Employer Focus Research prepared for: Minnesota Governor's Council on Developmental Disabilities Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development Minnesota Department of Human Services Minnesota State Council on Disability prepared by: Market Response International project :: 1605 May :: 2005 (photo of client product or concept, or related graphic ) 2 :: Table of Contents Executive Summary 3 Project Overview 8 Sample Profile 11 Non-employers 15 Employers of individuals with disabilities 17 Accommodations 34 Barriers to employment 38 Attitudinal segmentation analysis 45 Appendix 59 3 :: Executive Summary 4 :: Executive Summary Employers v. Non-employers This survey separated organizations into two categories: 1.Current employers of individuals with disabilities (referred to as Employers in the rest of this report), and 2.Businesses or organizations stating that they did not currently employ any individuals with disabilities (referred to as "Non-employers" in the rest of this report). Half of the respondents were Employers and half of the respondents were Non-employers. We used the following definition of a disability for this identification (from the Americans with Disabilities Act): A person who has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities such as language, learning, mobility or self care. In looking at the organizational demographics of these two groups there were some significant differences: * Employers of individuals with disabilities were more likely than non-employers to: - be a not-for-profit organization - have been in business for a longer time - be in Hospitality Services or Healthcare *Non-employers were more likely than employers to: - be in Construction, Finance, Transportation, Agriculture or similar industries - be smaller organizations (mostly less than 20 people) and working out of a single office Employers The majority of the survey was directed at current employers of individuals with disabilities. These employers most commonly identified their employees as having either a cognitive or a developmental disability, second most common were individuals with a physical disability. Few organizations actively seek out individuals with disabilities; however the vast majority of current employers are open to hiring from this population if the opportunity presents itself. Employers mainly gave very practical reasons for hiring employees with disabilities (i.e. stating that the person was well suited for the position); however some employers offered more emotional reasons for hiring employees with disabilities. 5 :: Executive Summary Employees with disabilities most often come directly to the employers, however many are hired through personal references, support agencies or the WorkForceCenter. 76% of employers who have found employees with disabilities through a WorkForceCenter were satisfied (somewhat or very) with the Center's support of those individuals; while 86% of employers who have found employees with disabilities through support agencies were satisfied (somewhat or very) with the agency's support of those individuals. In creating positions for employees with disabilities, employers are not likely to go outside what they consider a norm for their organization, nor do they feel the need to do so. Hiring a person who is motivated to do the job was rated as the most important success factor for hiring an individual with a disability. Employers - Experience The majority of employers seldom or never found it necessary to assist their employees with disabilities with basic functions such as performing the job tasks, managing the work day, making decisions, mobility, communication, or grooming. Employers were asked to compare their employees with disabilities to their other employees in similar positions on a set of performance attributes. Employees with physical or sensory disabilities rated equal to or higher than their coworkers in similar positions on every performance attribute except for work speed. However, employees with disabilities appear to be judged differently, in terms of overall satisfaction, than other employees in similar positions. For employees with disabilities, attitude was the biggest driver of overall satisfaction; while for the other employees the biggest driver was work quality. Employers - Accommodations When asked if their employees with disabilities have required accommodations most employers say "No". However when presented with a list of possible accommodations, 98% of employers have made at least one process accommodation and 93% have made at least one physical accommodation. The majority of employers thought that the costs of accommodations they have provided were equal to or less than they had anticipated, and that the benefits of doing so outweighed the costs. 6 :: Executive Summary Barriers to further employment of individuals with disabilities Employers perceive many barriers to employment of individuals with disabilities. In asking both employers and non-employers about these barriers, safety came up as the number one barrier for employment of individuals with disabilities, and was perceived as a significantly higher barrier for employers who do not currently employ individuals with disabilities. Safety appears to be a broad category that can mean several things to employers, such as: concern for keeping a safe work environment, concern for health & medical safety, and concern for physical safety. Performance issues also ranked highly as barriers to employment of individuals with disabilities. Both the nature of work being unsuited to individuals with disabilities, and a lack skill and experience needed, rated significantly higher for organizations that do not currently employ individuals with disabilities, as compared to those that do. Ratings on lower productivity and lower quality of work were similar between employers and non-employers. For the most part, concerns related to the employer's discomfort or lack of information are similar for employers and non-employers, meaning these concerns do not vary much based on experience. Exceptions are that non-employers are more concerned about having a lack of information on disabilities, and employers are more concerned about co-worker acceptance of individuals with disabilities. Current employers of individuals with disabilities are more concerned about the costs of accommodations than non-employers, although 95% of current employers stated that the costs of accommodations either outweighed or were acceptable, considering the benefits the company received. Employers who have never employed an individual with a disability were the least concerned about the costs of accommodations; but they were more concerned about potential costs such as increased insurance rates, worker's compensation claims and lawsuits. Ideas for improving opportunities Employers rated gaining a better understanding of what (1) government WorkForceCenters and (2) supported employment agencies can offer to help increase employment opportunities for individuals with disabilities within their organizations, as the two most effective ideas for improvement. 7 :: Executive Summary Approaching organizations to hire individuals with disabilities Different organizations have very diverse attitudes regarding their communities and workforce. Employers who tend to be more actively involved in their communities, and who are more adaptable to the needs of their workforce, are more likely to hire individuals with disabilities. It will be easier to convince a company that is already flexible and adaptable, but does not currently employ any individuals with disabilities, to extend that flexibility to individuals with disabilities than to try to convince a less flexible company to do so. Indicators about how open an organization may or may not be to hiring individuals with disabilities can be found in their community outreach efforts and annual reports. Additionally, employers will respond differently to different approaches. Agency personnel should be ready to vary their approach based upon the profile of the employer. For example, some organizations are open to a personal, feelings-based appeal towards employment, while others are more focused on the business case for employing individuals with disabilities. In general, larger organizations are more likely to have the flexibility to hire individuals with disabilities; while smaller, for-profit businesses are less likely to see past barriers. 8 :: Project Overview 9 :: Project Overview - Objectives Background Historically, individuals with disabilities in Minnesota have been underemployed. There is an employment gap between those who want to work and are able to work, and the businesses that could benefit by employing them. Closing this gap represents an opportunity to benefit businesses and significantly enhance the independence, productivity, self-determination, integration and inclusion (IPSII) -- and therefore the quality of life -- of Minnesotans with disabilities. Research Objective Our objective was to conduct a customer-focused study among Minnesota employers to identify and measure issues and perceptions that constitute barriers to employment for individuals with disabilities. This research was conducted in two phases: Phase 1 -- Qualitative Exploratory face-to-face interviews among selected employers Phase 2 -- Quantitative Telephone survey to measure hypotheses gained from Phase 1 10 :: Project Overview - Objectives Phase 1 -- Qualitative 15 personal interviews of known employers of individuals with disabilities Organizations interviewed: .3M . Arctic Glacier . Cartridge Care . Cherokee Bank . Davanni's Restaurants . Double Tree Inn . Fraser Child & Family Center . Hyatt Minneapolis . Juut Salons . Life Source . Lunds Foods . Regulus . Wal-Mart . YMCA Minneapolis Phase 2 -- Quantitative 600 telephone interviews with Minnesota employers * 300 current employers of individuals with any disability ("Employers") * 300 employers stating they do not currently employ any individuals with any disability ("Non-employers") * Interviews conducted with Human Resource directors, presidents, or managing directors (depending on size of company/location) 11 :: Quantitative Sample Profile 12 :: Sample Profile Total% (n=600) Which best describes your business or organization? For profit business 84% Not for profit organization 16% For how long has your company or organization been in business? 