The Employment Environment

Abstract

Employers’ characteristics and their policies and practices are workplace environmental factors with important implications for the hiring and retention of employees with disabilities. To explore these factors, a survey was conducted by Cornell University in 2011 focusing on employer policies and practices related to the employment of people with disabilities. The private employer membership of the Society of Human Resource Management (SHRM) was randomly sampled across small, medium, and large employers. In all, 675 SHRM members completed the survey and provided information regarding organizational characteristics; disability-related practices and policies regarding recruitment and hiring, training, accessibility and accommodation, retention and advancement; collection of metrics; and their perception of barriers to the employment and advancement of people with disabilities. Ratings of effectiveness of these practices/policies are examined, as well as the number of policies and practices implemented by organizational size and industry. Comparisons of employer views on employment barriers for persons with disabilities to a previous 1998 Cornell/SHRM study are made.

Keywords

employers career/vocational policy disability(ies)human resources practices accommodation issues

In 2011, the employment rate of working-age people with disabilities in the United States was 33.4% compared with 75.6% for people with no disability. This 42.2 percentage point gap contributes to people with disabilities having a significantly lower household income and being far more likely to live in poverty (Erickson, Lee, & von Schrader, 2012). Despite the passage of legislation to protect the employment rights of individuals with disabilities, national survey data continue to demonstrate that people with disabilities lag far behind their nondisabled peers in terms of workforce participation rates, pay, full-time employment, and post-layoff reemployment (Acemoglu & Angrist, 1998, 2001; Burkhauser, Houtenville, & Wittenburg, 2001; Burkhauser & Stapleton, 2003; DeLeire, 2000a, 2000b; Hotchkiss, 2004; Houtenville & Burkhauser, 2005; Jolls & Prescott, 2004). Employee surveys confirm that people with disabilities in the workplace face pay and benefit disparities, less job security, lower participation in organizational decision making, and receive less formal and informal training (Schur, Kruse, Blasi, & Blanck, 2009).

In this study, we examine barriers to workplace inclusion and workplace employment disability nondiscrimination practices and policies from the employer perspective. While external to the individual, environmental factors can be major barriers or facilitators for an individual with an impairment or limitation (as described in the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health [ICF] Model; Jette, 2006). In the context of employment, those environmental factors include the policies and practices of their employer. For example, at the individual level, provision of a workplace accommodation can affect the perception of disability and the extent of its impact, allowing an individual to be a productive employee. However, negative stereotypes and attitudes about disability can create a hostile work environment for an individual with a disability. To better understand barriers and the implementation of workplace factors as they currently exist, employer practices and policies designed to remove barriers and facilitate full participation for people with disabilities in the workplace were identified. Human resource (HR) professionals were surveyed regarding the level of implementation of these practices in their organization and their perception of the practices’ effectiveness.

The literature highlighted in the following section points to the barriers that contribute to the continuing disparities seen in the employment for people with disabilities, including persistent negative stereotypes. This review also includes identification of promising practices to address these barriers, such as the inclusion of disability in diversity initiatives, the use of employer tax credits and incentives, the extent of visible top management commitment, mentoring, disability awareness training, and accommodations, including assistive technology and flexible work schedules.

The Importance of Organizational Culture in Overcoming Barriers

In past employer surveys, many respondents believed that the biggest barriers to employment for people with disabilities lay on the supply side—in the skills and preparation of potential employees with disabilities, rather than in the policies and practices of employers. In surveys conducted in research by Bruyère (2000); Dixon, Kruse, and Van Horn (2003); and Domzal, Houtenville, and Sharma (2008), many respondents cited hiring concerns, including difficulty finding qualified candidates, the belief that workers with disabilities lacked necessary skills and experience and advancement potential, and the belief that the nature of the company’s work meant it could not be effectively performed by a person with a disability, as well as the costs of providing accommodations.

Although employers may feel that the issue lies primarily with the supply side, recent research suggests that organizational culture and practices are important factors related to the disparities seen in employment for people with disabilities.

Persistent stereotypes of people with disabilities among employers promote negative expectations about their abilities and attributes (Stone & Colella, 1996), which in turn affects hiring decisions and performance reviews (Ren, Paetzold, & Colella, 2008). Although employers continue to express generally positive attitudes about workers with disabilities, they also often persist in holding more negative beliefs, thus the stated openness toward applicants with disabilities does not translate into actual hiring (Hernandez, Keys, & Balcazar, 2000).

From the perspective of employees, employer practices can help create an organizational climate/culture that improves workplace inclusiveness. A wide-ranging series of case studies on the effects of corporate culture on the employment experiences of people with disabilities found strong statistical evidence that managers play a major role in disability inclusion, the perceived organizational climate is critical, and visible organizational commitment to disability issues is essential (Disability Case Study Research Consortium, 2008). Employer practices such as the active recruitment of people with disabilities, efforts by the employer to make the environment disability inclusive, and disability being included in the employers’ diversity statement were all found to be critical facilitating factors in comfort with disclosing a disability in results from a survey of people with disabilities (von Schrader, Malzer, Erickson, & Bruyere, 2011).

Unfortunately, broad efforts toward diversity and inclusion do not always extend to include disability. A 2010 Harris Interactive poll of HR managers and senior executives found that 70% of corporations surveyed had a diversity policy or program, and a third had a position dedicated to working on diversity issues (Kessler Foundation/National Organization on Disability [Kessler/NOD], 2010). However, less than a third of those who reported having diversity programs had a disability-specific program and this number had decreased from nearly two thirds in 1995 (Kessler/NOD, 2010). Ball, Monaco, Schmeling, Schartz, and Blanck (2005) found that less than half (42%) of the top 100 companies on Fortune magazine’s list of the 500 most profitable U.S. firms expressly included disability within their lists of diverse populations, and many of those statements were limited to the standard, legally required equal employment opportunity (EEO) statement.

