Reasons for Not Hiring or Retaining Workers with Disabilities
Table
1 lists the potential reasons offered to respondents as to why employers might not hire people with disabilities, ranked by the proportion in agreement with that reason (either “strongly agree” or “agree”). The top three reasons, each endorsed by more than four-fifths of respondents, refer to the cost of accommodations, lack of awareness as to how to deal with workers with disabilities and their accommodation needs, and fear of being stuck with a worker who cannot be disciplined or fired because of the possibility of a lawsuit. The next tier of reasons, agreed to by roughly 70% of respondents, are difficulty assessing an applicant’s ability to perform job tasks, concerns over extra supervisory time, other cost worries, concern that the person with the disability won’t perform as well as non-disabled workers, and lack of job applicants with disabilities.
Table 1
Proposed reasons for employers not hiring people with disabilities, ranked by the proportion of respondents expressing agreement
1 | They are worried about the cost of providing reasonable accommodations so that workers with disabilities can do their jobs | 81.4 | 30.1 | 2.9 |
2 | They don’t know how to handle the needs of a worker with a disability on the job | 80.9 | 25.4 | 4.1 |
3 | They are afraid they won’t be able to discipline or fire a worker with a disability for poor performance, because of potential lawsuits | 80.2 | 23.4 | 4.8 |
4 | They can’t ask about a job applicant’s disability, making it hard to assess whether the person can do the job | 73.3 | 20.3 | 4.9 |
5 | They are concerned about the extra time that supervisors or co-workers will need to spend to assist workers with disabilities | 70.9 | 14.8 | 3.8 |
6 | They are worried about other costs, such as increased health insurance or worker’s compensation premiums | 69.9 | 22.8 | 4.2 |
7 | They are afraid the workers with disabilities won’t work up to the same standards as other employees | 68.5 | 12.1 | 5.4 |
8 | They rarely see people with disabilities applying for jobs
| 66.3 | 12.5 | 8.0 |
9 | They believe that people with disabilities can’t do the basic functions of the jobs they apply for | 55.8 | 8.1 | 8.9 |
10 | They discriminate against job applicants with disabilities | 53.3 | 12.8 | 12.6 |
11 | They are concerned about attitudes of co-workers toward the person with a disability | 46.7 | 7.1 | 8.8 |
12 | They find that job applicants with disabilities don’t have the necessary skills and experience | 41.8 | 6.2 | 12.3 |
13 | They think of workers with disabilities as “problem employees” | 40.9 | 5.9 | 12.3 |
14 | They find that job applicants with disabilities don’t present themselves well in interviews | 31.5 | 3.9 | 12.4 |
More than half of respondents agreed that employers didn’t hire workers with disabilities because they feel that workers with disabilities cannot perform essential job functions, and that employers discriminate against applicants with disabilities. The latter reason, however, was one of only four statements generating more than 10% strong disagreement.
Proposed reasons for not retaining workers with disabilities are shown in Table
2, again ranked by the proportion of respondents expressing agreement. Once again the three top-ranked reasons have about 80% or greater agreement, and the reasons are similar to those for hiring: lack of awareness as to how to handle the worker’s needs; concern that workers acquiring disabilities will become liabilities, whether legal or financial; and concern over the cost of accommodations. Next follow concerns over job performance, other costs, difficulty assessing whether the worker can do the job, and belief that the person cannot do the job, all at 65% agreement or more. Only one additional reason, a belief that workers developing disabilities become less dependable (as opposed to less dedicated), was endorsed by more than half of the respondents.
