Journal of Rehabili,arion . V"lumo 76. Number 3

Jour«oi of Rehabi/i,mjon 2010. Volume 76. No. J. 15·23

Exploring the Costs and Benefits of Workers with Disabilities

Brigida Heroarld e7. YAI/Nationallnstitute ror People with Disabilities

Katherine McDonald Portland State Universi ty

This study examined the costs and benefits of workers with and without disabil ities with· in three sectors: hea lthcale. reta il . and hospita lity. Three hundred and fourteen employ· ees (95 with and 219 withoul disabilities) from 13 compan ies participated . Comparisons between both group" were made across s ix wO<k variables : job performance. supervision. tenure. absenteeism. worne r's compensatioo claims. and accommodalioos . Across the three sectors. job pel"forll1an.cc and supervision were s im ilar IOf both group" of employ· Ms. However, findIngs were m ixed when tenure , absentM ism. and worne r's compensa ­tion claims were considered. Lastly. costs 01 accommodations were for lhe most part min· ima l.

In the UnIted States. the employment "n.oggles of the di",bili· ty community ha.e ""en wdl..!ocumen,eJ. Dating back to 1986. Harri. Poll. of .dults with dtsabilities ",dleMe low

employment figures for thi. grOl.lp (Taylor. 20(0). Of over 21 mil· lion worl:ing·age adults wi1h disabilities. only 37.7% work fu ll- or part-time compared 10 79.7"10 of non..!isabkd worl:.ing-.ge adults (Reh.bili tat ion Rese.rch .nd Training Center On Di.ability D<mographie •• nd S1atistics. 2007). In assessing tile re.sons to expl.in this ""'ployment gap . a ho't of internal (i.e .• job re.diness. academic attainment. ""d reliance on c",h and mooic.l benefits) and ext"",.l f:tcto~ (i.e .• tran'portation. community accessibility. and negative emplayer aUitude.) have 1J.c<,n prorosed (Hernande •• Cornela. Velcoff. Rosen. S!hober. & Luna, 2007; Loprest & Mao&, 2001 . National Council 00 Disability. 2007). Oftbese fac­to~, a m.jor eontribu!()!" to the employment gap has 1J.c<,n the aui· tude. of employers tow.rds hiring people with di,abilities (Greenwood & Johnson. 1987; Ilemandez, Keys. & B.lcazar. 2000; Wilgosh & Skaret, 1987). Notably. Hernande,. Keys. and Balcazar (2000) found that although emplay.", reponeJ positive global atriw.des toward work.", with disabilities, they were I .. s positive when wedjic alliltUies related 10 hiring decision. were ..... sed. 10 the Hernandez review. ~mploy~'" ""pressed COnC""'s with the worl:-rel.too ,kills, productivity. supervisiao demands. and promotability of'individuals with d isabilitie, (Johnson. Greenwood, & Schriner, 1988: McFarlin. Song. & S<>nntag. 1991; Roessler & Sumner. 1997). In .ddition, empl"Y"rs were \>iorrieJ about the CO$' of accommodations (Moore & Crimando. 1995; ROOMier & Sumner. 1997; Waters & Baker. 19%).

Brigida liertUllldel, PhD, Oi=tor of R<'SeMCh, YAUN. tional Institute for People with Disahiliti~s, 460 West 34 StrttI, New Yark. New Yorl: . Email:

Cosrs ~nd BelWJilS of Worurs with Disabili,,'e. Employ.'" are conc"",eJ about the bonom line: Wilt C<>:'lts

as"""i'led with workers with disabilities outweigllthe ""nefits? There .re • few studies indicating that sucb oo""""'s may be unjustifieJ. Parent and Everson (1986) revieweJ t3 anicl .. (pri ­marily ease stud ies and documentaries) from bu,ines. and trade journals that addressed emplayers' experience, with worl:ers with disabIl ities. Taken togetller. work perfonnance was ra(oo posi1ive­ly and worl:e", with disabili(ie. were vieweJ as dependable, I"yal. and responsible. Moreover. when eomp.red (0 (hose withOl.ll dis­abili(; ... worl:ers "'ith disabilit ies were reponed to have equal or better production. a<:cUIaCY. and overall job performance rating'

Similarly. E.!. DuPont de Nemou", and Company found that their worl:ers with di .. bili,ies we'" ratoo as equivalent ta tho$< wilhout disabiliti .. in tile .,..as of job perfonnanee. attendance. and .. fety (DuPont, 1(93). Se .... Roebuck. and Company repon· 00 th.( nearly all of the 436 =odations rel'Oned from 1978 to 1996 req~ired linle (() no cos( (Btanc~. 1(96). Moreover. the Job Aeeommodation Netwon: (JAN) reponed that mo,t accom· moda(ions cost Ie .. than $500, and for every dollar im-e!teJ in accommodations, companies reponed an average of $40 in bene· fil.<{JAN . I999).

In a n.tional Study. Au,tralian employers with a history of hiring I>«'ple with disabilities througll employme,u programs compared worl:= with and withou1 disabilities (Graffam. Smith. Shinkfield. & Polzin, 2002). A review of employer data rcvcaloo that non-disableJ crnploytt$ perfonmd significantly ""ner on productivity variables (e.g .• a<:cUlaCy aod qualily of won:). In con­trast. employees with di""bil;,le. perfonnoo ""Iter on reliability vari.bles (e.g .• absenteei'm and co.t of absenteeism) and employ. ee m.intenance variables (e.g., cost of rttruitm<:nt and number of worker', compensa(ion d . ints); bowever. results were not statis-­tielUy significant.