What Are the Promising Practices for Employing People With Disabilities?

The promising practices for diversity management are rarely evidence-based. Kalev, Dobbin, and Kelly (2006) described the increasing popularity of lists of “best practices,” loosely based on academic theories but with little research regarding their efficacy. Kreitz (2008) agreed that many best practices recommendations “rely on brief case studies or anecdotal stories” and are not based in research. The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) combined a wide-ranging literature review with expert interviews, previously conducted surveys of federal agencies, and federal agency case studies to identify nine leading diversity management practices that a majority of experts could agree upon (U.S. GAO, 2005). These practices included commitment to diversity by top leadership, inclusion of diversity in strategic plans, linking diversity to performance, measurement of the impact of diversity programs, management accountability for progress toward diversity, succession planning, recruitment, employee involvement in diversity management, and training about diversity.

Kalev et al. (2006) conducted one of the few large sample studies that assessed the effect of diversity management policies on the representation of those the policies are designed to protect and advance. Their research indicated that the most effective approaches were those that established organizational responsibility for diversity, and that doing so also improved the effects of the other approaches. With regard to people with disabilities, Schur et al. (2009), based on a synthesis of research, proposed a number of steps an organization can take to create corporate culture more inclusive of people with disabilities; these mirror many of the more general diversity management principles.

Several studies have asked employers about their perceptions of effective practices for employing people with disabilities. Gilbride, Stensrud, Vandergoot, and Golden (2003) conducted a series of focus groups with employers, employees, and placement service providers to identify key characteristics and practices in the successful employment of people with disabilities. They identified 13 specific characteristics, which they grouped into three categories: “work cultural issues,” “job match,” and “employer experience and support.”

A 2004 series of in-depth case studies on businesses with proven track records in disability employment found that “the quantity, quality, and stability of employment opportunities for workers with disabilities are strongly affected by the recruitment, training, accommodation, and retraining practices of the business” (McMahon et al., 2004, p. 54).

In the 2010 Kessler/NOD employer poll, fewer than half the companies actively recruited from diverse populations, while a quarter reported not doing anything to make their workforce more diverse. Companies with a diversity or disability program were more likely to have hired at least one person with a disability in the last 3 years. Two thirds of respondents indicated that they had not hired more people with disabilities in the past 3 years because they perceived a “lack of qualified candidates” (Kessler/NOD, 2010).

Domzal et al. (2008) analyzed responses to a survey commissioned by the U.S. Department of Labor Office of Disability Employment Policy (ODEP). Employers who had employees with disabilities felt the following practices would be helpful to increase employment: employer tax credits and incentives, visible top management commitment, mentoring, disability awareness training, assistive technology, and flexible work schedule. While asked if they actively recruited, they were only asked about whether they felt a number of specific strategies “would be helpful,” rather than whether they had actually implemented that practice. This was similar to other employer research, focusing on an employers’ perception of whether a practice would be helpful, not if the practice had actually been implemented or was effective.

Dixon et al. (2003) reported that only 11% of 501 employers surveyed had developed disability-targeted recruiting methods, with a similar small proportion having made any changes to their application or website to improve accessibility. Less than half had provided any training at all to employees regarding working with or accommodating people with disabilities. This finding was similar to that of Lengnick-Hall, Gaunt, and Collison (2003) who found that while the majority of organizations in their study had a formal policy regarding disability recruitment, most were devoting very little effort to it, and nearly a quarter reported making no effort at targeted recruitment.

Bruyère (2000) asked HR and EEO staff from public and private organizations about what they had done to accommodate applicants and employees with disabilities. Most respondents were making accommodations, keeping data on accommodations, and had provided training on Americans With Disabilities (ADA)–related topics to their employees. The majority had increased the flexibility of policies, had modified the work environment, and had changed their recruiting processes, and most of those who had done these things found them easy to do. The majority was actively recruiting applicants with disabilities, with large organizations doing more in this area than smaller ones (Society for Human Resource Management [SHRM], 1999). Respondents were not asked how effective specific practices were within their organizations, however.

What This Research Adds

This survey, like previous surveys, taps into perceived barriers and leading diversity management and disability-specific practices from the employers’ perspective. It builds upon previous work but focuses on the actual implementation of disability-specific practices. To gain a better understanding of what works in practice, rather than in theory, the survey takes the next logical step, asking employers about the effectiveness of that practice (if implemented) within their organization. Also, unique to this study, an employer’s collection of metrics regarding recruiting, hiring, and employment metrics by disability status was assessed. Organizations collecting these metrics would be better equipped to assess the effectiveness of practices related to employing people with disabilities. Finally, the findings of this survey are compared with a previous survey of HR professionals, permitting the exploration of changes over time in the perception of barriers and certain specific practices.

Method

Survey Development

A survey was designed to collect HR professionals’ insights into current organizational practices and policies related to employing people with disabilities, the availability of metrics to assess the efficacy of select policies and practices, and perceived barriers to the employment of persons with disabilities in their organizations. The survey asked informants to assess their organization’s level of implementation of promising practices and policies (identified from the literature and previous surveys), in addition to measuring their perception of the effectiveness of those practices or policies.

HR professionals were selected as the informants for this survey as they are the workplace professionals most likely to have an overall perspective regarding an organization’s HR policy and practice environment across the employment spectrum. Over the past 10 years, the median ratio of HR staff to total headcount has hovered around 1:100 (“HR Staffs, Budgets,” 2012). SHRM was selected as a partner in this research for their access to a large group of knowledgeable HR professionals as well for their insight regarding the HR profession. As the world’s largest association devoted to HR management, SHRM’s membership represents more than a quarter of a million individual members worldwide, including one in five U.S. HR professionals (SHRM, 2012).