Table 2
Proposed reasons for employers not retaining workers with disabilities, ranked by the proportion of respondents expressing agreement
1 | They don’t know how to handle the needs of a worker with a disability on the job | 82.1 | 21.9 | 2.2 |
2 | They are afraid that workers who develop disabilities will become a liability to them | 80.3 | 16.4 | 3.3 |
3 | They are worried about the cost of providing reasonable accommodations so that workers with disabilities can do their jobs | 79.8 | 24.2 | 2.5 |
4 | They think that workers who are poor performers only get worse once they acquire a disability | 72.1 | 11.9 | 2.8 |
5 | They are worried about other costs, such as increased health insurance premiums | 71.8 | 22.0 | 3.9 |
6 | They can’t ask about a worker’s disability, making it hard to assess whether the person can still do the job | 68.4 | 16.8 | 3.8 |
7 | They believe that workers who develop disabilities can no longer do the basic functions of their jobs | 65.1 | 8.8 | 4.7 |
8 | They believe that workers who develop disabilities become less dependable
| 60.1 | 4.9 | 5.7 |
9 | They are concerned about attitudes of co-workers toward the worker with a disability | 47.4 | 6.3 | 5.7 |
10 | They think of workers who develop disabilities as “problem employees” | 42.2 | 4.5 | 7.4 |
11 | They believe that workers who develop disabilities become less dedicated to their jobs | 32.3 | 3.9 | 10.9 |
12 | Workers who develop disabilities prefer not to return to work
| 31.6 | 2.4 | 17.3 |
Given space to write in additional reasons for not hiring or retaining workers with disabilities, or to comment on their responses, most participants either left the spaces blank or reinforced their agreement with the reasons presented to them, often supplying details or going beyond the statements we provided. After classifying the verbatim responses by topic (Table
3), we find that the most frequent remarks refer to employer concerns about job performance or qualifications. Many respondents felt that employers believed (or stated that they themselves believed) that a worker with a disability “doesn’t pull his own weight,” “can’t do the job 100%,” or “might not have the same capacity” as other workers.
Table 3
Topics of verbatim additional responses and comments as to why some employers don’t hire or retain workers with disabilities
Concerns about job performance or qualifications | 13.1 | 57 |
Employers don’t know or understand disability or accommodation issues, need training | 9.7 | 42 |
Concerns about cost, including accommodations, insurance, accessibility | 6.7 | 29 |
Concerns about liability to lawsuits and complaints | 4.4 | 19 |
Hassles such as paperwork, time spent learning about accommodations, etc.* | 3.7 | 16 |
Employers’ fear of the unknown* | 3.4 | 15 |
Employer discrimination, ill will, relying on stereotypes of people with disabilities | 3.4 | 15 |
Concerns over customer/client reaction or public image* | 2.5 | 11 |
Employers uncomfortable around people with disabilities, don’t know how to behave* | 2.1 | 9 |
Concerns that the worker will not fit in or co-workers will react badly | 2.1 | 9 |
Don’t encounter or recruit applicants or workers with disabilities | 1.4 | 6 |
Attitudes of workers with disabilities, including an attitude of entitlement* | 1.4 | 6 |
Some respondents referred specifically to essential job functions, but others said the problem was more subtle, related to what one respondent called “the `other things’ that come with the job.” One wrote, “Employers want employees who are flexible and can do more than one task. They feel people with disabilities are limited.” Another pointed out that “in this day and age workers need to multitask and assume different roles during emergencies,” something he or she thought might be a problem for workers with disabilities. A separate, frequently mentioned issue was “greater absenteeism,” “always calling in sick,” “absence from work too often,” or “time off from work for doctor’s appointments”; several respondents appeared to hold these views themselves, indicating that they associate disability with poor health.
The next topic most often mentioned by respondents was “lack of knowledge or experience with people with disabilities,” “misconceptions as to what a person with a disability is capable of,” and lack of knowledge “about discrimination laws or reasonable accommodations.” One respondent wrote, “A lot of employers misunderstand or do not know the laws; they need to be educated.” In addition to learning more about the ADA, “employers should have training on disabilities and how to accommodate or handle them.” One respondent offered specifics: “Sometimes employers need help in `rethinking’ how the work can be completed. They need help in seeing how jobs can be done in a new way.”
Next among the comments were concerns over costs, including those of making the worksite accessible, increased insurance premiums, and individual accommodations. Respondents also reinforced their agreement that fear of lawsuits and discrimination complaints was a central issue, along with the broader concern over liability in case of injury or accident.
Less frequently, respondents brought up issues that we had not included in our list of reasons for not hiring or retaining workers with disabilities. Several referred to the “hassle,” “paperwork,” or “trouble and effort” related to hiring or employing workers with disabilities, such as having to “spend time on issues they have never had to address before,” “deal with government bureaucracy,” or “be bothered researching accommodations.” One respondent summed it up: “It is a big hassle to hire a person with a disability because there are a lot of government regulations to follow. Employers have so many laws they have to follow already.”
