Relationship of business practices and characteristics to supervisors’ perceived effectiveness of disability recruitment

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Employers are increasingly interested in the inclusion of employees with disabilities in the workplace. To be inclusive, employers need effective strategies for recruiting people with disabilities (PWD) that supervisors can endorse, as they are ultimately accountable for the success of all employees that they supervise, including people with disabilities. To date, little research has focused on effective practices for recruiting people with disabilities or the supervisors’ perspectives on successful disability recruitment practices.

OBJECTIVE:

This study presents results from the 2017 Kessler Foundation National Employment and Disability Survey-Supervisor Perspectives (KFNEDS-SP) that utilized a novel approach to investigating employer organizational characteristics and practices related to the recruitment of PWD.

METHODS:

The KFNEDS-SP is a web-based survey that used standard, replicable survey methods to collect data from a Qualtrics business-to-business panel of supervisors at U.S. organizations. Respondents included 6,530 supervisors ages 18 and older from private, nonprofit, and governmental organizations across industries.

RESULTS:

The results show that several organizational characteristics and practices are significantly associated with supervisor perceived effectiveness of disability recruitment processes. The degree of effort put forth to recruit people with disabilities, commitment from upper management in hiring and accommodating employees with disabilities, training hiring managers in accessible recruitment and interview practices for people with disabilities were all positively related to supervisors’ perceived effectiveness of their organizations’ disability recruitment processes. However, organizations that put a lot of effort into recruiting for diversity or had diversity hiring goals were less likely to be perceived by supervisors to have effective disability recruitment processes.

CONCLUSION:

Supervisors are at the center of an organization’s effort to include people with disabilities in the workplace and, as such, are good barometers of what works and does not work to support the recruitment, hiring and onboarding of people with disabilities. The results of this study point to several organizational characteristics and practices that individually and together are likely to support efforts to include people with disabilities in the workplace. Disability workforce intermediaries can use these findings to assist businesses successfully include people with disabilities in their workforce.

Keywords

Disability employer practices supervisor effective practices diversity

1 Introduction

Gainful employment provides financial, social, and health benefits. It allows individuals with disabilities to provide for themselves, live independently and with dignity, connect with people, access healthcare services, and to be recognized as productive members of the society (Diette et al., 2013; Fryers, 2006; Kamer $\bar{a}$ de et al., 2019). Conversely, unemployment has great negative impacts on individuals’ physical health, mental health, and quality of life (Murali & Oyebode, 2004). Studies have shown that, long-term unemployment is more likely to lead to depression and anxiety disorders, alcohol use disorders, and lower self-esteem and quality of life (Dutta et al., 2008; Hall et al., 2013). Thus, participating in competitive employment and other meaningful work activities is crucial to the health and well-being of individuals with disabilities (Chan et al., 1997; Chan et al., 2012). Employers are also increasingly interested in overcoming barriers to employ more individuals with disabilities as a means to enhance the workforce and to exhibit organizational social responsibility, while individuals with disabilities are striving to work (Houtenville & Kalargyrou, 2012). However, the employment-to-population ratio for working-age adults with disabilities was strikingly low at 34.6%, compared to 73.8% for those without disabilities (Kessler Foundation, 2022). As such, working-age adults with disabilities are vulnerable to the consequences of unemployment and poverty.

While researchers and employment professionals have sought to understand the effects of different employer practices on the employment rate of people with disabilities (e.g., Erickson et al., 2014; Gilbride et al., 2003; Hernandez et al., 2000), many gaps in knowledge remain. For instance, little is known about the effectiveness of employer practices and what organizational characteristics influence the use of effective recruitment and hiring strategies. Research related to employer practices can be translated in a meaningful and actionable way to benefit both employers and disability service providers to support employers’ efforts to be more inclusive. Such information may also play an important role in motivating employers to increase effective recruitment of individuals with disabilities. One way to facilitate the employment of people with disabilities is to identify organizational characteristics and practices that lead to effective recruitment and long-term employment of people with disabilities.

1.1 Literature review

1.1.1 Company characteristics (size, sector, recruitment effort diversity/disability, past experience, commitment hiring/accommodation)

Previous research identified the size of the company as a central characteristic, in which large companies such as Fortune 500 companies are more willing to hire workers with disabilities (Araten-Bergman, 2016; Houtenville & Kalargyrou, 2012) and to provide work-related accommodations (McMahon & McMahon, 2016). Some researchers also suggested that though some small and medium-sized companies might be interested in recruiting workers with disabilities, they are also likely to believe that they lack resources and expertise in hiring people with disabilities (Fraser et al., 2011). In a recent study (Chan et al., 2021), researchers surveyed 466 employers and reported that large- and mid-size companies had higher disability employment rates. In addition, family-owned companies were found to be supportive of including individuals with disabilities in their workforce (Newton & Ormerod, 2005).