Cornell University and SHRM have collaborated extensively over the last 15 years on disability-related employer practices research. This includes a 1998 survey focused on how private employers were responding to the employment provisions of the ADA and a 2002 survey regarding online/web-based HR processes, information technology, and workplace accommodations (Bruyère, Erickson, & Schramm, 2003; Bruyère, Erickson, & VanLooy, 2005). This current survey focused primarily on new and promising practices identified through an extensive review of prior research and studies as well as our own related research.

Selected items from the original 1998 survey regarding organizational barriers and recruitment were retained to allow comparisons of responses over time. A compendium of questions from other employer surveys and benchmarking tools developed over the last 15 years was compiled, including those conducted or funded by SHRM, U.S. Department of Labor ODEP, the American Association of People With Disabilities, and the NOD/Harris/Kessler surveys. To these survey items, we added information gained from an extensive review of the literature to assemble a range of practices and policies that are believed to be effective across the employment process in recruiting, hiring, and retaining and advancing individuals with disabilities.

Several of the practices identified related to the collection of business metrics on disability, as these practices can help organizations understand the effectiveness of their practices (SHRM, 2010). HR metrics can provide many powerful measures of policy effectiveness (Davenport, Harris, & Shapiro, 2010; Lawler, Levenson, & Boudreau, 2004). However, tracking metrics by disability status poses challenges because for them to be accurate, employees must disclose their disability. While the collection of metrics for some other protected groups is mandated for federal contractors and therefore more commonplace (O’Leary, 2009; U.S. Department of Labor, 2012), we were interested in understanding the extent to which employers were tracking metrics related to disability. Toward this end, the survey included questions regarding the metrics collected around disability, as well as a sampling of metrics for other protected groups as a comparison.

Once the survey draft was developed, feedback was gathered from a variety of sources, including SHRM advisory panel members, SHRM internal staff with diversity expertise, regional representatives from the National Americans With Disabilities Act Network, members of the Cornell University Employer Practices Rehabilitation Research and Training Center advisory board, and employers representing a range of organizations. Feedback from these sources was used to revise and fine-tune the final survey instrument. Several SHRM members were asked to pilot test the survey, and the instrument was subsequently revised based on the results and their comments.

The final survey instrument included items that covered policies and practices grouped into the following topical areas: recruitment and hiring, training, accessibility and accommodation, retention and advancement. These items were measured using a scale measuring levels of implementation and effectiveness with the following seven response options, Practice/Policy: Not in place; In development/under review; In place, effectiveness not known; In place, not effective; In place, somewhat effective; In place, very effective; and Don’t know. To provide the respondents with a consistent concept of an “effective practice or policy,” the following definition was provided: “one that leads to improved recruitment, hiring, retention, engagement, workplace climate and/or advancement of people with disabilities.” After each policy and practice topical area, respondents were offered the opportunity to describe any other disability-related practices and policies that have been effective (or problematic) for their organization, using an open-ended item format.

Respondents were asked to indicate the metrics tracked by the organization related to employees with disabilities and other protected groups. To assess what employers viewed as potential obstacles within their organization to the employment or advancement of employees with disabilities, a list of 10 potential organizational barriers was included. This list was based on those used in the 1998 Cornell/SHRM survey, affording a comparison of perceptions across an almost 15-year period.

Questions regarding organizational characteristics (such as size, industry federal contractor status, etc.) as well as information regarding hiring and current employment of persons with disabilities were also asked. In an attempt to ensure that respondents began with the same concept of who a person with a disability might be, we prefaced the survey with the following definition:

We define a “person with a disability” as someone who has a physical and/or mental impairment that substantially limits a major life activity. This could include (but is not limited to) individuals with a physical disability, a chronic health condition, a vision or hearing impairment, a mental health condition, or a workplace injury or illness.

Sample Selection

The private-sector HR professionals surveyed were a sample of the membership of SHRM. A stratified sample by employer size was drawn from the population of the SHRM membership of approximately 125,000 professional HR employed in the private sector. Based on the distribution of SHRM members by organization size, a random sample was drawn proportional to the population within size strata. The goal was to have a random sample of individuals from small (<500 employees), medium (500–2,499), and large (2,500+) employers. A total of 2,935 member names were drawn from the SHRM membership to be contacted about the online survey. The survey was not limited to companies that had employees with disabilities, as we were interested in the perspectives of representatives across all companies, regardless of their experience with employees with disabilities.

Procedure

The survey was fielded in the fall of 2011. A mixed method data collection approach was used, combining online and phone surveys. The telephone survey was implemented to supplement the online survey to improve response rates and reduce potential response bias inherent with online surveys. An invitation to participate in the online survey was initially sent to respondents via email in early October 2011. A chance for a small incentive (US$5 gift certificate) was offered in the email to encourage participation in the online version of the survey. Weekly reminders were sent to all nonrespondents requesting that they complete the survey. After a period of a month, the telephone phase was implemented. All nonrespondents were contacted by phone and were asked to participate in a phone-based survey. The questions used in the telephone and online survey were identical. In all, 690 persons responded to the survey, resulting in a 23% response rate. Approximately 42% of respondents took the online survey, 51% (n = 344) were interviewed by phone, and the remaining 7% (n = 47) completed the survey through a combination of phone and online collection modes. Completing the online survey took approximately 15 min; the phone-based survey took an average of 20 min. With regard to missing data, the majority of surveys were complete; among partially completed surveys, respondents had completed at least the first section of the survey regarding recruitment and hiring. All valid responses were included in the analysis where possible. Of the 690 respondents, 15 were found to be from “public administration” employer types and were excluded from the analysis, leaving a final sample of 675 private employers.

The survey responses are aggregated as frequencies and means with statistical tests done using primarily chi-square tests. In cases where low expected cell counts were encountered, Fisher’s exact test was used in place of the chi-square test. A p < .05 significance level was used throughout, applying Bonferroni’s adjustment procedure for multiple statistical tests where required to control for compounding comparison-wise Type 1 error rates.

