Abstract
BACKGROUND:
The Australian Government has applied considerable focus to improving the unemployment rate of people with disability through initiatives to build their capacity and job readiness. Far less attention has been paid to addressing the needs of business, especially small- to medium-sized enterprises (SME).
OBJECTIVE:
We evaluated the Diversity Field Officer Service (DFOS) pilot, which aimed to address that gap through providing direct support to SME to build disability confidence and more inclusive organizations.
METHODS:
We used a mixed method approach (pre- and post-service surveys along with post-service semi-structured interviews) with representatives from 36 businesses. We used descriptive statistics and thematic analysis to summarise the survey data and interview material, respectively.
RESULTS:
Confidence in employing people with disability increased, as did the employment of, and intention to employ, people with disability. Many businesses were implementing, or planning to implement, measures to increase the employment of people with disability. DFOS capacity building exercises and activities (e.g., one-to-one conversations to understand the specific needs and challenges of their businesses) were all rated highly. Participants were generally supportive of an ongoing role for DFOS.
CONCLUSION:
The DFOS holds promise as a strategy to increase the employment of people with disability in SME.
Introduction
In Australia, 48% of people with disability of working age are employed compared to 80% of people without disability (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2020). The introduction of the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) in 2013 came with the hope that people with disability would be able to live “ordinary” lives, including having work (Australian Disability Network, 2017). With small and medium enterprises (<200 employees) employing 66% of the workforce (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2021), there is a clear need for initiatives that support these businesses to employ people with disability.
There is a range of employment services and support for people with disability and employers in Australia (Department of Social Services, 2015; National Disability Insurance Agency, 2020). Government programmes for people with disability based on their support requirements and capacity to work include Australian Disability Enterprises (providing work in specialised, supportive environments), Disability Employment Services (assisting people with disability to find and retain employment in the open labour market), and Job Access (providing information and advice to job seekers and employers). People with disability who are NDIS participants may also be eligible for individual employment support through their funding packages. Programmes for employers include the Employment Assistance Fund (providing financial support for work-related modifications and services for employees with disability), Supported Wage System (enabling employers to pay productivity-based wages to those whose productivity is reduced due to disability), short-term wage subsidies (as an incentive for employers to employ people with disability in the open labour market), and the National Disability Recruitment Coordinator (working with large employers to create demand for employees with disability).
Of the programmes for employers, the National Disability Recruitment Coordinator is arguably the most proactive employer programme in terms of its focus on increasing demand for employees with disability. The National Disability Recruitment Coordinator works with employers (a) to create positions targeted at Disability Employment Service participants; (b) to develop disability-related employment policies and tools that can be embedded within the existing human resource practices of employers, and (c) to foster relationships between employers and Disability Employment Services (DES) to support the implementation of long-term strategies for recruiting and maintaining the employment of people with disability (Department of Social Services, 2018). Only employers with over 100 employees are able to access the programme (Department of Social Services, 2015), meaning that many small- to medium-sized enterprises (SME) are unable to benefit from the expertise and connections of the National Disability Recruitment Coordinator. A similar non-government and not-for-profit organization, the Australian Network on Disability (AND) provides member businesses with training and support with developing disability confidence and inclusive practices, but again AND focuses on large businesses.
SME experience a range of issues with employing people with disability that are unlikely to be fully addressed through access to the financial supports available to them (e.g., wage subsidies, compensation for workplace modifications). Negative employer attitudes and exclusionary organizational cultures seem to be the underlying cause of the low workforce participation of people with disability (Murfitt et al., 2018). SME employers report not having sufficient understanding of various impairments and disability employment issues (Waterhouse,Waterhouse et al., 2010). They have couched the problem in terms of their own insecurities more so than the perceived disability of those seeking employment. Employers have identified the need for a trusted third party to provide them with information and assistance with respect to disability and disability-related issues. They did not, however, see a need for formal training or accreditation. Rather, the assistance required needs to be sufficient, timely, and tailored to the unique needs of each business.
