The Economic Impact Study

1. The Economic Impact Study Brigida Hernandez DePaul University Karen McCulloh disabilityworks October 7, 2008

2. Background • Of over 21 million working-age adults with disabilities, only four out of ten work full- or part-time.1 • A main concern among employers has been that the costs associated with workers with disabilities will outweigh the benefits.2 • However, studies by Sears and DuPont indicate that workers with disabilities did not lead to high accommodation costs and were hard-working and reliable.3,4

3. Economic Impact Study (EIS) • In 2002, Mayor Richard Daley commissioned the Mayoral Task Force on the Employment of Individuals with Disabilities (Task Force) to address the employment crisis experienced by Chicagoans with disabilities. • One of the initiatives that emerged from this Task Force was the Economic Impact Study(EIS). • The EIS was funded by the Illinois Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity (DCEO).

4. Economic Impact Study • During this three-year study, 25 Chicagoland businesses from three sectors (healthcare, retail, and hospitality) were involved as: • Advisors • Focus group participants • Sites for cost-benefit surveys

5. Economic Impact Study • Focus Group Phase: Administrators discussed experiences with hiring individuals with disabilities. • Cost-Benefit Survey Phase: Companies provided cost-benefit data on their employees with and without disabilities who volunteered to participate in the study.

6. Focus Group Phase

7. Focus Group Participants • 21 administrators from 16 companies participated, representing three sectors: • healthcare (7 companies) • hospitality (5 companies) • retail (4 companies) • We conducted one focus group per sector.

8. Recruiting applicants with disabilities Interviewing applicants with disabilities Costs associated with the disabled workforce Providing accommodations to workers with disabilities Benefits associated with the disabled workforce Promoting workers with disabilities Focus Group Protocol

9. Focus Group Findings 1) Disability employment agencies and disability advocates were critical for recruiting and hiring workers with 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.”

10. Focus Group Findings 2) Managers were viewed as having biases against workers with disabilities; they also had concerns with the cost of accommodations and asking “wrong” questions during interviews. “There is this assumption that it is going to be more work [hiring people with disabilities] for me somehow …”

11. Focus Group Findings 3) Promotion opportunities were limited for workers with disabilities with many identifiedas holding and remaining 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.”

12. Focus Group Findings 4) Costs associated with workers with disabilities were minimal and 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.”

13. Focus Group Findings 5) Benefits associated with workers with disabilities included having dedicated and reliable employees and a more 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.””

14. Cost-Benefit Survey Phase

15. Participating Employers • 13 companies participated in the cost-benefit survey phase: • healthcare (8) • retail (3) • hospitality (2) • 10 companies provided descriptive information about their businesses • Well-established businesses (at least 33 years, with an average of 79 years) • Large workforces (ranged from 800 to 8000 employees, with an average of 2,037)

16. Participating Employees • Outreached 14,000 employees across the 13 sites • Workers with and without disabilities were recruited • Variety of recruitment strategies were used (mailing materials to homes, distributing materials at worksites, onsite tabling) • Recruitment materials included • Description of the study • Letter from Mayor Daley (and CEOs/Presidents/Directors) • Consent form and survey 1. Employee permission to release employment data to the DePaul researchers 2. Using the ADA definition of disability, employee disclosure of disability status to the DePaul researchers • 800 employees consented (6% consent rate)

17. Participating Employees • The cost-benefit survey phase included a matching process, whereby work-related variables of participants with and without disabilities were compared directly. 5 • similar positions • same companies

18. Participating Employees

19. Job Categories of Participants with Disabilities

20. 3) Tenure 4) Absenteeism 6) Accommodations 1) Job Performance 5) Worker’s Compensation 2) Supervision Cost-Benefit Survey

21. Data Analysis • Two ways to analyze data • Cost-effective or cost-benefit model (Cimera, 2002)5 • Tests of statistical significance

22. 1) JOB PERFORMANCE

23. 2) SUPERVISION

24. 3) TENURE

25. 3) TENURE • Participants with disabilities from the retailand hospitality sectors stayed on the job longer than participants without disabilities (23.77 and 50.12 months longer, respectively). • Healthcare participants with disabilities stayed on the job for shorter lengths of time (20.31 months) than participants without disabilities.

26. 4) ABSENTEEISM

27. 4) ABSENTEEISM

28. 4) ABSENTEEISM • Retail participants with disabilities had 0.53 fewer days of unscheduled absences than those without disabilities. • Healthcare participants with disabilities had 3.31 more days of unscheduled absences than those without disabilities.

29. 5) NUMBER OF WORKER’S COMPENSATION CLAIMS

30. 5) NUMBER OF WORKER’S COMPENSATION CLAIMS • The number of worker’s compensation claims of retail participants with and without disabilities were equivalent. • Both healthcare and hospitality participants with disabilities had more worker’s compensation claims than their counterparts (0.42 and 2.29 claims, respectively).

31. 6) ACCOMODATIONS

32. 6) ACCOMODATIONS

33. 6) ACCOMODATIONS

34. Conclusion • Findings from the cost-benefit survey phase of this project support previous research • Sears and DuPont studies • Job Accommodations Network (JAN) data • Workers with disabilities have much to offer to the labor force (particularly when one considers job performance and supervision).

35. Conclusion • Retail sector participants with disabilities: • stayed on the job longer • had lower absenteeism rates • had an equivalent number of worker’s compensation claims when compared to participants without disabilities. • For healthcare participants with disabilities: • Tenure, unscheduled absenteeism, and number of worker’s compensation averages were not as favorable. • Provision of accommodations for participants with disabilities (as reported by employers): not common and, for the most part, low to no cost.

36. Limitations of Study • Challenges in recruiting companies and employees • Employees self-reported their disability status using the ADA definition • Companies varied in the types of employee data kept • Generalizations beyond the scope of this project should be made with caution (especially for the hospitality sector)

37. References 1 Rehabilitation Research and Training Center on Disability Demographics and Statistics (2005). 2005 Disability Status Reports. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University. 2 Hernandez, B., Keys, C., & Balcazar, F. (2000). Employer attitudes toward workers with disabilities and their ADA employment rights: A literature review. Journal of Rehabilitation, 66, 4-16. 3 Blanck, P.D. (1996). Communicating the Americans with Disabilities Act, Transcending Compliance: 1996 Follow-up Report on Sears, Roebuck and Co. Iowa City: Iowa. 4 DuPont de Nemours and Company (1993). Equal to the Task II: 1990 DuPont Survey of Employment of People with Disabilities. Wilmington, DE: DuPont de Nemours and Company. 5 Cimera, R.E. (2002). The monetary benefits and costs of hiring supported employees: A primer. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 17, 23-32.

38. Collaborators • Illinois Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity (DCEO) • Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce (CCC) • disabilityworks • City of Chicago - Mayor’s Office of Workforce Development (MOWD) • City of Chicago - Mayor’s Office for People with Disabilities (MOPD) • Participatingbusinesses and their employees

39. DePaul Research Team • Katherine McDonald, Ph.D., Project Director • Elizabeth Horin, M.A., Coordinator • Jessica Velcoff, M.A., Graduate Research Assistant • Oscar A. Donoso, M.A., Graduate Research Assistant, Coordinator • Jay Rosen, M.A., Graduate Research Assistant • Marielle Divilbiss, Undergraduate Research Assistant • Anna Kushnir, Undergraduate Research Assistant • Dan Schober, Research Assistant