Results

Respondent Characteristics

The basic characteristics of the respondents’ organizations are as follows: Three out of five were strictly U.S.-based operations (n = 357), with the remainder (41%, n = 243) being multinational corporations, operating in the United States and abroad. The majority (80%) operated in more than one location. Most (85%, n = 343) were for-profit entities and approximately a third (32%, n = 194) were federal contractors.

Of the 618 who specified their organization’s industry, about a third (34%, n = 208) were in manual industries (manufacturing, mining, agriculture, energy). A quarter (n = 156) were in “professional” industries (professional, scientific and technical services, finance, insurance, information, real estate, and management companies) with another quarter (24%, n = 145) in the service industry, 9% (n = 58) sales industry, 4% (n = 26) transportation, and 3% (n = 17) from the health industry. With regard to the number of U.S. employees in the respondents’ organizations, 586 responded. Of those 17% (n = 99) of respondents were at small firms with fewer than 100 employees, 25% (n = 145) had 100 to 499, 27% (n = 157) had 500 to 2,499, 21% (n = 124) had between 2,500 and 24,999, and 10% (n = 60) were very large with 25,000 employees or more.

Of the 619 that provided job title information, the majority (58%, n = 356) held the titles of HR manager, specialist, or coordinator; 22% (n = 139) were HR directors/associate directors; 13% (n = 78) held the title of president, vice president, or CEO; the remaining 7% (n = 46) were other titles including administrators. Most respondents had significant experience with their companies, having worked for the organization for 9 years on average.

Nearly all of the respondents had hired new employees at their location in the past 12 months (92.6%). Of those, a third (34.4%, n = 140) had hired one or more person(s) with a disability. Nearly two thirds (63.2%, n = 394) responded they had employees with disabilities at their location, 23.4% (n = 146) said they did not have any, and 13.3% (n = 83) were not sure.

Recruitment and Hiring Policies and Practices

With the large disparity in employment between people with and without disability, the practices related to inclusive recruitment were of great interest. The survey included a list of nine practices and policies that are believed to improve the likelihood of hiring people with disabilities (see Figure 1). Over half implemented the following practices: including people with disabilities into their diversity plan (58.8%), requiring subcontractors to adhere to disability nondiscrimination requirements (57.2%), and having relationships with organizations that promoted the employment of people with disabilities (53.9%). Slightly less than half (44.6%) actively recruited people with disabilities and about a third (37.7%) said that senior management was committed to disability recruitment and hiring. Approximately a quarter (27.2%) took advantage of tax incentives for hiring people with disabilities and 25.4% had explicit goals for recruitment or hiring of people with disabilities.

Figure 1.

Recruitment and hiring: Percentage of organizations who implemented each practice or policy.

Limiting to those who had implemented the practice, we examined the perceived effectiveness of each practice. There was little variation with regard to effectiveness between the different practices/policies. Generally, very few organizations—only 12% or less—rated any one of the individual practices as being not effective. Requiring subcontractors/suppliers to adhere to disability nondiscrimination requirements was rated very effective by the largest proportion (37.9%). The remaining practices were all rated as being very effective by between 25% and 33% of those who had implemented the practice.

Overall, organizations had implemented on average about a third of the recruitment and hiring policies and practices (3 out of the 9). Organizations in the professional industries implemented significantly fewer of these policies, 2.5 on average, than the other industry groups (3.2), F(1, 612) = 2.77, p = .0026. Large organizations with 500 or more employees, implemented significantly more of the practices than smaller organizations: 3.5 as compared with 2.2 on average, F(1, 581) = 40.3, p < .0001.

Disability-Related Training for Staff

Four questions were asked about the implementation and effectiveness of staff training related to persons with disabilities (see Figure 2). Disability awareness and sensitivity training as part of trainings for supervisors and managers and requiring supervisor training on legal requirements were each implemented by approximately two thirds of organizations. Training HR staff and supervisors on effective interviewing of people with disabilities and offering disability awareness and sensitivity training to their employees were each implemented by slightly over half of respondents. Little variation was found regarding the rating of effectiveness of the four practices with less than 2% rating any of them as not effective. A large proportion (between 41% and 45%) rated each practice to be very effective.

Figure 2.

Staff training in disability: Percentage of organizations who provided training.

Overall, organizations had implemented on average of 2.3 practices out of the 4. There were no significant differences by industry with regard to the number of training practices implemented; however, larger organizations with 500 or more employees implemented significantly more of the staff training practices than smaller organizations: 2.6 as compared with 1.9 on average, F(1, 580) = 30.3, p < .0001.

Accessibility and Accommodation Practices and Policies

Respondents were asked about eight distinct accessibility- and accommodation-related policies and practices (see Figure 3). Nearly three quarters had a designated office or person to address accommodation issues. About two thirds had a grievance procedure and allowed employees to exceed the maximum medical leave duration as an accommodation. Slightly less than half (43.8%) had a formal decision-making process for accommodations. The pre-employment accommodation practices were less common, with evaluating pre-employment screenings for bias and providing advanced notice to applicants regarding job application process accommodations each implemented by about one third of respondents. Only a quarter regularly reviewed the online application process for accessibility. Approximately one in five (19.1%, n = 97) had a centralized accommodation fund.

Figure 3.

Accessibility and accommodation: Percentage of organizations who implemented each practice or policy.

Less than 2% reported any of the individual practices as being not effective. The following were reported as being very effective by over half of respondents who implemented the practice: having a formal decision-making process (53.6%, n = 252), having a designated office or person to address accommodation questions (53.1%, n = 452), and a centralized accommodation fund (53.6%, n = 97).