The Diversity Field Officer Service (DFOS) is an employer engagement strategy developed to address the gap identified in support needs of SME with respect to the employment of people with disability. As a concept of the Australian Federation of Disability Organisations, a national peak organization run by and for people with disability, in partnership with Deakin University, the DFOS was designed to build disability confidence and to facilitate the development of inclusive policies and practices within SME, rather than focusing on job placement as in DES. The DFOS was piloted in Geelong –a regional city of Victoria, Australia –for 12 months commencing September 2015. The focus of the DFOS was on SMEs with up to 100 employees to address the gap in support identified. The key objectives of this pilot service were to: (a) provide one-to-one customised support to 50 SME in the Geelong area to build their disability awareness, attitudes, and confidence; and (b) assist these businesses to develop into more inclusive organizations in terms of workplace culture, policy and procedures, and physical access to facilitate more employment of people with disability.
A reference group –comprising employer representative organizations, industry bodies, and funders –provided oversight of the DFOS pilot. In addition, a collaborative employment network was formed of stakeholders with practical experience in supporting people with disability into employment (e.g., Disability Employment Services) with the aim of providing expert advice to the project. Staff employed through the project were two Diversity Field Officers (employed for one year during the pilot), and a project manager (employed at 0.6 equivalent full time for two years) and lead researcher (employed at 0.4 equivalent full time for two years) to co-develop and evaluate the initiative.
The elements of the DFOS included: (a) a business analysis that explored the business’s industry focus, size, potential for growth, staff turnover, staff roles, and general disability awareness; (b) disability-friendly checks regarding physical access, through a ‘walk-around’ the premises, and inclusive culture through an examination of current policies and practices; (c) attention to disability awareness and unconscious bias through workshops with leadership and staff groups; (d) a customised road map for each business with practical recommendations to build more confidence and inclusion; and (e) warm connections with peer businesses, employment service providers, and disability-focused/aligned organizations that could assist businesses to implement their recommendations or objectives.
The purpose of this paper is to present the evaluation of the DFOS pilot. Specifically, the evaluation focused on five main questions: Was there a change in disability confidence with respect to employing people with disability? Were there changes within businesses that will enable the employment of people with disability (i.e., building inclusion)? What was most important regarding the delivery of the service? Should the service have a future role? If so, what should that be? What peer connections and networks exist, have been created, and should be created in the future?
Materials and methods
Design
The evaluation incorporated mixed methods involving pre- and post-service surveys of the businesses and semi-structured post-service interviews with those businesses. The Deakin University Human Research Ethics Committee provided ethics approval for this evaluation (HEAG-H 107_2015). Business representatives were provided plain language statements about the evaluation and, if they agreed to participate, gave their written consent.
Participating businesses
Businesses were initially recruited for the pilot service using various methods, including a DFOS event, business events, and referrals from industry stakeholders and other participating businesses. Of the 50 businesses that were recruited for the pilot service, 36 consented to participate in the evaluation, representing a response rate of 72%. Representatives from these businesses who participated in the evaluation were 16 females and 20 males who held a variety of positions including business owners, chief executive officers, and human resources managers (see Table 1).
Business size and representatives
Business size and representatives
Surveys were conducted before and after businesses were engaged with the DFOS. These surveys included questions on business and participant characteristics, confidence in employing people with disability, employment of people with disability, creation of opportunities to employ people with disability, outcomes achieved with the DFOS, most important aspects of the DFOS, and the future role of the DFOS.
Post-service interviews
Participants were also involved in semi-structured interviews following the piloting of the service. The interview schedule contained questions and prompts consistent with the research questions of the evaluation. Topics included changes in confidence about employing people with disability, changes within businesses that will enable the employment of people with disability (i.e., building inclusion), the most important attributes of the delivery of the service, any future role for the service, and any peer connections and networks that exist, have been created, or should be developed in the future.
