Content uploaded by Pamela Luft
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Pamela Luft on Mar 09, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
51
Communication barriers for deaf employees:
Needs assessment and problem-solving
strategies
Pamela Luft
Kent State University, Dept. of Educational
Foundations and Special Services, 405 White Hall,
P.O. Box 5190, Kent, OH 44242-0001,USA. Tel. +1
330 672 2294, +1 330 672 2396 (tty); Fax: +1 330
672 2512; E-mail: pluft@educ.kent.edu
Deaf people experience higher rates of unemployment and
underemployment and earn lifetime wages that are between
$356,000 and $609,000 less than their comparably educated
normally hearing counterparts. This results in a substantial
loss of earning power and career identity for members of
this underutilized population of workers. This article exam-
ines how communication difficulties pose a major barrier to
employment retention and advancement for deaf employees.
These barriers exist (a) within the employee in terms of non-
fluent use of English and reliance upon American Sign Lan-
guage, (b) with the employment site, and (c) with agency
service personnel. Primarily, these barriers reflect a lack of
understanding of the cultural and communication needs of
deaf people. Strategies to ameliorate these barriers include a
model of long-term employment support using an ecological
framework.
Keywords: Deafness, employment barriers, communication,
deaf community
1. Introduction
Deafness is a disability that significantly impacts the
communication; educational achievement; and there-
fore, vocational training and placement options for
these individuals. An examination of the jobs that deaf
people are able to secure shows that they are often un-
deremployed and underproductive in relation to their
abilities. Welsh [33] estimated that, over a lifetime of
employment, deaf people earn between $356,000 and
$609,000 less than their comparably educated normally
hearing counterparts. Further evidence is found in lim-
ited career status movement of deaf workers. Deaf peo-
ple enter the work world with an average career sta-
tus slightly above that of service workers [34]. This
increases only slightly over 20 years. In comparison,
hearing people begin their careers at comparable status
levels to deaf people but after 20 years have increased
significantly to the level of technicians, sales, and ad-
ministrative support (clerical) workers [34]. Exami-
nation of pay grades for federal civil servants shows
white-collar deaf workers to be consistently below
other white-collar workers. In 1990, white-collar deaf
workers averageda pay grade of GS 5.7 in comparison
to workers without disabilities (GS =8.7) and other
workers with disabilities (GS =6.7) [9].
Two years after graduation from high school, only
24% of deaf individuals were working full-time and
38% were attending postsecondary training [32]. Of
those respondents remaining, 14% were working part-
time and 16% were not involved in any productive
employment-related activity. Over the past several
decades, there has been little substantive improvement
in the employment outcomes reported by deaf work-
ers despite professional training efforts and a growing
awareness of the needs of this population. The need for
quality rehabilitation and employment-related services
persists.
Interactionand communicationdifficultieshavebeen
a significant contributor to poor employment rates, and
they continue to be the primary issue contributing to a
lack of advancement and/or job maintenance difficul-
ties [6,9,18,22]. Inappropriate communication strate-
gies and responses often lead to serious job repercus-
sions for deaf employees. Both communication and so-
cial skills are necessary for them to relate successfully
with co-workers and to perform their job responsibili-
ties capably [14]. Communication problems have been
documented as hindering deaf persons’ vocational at-
tainment due to the resulting information deficits and
lack of awareness of employment options [19]. Belk-
Work 14 (2000) 51–59
ISSN 1051-9815 / $8.00 2000, IOS Press. All rights reserved
52 P. Luft / Deaf communication barriers
nap, Korwin, and Long [3] state that the employment
setting often presents significant communication bar-
riers resulting from deaf persons’ frequently nonfluent
command of English, their lack of knowledge about
the “hearing culture,” and a lack of access to inciden-
tal information, among other issues. Scherich [23]
identified accommodations that facilitate communica-
tion as essential to a deaf employee’s career mainte-
nance and advancement. All of the six specific work-
place situations that employers identified as problem-
atic for their deaf or hard-of-hearing employees were
communication-related: inservice/training, socializing
with co-workers, department/staff meetings, work re-
lated social functions, receiving instructions and super-
vision, and performance evaluation [23].
Scheetz [22] compiled lists of barriers to employ-
ment among deaf individuals examined across several
studies. She found employment site barriers to be sub-
stantial, including resistive attitudes (not wanting deaf
employees) and permissiveattitudes (will consider deaf
applicant but s/he must fit this organization). Research
results from a study by Luft [17] document that 77% of
reasons for deaf people leaving employment positions
were negative. A majority of these suggested commu-
nication difficulties with supervisors and co-workers in
terms of basic job expectations and performance stan-
dards that reflected both resistive and permissive atti-
tudes.
