Employer engagement in disability employment: A missing link for small to medium organizations – a review of the literature

3.1.1 Other Australian policy perspectives

The Business Council of Australia (BCA), representing over 100 of the largest businesses in Australia, released a report in October 2015, which reinforced major demand side challenges to improving the employment of people with disability. These included a complex employment service sector, and disclosure of disability or the lack thereof (BCA, 2015). In terms of ‘what works’ for businesses, the BCA survey highlighted:

Having a targeted recruitment strategy;

Regarding disability disclosure, the Australian Human Resources Institute (AHRI, 2011) agrees that for many organizations disability disclosure is a challenge, but AHRI contends that a necessary and important first step in gaining greater disclosure of disability needs is the development of a broad and overt positive culture of encouraging and embracing diversity in the workplace, including disability.

The Australian Federation of Disability Organisations (AFDO), a national representative organization of people with disability and family-led consumer organizations, highlighted five ‘critical’ components of a new disability employment model. Consistent with key principles in the government discussion paper described earlier (DSS, 2015b), AFDO [2014) recommends:

Setting up a market driven approach based on the NDIS with a funding package allocated to people with disability to purchase employment related support;

In terms of practical ‘demand side’ or employer related strategies AFDO (2014) recommends:

Encouraging disability champions at the top level of business management, and first-hand support to increase employment opportunities for people with disability in the form of a DFO Service for small to medium businesses. (This recommendation informed the development of the pilot DFO Service currently being trialled and described earlier);

Disability Employment Australia (DEA), the national peak body for Disability Employment Services, also supports a shift to a career development approach, including more choice and control for individuals with disability in regard to support funds and service providers, and a more open market approach to services. DEA highlighted the need for a phased approach to ensure expertise in the disability employment sector is retained. In regard to ongoing support for employers with employee maintenance, DEA recommends the rebadging and expansion of the Jobs in Jeopardy program, where DES assist businesses to resolve disability related challenges in the workplace that negatively impacts on the job performance of a employee with or who acquires a disability. DEA (2015, p. 18) cites evidence that:

‘Businesses are losing $6.5 billion per year by failing to provide early intervention and support;

DEA (2015) concludes that providing early intervention support more broadly has the potential to reduce compensation costs, reliance on the disability support pension, and improve disability confidence in the workplace.

3.1.2 Outcomes from practice

Inclusion Australia, representing people with an intellectual disability, also highlighted the need for ongoing employee and employer support in a recent briefing paper (Inclusion Australia, 2015). The authors cited Jobsupport, a specialist DES for people with intellectual disability, which has achieved a 64% open employment job outcome rate. This is significant given findings of the 2013 DES Evaluation (cited earlier) that with the exception of Jobsupport, few people with moderate intellectual disability were achieving open employment. Jobsupport do this by partnering with large organizations that have a high level of routine or repetitive tasks that trained Jobsupport specialists can carve into an optimal job match for a person with intellectual disability. Crucial to the partnership is the guarantee of ongoing support as required for the duration of the job. Inclusion Australia recommend a disability employment model that involves a seamless interface with NDIS providing transition to work supports and links to specialist disability employment services that are skilled in partnership development, job analysis, job carving, on the job training and the provision of ongoing support for employees and employers.

Another initiative that focuses on partnerships and employers is the Ticket to Work (TTW) program that received Australian Government funding for a national rollout in 2013. TTW brings together schools, vocational education and training providers, disability support organizations and employers into local networks that facilitate vocational training and support for young people, predominantly with intellectual disability, as they approach the transition from school to work. The focus of TTW is an ‘employment first’ approach (Wakeford & Waugh, 2014; p.3), that is, work placements through Australian School-based Apprenticeships and Traineeships (ASbATS), work experience programs, along with training and support in real work settings. An evaluation of the TTW initiative in 2014 found that 86% of the 99 young people who had completed an ASbAT were still in open employment at the time of the review (Wakeford & Waugh, 2014). Moreover, over 200 students participated in work experience and workplace preparation activities; and, over 180 employers and 93 schools were engaged in the program. The TTW initiative has now also received further funding to expand into the NDIS trial sites. The success of local TTW partnerships is attributed to the support, resources and accreditation provided by the national TTW network (Wakeford & Waugh, 2014).