Data analysis
Descriptive statistics were used to summarise numerical data from the surveys. Braun and Clarke’s (2006) approach to thematic analysis guided the analysis of the open-ended survey questions and the interview material. Given the large number of businesses involved in the interviews (N = 36), two researchers analysed half the transcripts of the post-service interviews each, and collated excerpts or meaning units for each of the research questions. The first author then independently did the same analysis on a sample of the transcripts, and then all researchers agreed on the final composition of the themes.
Results
The findings of the pre- and post-surveys are presented before those of the interviews. Each set of findings is organized with respect to the research questions.
Pre- and post-service surveys
Changes in confidence
Confidence in employing people with disability, measured on a 7-point Likert scale anchored with strongly disagree (1) and strongly agree (7), increased from pre-service (M = 5.0, SD = 1.4) to post-service (M = 5.7, SD = 1.1).
Changes within businesses
Comparing pre- with post-service outcomes, there were increases in the percentages of businesses that employed people with disability (39% versus 75%) and in participants who perceived there may be opportunities to employ people with disability during the next 12 months (60% versus 86%). Further analysis of those businesses who employed people with disability during the DFOS found that while 39% (14) of the total 36 businesses were employing people with disability at the start of the DFO Service, 73% (8) of the 11 (nb 2 businesses with missing data for these questions were excluded) who employed people with disability during the DFOS were also employing people with disability at the start of the DFO Service, indicating that previous experience employing people with disability is a positive influence on future employment. Those who did employ people with disability during the DFO Service also were diverse in business type, from education, transport, tourism, professional, retail, and not-for-profit organizations.
Although there was minimal change in the percentage of participants who perceived any advantages to employing people with disability (79% versus 78%), there was a decrease in the percentage of participants who perceived challenges/disadvantages to employing people with disability (89% versus 56%).
As a result of working with the DFOS, businesses were actively implementing, or planning to implement, opportunities for people with disability, including work experience (36% of businesses), graduate opportunities/internships (30%), volunteering (21%), job carving (creation of a specific role or identification of tasks that can be undertaken by a person with disability) (42%), inclusion of welcoming wording encouraging people with disability to apply in job ads or position descriptions (78%), and guaranteed interviews for people with disability who meet the key selection criteria (36%).
In response to an open-ended question in the post-service survey on what outcomes, if any, have been achieved with DFOS support, the major theme was increased knowledge and awareness of disability and diversity (e.g., increased awareness of how workplaces can be changed to make them more accessible). Other themes were changes to recruitment processes (e.g., how job interviews are conducted), staff training (e.g., mental health first aid training), actual employment (i.e., employing people with disability), and job carving opportunities.
Most important aspects of the diversity field officer service
Participants indicated that their expectations of the DFOS were fully met (47%), mostly met (50%), or somewhat met (3%). Capacity building exercises and activities, measured on a 5-point Likert scale anchored with very poor (1) and excellent (5), all received high ratings: one-to-one conversations to understand the specific needs and challenges of their businesses (first formal meetings) (M = 4.5, SD = 0.6); self-assessment checklist of their understanding of disability (M = 4.3, SD = 0.7); discussion about unconscious bias (M = 4.5, SD = 0.6); meeting to discuss workplace practices, recruitment, and customer engagement (M = 4.3, SD = 0.7); accessibility checks of their workplace (M = 4.5, SD = 0.6); customised road map (i.e., recommendations document) (M = 4.3, SD = 0.7); events organized by the DFOS (M = 4.4, SD = 0.8); and additional information provided when requested (M = 4.4, SD = 0.7).
In response to an open-ended question in the post-service survey on what professional attributes of Diversity Field Officers were important to the outcomes achieved, there were two main themes: professional skills, knowledge, and disability expertise (e.g., clearly articulating the meaning of disability, attentively learning about businesses and the challenges they face); and employer engagement and communication (e.g., highly organized, and open and honest communication).