Overall, organizations had implemented on average of 3.8 practices out of the 8 listed practices/policies. Large organizations, those with more than 500 employees, implemented significantly more of the practices than smaller organizations: 4.1 as compared with 3.4 on average, F(1, 584) = 22.2, p < .0001. No differences were found between industries.

Retention and Advancement Practices and Policies

Respondents were asked about eight specific retention and advancement policies and practices (see Figure 4). Three quarters had a return to work or disability management program. Slightly over half encouraged flexible work arrangements (e.g., flextime, part-time, telecommuting) for all employees. About two in five invited employees to confidentially disclose whether they have a disability. The remaining practices were implemented by less than one in five organizations. As with the other practices and policies, very few were reported to be not effective. There were several practices that were viewed as very effective by around half of the organizations who implemented them. These included having a disability-focused employee network (52.6%, n = 76), a return to work or disability management program (49.3%, n = 465), flexible work arrangements (46.8%, n = 346), and having a structured mentoring program to support employees with disabilities (45.5%, n = 101).

Figure 4.

Retention and advancement: Percentage of organizations who implemented each practice or policy.

Overall, organizations had implemented on average of 2.3 practices out of the 8 retention and advancement practices. No significant differences were found by industry; however, large organizations on average implemented more of the practices than smaller organizations: 2.5 practices compared with 1.9 on average, F(1, 583) = 18.65, p < .001.

Metrics Tracked

HR metrics are tracked to provide data that will inform decision making, and can help organizations understand the impacts of specific practices and policies. Nearly all organizations tracked general metrics such as employee performance/productivity (92.5%), the number of work-related injuries (91.1%), and number of lost workdays (83.2%). The survey asked whether four specific metrics, compensation equity, retention and advancement, number of job applicants, and number of job hires, were tracked by (a) disability status or (b) gender or ethnicity/racial background. As shown in Figure 5, organizations are far less likely to track each of the metrics for persons with disabilities than for the other protected groups. In general, the rate of tracking metrics by gender or race/ethnicity is more than twice the rate of tracking based on disability status. For example, while 41.3% of organizations track compensation equity by gender or ethnicity/race, only 13.5% track this metric by disability status.

Figure 5.

Metrics tracked by organizations: Percentage of organizations who tracked each metric for specific protected groups (n = 629).

Several disability-specific metrics were included in the survey as well. Data on accommodations were tracked by a third of organizations (32.4%). Grievances from employees with disabilities were tracked by 1 in 6 companies (16.5%) and turnover rate for employees with disabilities was tracked by 1 in 10 (10.8%). Fewer than 1 in 10 collected information on involvement in employee resource/affinity groups by employees with disabilities (7.6%) or engagement survey results for employees with disabilities (5.9%).

Perceived Barriers to Employment or Advancement for People With Disabilities

A series of questions was asked regarding respondents’ perceptions of barriers to the employment or advancement of people with disabilities within their respective organizations (see Figure 6). The most common barrier reported was a lack of qualified applicants, reported by slightly more than half the respondents (51.2%). Lack of skills and training and lack of related experience were seen as barriers by about a third of respondents each. Nearly a quarter viewed supervisor knowledge of what accommodation to make as a barrier, while attitudes and stereotypes and cost of accommodations were reported by around one in five respondents. Productivity and performance, attendance of people with disabilities, or additional cost of supervision or training were seen as a barrier by fewer than 10% of respondents. The perceptions of these barriers were not significantly different between organizations who reported having employees with disabilities and those who had none, or between those who had hired persons with disabilities and those who had not.

Figure 6.

Percentage of employers who perceived various barriers to the employment or advancement for people with disabilities: 1998 and 2011.

Changes in Perception of Barriers and Recruiting Persons With Disabilities

Seven of the organizational barrier questions were also asked in the original 1998 Cornell/SHRM survey (see Figure 6). In the SHRM survey of 1998, the characteristics of the firms were similar to the 2011 sample with no differences found by organization size. However, industry makeup did differ with the 1998 sample containing a larger proportion of companies in the service industry, 39.9% compared with 26.6%, χ²(1, N = 1390) = 27.03, p < .0001. Looking at the organizations as a whole across both surveys, a smaller proportion of organizations indicated each barrier in 2011 than 13 years ago. Only the barrier related to costs of accommodations increased slightly in the proportion that saw it as a barrier to employment of people with disabilities, but the change was not significant. The changes that were especially notable were those regarding the perception of lack of related experience on the part of persons with disabilities, dropping from 52.2% to 36.1%, χ²(1, N = 1386) = 39.08, p < .0001, and lack of requisite skills and training, dropped from 40.7% to 29.8%: χ²(1, N = 1382) = 17.07, p < .0001. Supervisor knowledge of which accommodation to make dropped significantly, 31.5% to 24.5%, χ²(1, N = 1391) = 11.47, p = .0007, as did attitudes and stereotypes, 22.7% to 16.8%, χ²(1, N = 1388) = 9.84, p < .0017, and additional costs of supervision, χ²(1, N = 1393) = 4.27, p = .0387. The barriers regarding costs of training and costs of supervision were quite low in 1998 and remained virtually unchanged. More respondents reported none of the seven barriers in their organizations in 2011: 38.7% compared with 29.1% of companies in 1998, χ²(1, N = 1407) = 14.39, p = .0001. Given the greater proportion of service industries in the current survey, the barriers were examined separately by service and nonservice industries. All of the differences in barriers over time held for nonservice industries. In addition, the costs of accommodations were significant for this industry grouping, having increased from 14.5% to 21.0%, χ²(1, N = 911) = 6.63, p = .0100. Only two barriers were significantly different for the service industry sector: lack of related experience on the part of persons with disabilities, dropping from 40.1% to 26.5%, χ²(1, N = 466) = 8.53, p = .0035, and lack of requisite skills and training, which dropped from 49.0% to 34.0%, χ²(1, N = 468) = 9.77, p = .0018.