The employment positions that deaf people do ob-
tain often place them in situations in which they are
intellectually superior to normally hearing persons em-
ployed in the same type of work [18]. Moores states
that it is no surprise then, that deaf individuals tendto be
rated as good or even superior workers. Despite good
ratings, many supervisors believe these same deaf em-
ployees to have limited opportunities for advancement
or further training [18]. Similarly, Welsh [34] found
that deaf employees were less likely to move upward in
occupational rank as measured by the skill and educa-
tion requirements, typical earnings, and the perceived
prestige of each position. In comparison with normally
hearing workers, deaf people make fewer changes in
their careers to enhance their earnings, to improve their
position or employer, or to increase the amount and
type of responsibilities assigned [34].
Deaf employees are aware of these employment lim-
itations and often perceive their employment opportu-
nities to be limited to manual labor and semi-skilled po-
sitions. In fact, nearly 90% havemanuallabor positions
in comparison to the 50% rate among normallyhearing
persons [22]. The underutilization of this population
represents an important loss of productivity and con-
tribution to the American economic market. Clearly,
the vocational rehabilitation and employment support
services that deaf workers have received to date have
been insufficient or inadequate.
2. Unique population characteristics
The deaf population is comprised of individuals with
a variety of hearing loss levels. Audiological measure-
ment of these losses in terms of decibels of remaining
(residual) hearing classifies individuals in the following
terms [22, p. 49]:
1. Moderate hearing loss: 41–55 deciBel (dB);
needs a hearing aid but is able to understand con-
versational speech at three to five feet.
2. Moderately severe hearing loss: 56–70 dB; needs
language and speech therapy, conversation must
be loud to be understood, there is great difficult
in group and classroom discussions.
3. Severe hearing loss: 70–90 dB; needs special ed-
ucation for deaf children, may identify environ-
mental noises, may distinguish vowels but is un-
able to distinguish consonants.
4. Profound hearing loss: 91+ dB; needs special
class or school for the deaf, may hear some loud
sounds, does not rely on hearing as the primary
channel for communication.
In medical and diagnostic terms, individuals with a
hearing loss of 70 dB or greater are considered “deaf,”
whereas those with more hearing are labeled “hard of
hearing.”
The Deaf Community has a view of deafness based
upon acceptance of cultural values rather than level of
hearing loss. Individuals who prefer to use American
Sign Language (ASL) rather than relying upon hear-
ing aids, lipreading (speechreading), and use of their
own voice, and who preferto socialize with others who
use ASL rather than with normally hearing individu-
als prefer to call themselves “Deaf.” The capital “D”
refers to their identification of themselves as a cultural
minority [16].
Members of the Deaf Community do not identify
themselves as part of the disability community; they
are also quite resentful of professionals who identify
them as “hearing impaired” [16]. They consider them-
selves to be a minority group with a unique language
and set of cultural values. Professionals working with
deaf or hard-of-hearing individuals need to assess each
P. Luft / Deaf communication barriers 53
individual’s affiliation with the Deaf Community, or
with the normally hearing community. This is often
a primary identifying factor of people’s self-identity
and can help in selecting culturally and linguistically
appropriate services.
Affiliation with the Deaf Community will be impor-
tant with regard to how the vocational and employment
support services are perceivedby the individual. Often,
the Deaf Community has strong opinions about service
providers and agencies. It is extremely important to
the Community that the individuals and organizations
whose services they receive are supportive and have a
clear understanding of the unique characteristics and
strengths of this group. The close-knit ties that of-
ten unite individuals within the Deaf Community can
form an important network of support for an individual
entering the work force or making a vocational change.
3. The nature of communication difficulties
3.1. Early language learning barriers
The communication difficulties of deaf employees
often begin at birth. Approximately 90% of Deaf in-
dividuals are born to normally hearing parents [10,18].
Deaf infants tend to progress through the normal stages
of language development until approximately one year
of age. This means that as babies they make the typical
vocal sounds, cooing and babbling, ofnormallyhearing
infants as part of neuromuscular and cognitive devel-
opment. This “normal” vocal developmentoccurs until
normally hearing infants begin reflexive “vocal play”
and enjoy listening to, and playing with, the sound of
their own voice. At this point, deaf infants usually stop
most of their speech-like vocalizations.
