The Economic Impact The Economic Impact Study Study

Brigida HernandezBrigida HernandezDePaul UniversityDePaul University

Karen McCullohKaren McCullohdisabilityworksdisabilityworks

October 7, 2008October 7, 2008

BackgroundBackground Of over 21 million working-age adults with Of over 21 million working-age adults with

disabilities, only four out of ten work full- disabilities, only four out of ten work full- or part-time.or part-time.11

A main concern among employers has been A main concern among employers has been that the costs associated with workers with that the costs associated with workers with disabilities will outweigh the benefits.disabilities will outweigh the benefits.22

However, studies by Sears and DuPont However, studies by Sears and DuPont indicate that workers with disabilities did indicate that workers with disabilities did not lead to high accommodation costs and not lead to high accommodation costs and were hard-working and reliable.were hard-working and reliable.3,43,4

Economic Impact Study Economic Impact Study (EIS)(EIS)

In 2002, Mayor Richard Daley commissioned the In 2002, Mayor Richard Daley commissioned the Mayoral Task Force on the Employment of Mayoral Task Force on the Employment of Individuals with Disabilities Individuals with Disabilities (Task Force) to (Task Force) to address the employment crisis experienced by address the employment crisis experienced by Chicagoans with disabilities.Chicagoans with disabilities.

One of the initiatives that emerged from this One of the initiatives that emerged from this Task Force was the Task Force was the Economic Impact StudyEconomic Impact Study (EIS).(EIS).

The EIS was funded by the Illinois Department of The EIS was funded by the Illinois Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity (DCEO). Commerce and Economic Opportunity (DCEO).

Economic Impact StudyEconomic Impact Study During this three-year study, 25 During this three-year study, 25

Chicagoland businesses from three Chicagoland businesses from three sectors (healthcare, retail, and sectors (healthcare, retail, and hospitality) were involved as:hospitality) were involved as:

AdvisorsAdvisors Focus group participantsFocus group participants Sites for cost-benefit surveysSites for cost-benefit surveys

Economic Impact StudyEconomic Impact Study

1.1. Focus Group PhaseFocus Group Phase::

Administrators discussed Administrators discussed experiences with hiring individuals experiences with hiring individuals with disabilities.with disabilities.

2.2. Cost-Benefit Survey Phase:Cost-Benefit Survey Phase:

Companies provided cost-benefit Companies provided cost-benefit data on their employees with and data on their employees with and without disabilities who volunteered without disabilities who volunteered to participate in the study.to participate in the study.

Focus Group PhaseFocus Group Phase

Focus Group ParticipantsFocus Group Participants

21 administrators from 16 companies 21 administrators from 16 companies participated, representing three sectors: participated, representing three sectors: healthcare (7 companies)healthcare (7 companies) hospitality (5 companies)hospitality (5 companies) retail (4 companies)retail (4 companies)

We conducted one focus group per We conducted one focus group per sector.sector.

Costs associatedwith thedisabled

workforce

Recruitingapplicants

with disabilitiesInterviewing

applicants withdisabilities

Promotingworkers withdisabilities

Benefitsassociated with

the disabledworkforce

Focus Group

Protocol

Focus Group

ProtocolProviding

accommodationsto workers with

disabilities

Focus Group FindingsFocus Group Findings1) 1) Disability employment agenciesDisability employment agencies and and

disability advocatesdisability advocates were were criticalcritical for for recruiting and hiring workers with recruiting and hiring workers with disabilities.disabilities.

“The experience of hiring people off the street…we

didn’t really see a lot of people [with disabilities] coming in.

But, when you meet somebody through an organization and they get support, you seem to

have more success.”

Focus Group FindingsFocus Group Findings2) 2) Managers were viewed as having biasesManagers were viewed as having biases

against workers with disabilities; they also against workers with disabilities; they also had concerns with the cost of had concerns with the cost of accommodations and asking “wrong” accommodations and asking “wrong” questions during interviews.questions during interviews.

