Constricted employment opportunities encountered by people with severe disabilities.

People with disabilities are estimated to make up 17% of the working population in the United States. Frey (1985, cited by Bordieri & Comminel, 1987) reported that the unemployment rate in the U. S. for workers with disabling conditions was 72.6%, and noted that the poverty rate was 26% for workers with disabling conditions, while only 10% for workers without disability. Among the factors that contribute to the high unemployment rate are: (a) Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) that are believed to either reduce or eliminate the motivation to work, especially when benefit dollars exceed potential earnings; (b) severity of disability; (c) level of education; (d) mobility; (e) geographical location; (f) age; (g) sex; and (h) number of dependents (Poole, 1987).

Since passage of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act, the business community has become more active in its attempt to facilitate employment by providing training and actual work experience to persons with disabilities. Such individual firms as 3M and Dow Chemical have become involved in the rehabilitation of their own employees with disabilities, either by establishing an internal rehabilitation system, or developing a relationship with outside rehabilitation sources (Berkley Planning Associate, 1980, cited by Young, Rosati, & Vandergoot, 1986). Labor unions have also recognized the benefits of retraining injured workers and have initiated programs for that purpose (Mallil & Moretti, 1982). In addition various agencies of the federal government have developed rehabilitation initiatives, designed to promote employment of people with disabilities.

These efforts to rehabilitate and retrain people and to purposefully find a place for them in the workplace have allowed many to overcome obstacles to obtaining gainful employment. However, employment among those with severe disabilities is not easily overcome, and is now recognized as a serious social problem.

Of the estimated 14% of adults with severe disabilities employed in the nation's labor force, only 2% are employed in a full-time capacity (Social Security Administration, 1982, cited by Poole, 1987). Individuals with severe disabilities typically receive more public benefits and are less apt to be rehabilitated or to enter competitive employment than other persons with disabilities (Berkowitz, 1980; Walls, 1982). As a result, various government organizations have recruitment initiatives designed to provide more accessible employment opportunities for people with disabilities.

Under a special recruitment category of targeted disabilities, the federal government lists individuals who are deaf, blind, missing extremities, or mentally retarded, or who suffer from partial paralysis, complete paralysis, convulsive disorders, mental illness or distortion of a limb/spine as having severe disabilities. Although the government has increased efforts to ensure that workers with disabilities are recruited and properly placed in federal positions, the more severely challenged continue to experience greater difficulties securing federal positions. This recruitment problem mirrors the overall problem faced by the individuals with severe disabilities seeking employment for positions outside federal service.

Recruitment of Individuals with Disability at a Federal Installation from 1984 to 1989

The purpose of this research study was (a) to determine the success rate of efforts by a Department of the Army (DA) installation in meeting the DA's stated goal of 4% workers with disabilities accessions against total accessions from outside the government and (b) to evaluate and compare the success rate of the installation in meeting the DA's goal of recruitment at 1.5% for individuals with severe disabilities. The population considered in this study included all individuals hired from outside (non-federal-government) sources for the recruitment years 1985 through 1989. The study's use of total population recruited eliminated the need for inferring results from statistical sampling methods used in most research studies of this nature. Avery, Cole, Hazucha, and Hartanto (1985) suggested results obtained through typical statistical sample sizes of the larger population may be inadequate for indicating actual changes. Utilization in this study of the total recruitment population of 6,523 subjects provided a direct comparison of both categories of employees with disabilities against the total population recruited.

Table 1

Recruitment of Individuals with Disabilities at a Federal Installation, 1984 -
1989

            Total             Accessions                Accessions with
          Accessions       with disabilities         targeted disabilities

Year          N             n          %               n             %
                                    of total                      of total
                                   Accessions                    Accessions

1984        1,506           81        5.37             13           0.86
1985        1,122           50        4.45              7           0.62
1986        1,083           64        5.90              4           0.36
1987        1,386           62        4.47             13           0.93
1988          613           31        5.05              3           0.48
1989          813           59        7.25              4           0.49

Data collected show that the DA installation exceeded the DA's goal of 4% employees with disabilities accessions during each of the 6 years studied, and nearly doubled that goal in 1989 with 7.25%. In contrast, however, accessions for targeted disabilities (severe disabilities) failed to achieve the DA's goal of 1.5% in any of the 6 years reviewed. In fact, only in 2 years (1984 and 1987) did the installation meet more than 50% of the DA's goal for individuals with targeted disabilities.