The impact of this early, normal vocal development
is that many hearing parents do not suspect deafness.
Diagnosis is frequently delayed until the lack of vocal
behavior cannot be ignored. Most deaf children are di-
agnosed between 12 and 36 months of age [18]. During
this one-to-three year delay, hearing children are us-
ing this time to acquire hundreds of vocabulary words
and all of the basic sentence patterns (e.g., statements,
questions, commands). Deaf infants remain unexposed
to language until their deafness is diagnosed and they
become involved in an early intervention program.
This language deficit is rarely completely remedi-
ated; without linguistic exposure, children do not de-
velop language [10]. These are critical language-
learning years for the brain that cannot be replaced. In
addition, the diagnosis is likely to be the first time many
parentshaveencounteredhearinglossandtheyarequite
unprepared [10]. Parents may decide to use sign lan-
guage as a means of allowing deaf children to learn
and experience language in much the same way that
normally hearing children hear and develop language
skills. However, it requires several years of intensive
instruction and practice to become fluent sign language
users [18]. Children learn language when they are
continually surrounded by fluent language users who
model appropriate language patterns and vocabulary
usage. Although many parents are extremely dedicated
and are able to meet this challenge, for the majority of
deaf children with hearing parents it is only for the 30
hours per week that they may be with fluent signing
teachers or interpreters at school that they are exposed
to consistent language modeling.
The result of this ongoing and cumulative lack of lan-
guage learning is that deaf students graduate from high
school with a reading level of approximately fourth
grade [1,18]. These literacy rates generally vary ac-
cording to the amount of hearing loss: the greater the
hearing loss, the lower the literacy rate [1,18]. This
is long-term outcome evidence of the serious impact
deafness and the lack of language exposure has upon
the child. Reading scores of deaf students show a me-
dian reading equivalent of grade 3.8 among 17-year
olds with profound losses (90 deciBel and below), and
grade 4.5 for those with severe losses (70–89 dB) (Holt,
Traxler and Allen, 1992; as cited in [18]). Allen [1]
found similar reading achievement scores, with only
40% of 17–21 year old deaf students with severe to
profound hearinglosses achieving fourth-grade reading
levels or above. For students with moderate to severe
hearing losses, the rate increases slightly to 46%.
Because of academic and other requirements for
graduation, only approximately 50% of deaf and hard-
of-hearing students receive a high school diploma [18].
This low graduation rate has profound implications for
later access to postsecondary training and for success-
fully competing in the job market [24].
Not surprisingly, poor literacy and graduation rates
among deaf individuals have a deleterious impact on
admission into postsecondary training programs. Only
8–10% of deaf students read at the eighth grade level or
higher, significantly compromisingtheir ability to suc-
cessfully complete their training and receive a college
degree or certificate. Postsecondary institutions are
left unsure of approaches to serve this poorly prepared
group of students [1]. Yet, research shows that students
who are able to graduate from such programs are likely
to experience increased employment success [11,18].
54 P. Luft / Deaf communication barriers
3.2. Ethnic deaf minorities
Deaf children who come from homes whose native
language is not English have even greater obstacles to
learning English and becoming literate [24]. Many
families who have recently immigrated or who are not
fully acculturated into mainstream America often ex-
perience economic, educational, and social status dis-
advantagement as a dual function of being a member
of a minority group and being a person with a disabil-
ity [13]. The impact of occupying a lower social and
economic status and having a child with a disability, in
addition to English language difficulties only increases
the family’s difficulty in negotiating educational and
servicesystems. These factors combine to substantially
decrease their abilities to support their deaf children
in attaining quality employment in managerial, profes-
sional, or technical fields [24]. The impact of reduced
social, educational, and economicstatus is evidencedin
the secondary schools’ tendency to place minority stu-
dents of all ages in primarily vocational preparationand
training [24,31], which primarily prepare students for
manual, semi-skilled jobs. Unfortunately, the greater
amount of time spent in this training further reduces
the amount of time available for academic instruction
and subsequent access to more desirable jobs [24,31].
3.3. Communication difficulties in employment
The deaf population is unique in that individualsmay
have normal cognitive and other abilities but still be
unable to communicate through speaking, reading, or
writing English in an effective manner [1,3]. Writ-
ten language of deaf students has been characterized
as containing high numbers of grammatical errors as
well as lacking flexibility and complexity [18]. This
difficulty with English reflects inadequate language ex-
posure during the deaf child’s critical language learn-
ing years. Co-workers and supervisors who are un-
aware and unsympathetic to these difficulties in En-
glish literacy may inaccurately judge the deaf individ-
ual to have cognitive delays (mental retardation) and
other significant disabilities because of the misunder-
standings when reading and the nonstandard written
language patterns.