The 1998 Cornell/SHRM survey found that 50.7% of organizations actively recruited job applicants with disabilities, which is significantly higher than 44.6% of organizations in 2011, χ²(1, N = 1381) = 5.23, p = .022. When this analyzed by industry, a different story is revealed. Only the professional industries had a significant drop in active recruitment from 61.9% to 41.8%, χ²(1, N = 301) = 12.06, p = .0005. The recruitment of the other industries was not significantly different. It is important to note that the drop is significant due to the high level of recruiting of the professional industries in the first survey. In 1998, 61.9% of the professional industries actively recruited, significantly higher than that of other industries: 47.6%, χ²(1, N = 754) = 10.21, p = .0014.

Discussion

The findings presented in this article provide a snapshot of the level of implementation of disability-related policies and their perceived effectiveness. While past research allowed us to gauge what employers believed would be helpful in improving disability employment across the employment process, these findings help us understand what companies are actually doing and whether what they are doing is actually working, from their perspective. While a large proportion of organizations have adopted disability-friendly practices and policies, many more have not. It is interesting that, with a few notable exceptions, the implementation of practices and policies is fairly consistent across industry. Across the four major areas of practices and policies, a few stood out as been implemented by the majority of organizations, such as including people with disabilities in the diversity and inclusion plan, requiring subcontractors to adhere to disability nondiscrimination requirements, having relationships with community organizations, providing training on disability awareness and nondiscrimination, establishing a grievance procedure for reasonable accommodation, allowing extended leave as an accommodation, designating a specific person or office for accommodation, offering flexible work arrangements, and having a return to work/disability management program.

Several practices that received some of the highest effectiveness ratings were implemented by only a few organizations. These practices included having a centralized accommodation fund, formalizing the decision-making process for the case-by-case provision of accommodations, and establishing a disability-focused network (employee resource/affinity group). Each was reported as being very effective by over half of those who had implemented it.

While our study has pointed out the gap in tracking HR metrics for different groups, this may be changing for federal contractors. Approximately 32% of the respondents in this study are federal contractors. The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) proposed new regulations in December of 2011, addressing the implementation of the disability nondiscrimination and affirmative action requirements of Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (Affirmative Action and Nondiscrimination Obligations of Contractors and Subcontractors Regarding Individuals With Disabilities, 2011). These proposed regulations suggest that federal contractors may soon be obligated to actively recruit people with disabilities, form relationships with community organizations, conduct annual reviews to ensure accessibility of information and communication technology, designate an individual to be responsible for reasonable accommodation procedures, as well as document the accommodation process (Affirmative Action and Nondiscrimination Obligations of Contractors and Subcontractors Regarding Individuals With Disabilities, 2011). Many of the promising practices included in this study may become requirements for these employers when the final regulations are released.

The potential regulations go far beyond the current requirements, which do not require actual measurement of persons with disabilities in the recruiting pool or workforce. The proposed regulations add a target for creating equal employment opportunities for people with disabilities, and the requirements for tracking recruitment, hiring, and retention would be similar to those now in place for gender and race/ethnicity. The actual process of identifying employees with disabilities is something that is of concern to many employers. There is a considerable struggle between identifying persons with disabilities and concern on the employer’s part of running afoul of the ADA. This process must be carefully thought out to avoid problems (Linkow, Barrington, Bruyère, Figueroa, & Wright, 2013).

While federal contractors only account for approximately 20% of private employers nationwide (O’Leary, 2009), these new regulations are likely to increase the use of promising practices, as federal contractors may require their subcontractors to abide by similar rules—two thirds of the current survey participants require their subcontractors/suppliers to adhere to disability nondiscrimination requirements.

Perhaps one of the most encouraging findings of this study is that fewer employers reported organizational barriers to hiring individuals with disabilities. Although the cost of accommodation remains a concern for employers, fewer employers felt that attitudes/stereotypes, supervisor knowledge of accommodations, cost of training, or supervision were a barrier as compared with 12 years ago. Although still high, fewer employers than those 15 years ago saw supply side issues as a barrier, for example, lack of related experience or training among individuals with a disability. These findings may indicate that informational efforts to raise awareness among employers may be helping to incrementally remove workplace barriers and thereby increase employment opportunities for individuals with disabilities.

Limitations

This study has some limitations that should be noted. As with any survey, response bias may exist due to participants selecting the more “socially desirable” answers that could lead to an overestimate of organizations having certain practices/policies. While SHRM is the largest HR professional organization in the world, it is not known whether the opinions of SHRM members and their organization’s policies and practices are representative of all HR professionals or of U.S. businesses in general. As noted in the “Method” section, online surveys may attract respondents who have greater interest in the topic of disability—likely those who are more disability friendly. Online survey responders were significantly more likely to have hired a person with a disability in the last 12 months than phone survey responders: 37.3% compared with 25.0%, χ²(1, N = 417) = 7.30, p = .007. Although the follow-up telephone survey was designed to try to address potential online response bias, nonrespondents may have different policies and practices than the survey participants. Response rates were lower than would have been desired; however, the phone survey approach and deliberate sampling by organizational size may have mitigated to some extent this potential response bias. In addition, in comparing the few questions between the original 1998 survey and the 2011, there were some minor wording alterations that could have led to differences in interpretation. Differences in organizational demographics between the survey respondents in 1998 and 2011 could also have had an impact on findings.

Implications for the Rehabilitation Profession

This research provides useful information for rehabilitation counseling professionals, educators, policy makers, and researchers to inform our efforts to improve employment outcomes for people with disabilities. Knowledge of current HR practices, which can facilitate or impede the hiring, retention, advancement, and full inclusion of people with disabilities, allows us to improve our ability to proactively encourage successful workplace disability nondiscrimination practices.