0 - 5 years 8% 6 - 10 years 12% 11 - 15 years 11% 16 - 20 years 8% Over 20 years 62% Employer% (n=300) Which best describes your business or organization? For profit business 80% Not for profit organization up to 20% For how long has your company or organization been in business? 0 - 5 years 7% 6 - 10 years 7% 11 - 15 years 11% 16 - 20 years 6% Over 20 years up to 69% Non-Employer% (n=300) Which best describes your business or organization? For profit business up to 88% Not for profit organization 12% For how long has your company or organization been in business? 0 - 5 years 10% 6 - 10 years up to 17% 11 - 15 years 10% 16 - 20 years 9% Over 20 years 55% :: Employers of individuals with disabilities were more likely to be a not-for-profit organization and were more likely to have been in business longer than non-employers. Significantly higher at the 95% Confidence Level (CL) From various screener and demographic questions in the questionnaire 13 :: Sample Profile I am going to read you a list of general activities undertaken by firms.Please tell me the one that most closely corresponds to the primary work done by your business. Total% (n =600) Retail trade 19% Hospitality services 16% Manufacturing 12% Healthcare 11% Construction 10% Finance, insurance, and real estate services 6% Transportation, communications, electric, and gas 4% Agriculture, forestry, fishing 4% Wholesale trade 4% Sanitary services 2% Mining 1% Public administration 1% Other 17% Employer% (n =300) Retail trade 19% Hospitality services up to 23% Manufacturing 14% Healthcare up to 14% Construction 3% Finance, insurance, and real estate services 3% Transportation, communications, electric, and gas 2% Agriculture, forestry, fishing 1% Wholesale trade 4% Sanitary services 1% Mining -- Public administration 1% Other 18% Non-Employer% (n =300) Retail trade 18% Hospitality services 9% Manufacturing 11% Healthcare 7% Construction up to 16% Finance, insurance, and real estate services up to 9% Transportation, communications, electric, and gas up to 6% Agriculture, forestry, fishing up to 7% Wholesale trade 3% Sanitary services 2% Mining 1% Public administration -- Other 16% :: Employers of individuals with disabilities were more likely to be in Hospitality Services or Healthcare :: Non-employers were more likely to be in Construction, Finance, Transportation, or Agriculture Significantly higher at the 95% Confidence Level (CL) 14 :: Sample Profile :: Non-employers were much more likely to be smaller organizations (mostly with fewer than 20 people) and working out of a single office --177500 or more people. Which of the following best describes the location of where you work? Corporate head quarters or sole office (n=600) Total 68% (n=300) Employer 54% (n=300) Non-Employer 82% up Store, franchise, satellite office, or other facility for a larger office (n=600) Total 32% (n=300) Employer 46% up (n=300) Non-Employer 18% Significantly higher at the 95% Confidence Level (CL) Approximately how many people does your organization or company employ in total at all locations? 5-19 people (n=409) Total 49% (n=163) Employer 17% (n=246) Non-Employer 71% up 20-99 people (n=409) Total 31% (n=163) Employer 39% up (n=246) Non-Employer 25% 100-499 people (n=409) Total 13% (n=163) Employer 28% up (n=246) Non-Employer 4% 500 or more people (n=409) Total 7% (n=163) Employer 17% up (n=246) Non-Employer -- Approximately how many people does your organization or company employ in your specific location? 5-19 people (n=409) Total 36% (n=163) Employer 23% (n=246) Non-Employer 69% up 20-99 people (n=409) Total 42% (n=163) Employer 47% up (n=246) Non-Employer 30% 100-499 people (n=409) Total 15% (n=163) Employer 20% up (n=246) Non-Employer 2% 500 or more people (n=409) Total 7% (n=163) Employer 10% up (n=246) Non-Employer -- 15 :: Non-Employers 16 :: Non-Employers Ever employed individuals with disabilities? (n=300) No 62% Yes 38% Have you ever employed any people with disabilities in your current organization? If no, anyone with a disability ever applied? (n=185) No 89% Yes 11% If your place of business has never knowingly hired someone with an disability, have you ever had any people with disabilities apply for positions in your organization? Probability of hiring individual with disability (n=300) Very Likely 5 Somewhat Likely 23 Neither 34 Somewhat Unlikely 25 Very Unlikely 13 Have employed an individual with a disability Very Likely 11 Somewhat 37 Neither 29 Somewhat Unlikely 17 Very Unlikely 7 Have never employed an individual with a disability Very Likely 1 Somewhat 14 Neither 38 Somewhat Unlikely 30 Very Unlikely 17 What is the probability that someone in your organization will hire an individual with a disability within the next 2 years? :: Over 1/3 of the Non-employers had previously employed an individual with a disability in their organization :: Those employers stating they had never hired an individual with a disability were unlikely to have ever had a person with a disability apply :: Non-employers, who have never employed an individual with a disability, were the least likely to hire an individual with a disability within the next two years 17 :: Employers of Individuals with Disabilities 18 :: Employers of Individuals with Disabilities Employees with known disabilities by type: Total(n=300) (Multiple responses possible) %Indicating Either a cognitive or developmental disability 57% A condition that substantially limits one or more basic physical activities 49% A mental illness 36% Blindness, deafness, or a severe vision or hearing impairment 33% Other disability 1% Unsure, don't know 4% :: Employers most commonly identified their employees with disabilities as having either a cognitive or a developmental disability. Second most common were individuals with a physical disability. Of all the individuals with a disability that you currently employ at your company, does any one of them have…? 19 :: Employers - Background Number of Employees with Disabilities (n=300) 1 person 25% 2 to 4 people 42% 5 to 9 people 16% 10 to 20 people 7% more than 20 people 9% don't know 1% :: 2/3rds of employers say they are working with fewer than five individuals with disabilities How many employees with disabilities do you currently have in your company (if HQ) or location (if satellite office / store) that you know of? Approach to Hiring Employees with Disabilities (n=300) (data) We are open to hiring individuals with disabilities if the opportunity presents itself 86% We would only hire an individual with a disability in unique situations 5% We actively seek people with disabilities 9% :: While few organizations seek out individuals with disabilities, the vast majority of employers say they are open to hiring if the opportunity presents itself Given your hiring practices, which of the following statements best describes your approach to hiring individuals with disabilities? 20 :: Employers - Motivations Why hire? (n=300) (Multiple responses possible) Statement % Indicating He / she was qualified to do the job 69% It fits the values of our organization (Culture) 20% We wanted to represent the diversity of our community within our workforce 7% I, or someone else in my organization, has had personal experience with individuals with disabilities (Champion) 7% Approached by an organization 4% Person already in position / had nothing to do with it 3% We heard about it from someone else who had successfully done this 3% My value system / wanted to do good 2% Why did you decide to hire an individual(s) with a disability? :: The majority of employers gave practical reasons for hiring employees with disabilities. However, some offered personal reasons and some needed to be convinced by an outside organization. Practical Reasons Otherwise, we have a hard time filling jobs. Turnover does cost us. It is necessary for us to hire individuals with disabilities. Not everyone wants to do some of these positions. Personal Reasons / Personal challenge One of our officers has a friend in another company who hired someone. He thought it would be a good idea for us. So we approached [the agency]. It's my responsibility to fill positions with the best-qualified people. If we aren't oriented towards all possibilities then shame on us. We want to try to stretch the limits of what we can do. Had to be Convinced [The agency] was very, very, very persistent. Of course, my initial reaction was 'No, there's no way they can do it.'[In the end}, we taught [the job coach] what needed to be done, and he worked with the guys to make that happen. 21 :: Employers - Locating Candidates How found? (n=300)(Multiple responses possible) Statement % Indicating They have come directly to us 65% Through personal references (i.e. a relationship with someone in org.) 33% Through a non-governmental, supported employment agency 32% Through a government WorkForceCenter 29% Advertise / job fairs /Internet 2% Don't know 2% How satisfied with WorkForceCenter's support of individual? (n=83) % Indicating Very Satisfied 37% Somewhat Satisfied 39% Neither 22% Somewhat Dissatisfied 1% Very Dissatisfied 1% :: Employees with disabilities most often come directly to the employers, however many connect through personal references, support agencies or a WorkForceCenter :: 3/4ths of Employers who have found employees with disabilities through a WorkForceCenter were satisfied (somewhat or very) with the Center's support of those individuals. Some comments from the personal interviews: [The WorkForceCenter's] website is wonderful. The other agencies use it. It's convenient and effective. If we needed to have any performance conversations with [the employee] the WorkForceCenter provided some kind of consultation on whether we were okay to handle it this way. Rehabilitation Services would do better to have someone come in and get to know my business so I have some level of trust that the person they send in can do the job. Different organizations hire individuals with disabilities through different channels. How have you found employees or candidates with disabilities? If through a government WorkForceCenter, how satisfied were you with their ability to support the employee? 