals are challenged
to work creatively within the confines of the current
system. In light of these changes, there is an opportu-
nity to respond and plan forward with non-traditional
methods.
4. So what more can be done?
The number of journal articles listing social capital
as a key word before 1981 was 20. Between 1991
 A.N. Parris and T.A. Granger / The power and relativity of Social Capital
and1995, it totaled 109. Between 1996 and 1999, the
total was 1003 [1]. The language of social capital has
also entered the sphere of policymakers, journalists and
the media. This is significant progress in the realm of
social sciences and sociology. Still, a lot more research
and documentation must be supported in order to con-
tinue linking this knowledge to other disciplines, like
vocational rehabilitation, for that field’s advancement.
As resources continue to shrink within the typical
human service funding pools, the need to identify new
and sustainable funding pools to further that research,
becomes more critical. While current providers and
funding systems support the philosophy behind indi-
vidualized approaches (choice and quality of life) the
dollars that support these programs are not enough to
really deepen our systems with a person-centered ap-
proach. Service providers and related partners must
exercise our social capital and collectively push for leg-
islative and systematic changes to validate the impor-
tance of better understanding social capital on a meso,
micro and macro level.
And finally, we must never forget the voice of the
individuals we serve – people with disabilities. The
fluctuation in social capital over the last 40 years is
proof positive that people and communities do evolve.
And people with disabilities have always been in those
communities. From hidden and isolated places, to inte-
grated and inclusive environments, the cohesiveness of
our neighbors, friends, colleagues and others, depends
critically on the concept of relationships. Today, we
realize that the next step in the evolution is to ensure
that people with disabilities have ample chances to be-
come members of the community. It is our responsibil-
ity as professionals, practitioners, families and friends
to evolve with our communities, just as the voices of
people with disabilities have evolved over time.
References
[1] G.L. Bowen, M.E. Woolley, J.M. Richman and N.K. Bowen,
Brief intervention in schools: The School Success Profile,
Brief Treatment and Crisis Intervention 1 (2001), 43–54.
[2] A. Bussone, J. Cramp, P. Dakunchak and M. Rosen, Sheltered
employment and the second generation workshop, The Journal
of Rehabilitation 59 (1993).
[3] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute
on Disability and Rehabilitation Research, U.S. Department
171
of Education, Disability and Secondary Conditions, Healthy
People 2010.
[4] R.E. Cimera, From Bridges to Beyond: A Perspective of Spe-
cial Education’s Future, Journal of Disability Policy Studies
11 (2000), 1.
[5] B. Cobb, P.L. Sample, M. Alwell and N.R. Johns, Cognitive-
Behavioral Interventions, Dropout, and Youth with Disabili-
ties: A Systematic Review, Remedial and Special Education
27 (2006), 1.
[6] U.S. Department of Education, http://idea.ed.gov.
[7] M.A. Fox, B.A. Connolly, and T.D. Snyder, Education Sci-
ences: Youth Indicators 2005 – Trends in the Well Being of
American Youth, Statistical Analysis Report, (2005).
[8] K. Gardner, Center for Governmental Research Inc. Rochester
Business Journal 10/12/07.
[9] D. Gilbride, R. Stensrud, C. Ehlers, E. Evans and C. Peterson,
Employers’ Attitudes toward Hiring Persons with Disabilities
and Vocation Rehabilitation Services, Journal of Rehabilita-
tion 66 (2000), 1.
[10] R. Harper, Social capital: A review of the literature, London:
Social Analysis and Reporting Division, Office for National
Statistics (2001).
[11] A. Houtenville, 2004 Disability Status Reports: United States
Summary, Rehabilitation Research and Training Center on
Disability Demographics and Statistics, Ithaca, NY: Cornell
University, 2005. http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu.
[12] L. Kortering and P. Braziel, A Look at High School Programs
as Perceived by Youth with Learning Disabilities, Learning
Disability Quarterly 25 (2002), 1.
[13] National Employability Partnership, www.nod.org, page
id=1556.
[14] New York State Office of Mental Retardation and Devel-
opmental Disabilities, Five Governing Principles of OM-
RDD, http://www.omr.state.ny.us/document/hp c1 princ.jsp
NYS OMRDD.
[15] J. Osborn, An Overview of Social Role Valorization Theory,
SRV/VRS: The International Social Role Valorization Journal
3 (1998), 7–12.
[16] B. Potts, Disability and Employment: Considering the Impor-
tance of Social Capital, The Journal of Rehabilitation 71.3
(2005), 1.
[17] R. Putnam and L.M. Feldstein, Better Together, Simon &
Schuster, New York, 2003, p. 2.
[18] R. Putnam, Bowling Alone, Simon & Schuster, New York,
2000, p. 19.
[19] C.H. Stuart and S.W. Smith, Transition planning for students
with severe disabilities: policy implications for the classroom,
Intervention in School & Clinic 37 (2002), 1.
[20] E.M. Szymanski and H.T. Trueba, Castification of People
with Disabilities: Potential Disempowering Aspects of Clas-
sification in Disability Services, Journal of Rehabilitation 60
(1994), 1.
[21] The Arc of Monroe County, Facts and Myths about Disability,
2001.
[22] The Institute for the Future for UCP and the BIG SKY Initia-
tive (Adapted).
[23] Vermont APSE, www.vermontapse.org.