Abstract
This article presents the findings from research to identify key barriers and opportunities in the provision of workplace accommodations for employees with disabilities in the United States. Using the policy Delphi method, a multiround, iterative polling technique used to assess key stakeholder perceptions, the study probed on five areas: awareness, policy/regulatory, economic, technology, and social. For each of these areas, the Delphi panel was asked to comment on the reliability of forecasts, importance of issues, desirability of goals, and finally, the feasibility of policy options. The Delphi study concluded with a set of 22 policy options to address barriers to the provision of workplace accommodations. Many of these options take a collaborative approach, but they emphasize involvement of federal agencies such as the Office of Disability Employment Policy in the U.S. Department of Labor and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Task Force of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Introduction
Americans, regardless of personal characteristics, should enjoy equal access to employment and workplaces. Despite legislative mandates to ensure access to, and inclusion within, the workplace as well as supporting regulatory rulemaking and programs, Americans with disabilities still face challenges with finding employment and securing reasonable job accommodations (Harris Interactive, 2010). To understand some of the barriers that persist and how policy making might help remediate them, the authors undertook a policy Delphi study to recognize ongoing issues of importance in the provision of job accommodations, identify the most desirable goals for addressing those issues, and determine the most feasible policy options.
Employment and Workplace Accommodations for Americans With Disabilities
Accommodation in the workplace has been a focus of legislative mandates to ensure the inclusion of Americans with disabilities. Reasonable accommodations for qualified workers with disabilities are required by Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 and the ADA Amendments Act of 2008, and the courts have further articulated the meaning and scope of these rights (Moon, Kaplan, & Weiss, 2010). Complementing the ADA has been the passage of other legislation that facilitates the provision of reasonable accommodations. Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (amended by the Workforce Investment Act of 1998) requires that federal agencies adhere to accessibility standards in their development, procurement, maintenance, and use of electronic and information technologies (EIT). In addition to ensuring that workers in the federal sector have access to accessible technologies, Section 508 has served as a model for many state governments with similar policies. These laws have influenced designers and manufacturers, who must meet the specifications of these major purchasers, thus creating “spillover” effects for all Americans with disabilities. Section 255 of the Communications Act (amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996) is also significant, as it requires equipment manufacturers and service providers to ensure access to telecommunications services by Americans with disabilities. This law and supplemental rulemaking by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) encompasses equipment commonly used in the workplace, such as telephones, fax machines, answering machines, and pagers.
Regulatory rulemaking and enforcement has supported this legislation. Most notably, the Office of Disability Employment Policy (ODEP) in the U.S. Department of Labor develops evidence-based employment policies and practices, establishes collaborative partnerships, and collects data on the employment of Americans with disabilities. The Disability Rights Section within the Civil Rights Section of the U.S. Department of Justice implements the ADA, including Title I enforcement. The U.S. Access Board develops federal standards for Section 508 and guidelines for Section 255. Associated agencies and offices include the Disability Rights Office (DRO) of the FCC, the Ticket to Work program of the Social Security Administration, and the National Council on Disability. Furthermore, the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR) sponsors a number of projects to improve the employment and accommodation of Americans with disabilities, including the Rehabilitation Engineering Research Center on Workplace Accommodations (WorkRERC) and several Rehabilitation Research and Training Centers to improve employment outcomes. NIDRR also sponsors the DBTAC: National ADA Centers (formerly the Disability and Business Technical Assistance Centers), which provide employers and businesses with technical assistance regarding the ADA.
Despite policy making to support the provision of workplace accommodations, challenges persist to the full participation and inclusion of Americans with disabilities within the workforce. First, there is the problem of employment disparities between Americans with disabilities and those without disabilities. In 2002, the U.S. Census Bureau found higher rates of unemployment among people with disabilities, 14.1%, compared with just 5.8% of the population without disabilities (Employment and Disability Institute, 2010). Despite ongoing efforts to ameliorate these disparities, employment of people with disabilities still lags behind the general population. The December 2010 unemployment rate for people with disabilities was 14.3%, compared with 8.9% of the population without disabilities (U.S. Department of Labor, 2011).
To maximize the inclusion of people with disabilities in the American workforce, the provision of reasonable workplace accommodations is often necessary (Williams, Sabata, & Zolna, 2006). Uneven provision of these accommodations among employed individuals exacerbates the problem of a disproportionately high unemployment rate among Americans with disabilities (Ward & Baker, 2005). Despite legislative mandates and regulatory support for reasonable accommodations, little is known about the actual provision of accommodations for a variety of reasons. Head, Baker, Bagwell, and Moon (2006) reported on the difficulty of obtaining even the most basic information about the implementation of accommodations among Fortune 500 companies in the United States. Employer reticence to collect such data out of fears that it might pose a legal liability explains part of the problem.