22 :: Employers - Positions Positions created specifically for individuals with disabilities? Yes 25% No 75% Do you have any positions that you have created specifically for individuals with disabilities? :: People are not likely to go outside what is typical for their organization, and don't feel that they need to: No [we haven't created any positions]. We have so many entry level jobs - it's a good fit. Some of the jobs that we have are very suitable. We have a 24 hour operation which lends itself to this nicely. The flexibility of our work shifts provides a lot of opportunities. Also our facilities are all on public transportation lines :: Unless there are special circumstances. In 1997 they outsourced the food services and that's when the guys came to me. When you're [an employee here] and your job is outsourced or your job is eliminated you can be placed elsewhere. So, when the outsourcing came about, they were given a choice. Thinking that their choice would be they'd stay with that job, and when they said they were going to stay [the company] said, "Now what do we do?" :: …or the person has a special interest in it. I guess I'm trying to think more outside the box. I've created positions for people with disabilities. Not many companies are going to create positions for them. 23 :: Employers - Positions Used "work teams"? (n=300) No 80% Yes 20% If, Yes How satisfied with work team? (n=61) % Indicating Very Satisfied 64% Somewhat Satisfied 26% Neither 7% Somewhat Dissatisfied 0% Very Dissatisfied 3% Have you ever used "work teams" of individuals with disabilities to fill a position that might usually have been filled with one person? :: 1 out of 5 companies that currently employ individuals with disabilities have tried work teams and 90% of those companies were satisfied (somewhat / very) with the results. :: Some reasons why employers may not embrace work teams are related to practical difficulties associated with teams, such as the number of employees on a team, the expectation that work team members have greater support needs, and the added costs of each individual team member. With the work crew [of 5 people], they had a direct supervisor in here so there was a sixth person that the facility had to handle -- it was a lot of warm bodies moving around in the break room. The people [on the work team] had a lot of issues with basic behavioral things. Like, 'you guys you do definitely need to close the bathroom door so that when people are walking by they don't see you in there, and if you buy twenty dollars of stuff out of the snack machine, yes you are going to get very, very sick and probably before the end of the day.' It's just a different set of problems. We have difficulty with this in stores. The unions have limitations and restrictions. We would have to add health and welfare costs for each employee. It is too expensive to do. 24 :: Employers - Support Mean importance of factors for successful employment of individuals with disabilities (n=300) 10 = Extremely important 1 = Not at all important Hiring a person who is motivated to have the job 9.1 Hiring a person who has the specific skills we are looking for 8.1 A stable, supportive home life / living situation for the employee 8.0 Establishing a specific routine for the employee 7.7 Providing diversity or sensitivity training for the rest of your staff 7.3 Having access to someone who knows the history of the individual 6.4 Having a support person for the employee provided by an agency 5.7 Any cognitive /developmental disability Hiring a person who is motivated to have the job 9.2 Hiring a person who has the specific skills we are looking for 7.8 A stable, supportive home life / living situation for the employee 8.3 Establishing a specific routine for the employee 8.3 Providing diversity or sensitivity training for the rest of your staff 7.5 Having access to someone who knows the history of the individual 6.9 Having a support person for the employee provided by an agency 6.4 Physical / Sensory disability Hiring a person who is motivated to have the job 9.0 Hiring a person who has the specific skills we are looking for 8.5 A stable, supportive home life / living situation for the employee 7.2 Establishing a specific routine for the employee 6.6 Providing diversity or sensitivity training for the rest of your staff 6.7 Having access to someone who knows the history of the individual 5.0 Having a support person for the employee provided by an agency 4.6 Mental Illness / other Hiring a person who is motivated to have the job 9.3 Hiring a person who has the specific skills we are looking for 8.4 A stable, supportive home life / living situation for the employee 7.8 Establishing a specific routine for the employee 7.2 Providing diversity or sensitivity training for the rest of your staff 7.8 Having access to someone who knows the history of the individual 5.9 Having a support person for the employee provided by an agency 4.9 :: Hiring a person who is motivated to have the job was rated as the most important success factor in hiring an individual with a disability among current employers. :: There were significant differences in how employers answered this question based on type of disability. Employers who employ any individuals with cognitive or developmental disabilities rated 4 of these 7 factors significantly higher than employers of people with other disabilities = Significantly higher at the 95% Confidence Level (CL) How important are the following factors to successfully employing an individual with a disability within your organization? 25 :: Employers - Support Mean importance of success factors (n=300) 10 = Extremely important 1 = Not at all important Hiring a person who is motivated to have the job 9.1 Hiring a person who has the specific skills we are looking for 8.1 A stable, supportive home life / living situation for the employee 8.0 Establishing a specific routine for the employee 7.7 Providing diversity or sensitivity training for the rest of your staff 7.3 Having access to someone who knows the history of the individual 6.4 Having a support person for the employee provided by an agency 5.7 How important are the following factors to successfully employing an individual with a disability within your organization? = Significantly higher at the 95% Confidence Level (CL) :: An employee's attitude can impact the entire organization, both positively… You could see a major, major difference in these companies when you bring people [with disabilities] in and they're all just gung ho every single day. Some of them have been waiting ten years to get a job, and that creates an atmosphere where people stop taking some real simple things for granted. :: …and negatively You can't always change a person's attitude. You have expected behavior. We've had to release people. There are [situations] that haven't worked. 26 :: Employers - Support Mean importance of success factors (n=300) 10 = Extremely important 1 = Not at all important Hiring a person who is motivated to have the job 9.1 Hiring a person who has the specific skills we are looking for 8.1 A stable, supportive home life / living situation for the employee 8.0 Establishing a specific routine for the employee 7.7 Providing diversity or sensitivity training for the rest of your staff 7.3 Having access to someone who knows the history of the individual 6.4 Having a support person for the employee provided by an agency 5.7 :: Employers can't just hire anyone -- every job requires specific skills A lot of times [the agencies] think somebody can just come in and they'll be able to make hoagies just like everybody else. Well, if your person can't read a slip to make a hoagie… [We need to] see if what they require is feasible. We had a person with a visual impairment who wanted to bus tables. This wasn't going to work because he couldn't anticipate guests' needs. :: What's going on at home often carries over into the workplace He lives in a foster home and the lady that takes care of him isn't always very good at communicating. She had some things going on at home that she didn't know how to process and they spilled over to work a little bit. A lot of times it's the person who's responsible for them that messes it up. We hired twin sisters and they just didn't work here any longer because their mom said so. I don't know what the deal was. I think their mom has some mental health issues also and that just kind of did it. How important are the following factors to successfully employing an individual with a disability within your organization? = Significantly higher at the 95% Confidence Level (CL) 27 :: Employers - Support Mean importance of success factors (n=300) 10 = Extremely important 1 = Not at all important Hiring a person who is motivated to have the job 9.1 Hiring a person who has the specific skills we are looking for 8.1 A stable, supportive home life / living situation for the employee 8.0 Establishing a specific routine for the employee 7.7 Providing diversity or sensitivity training for the rest of your staff 7.3 Having access to someone who knows the history of the individual 6.4 Having a support person for the employee provided by an agency 5.7 :: Routines are very important to individuals with cognitive difficulties, both in relationships and in work processes Her supervisor went on maternity leave, and that was very hard, to go out of that routine and that comfort zone of working together [with a specific supervisor]. We very quickly understood that most of the people that we were dealing with were very dependent on their routine, and we found that if we could create a job that was more consistent day in and day out, it was more successful. :: Diversity training can help employees be prepared for situations that may come up when dealing with anyone People are in hospitality because they like people. And we need to be able to work with anyone who comes in the door either as an employee or a guest. So our employees know what to do. How important are the following factors to successfully employing an individual with a disability within your organization? Significantly higher at the 95% Confidence Level (CL) 28 :: Employers - Support Mean importance of success factors (n=300) 10 = Extremely important 1 = Not at all important Hiring a person who is motivated to have the job 9.1 Hiring a person who has the specific skills we are looking for 8.1 A stable, supportive home life / living situation for the employee 8.0 Establishing a specific routine for the employee 7.7 Providing diversity or sensitivity training for the rest of your staff 7.3 Having access to someone who knows the history of the individual 6.4 Having a support person for the employee provided by an agency 5.7 :: Fear of the unknown is common in this realm, people are more comfortable if they have access to someone who has more information and can help them if they need it I don't get enough information when Rehabilitation Services calls. Is this person going to be physical? Violent? I don't know what I am going to be dealing with. :: The need for support depends on the situation. If dealing with a new employee it is very helpful to have a job coach. The last few times we've had [a job coach] in, we would provide the training and they would oversee or just be on site for the first day or two of work. How important are the following factors to successfully employing an individual with a disability within your organization? = Significantly higher at the 95% Confidence Level (CL) 29 :: Employers - Support Agencies Used supported-employment agency? (n=300) No 59% Yes 41% Have you ever used a non governmental, supported-employment agency with a job coach to support your employees with a disability? If, Yes How satisfied with agency's support of individual? (n=123) % Indicating Very Satisfied 51% Somewhat Satisfied 35% Neither 7% Somewhat Dissatisfied 3% Very Dissatisfied 4% :: Almost 6 out of 10 current employers of individuals with disabilities have used a supported employment agency and most (86%) have been satisfied (very / somewhat) with the agency's support of their employee(s). 