Most Popular White Papers
Health Care Industry
Industry: Email Alert RSS FeedEmployers' Attitudes Toward Hiring Persons with Disabilities and Vocational Rehabilitation Services - Statistical Data Included
Journal of Rehabilitation, Oct-Dec, 2000 by Dennis Gilbride, Robert Stensrud, Connie Ehlers, Eric Evans, Craig Peterson
While the United States economy continues to demonstrate strong growth and low unemployment, many people with disabilities are still struggling to enter the labor market (National Organization on Disability, 1998). People with disabilities often find employment difficult to attain and feel excluded from the labor market because of their disabilities (Kregel & Unger, 1993; Satcher & Dooley-Dickey, 1992). This difficulty is often traced to the attitudes of employers toward hiring people with disabilities and the environment of acceptance or non-acceptance employers create (Satcher & Hendren, 1992; Wright & Multon, 1995). The purpose of this paper is to increase our understanding of employer attitudes toward hiring people with disabilities.
- More Articles of Interest
- Employer Attitudes Toward Workers with Disabilities and their ADA Employment...
- Conducting disability research with people from diverse ethnic groups:...
- A test of the theory of informed consumer choice in vocational rehabilitation
- Considering work for people living with HIV/AIDS: evaluation of a group...
- Vocational Rehabilitation Counseling at a Distance: Challenges, Strategies...
Background
Vocational rehabilitation professionals recognize the problem of employer attitudes (Thomas, Thomas, & Joiner, 1993) and note that negative attitudes are often identified as a major barrier to successful job placement. Because successful job placement and the encouragement of employers to effectively integrate people with disabilities into the workplace are central functions of vocational rehabilitation professionals (Gilbride & Stensrud, 1992; Mullins, Rumrill, & Roessler, 1996), understanding and addressing employer attitudes are imperative.
Unfortunately, identifying and addressing employer attitudes and perceptions are monumental tasks (Martin & Vieceli, 1988). Negative attitudes are kept in place by myths regarding people with disabilities as workers (Kilbury, Benshoff, & Rubin, 1992; Satcher, 1992), by ineffective rehabilitation placement methods, and by employer hiring procedures designed solely to avoid making any risky hires (Gilbride & Stensrud, 1993; Gilbride, Stensrud, & Connolly, 1992; Wiseman & Gomez-Mejia, 1998).
If rehabilitation professionals are to fulfill their responsibility to effectively serve consumers and employers, they can begin by correcting those attitudinal, perceptual, and procedural barriers that currently limit the ability of people with disabilities in attaining quality employment outcomes. Some evidence exists to suggest that if effective interventions are made, employers' receptivity toward hiring people with disabilities can be improved (Chism & Satcher, 1997; Douglas, 1994; Levy, Jessop, Rimmerman, & Levy 1992; Satcher & Hendren, 1992, Zahn & Kelly, 1995). However, in order to address employer concerns, rehabilitation professionals must have more complete and accurate data about employer needs and attitudes (Millington, Butterworth, Fesko, & McCarthy 1998).
There is also some evidence that employers consider rehabilitation professionals to be credible sources of intervention. Employers have generally favorable attitudes toward state vocational rehabilitation professionals (Gilbride & Stensrud, 1993), and would look to them for technical assistance (Greenwood, Johnson, & Schriner, 1988). However, in order for rehabilitation agencies to expand into the role of a business consultant, rehabilitation agencies must learn how to develop and maintain working relationships with employers that lead to confidence and trust (Fry, 1997).
Gilbride and Stensrud (1992, 1999) suggest rehabilitation professionals can be an essential component in this quest for equality by skillfully providing consultation services to the business sector. They assert, however, that the focus must switch from merely locating employment for persons with disabilities to addressing the work needs of the employer and demonstrating to the employer genuine concern and help toward accomplishing the employer's goal of a stable, competent work force. Unfortunately, little information exists about employers' perceptions and concerns about hiring people with disabilities.
Purpose
The purpose of this study is to investigate in more depth the attitudes and perceptions of employers toward hiring people with disabilities and toward the state vocational rehabilitation (VR) agency. The study collected data on employers who had hired a consumer of the state VR system. The consumers were all closed by the VR agency as competitively employed and rehabilitated. Employers were contacted approximately 1 year after this known hire of a person with a disability.
The three central research questions of this study were: (1) what are employers' attitudes and perceptions toward hiring persons with specific disabilities, (2) what are employers' perceptions of the effectiveness of services provided by VR, and (3) are there differences in attitudes of midwestern and southeastern employers.
Method
Instrument: Employer Hiring Practices and Perceptions Survey (EHPPS).
Given that little research has been conducted on employer perceptions of hiring people with disabilities, a research committee (that included rehabilitation counselors, community development specialists, and a consumer representative) was formed in a Southeastern state to develop a pilot instrument.
During the pilot phase, the project team generated instrument items, a list of the most common disabilities found on state VR caseloads, and identified the list of specific VR services to assess. The instrument was then piloted with 106 employers in that state. After obtaining the pilot data, the committee analyzed the results and comments from employers and made recommendations to improve the instrument's comprehensiveness and clarity utilizing survey methodology suggestions from Fowler (1993) and Litwin (1995). Many items were reworded to reduce ambiguity, some items were eliminated, and a few others were added.