" J"""",/ 0/ Ru.~bi/II""OIf, ~lu"", 76. Number 3

p,.'TJOfe 0/ 1M Sludy Pnor ~...,h cumming lhe coslS and benoefits usocLlled

w,th W<rl""" ... ·,th d'$Ibohl"" has been primarily oub)cc1"'" ,n nantre, w'th ""'I'ioycrs and ""1'<""""" '"ltllft" describ,,,, or .. ung JOb po:rfannallCe usmgl,kL'ft-type scales. C,mL'r.l (2002. 2(06) propo$L'd • rt"IO)f"\' ob,ecu • .., fnrnev,'orl; that requ,," m:tloh,"i work .... w,lh Ind wili>c)u, disabih'i .. (based "" JOb lItl ... nd re$l"'n,ibil1ltcs) Ind romp.ring work v.n.ble, IS ",trieve<! ,hrough Human Ilesouree (HR) record" For Ihi. study, work vI,i· abies of inle"", ,ndudC<l Job po:rfonnancc. supc",,.ion ... "uro. absontcc,.m, \LI()1'kor', eompcnso,ion daim •• and ",,,,o,,m,,,d •• 'ions. U',"g Cimo",', framcworl;. the "", .. and ~""fil' of work· ers wlth d'sabihli .. fTOm 'hree sectors (healthe ..... "".,,1, Ind!los· p'llthty) wen: eum,,>C'd, S""h on L'umina.ion all"",-ed for det",· m'nins _-benc:fi, ,rends in the Unoted Sto, ... M"""' ...... ,hi. s.t1Jdy 1'l!C1\I,lL'(I """"" ..... wi.h d, ... biliti .. from the , ....... 1 work· fon:e. Pas! ~...,h Iw fOCU>cd "" individuals w"" have made oo:ornrnodalloRl requcsu or w= ,nvol.-ed with cilhL'r l"I'I"'"ed emplo),,,,,,,n' or d,$8b.hl)' ""'I'1oym.,., progr:amL By cultng a w,der ""', lhll study ...... more ",dusive of individ .... l. w"h d,,· abiltl,..;" the ecnenJ Iabo< f<><ce.

Method ~ign "

Using I panicipalory "",ion resean;h "P!lroaob (I!alcazar et aI., 20(4), the tOscan:hcn rollaborale<! with four ....... ni7.11'on •• O oblain fe.db""k Ibroughout ,h. project: diJ~billlyW<)'Ju. Cbieagoland Chamber of CO""""""" (ccq, Cbk~I'l" Mayor" Office for PoopIc wilh Di .. bi~ti .. (MOPD). and Cb'~.IO', M~Y'Of'1 Office of Worl;fon:c ~Iopment (MOWD). These "'P"i:eations -.-.: ,nvolved in I Iargtt initiative W 'mprov," employmen. oppottUnitiel f"f' people with disab,I,IJ" ,n the CbiClIO area, and the C\IITnII SlLidy was commi .. ioncd from lhe inililti~. Considcn:d arowth indnstri .. wilh viablc emplo)'mftu opporIunitia for the disability """""""iI)', the orpni,..,ions 1l!(:.

<lltUIIL'fIded lhree sectorl for Ihis otudy: healtbcl"'. rcII.il,.nd iIos· pitolity. ~ orslni,..lions I)'" helped orsoni:t<; an employ .... a<!vi· 001)' IVOUP for each 5OOtor (consisting of II con\pany repre"nla. ,ives), Advioocy II"'UP m~mbers provided addi,iotull feedback on lh~ desisn of the sludy (i.e., ;den,;fying v.n.bl •• of in1,"~I. opor· Ition.Jiunlil vlriablel, and developing data ""nco';"" 'UlOlcgi('l).

, .... fnj"'~1I1J ,

Th"", ...... eyo "we ultd and eac:h was <kvelopod by the rcscan:lt.t:n ""th inpw from collaboraling organizalions, ..:IvlSOI)' &fOIIII mcmbcn, and Cimft1t'1 (2002, 2006) framewort.

( 1)Thc B .... illQl $MIwyCOilectcd infonrwion from employ_ en on the company"1 thtmion of 0peJ1ti0n, Iize. and mak""" of the workfon:e. 0IIe ~ was completed per ,ile,

(2) The &.pI~)'ft s..n..,. colJcctcd informatioo from employ­_ "" their di$8biltlY .torus, job title. and dcpanmcnt. To det",_ mine disabilily .tolUS, emplo)'ttS were provided ,he first proog of the: A~ with Disabiliti .. Aet (ADA) dcfinitioa of I diJ· abilily, a dis~bl/lly Is a (pe""aNml) pnyt/ClJ/ Q' menr~llmp(Jj,...

",,,,,. tltm ."NIOII'1011y 1,,,,;13 ""~ 01' _ .....;or lif~ ",,'Mlies

(IrK. W M"OILng. /wrathi..,. '~"8. tIC.). no. """""'per1naI>m1~ ""all Ioddcd Co exclude temporary condOUOllll (e.J., """",ned ank~) Elc:arnplcs of disabilili .. "-ere liso proVIded Including hearing loss, e<>gnll;ve iml"'iJmefll. physical d,sabillly. and chrooic ill· ~. 1Ja<cd on thl$ informaliOd. employttt iMica,..:! ",hcthcr they did or did JI(l( ha,.., a d'$3b,hly: they were MllSked to spee_ tfy ,he,r type or disabIlity. For "'lail <:mployttl only. the survey .... ko;<l whether their employen h.d provide<.! occomm<:><!ation, to help them perform thcir j<>h$. The re.son for Ihe inclus;on of lh .. question is described more fully under the: C(>3/·Benejil Surwy.

(3) The nMl-Be~tjil Surwy WIIS hued on Cimcr.l', (2002. 2(06) fr.uno:won: fo.- collecllo, «ISI-btndit ,nformoli"" "" wool<­en with dJ .. bihucs and <:QV<1'ed ,"x ~as: job performance, oupcn'ision. 1C1IW'e. absellc""""". worter'. compensation claims, and occommoda.ions. Inil"lly. Ihc survey included ,"'"" ",Ia~ 10 ","alth m'l<r.IJItt cia,,,,, :r.nd d,.,IIIY-fd .. ,"" WI c:m,hts.. H~~. most companOC$ .....,.., unable 10 provide Ibcse dall.. Tho C",,·lknejit SIuwy ..... complClCd by fiR " IHe5c"to'iva from plthc'palmg $l'e$, .... 1>0 review«! employee J'l.'OOrt"-

TWQ .""""",hes wen: taken to COIlCClllCOOlIlmoda,i"". data bee"",, lhe ",toil ~10< did 1101 rooltnciy documenl lhl< infOrm>_ 'ion; in con! ... ", the olher two sec.ors did. Fir.51, II R represenl'_ I;ve> from ,he he. llhca", "ltd hoipiUllhy st1c's tOviewed organiza­tional records to indic.t. wbelh.r pMlkipaling "mployees wm provided with on """ommodalion from I list of accommodalions prov,<kd (i .c., cbanges to JOb duueI, changes in work schedule. physical ollenl""", provl<ion of matenals in Illemal" formal, pro.·ision of idaplive cqulpmenV ... iSlive 1«hnoioaY, job ..... -.ignmcm. p"""""'1 asoimnce. provisiOC! of SIgn )onlluage in''''' prc1CI1t, other oo:ornrnodalJOll). They also in,bcatod the: appr<I1i.