30 :: Employers - Support Agencies Benefits of working with agency: * Help organizations find suitable candidates * Liaison between business and individual In particular, a lot of people with disabilities have issues that other people aren't commonly running into and are aware of, [it's important to have] that employment person, that liaison to set the situation up and go, "Okay, well this is Mary and she's really great, but she really, really doesn't like loud music, and she may not be able to communicate that". * Provide expertise to organizations related to: - disabilities - accommodations Some of the people didn't have quite the coordination skills to hold the part or do what they needed to do. In that particular case I provided the materials, and the job coach and another person that they sent in created the design and built all the jigs [to help the individuals do their work]. - experience / how to deal with situations. * Assist in Human Resource Management [The agency is] coming in here and making sure everything's working with him and going through transportation issues. These are the things I don't have to do, and I do have to do them with other employees. I mean, it's different issues, but I would say that just the load on the Human Resources portion of my company is smaller, simply put. Expectations of agencies: * Employers expect agencies to be interactive with the employees and to continue to be responsible for them [After placement] I think they're still responsible for that person, too, just as much as I am. If they're not going to be responsible for [their placements], I don't want to deal with [that agency]. Some job coaches have come that have sat in the office instead of helping the employee. Some view this as being accessible. I prefer them to be interactive and working with the employee, rather than going to lunch. Sometimes the money is not well spent. * Employers don't want job coaches to compensate for the employee: We had an employee that wasn't able to work fast enough for a job in a very busy location. The job coach was compensating for him. The best solution was to move this employee to a different, less busy location. I've not had the agency contact [participate in] the interviews lately. I find that when [the agency contact is present] they answer the questions instead of the hopeful employee. 31 :: Employers -Positions Frequency of Assistance Needs Tasks Tasks Always Performing the essential job functions 3% Managing the work day 4% Making decisions on the job 4% Communicating with co-workers and other individuals 3% Moving from place to place 0% With basic needs such as grooming, eating and bathroom assistance 0% Often Performing the essential job functions 12% Managing the work day 18% Making decisions on the job 22% Communicating with co-workers and other individuals 13% Moving from place to place 5% With basic needs such as grooming, eating and bathroom assistance 2% Seldom Performing the essential job functions 53% Managing the work day 44% Making decisions on the job 44% Communicating with co-workers and other individuals 46% Moving from place to place 35% With basic needs such as grooming, eating and bathroom assistance 24% Do not need Performing the essential job functions 31% Managing the work day 33% Making decisions on the job 28% Communicating with co-workers and other individuals 36% Moving from place to place 57% With basic needs such as grooming, eating and bathroom assistance 72% Mean (4 pt. scale) Performing the essential job functions 1.9 Managing the work day 1.9 Making decisions on the job 2.0 Communicating with co-workers and other individuals 1.8 Moving from place to place 1.5 With basic needs such as grooming, eating and bathroom assistance 1.3 :: The most common assistance needs that employees with disabilities require are with 'making decisions on the job'(27% often / always) and 'managing the workday'(22% often / always) To what extent do your employees with a disability require assistance with the following tasks? Significantly higher at the 95% Confidence Level (CL) 32 :: Employers - Satisfaction Mean satisfaction with performance attribute (n=300) 10 = Excellent 1 = Poor Punctuality Employees w/ disability 8.8 up Other employees 7.9 Attendance Employees w/ disability 8.6 up Other employees 8.0 Work Quality Employees w/ disability 7.9 down Other employees 8.3 Task Consistency Employees w/ disability 8.0 down Other employees 8.2 Work Speed Employees w/ disability 6.8 down Other employees 8.2 Attitude Employees w/ disability 8.5 up Other employees 7.9 Safety Employees w/ disability 8.3 Other employees 8.4 Longevity Employees w/ disability 8.3 up Other employees 7.9 Need for performance management by HR Employees w/ disability 6.6 Other employees 6.5 Overall Satisfaction Employees w/ disability 8.4 up Other employees 8.1 Any cognitive /developmental disability Punctuality 8.7 Attendance 8.7 Work Quality 7.6 down Task Consistency 7.7 down Work Speed 6.3 down Attitude 8.5 Safety 8.0 down Longevity 8.2 Need for performance management by HR 6.6 Overall Satisfaction 8.3 down Physical / sensory disability Punctuality 8.9 Attendance 8.5 Work Quality 8.4 up Task Consistency 8.5 up Work Speed 7.6 up Attitude 8.4 Safety 8.7 up Longevity 8.5 Need for performance management by HR 6.7 Overall Satisfaction 8.7 up Mental illness / other Punctuality 8.5 Attendance 8.3 Work Quality 8.3 up Task Consistency 7.9 down Work Speed 7.1 down Attitude 7.1 up Safety 8.4 Longevity 8.4 Need for performance management by HR 6.1 Overall Satisfaction 8.4 :: Employers of individuals with physical or sensory disabilities rated those employees equal to or higher than their other employees in similar positions on every performance attribute except for work speed In general, how would you rate your satisfaction with your employee(s) with disabilities compared to your other employees in similar positions on the following factors? = Significantly higher at the 95% Confidence Level (CL) 33 :: Employers - Satisfaction Performance attributes that have the most impact on overall satisfaction: Relative Influence on Overall Satisfaction (% of Explained Variance) Employees w/ Disability TOTAL EXPLAINED VARIANCE (R2).587 Attitude 74% Work quality 18% Punctuality 1% Longevity 3% Safety 0% Attendance 5% Other Employees TOTAL EXPLAINED VARIANCE (R2).455 Attitude 2% Work quality 74% Punctuality 6% Longevity 3% Safety 16% Attendance 0% Mean Satisfaction Employees w/ Disability Attitude 8.5 up Work quality 7.9 Punctuality 8.8 up Longevity 8.3 up Safety 8.3 Attendance 8.6 up Other Employees Attitude 7.9 Work quality 8.3 up Punctuality 7.9 Longevity 7.9 Safety 8.4 Attendance 8.0 :: Employees with disabilities appear to be judged differently, in terms of overall satisfaction, than other employees in similar positions. For employees with disabilities, attitude was the biggest driver of overall satisfaction; while for the other employees the biggest driver was work quality. Please keep in mind that this is a forced comparison of the two groups, which would have the tendency to isolate these differences; therefore, one should not look at the "Other employees" analysis on its own without considering the employees with disabilities. :: Employees with disabilities rated higher on 4 of the 6 drivers, identified through these regressions. 34 :: Accommodations 35 :: Employers - Accommodations Did any employees require accommodations? (n=300) No 59% Yes 41% Accommodations provided (n=300) multiple answers possible Process Accommodations % Indicating Provided supervisor or peer instruction through one of your staff 77% Made interviewing staff familiar with ADA compliance considerations 76% Changed worker's job tasks 75% Changed worker's work hours 71% Modified or provided additional job skills training 67% Modified or provided additional basic skills training 55% Changed orientation procedures 39% Provided transportation accommodations 29% Changed testing and/or other evaluation procedures 25% Changed pre-employment screening procedures 19% Allowed worked to work at home 17% :: When asked if their employees with disabilities have required accommodations most employers say "no"; however 98% of employers have made at least one of the process accommodations and 93% have made at least one of the physical accommodations listed below. Physical Accommodations % Indicating Provided accessible parking 74% Made either recruiting or interviewing locations accessible 68% Modified information content of any medium to be easier to understand 49% Modified physical environment 41% Provided communication assistance 39% Modified building signage for accessibility 38% Provided technology to help worker function in the workplace 23% Modified print materials for accessibility 16% Modified website for accessibility 12% Other 3% Please tell me if your organization has ever provided one of these accommodations to an employee at your place of business. 