A similar initiative established in the Geelong area and funded by the Victorian Government is the GROW Project. GROW is an alliance of businesses and community support organizations who, through the coordination of the GROW Project, assist each other to increase employment of disadvantaged job seekers including people with disability in the Geelong region (GROW, 2015).

Two additional national employer engagement programs have particular relevance to the DFO Service currently being trialled in Geelong: The Special Employment Placement Officer (SEPO) Project (Department of Family & Community Services, 2003), and The Disability Employment Broker Program (Department of Education, Employment & Workplace Relations, 2013). The SEPO project placed Special Employment Placement Officers in large organizations to build awareness and positive attitudes towards employment of people with disability in the host organizations. An evaluation of one organization in the SEPO Project described in a broader government review of employer incentive programs (Department of Family & Community Services, 2003; p. 26), found that ‘within 15 months the SEPO’s work led to 113 people with a wide range of disability types being interviewed for positions, and 53 people with disabilities securing jobs... ’. Another SEPO set up a work experience initiative that resulted in 22 people completing work experience and training, and of these, ten secured jobs. The SEPO Project finished in 2002 with very little information as to why, except a note that the two year contracts may have constrained further achievements (Department of Family & Community Services, 2003).

In 2012, the Australian Government announced the Disability Employment Broker Program that funded five disability employment broker services to promote more positive disability awareness with employers, and create more jobs for DES job-seekers with small to medium organizations in regional areas. The Department of Employment Education and Workplace Relations (DEEWR) Annual Report 2012/13 (DEEWR, 2013) reported that the brokers found jobs for 68 people, work experience for 37 and training for 20 people. The program was only funded for one year, and no evaluation data was found in the area central to this review, that is, the ‘demand side’ or regarding employer awareness/confidence/specific needs. One criticism of the broker program was that the program duplicated the role of DES (National Disability Services, 2012). However, DES are constrained through contractual requirements to focus predominantly on supply side issues such as job readiness training and job placement outcomes (Wakeford & Waugh, 2014; AHRI, 2011), thus making it difficult for DES to take a demand side or employer focus as well. The lack of awareness and engagement of businesses with DES cited in the introduction to this review is clear evidence of the motivational conflict. However, some DES have provided good examples of employer engagement initiatives. For example, Work Solutions in Gippsland Victoria has created peer network opportunities for employers to learn and support each other in building more inclusive and disability confident organizations. This DES also runs an annual Job Shadow Day that gives employers and people with disability an opportunity to get to know each other first hand, explore potential roles and career areas for the mentee and expose the mentor to a more positive view of the potential of people with disability (Work Solutions, 2016). More will be said about the power of experiential programs in addressing stereotypes, negative attitudes, and unconscious bias in disability employment in the next section.

3.2.1 The United States

In research for the U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Disability Employment Policy, Bartolotta, Skaff, and Klayman (2014), recommended a shift away from the focus on the economic business case argument for employment of people with disability, towards a strategy that addresses the underlying negative and often unconscious organizational culture and bias undermining employment of people with disability. The business case for employing people with disability includes: the ability to tap into a larger talent pool; increased protection against discrimination claims; less absenteeism and longer tenure; enhanced profile and marketing to a more diverse customer pool; and enhanced creativity and innovation in diverse work teams (Mor Barak, 2014).

Bartolotta et al. (2014) provide support for previous evidence cited (e.g. Graffam et al., 2002; Australian Safety and Compensation Commission, 2007; Hernandez & McDonald, 2010) that shows that employees with disability are on average no more costly than other workers in terms of performance and workplace costs, and that workers with disability tend to stay in jobs longer. Bartolotto et al. (2014, p. 4) also cited Becker (1971), ‘the Nobel Prize winning economist, who described the notion that if performance is equivalent, private firms are harming themselves financially by restricting their labor pool through discrimination against segments of the population’. Yet, despite this evidence, the employment situation for people with disability has worsened. Bartolotto et al. (2014) and others (e.g. Mor Barak, 2014) contend that due to the difficulty in gathering substantial quantitative economic data, the business case is not compelling enough to shift the underlying and often unconscious attitudinal resistance or biases against employing people with disability. Bartolotto et al. (2014) cited research conducted by Ravaud, Madiot, and Ville (1992) showing that highly qualified applicants without disabilities were 1.78 times more likely to receive a favourable response from employers than applicants with comparable qualifications who disclosed a physical disability in their application. Moderately qualified applicants without disabilities were more than 3.2 times more likely to receive a positive response from application materials than comparably credentialed applicants with a physical disability. Similarly, in Belgium, Baert (2014) found that subjects who did not disclose a disability in an application form were twice as likely to get a positive response than those who did.