Despite a lack of reliable data on the provision of workplace accommodations, Habeck, Kregel, Head, and Yasuda (2007) undertook a number of intensive, on-site qualitative employer studies to understand organizational factors and practices in the successful retention of employees with disabilities. Their research enabled them to offer a number of preliminary findings regarding demand-side (i.e., employer) approaches to the long-term retention of employees with disabilities. First, they noted that provision of accommodations and return-to-work services was not a one-time event but rather, an ongoing process. Successful accommodation of employees with disabilities requires a continuous series of adjustments and interventions. Second, Habeck et al. contended that effective workplace supports and accommodations are rarely provided through external sources but rather, from highly skilled and knowledgeable professionals within the workplace or who are otherwise immediately available to offer support and services. Employer support is vital to the success of accommodations. When an employee’s job retention is jeopardized, managers and supervisors must respond immediately to situations that often cannot be anticipated. Third, the authors found a gap between employer’s “diversity” efforts to hire people with disabilities and ongoing efforts to manage and retain these same individuals. Although this disconnect poses a potential hazard, Habeck et al. suggested that the skills and resources needed to accomplish accommodation and support can bring hiring and retention efforts together to realize employer goals of preserving the health and productivity of its workforce as well as bolstering its diversity. Finally, they argue that the current crisis of presenteeism must be appreciated more fully by policy makers and service systems concerned with employers’ willingness to hire and retain workers with disabilities.
In addition to the process behind them, the accommodations themselves deserve consideration. Many accommodations involve the provision of assistive technology (AT) or the adaptation of existing workplace technologies to render them accessible and usable. In their wide-ranging review of the literature, Butterfield and Ramseur (2004) discussed the role of AT in accommodating workers with disabilities. Technology-based accommodations address a range of functional limitations, from mobility and dexterity impairments to sensory impairments to difficulty with cognitive functions. They also may remediate any number of environmental barriers, such as transportation access and computer operation. For example, accommodations may include the provision of AT, such as voice recognition software for individuals who may have difficulty using standard keyboards and mice or JAWS (Job Access With Speech) applications for employees with visual impairments. Yet, they also include nontechnological adaptations, such as adjusted work schedules, flexible leave policies, job restructuring, reassignment, or retraining (Landstad, Ekholm, Broman, & Schuldt, 2000; McCray, 2006; McNeal, Sommerville, & Wilson, 1999). In short, employers may offer a wide array of accommodations for their employees with disabilities.
In advance of this policy Delphi study, the authors undertook an informal literature review and prepared a supporting policy matrix to inform the participants. The conceptual framework developed through this process was structured around an identification of “themes,” or crosscutting components (e.g., data collection, accommodation practices, the aging worker, emergency communications). Each of these themes considered the associated barriers (access, economic, policy/regulatory, environmental, awareness, social, technological), impact on workplace, relevant stakeholders, policy-based approaches to addressing challenges, and potential outcomes from problem resolution. Presented to the participants at the outset of this study, the matrix served as an organizing heuristic for focusing on policy-based approaches to problem solution. The following sections describe some of the key themes identified.
Data Collection on Employment, Workplace Accommodation, and Integration
A major problem with developing policy to address disability issues in general, as well as specific issues of workplace accommodation, is an insufficiency of available data capturing the nature and circumstances of workplace accommodations. Furthermore, available data may misrepresent the current state of employment and workplace accommodations implementation among individuals with disabilities. Survey methodologies currently used to account for employees with disabilities and their accommodations may be slightly skewed, as they may not provide an accurate accounting. The data on the implementation of workplace accommodations within the United States also fails to fully incorporate the views of employers, especially those who have never employed an individual with a disability (Silverstein, Julnes, & Nolan, 2005).
Range of Accommodations, Including Telework
As noted above, workplace accommodations involve changes to the work environment that are typically practice related, technological, or environmental in nature. Universal design (UD) and AT comprise areas of major interest within this issue sphere (Bruyere, Erickson, & VanLooy, 2005). Employees with disabilities and their employers frequently lack information on available AT options, or even a basic awareness that a range of accommodations exists. There is also concern that, due to lack of awareness, manufacturers of workplace-related devices or technologies (i.e., information and communication devices, software, telephones, etc.) may not design for all users or do not optimally design technology to be adaptable for a wider array of user characteristics. Universally designed devices benefit workers with disabilities because they permit easier integration into the environment with less need for job-specific alterations.
Safety/Emergency Preparedness
Recent natural disasters and other emergency situations in the United States have underscored the importance of emergency communications and preparedness planning, especially for people with disabilities. People with disabilities face compounded vulnerabilities in the face of disasters and emergencies due to a variety of functional and sensory limitations that they may experience, making the ability to communicate instructions and information even more critical. As part of the effort to ensure that people with disabilities are integrated in emergency preparedness plans, accommodations for the workplace have become a major priority. Research over the last decade has shown that people with disabilities are often overlooked during workplace planning efforts due to lack of awareness about the needs or their responsibilities. This unawareness may also translate to fear on the part of the employer about employing those with disabilities because of liability concerns during an emergency (U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 2006).
Aging Workers
The issue of aging workers is extremely relevant for the workplace environment, particularly as the demographics of the American population changes. Although aging workers experience similar barriers as people with disabilities when it comes to the workplace, their specific concerns may be slightly different. Accommodations for workers who are aging into disability are notable also because of the projections about the changing demographics of the work-eligible population. Issues with accommodating this group come from social barriers about the employability of aging adults. There are also issues with the existing legislative framework and the work benefits that those beyond retirement can receive (Finch & Robinson, 2003).