At the work site, deaf workers who use Ameri-
can Sign Language (ASL) will have limited abilities
to communicate with normally hearing co-workers or
customers unless a skilled sign language interpreter
is available on an ongoing or regular basis [3,14].
Although an interpreter may be hired for important
staff meetings and training, they are rarely available
on a daily basis for the informal, socialization among
coworkers that has been found to be so important in
making the workplace pleasant and enjoyable. Comp-
ton reported that deaf federal employees had inter-
preters at 48% of the workshops they attended, but at
only 34.6% of the staff meetings they attended. Of
these workers, 87.3% preferred to communicate using
sign language but reported difficulties in getting inter-
preters.
Involvement in informal and ongoing interaction
has been identified as an important factor in the job
maintenance of many workers with disabilities [8].
Scherich [23] found that employers also recognize the
importance of these issues. Employers in the study
conducted by Scherich identified inservice/training, so-
cializing with co-workers, department/staff meetings,
work-related social functions, receiving instructions
and supervision, and performance evaluations as diffi-
cult situations for deaf employees.
4. Transition issues
An important point in the career of deaf workers
is their entry into the world of work, or their “transi-
tion” into employment. The poor employment rates
of deaf workers become even worse when focusing on
this entry-level group, usually defined as encompassing
18 to 25 years of age [21]. The National Longitudinal
Transition Study (NLTS [30]) found that up to three
yearsout of secondary school,competitiveemployment
rates were only 44% for hard of hearing (hearing loss
less than 70 dB) and 25% for deaf individuals (hearing
loss 70 dB or greater). Wagner [32] found that two
years after graduation, 38% of deaf/hard-of-hearing in-
dividuals were attending postsecondary programs and
only 24% were working full time.
4.1. Postsecondary access and completion
In comparing a number of studies of occupational
status of young deaf adults, Moores [18] found that
postsecondary programs facilitated upward movement
of students in the job market. Rates for postsecondary
program enrollment are 35% for hard of hearing and
28% for deaf individuals, and 20% for both groups for
postsecondary vocational programs [30]. There has
been an increase in enrollments beginningin the 1970s
with much of this progress due to increased support
services and counseling and a wider array of program
P. Luft / Deaf communication barriers 55
options now available [18]. However,there are two sig-
nificant problems limiting postsecondary success: the
inability to communicate with teachers and inadequate
support services. This results in an estimated 70%
drop out rate for deaf students in these programs (Stin-
son and Walter, 1992; as cited in [18]). Rehabilitation
and related employment professionals are very much
needed in supporting deaf and hard-of-hearing students
throughout their postsecondary training as a means of
improving their rate of graduationand, ultimately, their
occupational status.
El-Khiami [11] studied the transition of postsec-
ondary graduates into employment, surveyinga sample
of deaf/hard-of-hearing graduates of 47 postsecondary
programs. This sample included graduates only; 58%
graduated from four-year colleges, nearly equal grad-
uation occurred at community colleges or technical in-
stitutes (18% and 19%, respectively), and 6% had re-
ceived training at rehabilitation facilities. Work his-
tories for five years after graduation showed that only
4% had never worked. Sixteen percent found jobs im-
mediately upon graduation, and 84% took an average
of two months to secure employment. For those indi-
viduals who changed jobs, the more frequently respon-
dents changed jobs the less likely they were to quickly
find another position. Sixteen percent were not able to
remain employed during the five-year period.
El-Khiami also found that ethnicity was a significant
factor in occupational choice with African-Americans
underrepresented in white-collar jobs (e.g., manage-
rial, professional, technical, and clerical) and overrep-
resented in blue-collar occupations. Other ethnicities
were grouped together due to small sub-sample num-
bersand showedpatterns similar to those of white work-
ers. Results also indicated that occupational type was a
significant predictor of satisfaction. Those least satis-
fied were classified as (machine) “operatives,” followed
by those in technical/clerical positions. Individuals in
management/professional, precision, and service posi-
tions indicated highest rates of being “very satisfied”
(45.2%, 40.0%, and 39.1%, respectively).