mal. cos, of each KCOtI1mOdalion. Given tha. silCS were "'" lnfOlIrlod of panio:;ipan15" di .. bilil)' JUoltoJ. KCOtI1mOdali.,... infor· malion 00I11d ha~" been provided for workCl'l Wlth and without. di$8bilttics. Second. retail employees indiCl,ed "" lhe Emp/oyn Su'W}' whe'her they "'''"' provided wilh """"",moda.ioo. ;" ""porue '0' lias )'<>Iir ~",p/QY':" ",~d~ cIoongu or provi&d mad;· jkaliOflJ 10 help you ~rfQrm yow,. job? Elt.mplo. of changes and mOOifica'ion. were provid.d (e,g .. f1~.iblc work schedule. chong« to the work .i'e), Employees .pecified Iht change or modiflCllion, but did not provide ;nfannal;"" reLatod 10 attOrn· moda,i",," OOSIS.

--"~ Once participalutg companies w""' Klenlified, IIR dcpan. mcms w= rontacIed to Cllabhslt an employee reauilmCDl plan. With the uccprion of one Inc, cmployea were rontactcd twice \\SUlg the following 1lppn>IOItes: mailin& recruiunefU material. 10

employccs' homes, incl"",n, recrultmct1, matcnals with pay­chccu, baving managen and/or oupen'ison di$llibule recruitment materials to their d<:panmcn15, and providi"ll recruitmen. materi· _Is onsitc. RecruilmL'ttl materialS itlCli1<kd 1 d<:scrip,ioo of the .rudy, lellCr$ of $UPpOri frum the mayor Ind """,pany CEO or Direclor, a consenl fonn, lhe Emp/o)'ft Su......,.. and •• tamped

, Supported employment provides supports (C.I., _ job coach) 10 individual' wi,h disabiti,ieo, The", "'JIPOrI! .id in obtaining and mainla,ning competilive employment.

JouNl(JI <>f Reitobi/uali<m. Volume 76. Number 3

"'" ~ envelope addm5<'d to ,"" rescore (an"",,08 for 'he rom"", form E",p/oyu Surwy to be I'<iUmN

Employees had Ille opllOll of providlDI Of paniol COOI$I11I. Adhotnna tD ,"" He [nsura""" Ponab,hly ond Acrownab Act (H IPPA) "'gul'Hons. partl.1 oon oon .. 5Ied of partlclpatlna '0 lile study not allowing for Ih .... 1 ... 5<' of health in .ncc and work ... •• cumpensatlon mfo

Table 1 Numb<:< of Pat\OC:lpahng Employees ood D.sablllly Su",",

)

." E"",I<>reeS Employtts Mald>e<l

.lth S"M wlthoul wllh '" groups of

Ihly d.sablhties disabilities Employ= -'-=, '") '") '") '") ." 'ur· Hu lthc:an: "' .,

'" .,

~ .. 11011. Ret.,1 '" .. ,,.

" lmg H"'I'I",ll1y " • " • "" '" T_' '" " '" " ieal.

For each $lle .• hSI of partielpa employees _I comp,led and the matclt

proces:s bafOd on job .,,'" comrncrt<:<:d cues " ........ job IIlkt ~ ...,. idcnt the ~hcnt worked ""'th HR r<prC_

..... lall"'" to ooe",,,,,,, J><6IIKlR!l "'illt

.. mIl ... q ... hflClllOl\t on4or ....,.,.,.;. Tablt 2 lob Catcaones of Portielpant$ with Dl$lbllltoc:s

Job CalCGO"es Uealthcare R.".,il 1l0000Ilahty o."",U n(%) n ("!o) n(%) "(%)

b,htl .... ntis ..... chml proc<:SS ""lpc<! ensu ... thaI dlffm!'1'I«S omong .hose

Offlciol, and Maol8en 5(11%) 4 (9%) 9 (10%) Profe .. ionl l. 13 (29"10) I (2S%) 14( 1~'Y.) · T""hoicionll 5 (11 %) 5 (S'Y. ) · · Sal .. Workers 8 (17%) 8 (8%) · Adminin""i"" Suppon Worken IS (33%) 15(16%) · Laboren and Helpers 5(11%) 5(5%) Service Workcn S (11%) 28 (61%) 1 (7S%) 16 (38%)

""" 2(4%) 1(2%) 3(3%) · TOTAC .S (100%) 46 (100%) • (100%) 95 (100%)

wi,h and ",,,110., d".bibli .. WCTtO It'IUr'e likely IttribIJlobl. lu disabilily 01."" Ih3n job quahr.ca"on. andfor re.ponsibtliti el. The goal Woo '" milCh each employee with a di""bihly with thn:<: non-di""bled employees. The IVeraged data of the three non..!i._ abled employees rep<dCnted "1ypical" COIt_beltefit QUIComQ (a procedure desig:nod to IddmI "",h ... buos). Oocc the malChed hSOl ~ F"""'tcd. HR ~WIV" were cotttackd to com­plele Ille C''''.B~"efill s.,,,....,.. Completed surveys were returned to the racuchcnt and enltr'l'd mto SPSS.

Nocc: Due to rowllhna. pn-c:nIl>.ges may II1II add up to one hundml.

POrlic'fJ<It'ng ComptJI/;U ol/d £"'P/O}'I'U CnllabonllnK OtpnlZ>.lIon> (di.abilitywtJrh. cee. MOPO.

Ind MOWn) ufOd the" exisllng ... 1.I;onships 10 =ruit data col­leclion Illes. Initially, 22 rompanie. w .... recruiled and, of these, 9 .... ;thdrew for v~riOUl JnSOru (e.g., no employees with diubili. Ii .. agreed to panicipale; lumo= with company representatives; cotp<ntc buyouts; and lack of organizatiocu.l .....,..""" to dedi_ cate 10 dI", collec'ionJ. Con""'lI>eD~y. 13 companies from tlt= St!CIOr1 pat'llClpaled: healthcare (8), rrtlil (l), and """"tahly (2~ Ten of W 13 Illes provided <k:scnplivc infonnal>Oll lboul !/w:ir esubl,$IunenIs. Ovenll. pMicipating companies ,.,..., wcll-cstab­li$hed, opeoaIl"l for It least 33 yean. with an ''''''''1'' 0[79 )UIS. They al", had latJie workfortts, wilto <:<>rnpany IIU ~ from 800 to 8000 employeel, WIIlt an IveragC of 2,037 employees.