Method
To illuminate the issues surrounding workplace accommodations, as well as feasible policy options to address relevant barriers, the authors used the policy Delphi method. The policy Delphi method is derived from the conventional Delphi method, a systematic, judgmental forecasting procedure used to obtain, exchange, and develop informed opinion about a particular topic or future event. “Intuitive” or “judgmental” forecasting procedures are best suited for complex problems for which policy alternatives are not well defined and for which theories or empirical data are not available to make a forecast (Dunn, 1994). As originally conceived by researchers at the RAND Corporation, the Delphi method is a tool for military and economic forecasting through the repeated survey of experts to reach a consensus on a given issue of importance (Cornish, 1977). The Delphi method has been used for forecasting in a number of areas, including, but not limited to, education, mass media, medicine, and military strategy (Adler & Ziglio, 1996; Dalkey, 1969; Dalkey, Brown, & Cochran, 1969; Rayens & Hahn, 2000).
The policy Delphi goes beyond the objectives of conventional Delphi techniques through its interest in more closely matching the complexities of the policy problem. The policy Delphi method uses some of the same principles as the conventional Delphi, but introduces several new ones, including the use of informed advocates or key stakeholders rather than policy issue “experts” (Dunn, 1994). In addition, the policy Delphi modifies the goals of the conventional Delphi method somewhat, as it seeks to develop “pro” and “con” arguments about policy issues and their resolutions (Turoff, 1970). The policy Delphi method aims to describe a variety of alternatives to a policy issue and provide a constructive forum in which consensus formation may occur. This technique, as employed in this study, allows a panel of stakeholders to contribute elements to a complex situation with the intention of building a composite model of the topic under study. As articulated by Murray Turoff, a policy Delphi relies less on the use of experts to generate a policy decision and more on group of “advocates and referees” to present all the options and supporting evidence for a given issue. In the process of reaching a consensus, the policy Delphi seeks to discern any number of potential resolutions for a major policy issue (Linstone & Turoff, 2002). As noted below, policy Delphis have been deployed to discern various aspects of disability policy (Baker & Moon, 2010).
Policy Delphis may have any of the three objectives: (a) to ensure that all possible options have been proposed for consideration, (b) to estimate the impact and consequences of any particular option, and (c) to examine and estimate the acceptability of any particular option. The most important objective here was a consideration of the feasibility and acceptability of the options proposed. In doing so, the Delphi relied on the six phases in the communication process between its participants: (a) formulation of the issues, (b) presenting the options, (c) determining initial positions on the issues, (d) exploring and obtaining the reasons for disagreements, (e) evaluating the underlying reasons, and (f) reevaluating the options (Cornish, 1977). In the case of the current research on workplace accommodations, an initial set of issues and goals were formulated prior to the first round through the development of an analytic policy matrix supported by the informal review of the scholarly literature.
Policy Delphis typically adhere to four key principles: anonymity, which minimizes outside influences on the predictions that panelists make and allows for candid responses; asynchronicity, the ability of participants to take part when and how they choose to; controlled feedback, as the results of one round of questions are used to inform the creation of the next; and statistical response, taking the opinions of experts on a given area and converting them into quantitative data (Human-Environment Regional Observatory [HERO], 2001).
The policy Delphi method is a multistage process involving the initial measurement of opinions in the first stage, followed by data analysis, design of a new questionnaire based on group response to the previous questions, and a subsequent measurement of opinions in the second stage. Statistical group feedback—information about the beliefs of participants during the first-stage interview—is used in the second-stage interview, as well as others that follow, to facilitate consensus on policy beliefs (McKenna, 1994). This process allows participants involved in the polling to reconsider their opinions based on the aggregated views of other stakeholders and may be repeated until consensus is reached or saturation of opinion occurs. The number of stages may range between two and five (Rayens & Hahn, 2000). Our policy Delphi consisted of three rounds.
First-stage policy Delphi questions typically include four categories of items: forecasts, issues, goals, and options (Dunn, 1994). The Policy Delphi on Workplace Accommodations used this approach. Forecasts examined the reliability of broad social, economic, regulatory, and technological trends that may affect the future of workplace accommodations. Issues elicited the input of respondents on the importance of perceived and identified barriers and opportunities related to workplace accommodations. These were clustered into five broad issue categories: (a) awareness, (b) policy/regulatory, (c) economic, (d) technological, and (e) social. Goals concentrated on the desirability of particular outcomes in addressing pertinent issues. Options items asked respondents to consider the feasibility of initiatives and policy interventions to address issues deemed important and achieve goals determined to be desirable. Although each of these four categories (forecasts, issues, goals, and options) was relatively autonomous, it is accurate to state that forecasts informed issues, issues informed goals, and goals informed options.
Because policy Delphi questions are designed to generate a range of viewpoints and perceptions, as well as to clarify opinions, response categories do not typically permit neutral answers. The response choices are often rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale. The response choices for forecast items range from “certainly reliable” to “unreliable.” For issue items, response categories range from “very important” to “unimportant.” The response choices for goal items range from “very desirable” to “very undesirable.” For option items, the range is from “definitely feasible” to “definitely unfeasible.” In addition, open-ended responses are used to help formulate additional issues and goals through the Delphi. These responses are also used to gauge reasons for disagreement whenever a proposed issue or goal fails to receive a strong majority of support.
A traditional pencil-and-paper policy Delphi can run five or six rounds using such a technique. However, the use of an electronic Delphi, via an Internet website developed for such a specific purpose, means that the Delphi may be satisfactorily completed in fewer rounds and with greater convenience for the participants. Our three-round e-Delphi was conducted via the HERO e-Delphi system at the Pennsylvania State University (see Figure 1). To ensure the accessibility of the e-Delphi to all respondents, questions were provided in alternate formats on request. The moderator entered these responses into the e-Delphi system for tabulation.