Many organizations’ diversity and inclusion policies and practices do not include disability, as employers often view disability as an accommodation issue, not a diversity priority (Ball et al., 2005; Stensrud, 2007). Nevertheless, some previous studies found that the inclusion of disability in an organization’s diversity and inclusion policies and practices increases the representation of employees with disabilities (Araten-Bergman, 2016; Chan et al., 2010; Haback et al., 2010).

Organizations that have past experiences related to hiring employees with disabilities are more willing to provide job opportunities to people with disabilities (Copeland et al., 2010; Vornholt et al., 2013; Wood & Marshall, 2010). Employers tend to have positive attitudes and intentions in recruiting and hiring workers with employees once they gain greater knowledge and contact with employees with disabilities (Houtenville & Kalargyrou, 2012).

Evidence also indicates that leadership commitment is a significant predictor of disability recruitment (Mizrahi et al., 2014; Rossin & Kleiner, 1997). In their qualitative study, Gilbride et al. (2003) found that leadership commitment increases a company’s commitment in hiring individuals with disabilities. Chan et al., (2021) also found that commitment to the employment of workers with disabilities from senior leadership was significantly positively related to the employment of people with disabilities.

1.1.2 Recruitment practice (hiring goal for diversity/disability, partnership, training, review hiring practice)

Erickson and colleagues (2014) surveyed 675 human resources professionals to identify effective employment practices that could improve the likelihood of recruiting individuals with disabilities. Participants identified nine practices: (1) include disability in diversity and inclusion plan; (2) require suppliers to adhere to disability nondiscrimination requirements; (3) have connections with community-based organizations that promote employment for individuals with disabilities; (4) actively recruit workers with disabilities; (5) have senior management commitment; (6) take advantages of tax incentives of hiring workers with disabilities; (7) have specific goals in recruiting individuals with disabilities; (8) participate in programs that target individuals with disabilities and; (9) include recruitment or hiring individuals with disabilities as goals in the performance appraisals for senior management.

Recruitment strategies such as online job boards, job fairs, career services in higher education settings and newsletters are among the most common practice in recruiting individuals with disabilities (Bernhardt, 2018). Other effective practices include partnership with community-based service providers and vocational rehabilitation (VR) agencies, and collaboration with disability-related employment service providers to provide internship opportunities for individuals with disabilities. Partnership with community-based agencies has many advantages. For instance, it provides companies with information regarding the capabilities and performances of workers with disabilities, it expands the talent pool to increase recruitment efforts, it helps organizations to assess skills, analyze job demands and help workers with disabilities to be prepared for job tasks. In addition, supports by disability-related agencies were perceived as a key factor in enhancing the willingness and rates of successful competitive employment (Houtenville & Kalargyrou, 2012; Kesselmayer et al., 2022; Lysaght et al., 2012).

1.1.3 Accommodation and recruitment (fund, accommodation request process, flexible work, disclosure, diversity training)

One of the significant predictors of hiring individuals with disabilities is knowledge and experience of workplace accommodations (Chan et al., 2010; Gilbride et al., 2003). Under the American Disability Act (ADA), employers are obligated to provide reasonable accommodations unless such accommodation results in undue hardship. Thus, it is unsurprising that misguided concerns about the costs of accommodation are a major barrier in recruiting and hiring individuals with disabilities (ADA National Network, 2019; Nazarov & Schrader, 2014). In addition, in a recent study (Chan et al., 2021), it is reported that companies with an accommodations budget line item to cover accommodations costs, have a disability management personnel handling ADA and job accommodations related issues, as well as those that have a disability accommodation policy had higher employment rates of individuals with disabilities. Houtenville and Kalargyrou (2012) indicated that flexible work schedules and disability awareness training would encourage more hiring of employees with disabilities.

Existing research provided some insights into how organizational characteristics and practices affect employers’ attitude, motivation, and the likelihood of hiring and retaining individuals with disabilities. However, most previous studies have focused exclusively on whether an employer had a disability employment practice or not, offering no reference to determine whether a practice was differentially effective for employees with or without disabilities. It may be that an employer is ineffective at recruiting in general. Such an approach poses challenges in interpreting the findings, making it difficult to translate research findings in actionable ways for employers and service providers (Phillips, Houtenville, O’Neill & Katz, 2019).

The 2017 Kessler Foundation National Employment and Disability Survey-Supervisor Perspectives (KFNEDS-SP) investigated employer practices related to disability inclusion and identified actionable information. This was the first national survey investigating the effectiveness of practices, from the unique perspective of supervisors of workers with and without disabilities. KFNEDS-SP is innovative on several levels. First, it obtained information from supervisors instead of human resource departments or senior management to reduce social desirability response bias and to reflect the reality of daily practice. The survey also asked questions designed to gain an in-depth understanding of practices used to recruit, hire, train, accommodate, and retain employees with and without disabilities, and ascertained the effectiveness of these practices for all employees and those with disabilities. A full description of the survey and the main findings is in the previously published lead paper (Phillips et al., 2019). The current study will expand on the earlier findings by examining in more detail factors associated with effective recruitment and hiring strategies related to people with disabilities. Specifically, the purpose of present study was to investigate and identify relevant organizational characteristics and practices in making recruitment efforts as effective for attracting qualified employees with disabilities.