“There is this assumption that it is

going to be more work [hiring people with disabilities] for me

somehow …”

Focus Group FindingsFocus Group Findings3) 3) Promotion opportunities were Promotion opportunities were

limitedlimited for workers with disabilities for workers with disabilities with many identifiedwith many identified as holding and as holding and remaining in entry-level positionsremaining in entry-level positions..

“I’m embarrassed to say, I’ve never promoted

one [person with a disability] to a

supervisory or higher level, but I’ve never had

one ask either.”

Focus Group FindingsFocus Group Findings

4) 4) CostsCosts associated with workers with associated with workers with disabilities disabilities were minimalwere minimal and and worth the expense.worth the expense.

“We haven’t absorbed much cost. Sometimes, it’s a matter of making a special badge to say, ‘Hi, I’m [employee’s name].

I’m deaf and hard of hearing.’ Which was

relatively no cost because we managed to

do it ourselves.”

Focus Group FindingsFocus Group Findings5) 5) BenefitsBenefits associated with workers associated with workers

with disabilities included having with disabilities included having dedicated and reliable employeesdedicated and reliable employees and a and a more diverse workforcemore diverse workforce..

“[An employee with a disability has] been with us for 35 years. He’s never missed a day and

he’s never late. Whenever there’s a snowstorm, he

prepares to get to work on time and most of the time the manager’s not there. So, we

look at that individual and say, “Wow! We need more guys

like that.””

Cost-Benefit Survey Cost-Benefit Survey PhasePhase

Participating EmployersParticipating Employers 13 companies participated in the 13 companies participated in the

cost-benefit survey phase: cost-benefit survey phase: healthcare (8)healthcare (8) retail (3)retail (3) hospitality (2)hospitality (2)

10 companies provided descriptive 10 companies provided descriptive information about their businesses information about their businesses Well-established businesses (at least 33 Well-established businesses (at least 33

years, with an average of 79 years)years, with an average of 79 years) Large workforces (ranged from 800 to Large workforces (ranged from 800 to

8000 employees, with an average of 8000 employees, with an average of 2,037)2,037)

Participating EmployeesParticipating Employees Outreached 14,000 employees across the 13 sitesOutreached 14,000 employees across the 13 sites

Workers with and without disabilities were recruitedWorkers with and without disabilities were recruited Variety of recruitment strategies were used (mailing materials to homes, Variety of recruitment strategies were used (mailing materials to homes,

distributing materials at worksites, onsite tabling)distributing materials at worksites, onsite tabling)

Recruitment materials includedRecruitment materials included Description of the studyDescription of the study Letter from Mayor Daley (and CEOs/Presidents/Directors)Letter from Mayor Daley (and CEOs/Presidents/Directors) Consent form and surveyConsent form and survey

1. Employee permission to release employment data to the DePaul 1. Employee permission to release employment data to the DePaul researchersresearchers

2. Using the ADA definition of disability, 2. Using the ADA definition of disability, employee disclosure of employee disclosure of disability status to the DePaul researchersdisability status to the DePaul researchers

800 employees consented (6% consent rate)800 employees consented (6% consent rate)

Participating EmployeesParticipating Employees

The cost-benefit survey phase included a The cost-benefit survey phase included a matching process, whereby work-related matching process, whereby work-related variables of participants with and variables of participants with and without disabilities were compared without disabilities were compared directly. directly. 55

