Employer Awareness of Disability Hiring Incentives: ADA Study

Restatement of the Purpose and Research Questions

This section presents the results obtained with respect to the research questions established in the study design. The responses of respondents to each question, and therefore the findings obtained through these questions, are brought to light one after another (Bryman, 2012).

The data were obtained by using interview questions administered through a questionnaire. There were several open-ended questions that respondents had to answer. The aim of this questionnaire was to record the candid thoughts of 50 respondents who were made part of this study. The employer size ranged from 15 to 200 employees, covering small-to-midsize employers in metro Atlanta.

Out of 50 respondents, seven believed that senior managers do have sufficient knowledge of economic motivators for employing people with physical disabilities. Thirty-five respondents believed that senior managers did not possess sufficient knowledge about these economic motivators. Eight respondents were uncertain, expressing that if they had more knowledge about the matter, it would be helpful to them.

Responses to this question were quite varied. Twenty-five respondents felt that the government's focus on economic incentives for small-sized companies was warranted because small businesses lack resources compared to larger ones. Ten of the 50 respondents stated that whether an employer can accommodate people with physical disabilities depends on the size of the business, noting that it was difficult to imagine offering a person with a physical disability a job requiring many hours within a small organization. Fifteen employers indicated that their organization does not have sufficient information about hiring people with physical disabilities because they do not feel the need to explore the matter, and that organizations will not look into it unless directly confronted with the situation.

Twenty out of 50 respondents felt that their organizations were lacking on many fronts and did not have the information required regarding employment of people with physical disabilities. Ten respondents desired information on both reasonable and unreasonable accommodations, employer rights and responsibilities. Twenty respondents did not respond to this particular question.

Thirty-five out of 50 respondents viewed the Americans with Disabilities Act as an effective organization supporting the employment of people with physical disabilities. Five respondents maintained a neutral stance, eight were not sure whether they supported the ADA, and two respondents had no knowledge of the organization at all.

The above were the qualitative questions asked of respondents through interviews. As noted, the responses revealed the candid thoughts of the employers. The quantitative questions were administered through a research survey, and responses were quantified using a mean value (x) and a standard deviation for each item.

The demographics differed from the interview questions. The sample for the survey portion was based on 73 responses. Three hundred surveys were mailed and distributed to small and medium businesses in metro Atlanta, Georgia. Of those 300 surveys, only 73 were returned for evaluation, representing a return rate of 24 percent.

Quantitative Survey Findings

According to the survey results, the mean value (x) was 1.602 for the first question, which asked whether employers were aware of legislation pertaining to the employment of people with physical disabilities (standard deviation = 0.492). The responses showed that 40 percent (29 respondents) were aware of the legislation, while 60 percent (44 respondents) were not.

In response to the question asking whether any organization had an employee who became disabled in the workplace, 67 out of 73 replied in the negative and 6 replied in the affirmative. Ninety-two percent answered no and 8 percent answered yes. The mean value for this question was 1.917 (standard deviation = 0.276).

When asked about awareness of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, results showed that 56 percent of respondents were aware of the Act while 44 percent were not. The mean value was 1.438 (standard deviation = 0.499).

Results showed that 85 percent of respondents were aware of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, while only 15 percent had no knowledge of it. The mean value for this question was 1.150 (standard deviation = 0.360).

When asked about awareness of state and local laws regarding the employment of people with physical disabilities, 40 percent of employers were unaware of these laws while 60 percent claimed awareness. The mean value was 1.397 (standard deviation = 0.492).

Forty-five percent of respondents were not aware of laws pertaining to the termination of an employee with a physical disability, while 55 percent were aware. The mean value for this question was 1.452 (standard deviation = 0.501).

The next question addressed job analysis of positions within the organization. Fifty-eight percent of employers stated they had never conducted any kind of job analysis, while 42 percent reported having done so. The mean value was 1.575 (standard deviation = 0.497).

When asked whether employers maintained a complete description for every position in their organization, the mean value was 1.500 (standard deviation = 0.503). Forty-nine percent of employers claimed to have complete descriptions for every position, while the same percentage answered in the negative; one person chose not to respond. To rule out ambiguity, respondents who answered yes were asked whether position descriptions also mentioned physical demands. Thirty-one respondents (42 percent) said yes, while 38 respondents (52 percent) indicated their job descriptions did not mention physical demands and instead focused mainly on educational and environmental requirements.

When asked whether they would be willing to hire people with physical disabilities, 93 percent of respondents answered yes, 5 percent said no, and one person did not respond. The mean value was 1.055 (standard deviation = 0.230).