At the root of these biased judgements are psychological processes termed social categorisation, where we seem to have an innate and often adaptive tendency to categorise ourselves, other people, and objects into groups as a way of making sense of the world around us (Mor Barak, 2014). Mor Barak (2014) cited renowned American psychologist Henry Tajfel and colleagues, who also showed empirically that we tend to be biased towards those in our ‘in’ group compared to others in the ‘out’ group. In recruitment this bias has resulted in people who are similar to the dominant or ‘in’ group in an organization being most successful in recruitment to those organizations (Mor Barak, 2014). For people with disability, first, they are categorised as an ‘out’ group or at best different to the ‘in’ group (the non-disabled workforce) on the basis of a characteristic that does not have the same impact for any two individuals let alone the group of people assigned to the disability category. Second, another layer of bias results from the stereotypes assigned to those categorised as ‘disabled’ such as less productive, requiring more supervision, a safety risk, and requiring costly modifications to the workplace (Murfitt, 2006). The challenge for diversity management is to identify that categorisation in workplace cultures and develop strategies to build a more heterogeneous and inclusive ‘in’ group, and ensure that judgements about recruitment, promotion etc. are not influenced by attributes that are irrelevant to a person’s potential to perform the tasks required (e.g. gender, age, disability, cultural background, sexual preference). Strategies to counter stereotypical biases include ensuring recruitment personnel are trained in equal opportunity, discrimination and diversity, and that interview panels reflect as much as possible the diversity of the applicant pool. However, the attitude literature shows that it is first-hand contact with members of the stereotyped group that is the most powerful strategy to shift those often deeply embedded cultural stereotypes (Allport 1954; Desforges et al., 1991; Murfitt, 2006; and Novak et al., 2011). Presenting examples of successful employees with disability, mentoring programs, work trials, internships, and real jobs where the contact assists managers and co-workers to experience the potential of people with disability first hand, and to understand that disability is most often irrelevant to a person’s identity and skills, are crucial in addressing those stereotypes and the resultant conscious and unconscious bias.

In exploring the idea of an alternative strategy to the economic business case, Bartolotto et al. (2014) conducted focus group research with employers interested in looking at employment of people with disability. Respondents believed that co-workers, including HR staff, felt uncomfortable around people with disability. In contrast, for some respondents, positive accounts and stories from trusted colleagues was enough to encourage them to develop their own disability inclusion programs. They wanted metrics, strategies, and technical assistance to educate and expose their colleagues to successful examples of employment of people with disability. Subsequently, Bartolotto et al.’s (2014) employer engagement marketing strategy focused on emphasising competency, skill, and the similarity of people with disability to the ‘non-disabled’ population. In addition, the strategy recognized the need to look at and tailor information and strategies to address the particular needs of different businesses. They identified three groups of employers: the Choir, the Inclusives, and the Uninitiated.

The Choir is usually represented by larger organizations whom have policies and practices for employment of people with disability within their diversity programs, and could potentially provide a good source of positive peer mentoring. Strategies Bartolotto et al. (2014) recommended for this group include encouraging disclosure particularly through explicit policies and practices around a positive disability inclusive culture in the organization, and establishing disability related Employee Reference Groups for internal peer-to-peer mentoring and disability advice to management.

The Inclusives have already recognized the value of diversity and have developed strategies targeting disadvantaged groups, but haven’t yet included disability in their diversity programs. They lack disability awareness and job accommodation knowledge. Bartolotto et al. (2014) suggest that this group can increase its interest in employing people with disability with exposure and experience. Bartolotto et al. (2014) also recommend increasing the understanding in these organizations by providing them with information to assist them recognize that the population of people with disability are a large potential source of talent, and customers; and through peer mentoring from the ‘Choir’.