similar positionssimilar positions same companiessame companies

Participating EmployeesParticipating Employees

Sector

Employees

without Disabiliti

es

Employees with

Disabilities

All Employ

ees

Matched

groups of

employees

Healthcare 8181 4545 126126 4545

Retail 128128 4646 174174 4646

Hospitality 1010 44 1414 44

TOTAL 219219 9595 314314 9595

Job Categories of Job Categories of Participants with Participants with

DisabilitiesDisabilitiesJOB CATEGORIES

NUMBER

PERCENT

1. Officials and Managers (e.g., manager, director) 99 9.5%9.5%

2. Professionals (e.g., pharmacist, nurse) 1414 14.7%14.7%

3. Technicians (e.g., radiology technologist, research assistant) 55 5.3%5.3%

4. Sales Workers (e.g., sales clerk, cashier) 88 8.4%8.4%

5. Administrative Support Workers (e.g., transcriptionist) 1515 15.8%15.8%

6. Laborers and Helpers (e.g., production) 55 5.3%5.3%

7. Service Workers (e.g., housekeeper) 3636 37.9%37.9%

8. Other 33 3.2%3.2%

TOTAL 9595 100%100%

6) Accommodations

3) Tenure

4) Absenteeism

2) Supervision

5) Worker’sCompensation

Cost-BenefitSurvey

Cost-BenefitSurvey

1) JobPerformance

Data AnalysisData Analysis

Two ways to analyze dataTwo ways to analyze data

Cost-effective or cost-benefit model Cost-effective or cost-benefit model (Cimera, 2002)(Cimera, 2002)55

Tests of statistical significanceTests of statistical significance

1) JOB PERFORMANCE1) JOB PERFORMANCE

2.31 2.30

0

1

2

3

Perf

orm

an

ce R

ati

ng

No Disability Disability

Note: 73 groups of employees

2) SUPERVISION2) SUPERVISION

1.99 2.06

0

1

2

3

Am

ou

nt

of

Su

perv

isio

n

No Disability Disability

Note: 34 groups of employees

3) TENURE3) TENURE

83.57 87.83

0

20

40

60

80

100

Mo

nth

s

No Disability Disability

Note: 94 groups of employees

3) TENURE3) TENURE Participants with disabilities from the Participants with disabilities from the

retailretail and and hospitalityhospitality sectors stayed sectors stayed on the job longeron the job longer than participants than participants without disabilities (23.77 and 50.12 without disabilities (23.77 and 50.12 months longer, respectively).months longer, respectively).

HealthcareHealthcare participants with participants with disabilities disabilities stayed stayed on the job for on the job for shorter lengths of timeshorter lengths of time (20.31 (20.31 months) than participants without months) than participants without disabilities.disabilities.

4) ABSENTEEISM4) ABSENTEEISM

6.64

5.40

0

5

10

Da

ys

No Disability Disability

Note: 47 groups of employees

Scheduled Absences

4) ABSENTEEISM4) ABSENTEEISM

2.173.30

0

5

10

Day

s

No Disability Disability

Note: 35 groups of employees

Unscheduled Absences

4) ABSENTEEISM4) ABSENTEEISM

Retail participantsRetail participants with disabilities with disabilities had 0.53 had 0.53 fewer days of fewer days of unscheduled absencesunscheduled absences than those than those without disabilities.without disabilities.

Healthcare participantsHealthcare participants with with disabilities had 3.31 disabilities had 3.31 more days of more days of unscheduled absencesunscheduled absences than those than those without disabilities.without disabilities.

5) NUMBER OF WORKER’S 5) NUMBER OF WORKER’S COMPENSATION CLAIMSCOMPENSATION CLAIMS

0.04

0.39

0

0.5

1

Nu

mb

er

of

Cla

ims

No Disability Disability

Note: 59 groups of employees

5) NUMBER OF WORKER’S 5) NUMBER OF WORKER’S COMPENSATION CLAIMSCOMPENSATION CLAIMS

The number of worker’s The number of worker’s compensation claims of compensation claims of retail retail participants withparticipants with and and without without disabilitiesdisabilities were were equivalentequivalent..

Both Both healthcarehealthcare and and hospitalityhospitality participants with disabilities participants with disabilities had had more worker’s compensation more worker’s compensation claimsclaims than their counterparts (0.42 than their counterparts (0.42 and 2.29 claims, respectively).and 2.29 claims, respectively).