Regarding the accessibility of their application process to individuals with visual or other sensory impairments, only 38 percent of respondents said yes, while 58 percent said no; two people did not respond. The mean value was 1.600 (standard deviation = 0.493).

When asked whether they were sufficiently equipped to hire a person with a physical disability, 58 percent of respondents said yes and 41 percent said no; one employer did not respond. The mean value was 1.416 (standard deviation = 0.496).

When employers were asked whether they were aware of the questions expected to be answered in disability-related interviews, 58 percent said yes and 42 percent said no. The mean value was 1.242 (standard deviation = 0.497).

The next question addressed the physical accessibility of the workplace for people with disabilities. The mean value was 1.126 (standard deviation = 0.355). Eighty-five percent of employers said yes, 12 percent said no, and two respondents did not answer. Among those who answered yes, accessible features included entrances and exits (62 respondents, 85%), workstations (44 respondents, 60%), break rooms (39 respondents, 53%), and restrooms (45 respondents, 62%).

Regarding the consideration of job modifications, the mean value was 1.222 (standard deviation = 0.418). Seventy-seven percent of employers answered yes, 22 percent answered no, and one person did not respond.

When employers were asked about special provisions or arrangements made to accommodate people with physical disabilities, 70 percent answered in the negative and 30 percent answered in the affirmative; two people chose not to respond. The mean value was 1.718 (standard deviation = 0.453).

The next question addressed whether steps had been taken to remove identified employment barriers for disabled people in the workplace. Fifty-eight percent answered no, 37 percent answered yes, and four people chose not to respond. The mean value was 1.608 (standard deviation = 0.491).

Employers were then asked whether they had ensured that new procedures and policies were reviewed so that no existing or new employment barriers would form. Fifty-eight percent answered in the negative, 40 percent answered in the affirmative, and two people did not respond. The mean value was 1.591 (standard deviation = 0.495).

When employers were asked whether they had stated policies in their organizational mandate regarding the accommodation of people with disabilities, 78 percent answered no and 21 percent answered yes; one person did not respond. The mean value was 1.791 (standard deviation = 0.408).

The following question asked whether those policies were communicated to new and current employees. Eighty-one percent of respondents answered in the negative, and only 19 percent answered yes. The mean value was 1.808 (standard deviation = 0.396).

Employers were then asked whether they had made use of supported employment services. Seventy-three percent answered in the negative, 25 percent in the affirmative, and two people chose not to respond. The mean value was 1.746 (standard deviation = 0.438).

When asked whether they were aware of services provided by supported employment agencies, 45 percent answered yes, 53 percent answered no, and one person did not respond. The mean value was 1.541 (standard deviation = 0.501).

Regarding government-provided economic incentives for hiring persons with disabilities, 36 percent claimed knowledge of such incentives while 63 percent said they did not; one employer did not respond. The mean value was 1.638 (standard deviation = 0.483).

When asked whether they had actually used economic incentives to hire people with disabilities, only 15 percent of employers said yes and 84 percent said no; one person did not respond. The mean value was 1.847 (standard deviation = 0.362).

Regarding the availability of an in-house specialist to assist in hiring and employing people with physical disabilities, 99 percent of respondents answered in the negative and one person did not reply. The mean value was 1.847 (standard deviation = 0.362).

Respondents were then asked about their knowledge of the ADA and other employment laws affecting persons with disabilities, measured on a Likert scale. Fourteen percent strongly agreed they had sufficient knowledge, 29 percent agreed, 27 percent were unsure, 18 percent disagreed, and 12 percent strongly disagreed. The mean value was 2.863 (standard deviation = 1.228).

Eleven percent of employers strongly agreed that their organization had obtained relevant information about people with disabilities, 32 percent agreed, 30 percent were unsure, 23 percent disagreed, and 4 percent strongly disagreed. The mean value was 2.780 (standard deviation = 1.057).

Fifteen percent strongly agreed that people with disabilities could be effectively accommodated in their companies, 26 percent agreed, 25 percent were unsure, 21 percent disagreed, and 14 percent strongly disagreed. The mean value was 2.917 (standard deviation = 1.277).

Fourteen percent of employers strongly agreed that their company has the ability to educate other employees about working alongside employees with physical disabilities, 32 percent agreed, 22 percent were unsure, 23 percent disagreed, and 10 percent strongly disagreed. The mean value was 2.835 (standard deviation = 1.213).