With lhe eJtccptlQ<t of one .ile, aU heallloc:are ood """'Itslily employees wen: invite<! to p2I1;cipa.e in Itoi. study. for one hoi· pital, it "'IS recommended by the HR ",presentative 1M. fin larae d.p'rtmcnl$ be "'rgeted for employee recruitmenl. For the ... ",,1 SOOlor, employees from selec' ... gions ond storcs wen: invited to partic'pale. Tlken i()jICIber, "PproxiTIllllCly 14.000 emplOyee!

were provided =ruitment mlt .. i.l., and 920 (6.6%) agreed to participate in the reoean:h. O f thosc who llirud to pani<ipale, 734 (80%) providcJ full cOn$<:nt and ! 86 (20%) provided panial COrI_

scnl.

Although 920 emplQyees agreed to panicipa1C, following the nwching process Q<tly 362 employees WIth and wlthoul disabili_ 11CS were cligiblt to p2I1icipalC. Of the 362 eliaible participants, 48 cases ... -ere withdrawn beal,lS<' of insufficient data. At the end. 314 employcQ (95 with and 219 WIthout disabtlttm) particip;llcd. Each partil:ipanl wi!ll. du.bihly WIll cornparm WIth an.vcngc on.3 puticipants without di .. billlies; thus, then: were 95 groups of panicipant$ with and withoul diloabiltues. See Tobie 1 for the bmtkdown of parbCipatulg employees and disability .... "'" (0""'­III and by sector). Of the 95 emplo)'ftl WIth d,sabililies, 38% held positions as Servia WUI"A:tn. 16% as J4dministral'-..e SI<ppoN W"'*e,.., IS% as ProjusiOltub, and 10% u Officwis al/d Mal/age,.. ($U Table 2). Furthermore. of the lota.l sample uf employees with and withoul d isabilities, n% worked pari-time and 40% worked full_l ime.

" Journal oj ReAabllllniion, Volumc 76. Number 3

Rtsul15 n". 11\OC1y.;omparW cmployu:s with :md wimoul dl~blhlles

in simila P"f'lIon. on $IX tt\lployrnenl vanabl .. , jd:> pctform· ancc, SUjICr"'''on. ,,,"un:. absences (scheduled ond unscbeduled). ... mer's couqltruauon claIms. and accommodaliont. 1'11<: IlR dcp.!.rtments of panicipallng oomJWIies varied in lhe type Ind amQunt of employ«, data they we", able to provide Coo5Cquctllly. KI'QUP lizes for each cost-benefit varilble flUClUll­cd. For Ihe analy.I.CS, rang ••. medians. m •• n., and Standard devla. tions we", dClcnn;ned for employ«. ""til and witllou' d,s.bili.

Ii ... Within this realm of ..,..,...,h. _h deK"",,~ f'gures m2y be luffk'.'" to rna« "'" C<)$I-bcncfil cue for tmploymg people with d,w"I", .. (em""" 2002. 20(6). For II". otudy. par.uneIric and """.pataJMtric paired .. mples ' .... o-Llllkd lcst< (I 'cst< and Wilcoxon Signed Rml ,.su) "-ere _00 conduc1ed '0 delenn; ... if """" diffe= "'.., .... S'p"r>Calll. In iddl1loo .• Boofem>ni cor­"""ion (""ing a COfTttled p < 0,002 I~I) was applied to acwunt for ,ncreased experimcnlw;se Ty~ I error. Ii« Table 1 r<>, group ,ius, ranges. median., "'"." •• slaodard c\ev,all""", I values, Ind Z values.

Tobie 1. Cos'·B~n~jil Var/Qbl .... by Set:lor for Emplo~ "7Ih"", and Wilh Disabillli ....

''''riorlll~ Group Siu

Job Perf.,..m .... e llealtbcare RCUlil Hosp,tallty

"""" Su ....... I.I .. " licolti>can: Re •• i! Ho.pi •• li.y Ove",11

Rotail Uospitallcy

'" """"

RCUlil H06pitality Overall

UnKheduled AbM'IIcn Helltbcare Retoil Hoapnahty

""""

"""""'" Rotail Hospitality Qvc"'11

,

Emplo)'~ ,,'il/.ou' dl,.blli.l .. Rangt ~1t.Uln Mel .. S I)

ErnplolCCS "'ilh di .. bIIiU ..

" " • n

, H

« .. •

'-3 '-3 ,-, ,- 3

, -, ,- , 17·416 7 ·175 11·130

Ran", M..:Iiaa Mean SO I

2.31 2.44 0.46 2.00 2.20 0.28 2.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 2.11 0.40

2,00 1.99 O,OS

2,00 2,00 0,00 2,00 1.99 0.04

101.00 I3S.1I 111.70 21.33 H.S6 17.6S 57.25 68.88 46.14

, - 3 , _ 3 , , , - 3

2.00 2.42 060 2.00 2.21 0.49 2.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 2,30 0.55

2.00 2,07 0.25

2.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 2.06 0.24

9·4H 78.SO 0 ·361 19.5O 74-182

I!UO 59.33 110,00

112.64

"'.~ 119.00

, 0.19 0.02 0.09 0.20

0.08 ~.31

1.6! 1.63

1.60 1.63

LL6 0.74 2.]1 LIS 47.15 2.SO

" 7·416 43.42 83.57 94.SO 0 ·453 Sol 87.83 103.36 0.41 0.79

" " , "

" " , "

" " • "

0·35 0-17 .-. 0·35

'-3 O· 10 ... O· 10

· -, .-. · -, · -,

4.SO 8.9S 4.67 5.83 0.00 0.00 4.n 6.64

II,B

5.55 .00 7.H

0.00 0.80 1.07 1.33 3.37 2.83 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.67 2.17 2.5-4

0.00 0.06 0.21 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.17 0.21 0.25 0.00 0,04 0,16

.- " 0·27 .-. .- "

•. " '.00 .00 3.00

,." '.66 '00 ' .«0

8,71 ." '.00 7,2)

0 · ]3 3.00 4.11 4,23 O· 19 0.00 2.84 4.71 0·0 0.00 0.00 0.00 O· 19 2.00 3.30 4.45

.-, .-. .-. .-. 0.00 0.48 1.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 2,SO 3.00 0.00 0.39 l.2S