2 Methods

2.1 Design

The 2017 KFNEDS-SP is a cross-sectional survey that is approved by the Institutional Review Board at the University of New Hampshire. The detailed study design is described in the paper of main findings (Phillips et al., 2019).

2.2 Participants

The 2017 KFNEDS-SP survey included 6,530 supervisors from U.S. organizations of 25 workers or more, the minimum size of organizations responsible for complying with guidelines set forth by the ADA. Participants were members of Qualtrics and partner’s business-to-business (B2B) panel. The inclusion criteria were current supervisors aged 18 and over, who had a clear understanding of the definition of disability as presented. A more detailed sample characteristic is described in the paper of main findings (Phillips et al., 2019). The current study focuses on the effectiveness of disability recruitment. In the KFNEDS-SP supervisors were first asked whether their organization had a recruitment process in general and then asked about the effectiveness of the process for both people with and without disabilities. Those who answered “no” or “I don’t know” were excluded from the current study. The sample size for present study was 2,019. The majority of participants were employed at organizations with 100 to 499 employees (31.3%), followed by organizations with 1,000 or more employees (30.8%), those with 26 to 99 employees (22.5%), and organizations with 500 to 999 employees (15.4%). Most participants reported working for private for-profit companies (73.6%), followed by non-profit (13.3%) and government organizations (13.1%).

2.3 Measures

Outcome variable. The supervisor’s perceived effectiveness of the employers’ recruitment process to attract employees with disabilities was the outcome variable in current study (perceived effectiveness of disability recruitment). If the recruitment process was reported to be effective, in general, participants were asked “Is the recruiting process AS EFFECTIVE at attracting qualified employees with disabilities?”. Most participants indicated the recruitment process for employees with disabilities was as or more effective (79.5%). The remaining 20.5% reported that the recruitment process was less effective for those with disabilities.

Predictor variables. Predictor variables included organizational characteristics and practices. Organizational characteristics included business sector, number of paid employees and past experience in hiring employees with disabilities. Another organizational characteristic included degree of effort (none, little, moderate, a lot) to actively recruit people, generally, recruit for diversity, and recruit individuals with disabilities. The last organizational characteristic focused on level of leadership commitment (not at all, not very, somewhat, very committed) to hire people with disabilities and to provide accommodation. Organizational practices focusing on training included training supervisors regarding accessible application and interview practices, offering awareness training regarding disability issues and cultural competence to improve knowledge and attitudes. Having certain internal administrative practices were also assessed including setting hiring goals for diversity and disability, reviewing/auditing disability hiring goals, providing processes for anonymous disability disclosure and making accommodation requests, having centralized accommodation fund and allowing flexible working arrangements. In addition, we asked if business had partnered with disability-related organizations to recruit people with disabilities.

2.4 Data analysis

We used the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) 27.0 for Windows to manage raw data and perform data analyses. A logistic regression model examined the association among organization characteristics, practices and the effectiveness of recruitment efforts in attracting individuals with disabilities (Katz, 1999). The analyses were conducted in two steps where company characteristics were entered first, followed by company practices to identify company characteristics that have significant relationships with effective recruitment before considering company practice variables. The odds ratios (ORs) were presented at the 95% confidence interval (CI).

3 Results

The results of the logistic regression analysis are described in Table 1. The first set of variables entered in the logistic regression was company characteristics, including the number of paid employees (with numbers 26–99 as the reference category), sector (with government as the reference category), efforts in recruiting for diversity (with no efforts as the reference category), efforts in recruiting for disability (with no efforts as the reference category), leadership commitment in hiring for disability (with no commitment as the reference category), leadership commitment in providing accommodation (with no commitment as the reference category), and past experience in hiring employees with disabilities. During step 2 company practices were entered as predictors.

Table 1

Independent variables B SE Wald p OR (95% CI)

COMPANY CHARACTERISTICS

Number of paid employees

100–499 –0.21 0.18 1.41 0.24 0.81(0.58–1.15)

500–999 –0.05 0.24 0.04 0.84 0.95(0.60–1.51)

1000 or more –0.22 0.19 1.36 0.24 0.80(0.55–1.17)

Sector

Private for-profit 0.11 0.22 0.26 0.61 1.12(0.73–1.71)

Non-profit 0.36 0.28 1.64 0.20 1.44(0.83–2.49)

Recruitment effort for diversity

A little effort –0.49 0.31 2.44 0.12 0.61(0.33–1.13)

Moderate effort –0.59 0.33 3.21 0.07 0.56(0.29–1.06)