Finally, when asked whether their organization has adequate knowledge about hiring and employing people with physical disabilities, 14 percent strongly agreed, 19 percent agreed, 27 percent were unsure, 30 percent disagreed, and 10 percent strongly disagreed. The mean value was 3.027 (standard deviation = 1.201).

Summary of Previous Chapters and Literature

In 1990, Congress authorized the Americans with Disabilities Act, with Senator Tom Harkin as the chief sponsor in the Senate. In his speech, Harkin used sign language so that deaf viewers could understand what he was saying. This law is a broad civil rights statute that prohibits discrimination based on disability (Blanck, 2000). It complements other anti-discrimination laws that make it illegal to discriminate based on religion, sex, or race. The law defines what constitutes a disability and also excludes certain conditions from its scope, such as certain visual impairments and substance abuse.

The law states that a covered entity must not discriminate against a qualified individual on the basis of disability (Walk et al., 1993). This prohibition applies to all steps involved in obtaining employment, including job application procedures, advancement and discharge of employees, job training, and employment privileges. Covered entities include any labor organization, employment agency, or joint labor-management committee.

Despite the implementation of the ADA, the unemployment rate for people with disabilities remains high (DeLeire, 2000). A formal study was carried out by Wichita State University, the Cerebral Palsy Research Foundation, and the University of Texas at San Antonio to examine recruitment practices for people who are disabled. Their primary aim was to assess how problematic the employment situation for disabled people actually was, with particular emphasis on how well employers understand state incentives available for hiring persons with disabilities. The present study builds on that foundation by examining the economic motivators available to employers in Atlanta, the extent to which companies are aware of these incentives, the policy-making processes around hiring people with disabilities, and how the ADA affects the hiring process. Given that companies are in constant competition for advantage, this research also examines the time and effort firms devote to hiring people with disabilities.

Using Maslow's Hierarchy of Human Needs, the research emphasizes that basic human needs should be fulfilled for all individuals (Maslow and Stephens, 2000). HR departments can apply this framework to motivate employees in diverse ways. These needs help a person grow, prosper, and reach their potential, and should therefore be addressed in all environments, including the workplace. Self-actualization and learning are particularly important elements of this framework, and they are applied in organizational settings to enhance both employee and employer motivation (Frost, 1985).

Economic incentives for employers who hire persons with disabilities are significant because workforce diversity benefits every company (DiTomaso and Post, 2004). People with disabilities are full members of society, and their needs deserve attention. Employers should be aware of available incentives and take steps to make their working environments more accessible and welcoming. Incentives offered to employers include tax credits and second-injury provisions of the workers' compensation fund. Employment specialists are also available to offer training, job placement, and ongoing support services for workers with disabilities. Additional training time may be provided to accommodate those who require more time to learn specific tasks. The primary economic incentives overall consist of a combination of tax deductions and tax credits. Common examples include the Welfare-to-Work Tax Credit, the Barrier Removal Tax Deduction, and the Disabled Access Tax Credit.

In summary, the ADA was established to increase employment rates for people with disabilities. Despite this act and the many incentives and programs associated with it, employment among people with disabilities has not reached adequate levels. A careful analysis of the effectiveness of economic incentives — such as tax credits available to employers — was undertaken in this study using a mixed quantitative and qualitative methodology. The primary purpose of the study was to analyze the degree to which firms are aware of and make use of employer motivators, and to determine how many firms actively implement relevant policies aimed at reducing unemployment among persons with disabilities. Research tools consisted of interviews, questionnaires, and an evaluation of existing literature on the topic. The mixed research design was adopted to allow for more comprehensive answers to the research questions.

The findings of the study revealed mixed views on the hiring of people with disabilities and the incentives offered by the government. Fifty respondents completed the questionnaire inquiring about employer outlooks. For the first question, the majority of respondents had no knowledge of available economic motivators — they were unaware that such programs even existed. Only seven out of fifty respondents had any understanding of what economic motivators were. For the second question, the majority expressed their primary concern: that small organizations should receive more of these incentives. Respondents believed small businesses lack the resources to hire people with disabilities frequently. Fifteen respondents had no conception of the process for hiring someone with a disability; the idea was so distant from their organizational culture that they did not know how to proceed.

Regarding recommendations, managers felt that training and information were most urgently needed. Twenty respondents felt they needed to be better informed, while twenty did not respond to this question. Ten respondents wanted specific information on accommodations and on employer rights and responsibilities. Regarding the ADA, 35 respondents were aware of the organization and supported its goals. Among the quantitative findings, the majority of respondents were favorable toward hiring persons with disabilities. Nonetheless, while their attitudes were receptive, formal knowledge was minimal and awareness of company or government policies regarding disability employment was very limited.