These and other studies suggest that vocational re-
habilitation counselors and related employment profes-
sionals should encourage deaf individuals to attend and
graduate from postsecondary training programs. Geyer
and Schroedel [12] reported that earning a Bachelor’s
degree usually leads to increasedearningsand positions
that offer benefits packages. Schroedel and Geyer [12]
found that vocational training certificates and Asso-
ciate degrees also tend to be highly marketable with
job skills that directly link to specific employment po-
sitions. The low retention rate of deaf students in these
programs suggests that rehabilitation and employment
professionals will need to provide extensive support
and guidance to these students.
The number of deaf students leaving high school and
entering the workforce and postsecondary programs
will likely increase over the next five years. The Center
for Assessment and Demographic Studies [7] at Gal-
laudet University annually surveys programs for deaf
students in the U.S. Projecting data reported for the
1993–94 school year to the 1998–1999 school year, the
number of students who are of transition age repre-
sent 63% of the school-age population [7]. Minority
students comprise 40% of the total population of deaf
students, with slightly more males than females.
Vocational rehabilitation will need to prepare them-
selves for this substantial number of deaf and hard-of-
hearing individuals enteringthe workforce and postsec-
ondary educational facilities overthe next five years es-
timated at 29,069. The added complications of minor-
ity status and possible trilingual language backgrounds
for up to 40% of these students will require additional
support services from professionals for these students
to make successful transitions into satisfying, compet-
itive employment settings.
4.2. Unique personnel training needs
The low literacy rates of deaf individuals presents
barriers in their ability to access suitable employment
positions, but also to secure appropriate services from
rehabilitation and related professionals. Interpreters
are not always available or sufficiently proficient in
ASL to provide applicants’ detailed vocational and edu-
cational history at eligibility and intake interviews, and
individual preference information to develop an accu-
rate profile of the person’s strengths and needs is often
not fully explained [14,18]. Joyce and Mathay (1984;
as cited in [14]) studied unsuccessful case closures in
Vocational Rehabilitation among deaf consumers and
found that a significant number were due to counselor’s
lack of effective sign language skills in communicating
with consumers. This was particularly true with con-
sumers who were academically low achievers and who
did not possess sufficient communication and language
skills to effectively use interpreters. Hurwitz [14] also
identified the need for continued efforts to establish
minimum qualifications for sign language interpreters
who have not been otherwise certified.
The lack of appropriate and clear communica-
tion with agency personnel is likely to contribute to
56 P. Luft / Deaf communication barriers
poor employment and retention rates of deaf workers.
Luft [17] found that VR agency personnel placed 38%
of deaf/hard-of-hearing consumers in assembly work,
suggesting that convenience for the agency took pri-
ority over individual job development. Lack of sign
language and communication fluency may have en-
couraged this trend, with many deaf individuals un-
able to adequately express their preferences and career
strengths.
Deaf individuals encounter the same additional vo-
cational complications that other populations experi-
ence. For example they have substance abuse issues
and chronic mental illness at rates approximating those
of the general population. In situations where com-
munication is poor and inconsistent, it is unlikely that
these deaf individuals will receive the individualized
and appropriate services they need. Moores [18] found
that across a number of demographic studies, 1/4 to
1/3 of deaf and hard-of hearing students were identified
as having one or more additional disabilities. Men-
tal retardation, emotional/behavioral disorders, learn-
ing disabilities, and visual disabilities were the most
prevalent.
The combination of deafness and additional disabil-
ities requires even more specialized services and train-
ing for human service professionals. Rehabilitation
personnel need specific preparation to implement qual-
ity programs for these consumers and to ensure access
to, and accommodations provided for, vocational as-
sistance including supported employment, vocational
or postsecondary training, employment positions suit-
able to their abilities, and community living services,
as needed.
Rehabilitation counselors and employment profes-
sionals working with transition-age students also need
specialized training in the needs of this population and
in developing collaborative relationships with school
personnel. Benz, Johnson, Mikkelsen, and Lind-
strom [4] found significant difficulties in effective col-
laboration between schools and Vocational Rehabilita-
tion agencies due to nonexistent or ineffective proce-
dures to structure collaboration throughout the refer-
ral, eligibility determination, and transition planning
processes. Existing rehabilitation training programs
are not addressing collaborative and transition planning
skills in sufficient depth. Professionals need collab-
orative strategies for integrating information and ser-
vices to understand the complexities of transition pro-
cesses [2,28,29].