A lot of effort –0.76 0.36 4.34 0.04 0.47(0.23–0.96)

Recruitment effort for disability

A little effort 0.44 0.20 4.85 0.03 1.55(1.05–2.29)

Moderate effort 2.10 0.27 62.26 0.00 8.14(4.84–13.71)

A lot of effort 2.69 0.47 33.02 0.00 14.76(5.89–36.98)

Have hired workers with disabilities 0.07 0.15 0.19 0.66 1.07(0.80–1.42)

Leadership commitment in hiring

Not very committed 0.51 0.27 3.66 0.06 1.66(0.99–2.80)

Somewhat committed 1.31 0.29 21.06 0.00 3.72(2.12–6.51)

Very committed 1.49 0.38 15.06 0.00 4.45(2.09–9.45)

Leadership commitment in accommodation

Not very committed 0.37 0.42 0.77 0.38 1.45(0.64–3.29)

Somewhat committed 0.89 0.40 4.97 0.03 2.43(1.11–5.30)

Very committed 1.24 0.41 9.12 0.00 3.47(1.55–7.78)

COMPANY PRACTICE

Hiring goal for diversity –0.43 0.21 4.13 0.04 0.65(0.43–0.99)

Hiring goal for disability –0.07 0.23 0.08 0.77 0.94(0.60–1.46)

Centralized accommodation fund 0.44 0.24 3.40 0.07 1.56(0.97–2.48)

Partnership 0.47 0.22 4.68 0.03 1.59(1.05–2.43)

Training for supervisors of hiring 0.40 0.19 4.48 0.03 1.50(1.03–2.17)

Review or audit hiring practice 0.24 0.21 1.39 0.24 1.28(0.85–1.91)

Accommodation request process –0.53 0.23 5.47 0.02 0.59(0.38–0.92)

Flexible working arrangement 0.10 0.21 0.23 0.63 1.11(0.73–1.67)

Allows anonymous disclosure –0.12 0.20 0.40 0.53 0.88(0.60–1.30)

Disability awareness training –0.19 0.17 1.16 0.28 0.83(0.59–1.17)

Independent variables	B	SE	Wald	p	OR (95% CI)
COMPANY CHARACTERISTICS
Number of paid employees
100–499	–0.21	0.18	1.41	0.24	0.81(0.58–1.15)
500–999	–0.05	0.24	0.04	0.84	0.95(0.60–1.51)
1000 or more	–0.22	0.19	1.36	0.24	0.80(0.55–1.17)
Sector
Private for-profit	0.11	0.22	0.26	0.61	1.12(0.73–1.71)
Non-profit	0.36	0.28	1.64	0.20	1.44(0.83–2.49)
Recruitment effort for diversity
A little effort	–0.49	0.31	2.44	0.12	0.61(0.33–1.13)
Moderate effort	–0.59	0.33	3.21	0.07	0.56(0.29–1.06)
A lot of effort	–0.76	0.36	4.34	0.04	0.47(0.23–0.96)
Recruitment effort for disability
A little effort	0.44	0.20	4.85	0.03	1.55(1.05–2.29)
Moderate effort	2.10	0.27	62.26	0.00	8.14(4.84–13.71)
A lot of effort	2.69	0.47	33.02	0.00	14.76(5.89–36.98)
Have hired workers with disabilities	0.07	0.15	0.19	0.66	1.07(0.80–1.42)
Leadership commitment in hiring
Not very committed	0.51	0.27	3.66	0.06	1.66(0.99–2.80)
Somewhat committed	1.31	0.29	21.06	0.00	3.72(2.12–6.51)
Very committed	1.49	0.38	15.06	0.00	4.45(2.09–9.45)
Leadership commitment in accommodation
Not very committed	0.37	0.42	0.77	0.38	1.45(0.64–3.29)
Somewhat committed	0.89	0.40	4.97	0.03	2.43(1.11–5.30)
Very committed	1.24	0.41	9.12	0.00	3.47(1.55–7.78)
COMPANY PRACTICE
Hiring goal for diversity	–0.43	0.21	4.13	0.04	0.65(0.43–0.99)
Hiring goal for disability	–0.07	0.23	0.08	0.77	0.94(0.60–1.46)
Centralized accommodation fund	0.44	0.24	3.40	0.07	1.56(0.97–2.48)
Partnership	0.47	0.22	4.68	0.03	1.59(1.05–2.43)
Training for supervisors of hiring	0.40	0.19	4.48	0.03	1.50(1.03–2.17)
Review or audit hiring practice	0.24	0.21	1.39	0.24	1.28(0.85–1.91)
Accommodation request process	–0.53	0.23	5.47	0.02	0.59(0.38–0.92)
Flexible working arrangement	0.10	0.21	0.23	0.63	1.11(0.73–1.67)
Allows anonymous disclosure	–0.12	0.20	0.40	0.53	0.88(0.60–1.30)
Disability awareness training	–0.19	0.17	1.16	0.28	0.83(0.59–1.17)

The omnibus test for Step 1 yielded nonsignificant Hosmer and Lemeshow test, χ2 (8) = 4.87 (p < 0.77), indicating that the model and the test were appropriate. The Negelkerke R² for Step 1 variables was 0.39. In Step 2, the result of the Hosmer and Lemeshow test indicated that the overall model fit was statistically reliable in distinguishing between the effectiveness of recruitment process for disability, χ2 (8) = 3.21 (p < 0.92). The Nagelkerke R² was computed to be 0.41, a relatively large effect. The overall classification model correctly categorized 84.9% of the participants.