0-68 0.08 1.45 1.45

1.49 L30

3.02 ' 2.59' 0.37 0.16

1.19 1.08

1.76 1.75

1.64 1.34 2.24 2.20

NOI~. llisher job performancc valw:s indicale bo:Uer performance, lligher supervision values indielte sre_l", .moun\/; of supervi· sian required reillive IQ other employttS . Ten""" was measured in months. Absences were meMUreo:! in days for lhe: 1>116 monlh., Number of wor1cer', compen$I!;1)II dailt\l; wq measured in the: lasl ';x montll" ~. - indicates noI applieable . • p < .002

JournalolRehabilitation, Volume 76, Number 3 " Job fXrlormanee

Job perform.nce WIIS based on ~mployee,' most recent per­fann.Dce evaluation; tatings included QG;e4s eXpeG!atjolis (rat­ing - 3). =!S cX!)C<ta\jon, (rating - 2). and Deed, ;m proycmcm (rating - I). Employee' with and WIthout d'$abihu,," obtained nearly i<\elltical a .. rage M ing' (2.3 I and 2.30, respective ly). and tbis paDeDi was observed within each sector as well, Furth.DlIO .... group ratings Were nOl significantly different for the owrall sam' pie or any of the thltt ..,ctors

SUfXrvls;Qn S~pervi,ion wllS ddined as the amOunt of supervi,ion

required relative to other employces in the .. me POS""'" <.Iw -1. = _ 2. and = - 3), This infotIDation was .lso gathered from employees ' lII",t rcc<:nl performance evalUalion . The diffc.-_ ence between the two groups was relative ly minor, with worker.; witb and without disabilities obtain ing ratinBs of 2.(16 and 1.99. respeclively. Similar paUem$ wc.-e observed Wilhin Ihe healthcare IDd hospitality """Iors, WIth no ,tau.tica l d,ff.rtOoec, found for

the two secior.; or overa ll samp le, The retail sector did DO( con· tribute data for this vari.ble.

Tenure Tcnurc was defined as the number of montbs employed,

Overall. employees witb disabilities stayed on the job 4.26 month< longer th.n employee, without disabil itics (with differenc,," evi_ dent by ""'\Of). Specifically, participants with disabilities from the hcalthoaro ,ector were on the job 20.31 months less than Ihose without disabil itie" In contrast. panicirants wiih disabilities from the retail and hospitality occtor.; were on the job longer than those without di,abilitie. (23.77 and SO.12 months longer. respectively). Howc>'t:r, these difference, were not stat istically .ignif,cant,

Ament«;.", Absenteeism was categorized .. scheduled (known in

advance) .nd Ilnshed!!led (J><Ji known in advance) absent day. d~ring the last 6 month, of employment. The hospita li ty secWr w", nc1uded from these analyses because only one group of

Table 4. Accommodation, Reponed by Employers fOf Hcalthcaro and Ho,pitali ty Employee,

employee, contributed absen_ teeism data. For scheduled absen""s (e.g .. vacation time, personal days), workers with disabilities had 1.24 fewer absent days than workcrs without disabilities, with no Slatistically significant find­ings for lhe O"erall sample or the healthcare and retail sec-

with and without Disabilities

Healthure

Accommodation Employ"". [mplo)'e .. with wllhout

disabiliti", di,.bilili ...

Physic.l alleralions , ,

Adaptive lX[uipment ; ·

Modification W job duties I ·

Changes 10 work schedule2 ·

Job reassignment , ·

• PersoDaI assistant , ·

Sign language interpreter , ·

Other , ·

TOlal " Note. u. M indicltes nol applicable.

II ns italit '

Emplo)'e .. [ .mploy .... wllh ",llhoul

di •• bilitie, dis.bilit i ...

~

· ·

, ·

·

· ·

· ·

· ·

· ·

I

A'~r.g.

Onl <0,

m (n - 3)

$1,512 (n - 3)

.

'" (n - 1)

~

'" (n w I)

~

SO (n - I)

S521 (n - 9)

uuscbC<!ulC<! absences. woncel'S with dis· abilities had 1,13 more absent day. than workors without disabilities, witb sector differ­ence, nOled. Specifically, healthcare participants with disabililies had 3,31 more days of unscheduled absences than those without disabili. lies, a finding that WIIS 'tatis­tically significant. In contrast, retail participants with dis· abilitie, h&d 0.53 fewer day. of unscheduiod absence, than lhose withoul disabilities . However. thi, diff<rence was nOl ,talistically significant.

NUItIM olworur~ COntfXM' Sal;QlI cI~inv; Information on the number of wprker's comnen .. i,on I<liiJm wu '~3rnintd for the last 6 monlh$ of employmeDt. EmplOye¢! chose whether 10 allow Iheir employer to release this iufonHalion io the researcher.; , PaIticipants with

Jo""'~1 of Re~~b,'''~ti"". Vulumc 76, Number 3

di:s.abill1lQ bad O.H morr worker', compcm:olion d."ns than \bo$o; w,tbwI dl$llb>],uc:s. Whcto C;UII"'""'II the li<:<:1OD. the dlfTer­mcc "'I11I">Cd for I>o$pllah,y (2.29 morr cwms fur pIt11CIp&n1l wilh dlsabillnes) and healthcare (0.42 nlO'" claim. for [II"'C'p&n~ wnh dlubilil,es), whereas for mail lhen: " .... no d,fT<!<C'I'oI:c betWttn pIt1>C'PllnlS " 'Ith and w,tbout d'$Iblhl'Q NOI«! dIffer­ences ""'" not 1,-"1I111cally sign,focanL

Acco",,,,oda/im,,, In ...-.ler 10 I'\:lain Ihe indi viduali«d n"lu'" of accommoda­

tion., these d:.la we", no1 wroupeJ or matched for employee. wah and wilOOuI di sab ,ll1ie., I,,"ead, data were examined for cach of th. 95 ])lInlclpanlS wllh and 219 ""nici""nl$ wllhou, d,sab, hl,es A 10l.Il1 of 16 ICcommodauOIIS for <:mploye<:$ wah disablh1l"" "'ere n:poncd by cmployc-rs of the hcahhca", and bosp'talny ...,. IOfl (_ T.tll. 4), The mo$I fTeq ...... ly rqIOf1Cd acwmmodahOll was phYSIcal lltera1JOIII to the work C1Ivlronrnenl. followed by adapli"" equ,pmcntlIMwi"" lechnolOl\Y, 11I0(lIflClt""" 10 job dul,cs. and cllanges 10 ,he work ochedule, Of the 16 oeo:ommoda­"00$, cmploycn prov,ded the rn(IrI<Uty cost for 9 oeo:ommoda­Ii"", and mosl were low 10 no cost. The mo$I costly """"",moda-11011 was adapt,..., equ'prnrntl_is'i"" technolOKY, which __ -lied SU 12, No occommodal''''''' w .... rq><><Ied by employc-rs for employees ",nOOuI disabilni .. ,

Table S.

the <:OSl$ and bmtfo .. of woRen ",nh dl .. bllina from the F""'"­I] '.,ort.fon:e and ofTen "''a1I] IItIpOIaIII (In,lIngs.