4.3. Meeting the needs of deaf individuals
Since the passage of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act,
Vocational Rehabilitation offices which cannot serve
all eligible individuals must use an order of selection
procedure, placing individualswith the most severe dis-
abilities as the highest priority [23]. Under the 1992
RehabilitationAct Amendments,the definition of a per-
son with a “severe disability” (29 U.S.C. 711(c), 772,
774) includes an impairment that substantially limits
one or more functional capacities (including communi-
cation, interpersonal skills, and work skills) in terms of
employmentoutcomes,andwhoserehabilitationcan be
expected to require multiple services over an extended
period of time.
Deaf (and potentially hard of hearing) individuals
may not normally be considered as evidencing a “se-
vere disability” under strict definitions. However, the
extremely severe impact of difficulties with English
in addition to the ongoing communication barriers in
the workplace with co-workers and supervisors who
do not have ongoing access to skilled interpreter ser-
vices results in a compounding of disability-related
work limitations. Redefining the impact of commu-
nication in this way provides a viable means of of-
fering long-term follow-along services that can pro-
vide proactive and preventative problem resolution [3].
Belknap et al. [3] suggested an on-going job coaching
model which, when successfully implemented, leads to
greater job stability and career enhancement.
The economic shifts toward information and tech-
nology as well as service-based industries could present
substantial new barriers to deaf employees. Literacy
and communication skills are increasingly important
for both areas. Many of these new jobs require higher
levels of reading, language usage, and mathematics
than previously have been necessary for workers [15].
Service-oriented positions typically require communi-
cation and high visibility with customers, which may
be challenging to accommodate [5].
Silver [27] piloted a videotape for employers to in-
fluence their attitudes while teaching basic concepts
of ASL. Statistical analysis showed positive attitudinal
change. Other suggestions for preparing the work en-
vironment included ongoing sign language classes and
the use of an employment specialist to provide informa-
tion and adaptations [27]. Myers and Danek [19] pro-
posed a long-term, ecologically based framework for
rehabilitation interventions including employment ac-
quisition services, employment maintenance services,
employment accommodation services, and employ-
P. Luft / Deaf communication barriers 57
ment enhancement services. Called the DEAN (Deaf
Employment Assistance Network) model, this frame-
work is used to coordinate both direct and indirect ser-
vices through a coordinating agency to administer the
network, and a clearinghouse on deafness employment
with a directory of services and technical assistance
resources. The DEAN model provides a continuum
of services to both the deaf person and employers. It
meets employers’ needs for personnel services and the
deaf person’s individual needs from pre-employment
training to job-retraining if displaced. A comprehen-
sive approach such as this would offer long term sup-
port to address the ongoing impact of communication
and socialization issues faced by deaf people, accord-
ing to the individual and unique nature of their needs
due to their own characteristics and the characteristics
of the work environment.
5. Conclusion
The significant and ongoing communication needs of
deaf employees comprise an imposing barrier to their
attainment of employment positions and their ability
to advance in their careers. Yet, for many deaf work-
ers, their ongoing communication and interpersonal
support needs are not being addressed. The result is
seen in unemployment and underemploymentrates that
have changed little in the past two decades. Postsec-
ondary training significantly improves the employment
outcomes of deaf and hard of hearing individuals, yet
many of these people graduate from secondary schools
with fourth grade reading levels or less. In addition,
the 70% rate of attrition from postsecondary programs
means that students need substantially increased levels
of support.
For students attending postsecondary training pro-
grams, rehabilitation counselors need to prepare them
more thoroughly so that the training experience will
leadto graduation. In addition, they should examine the
postsecondary training site for support services offered
and be prepared to offer significant support and guid-
ance themselves. A useful resource is the College and
Career Programs for Deaf Students [20]. This book
provides information on 134 two-year and four-year
colleges and universities throughout the United States
which offer specific support for deaf students. It can
be quite useful in helping to determine if the support
services offered will meet the needs of the prospective
student.
For those assisting deaf employees, professionals
can expect to face ongoing communication difficulties
across at least six areas: inservice/training, socializ-
ing with co-workers, department/staff meetings, work
related social functions, receiving instructions and su-
pervision, and performance evaluation. A comprehen-
sive ecological model of service delivery that addresses
both the employer’s and employee’s unique needs and
concerns will lead to greater success in job retention
and advancement. To implement this or any type of
long-term support, rehabilitation counselors may need
to determine ways to secure ongoingfundingto support
the identification of multiple impacts of communica-
tion and interaction difficulties as constituting a “severe
disability” for the deaf worker.