36 :: Employers - Accommodations Most Common Accommodations by Type of Disability: Any Cognitive or Developmental Disability Accommodation % Supervisor or peer instruction 88% up Changed job tasks 84 up Made staff familiar with ADA 81% up Job skills training 80% up Changed work hours 79% up Made recruiting locations accessible 71% Basic skills training 68 up Physical or Sensory Disability Only Accommodation % Provided accessible parking 81% up Made staff familiar with ADA 69% Changed job tasks 60% Made recruiting locations accessible 60% Supervisor or peer instruction 60% Changed work hours 54% Mental Illness or Other Disability Accommodation % Provided accessible parking 82% Made staff familiar with ADA 74% Changed work hours 71% Supervisor or peer instruction 68% Made recruiting locations accessible 68% Changed job tasks 65% :: Employers of persons with cognitive or developmental disabilities are more likely to have made accommodations that relate to additional instruction and job structure (tasks / hours) than employers of individuals with other disabilities From various screener and demographic questions in the questionnaire 37 :: Employers - Accommodations Total Spent on Accommodations (n=300) Under $500 30% $500 -$999 11% $1,000 -$4,999 21% $5,000 -$9,999 5% $10,000 or more 8% Don't know 25% (In total) Roughly how much have you spent on accommodations you have provided for employees with disabilities? Actual v. Expected Costs of Accommodations (n=300) Less costly than expected 24% More costly than expected 9% About what was anticipated 42% Accommodation not requested 11% Don't Know 14% Were the costs of accommodations more or less than what your company had anticipated? Was it worth it? (n=300) Benefits outweighed the costs 71% Costs acceptable given benefits 24% Costs outweighed benefits 5% Did the benefits of employing these individuals outweigh the costs of accommodations? :: The majority of employers thought that the costs of the accommodations for employees with disabilities were equal to or less than they had anticipated, and the benefits of doing so outweighed the costs 38 :: Barriers to Employment 39 :: Barriers Top 2 Box % Agreement % Total Sample Concern for safety issues 51% Nature of work is such that it can't be effectively performed by people with disabilities 45% Supervisors inadequate knowledge of what accommodations should be made 38% Concern for lower productivity 36% Concern employees with disabilities would lack skill and experience that we need 35% Concern for higher supervision and training costs 35% Concern for employees with disabilities exhibiting unusual behavior 30% Concern for cost of accommodations 28% Concern for increased insurance rates 26% Our company's lack of information on disabilities 25% Concern for lower quality of work 24% Fear of increased worker's compensation claims 24% Concern for coworker acceptance 23% Our company's discomfort or unfamiliarity regarding hiring of people with disabilities 18% Fear of lawsuits brought on by employees covered under the ADA 18% Concern for making a hiring decision that cannot be defended to senior management 13% Employer Concern for safety issues 43% Nature of work is such that it can't be effectively performed by people with disabilities 33% Supervisors inadequate knowledge of what accommodations should be made 39% Concern for lower productivity 36% Concern employees with disabilities would lack skill and experience that we need 29% Concern for higher supervision and training costs 35% Concern for employees with disabilities exhibiting unusual behavior 29% Concern for cost of accommodations 32% up Concern for increased insurance rates 22% Our company's lack of information on disabilities 21% Concern for lower quality of work 25% Fear of increased worker's compensation claims 21% Concern for coworker acceptance 27% up Our company's discomfort or unfamiliarity regarding hiring of people with disabilities 17% Fear of lawsuits brought on by employees covered under the ADA 18% Concern for making a hiring decision that cannot be defended to senior management 17% Non-Employer Concern for safety issues 60% up Nature of work is such that it can't be effectively performed by people with disabilities 57% up Supervisors inadequate knowledge of what accommodations should be made 36% Concern for lower productivity 36% Concern employees with disabilities would lack skill and experience that we need 41% up Concern for higher supervision and training costs 34% Concern for employees with disabilities exhibiting unusual behavior 30% Concern for cost of accommodations 23% Concern for increased insurance rates 30% up Our company's lack of information on disabilities 30% up Concern for lower quality of work 24% Fear of increased worker's compensation claims 26% Concern for coworker acceptance 19% Our company's discomfort or unfamiliarity regarding hiring of people with disabilities 20% Fear of lawsuits brought on by employees covered under the ADA 19% Concern for making a hiring decision that cannot be defended to senior management 10% Please tell me the level to which you agree that each factor is a barrier to employing individuals with disabilities within your organization? = Significantly higher at the 95% Confidence Level (CL) *Top 2 Box (5 pt scale) = Agree Strongly, Agree Somewhat w/ statement 40 :: Barriers - Safety Top 2 Box Agreement %* Safety Concern for safety issues Total 51% Employer 43% Non-Employer 60% up Safety came up as the number one barrier to employment of individuals with disabilities - and was rated significantly higher for organizations who do not currently employ any individuals with disabilities. Safety appears to be a broad category that can mean several things to employers: . Unsafe environment - the environment may be such that employers are concerned for the safety of the individuals, other employees, and clientele. Some examples are: . Dangerous machinery . Supervision of others We always have to ensure the safety of our kids [in the childcare center]. That's number one. [This employee] is not the quickest runner - so we can't put him with [a child] who's going to keep running out the door. . Health / Medical safety - supervisors may not know the individual's medical situation or what to do if something goes wrong. . Concern for physical safety - employers may be unsure of what situations may trigger a threatening reaction from an individual. Please tell me the level to which you agree that each factor is a barrier to employing individuals with disabilities within your organization? *Top 2 Box (5 pt scale) = Agree Strongly, Agree Somewhat w/ statement = Significantly higher at the 95% CL 41 :: Barriers -Performance Top 2 Box Agreement %* Performance Nature of work at our company is such that it can't be effectively performed by people with disabilities Total 45% Employer 33% Non-Employer 57% Concern for lower productivity Total 36% Employer 36% Non-Employer 36% Concern employees with disabilities would lack skill and experience that we need Total 35% Employer 29% Non-Employer 41% Concern for lower quality of work Total 24% Employer 25% Non-Employer 24% Performance issues also ranked high as barriers to employment of individuals with disabilities. Both 'nature of work' and 'lack skill and experience' rated significantly higher for organizations that do not currently employ individuals with disabilities than those that do. Ratings on 'lower productivity' and 'lower quality of work' were even between these two groups. * Nature of work / lack of skill and experience-some employers felt that individuals with disabilities were not capable of effectively performing the required job tasks, would have difficulty learning the job, or wouldn't have the experience to deal with situations that arise on the job. Some positions require higher mental or physical abilities, however some of this may be due to the employer's lack of awareness. The average production worker that comes in basically just needs to be [physically able to do the job]. It's sometimes difficult for [employees with disabilities] to ask the questions because they don't know to ask anybody. It takes them awhile to warm up and feel comfortable asking. * Lower productivity / lower quality of work-Organizations need individuals who can keep up with the required pace of work and complete tasks on time with sufficient quality. I need somebody that can function quick enough to keep up. Please tell me the level to which you agree that each factor is a barrier to employing individuals with disabilities within your organization? *Top 2 Box (5 pt scale) = Agree Strongly, Agree Somewhat w/ statement = Significantly higher at the 95% CL 42 :: Barriers - Discomfort / Lack of Information Top 2 Box Agreement %* Discomfort / Lack of Information Total Supervisor's inadequate knowledge of what accommodations should be made 38% Concern for employees with disabilities exhibiting unusual behavior 30% Our company's lack of information on disabilities 25% Concern for coworker acceptance 23% Our company's discomfort or unfamiliarity regarding hiring of people with disabilities 18% Concern for making a hiring decision that cannot be defended to senior management 13% Employer Supervisor's inadequate knowledge of what accommodations should be made 39% Concern for employees with disabilities exhibiting unusual behavior 29% Our company's lack of information on disabilities 21% Concern for coworker acceptance 27% up Our company's discomfort or unfamiliarity regarding hiring of people with disabilities 17% Concern for making a hiring decision that cannot be defended to senior management 17% up Non-Employer Supervisor's inadequate knowledge of what accommodations should be made 36% Concern for employees with disabilities exhibiting unusual behavior 30% Our company's lack of information on disabilities 30% up Concern for coworker acceptance 19% Our company's discomfort or unfamiliarity regarding hiring of people with disabilities 20% Concern for making a hiring decision that cannot be defended to senior management 10% These barriers are related to the employer's discomfort or lack of information regarding the needs and skills of individuals with disabilities as well as how they or other employees will react to the situation. For the most part, these concerns appear specific to an individual because they do not vary much based on experience. Exceptions are that non-employers are more concerned about having a lack of information on disabilities, and employers are more concerned about co-worker acceptance. I was worried that [the individuals with disabilities] couldn't count, that they'd be teased too much by the other employees, that they wouldn't be reliable because there'd be problems, that we wouldn't be able to communicate with them. Those types of issues. I think the biggest reservation was simply how are the people that are working for me now going to respond to this? A lot of people have no experience at all dealing with people with developmental disabilities. I had employees coming to me just going, 'What is the