Section from Round 3 of the e-Delphi instrument for the Policy Delphi on Workplace Accommodations (courtesy of HERO, Pennsylvania State University)
Relevance of Policy Delphi Method
Policy making in the disability arena involves the participation of a wide array of stakeholders, many of whom do not hold the same positions on disability access and inclusion. Even among stakeholders who may have common understandings of issues and share common goals, differences of opinion regarding policy options or approaches are commonplace. Given the complexity of this landscape, the policy Delphi method may represent a useful technique for identifying important issues, discerning desirable goals, and parsing viable options for complex policy problems. As a qualitative instrument designed to allow stakeholders to contribute their views to a complex policy issue and, based on their responses, shape the progression of the discussion, the policy Delphi method provides a useful tool for understanding disability policy.
The authors have previously used the policy Delphi method to understand barriers to access and use of wireless technologies by people with disabilities (Baker & Moon, 2008a, 2008b, 2010). This study examined key barriers and opportunities surrounding Americans with disabilities’ use of mobile phones, Wi-Fi broadband Internet access, and other technologies. The Policy Delphi on Wireless Technologies revealed a number of key findings, including problems with device compatibility, ongoing awareness issues on the part of manufacturers, and economic concerns, less so regarding the affordability of devices and more on the general level of employment of people with disabilities. As the study progressed into the second round, participants agreed that, although manufacturers fail to design appropriately for people with disabilities, a broader divide exists between designers/manufacturers, consumers/users, and retailers/intermediaries. Manufacturers are often oblivious to the barriers that are faced by consumers with disabilities, but likewise, potential consumers of wireless products lack information necessary to select and use such technologies.
Regarding wireless technology access and use, participants identified two goals in particular: encouraging manufacturers of wireless devices to include people with disabilities in the review and evaluation of assistive or universally designed technologies, as well as an increased emphasis on UD principles in place of an emphasis on AT. Other desirable goals focused on research and development (R&D) as well as the crafting of policy to support such activities. Examples included increased coordination between private and public R&D, research programs on interoperability and standards setting, design approaches to determine best practices, involvement of consumers through publicly shown prototypes, and development of compatible platforms between wireless and other mobile devices used by people with disabilities.
The policy Delphi on wireless technologies concluded with a set of options to realize goals identified as most desirable by participants. Three access-/awareness-related options received particular support. First, public sector interventions might include an expanded dissemination program of fact sheets and supporting material developed in association with key stakeholders. Second, awareness and participation could be generated through public hearings to encourage increased stakeholder input into the regulatory process. Finally, educational outreach to manufacturers and designers of wireless products should emphasize untapped markets consisting of people with disabilities and focus on benefits of universally designed features for these groups and for the user base at large. In line with the purpose of the policy Delphi’s intent to inform the policy development process, authors reported findings in the filing of public comments to the FCC in a number of regulatory rulemakings.
The policy Delphi method has been used in the area of disability employment as well. Schneider and Dutton (2002) undertook a policy Delphi study in the United Kingdom to examine the attitudes that employers and disability employment advisors held toward employees with disabilities. Of specific interest was the impact of national minimum wage (NMW), as mandated by the National Minimum Wage Act 1998, on those views. Generally, the study found that the NMW benefited people with disabilities by making low-wage jobs better paid, though a minority of respondents believed the law had created additional obstacles to employment. Similar to the aims of this present study, Schneider and Dutton were most interested in gathering and analyzing subjective judgments from relevant stakeholders in the areas of employment and wage policies and people with disabilities throughout the United Kingdom.
Study Implementation and Limitations
The authors solicited participants for the policy Delphi on Workplace Accommodations by using the mailing lists of the Center for Assistive Technology and Environmental Access (CATEA) at the Georgia Institute of Technology and the Southeast DBTAC. The CATEA mailing list comprises a diverse group of disability stakeholders, including vocational rehabilitation (VR) professionals, human resource (HR) managers charged with overseeing disability employment and accommodations for large employers, federal and state-level officials, disability advocates, and community members at large. In line with its mission as a regional resource center on ADA compliance by employers, the DBTAC mailing list includes employers, attorneys, and other legal professionals in the area of disability employment, VR professionals, advocates, and employees with disabilities.
These two lists total more than 2,000 individuals, from which 1,000 contacts were chosen at random for solicitation. Of these requests for participation, 139 responses were received indicating an interest (roughly a 13.9% response rate). These individuals were provided a username and password that enabled them to take part in the policy Delphi through HERO’s e-Delphi system. Of these 139 respondents, 44 individuals completed the first round of the policy Delphi (a completion rate of 31.6% of those indicating an interest, and approximately 4.4% of the entire group solicited). Over the following two rounds, there was slight attrition as several of the original respondents failed to participate, but on the whole, the main panel remained intact throughout the course of the study.
Given the randomized selection process using the CATEA and DBTAC mailing lists, the Delphi panel was not meant as a representative sample of any specific demographic population. Rather, it was intended to comprise a rough cross-section of the key stakeholders in the area of workplace accommodations and disability employment. Toward those ends, participants included private and public sector VR professionals, HR managers for large employers, federal and state officials, disability advocates and educators in the area of ADA Title I compliance, and several members of the community.