Several company characteristics were found to be significant. Comparing with organizations that put no efforts in recruiting for disability, those with little efforts (OR = 1.55; 95% CI: 1.05–2.29), moderate efforts (OR = 8.14; 95% CI: 4.84–13.71) and a lot of effort (OR = 14.76; 95% CI: 5.89–36.98) were much more likely to have effective disability recruitment. However, organizations that put a lot of effort (OR = 0.47; 95% CI: 0.23–0.96) into recruiting for diversity were 2.12 times less likely to have effective disability recruitment. The likelihood of having effective disability recruitment increases as the leadership commitment levels for disability hiring increases. Employers who were somewhat committed (OR = 3.72; 95% CI: 2.12–6.51) and very committed (OR = 4.45, 95% CI: 2.09–9.45) were 3.72 times and 4.45 times more likely to have effective disability recruitment than those with no commitment. Similar results were found in leadership commitment of providing accommodation. Compared with those with no commitment, leadership that were somewhat committed was 2.43 times more likely (OR = 2.43; 95% CI: 1.11–5.30) and those who were very committed was 3.47 times more likely (OR = 3.47; 95% CI: 1.55–7.78) to have effective disability recruitment.

Four of the organizational practices were found to be significant predictors. Those who partnered with disability-related organizations to recruit qualified job candidates with disabilities were 1.59 times more likely to have effective disability recruitment (OR = 1.59; 95% CI: 1.05–2.43). Results also indicated that if an organization offered training for supervisors in charge of hiring regarding accessible application and interview practices for people with disabilities, it was 1.5 times more likely to have effective disability recruitment (OR = 1.50; 95% CI: 1.03–2.17). However, organizations that had a process for employees with disabilities to request accommodations were 1.69 times less likely to have effective disability recruitment (OR = 0.59; 95% CI: 0.38–0.92). In addition, organizations with hiring goals for diversity were found to be 1.54 times less likely to have effective disability recruitment (OR = 0.65; 95% CI: 0.43–0.99).

4 Discussion

The present study revealed the organizational characteristics and practices that predict effective disability recruitment processes. For organizational characteristics, results indicated that the most significant predictor was the amount of effort dedicated to recruiting people with disabilities. Compared with organizations that put no effort into disability recruitment, supervisors from organizations that put even a little effort forward were more likely to report the efforts were effective. This finding underscores existing knowledge, in which not only actively looking to recruit workers with disabilities is important (Chan et al., 2010, Iwanaga et al., 2021), but also even a little effort could make a significant difference. In addition, employers are often concerned with the costs associated with recruitment, and the lack of resources available for recruiting workers with disabilities (Iwanaga et al., 2021). Results from this study suggest that organizations could start with putting little to moderate efforts by implementing cost-effective recruitment strategies such as using college career services and disability-specific job boards (e.g., USA Jobs, Disability Job Exchange, RecruitDisability, and the American Association of People with Disabilities).

Organizations that put a lot of effort into recruiting for diversity were much less likely to be perceived by their supervisors to have effective disability recruitment, compared with those that put no effort into diversity recruitment. This suggests that some employers are focusing on other diverse groups to the exclusion of people with disabilities. For many organizations, disability is not included in their diversity inclusion practice and policy, as employers often view disability as an accommodation issue (Stensrud, 2007). Thus, to have effective disability recruitment and a more robust, comprehensive diversity policy and practice, it may be important for an organization to review its existing diversity policies and procedures and to include disability.

Previous research indicated a strong positive relationship between leadership commitment and the inclusion of employees with disabilities (e.g., Chan et al., 2021; Fraser et al., 2011). The current study also found that moderate and high levels of leadership commitment in hiring for disability and providing accommodations were associated with supervisor perspectives of effective disability recruitment. Commitment from upper management in both hiring for disability and providing accommodations likely influences mid-level management and supervisors’ attitudes and willingness to embrace and support the inclusion of workers of disabilities. Therefore, efforts to improve normative beliefs at upper management levels could be an effective step to improve disability inclusion and the effectiveness of disability recruitment. Interventions that have been found to be effective in transforming and improving normative beliefs regarding workers with disabilities included disability inclusion training, ADA training, and technical assistance to reduce stigma (Chan et al., 2021; Iwanaga et al., 2021).