deal here? This is not working out. We don't want to deal with this. We don't want to deal with these [employees with disabilities] being here.' Please tell me the level to which you agree that each factor is a barrier to employing individuals with disabilities within your organization? *Top 2 Box (5 pt scale) = Agree Strongly, Agree Somewhat w/ statement = Significantly higher at the 95% CL 43 :: Barriers - Costs Top 2 Box Agreement %* Costs Total Concern for higher supervision and training costs 35% Concern for cost of accommodations 28% Concern for increased insurance rates 26% Fear of increased worker's compensation claims 24% Fear of lawsuits brought on by employees covered under the ADA 18% Employer Concern for higher supervision and training costs 35% Concern for cost of accommodations 32% up Concern for increased insurance rates 22% Fear of increased worker's compensation claims 21% Fear of lawsuits brought on by employees covered under the ADA 18% Non-Employer Concern for higher supervision and training costs 34% Concern for cost of accommodations 23% Concern for increased insurance rates 30% up Fear of increased worker's compensation claims 26% Fear of lawsuits brought on by employees covered under the ADA 19% Current employers of individuals with disabilities are more concerned about the cost of accommodations than non-employers - although 95% of current employers stated that the costs of accommodations either outweighed or were acceptable given the benefits the company received. Employers who have never employed an individual with a disability only rated this as 19% top-2-box agreement. Perhaps this speaks to a latent fear of some unanticipated expense. Accommodations could be expensive but you need to look at what is reasonable. You should ask the person what they need - you don't necessarily have to make the accommodation the person is stating. The solution is to work with the person, looking at what the needs on both sides are. Non-employers are more concerned about potential costs such as increased insurance rates as well as worker's compensation claims and lawsuits. Please tell me the level to which you agree that each factor is a barrier to employing individuals with disabilities within your organization? *Top 2 Box (5 pt scale) = Agree Strongly, Agree Somewhat w/ statement = Significantly higher at the 95% CL 44 :: Ideas for Improvement Top 2 Box Agreement % (Very Effective / Somewhat Effective) Costs Total Having a better understanding of what the government WorkForceCenter offers in terms of this population 75% Having a better understanding of non governmental supported employment agencies and what they offer 69% Increasing tax credits for employers of individuals with disabilities 68% Being contacted by a supported employment agency with candidates for me to hire 67% Having the opportunity to speak to other employers who have hired individuals with disabilities 66% Seeing a successful, economic, business case from other employers who have hired individuals with disabilities 66% Reading testimonials from employers who have hired individuals with disabilities 59% Having the Governor of Minnesota make a statement about the importance of employing individuals with disabilities 37% Employer Having a better understanding of what the government WorkForceCenter offers in terms of this population 79% up Having a better understanding of non governmental supported employment agencies and what they offer 75% up Increasing tax credits for employers of individuals with disabilities 69% Being contacted by a supported employment agency with candidates for me to hire 73% up Having the opportunity to speak to other employers who have hired individuals with disabilities 67% Seeing a successful, economic, business case from other employers who have hired individuals with disabilities 67% Reading testimonials from employers who have hired individuals with disabilities 59% Having the Governor of Minnesota make a statement about the importance of employing individuals with disabilities 45% up Non-Employer Having a better understanding of what the government WorkForceCenter offers in terms of this population 71% Having a better understanding of non governmental supported employment agencies and what they offer 63% Increasing tax credits for employers of individuals with disabilities 66% Being contacted by a supported employment agency with candidates for me to hire 61% Having the opportunity to speak to other employers who have hired individuals with disabilities 66% Seeing a successful, economic, business case from other employers who have hired individuals with disabilities 65% Reading testimonials from employers who have hired individuals with disabilities 59% Having the Governor of Minnesota make a statement about the importance of employing individuals with disabilities 28% :: Employers rated gaining a better understanding of what (1) government WorkForceCenters and (2) supported employment agencies can offer to help increase employment opportunities for individuals with disabilities within their organizations, as the top two most effective ideas for improvement. Please rate each of the following ideas as to how effective you think it would be at increasing employment opportunities for this population within your organization? = Significantly higher at the 95% CL 45 :: Attitudinal Segmentation Analysis The survey questionnaire included 19 statements reflecting a variety of descriptive attitudes company managements have towards their employees. Respondents indicated the degree to which they agreed or disagreed with each statement using this scale: Agree strongly 5 Agree somewhat 4 Neither agree nor disagree 3 Disagree somewhat 2 Disagree strongly 1 A multivariate statistical analysis procedure was used to group like-minded companies together into segments based on consistency of answers across all 19 statements. These segments are characterizations designed to provide a perspective on how and why companies may act differently. Segmentation analysis of this type is designed to help marketers more effectively design and present their products and services to their target audiences. Four different attitudinal segments were thus identified: 1) Practical Profit 2) Community Involvement 3) Employee Oriented 4) Barriers These four segments are described, compared and contrasted on the following pages 47 :: Attitudinal Segmentation Analysis The correspondence map below is a framework developed to explain the relative differences of these segments using an attitudinal landscape. The horizontal and vertical axes were subjectively labeled based on the relative positions of all the defining attitudinal variables. The horizontal axis represents the sociological orientation of each organization. To the right of the map the organizations are more socially oriented, in that they are much more likely to consider the emotional impacts of decisions on the people involved. To the left of the map the organizations' decision processes are more likely to be based on the "bottom line" or company mission, with relatively less influence from emotional considerations. The vertical axis represents an organization's culture and processes related to its employees. Companies in the upper quadrants of the map are more open and flexible in their approach to their employees; i.e. they are more likely to adapt their own systems or processes to accommodate the individual. Whereas, companies in the lower quadrants are more structured and rigid, with cultures that expect the employee to adapt themselves to the needs of the employer. Open, flexible (upper) Closed, rigid (lower) Emotional / Social (right) Rational / Economic (left) 48 :: Attitudinal Segmentation Analysis The correspondence map below shows the relative sizes and positions of the 4 segments within the attitudinal landscape. Practical Profit(33%)* (upper left) Barriers(27%) (lower left) Community Involvement(19%) (upper right) Employee Oriented(22%) (lower right) *Please note: these percentages are based on the sample of 300 employers and 300 non-employers and are not representative of the general population of Minnesota employers. Our best guess would be that the groups on the top half of the map may be over-represented in this distribution because of the high percentage of employers of individuals with disabilities found in these two groups. 49 Attitudes Barriers and Culture Statements (n=600) (UL)=upper left (UR)=upper right (LL)=lower left (LR)=lower right We have a wide range of positions suited to people with a wide range of abilities (UR 4.2)(LR 3.4)(LL 2.1)(UL 4.1) Our company attempts to attract qualified applicants with disabilities (UR 4.1)(LR 3.5)(LL 2.8)(UL 3.9) Our company offers either diversity or sensitivity training to all or our employees (UR 4.3)(LR 3.5)(LL 3.0)(UL 3.7) We organize and sponsor many volunteer opportunities for our employees to get involved in disadvantaged communities or other humanitarian causes (UR 3.6)(LR 3.0)(LL 2.7)(UL 3.2) Our company encourages social interaction through a variety of planned and unplanned events that include everyone (UR 4.5)(LR 4.3)(LL 4.0)(UL 3.9) We have high standards that need to be met by everyone who is part of our company (UR 4.7)(LR 4.8)(LL 4.7)(UL 4.7) Our company actively encourages its employees to have a good balance between their work life and personal life / pursuit (UR 4.7)(LR 4.8)(LL 4.7)(UL 4.5) Because of the nature of our business, we can only hire highly skilled and educated employees (UR 1.8)(LR 4.0)(LL 3.4)(UL 1.8) Concern for lower quality of work (UR 2.0)(LR 2.4)(LL 2.6)(UL 2.3) Concern employees with disabilities would lack skill and experience that we need (UR 1.9)(LR 2.8)(LL 3.0)(UL 2.6) Nature of work at our company is such that it cannot be effectively performed by people with disabilities (UR 2.2)(LR 3.1)(LL 3.7)(UL 2.5) Concern for lower productivity (UR 2.2)(LR 2.6)(LL 3.0)(UL 2.6) Our company's lack of information on disabilities (UR 1.6)(LR 2.3)(LL 2.8)(UL 2.2) Our company's discomfort or unfamiliarity regarding hiring of people with disabilities (UR 1.6)(LR 2.1)(LL 2.4)(UL 2.1) Concern for safety issues (UR 2.5)(LR 3.2)(LL 3.6)(UL 3.2) Being a socially responsible company is fine, but our focus needs to be on making a profit (UR 1.7)(LR 2.5)(LL 4.4)(UL 4.3) Concern for cost of accommodations (UR 2.3)(LR 2.3)(LL 2.6)(UL 2.6) We demonstrate our responsibility to the community through corporate giving (UR 3.8)(LR 4.0)(LL 4.1)(UL 4.4) Concern for making a hiring decision that cannot be defended to