The Policy Delphi on Workplace Accommodations was conducted over the course of three rounds. Round 1 took place between December 2006 and January 2007, during which participants answered a set of forecasts, issues, goals, and options questions that were formulated in response to the baseline literature review and policy matrix. Of particular interest in this round was achieving clarity on the most important issues surrounding workplace accommodations for people with disabilities. Round 2 had two key objectives. First, it posed additional issues items to elaborate on findings from Round 1. More prominently, however, Round 2 was devoted to discerning the most desirable goals. Round 3 took place between January and March 2009, and it was primarily dedicated to determining the most feasible policy options.
Awareness in Workplace Accommodations
Ongoing lack of awareness or misperceptions in the provision of workplace accommodations elicited the strongest overall concern from the Delphi panel (see Table 1). Employers, in particular, received a great deal of attention regarding their possible lack of awareness about issues such as legal obligations, costs, and available options in making reasonable accommodations available. Nevertheless, employees with disabilities were also implicated by respondents, who emphasized their need to understand how to request reasonable accommodations appropriately and how best to communicate their needs to employers.
Awareness Issues Considered by Policy Delphi Panel, Arranged From Most to Least Support (Based on Responses of “Very Important”)
First of all, participants expressed concern that many employers lack clarity on what is deemed an “accommodation,” with 89% believing this to be an important issue (see Note 1). As some explained when asked about this issue further, employers may not understand the wide range of accommodations that may be provided for their employees. Undue emphasis on AT or other technology-based solutions may cause the range of possibilities to seem unnecessarily narrow for some managers. This finding was confirmed in subsequent rounds, when 93% believed it important that employers may be unaware of resources, such as disability advocates, national websites, local rehabilitation professionals, or VR programs that may help identify needs for accommodations for workers with disabilities. A large part of the problem could be attributed to a lack of resources and models to help inform managerial decision making. For example, 86% of the Delphi panel concurred with the statement that employers often lack “best practices” perspectives in providing accommodations, as being an important issue. In addition to a lack of resources to inform employer perspectives, respondents elaborated on other key awareness issues among employers. Of particular concern was misinformation about workplace liability; attendance and productivity for people with disabilities; pertinent rights of, and policies governing, workers with disabilities; and employer fears that making accommodations will be costly.
Delphi participants also explored a number of more specific employer-side awareness issues. Emergency planning that takes into account the needs of employees with disabilities was a topic of constant concern, as 85% of respondents agreed on the importance of an issue that emergency plans for workplaces are not typically designed to accommodate the needs of employees with disabilities. Compounding this issue even further are perceptions of employers that, in an emergency situation, employees with disabilities are more likely to be at risk for serious injuries than employees without documented disabilities, an issue that 83% of participants viewed as an important issue. The salience of this issue as being of policy-related concern was confirmed in a subsequent round, when 96% of participants believed it important that workplace emergency plans have not considered the needs of, or input from, employees with disabilities.
The Delphi study also examined relevant employee-side awareness issues related to workplace accommodations. Practically the entire panel, 99%, believed it an important issue that employees with disabilities may lack an understanding of how to request an accommodation or may be reluctant to communicate their needs to an employer.
In response to those awareness issues identified as important, the Delphi study next examined the most relevant goals. Two goals, in particular, elicited strong support from the Delphi panel, and both pertained to employers. In all, 97% believed better understanding of barriers to increased employment of persons with disabilities from the employer point of view to be a desirable objective (see Note 2). Almost as popular, receiving support from 90% of participants, was a recommendation to develop examples and models for corporate implementation of accommodations and hiring of persons with disabilities. In a subsequent round, Delphi respondents touted the role of employer motivations for hiring and accommodating employees with disabilities as part of awareness goals. Development and dissemination of resources to educate employers about the economic incentives associated with hiring people with disabilities and provision of workplace accommodations received the support of 92% of the panel. Despite strong support for this objective, some participants voiced notable criticism about the possibility that employers who tend to hire persons with disabilities for economic incentives are not likely to be good employers. “I think that we should leave that alone as a selling point,” one respondent observed regarding this last point.
Economic Aspects of Workplace Accommodations
Economic issues pertaining to workplace accommodations related to two broad themes: employer willingness to cover the costs associated with accommodations as well as the high cost of AT and other technologies. The first set of economic issues probed in the Delphi continued many of the employer-side awareness issues considered in the policy Delphi. Beginning with the possibility that employers may not be willing to pay for the cost of workplace accommodations, 83% of respondents believed this to be an important issue. The subsequent round of the Delphi sought to understand the various aspects of employer reticence to cover the expenses of accommodating employees with disabilities. The possibility that employers lack awareness of federal and state VR programs to identify accommodation needs and to help pay for them received the greatest level of support, as 96% of participants believed this to be an important issue. Just as many respondents, 96%, believed it important that employers overestimate the out-of-pocket expense of workplace accommodations. Nearly as many panelists, 92%, agreed that perceptions among employers that hiring people with disabilities will increase their insurance costs represented an important issue. Finally, 83% of respondents believed that a lack of employer understanding of the tax benefits associated with hiring individuals with disabilities, such as incentives to help pay for accommodations, constituted an issue of importance.