6) ACCOMODATIONS6) ACCOMODATIONSEmployer Reported Accommodations(Healthcare and

Hospitality)

Employees with

Disabilities

Employees

without Disabilit

ies

Total

Physical Alterations 5 0 5

Adaptive Equipment/AT 3 0 3

Modifications to Job Duties

2 0 2

Changes to Work Schedule

2 0 2

Job Reassignment 1 0 1

Personal Assistant 1 0 1

Sign Language Interpreter

1 0 1

Other 1 0 1

TOTAL 16 0 16

6) ACCOMODATIONS6) ACCOMODATIONSEmployer Reported

Cost of Accommodations(Healthcare and

Hospitality)

Number

Average

Cost

Range of Cost

Physical Alterations 3 $52$13 - $129

Adaptive Equipment/AT 3$1,51

2$1,037 - $2,000

Changes to Work Schedule

1 $0 $0

Personal Assistant 1 $0 $0

Other 1 $0 $0

TOTAL 9 $313$13 -

$2,000

6) ACCOMODATIONS6) ACCOMODATIONS

Employee Reported Accommodations

(Retail)

Employees with disabilit

ies

Employees

without disabilit

ies

Total

Changes to Work Schedule

21 30 51

Adaptive Equipment/AT

2 2 4

Modifications to Job Duties

4 0 4

Materials in Alternate Format

1 1 2

Physical Alterations 1 0 1

Job Reassignment 1 0 1

Other 1 0 1

TOTAL 31 33 64

ConclusionConclusion Findings from the cost-benefit survey Findings from the cost-benefit survey

phase of this project support previous phase of this project support previous researchresearch Sears and DuPont studiesSears and DuPont studies Job Accommodations Network (JAN) dataJob Accommodations Network (JAN) data

Workers with disabilities have much to Workers with disabilities have much to offer to the labor force (particularly offer to the labor force (particularly when one considers job performance and when one considers job performance and supervision). supervision).

ConclusionConclusion Retail sector participants with disabilities:Retail sector participants with disabilities:

stayed on the job longerstayed on the job longer had lower absenteeism rateshad lower absenteeism rates had an equivalent number of worker’s compensation had an equivalent number of worker’s compensation

claims when compared to participants without claims when compared to participants without disabilities.disabilities.

For healthcare participants with disabilities:For healthcare participants with disabilities: Tenure, unscheduled absenteeism, and number of Tenure, unscheduled absenteeism, and number of

worker’s compensation averages were not as favorable.worker’s compensation averages were not as favorable.

Provision of accommodations for participants Provision of accommodations for participants with disabilities (as reported by employers):with disabilities (as reported by employers): not common and, for the most part, low to no cost.not common and, for the most part, low to no cost.

Limitations of StudyLimitations of Study Challenges in recruiting companies and Challenges in recruiting companies and

employeesemployees Employees self-reported their disability Employees self-reported their disability

status using the ADA definitionstatus using the ADA definition Companies varied in the types of Companies varied in the types of

employee data keptemployee data kept Generalizations beyond the scope of this Generalizations beyond the scope of this

project should be made with caution project should be made with caution (especially for the hospitality sector)(especially for the hospitality sector)

ReferencesReferences11 Rehabilitation Research and Training Center on Rehabilitation Research and Training Center on Disability Demographics and Statistics (2005). Disability Demographics and Statistics (2005). 2005 Disability 2005 Disability Status ReportsStatus Reports. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.

22 Hernandez, B., Keys, C., & Balcazar, F. (2000). Hernandez, B., Keys, C., & Balcazar, F. (2000). Employer attitudes toward workers with disabilities and their Employer attitudes toward workers with disabilities and their ADA employment rights: A literature review. ADA employment rights: A literature review. Journal of Journal of RehabilitationRehabilitation, , 6666, 4-16., 4-16.

33 Blanck, P.D. (1996). Blanck, P.D. (1996). Communicating the Americans with Communicating the Americans with Disabilities Act, Transcending Compliance: 1996 Follow-up Disabilities Act, Transcending Compliance: 1996 Follow-up Report on Sears, Roebuck and CoReport on Sears, Roebuck and Co. Iowa City: Iowa.. Iowa City: Iowa.