Finally, the Uninitiated have no active or passive strategies to recruit people with disability or people from other diversity groups. Bartolotto et al. (2014) recommend success stories rather than statistics for this group, exposure to people with disability for de-sensitisation, and more ‘nurturing’ than for the other groups.

Additional strategies listed that apply overall include:

A “help desk”;

Burke, Bezyak, Fraser, Pete, Ditchman, and Chan (2013), in a review of the literature into employer attitudes towards employing people with disability, cited various U.S. studies that confirmed that the most important issue reported by small and medium organizations was the need for more accurate and practical information to dispel preconceptions about employment and retention of people with disability. The major preconceptions were lack of essential skills, health costs, workers’ compensation costs, fear of litigation, and negative attitudes of co-workers. When looking at companies with up to 100 employees, Burke et al. (2013), reported that organizational representatives had altruistic feelings about employing people with disability and felt that employees with disability would have better commitment and loyalty. They were positive about financial incentives, but concerned about losing income, exposure to litigation, and physical and structural barriers at their worksites. These medium size employers were also concerned about the difficulty contacting disability employment support organizations, and the effectiveness of this contact.

Domzal, Houtenville, and Sharma (2008), in the first nationally representative U.S. survey of employer perspectives in employment of people with disability, found that for small and medium employers the cost of employing people with disability, and the belief that people with disability don’t have the necessary skills and experience were concerns most often reported. Health care costs, workers’ compensation costs, and fear of litigation were also more important than for larger employers. Information about productivity and satisfactory job performance were seen by small and medium employers as most likely to persuade them to employ people with disability. Commitment from top management was seen as an important strategy in retaining people with disability. In addition, tax credits were seen by smaller organizations as an important retention strategy, probably because of their ‘cost’ concerns.

Regarding the use of current support services by US employers, Domzal et al. (2008) described three predominant services:

One-Stop Career Centers are state based and provide services like training referrals, career counselling, and job listings. The use of One-Stop services increases with company size; small companies equate to 7% , compared with medium-sized companies 14.9% , and large companies 43.6% .

Overall, it appears that similar to the Australian experience; small to medium employers in the U.S. are either not aware of the support services available, have difficulty accessing those services, or don’t see them as relevant to their businesses.

Hagner and Cooney (2003) emphasised a partnership model of employer engagement, reporting that: ‘It is clear that businesses cannot go it alone’ (Hagner & Cooney, 2003, p. 3). According to the authors good partnerships with disability support organizations contain: competent service delivery, trust, treating businesses as customers, mutual benefit, and ongoing, long-term service. Hagner and Cooney (2003) proposed four key partnership options with the aforementioned elements that offer ‘inclusive employment experiences to people with disability in a way that respects and empowers employers and, over time, strengthens their capacity to successfully employ individuals with severe disabilities’ (Hagner & Cooney, 2003, p. 4):

A consultant model, where the disability service is an expert who provides support and advice to the business to develop the inclusive knowledge and skills within the organization to support workers with disability. This includes, for example, training co-workers to include workers with disability in both the formal work processes and the informal or social aspects of the business.

Hagner and Cooney (2003) conclude that the above options are not mutually exclusive, and that it is important to assess each organization to identify which options and strategies suit their particular needs.

3.2.2 The United Kingdom

Initiatives included in a new Disability and Health Employment Strategy (Department for Work & Pensions, 2014) revolve around an ‘Employer One Stop Shop’ via an online portal and a telephone service. Similar to Job Access in Australia, and the Job Accommodation Network (JAN) in the U.S., this Employer portal will provide a wide range of information such as funding for workplace modifications, and features an ‘account management service’ for larger employers. The service will assist organizations to make the changes required to employ and retain employees with disability (similar to Australia’s NDRC). Although the strategy does say they will develop services for the specific needs of small and medium organizations, there is little detail given except that the service will sponsor organizations to create a toolkit for employers in their business area. The tool kits will contain guidance on disability employment, examples of best practice, and support available. Finally, the strategy did include a two year disability confident campaign aiming to alleviate concerns of employers about the costs of employing people with disability through information provision and forums. A revamp of the ‘Disability Two Ticks Symbol’ was also announced, which is a disability accreditation awarded to organizations that make specific commitments to building inclusive workplaces for people with disability. As a result of evaluation research that indicated that the current approach was outdated, not administered robustly, and not offering enough employer support, the strategy will reform the initiative through wider publicity of the scheme, different levels of accreditation, a more rigorous assessment process, a feedback mechanism for employees, and better information and guidance (Department for Work & Pensions, 2014).