Animportant concern for professionals workingwith
deaf individuals is their competency in communica-
tion and in demonstrating culturally-appropriate per-
spectives in dealing with deaf employees, particularly
those who are members of the Deaf Community. Many
free-lance interpreters may have insufficient signing
and linguistic capabilities to adequately interpret infor-
mation to deaf individuals, particularly those who have
poor linguistic skills themselves. In addition, rehabil-
itation counselors and related agency personnel pro-
viding adult employment and training services to deaf
and hard-of-hearing individuals have not always had
the specialized training necessary to fully understand
and address the unique and significant needs of this
population [14,22]. This presents a serious barrier in
addressing the high unemployment and underemploy-
ment rates of deaf people. Deaf and hard-of-hearing
individuals receive less than optimal services by pro-
fessionals who are otherwise qualified to serve peo-
ple with disabilities in the area of employment. These
professionals frequently cannot help deaf people in ac-
cessing additional services or making referrals to assist
them in fulfilling their employment and training goals.
In addition, Belknap et al. [3] asserted that a focus on
job preparation and placement without adequate atten-
tion to job retention and career mobility needs of deaf
persons has been a factor in the poor employment rates
cited in this article.
The existing underemployment, underproductivity,
and lack of advancement for deaf people have not been
greatly impacted despite an increasing awareness of
deafness in the general public. The provision of long-
term services is needed to address the ongoing nature of
communication barriers in the work environment and
thereby,allow these workers equal access to satisfying
careers.
58 P. Luft / Deaf communication barriers
References
[1] Allen, T.E., Who are the deaf and hard-of-hearing stu-
dents leaving high school and entering postsecondary ed-
ucation? Paper submitted to Pelavin Research Insti-
tute, A Comprehensive Evaluation of the Postsecondary
Educational Opportunities for Students who are Deaf
or Hard of Hearing, funded by the U.S. Office of
Special Education and Rehabilitative Services. Available:
http://www.gallaudet.edu/ cadsweb/whodeaf.html.
[2] Asselin, S.B., Hanley-Maxwell, C. and Szymanski, E.M.,
Transdisciplinary personnel preparation, in: Transition from
school to adult life: Models, linkages, and policy, F.R. Rusch,
L. DeStefano, J. Chadsey-Rusch, L.A. Phelps and E. Szyman-
ski, eds., Sycamore, IL: Sycamore, 1992, pp. 265–283.
[3] Belknap, P.J., Korwin, K.A. and Long, N.M., Job coaching:
A means to reduce unemployment and underemployment in
the Deaf Community, Journal of the American Deafness and
Rehabilitation Association 28 (1995), 21–38.
[4] Benz, M.R., Johnson, D.K., Mikkelsen, K.S. and Lindstrom,
L.E., Improving collaboration between schools and vocational
rehabilitation: Stakeholder identified barriers and strategies,
Career Development for Exceptional Individuals 18 (1995),
133–144.
[5] Bluestone, B., Employment prospects for persons with dis-
abilities, in: Economics, industry, and disability, W.E. Kier-
nan and R.L. Schalock, eds., Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes,
1989, pp. 17–25.
[6] Bolton, B., Introduction and overview, In: Psychology of deaf-
ness for rehabilitation counselors, B. Bolton, ed., Baltimore,
MD: University Park Press, 1976, pp. 1–18.
[7] Center for Assessment and Demographic Studies (CADS),
Annual survey of deaf and hard ofhearing children and youth,
[On-line], Available: http://www.gallaudet.edu/˜cadsweb/
annsvyx.html.
[8] Chadsey-Rusch, J., Teaching social skills on the job, in: Sup-
ported employment: Models, methods, and issues, F.R.Rusch,
ed., Sycamore, IL: Sycamore, 1990, pp. 161–180.
[9] Compton, C., Status of deaf employees in the federal govern-
ment, Volta Review 95 (1993), 379–390.
[10] Dube, R.V., Language assessment of deaf children: American
Sign Language and English, Journal of the American Deafness
and Rehabilitation Association 29 (195–96), 8–16.
[11] El-Khiami, A., Employment transitions and establishing ca-
reers by postsecondary alumni with hearing loss, Volta Review
95 (1993), 357–366.
[12] Geyer, P. and Schroedel, J., Information you might use: Em-
ployment trends for occupations requiring a Bachelor’s or
higher degree: 1992 and 1995, Journal of the American Deaf-
ness and Rehabilitation Association 29 (1995), 37–43.
[13] Harry, B., Cultural diversity, families, and the special educa-
tion system: Communication and empowerment, New York:
Teachers College Press,1992.