Fi~ employ,," wllh d.oaboh,ICS ICI'OII lhe three ...:lOCS were nurly equ,valentlO ,hose .. ,thou! d, ... bil" ... ,n 0 ........ 11 Job performance. lbi. finding supporu wha, has been widely rq>or1-

ed by ,he E,1. DuPon' do: N"""",,, and Company; 'llcy '00 found .'milar job penom.",,,,,, ... ungs 1monl ,-"eir worken wilb and ",nho<l' d,sabilol,cs (DuPont, ]\193), The CUrrent study .xtrods IhlS p')I"erful finding by e, .. mmngjob perfon".""" beyond. ,in­IIle com"""y ,nd sectOf,

Sttond, ,rreslle''''''C o f ""'lor, 'upc:rvisory demands we.., , imilar for employees wi,h and without d,sabih,ia, Of nole, prior rnearch h • • indica,.,.! conoem """"'lI employen ,ha,those with dlSlb,"' .... may Tequi.., mon: SUJlCfVIS"", Ibm the" eounlcrparu Ind ,h ... "'pre.".u I COlI (H.-mano:In eI aI .• 2000). With limilCd do .. a ... il.ble 10 """' ... , ,-",S nouon, empioycB may ha"" been ",oded by thIS percepIIon ",heft mal;llIj honns decisions.- FindIngS from thIS study ""liale thaI thIS does noc -.;110 be the case IS

... -OrI<Cr> ... ~'-" disabdilics ,,"'" on par " ',,-,, lhose witbwl disabili· Ua ,n ,be ...". o,"upc:rv,""""

Third, "",ull< ,,~.., not $0 dear.nd llraigh,fOfWard for lhree variab les (i .e .• tenure. at>scnt""'im, Ind worl< ... ·~ compensation

When ."'pIoYUI from the retail sec,or we.., osked .boIIl accommod .. ions, many more we.., ,"purlcd (I« Tobl. 5) In,erestingly, bo,h employees wnh .nd wilhoul diSibili,i .. n:poncd thaI acwmmoda'lOII' were provided by ,heir employer. The mos' cned aoxomrnodation ...... ~ 10 lhe work ""hcdulc, fol""'-"d by odap­bye equlpn'1l/fllllSS,s.i~~ tecImoJo&y, and modili­ca''''''' 10 job duues. ]nforml.,io)n on !be "",,1:5 of Ibcsc ..:x:ommodIl1011. "'U noc collected.

AIX<JItI",oJ~(i()"" Rop,m61 by ROlail E",pi()~a ... il~ dnd wi,h"", Disdbililia

Discussion Although dlSibili,y legi'\I,ion and progranu

a(ivOO:lle for Ihe inclusion of peop]e wilh disabil­i,ies Wilhin employmen' "'!lings, al pn$Cnl Ihi , goal il no, I reality, When oonsidering work." wilh disabili,ics. raelrch ha. lhown thaI employ_ ... ..-e undmlandab!y concemed with the honorn ""'" (H.-mano:In eI 11.,'2000; Wilgosh &:. Skan:I, 1987), A number of lNdi .. !ha, ha~e been prima_ ri]y lubjedl"" (bQcd on perceplions) SUggcsllhal suoh C(Il'ICeI'IIf In' unwarnnled (DuPont, 1993; Parmt II. EVCflIOOl, ]986). Namely, work"", willo disabililies were viewed IS dq>endable, loyal, ""'JIOnSible. produo:Ii"", and 1oCCIII1IIe, 11""",,_, thi. body of ~h lao",- objective data thll directly comparet the """'" performance of those with and wilhout disabilitia, Furthennore, prior resear<h Iw focuocd 011 supponed employees, worl<e" pllCed by disability employmen' pro· gro.m., or workers r«!u~ .. ing occommoda,ion., 'The currenl ,uldy brcaQ ground by e<Amining

PhYSlaollltcrau"",

Ad&pIl"" equipmenl

Mod,flC_"OII. '0 job du,ies

Ch~n¥el'o ..::IIC-du le

M,",ri l l. in .Ilemale formal

.lob "'''''lI''mcn, Pasonal assi'tan'

SIll" 1an1llJa&C inlClJl"'lCl'

ow..

1'0,.1

Reuilon" Io,-ftI " 'ilh di,abIllllH

,

• "

'" N()(~, "." indicales no' applicable,

R.tall ""'plo)'fa ... 'l1h .... , di .. bili,i""

,

Journal oj R~habilila/ion, Volume 76. Number 3

do im.), particularly when raw data w= considered. Although it can be argued that many """tor differences we", non-sig.nifie.nt, employe .... may find that "averages" provide a comrellmg co.t_ bonefit case. With overages in m,nd, ret .. 1 employees with dis_ ob ili ties tared bel'er 1han those from he.lthcare. Specif,cally, reta il em ployees with disabilities demonstrated longer 'enures, fewer day< of ",heduled and unscheduled absences, and an "'lU'V' alen, number of ,,'ork« ', coml"'nsation oiaims wncn compored to retoil employ"". without disabilitie,. These particular findings support proor rcwarch with ",gards to workers with di .. bilitie$ and anend.nce (DuPont, 1993, GrnlTam '" aI., 2002) and worker', comrensation oiaims (Graff.m et .1., 2002). In contrast, he.l~t­

care em ployees with disabilitie, had shorter tenures, more days of unscheduled absences, and more worker'. compensation claim. Ihan healthca ... employees withoul di,abilities. Wi1hin the hospi­ta lity $CelO', workers with di,.bilitie, demonSlrated longer tenure, but greot", worhr '. campensa""n claml$ Ihan those with_ out disabil ities. Given the exploratory nature of this study, it would be eri tic.l to e.amine more fully the noted sector differ· ence<.