Future role of the diversity field officer service
In response to an open-ended question about what ongoing or future support would be important to sustain the knowledge, skills, and confidence participants had gained from the DFOS, three themes emerged. The first theme –ongoing support from the DFOS –reflected the need for a service to be available when required, to provide education and resources for current and future employees, and to review progress. The second theme –updates, reminders, and network opportunities to stay current on disability employment –incorporated the need for updates on changes to legislation, resources, grants, education, and skills training. The third theme –staff training opportunities –focused on the need for ongoing access to training and advice (e.g., in relation to specific types of disability and unconscious bias). Only a few participants indicated that no future support was needed.
Peer connections and networks
In response to an open-ended question about a future role for the DFOS, a theme emerged regarding networking opportunities. The theme reflected an opportunity to establish a network of businesses that are aligned in their thinking and approach to employing people with disability. Features of the network could include e-news, regular network events with other employers in this area (including speakers), and training days.
Interviews with business representatives
Change in confidence
The main theme is growth in disability confidence and awareness. Virtually all businesses reported increased disability confidence and awareness. The changes included awareness about specific areas, such as physical access, recruitment processes, disability being about more than people using wheelchairs, and appropriate language. There were also broader impacts in terms of higher purpose learnings and connecting with other businesses and community around common values and making the community stronger.
“We have gained so much confidence in regards to how/what we need to do to now employ people with disabilities.”
Within this theme, there are three subthemes. The first subtheme, a more flexible approach, pertains to the DFOS helping businesses to become more flexible in their employment and management of staff. For example, some employers introduced part-time positions and reorganized job descriptions to focus on the tasks that individuals with disability could complete (i.e., job carving).
“Changed my perception about how to interview different people. Some people only want to work a day or two, some people may only want to do phone work, we may get a person in a wheelchair who is capable of doing that. Opened up that it is not a one-size-fits-all approach.”
The second subtheme, education leading to increased knowledge, reflects how the education provided through the DFOS led to greater knowledge and awareness, which, in turn, seemed to increase confidence.
“More interested because I understand more and I’m now more educated. You don’t know what you don’t know a lot of the time. I was blown away really. Not with what I didn’t know but with the depth of the knowledge that I feel that I have picked up along the way.”
The third subtheme, limitations to growth in confidence/awareness, applies to the few businesses that reported negative or no growth in confidence and awareness. One business reported gaining information but making no progress on employing people with disability. For several businesses, there were acknowledgements that further work was required to build organizational capacity.
“Still got a long way to go. Need more staff development to be disability confident across the organization.”
Changes within businesses
The main theme is concrete steps towards employment of people with disability. Although much of the work undertaken involved building a disability confident culture and inclusive processes, many businesses took concrete steps towards and into employment for people with disability. Due to their participation in DFOS, businesses provided work experience opportunities and internships, initiated job carving, and created jobs.
“I have had a work experience kid with Aspergers. He has been working with us for four days. It was just through the school. I think it was good. It was a bit of a challenge for the guys out there at first. By the time he left he was saying, “Hi, thanks.” He has to be direct. He was on time, not lazy, not trying to leave early. I thought, “You just don’t get that now [attributes of employees].”
This theme has five subthemes. The first subtheme, an inclusive entry point to the business, reflects that many businesses had taken concrete steps to create more welcoming entry points to their workplaces. Using disability-friendly language in job advertisements and adjusting job descriptions to be more inclusive were things that businesses could do immediately to increase the potential for these organizations to employ people with disability.
“The main one that stood out for me are things that have always been in a job advertisement. I.e., “Driver’s licence required.” If you don’t drive for the job, you don’t need it. Oral and written communication: They need to be able to communicate but good communication skills don’t necessarily have to be verbal and written in the roles that we have here . . . We will make the changes to the job adverts.”
The second subtheme, physical access to premises, pertains to the work businesses were recommended to undertake because of the accessibility check the DFOS undertook with businesses to ensure their premises were physically accessible.