senior management (UR 1.9)(LR 2.0)(LL 2.1)(UL 2.3) For each of the following statements please tell me the extent to which you agree or disagree that the statement describes your company or is a barrier to employing individuals with disabilities within your organization? = Significantly higher at the 95% CL 50 :: Attitudinal Segmentation Analysis The correspondence map below shows the relative sizes and positions of the 4 segments within the attitudinal landscape. The horizontal and vertical axes were subjectively labeled based on the relative positions of all the defining attitudinal variables. Open, flexible (Top) Closed, rigid (Bottom) Emotional / Social (Right) Rational / Economic (Left) (UL)=upper left (UR)=upper right (LL)=lower left (LR)=lower right Practical Profit (UL) Focus on profit (UL) Corporate giving (UL) Wide range of positions (UL) Wide range of abilities (UL) Attract individuals with disabilities (UL) Cost of accommodations (UL) Decision can't be defended (UL) Community Involvement (UR) Diversity or sensitivity training (UR) Get involved in communities (UR) Barriers (LL) Nature of work (LL) Discomfort (LL) Safety issues (LL) Lower quality of work (LL) Lack of information (LL) Lower productivity (LL) Lack skill & experience (LL) Employee Oriented (LR) Encourage social interaction (LR) High employee standards (LR) Work/life balance (LR) Highly skilled and educated employees (LR) 51 :: Community Involvement Encourage social interaction Summary: The corporate culture of these companies makes them open to hiring employees with disabilities. To them it can be easily seen as a win-win-win, for the company, the community and the individual. Simply having better access to individuals with disabilities and knowing what candidates are available will encourage them to hire. They also believe that increasing public understanding and acceptance is important. Attitudes: (up) We go out of our way to make our staff resemble our community. (up) Our company encourages social interaction through a variety of planned and unplanned events that include everyone. (up) Our company is very supportive of our people and flexible when it comes to meeting changing needs during life transitions. (up) We organize and sponsor many volunteer opportunities for our employees to get involved in disadvantaged communities or other humanitarian causes. (up) Our company offers either diversity or sensitivity training to all of our employees. (up) Our company reinforces managers who embrace diversity-related values. (up) Being contacted by an employment agency with candidates for me to hire. (up) Having a better understanding of what the government WorkForceCenter offers in terms of this population. (down) Our company's uncomfortable or unfamiliar with hiring people with disabilities. (down) Being a socially responsible company is fine, but our company focus needs to be on making a profit Community Involvement: Diversity or sensitivity training Get involved in communities Wide range of positions Wide range of abilities Attract individuals with disabilities External Identifiers: . Not for profit companies. . Larger (20 to 500+ employees) for profit companies that: . Sponsor community involvement programs . Offer diversity and sensitivity training programs 52 :: Employee Oriented Summary: These companies are people oriented and offering a good environment to their employees is important to them. As they are emotionally committed to their employees, they are careful about making the right hiring decisions. In evaluating any potential applicant, they would want to understand the impact the applicant would have on the company. To approach these companies, one should focus on a particular individual, not generalities (i.e. a customized employment approach). These companies are investing in each employee and want assurances that the individual: * will be able to do the job and perform his/her role in the "team", and * will have a positive attitude, high attendance, a long term commitment and a "team player" approach. It will take an investment in a personalized approach to communicate effectively with these companies. Attitudes: (up) Our company encourages social interaction through a variety of planned and unplanned events that include everyone. (up) Our company is very supportive of our people and flexible when it comes to meeting changing needs during life transitions. (up) Because of the nature of our business, we can only hire highly skilled and educated employees. (up) Our company actively encourages its employees to have a good balance between their work life and personal life / pursuits. (up) We have high standards that need to be met by everyone who is part of our company. (up) Supervisors have inadequate knowledge of what accommodations should be made. (down) Being socially responsible company is fine, but our focus needs to be on making a profit. Employee Oriented: Highly skilled and educated employees Encourage social interaction High employee standards Nature of work Work/life balance Lack skill & experience External Identifiers: * Small to mid-size companies (5-99 employees). * Not for profit companies. * For profit companies that are employee focused: * Offer programs that benefit employees (i.e. daycare, strong benefits package, annual picnic, softball leagues, counseling, etc.) 53 :: Barriers Summary: These companies are most resistant to hiring individuals with disabilities. They are not likely to consider this on their own but need to be approached by an agency. They are highly focused on the barriers and convincing them may take some time and energy. They would require: * Strong assurance that an individual with a disability could perform a position. * Supporting case information to respond to multiple perceived obstacles. * To get them over the "hurdle" they may require a clear financial incentive. Barriers: Safety issues Lower quality of work Lack of information Lack skill & experience Discomfort Nature of work Lower productivity Cost of accommodations Focus on profit External Identifiers: * Small companies (5-19 employees) * For profit * Not particularly community or employee oriented Attitudes: (up) Being a socially responsible company is fine, but our focus needs to be on making a profit (up) The nature of our work is such that it cannot be effectively performed by people with disabilities (up) Concern employees with disabilities would lack the skill and experience we need (up) Concern for safety issues (up) Concern for lower productivity (down) We have a wide range of positions suited to a wide range of skills (down) We organize and sponsor many volunteer opportunities (down) Our company attempts to attract qualified applicants with disabilities (down) Our top management is committed to include workers with disabilities 54 :: Practical Profit Practical/Profit Decisions can't be defended Corporate giving Cost of accommodations Focus on profit Wide range of positions Wide range of abilities Attract individuals with disabilities Attitudes: (up) We demonstrate our responsibility to the community through corporate gift giving (up) Being a socially responsible company is fine, but our focus needs to be on making a profit. (up) We have a wide range of positions suited to people with a wide range of abilities. (up) Concern for cost of accommodations (up) Concern for coworker acceptance (up) Increasing tax credits for employers of individuals with disabilities. (up) Seeing a successful, economic business case from other employers. (down) Our company encourages social interaction through a variety of events that include everyone. Summary: These companies are flexible and open to hiring individuals with disabilities. Hiring decisions are purely rational, evaluated on the best net gain for the company. These companies are information and education based. The approach to them should be well-researched and well thought out, including two factors: * An economic case demonstrating a cost/benefit analysis for hiring an individual with a disability. * An understanding of the types of employment positions they have, the tasks involved, and how individuals with specific strengths and weaknesses can successfully perform those tasks. External Identifiers: * Mid-size companies (20-99 employees). * Hospitality and retail industries. * For profit companies that have corporate gift giving programs 55 :: Incentives and Ideas for Improvement :: The different segments had different approaches to improving the employment prospects for individuals with disabilities: * The upper-right segment thought more, general-public education would be beneficial. * The lower-right wanted more personal interactions with all parties and a customized approach. * The lower-left had the fewest suggestions and were the least likely to make an effort to improve prospects for employment. * The upper-left wanted more education for both employers and candidates and better matching of skills with opportunities. Open, flexible (upper) Rational / Economic (left) Emotional / Social (right) Closed, rigid (lower) Education / Better Matching" (upper left) "A job fair aimed specifically at [individuals with disabilities] that allows employers to visit them, like at a WorkForceCenter." "Training the employer. There are no resources to help employers look for these qualified people with disabilities." "Make sure people with disabilities have the skills they need to get an edge or better chance to work." "Screening people with disabilities to see if it would prevent them from working for us. We have lots of clients coming in and we need someone who can deal with people." Increase Public Awareness (upper right) As a culture, I think we need to work on ending discrimination and increasing knowledge and awareness about perceptions Rational / Economic or prejudices." "People with disabilities should be treated more like mainstream. Government should step in and take control so that people with disabilities are not low paid" "Have the individual with a disability come in for an interview, with or without a job coach. Just let the applicant do the talking" "Anything that promotes [each] individual's value to society." "Having support from the state government, other incentives outside of tax implications." Try harder / Make people fit (lower left) "If there was training available to make them good contributors for our nature of work." "Have them apply. We don't have applicants with disabilities." "They should be more aggressive getting resumes out." "More information on what people can do in a small business - different skills that they have that we are not aware of." Customized Employment (lower right) "Have a one-on-one job coach so that the employer does not have to do anything. So that they can keep the person on track." "Encourage the person to be very upfront about whatever disability they might have. Most environments want the person to be successful by having knowledge up front." "Send each employer an information sheet listing the candidates with disabilities, and send information on available programs." 