Another topic introduced by the respondents was “fear of the unknown,” repeatedly expressed in those or very similar words. One respondent felt that employers “may be afraid of people with disabilities, afraid of the unknown, and also afraid of certain disabilities more than others.”
A related topic, also not included among our list of reasons, was discomfort in the presence of people with disabilities. Employers “see so few people with disabilities that they don’t know how to act when they meet one.” They “must always be careful of how different things need to be handled and must edit what is said or spoken to a person with disabilities,” according to one respondent. Even if employers are themselves comfortable around workers with disabilities, they may fear that their customers or clients are not, according to several respondents. They might have vague concerns about “image,” or may worry that “customers or members of the public that deal with the employee may have a reluctance or uneasiness in dealing with employees with disabilities,” in the words of one respondent.
A final topic not included in our list was attitudes of workers and job applicants with disabilities, mentioned by only a few respondents. One referred to an “attitude of entitlement” that another summed up as, “I’m special, so treat me special.” A third respondent explained, “Some people with disabilities expect employers and coworkers to give them special treatment and assistance beyond reasonable accommodations.”
Many respondents wrote their comments in the first person and described their own experiences with and attitudes toward workers or applicants with disabilities, indicating that they were, at times, putting themselves in the position of the “other employers” they were asked to characterize. A few revealed disturbing attitudes reflecting personal prejudice and ignorance. One remarked—in the “any comments” area rather than the space for offering reasons other employers might not hire people with disabilities—that “people with disabilities don’t think the same way as normal people.” Another wrote, “I think that people with disabilities can’t do the same things as people without disabilities.”
In contrast, many other respondents, despite working for “ADA-recalcitrant” employers, expressed positive views of the potential and performance of workers with disabilities. These opinions were often grounded in personal experience with disability or success in hiring, retaining, or working with people with disabilities.
Strategies to Improve Hiring and Retention of Workers with Disabilities
For each of the practical strategies we proposed that organizations might use to improve hiring and retention of workers with disabilities, at least four-fifths of respondents regarded the strategy as either “very helpful” or “somewhat helpful.” These strategies are shown in Table
4, ranked according to the proportion of respondents rating them as “very helpful.” More or better training is ranked highest, followed by an organization-wide source of expertise on accommodation issues; both were rated “very helpful” by more than two-thirds of respondents. These were followed closely by written guidelines for dealing with disability and accommodation issues and an organization-wide system for handling accommodation requests.
Table 4
Practical strategies for improving hiring and retention of workers with disabilities, ranked by the proportion of respondents rating them “very helpful”
1 |
More or better training on disability issues for supervisors and managers | 74.4 | 22.2 | 3.4 |
2 | A central organization-wide source for expertise on accommodation issues | 66.8 | 28.5 | 4.6 |
3 |
Written guidelines for dealing with disability issues, including accommodation requests | 65.2 | 29.1 | 5.6 |
4 | An organization-wide system for handling requests for reasonable accommodations | 65.2 | 27.4 | 7.3 |
5 |
External resources to get guidance on disability and accommodation issues | 60.6 | 31.3 | 8.1 |
6 | A diversity specialist who deals with disability issues | 58.4 | 31.0 | 10.6 |
7 | A centralized fund within the organization to pay for job accommodations | 55.4 | 31.6 | 13.0 |
8 | A written company policy of non-discrimination that includes disability | 50.7 | 34.6 | 14.7 |
Also regarded as “very helpful” by about 60% of respondents were external guidance on disability and accommodation issues and a diversity specialist within the organization to deal with disability issues. More than half of the respondents believed that a centralized fund to pay for job accommodations would be very helpful, as would a written non-discrimination policy that included disability status.
It is interesting to note that expertise in disability issues is the focus of most of the top-ranked strategies. These include increasing knowledge among managers and supervisors themselves (#1), making available experts either within (#2) or outside the organization (#5) for managers and supervisors to consult with, or transferring the burden of solving accommodation problems from the managers and supervisors to an internal expert (#4 and #6).