Findings from the current study identified several practices related to effective disability recruitment. For example, analyses showed a negative relationship between having a formal accommodation request process and effective disability recruitment. While this may simply signify separate processes (recruitment and accommodations), it is possible that organizations with effective disability recruitment include the accommodation process as part of the recruitment or hiring process, rather than separately. It is also possible that organizations view having a formal process to request accommodations as potentially labor intensive, time consuming, and less cost effective than including these conversations in hiring.

As another example, training for supervisors in charge of hiring regarding accessible application and interview practices for people with disabilities was a predictor of effective recruitment practice. Previous research also indicated that recruiters with training on how to interview applicants with disabilities have higher success in recruiting and hiring employees with disabilities (Houtenville & Kalargyrou, 2012). Organizations that established partnership with disability-related organizations to recruit qualified job candidates with disabilities had supervisors who reported effective disability recruitment. Employers who are hesitant to hire workers with disabilities often have negative attitudes resulting from stigma and misperceptions such as health and safety concerns, accommodation and health insurance costs, and may think that people with disabilities lack ability to perform job duties and to work with others (Kaye et al., 2011).

Employers also expressed concerns including lack of resources to recruit workers with disabilities or lack of knowledge to provide accommodations (Green & Brooke, 2001; Houtenville & Kalargyrou, 2012; Iwanaga et al., 2021; Vornholt et al., 2013). Partnerships with disability-related organizations and workforce intermediaries could create networks that improve the effectiveness of disability recruitment (Katz et al., 2012). Specifically, service providers and community partners could help an organization find qualified candidates with disabilities and provide on-the-job supports, guidance and training on how to effectively integrate people with disabilities and accommodate their employment-related needs. In addition, state/federal vocational rehabilitation (VR) services are provided with little or no cost to the employers. Many successful collaboration examples are available; for example, Kessler Foundation’s “Bridges to Business” initiatives created a local pipeline through partnerships with local agencies and VR that helped more than 120 individuals with disabilities hired at Lowe’s (Katz, n.d.).

4.1 Implication

Findings from this study have implications for rehabilitation service providers and businesses seeking to improve disability recruitment. Service providers can identify businesses that are likely to have effective disability recruitment practices and significantly increase cooperative efforts with such employers to help more individuals with disabilities gain employment. Results described here show that businesses with higher levels of disability recruitment efforts and higher levels of leadership commitment in both hiring people with disabilities and providing accommodations were more likely to have effective recruitment efforts. For disability-related service providers, it is important to increase outreach and employer engagement efforts, and build strong working relationships with business organizations’ senior management and leaders. Findings also showed that to improve disability recruitment organizations need to assess their existing diversity inclusion policies and practices to ensure the inclusion of disability, as well as to evaluate feasibility and effectiveness of current accommodation request processes. Businesses could establish partnerships with disability-related service providers to conduct these assessments. Service providers can use their extensive knowledge and expertise to help businesses conduct assessments, develop and execute plans to correct identified problems, and to provide training for hiring supervisors regarding accessible application and interview practices for hiring individuals with disabilities.

Findings from this study also suggested that successful, effective disability recruitment could result from coordinated, joint recruitment efforts. However, there is often inadequate coordination between disability employment agencies and businesses. Lessons from existing disability employment initiatives indicated that workforce intermediaries (WFI) could be an effective model in bringing together employers and service providers. One of the most successful disability employment initiatives was developed and implemented by Walgreens in 2007 when the company exceeded its 30% disability-hiring goal through successful partnership with local disability service agencies. The role of WFI can be performed by a single or a small number of agencies to recruit, train, support, and provide job retention services for employers wishing to employ larger numbers of individuals with disabilities. WFI can offer corporations technical assistance to explore and implement initiatives for employers. In cooperation with the National Organization for Disability (NOD), Kessler Foundation initiated the Bridges to Business (B2B) project, in which NOD served as WFI to help establish and maintain a local pipeline of workers with disabilities between Lowe’s three distribution centers and local service providers and VR agencies, during 2010 through 2012. This effort resulted to more than 120 individuals with disabilities hired at Lowe distribution centers. WFI connects employers with local service providers, helps employers to implement initiatives and strategies. As state and local governments are increasing their efforts and funding in improving employment for individuals with disabilities, medium- and large-sized companies are seeking to establish local partnerships to streamline recruitment efforts for qualified employees with disabilities. Existing models have demonstrated the feasibility of WFI within the state VR system. For instance, the National Employment Team (NET) was developed and implemented by the Council of State Administrators of Vocational Rehabilitation (CSAVR) creating a national network of 78 public VR programs each of which works with a business consultant as the designated point of contact between businesses and the VR agencies (Haines et al., 2018).