Finally, employe.,; of the heahhcarc and ho,pitoli ty """tors reported no accommodations fo, employees without disabili1ies and 16 aecommod>.tions for employ"", with disabilities. Most acoommod.ation. werc no to low cost,. finding thet is consistent with da,a from JAN (1m) and Sears, Roebuok, and Company (Blanck, 1996). Despite the po:rsistent be lief .mong employers

th.t accommod.t ion, may bo ,,"'lIy (Hcm.ndcz cl al ., 20(0), data from th i, study ,ugg",t othe,w,se. Surp"'ongly, w, th in the retail «<tur (wh= accommod.tions were reponed by employ""s), many more were mentioned by both employe", with and without disab il ities. For bo,h group" the mO<t frequcnlly woo accommo· dation wa, change, to the ,,"urk sdedule. Often, the provision of "ccommodatlon' is Vlewod for indi\'id", ls with disabilities. Findings from 'he retail """tor sugge" tha, =mmoda'ions may h.ve broader .pplicabili ty and benefit. Although 'pttulati\'e, the retail 5CCto, may bo ,n a boaer posi1ion to olTer flexible schedules whcn compared to the he.ltheare .nd ho,p ital ity """'ors. and this fle~ibility .ppe.rs to bo benefi'ing all employccs. Alternatively, the he.lthe.", and h()';pitality """tors may not be capturing fu lly accommodations that both ",'orkers with .nd without disabili1ies benefit from.

In addition to examining six cost·benefit ~ariables, thi, study found that people wi1h disab ili tie, were emp loyed in a ,'aricty of position •. Although many employcrs (Hernandez ct aI., 200S) ond the public (Parcnt & E"orson, 1986) tend to view workers with disabilities in entry Ie\'el and semi .• killed po, ition" prio, research has shown considerable occupationa l diversity within 1he disab led workforce (l>uPont. 1993; Parent & Everson). Particular1y note· worthy, when compared to U.S . Census Bureau (2002) data for Ihe total civilian labor force, rcrcentases for our p"nicipanlS wi1h di,abilities holding positions as (I) ,himiniSirath-e Shpporl Workers, (2) I'mfe.,.ionau, and (3) Offidau and Manag~n w=

" Journal of Rehabililafion, v"lume 76. Number 3

generally .;milar. Tn contrasl, &rvice II"'"",,.,. were over-repre­<enloo in our sample Qf part;cip.nto with di$abili tics •• nd may be reflective of the three se<lors mvolvro "11th this study_

Limilalio", First, n:,ullf; from this study are based on thl« sectors

(he.hocare, retail, .nd hospitality) from the ChIcago arca; lhore_ fore, the generalizabili.y of find,ngs .0 o!her businc," =tors and regions is unknown. S<:cond. given the ..,nsi'ive .nd complc, naNre of .his researeh .• 1\<:", wccc challcng .. wi.h recrui.ing eom_ pani.s and employ~s, II is possible .ha. rosu l .. wou ld ha," dif­fCTed if non-responding companies and employees had chosen \0

panicipa ••. Third. difliculties w.'" apparent when gathering employee dau from the bu,ines,,,. w,!h each varying in .he type' and am"un" of employee records kept Au result, group sizes for eacb vanable We'" incon,i,tent. wi'h 'enu", having the l.rgC$! and supervision having .he small ... group sizes. MOTlXlver. when con· sidering group sizes, !he hospitali.y sector had only 4 groups of employttS rqJ""",n'ed, Founh. when defining disability. this study relied on 5elf-repon and .he firs. prong of .he ADA', defini· tion; it i. understood that there is much deM.e in .he field on how disabili.y should be defined (Stapleton, Burkhauscr. & Houtenvi lle, 20(4). We also did not collect informa.ion on dis· ability.ype beeause: (I) collaborating organizations and advisory group mem""rs fell strongly !hat 'his study .hould focus on the abilities of workers with' disahili.ies and no •• heir particular type of disability; (2) the response rate could have been redllCed funher had such informalion been gMhered; and (3) da$sifying disability type for the general poblie posed challenges, Wi.h all the ofo",· men.ioned li mitations in mind, generalizatiollS beyond the scope of this study should be made with caUlion.

, Conclusion

A. the disobili.y community aims for full inClusion in Our $O(;iety, collecting objective dau on the costs and hen.flts of work .... wi!h di .. bili!ieo can playa vi",1 role in comMting neg.­tive poercep.ion" As 0 whole. findings iMicated tha. the worl< vari· abies of employees witb disabili.ies were often cos.·neutral, Although this study does leave some important question, for future researcb, it adds much needed data 10 this limited body of research, Hopefully, ",searchu$ will CQTl'inu<! to address the costs and beoofits of work .... with disabilitieo using objective ~thods, and thot such data are rsed to inform policies and programs that promote the employability of thi. talented workforce.

Acknowledgement W. wi.., to acknowledge the contributioru; of our partn .... at

disabililywori:s, Chkagoland Cham\x:T of CommtrCC (ccq, ChicagO'S M.yor·, Dffice for People with Disabilities (MOPD), and Chicago'. Mayor's Dffice of Workforce Developmen. (MOWD). We an: also appreciative of the commitment and sup­pon of our ponicipa'ing bus;n ....... and employees. Without them, Ibi. project would no. have Ix:en po$Sible. Lastly. We extend our appm:;i.tion 10 Robert Cimera, Elizalx:th Harin, Jessica Velco1T. Oscar Oonoso, Jay Rosen, Marielle Divilbiss, Anno Kushnir, Dan Schober. Nicole lePera. Elizabeth Bramow, and Manna Shohna.

The JIIinois Department of Comm."", and £collOmic Dpporfun,ty (OCEO) and MOPO provided fundmg for Ihis project. The "pin ­ions expressed here arc or the .whors .nd do !lOt necessarily reflecl Ihe opinion. of our partners or funding organization,_ Thc author:s C<Jooucted m",' of this ,,--.card while affiliated willi DePaul University and wish to acknowledge 'he support received by YAIINalion.1 Institute for People with Disabilities and Portland State University in C<Jmple1ing thi, wort.