Discussion

These data reveal that, even with an affirmative action program for individuals with disabilities along with support of that program by top management and success in meeting general overall recruitment goals, an agency can still have difficulty meeting specific goals for recruiting individuals with severe disabilities. The obvious reasons for this problem range from the fact that persons with severe disabilities face more difficulty developing productive skills and the capacity to actively seek employment to the costs of modifying equipment within the workplace to accommodate their special needs. But more subtle, hidden reasons for an agency's lack of success also exist and must be addressed by vocational counselors and rehabilitation placement specialists.

Researchers have consistently documented the existence of negative attitudes toward individuals with physical disabilities and have claimed that these attitudes developed during childhood (Ryan, 1981; Weinberg, 1978; Wilkins and Velieer, 1980). It is imperative to examine those factors that influence the development of attitudes, either positively or negatively. Since childhood experiences have a lasting effect, young children are a particularly important target group for attitude enrichment programs. Elementary counselors and teachers with appropriate training can intervene to uproot negative attitudes toward students with disabilities at an early age. Through such programs, positive experiences early in life should effectively overcome and prevent further stereotypes associated with disabilities and persons with disabilities (Morrison & Ursprung, 1987).

Career and rehabilitation counselors must ensure that persons with severe disabilities receive training consistent with probable employment opportunities. Rehabilitation placement specialists must increase their understanding of jobs and their ability to relate to employers in order to effectively place individuals with disabilities. Martin and Vieceli (1988) stated that if a placement counselor understands and uses more business language, more comfortable discussions with employers will result. These authors listed several basic keys for improving placement of persons with disabilities:

1. Understanding that employers factor human resources input into a basic cost/benefit equation and generally hire a person when convinced that the benefits exceed and/or equal the costs of the human resource input.

2. Understanding that there are different levels of membership within organizations, each with different skill mixes, and that fitting a client's skills into that framework has an important placement purpose.

3. Understanding that managers must perform certain managerial functions and that, if the client with disabilities can help in the performance of these functions, the client has an opportunity to provide additional benefits to the organization.

Employment counselors need to develop in-service training programs to help raise the consciousness of managers regarding their own hidden prejudices, that could lead to discrimination toward individuals with disabilities. The existence of this form of discrimination was supported by one interesting study in which a qualified job applicant visited 50 private employment agencies.

In half of the visits, the applicant was in a wheelchair; in the other half, the applicant was ambulatory. The qualifications in both situations were the same. The job applicant with the disability was given fewer job interviews by the employment agencies and was actively discouraged from seeking routine employment (Johnson & Heal, 1976).

This prejudice against hiring workers with disabilities is totally at variance with actual job performance by these individuals. Research by personnel psychologists in a variety of organizations has consistently shown that employees with disabilities perform at least as well as, and in many cases better than, employees without disabilities (Feldman, 1988). Companies such as 3M, Control Data Corporation and Sears have routinely hired workers with disabilities because they make good employees (Pati & Morrison, 1982).

As the United States moves into a period of insufficient workers to meet employers' demand, it becomes increasingly important to consider all qualified applicants. Some 36 million people in America have some mental or physical disability, and many of these individuals have found it difficult to secure employment because of bias held by many employing organizations. Persons with disabilities include not only those with hearing, vision, motor or mental disorders, but also those with less visible conditions such as arthritis, diabetes, heart disease, cancer and back problems (Schultz & Schultz, 1990). Together, these groups constitute approximately 17% of all Americans of working age and some 7% of college freshmen (Asch, 1984; Feldman, 1988).

As this and other studies have emphasized, persons with severe disabilities often face more difficult adjustment to the work world and the larger society than persons with lesser disabilities. Poole (1987) stated that problems of employment for persons with severe disabilities require a multifaceted approach toward solutions. A direct intervention in the workplace, whereby the special requirements of the job are adapted to the special abilities of an individual, is in some cases required in order to ensure a proper placement (Revell, Wehmen, & Arnold, 1984). The interactive and determinative influences of severity of disability, disability benefits, education and transportation illustrate that much more than simply changes in the larger policy system is needed to facilitate the transition of persons with severe disabilities into the labor force (Poole, 1987). The solutions to correcting our national failure to properly consider and hire individuals with disabilities, especially those with severe disabilities, must come now from dedicated cooperation of all involved: the business community, rehabilitation specialists, employment counselors, education specialists, and American society at large.