Conclusion

The Americans with Disabilities Act has created a mixed impact on the employment of individuals with disabilities. There are many causes that can explain the low rate of employment among people with disabilities. One of the most prominent is a lack of job-specific knowledge and formal education on the part of both employers and employees. If workers with disabilities are present in only certain jobs or certain areas of an organization, it may indicate that the organization's culture does not provide equitable opportunities. Conversely, when an organization has people with disabilities in managerial or executive positions, it signals an organizational culture that genuinely welcomes and supports them.

Significant shifts in policies and laws affecting the employment of disabled persons have occurred over time. The government and various organizations are working to enhance approaches that will ultimately result in greater progress for people with disabilities. Oliver and Barnes (2006) cautioned that working too closely with the government agenda may risk reshaping change efforts to reflect government priorities rather than the needs of persons with disabilities. Regardless, the overarching aim of government, civil society, and individual firms should be to ensure that people with disabilities are treated fairly. Access to a decent job and a career is a fundamental dimension of a full life. As more people with disabilities enter the workforce, their dependence — both on family members and on the government — will decrease. Focusing on the employment of those with disabilities is therefore a positive step for every member of the community.

References

Ashworth, K., Hartfree, Y., & Stephenson, A. (2001). Well enough to work? Research Report No. 145, Department of Work and Pensions, Corporate Document Services, Leeds.

Baker, M., & Tippin, D. (2003). More than just another obstacle: Health, Domestic Purposes Beneficiaries, and the transition to paid work. Paper presented at the Social Policy, Research and Evaluation Conference, Wellington, 29–30 April.

Berkowitz, M., & Hill, M. (1986). Disability and the labor market (1st ed.). Ithaca, NY: ILR Press.

Berthoud, R. (1998). Disability benefits: A review of the issues and options for reform. Joseph Rowntree Foundation, York.

Blanck, P. (2000). Employment, disability, and the Americans with Disabilities Act (1st ed.). Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.

Bryman, A. (2012). Social research methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

DeLeire, T. (2000). The wage and employment effects of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Journal of Human Resources, 693–715.

DiTomaso, N., & Post, C. (2004). Diversity in the workforce (1st ed.). Amsterdam: Elsevier JAI.

Frost, P. (1985). Organizational culture (1st ed.). Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.

Greenwood, R., Schriner, K., & Johnson, V. (1991). Employer concerns regarding workers with disabilities and the business-rehabilitation partnership: The PWI practitioners' perspective. Journal of Rehabilitation, 57(1), 21–25.

Hazer, J., & Bedell, K. (2000). Effects of seeking accommodation and disability on preemployment evaluations. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30(6), 1201–1223.

Hollins, S., & Sinason, V. (2000). Psychotherapy, learning disabilities and trauma: New perspectives. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 176(1), 32–36.

IRS. (2014). Tax benefits for businesses who have employees with disabilities. Retrieved July 11, 2014, from

Kovar, M. (1982). The public health impact of an increasing elderly population in the United States of America. World Health Statistics Quarterly, 35(3–4), 246–258.

Lehmann, I., & Crimando, W. (2008). Unintended consequences of state and federal antidiscrimination and family medical leave legislation on the employment rates of persons with disabilities. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 51(3), 159–169.

Maslow, A., & Stephens, D. (2000). The Maslow business reader (1st ed.). New York: Wiley.

Murray, C., & Lopez, A. (1997). Global mortality, disability, and the contribution of risk factors: Global Burden of Disease Study. The Lancet, 349(9063), 1436–1442.

OECD. (2009). Sickness, disability and work: Breaking the barriers (Vol. 2). Australia, Luxembourg, Spain and the United Kingdom. OECD Publishing.

Oliver, M., & Barnes, C. (2006). Disability politics and the disability movement in Britain: Where did it all go wrong? Coalition, June.

Olson, D., Cioffi, A., Yovanoff, P., & Mank, D. (2001). Employers' perceptions of employees with mental retardation. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 16(2), 125–133.

Unger, D. (2002). Employers' attitudes toward persons with disabilities in the workforce: Myths or realities? Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 17(1), 2–10.

United States, House. (2003). Making appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2002, and for other purposes: Conference report (to accompany H.R. 3061). New York: DIANE Publishing.

Walk, E., Ahn, H., Lampkin, P., Nabizadeh, S., & Edlich, R. (1993). Americans with disabilities act. Journal of Burn Care & Research, 14(1), 91–98.