Rehabilitation service providers and administrators of rehabilitation agencies should be reminded through these study results, of the importance of focusing at least a portion of the agency’s community outreach and education efforts toward HR professionals. While over half of these HR survey respondents report having a relationship with a community agency, slightly less than half are actively recruiting people with disabilities. This may indicate that more effective outreach is needed not only to raise awareness of community employment resources for people with disabilities but also to promote more proactive follow-up on the agency’s side. This is imperative to turn agency relationships with companies into actual job placements. Presentations to local, regional, and state HR organizations about the (no cost) services of state and community vocational rehabilitation (VR) agencies as a source of qualified candidates is one way to increase business awareness of VR agency resources. Such outreach can also include information about available training and consultation on the legal requirements for employment disability nondiscrimination and accommodation, effective interviewing of people with disabilities, disability etiquette/sensitivity, and other related topics.

Effective hiring and retention practices that this research found were used less often can be highlighted in these presentations. Examples of practices we might want to encourage could include the use of available tax incentives, internship opportunities, the importance of top management commitment to disability as a part of diversity, the positive impact of mentoring programs, the formation of disability-focused employee resource groups or networks, and the importance of regular reviews of the accessibility of a company’s online recruiting websites. With such targeted community engagement efforts, rehabilitation agency business outreach professionals will also come in direct contact with HR professionals who may serve as their entrée into specific companies for future placements when positions become available. Nurturing these relationships and keeping communication lines open, once established, can greatly heighten the likelihood of longer term success in turning community contacts into successful job placements.

Rehabilitation counselor educators can use this same information on workplace best practices in enhancing employment outcomes for people with disabilities to prepare our professionals of the future with meaningful skills and knowledge that will serve to advantage them in working effectively with employers. Such information should be included in job development and placement courses, as well as courses focused on community intervention and outreach, and business development.

This research also has economic and workforce development, as well as VR and policy implications. In the current study and the prior Cornell/SHRM study of HR professionals, the barriers to the employment of people with disabilities reported by the largest number of respondents predominantly related to the perception of not having qualified applicants with disabilities, specifically, not having applicants with sufficient related experience and training. While a portion of this perspective may come from still-prevalent stereotypes about the capabilities of people with disabilities, these concerns may also have some legitimacy. These perceptions may be the outcome of continuing inequities in access to higher education and vocational training that would make applicants with disabilities maximally competitive in the current job market. These findings point to the compelling need for continued aggressive advocacy on behalf of people with disabilities in national, state, and regional economic and workforce development initiatives.

Finally, there is fertile ground for future research on employer practices, particularly HR practices, in increasing the employment, retention, advancement, and full inclusion of people with disabilities. The proposed OFCCP regulations that may require more stringent affirmative action requirements of federal contractors will likely heighten an interest in employers finding ways to better document the number of people with disabilities among their applicants and hires, as well as to provide a basis of comparison for retention and advancement rates of their employees with and without disabilities. Employers are only now beginning to consider including a disability measure among their recruitment, hiring, and retention HR analytics. In addition, rehabilitation researchers can be of assistance in examining the role that reluctance in self-disclosure plays in making it difficult for employers to document their current and future status in meeting federal requirements. Further research is also needed in identifying the workplace culture factors that can heighten the likelihood that people with disabilities, as well as other minority groups, feel confident that self-disclosure will lead to positive gains in employment advancement, rather than the continuing stigmatization regarding disability status that has discouraged such disclosure historically. Once such data become more readily available, it can provide rehabilitation researchers with a much more precise understanding of organizational practices, from which we can design targeted workplace training and consultation services to maximize needed longer term changes in workplace policies and practices.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like acknowledge the significant contributions of our SHRM collaborators, including Evren Essen, Robert Boyd, and Mark J. Schmit.

Authors’ Note

The contents of this article do not necessarily represent the policy of the Department of Education, and readers should not assume endorsement by the Federal Government (Edgar, 75.620 (b)).

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research is part of a larger set of research activities of the Rehabilitation Research and Training Center on Employer Practices Related to Employment Outcomes Among Individuals With Disabilities at Cornell University, funded by the U.S. Department of Education National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR; Grant H133B100017).

References

Acemoglu

Angrist

(1998, July). Consequences of employment protection? The case of the Americans With Disabilities Act (NBER Working Paper No. 6670). Retrieved from http://www.nber.org/papers/w6670

Acemoglu

Angrist

(2001). Consequences of employment protection? The case of the Americans With Disabilities Act. Journal of Political Economy, 109, 915–957.

Affirmative Action and Nondiscrimination Obligations of Contractors and Subcontractors Regarding Individuals With Disabilities, 76 Fed. Reg. 77056 (2011) (to be codified at 41 CFR part 60-741).

Ball

Monaco

Schmeling

Schartz

Blanck

(2005). Disability as diversity in Fortune 100 companies. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 23, 97–121.

Bruyère

(2000). Disability employment policies and practices in private and federal sector organizations. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, School of Industrial and Labor Relations Extension Division, Program on Employment and Disability.

Bruyère

Erickson

VanLooy

(2005). Information technology and the workplace: Implications for persons with disabilities. Disability Studies Quarterly, 25(2). Retrieved from http://dsq-sds.org/article/view/548/725

Bruyère

Erickson

Schramm

(2003). Disability in a technology-driven workplace. Workplace Visions, 5, 1–8.

Burkhauser

R. V.

Houtenville

A. J.

Wittenburg

(2001). A user guide to current statistics on the employment of people with disabilities. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University/Urban Institute, Rehabilitation Research and Training Center for Economic Research on Employment Policy for People With Disabilities.

Burkhauser

R. V.

Stapleton

(2003). A review of the evidence and its implications for policy change. In Stapleton

Burkhauser

R. V.

(Eds.), The decline in employment of people with disabilities: A policy puzzle (pp. 369–405). Kalamazoo, MI: W. E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research.