[14] Hurwitz, T.A., Quality of communication services for deaf
and hard of hearing clients: Current issues and future direc-
tions, Journal of the American Deafness and Rehabilitation
Association 25 (1991), 1–7.
[15] Johnston, W.B. and Packer, A.H., Workforce 2000: Work and
workers for the 21st century, Indianapolis, IN: Hudson Insti-
tute, 1987.
[16] Lane, H., Hoffmeister, R. and Bahan, B., A journey into the
Deaf-World, San Diego: DawnSignPress, 1996.
[17] Luft, P., Difficulties of deaf/hard of hearing supported em-
ployees in comparison with other disability groups, Paper pre-
sented at the meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, Policy to Practice in Special Education Session,
San Diego, CA, April 1998.
[18] Moores, D.F., Educating the deaf: Psychology, principles,
and practices, (4th ed.), Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1996.
[19] Myers, P.D. and Danek, M.M., Deaf employment assistance
network: A model for employment service delivery, Journal
of the American Deafness and Rehabilitation Association 24
(1990), 59–67.
[20] Rawlings, B.W., Karchmer, M.A., De Caro, J.J. and Allen,
T.E.,College and career programs for deaf students, Washing-
ton, DC and Rochester, NY:Gallaudet University and National
Technical Institute for the Deaf, 1995.
[21] Rusch, F.R., Szymanski, E.M. and Chadsey-Rusch, J., The
emerging field of transition services, in: Transition from
school to adult life: Models, linkages, and policy, F.R. Rusch,
L. DeStefano, J. Chadsey-Rusch, L.A. Phelps and E. Szyman-
ski, eds., Sycamore, IL: Sycamore, 1992, pp. 5–15.
[22] Scheetz, N.A., Orientation to deafness, Boston: Allyn and
Bacon, 1993.
[23] Scherich, D.L., Job accommodations in the workplace for
persons who are deaf or hard of hearing: current practices and
recommendations, Journal of Rehabilitation (1996), 27–35.
[24] Schildroth, A., Rawlings, B. and Allen, T., Deaf students in
transition: Education and employment issues for deaf adoles-
cents, The Volta Review 93 (1991), 41–53.
[25] Schriner, K., The Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1992:
Initiatives and issues, Journal of Applied Rehabilitation Coun-
seling 27 (1996), 37–41.
[26] Schroedel, J. and Geyer, P., Employment trends for occupa-
tions requiring vocational and Associate’s degrees, Journal
of the American Deafness and Rehabilitation Association 29
(1995–96), 31–36.
[27] Silver, S., Information you might use: Attitudinal change
of employers to hearing impaired workers after utilizing an
ASL/awareness videotape: A pilot study, Journal ofthe Amer-
ican Deafness and Rehabilitation Association 28 (1994), 45–
48.
[28] Szymanski, E.M., Hanley-Maxwell, C. and Asselin, S.B., Sys-
tems interface: Vocational rehabilitation, special education,
and vocational education, in: Transition from school to adult
life: Models, linkages, and policy, F.R. Rusch, L. DeSte-
fano, J. Chadsey-Rusch, L.A. Phelps and E. Szymanski, eds.,
Sycamore, IL: Sycamore, 1992, pp. 153–171.
[29] Szymanski, E.M., Hanley-Maxwell, C. and Parker, R.M.,
Transdisciplinaryservicedelivery, in: Supported employment:
Models, methods, and issues, F.R. Rusch, ed., Sycamore, IL:
Sycamore, 1990, pp. 199–214.
[30] U.S. Department of Education, Seventeenth annual report to
Congress on the implementation of the individuals with dis-
abilities education act, Washington, DC: Author, 1995.
[31] Valdes, K.A., Williamson, C.L. and Wagner, M.M., The na-
tional longitudinal transition study of special education stu-
dents; statistical almanac, volume 7: Youth categorized as
hearing impaired, Washington, DC: SRI International under
contract with the Office of Special Education Programs, U.S.
Department of Education, 1990.
[32] Wagner, M., National longitudinal study progress report: An-
nual transition project directors meeting, Champaign, IL: Uni-
versity of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, The Transition Insti-
tute at Illinois, 1989.
[33] Welsh, W.A., Factors influencing career mobility of deaf
adults, The Volta Review 95 (1993), 329–339.
P. Luft / Deaf communication barriers 59
[34] Welsh, W.A., The economic impact of deafness, Journal of the
American Deafness and Rehabilitation Association 24 (1993), 72–80.
Copyright of Work is the property of IOS Press and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or
posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for individual use.