“I felt very confident with the timing [of] bringing [the] person with disability on board. Accessibility check list was very useful –wasn’t even aware that [there were issues]. A number of items had been followed through –heavy door and new contrast strips have been placed on stairs. Disability friendly language –that was good, we also used that.”
The third subtheme, job carving, highlights the value of the DFOS in job and work analysis to identify potential modifications to job roles for some businesses to employ people with disability.
“Having the job carving support was the moment it started to become more realistic for us.”
The fourth subtheme, linking to Disability Employment Services (DES), spoke to the need for businesses to be “employment ready” just as people with disability need to be “job ready”. Several businesses connected with DES, or used other recruitment pathways, at the appropriate stage of disability confidence development.
The fifth subtheme is greater focus on mental health in the workplace. An increased awareness of the impact of mental health in the workplace was also a significant outcome of the service, with over half of participating businesses interested in, seeking to implement, or implementing actions related to mental health. Some received mental health training or developed mental health plans and strategies through connections established by the DFOS, while others viewed mental health as part of their overall healthy workplace plans.
“Doing MH action plan in 2017. Mental health is priority as 20% of staff have mental health issues. Would like assistance in building awareness and confidence in managers for when someone discloses.”
Most important aspects of the diversity field officer service
There are two themes in the interview material: open communication and face-to-face communication. Open communication with the DFOS was important for businesses.
“All of the communication was relevant and in keeping with what we are trying to do. We were never brushed off. We really felt like you see, and had, our best interests at heart. You took the time to tell us about different things. Doing that, we felt the DFOS was really keen to see us succeed and get up and running.”
Face-to-face communication was overwhelmingly preferred over the alternative possibility of the DFOS being delivered in other ways (e.g., by phone). The view was that the face-to-face aspect was an important and unique element of the service.
“Service wouldn’t have got off the ground without face-to-face element. It would have been just one of the hundreds of emails I get every day. You do not get focused or undivided attention other than face to face.”
“Getting the subtle message across re inclusive culture etcetera. You can’t do that sort of thing remotely.”
Peer networking and specific skills training (e.g., disability awareness or guaranteed interview) were also mentioned as reasons face-to-face meetings were important.
Several businesses suggested that although face-to-face communication is important (especially initially), some parts of the process (e.g., follow up) could be by phone, email, or other ways. Once the relationship is established it may suit businesses to have subsequent meetings via alternate means (e.g., video conferencing, phone, and email).
Future role of the diversity field officer service
The main theme is an ongoing role for the DFOS. Responses from the businesses indicated than an ongoing role for the DFOS is important, both for businesses already engaged with the service and for those who do not yet use the service.
“Ongoing accountability would be good. Not to rap over the knuckles, a touch point over the phone every 2, 3, 4 months to be able to action some things and keep things front of mind.”
This theme has two subthemes. The first of these, DFOS as a connector and broker, refers to having ongoing access to the latest sources of information and assistance, opportunities to hear about case studies (positive and negative), and opportunities to continue learning through connecting with other participating businesses. Businesses also valued the DFOS as a “connector” to services, such as mental health awareness providers, DES, and other businesses.
“There is a lot of services out there so having to go through all that we don’t have the capacity. Now we know if we get a person coming in for recruitment, we can access info through the DFO service.”
The second subtheme, the importance of follow up, underscores the importance of constant follow up with businesses, with many businesses commenting that staff are time poor and have competing priorities. Most businesses found the DFOS moved quickly enough, although those who started later in the program (i.e., only the last three months of the pilot), felt they did not have the time to absorb information fully and implement change, highlighting the importance of follow-up.
“Because you have a unique service . . . . If you don’t (follow up) it’s going to fall down my list . . . If it is something that I am open to being reminded about to keep pushing me along, absolutely.”
Peer connections and networks
There are two themes: learning from peers and direct contact and broader awareness. The first of these themes highlights the value of the opportunities that DFOS provided. Businesses spoke about how powerful it was to receive training from someone in a wheelchair and of the value of connecting with other businesses and sharing their experiences.