4.2 Limitations

This study had several limitations. First, the sample may contain inherent biases, as it was neither representative nor acquired using random selection. Thus, caution must be used when attempting to generalize the results. Second, the present study used a self-report survey, and the researchers do not know to what extent the supervisors responded honestly or accurately. To minimize this risk, both attention and speeding checks were utilized. Last, the correlational design of current study does not permit implications of cause and effect.

5 Conclusion

This study examined the organizational characteristics and practices that predict effective disability recruitment processes from the supervisors’ perspectives. The findings indicated that efforts to recruit people with disabilities, commitment from upper management in both hiring for disability and providing accommodations, as well as training supervisors in charge of hiring regarding accessible application and interview practices for people with disabilities were all significantly related to supervisor perceptions of effective disability recruitment. Conversely, organizations that make more efforts in diversity recruitment or have diversity hiring goals were less likely to be perceived by supervisors to have effective disability recruitment processes. The findings have important implications for rehabilitation service providers and businesses seeking to improve their disability recruitment.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

The involvement of Drs. Phillips and Houtenville's work on this project was supported by a Signature Employment Grant from the Kessler Foundation.

Conflict of interest

None to report.

Ethics statement

Ethical approval for this study was obtained from the University of New Hampshire (IRB #6736).

Funding

This study was funded by a grant from the Kessler Foundation (no grant number was assigned).

Informed consent

All participants were provided with a Selection and Consent form that outlined the risks and considerations of participating, and then they had the opportunity to ask questions before opting to sign the form and participate.

References

ADA National Network (2019). Reasonable accommodation in workplace. https://adata.org/factsheet/reasonable-accommodations-workplace

Araten-Bergman,

(2016). Managers’ hiring intentions and the actual hiring of qualified workers with disabilities. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 27(14), 1510–1530. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2015.1128466

Ball,

, Monaco,

, Schmeling,

, Schartz,

, & Blanck,

(2005). Disability as diversity in Fortune 100 companies. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 23(1), 97–121. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.629

Bernhardt,

(2018). Four tips to help you recruit people with disabilities. Talent Management and HR. TLNT.https://www.tlnt.com/4-tips-to-help-you-recruit-people-with-disabilities/

Chan,

, Chiu,

C.Y.

, Bezyak,

J. L.

, & Keegan,

(2012). Introduction to health promotion for people with chronic illness and disability. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 56(1), 3–6. https://doi.org/10.1177/0034355212440731

Chan,

, Shaw,

L. R.

, McMahon,

B. T.

, Koch,

, & Strauser,

(1997). A model for enhancing rehabilitation counselor–consumer working relationships. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 41(2), 122–137. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-020-09941-8

Chan,

, Strauser,

, Maher,

, Lee,

E. J.

, Jones,

, & Johnson,

E. T.

(2010). Demand-side factors related to employment of people with disabilities: A survey of employers in the Midwest region of the United States. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 20(4), 412–419. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-010-9252-6

Chan,

, Tansey,

T. N.

, Iwanaga,

, Bezyak,

, Wehman,

, Phillips,

B. N.

,... & Anderson,

(2021). Company characteristics, disability inclusion practices, and employment of people with disabilities in the post COVID-19 job economy: A cross sectional survey study. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 31(3), 463–473. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-020-09941-8

Copeland,

, Chan,

, Bezyak,

, & Fraser,

R. T.

(2010). Assessing cognitive and affective reactions of employers toward people with disabilities in the workplace. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 20(4), 427–434. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-009-9207-y

10.

Diener,

, & Seligman,

M. E. P.

(2002). Very happy people. Psychological Science, 13(1), 81–84. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00415

11.

Dutta,

, Gervey,

, Chan,

, Chou,

C. C.

, & Ditchman,

(2008). Vocational rehabilitation services and employment outcomes for people with disabilities: A United States study. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 18(4), 326–334. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-008-9154-z

12.

Erickson,

W. A.

, von Schrader,

, Bruyère,

S. M.

, & VanLooy,

S. A.

(2014). The employment environment: Employer perspectives, policies, and practices regarding the employment of persons with disabilities. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 57(4), 195–208. https://doi.org/10.1177/0034355213509841

13.

Fraser,

, Ajzen,

, Johnson,

, Hebert,

, & Chan,

(2011). Understanding employers’ hiring intention in relation to qualified workers with disabilities. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 35(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.3233/JVR-2011-0548

14.

Fryers,

(2006). Work, identity and health. Clinical Practice and Epidemiology in Mental Health, 2(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-0179-2-12

15.

Gilbride,

, Stensrud,

, Vandergoot,

, & Golden,

(2003). Identification of the characteristics of work environments and employers open to hiring and accommodating people with disabilities. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 46(3), 130–137. https://doi.org/10.1177/00343552030460030101

16.

Green,

J. H.

, & Brooke,

(2001). Recruiting and retaining the best from America’s largest untapped talent pool. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 16(2), 83–88.

17.

Habeck,

, Hunt,

, Rachel,

C. H.

, Kregel,

, & Chan,

(2010). Employee retention and integrated disability management practices as demand side factors. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 20(4), 443–455. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-009-9225-9

18.