56 :: Attitudinal Segmentation Analysis Type of Business :: The right side of the map tended towards more not-for-profit organizations and more organizations in health care :: The left side of the map tended towards more for-profit businesses and more manufacturing and construction businesses Open, flexible (upper) Rational / Economic (left) Emotional / Social (right) Closed, rigid (lower) (upper left) For Profit 94% Not for Profit 6% Hospitality 27% Retail 26% Manufacturing 15% (upper right) For Profit 55% Not for Profit 45% Healthcare 21% Hospitality 15% Retail 15% Other 28% (lower left) For Profit 97% Not for Profit 3% Construction 22% Retail 19% Manufacturing 14% (lower right) For Profit 75% Not for Profit 25% Healthcare 21% Manufacturing 11% Retail 10% Other 29% 57 :: Attitudinal Segmentation Analysis Size of Company :: Larger companies tended to be on the top half of this map; while smaller companies tended to be in the lower two segments :: The lower-left segment is comprised of the smallest organizations Open, flexible (upper) Rational / Economic (left) Emotional / Social (right) Closed, rigid (lower) (upper left) Store / Satellite 42% Number of employees 5 to 19 34% 20 to 99 50% 100 to 499 11% over 500 5% Headquarters 58% Number of employees 5 to 19 30% 20 to 99 46% 100 to 499 13% over 500 10% (upper right Store / Satellite 40% Number of employees 5 to 19 20% 20 to 99 38% 100 to 499 27% over 500 16% Headquarters 60% Number of employees 5 to 19 18% 20 to 99 37% 100 to 499 27% over 500 18% (lower left) Store / Satellite 22% Number of employees 5 to 19 60% 20 to 99 29% 100 to 499 9% over 500 3% Headquarters 78% Number of employees 5 to 19 79% 20 to 99 19% 100 to 499 2% over 500 0% (lower right) Store / Satellite 40% Number of employees 5 to 19 38% 20 to 99 45% 100 to 499 14% over 500 3% Headquarters 60% Number of employees 5 to 19 54% 20 to 99 24% 100 to 499 19% over 500 3% 58 :: Attitudinal Segmentation Analysis Currently Employ Individuals with Disabilities :: The two upper segments are much more likely to currently employ an individual with a disability; while the lower left segment is the least likely to currently employ an individual with a disability. Open, flexible (upper) Rational / Economic (left) Emotional / Social (right) Closed, rigid (lower (upper left) Yes 31% No 69% Any Cognitive or developmental 58% Physical / Sensory Only 26% Mental Illness / other 12% (upper right) Yes 30% No 70% Any Cognitive or developmental 64% Physical / Sensory Only 22% Mental Illness / other 13% (lower left) Yes 21% No 79% Any Cognitive or developmental 56% Physical / Sensory Only 26% Mental Illness / other 6% (lower right) Yes 41% No 59% Any Cognitive or developmental 45% Physical / Sensory Only 42% Mental Illness / other 13% 59 :: Appendix :: Complete responses to Barrier and Culture questions by segment :: Sample population / final sample disposition 60 :: Culture (n=600) Quadrant (UR = Upper Right, LR = Lower Right, LL = Lower Left, UL = Upper Left) (d = down, u =up) We go out of our way to make our staff resembles the community within which we operate (UR 4.3)(LR 4.2)(LL 4.0 u)(UL 4.4) Our company encourages social interaction through a variety of planned and unplanned events that include everyone (UR 4.5 u)(LR 4.3)(LL 4.0)(UL 3.9 d) We have a wide range of positions suited to people with a wide range of abilities (UR 4.2 u)(LR 3.4)(LL 2.1 d)(UL 4.1 u) We demonstrate our responsibility to the community through corporate giving (UR 3.8)(LR 4.0)(LL 4.1)(UL 4.4) We have both a highly structured and well-defined process for hiring new employees (UR 4.5 u)(LR 4.1)(LL 3.6 d)(UL 4.3) Our company is very supportive of our people and flexible when it comes to meeting changing needs during life transitions (UR 4.9 u)(LR 4.8)(LL 4.7)(UL 4.7) We organize and sponsor many volunteer opportunities for our employees to get involved in disadvantaged communities or other humanitarian causes (UR 3.6 u)(LR 3.0)(LL 2.7 d)(UL 3.2) Because of the nature of our business, we can only hire highly skilled and educated employees (UR 1.8 d)(LR 4.0 u)(LL 3.4)(UL 1.8 d) Our company actively encourages its employees to have a good balance between their work life and personal life / pursuits (UR 4.7)(LR 4.8 u)(LL 4.7)(UL 4.5) Our hiring process is adaptable to the requirements of the position being filled (UR 4.7 u)(LR 4.5)(LL 4.4)(UL 4.6) Our company offers either diversity or sensitivity training to all or our employees(UR 4.3 u)(LR 3.5)(LL 3.0)(UL 3.7) Being a socially responsible company is fine, but our focus needs to be on making a profit (UR 1.7)(LR 2.5)(LL 4.4 u)(UL 4.3 u) Our company reinforces managers who embrace diversity-related values (UR 4.7 u)(LR 4.4)(LL 4.1 d)(UL 4.5) Our top management is committed to include workers with disabilities in the organization (UR 4.4 u)(LR 4.2)(LL 3.4 d)(UL 4.4 u) We have high standards that need to be met by everyone who is part of our company (UR 4.7)(LR 4.8 u)(LL 4.7)(UL 4.7) Our company attempts to attract qualified applicants with disabilities (UR 4.1 u)(LR 3.5)(LL 2.8 d)(UL 3.9) Our company is physically accessible to employees with disabilities (UR 4.5)(LR 4.6)(LL 3.7 d)(UL 4.6) Our company fully complies with the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (UR 4.9)(LR 4.7)(LL 4.3)(UL 4.8) When you work for our company you feel like a member of an exclusive club (UR 3.1 d)(LR 3.7)(LL 3.9)(UL 3.8) For each of the following statements please tell me the extent to which you agree or disagree that the statement describes your company? Significantly higher at the 95% CL 61 61 :: Barriers (n=600) Quadrant (UR = Upper Right, LR = Lower Right, LL = Lower Left, UL = Upper Left) Our company's lack of information on disabilities (total 2.3)(UR 1.6 d)(LR 2.3)(LL 2.8 u)(UL 2.2) Our company's discomfort or unfamiliarity regarding hiring of people with disabilities (total 2.1)(UR 1.6 d)(LR 2.1)(LL 2.4 u)(UL 2.1) Concern for cost of accommodations (total 2.5)(UR 2.3 d)(LR 2.3 d)(LL 2.6 u)(UL 2.6 u) Fear of lawsuits brought on by employees covered under the Americans with Disabilities Act (total 2.2)(UR 1.7 d)(LR 2.3)(LL 2.3)(UL 2.3) Nature of work at our company is such that it cannot be effectively performed by people with disabilities (total 2.9)(UR 2.2 d)(LR 3.1)(LL 3.7 u)(UL 2.5 d) Concern for making a hiring decision that cannot be defended to senior management (total 2.1)(UR 1.9 d)(LR 2.0)(LL 2.1)(UL 2.3) Concern for higher supervision and training costs (total 2.6)(UR 2.3 d)(LR 2.6)(LL 2.8)(UL 2.7) Concern for lower productivity (total 2.6)(UR 2.2 d)(LR 2.6)(LL 3.0 u)(UL 2.6) Concern for safety issues (total 3.2)(UR 2.5 d)(LR 3.2)(LL 3.6 u)(UL 3.2) Concern for employees with disabilities exhibiting unusual behavior (total 2.5)(UR 2.1 d)(LR 2.5)(LL 2.7)(UL 2.6) Concern for lower quality of work (total 2.3)(UR 2.0 d)(LR 2.4)(LL 2.6 u)(UL 2.3) Concern for coworker acceptance (total 2.3)(UR 2.0 d)(LR 2.3)(LL 2.2)(UL 2.4 u) Concern for increased insurance rates (total 2.4)(UR 2.0 d)(LR 2.5)(LL 2.8 u)(UL 2.4) Supervisors inadequate knowledge of what accommodations should be made (total 2.7)(UR 2.3 d)(LR 2.9)(LL 2.9 u)(UL 2.8) Concern employees with disabilities would lack skill and experience that we need (total 2.6)(UR 1.9 d)(LR 2.8)(LL 3.0 u)(UL 2.6) Fear of increased worker's compensation claims (total 2.3)(UR 1.8 d)(LR 2.3)(LL 2.6 u)(UL 2.4) Please tell me the level to which you agree that each factor is a barrier to employing individuals with disabilities within your organization? Significantly higher at the 95% CL 62 MarketResponse was given numerous lists throughout the study by GCDD, DEED and other organizations involved with placing employees with disabilities. One list we received was a "unknown" list to be used mainly to fill the "does not employ individuals with disabilities" quota. The other "known" lists were intended to be lists comprised of current employers of individuals with disabilities. The following slides will describe the accuracy of each list received. Each telephone number attempted is accounted for in one of the following categories. Definitions of Sample List Breakdown * Complete - completed interview * Unusable number-wrong number, disconnects, phone trouble, fax * Refusal - qualified respondent who would not participate, do not call list, company policy refusal, general refusal * Unavailable - no answer, answering machine/voicemail, busy, unavailable during time of study, set appointment but never reached, language barrier * Not qualified - government offices or agencies were excluded from this study as well as individuals who could not answer basic questions * Over quota. the quota for employers who do not currently employ an individual with a disability filled first and we did not continue with these individuals after 300 surveys were completed 63 :: Final Sample Disposition Total Sample (all lists) Employers called: 5687 Completed surveys: 600 Unavailable 41% Unusable number 27% Not qualified 3% Complete 11% Over quota 5% Refusal 13% Overall, the lists were less accurate than anticipated. The timing of the project was extended and new lists were sent to help us reach our goal of 600 completes. DEED Unknown Sample Employers called: 3641 Completed surveys: 325 Unavailable 47% Unusable number 33% Not qualified 2% Complete 9% Over quota 1% Refusal 8% :: The unknown sample was the first list received and was used to fill both the employer and non-employer quotas. 64 :: Sample Population Final Sample Disposition DEED Known Sample Employers called: 1775 Completed surveys: 231 Unavailable 33% Unusable number 16% Not qualified 5% Complete 13% Over quota 14% Refusal 19% :: MarketResponse received 2 lists from DEED which were classified as "known". :: Near the end of the study GCDD sent many names and companies to contact with the expectation that they would all qualify. GCDD Known Sample (faxes and e-mails from GCDD) Employers called: 273 Completed surveys: 46 Unavailable 27% Unusable number 18% Not qualified 11% Complete 17% Over quota 9% Refusal 18%