“The connections with other workplaces at the functions were really good, giving greater understanding of different perspectives on diversity.”
The second theme, broader awareness, reflects the influence of one business on others in the region. This business advocated for, and achieved, the introduction of a disability category in the local business awards and a disability focused-criterion in all other award categories.
Discussion
The evaluation findings suggest that DFOS could be an effective employer engagement strategy for promoting the employment of people with disability in SME. During the pilot, the percentage of businesses employing people with disability increased meaningfully (39% to 75%), as did the percentage of businesses that indicated that there may be opportunities to employ people with disability during the next 12 months (60% versus 86%). While working with DFOS, many businesses had implemented, or were planning to implement, initiatives aimed at increasing their employment of people with disability (e.g., encouraging people with disability to apply for jobs in their advertisements and position descriptions). Several factors seemed to underpin these changes, including engagement with the DFOS and like-minded businesses, and increases in knowledge and confidence that appeared to stem from these interactions.
The findings are important because they suggest that the DFOS could address demand-side constraints within SME. Recognition of the need to address the demand side of the employment equation is evident within the terms of reference of the National Disability Employment Strategy Advisory Committee (Department of Social Services, 2021). The employment strategy has five priority areas, with the first being to lift employer engagement, capability, and demand. The focus of this area is on providing employers with the tools and abilities to be confident in their hiring of more people with disability. The DFOS provides such a service and appears to enhance confidence among employers and employment outcomes for people with disability. An emphasis on SME is particularly appropriate given that previous work has highlighted the voice and needs of small to medium businesses as a predominantly missing link in the disability employment support sector in Australia (Murfitt et al., 2018; Waterhouse et al., 2010). The evaluation provides evidence that the DFOS can help to fill that gap.
Meeting the needs of both jobseekers with disability and businesses is paramount to shifting attitudes about disability and generating employment pathways; addressing one side without the other will not be enough to produce significant change in employment rates (Department of Social Services, 2021; Murfitt et al., 2018). Through evaluating DFOS pilot, we have found that improving the disability-related attitudes, awareness, confidence, and, in turn, the practices of employers requires the specific concerns of businesses to be addressed before SMEs are “employment ready” or able to connect meaningfully with disability recruitment services. Moreover, participants in the DFOS pilot clearly recommended an ongoing role for the DFOS to develop their confidence and inclusive practices further and to connect them with the appropriate information and services at the right time.
Limitations
This evaluation has limitations. First, although the response rate, at 72%, was reasonably high, we have no knowledge of the outcomes for businesses that did not participate in the evaluation. There is a possibility that businesses that did not participate in the evaluation were less engaged with the DFOS and had poorer outcomes in terms of changes to business practices, changes in confidence, and employment outcomes for people with disability. Second, the length of the evaluation was of limited duration. We do not have visibility of whether businesses were able to follow through with their intentions to employ people with disability. Finally, this DFOS pilot service focused on business development in terms of disability confidence and inclusive practices. Future research in this area could gather more information about job outcomes in terms of job roles, disability type, and the specific pathway into those successful job outcomes for people with disability.
Conclusion
The DFOS concept has the potential to become an integral component of future employment reform to improve employment outcomes for people with disability in SME. The evaluation findings encourage more work to be undertaken to investigate outcomes over several years, as well as to establish the benefits versus costs of the service.
Footnotes
Acknowledgments
The authors are grateful for the support of over 20 local, state, and national stakeholders who contributed to this project.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Ethics statement
The study was approved by the Deakin University Human Research Ethics Committee (HEAG-H 107_2015).
Funding
The Helen McPherson-Smith Trust, Worksafe Victoria, the National Disability Insurance Agency, and the Geelong Community Foundation funded the Diversity Field Officer Service pilot (no fund numbers assigned).
Informed consent
All business representatives provided written informed consent prior to enrolment.