In attempting to improve the recruitment program to provide better opportunities for employees with more severe disabilities, the Department of the Army or any other organization must develop a closer working relationship with rehabilitation agencies to insure that the agencies have a better understanding of their recruitment needs. To be effective this relationship will require effort on the part of Department of Army recruitment specialists. In addition, Army managers must target certain positions and carefully restructure them so that at all levels, the positions will allow consideration of employees with disabilities. Individual training plans must be developed for employees and should be fully discussed and clarified during the recruitment process.

To insure that recruitment results are positive, management officials at all levels must make a strong commitment to insuring a barrier free workplace for citizens with special emphasis for employees with disabilities. Supervisory training programs should dedicate one segment of the training program to the advantage of recruiting employees with disabilities. Management incentive award programs should give special recognition to managers and supervisors that are pro-active in insuring that persons with disabilities are considered for vacant positions.

The Department of Army has long had a positive recruitment program in place with stated recruitment goals. This program, coupled with continued emphasis on recruiting more employees with disabilities, is indicative of its commitment to equal employment opportunity. The willingness of the Department of Army to cooperate in providing complete recruitment data for this study is another indication of its commitment.

References

Asch, A. (1984). The experience of disability: A challenge for psychology. American Psychologist, 39, 529-536.

Avery, R. D., Cole, D. A., Hazucha, J. F., & Hartanto, F. M. (1985). Statistical power of training evaluation designs. Personnel Psychology, 38, 493-507.

Berkowitz, M. (1980). Work Disincentives and Rehabilitation. Falls Church, VA: Institute for Information Studies.

Bordieri, J. E., & Comminel, M. E. (1987). Competitive employment for workers with disabilities: An international perspective. Journal of Rehabilitation, 53, (3), 51-57.

Feldman, D. (1988). Employing physically and mentally impaired employees. Personnel, 65, (1), 14-18.

Johnson, R., & Heal, L. W. (1976). Private employment agency responses to the physically handicapped applicant in a wheelchair. Journal of Applied Rehabilitation Counseling, 7, 12-21.

Mallil, K., & Moretti, V. (1982). Unions as a resource in placement. Journal of Rehabilitation, 48, (2), 20-24.

Martin, T. N., & Vieceli, L. (1988). The business of rehabilitation placement; What to understand about private employers before approaching them. Journal of Rehabilitation, 54(4), 49-55.

Morrison, J., & Ursprung, A. W. (1987). Children's attitudes toward people with disabilities: A review of the literature. Journal of Rehabilitation, 53(1), 45-49.

Pati, G. C., & Morrison, G. (1982). Enabling the disabled. Harvard Business Review, 60(4), 152-168.

Poole, D. L. (1987). Competitive employment of persons with severe disabilities: A multi-variate analysis. Journal of Rehabilitation, 53(1), 20-25.

Revell, W. G., Wehmen, P., & Arnold, S. (1984). Supported work model of competitive employment for persons with mental retardation: Implication for rehabilitative services. Journal of Rehabilitation, 50(4), 33-38.

Ryan, K. (1981). Developmental differences in reactions to the physically disabled. Human Development, 24, 240-256.

Shultz, D. P., & Schultz, S. E. (1990). Psychology and Industry Today. New York: Macmillan.

Verespej, M. A. (1990). How will you know whom to hire? Industry Week, 239(18), 70-77.

Walls, R. (1982). Disincentives in vocational rehabilitation: Cash and in-kind benefits from other programs. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 26, 37-46.

Weinberg, N. (1978). Preschool children's perception of orthopedic disability. In B. Bolton & M. Jaques (Eds.), The Rehabilitation Client (pp. 49-55). Baltimore, MD: University Park Press.

Wilkins, J., & Velieer, W. (1980). A semantic differential investigation of children's attitudes toward three stigmatized groups. Psychology in the Schools, 17, 364-371.