Based on these employer-related economic issues, respondents considered an economic goal to expand state or federal tax subsidies, particularly for the use of VR services, to further offset employer costs for providing accommodations. A strong majority of the Delphi panel, 83%, believed this goal to be desirable. More specific initiatives suggested by panelists included personal tax credits for people with disabilities who choose to work, based on (a) income earned, (b) increased use of AT lending programs, and (c) strategies of continuing education. However, support for tax incentives did not receive unanimous support. One participant warned that “if you create economic value in hiring persons with disabilities, some employers will hire persons with disabilities just for the cost value—this does not teach social responsibility, in my experience.” Nevertheless, 91% of respondents believed that an economic option for federal lawmakers to adapt provisions of the Disabled Access Credit as part of the Internal Revenue Service’s Small Business Tax Credit, to cover employers who may not necessarily qualify under the small business limitation, represents a feasible means to expand tax incentives for the provision of workplace accommodations by employer (see Note 3).
In addition to employer-related issues, the Delphi panel examined whether the association with AT and other technologies represented a key economic barrier to the provision of workplace accommodations. Responding to the prospect that manufacturers of information and communication technologies (ICTs) may be unaware of the market for universally designed products, 90% of participants believed this to be an important issue. Elaborating more on this issue in a follow-up round, participants overwhelmingly agreed (99%) that use of UD principles in workplaces to drive down the costs of providing accommodations represented an important issue. Despite a preference of universally designed products, the Delphi panel did not shift its interest from AT entirely, especially those technologies used to make telecommunications accessible to users with hearing or communication impairments. Regarding an option involving the Telecommunications Equipment Distribution Program Association and its member state associations, 80% of respondents believed it feasible to examine development of equipment distribution programs to provide AT loans to offset the costs of making accommodations.
Regulatory and Policy Implications of Workplace Accommodations
Although reasonable accommodations for Americans with disabilities are protected under Title I of the ADA, numerous policy and regulatory barriers persist (see Table 2). In this policy Delphi, two regulatory themes stood out in particular: increasing importance of telecommunications and Internet access within the workplace and the persistence of barriers to their accessibility, as well as more general policies that affect the training and employment of workers with disabilities.
Policy/Regulatory Issues Considered by Policy Delphi Panel, Arranged From Most to Least Support (Based on Responses of “Very Important”)
On Internet accessibility, 85% of participants indicated the importance of the issue that, although the Internet improves prospects for employment for many Americans, people with disabilities may be placed at a disadvantage due to its possible inaccessibility. The Internet was not the only issue of concern, as 84% also believed it important that legislation mandating certain telecommunications requirements for persons with disabilities fails to include technologies like email. Probing these issues further in a subsequent round, many respondents believed enforcement of existing laws to be a major part of the problem. The possibility that ineffective enforcement of telecommunications regulations (e.g., Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act) fails to compel manufacturers to produce accessible devices was cited as in important issue by 93% of the panel. Also of concern was the fact that telecommunications regulations have historically attempted to provide telephony access for people with hearing and communication impairments. As such, 96% identified the comparative neglect of people unable to use telecommunications devices due to physical disabilities such as upper body impairment and poor dexterity to be an important issue.
In response to these concerns, the Delphi panel (97%) overwhelmingly supported a goal to revise existing telecommunications regulations to include access by people with disabilities to newer technologies such as e-mail and wireless communication platforms. Regarding the feasibility of such goals as policy, two options stood out in particular. First of all, participants responded favorably to the U.S. Access Board’s ongoing efforts to refresh the Section 508 standards and Section 255 guidelines. However, they also believed that more could be done to promote these efforts, as 92% of participants agreed that the Access Board could facilitate additional outreach seminars or workshops involving business stakeholder groups to disseminate findings and recommendations made by the Board.
Another area of regulatory concern involved policies designed to improve overall employment of workers with disabilities as well as their training and education. Of paramount concern to the Delphi panel was the possibility that there may be too many disincentives, such as inadequate insurance and health care, as well as a lack of a transition plan from unemployment to employment, to bring people with disabilities into the workforce. This issue was viewed as important by 92% of respondents. When asked to elaborate further on their concerns, three issues stood out in particular. First, there was concern that individuals with disabilities may not have enough or appropriate training to enter specific workplaces as well as a need for programs or policies to provide these individuals with such training or education. Second, there may remain a need for incentives to bring workers into the workplace, including better insurance/health care and a transition plan from unemployment to employment. Finally, there is a need for policies that encourage employers to provide flexibility for work arrangements and schedules, including flexible leave, job sharing, part-time schedules, and customized employment policies.
These concerns were explored further in the following round, in which participants focused more on issues of training and education. An overwhelming proportion, 96%, responded that training and educational programs that may not be providing people with disabilities with adequate or appropriate skills represented an important issue. Also important for 86% of the panel was the possibility that employers are often unaware of educational or training programs to help people with disabilities obtain employment. The final round examined some more specific issues in greater detail. An observation that the complexity of federal entitlement programs makes analysis of employment of people with disabilities more variable and less reliable, thus compounding the problems faced by researchers seeking to better understand workplace accommodations and lacking the necessary data to do so, was identified as important by 96% of the panel. Though receiving substantially less support, 73% of respondents also thought it important that VR professionals are oriented toward meeting the needs of individual clients, rather than corporate objectives.