In terms of employer connected practice that again emphasizes the importance of exposure or experiential programs, research by O’Bryan, Daston, and Riehle (2014), describes an employer-led internship program for young people with intellectual disability. Called ‘Project Search’, the program started in a U.S. hospital to address high turnover in jobs with a lot of repetitive tasks. students are placed in a business in their last year of education for an internship of approximately ten weeks. They are coached by an instructor and a disability employment specialist and they also receive job-development support to translate their Project Search year into permanent, paid employment in either the host business or another organization. Project Search now operates successfully across the U.S. and was recently launched in the U.K. and Europe. The three Scottish organizations operating Project Search in 2013 achieved a 70% employment outcome, and the project achieved a 60% job outcome across the UK. Key to the success of Project Search is ‘true collaboration’ between education partners, employers, agencies that serve people with disabilities, and young people with disabilities and their families (O’Bryan et al., 2014, p.46). Businesses in the project also report positive cultural development from hosting the interns in their businesses.

3.2.3 Europe

The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) produced a synthesis of disability employment issues across Europe in 2010 entitled Sickness, Disability, and Work: Breaking the Barriers. In regard to demand side issues, financial subsidies were noted as the most commonly employed policy measure for promoting employment opportunities for people with disability, principally subsidies for making adjustments to the workplace, and wage subsidies. Research was cited (OECD, 2010), which claimed that many workplace adjustment schemes were too narrow and should also include training before and after employment, on the job support, and awareness raising for managers and co-workers. Although reportedly not well evaluated (OECD, 2010), wage subsidies that are well targeted and flexible to match the variations in productivity appear to be most effective. Examples cited in Luxemburg, Finland, and Sweden have subsidies available for a new recruit for up to two to four years. Other beneficial initiatives cited were previous positive experience of employing people with disability, peer networks for employers, and developing the business case (OECD, 2010).

Two main issues of concern were highlighted in the low take-up of labour market incentives to employ people with disability: a lack of awareness of the schemes, and often onerous procedures to apply for support (OECD, 2010). Initiatives developed to address this included personal contact officers in local workplace centres in Norway, where employers can get direct and individualised advice and support around disability employment issues. In the Netherlands, 30 new service institutions were established for employers to reduce cumbersome administrative procedures (OECD, 2010).

A more recent Norwegian pilot program appointed ‘Employer Guides’ to assist employers retain and become more inclusive of people with mental health challenges (Schafft, 2014). Through building a relationship with the employer rather than traditional supported employment interventions that focus on supporting the employee, an evaluation of the employer guide pilot found that 80% of the approximately 150 employers surveyed reported that they had improved their ability to employ people with mental health challenges, and their ability to deal with employees experiencing mental health problems. Schafft (2014, p.4) reported that ‘employer guides have moved the focus of attention from diagnoses and illness towards a specific methodology of guidance and empowerment – help to self-help’.

In a similar study in Sweden involving 20 organizations with experience in employing people with disability, Gustafsson, Peralta, and Danermark (2013, p. 4) found that: ‘this research underscores the importance of considering the employer’s perspective, every-day reality, and needs when designing work support measures for people with disability’. Gustafsson et al. (2013) described the role of the disability employment specialists, who had supported these businesses employ people with disability, as ‘brokers’ (i.e. establishing the partnership and job match), ‘guides’ (i.e. providing on the job training to the employee and the business), and ‘trouble-shooters’ (i.e. being available for support when required). Many of the employers had not thought of employing people with disability until they were contacted by the disability employment organization and exposed to the untapped potential workforce (Gustafsson et al., 2013). A reportedly unique element of this supported employment model in Sweden is the adoption of ‘facilitation policies’ (Gustafsson et al., 2013, p 104) that include introduction or on-the-job training programs, with no upfront requirement for the employer to guarantee ongoing employment. The key to successful employment of people with disability for these mostly small to medium employers was the direct partnership, where trust is established, the service is simple and flexible, the focus is on the employer’s needs rather than bureaucratic processes, and the elements of broking, guiding, and trouble-shooting are included (Gustafsson et al., 2013).