44 DuPont de Nemours and Company (1993). DuPont de Nemours and Company (1993). Equal to the Equal to the Task II: 1990 DuPont Survey of Employment of People with Task II: 1990 DuPont Survey of Employment of People with Disabilities.Disabilities. Wilmington, DE: DuPont de Nemours and Wilmington, DE: DuPont de Nemours and Company.Company.

55 Cimera, R.E. (2002). The monetary benefits and costs of Cimera, R.E. (2002). The monetary benefits and costs of hiring supported employees: A primer. hiring supported employees: A primer. Journal of Vocational Journal of Vocational RehabilitationRehabilitation, , 1717, 23-32., 23-32.

ReferencesReferences11 Rehabilitation Research and Training Center on Rehabilitation Research and Training Center on Disability Demographics and Statistics (2005). Disability Demographics and Statistics (2005). 2005 Disability 2005 Disability Status ReportsStatus Reports. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.

22 Hernandez, B., Keys, C., & Balcazar, F. (2000). Hernandez, B., Keys, C., & Balcazar, F. (2000). Employer attitudes toward workers with disabilities and their Employer attitudes toward workers with disabilities and their ADA employment rights: A literature review. ADA employment rights: A literature review. Journal of Journal of RehabilitationRehabilitation, , 6666, 4-16., 4-16.

33 Blanck, P.D. (1996). Blanck, P.D. (1996). Communicating the Americans with Communicating the Americans with Disabilities Act, Transcending Compliance: 1996 Follow-up Disabilities Act, Transcending Compliance: 1996 Follow-up Report on Sears, Roebuck and CoReport on Sears, Roebuck and Co. Iowa City: Iowa.. Iowa City: Iowa.

44 DuPont de Nemours and Company (1993). DuPont de Nemours and Company (1993). Equal to the Equal to the Task II: 1990 DuPont Survey of Employment of People with Task II: 1990 DuPont Survey of Employment of People with Disabilities.Disabilities. Wilmington, DE: DuPont de Nemours and Wilmington, DE: DuPont de Nemours and Company.Company.

55 Cimera, R.E. (2002). The monetary benefits and costs of Cimera, R.E. (2002). The monetary benefits and costs of hiring supported employees: A primer. hiring supported employees: A primer. Journal of Vocational Journal of Vocational RehabilitationRehabilitation, , 1717, 23-32., 23-32.

CollaboratorsCollaborators Illinois Department of Commerce and Illinois Department of Commerce and

Economic Opportunity (DCEO)Economic Opportunity (DCEO)

Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce (CCC)Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce (CCC)

disabilityworksdisabilityworks

City of Chicago - Mayor’s Office of City of Chicago - Mayor’s Office of Workforce Development (MOWD)Workforce Development (MOWD)

City of Chicago - Mayor’s Office for People City of Chicago - Mayor’s Office for People with Disabilities (MOPD)with Disabilities (MOPD)

ParticipatingParticipating businessesbusinesses and their and their employeesemployees

DePaul Research TeamDePaul Research Team Katherine McDonald, Ph.D., Katherine McDonald, Ph.D., Project DirectorProject Director

Elizabeth Horin, M.A.Elizabeth Horin, M.A., Coordinator, Coordinator

Jessica Velcoff, M.A.Jessica Velcoff, M.A., Graduate Research Assistant, Graduate Research Assistant

Oscar A. Donoso, M.A.Oscar A. Donoso, M.A., Graduate Research Assistant, , Graduate Research Assistant, CoordinatorCoordinator

Jay Rosen, M.A.Jay Rosen, M.A., Graduate Research Assistant, Graduate Research Assistant

Marielle DivilbissMarielle Divilbiss, Undergraduate Research Assistant, Undergraduate Research Assistant

Anna KushnirAnna Kushnir, Undergraduate Research Assistant, Undergraduate Research Assistant

Dan Schober, Dan Schober, Research AssistantResearch Assistant