Endorsement of public policy strategies to improving hiring and retention of workers with disabilities was not quite as enthusiastic, with “very helpful” ratings ranging from about one-third to nearly two-thirds of respondents. As shown in Table
5, accommodations subsidized or entirely paid for by a government agency ranks at the top of the list, followed by no-cost, outside help with solving disability- and accommodation-related issues. Just over half said that tax breaks for hiring and retaining workers with disabilities would be very helpful.
Table 5
Policy strategies for improving hiring and retention of workers with disabilities, ranked by the proportion of respondents rating them “very helpful”
1 | A government program to pay for or subsidize reasonable accommodations for workers with disabilities | 65.1 | 27.5 | 7.4 |
2 | Someone to come in and help solve
disability- and accommodation-related issues, without cost to the employer | 62.6 | 30.4 | 7.0 |
3 |
Tax breaks for hiring or retaining workers with disabilities | 53.4 | 35.1 | 11.5 |
4 |
Salary subsidies for workers with disabilities | 46.4 | 35.0 | 18.7 |
5 | A trial initial employment period for workers with disabilities | 45.4 | 30.0 | 24.6 |
6 | An external mediation service to help resolve disability and accommodation issues without recourse to lawsuits | 44.6 | 39.8 | 15.6 |
7 | An easy way to recruit applicants with disabilities to fill vacant jobs | 39.0 | 41.0 | 20.1 |
8 | An externally facilitated problem-solving group to address issues of accommodation and retention | 32.7 | 45.0 | 22.3 |
Some 45% indicated that an initial trial employment period for workers with disabilities would be “very helpful,” but this idea is controversial, with about one-quarter regarding it as not helpful, the largest negative rating of any proposed solution. Also rated very helpful at about the 45% level were salary subsidies for workers with disabilities and external mediation to help resolve issues before they result in legal action.
In the spaces provided for additional practical and policy strategies and other comments, respondents who wrote anything at all mostly reinforced and offered details on the strategies they had already been presented with. As shown in Table
6, the most frequent responses pertained to educating employers “to change [their] mentality and perception against people with disabilities.” Respondents suggested, for example, “training…that changes organizational perceptions of disability” including “an orientation for supervisors and managers about not discriminating against a person with a disability,” “testimonies of successful employees with disabilities” and “presentations by employers who’ve hired successfully.” Education is seen as “the silver bullet” to “de-mystify the myth that [workers with disabilities] can’t do the job as well as someone without disabilities.” Managers “should be exposed to persons with disabilities working so they can see first hand what they can do and how well the job gets done.”
Table 6
Subjects of verbatim additional responses and comments as to practical and policy strategies to improve hiring and retention of workers with disabilities
Education and familiarization with people with disabilities and disability issues | 6.9 | 30 |
Financial incentives for hiring and retention | 3.9 | 17 |
Accommodation subsidies | 2.8 | 12 |
Improve corporate culture* | 2.5 | 11 |
Company policies and support from management and human resources | 1.6 | 7 |
Training, mentoring, coaching of workers with disabilities; pre-employment preparation* | 1.6 | 7 |
External help dealing with workers with disabilities and accommodations | 1.4 | 6 |
Offer an opportunity to demonstrate abilities; trial employment period | 1.4 | 6 |
Enforce existing laws* | 0.9 | 4 |
The next two topics mentioned in the comments relate to the bottom line, either with regard to incentives for hiring and retaining workers with disabilities or to subsidies for accommodations. Incentives could include tax breaks or subsidies for new workers, or programs similar to those offering incentives to minority- or women-owned suppliers or contractors: “Get them to hire them first and see their abilities. Then at least the worker has a foot in the door.”
Improving corporate culture is a strategy mentioned by respondents but not explicitly included on our list. One respondent wrote, “Instilling diversity values in a corporation allows an arena for inclusion no matter what a person’s orientation, race, or abilities.” Another pointed out that “the commitment has to come from the top and filter down. Managers and supervisors who are change agents should be rewarded for their efforts.” A third recommended a “partnership with ADA organizations to create a cohesive and accommodating work environment.”
A second topic not included in the list of strategies involves training, not of employers but of workers and potential workers with disabilities. Respondents suggest that “agencies provide coaching or mentoring to the job applicant” or “offer a class to help develop résumés,” and that there be “retraining of blue-collar workers to do white-collar jobs.”