In response to these issues, the Delphi panel considered a number of options. Although data collection was believed to be an important issue by an overwhelmingly majority, respondents were more divided on the feasibility of an option to address it. Only 77% thought a plan for ODEP to develop a voluntary program for the collection of data pertaining to workplace accommodations by employers (with the option of anonymity for legal protections) to be a feasible option.
Technology and the Accommodating Workplace
The ability of technology both to facilitate and hinder accommodation within the workplace was also a focus of the Delphi study. Exploring regulatory concerns regarding the accessibility of the Internet and telecommunications even further, the panel took a closer look at some of the key technology issues in the provision of workplace accommodations. A persistent theme of particular interest was the accessibility of websites, especially those directly related to employment opportunities for people with disabilities. While 86% of respondents believed it important that state and local government websites are not designed for accessibility, just as many also believed it important that websites used by employers for job recruitment may not be fully accessible. This issue was so powerful that participants unanimously supported the initiation of public awareness/information campaigns to encourage job recruitment websites to consider the accessibility needs of people with disabilities. Although not receiving as much support as outreach campaigns, 92% of respondents believed that the development of regulations to mandate web accessibility for private and public websites represented a desirable goal. The salience of website accessibility was also evident in an option for ODEP, in collaboration with other stakeholders, to undertake campaigns to inform employers about the importance of accessible websites and other online resources for the purposes of job recruitment. The Delphi panel unanimously believed this option to be feasible.
The role of technology in emergency communications and workplace egress remained an important theme throughout the Delphi study, as 92% of participants believed it important that emergency and egress procedures frequently do not take into account the limitations of persons with disabilities. Probing on this matter further in a subsequent round, 93% of respondents believed it important that there is a lack of equipment, such digitally based alert systems for people with hearing and visual impairments, which may be used by people with disabilities in an emergency or in the event of failure of communications systems. Furthermore, 96% believed it important that technologies and workspaces have not generally been designed to communicate alerts in accessible formats, such as flashing lights, to employees with disabilities in the event of an emergency. In response to these concerns, the Delphi panel unanimously supported developing new technologies or adapting existing ones, such as cellular and SMS text communication devices, to address the emergency-related needs of employees with disabilities, including receiving message details and egress. In terms of policy options to realize this goal, 95% of respondents believed that an effort, involving the FCC’s DRO and Emergency Alert System authorities, to promote telecommunications technologies to address the emergency needs of people with disabilities in the workplace to be a feasible option. A related option, to engage wireless industry groups with significant interest in disability access to promote the development of new technologies and adaptation of existing ones to improve workplace communications, received the support of 88% of respondents.
Not every issue received strong support from the Delphi panel, however. Despite research suggesting its viability (Anderson, Bricout, & West, 2001; Bricout, 2004), telework and telecommuting received a mixed reception regarding its potential as a workplace accommodation. Regarding the potential of telework to create a more accessible workplace, half of respondents believed it risky to assume that a growth in telework as a work option for people with disabilities would necessarily increase the group’s overall employment. Although reaction to the various telework/telecommuting issues was mixed during the course of the study, a majority of respondents considered the various social dimensions of telework and telecommuting to be important issues. The potential loss of social capital and lack of upward social mobility for workers in such employment arrangements received particular attention. A couple of participants also articulated a notable criticism to the use of telework as a workplace accommodation. In the words of one, “I do not believe that telework is the answer for the majority of persons with disabilities. They need to be in the workforce, out of the home.” Another commenter noted that even if telework continues to grow, it would privilege those already with jobs rather than those hoping to use it as a means to gain employment.
Discussion and Analysis: The Relevance of These Findings to Workplace Accommodations
The policy Delphi revealed a number of findings that will undoubtedly help policy makers to understand ongoing issues surrounding workplace accommodations, especially as key stakeholders see them (see Table 3). However, a number of findings stand out. First of all, respondents agree that developing a common understanding of “workplace accommodations” and the collection of data on practices is a very important issue, confirming similar conclusions in the scholarly literature (Head et al., 2006; Silverstein et al., 2005). Without developing a framework for what constitutes an accommodation, it will remain difficult for stakeholders to discuss the issues substantively. In addition, there is a need to collect data on the incidence of accommodations and, perhaps more importantly, what they cost. A widely held perception among members of the Delphi panel is that employers either fail to provide accommodations because they are unaware of the range of options available to them, or that they refuse to pay for them because they assume that they are too expensive. If employers do not understand the wide range of accommodations that may be provided for their employees, some respondents noted, then the range of possibilities may seem unnecessarily narrow for employers. A couple of respondents noted that not all accommodations need to be based around AT or other expensive technologies, and it is important to convey this broad understanding of accommodations to employers. Although the related option to develop a best practices database suggests that data collection will not be easy because of employer reticence to collect or divulge data, Delphi participants strongly agreed that there remains a need to provide better data on the employment situation of persons with disabilities and the accommodations provided for such workers. Such data will guide the development of policy making, inform employer practices, and inform subsequent research into this issue.