Hall,

J. P.

, Kurth,

N. K.

, & Hunt,

S. L.

(2013). Employment as a health determinant for working-age, dually-eligible people with disabilities. Disability and Health Journal, 6(2), 100–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dhjo.2012.11.001

19.

Haines,

, Soldner,

J. L.

, Zhang,

, Saint Laurent,

M. L.

, Knabe,

, West-Evans,

,... & Foley,

(2018). Vocational rehabilitation and business relations: Preliminary indicators of state VR agency capacity. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 48(1), 133–145. https://doi.org/10.3233/JVR-170921

20.

Hernandez,

, Keys,

, & Balcazar,

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

21.

Houtenville,

, & Kalargyrou,

(2012). People with disabilities: Employers’ perspectives on recruitment practices, strategies, and challenges in leisure and hospitality. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 53(1), 40–52. https://doi.org/10.1177/1938965511424151

22.

Iwanaga,

, Chen,

, Grenawalt,

T. A.

, Mpofu,

, Chan,

, Lee,

,... & Tansey,

T. N.

(2021). Employer Attitudes and Practices Affecting the Recruitment and Hiring of People with Disabilities: A Scoping Review. Journal of Rehabilitation, 87(2), 4–16.

23.

Kamerade,

, Wang,

, Burchell,

, Balderson,

S. U.

, & Coutts,

(2019). A shorter working week for everyone: How much paid work is needed for mental health and well-being?Social Science and Medicine, 241, 112353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.06.006

24.

Kaye,

H. S.

, Jans,

L. H.

, & Jones,

E. C.

(2011). Why don’t employers hire and retain workers with disabilities?Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 21(4), 526–536. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-011-9302-8

25.

Katz,

, O’Connell,

, & Nicholas,

(2012). Disability and work: research brief - strategies to support employer-driven initiatives to recruit and retain employees with disabilities. New Brunswick, NJ: John J. Heldrich Center for Workforce Development & West Orange, NJ: Kessler Foundation.

26.

Katz,

M. H.

(1999). Multivariable analysis: a practical guide for clinicians and public health researchers. Cambridge university press.

27.

Kessler Foundation (2022). nTIDE may 2022 jobs report: Efforts to curb inflation may dampen progress of job seekers with disabilities. https://www.researchondisability.org/season-7-episode-6-632022

28.

Kesselmayer,

R. F.

, Ochrach,

C. M.

, Phillips,

B. N.

, Mpofu,

, Lee,

, Chen,

,... & Tansey,

T. N.

(2022). Autism employment initiative in a global business management consultancy firm: A case study. Rehabilitation Counselors and Educators Journal, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.52017/001c.32416

29.

Lysaght,

, Ouellette-Kuntz,

, & Lin,

C. J.

(2012). Untapped potential: Perspectives on the employment of people with intellectual disability. Work, 41(4), 409–422. https://doi.org/10.3233/WOR-2012-1318

30.

Mizrahi,

J. L.

, Wilson,

, & Shields,

(2014). Include people with disabilities in the federal workplace. Public Manager, 43(4), 7–10.

31.

Murali,

, & Oyebode,

(2004). Poverty, social inequality and mental health. Advances in Psychiatric Treatment, 10(3), 216–224. https://doi.org/10.1192/apt.10.3.216

32.

Nazarov,

Z. E.

, & von Schrader,

(2014). Comparison of employer factors in disability and other employment discrimination charges. Rehabilitation Research, Policy, and Education, 28(4), 291–308. https://doi.org/10.1891/2168-6653.28.4.291

33.

Newton,

, & Ormerod,

(2005). Do disabled people have a place in the UK construction industry?Construction Management and Economics, 23(10), 1071–1081. https://doi.org/10.1080/01446190500372510

34.

Phillips,

K. G.

, Houtenville,

A. J.

, O’Neill,

, & Katz,

(2019). The effectiveness of employer practices to recruit, hire, and retain employees with disabilities: supervisor perspectives. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 51(3), 339–353. https://doi.org/10.3233/JVR-191050

35.

Rossin,

J. L.

, & Kleiner,

B. H.

(1997). How organisations are adapting to the Americans with Disabilities Act. Managerial Law, 39(1), 19–24. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb022474

36.

Stensrud,

(2007). Employer development is all about risk: disability and an economy in motion. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 50, 226–237.

37.

Vornholt,

, Uitdewilligen,

, & Nijhuis,

F. J.

(2013). Factors affecting the acceptance of people with disabilities at work: A literature review. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 23(4), 463–475. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-013-9426-0

38.

Wood,

, & Marshall,

E. S.

(2010). Nurses with disabilities working in hospital settings: Attitudes, concerns, and experiences of nurse leaders. Journal of Professional Nursing, 26(3), 182–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.profnurs.2009.12.001