References H.lcazar. 1'., Taylor, R., Kielhofner, G, Tamley, K .. Benziger. T.,

Carlin, N .. & Johnson. S . (2004). Panicipatory Action Research (PAR): G<:neral principle. and a case s.udy with Chronic Fa.igue Syndrome. In L. Jason, C, Key>. Y. Suarez-Bakazar, R, Taylor, M. Davi,. J. [)url.k, & D. Isenberg (Eds,) Parlicipo.tory Communily R<'st'a,-ch: Th~ori~~ and Melhods i" AClion , (pp, 17-35). Washing.on. DC: American Psychological Associali""

Blanck. r. D. (1996). Communicaling Ihe Americans ~'ilh

Di.abilitie~ ACI. Transcending Compliance: 1996 Follow-up R~/xm on s"ars, Roebuck and Co. iowa City iowa,

Cim~ R. E. (2002). The monetary benefits and costs of hiring supponed employees: A primer. Journal of Vocalional Rehabililalion. 11. 23_32.

Cimera, R. E. (2006). The monetary benefits and costs of hiring supponed employees: Rcvi. ited. Journal of V<>ealicmal Rehabililalion. U. 137_144.

D~Pan. de Nemours ond Company (1993). Equal to the Thsk fI: 1990 1Jt,Pom Sutvq of Employmenl of People -..-ilh Di.abililie. Wilming.on, DE: DuPont de Nemours and Company,

Graffam, J., Smith, K., Shinkfidd, A., & Polzin. U. (2002). Employer Ix:n.fits and costs of employing a person with a di<abili.y. Journal of V<>eariolUll Rehabililaticm, 17, 251 -263.

GT«11wood, R., & Johnson. V.A. (1987). Employer perspec.ives on wort.rs with disabilities. Journal of Relwbilitarwn, 53,37-45.

Hemandez, B., Corneta, M. J., Veicolf, J ., Rosen, J., Schober, D., & Luna, R. D. (2007), Perspectives of people with di.­abilities 00 employment, vocatiooal rehabilitation, and the Ticket \0 Wolk progrnm. Journal of V<>ealicmal Rchabililarion,27, !91_201.

Hernandez, B., Key<, c., & BaleWll', F. (2000). Employer orti­tudes toward workers with disabilities and their ADA employment righlli: A literature review. Journal of ReAabililation. 66. 4_16.

Hemandez, B, McDonald, K., Divilbis<, M., Borin, E., Velcoff, J., & Donoso, D. (2008). Reflections from employers oolhe disabled workforce: Focu. groups with b<:althcare, hos­piulity, and retail administrators. Employee Rights and Resp<J",;bililies Journal. 20, 151·164.

Job A<xommOOatioo Network (1999). A"",mmodalion Mftll"",e_ fit dala. Retrieved May 22, 2007 from http~lwww. jan.wvu.edulmedio/StaWlknCo,ts0799.html

loumal afR~hab.loralion. Volume 76. Number 3

Johnson. V. A .. Gre.nwood, R .• &. Schrm",. K, f . (\988), Work ""rfunnane. &00 work pc:noruIluy: Employ", concern. OboUI work«. wilh diNob.htie.. RdobUiM,ion C""IIS~/i/Og Bulle,m. 11. SG-~7,

l.opn:>. P .. &. M""110 E. (2001). Barriers and '",>porI< fix ""'* among adults ... 'i,1r disalHli,iu: Results fro ... 1M NIIlS-O Washing!On. DC, n.e UrbM lrumute

McFarlin. D. 0 .. Son" J., &. Soontaa. M (1991). Int"Jl1'n"l': !hr dl$abled onto Ih< work force, A....-vey of Fortune SOIl complny 11Iuudcs Ind IJ<*Cucel. £",ployu RespotUibililia ,,"" Rtghts ./ounuJ/. 4. 107· 1ll.

M(>(IIl:. T. ) .. &: Cnmando, W. (199~). Al1nudcl.owud Tide I of the Americans wuh I)'SllHhucs Ac!. RnoolHlj,o,jon Cot.utsdurg Bullefi~. J8. 232-2.7 .

N.~ionll Council 011 DiSlbih!y (2007), £"'PO""'''''~''' for Ame"""'" ... ,Ir duobtlilies. BreaL"1l ~ to <'4tWfl'

olld full m!pIOY"'eM \\-'NI,,"&IO<I. DC. l'am>t. W. &: Everson. J. (19&6). Compeu.'l1Clcs of dIsabled ......,,-t.

en in ioou,U')': A ,.,v;"w ofbuslI'CSS \I!<nnu,.,. l",,,,,ol

aj!WtalHliloIWn. '1. 16-23. Rchabiliwion R<;Scmb Ind Tnllnln& Cen1er on l)iSlblh!y

DemographIcs and SUltiSlICI (2007). 1()()6 D/sa1H/i1jl S/OIUS Re{J<)r/$. 11h&Cll, NY: Cornell Univcnity,

RQeS.l ... R.T., &: Sumner. G (1997). Employ .. opInions about accommoda1i"i employ«s wIth chronic illne,... lou.nol of Applied Relra'bllilallon CoulIJdi/Og. 18. 29-H.

Stapleton. I),C, Bu,kl,au"",. R, V .. &. lIoutcnvilie. A,J, (2004), II •• 1he employ~m rate of peop le wIth dlybiliti", dedincd? Policy brief. Rehabilitation Rcscar~h and Trainin& Center for EcotlOmic Resc~~h on E",plo~mcnl Policy for Personl WIth DISabilities. RC1rieved OctOb<-r 2S, 2008. from ht!l':/ldigi IIlcomn>Otll, i I ,.comell.eduled icol­lcc1f92.

Taylor, H, (2000). COIIjIicli.i, TrtIWh In E,.,ploy"'~nI <>J Pft}pl~ wj,A OUabilitia 1986-1{)()(). RocheSler, New York: Ham> InlCf1lClI~.

U.S. Ccn.us O"",.u (2000). Celtllll 1{)()() ££0 {)au. 11>01. Retrinod AUgWlI 15, 2008, from http://www. CCIlSIII.&OV/ceollJOO.'

Wallen. S. E.. &: Baker. Co M. (1996). Title: I of the Nnericans with Oi$&bilitico ACC Employer and """",ter uticudes toward ir>dividuill .. ;11\ d'sabilities. Jo~nuzl of RelulJ<llIaoo.. AdMI"ufT'IJfio;t, 20, 15-23.

Wilguoh, L. &: Skarot, D. (1981). EmpIoytr lllIicudes toward bit­in& indiVlduali with dlSIbililic:t: A ..,view of the recent U!enru.... CanadiJul ./ounuJ1 oj' R~lIabili'a'ioIt, I. 8~98.

"