10.

Davenport

T. H.

Harris

Shapiro

(2010). Competing on talent analytics. Harvard Business Review, 88(10), 52–58.

11.

DeLeire

(2000a). The unintended consequences of the Americans With Disabilities Act. Regulation, 23(1), 21–24.

12.

DeLeire

(2000b). The wage and employment effects of the Americans With Disabilities Act. The Journal of Human Resources, 35, 693–715.

13.

Disability Case Study Research Consortium. (2008). Conducting and benchmarking inclusive employment policies, practices, and culture: Final report. Syracuse, NY: Burton Blatt Institute, Syracuse University.

14.

Dixon

K. A.

Kruse

Van Horn

C. E.

(2003). Restricted access: A survey of employers about people with disabilities and lowering barriers to work. New Brunswick, NJ: Heldrich Center for Workforce Development, Rutgers University.

15.

Domzal

Houtenville

Sharma

(2008). Survey of employer perspectives on the employment of people with disabilities: technical report (prepared under contract to the Office of Disability and Employment Policy, U.S. Department of Labor). McLean, VA: CESSI.

16.

Erickson

Lee

von Schrader

(2012). 2011 Disability status report: United States. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, Employment and Disability Institute.

17.

Gilbride

Stensrud

Vandergoot

Golden

(2003). Identification of the characteristics of work environments and employers open to hiring and accommodating people with disabilities. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 46, 130–137.

18.

Hernandez

Keys

Balcazar

(2000). Employer attitudes toward workers with disabilities and their ADA employment rights: A literature review. Journal of Rehabilitation, 66(4), 4–16.

19.

Hotchkiss

J. L.

(2004). A closer look at the employment impact of the Americans With Disabilities Act. The Journal of Human Resources, 39, 887–911.

20.

Houtenville

Burkhauser

(2005). Did the employment of people with disabilities decline in the 1990s, and was the ADA responsible? A replication and robustness check of Acemoglu and Angrist (2001). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, Rehabilitation Research and Training Center for Employment Policy for Persons With Disabilities.

21.

HR Staffs, budgets, saw modest rebound in 2012. (2012, November 20). Talent Management. Retrieved from http://talentmgt.com/articles/view/hr-staffs-budgets-saw-modest-rebound-in-2012

22.

Jette

(2006). Toward a common language for function, disability, and health. Physical Therapy, 86, 726–734.

23.

Jolls

Prescott

J. J.

(2004, September). Disaggregating employment protection: The case of disability discrimination (NBER Working paper). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.

24.

Kalev

Dobbin

Kelly

(2006). Best practices or best guesses? Assessing the efficacy of corporate affirmative action and diversity policies. American Sociological Review, 71, 589–617.

25.

Kessler Foundation/National Organization on Disability. (2010). Survey of employment of Americans with disabilities. New York, NY: Author.

26.

Kreitz

P. A.

(2008). Best practices for managing organizational diversity. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 34, 101–120. Retrieved from https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1016/j.acalib.2007.12.001.

27.

Lawler

E. E.

III. Levenson

Boudreau

J. W.

(2004). HR metrics and analytics: Use and impact. Human Resource Planning, 27(4), 27–35.

28.

Lengnick-Hall

Gaunt

Collison

(2003). Employer incentives for hiring individuals with disabilities. Alexandria, VA: Society for Human Resource Management.

29.

Linkow

Barrington

Bruyère

Figueroa

Wright

(2013). Leveling the playing field: Attracting, engaging, and advancing people with disabilities. New York, NY: The Conference Board.

30.

McMahon

Wehman

Brooke

Habeck

Green

Fraser

(2004). Business, disability and employment: Corporate models of success. A collection of successful approaches reported from 20 employers. Richmond: Virginia Commonwealth University.

31.

O’Leary

(2009). Making government work for families: The federal government’s role as employer and contractor in improving family-friendly policies. Berkeley, CA: Center for American Progress.

32.

Ren

L. R.

Paetzold

R. L.

Colella

(2008). A meta-analysis of experimental studies on the effects of disability on human resource judgments. Human Resource Management Review, 18, 191–203. Retrieved from https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1016/j.hrmr.2008.07.001

33.

Schur

Kruse

Blasi

Blanck

(2009). Is disability disabling in all workplaces? Workplace disparities and corporate culture. Industrial Relations, 48, 381–410.

34.

Society for Human Resource Management. (1999). The ADA at work: Implementation of the employment provisions of the Americans With Disabilities Act. Alexandria, VA: Author.

35.

Society for Human Resource management. (2010). Workplace diversity practices: How has diversity and inclusion changed over time? Alexandria, VA: Author. Retrieved from http://www.thehrgroupinc.net/assets/galleries/Events/Diversity-Leadership-Conf-2010/PowerPoint-presentations/Workplace-Diversity-Practices-Change-Over-Time.pdf

36.

Society for Human Resource Management. (2012). 2011 SHRM annual report. Retrieved from http://www.shrm.org/about/reports/Documents/12-0085%202011%20Annual%20Report_viewonlyFNL.pdf

37.

Stone

D. L.

Colella

(1996). A model of factors affecting the treatment of disabled individuals in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 21, 352–401.

38.

U.S. Department of Labor. (2012). Business strategies that work: A framework for disability inclusion. Retrieved from http://www.askearn.org/docs/BusinessStrategiesThatWork.pdf

39.

U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2005). Diversity management: Expert-identified leading practices and agency examples (GAO-05-90). Washington, DC: Author.

40.

von Schrader

Malzer

Erickson

Bruyère

(2011). Emerging employment issues for people with disabilities: Disability disclosure, leave as a reasonable accommodation, use of job applicant screeners (Report of a Cornell/AAPD Survey). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Employment and Disability Institute.