Policy Options Receiving Support From at Least 75 % of Policy Delphi Panel, Arranged From Most to Least Support
Second, the Delphi reminds us that many of the issues pertaining to workplace accommodations remain employer-side issues. Either employers simply refuse to make accommodations, refuse them on the grounds of cost, or do not know much about the needs of employees, the accommodations process, or resources available to them. Yet, employers are ultimately responsible for making accommodations for their employees with disabilities. As such, it remains important that they are educated about the types of accommodations available and their costs and that they are incorporated as key stakeholders in raising awareness about the issues of workplace accommodations. Research has found that the cost of accommodating employees with disabilities does not have to be substantial. A recent Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) study (Lengnick-Hall, Gaunt, & Collison, 2003) found that 38% of employers surveyed had no costs associated with providing reasonable accommodations to their employees with disabilities. Of those who did incur costs, 28% spent US$1,000 or less, 8% spent between US$1,000 and US$5,000, and 14% spent more than US$5,000. However, it is not enough to presume that employers are willing to make accommodations once they have received the appropriate facts and figures. The participants in the Delphi also stress the importance of creating a workplace where employers and coworkers are receptive to having employees with disabilities and are made aware of the invaluable contributions that such workers can make to the workplace. Although the cost for accommodations may be minimal, misperceptions still exist. Our policy Delphi reinforces the findings of other research (Hernandez et al., 2009) regarding the continuing need for employer education and outreach.
Work published both in the research and practitioner domains (Ball, Monaco, Schmeling, Schartz, & Blanck, 2005; Bruyere, Erickson, & VanLooy, 2003; Smith, 2002), as well as the business realm (Carr-Ruffino, 1999; SHRM, 2005), have underscored the importance of hiring and accommodating workers with disabilities. These literatures have provided a business case for workplace diversity, highlighting benefits of retention and worker loyalty, high levels of performance by accommodated employees with disabilities, and federal tax incentives. Of particular note are the findings from a Job Accommodation Network study (Hartnett, Stuart, Thurman, Loy, & Batiste, 2011). Employer benefits derived from the accommodation of individuals with disabilities include the ability to retain quality employees, increased company profitability, and an avoidance of costs associated with hiring and training new employee. Complementing direct rewards are more intangible, though no less important, incentives such as improvements to organizational culture and the creation of a climate of inclusion. Yet, in spite of these advantages, our policy Delphi corroborates aforementioned research regarding the ongoing need to educate employers about responsibilities and benefits associated with accommodating these employees, as well as the resources available to assist in this process.
Third, emergency preparedness and safety issues received the highest degree of support among the issues considered by the respondents. The strongest majority of respondents found that emergency plans may not be designed to fit the needs of people with disabilities, and employers need to better consider the needs of employees with disabilities during emergency situations. It is imperative that these issues be given due consideration by policy makers concerned with the safety of Americans with disabilities in the workplace.
Fourth, just as emergency-related issues elicited strong support by the Delphi panel, so too did issues relating to the accessibility of the ICTs, the Internet, and telecommunications services. Findings for the technology issues reiterate the importance of website and ICT accessibility for people with disabilities (Butterfield & Ramseur, 2004). Particularly noteworthy is the Delphi panel’s agreement that government website accessibility is an important issue. So, too, is the suggestion that recruitment websites run by employers may not be accessible to jobseekers with disabilities. This issue raises another important point—workplace accommodations should consider the needs of not only those individuals who are currently employed but also those seeking employment. As many of the resources used to locate, research, and apply for employment opportunities—not to mention many employer recruitment tools—are now located on the World Wide Web, it is unclear whether these resources and services have been made more accessible to persons with disabilities. The Internet opened new avenues for seeking and obtaining employment, but if such methods are inaccessible because screen readers are unable to read website text, for example, then these new methods may be less accessible than more traditional means of finding jobs. As such, certain types of employment, especially in technological fields, may be less available to jobseekers with disabilities.
Finally, the Delphi participants appear to be ambivalent about the feasibility of any policy options that rely solely on federal mandates or rulemaking for their success. It is also important the subsequent rounds determine whether such a trend has developed because of a preference for free market solutions and voluntary involvement, or for some other reason.
Conclusion
The policy Delphi revealed a number of findings that will undoubtedly help policy makers to understand ongoing issues surrounding workplace accommodations, especially as key stakeholders see them. Most of the open-ended comments for forecasts tended to be rather pessimistic about the future of employment accommodations for persons with disabilities. In particular, they focused on greater competition for jobs that might disadvantage people with disabilities, the continued lack of employer awareness about accommodations and the “paralyzing” effect of current government rules on this subject, and the introduction of new EIT and ICTs that may not take the needs of employees with disabilities into account. However, some positive comments focused on how both UD and AT will enable more people to gain access to the workplace. Others suggest that employers may become more enlightened about the contributions that workers with disabilities may make to the workplace and, as a result, become more receptive to accommodations. To make the workplace of the near future more available to people with disabilities, it is important that it be made more accessible, in both a physical and social sense.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to acknowledge the assistance and support of researchers at the WorkRERC, Wireless RERC, and Southeast DBTAC, particularly Avonne Bell, Austin Dickson, and Shelley Kaplan. Special recognition is due to Karen Milchus and Jon Sanford, co-directors of the WorkRERC. The authors also thank the Human-Environment Regional Observatory (HERO) at Pennsylvania State University for their support. Finally, the authors wish to thank the anonymous reviewers for their helpful feedback.
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: The research published in this article is supported by the Rehabilitation Engineering Research Center on Workplace Accommodations (WorkRERC), which is funded by the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR) of the U.S. Department of Education under grant numbers H133E020720 and H133E070026. The opinions contained in this publication are those of the grantee and do not necessarily reflect those of the U.S. Department of Education.