The Economic Impact Study

1. The Economic Impact Study Brigida Hernandez, PhD DePaul University January 28, 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 Only 40% of AWD are employed (compared to 80% without disabilities) Employer concerns with costs (productivity, supervision, and accommodations) Sears and DuPont provide (1) limited data (one company), (2) outdated data (over a decade old), and (3) non-local data Only 40% of AWD are employed (compared to 80% without disabilities) Employer concerns with costs (productivity, supervision, and accommodations) Sears and DuPont provide (1) limited data (one company), (2) outdated data (over a decade old), and (3) non-local data

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). Task force recognized the importance of a CB study Task force recognized the importance of a CB study

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. From these general questions, five themes emerged across the three sectors.From these general questions, five themes emerged across the three sectors.

9. Focus Group Findings 1) Disability employment agencies and disability advocates were critical for recruiting and hiring workers with disabilities. Many companies worked with disability employment agencies Had positive experiences with them Concerns with continuity of services Disability �champions� needed to be in powerful positions to influence changeMany companies worked with disability employment agencies Had positive experiences with them Concerns with continuity of services Disability �champions� needed to be in powerful positions to influence change

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. Managers concern with increased supervision, increased absenteeism, and lower productivity Manager biases often linked to lack of experiences with wwd and lack of ADA knowledgeManagers concern with increased supervision, increased absenteeism, and lower productivity Manager biases often linked to lack of experiences with wwd and lack of ADA knowledge

11. Focus Group Findings 3) Promotion opportunities were limited for workers with disabilities with many identified as holding and remaining in entry-level positions. Employer and employee contributorsEmployer and employee contributors

12. Focus Group Findings 4) Costs associated with workers with disabilities were minimal and worth the expense. Focus on accommodationsFocus on accommodations

13. Focus Group Findings 5) Benefits associated with workers with disabilities included having dedicated and reliable employees and a more diverse workforce. low absenteeism long tenure rates loyal, reliable, and hard-working low absenteeism long tenure rates loyal, reliable, and hard-working

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) 13 companies marked improvement over Sears and DuPont studies 13 companies marked improvement over Sears and DuPont studies

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) Permanent physical or mental impairment that substantially limits 1 or more major life activities Disability status released to DePaul researchers onlyPermanent physical or mental impairment that substantially limits 1 or more major life activities Disability status released to DePaul researchers only

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 Approximately 2.3 employees without disabilities were matched with each employee with a disability Matched by company and positionApproximately 2.3 employees without disabilities were matched with each employee with a disability Matched by company and position

19. Job Categories of Participants with Disabilities 38% service workers 16% administrative support workers 15% professionals 10% officials and managers With the exception of services workers, the percentage are generally consistent with the overall US civilian workforce Service workers were over-represented in our sample and reflect the nature of the 3 sectors 38% service workers 16% administrative support workers 15% professionals 10% officials and managers With the exception of services workers, the percentage are generally consistent with the overall US civilian workforce Service workers were over-represented in our sample and reflect the nature of the 3 sectors

20. Healthcare insurance and tax credit questions were also part of survey Insufficient data prevented adequate analysis (e.g., use of outside vendors for health care) For the other six variables, companies varied in how much data they were able to provide us, as a result group sizes vary depending on the variableHealthcare insurance and tax credit questions were also part of survey Insufficient data prevented adequate analysis (e.g., use of outside vendors for health care) For the other six variables, companies varied in how much data they were able to provide us, as a result group sizes vary depending on the variable

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

22. 1) TENURE Strongest variable (94 groups) PWD on the job longer (4.26 months)Strongest variable (94 groups) PWD on the job longer (4.26 months)

23. 1) TENURE Participants with disabilities from the retail and 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. However, a closer look by sector ---However, a closer look by sector ---

24. 2) ABSENTEEISM �Known in advance absences� (e.g., vacation and personal days) During a 6-month period PWD 1.24 fewer days No major sector differences noted Hospitality had only 1 group with absenteeism data �Known in advance absences� (e.g., vacation and personal days) During a 6-month period PWD 1.24 fewer days No major sector differences noted Hospitality had only 1 group with absenteeism data

25. 2) ABSENTEEISM �Not known in advance� absences During 6-month period PWD had 1.13 more days of unscheduled absences �Not known in advance� absences During 6-month period PWD had 1.13 more days of unscheduled absences

26. 2) 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. However, sector trends were evident ---However, sector trends were evident ---

27. 3) JOB PERFORMANCE Based on performance evaluations 1 = needs improvement, 2 = meets expectations, 3 = exceeds expectations No sector differences noted Consistent with findings from Sears and DuPont A very positive findingBased on performance evaluations 1 = needs improvement, 2 = meets expectations, 3 = exceeds expectations No sector differences noted Consistent with findings from Sears and DuPont A very positive finding

28. 4) SUPERVISION 6-month period 1 = requires less supervision, 2 = requires same supervision, 3 = requires more supervision than other workers Consistent finding across the sectors Another very positive finding, consistent with Sears and DuPont studies6-month period 1 = requires less supervision, 2 = requires same supervision, 3 = requires more supervision than other workers Consistent finding across the sectors Another very positive finding, consistent with Sears and DuPont studies

29. 5) NUMBER OF WORKER�S COMPENSATION CLAIMS During 6-month period PWD had .34 more claims (keep in mind that their number is still low) Only statistically significant findingDuring 6-month period PWD had .34 more claims (keep in mind that their number is still low) Only statistically significant finding

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 (2.29 and 0.42 claims respectively). However, sector differences were evident --- Insufficient data on costs of these claimsHowever, sector differences were evident --- Insufficient data on costs of these claims

31. 6) ACCOMODATIONS Accommodations data collected in two ways (from employers and employees) Data are not grouped All provided to EWD Very few accommodations were reported by employersAccommodations data collected in two ways (from employers and employees) Data are not grouped All provided to EWD Very few accommodations were reported by employers

32. 6) ACCOMODATIONS Average cost was minimal and consistent with Job Accommodation Network (JAN) dataAverage cost was minimal and consistent with Job Accommodation Network (JAN) data

33. 6) ACCOMODATIONS With consent form and disability status information, employees were asked if their employers had provided accommodations to help them perform the essential functions of their jobs. Employees (with and without disabilities) reported more accommodations than the employers Changes to work schedule ranked first suggesting that flexibility of retail industry benefits both workers with and without disabilities Because employee reported, unable to collect info on costsWith consent form and disability status information, employees were asked if their employers had provided accommodations to help them perform the essential functions of their jobs. Employees (with and without disabilities) reported more accommodations than the employers Changes to work schedule ranked first suggesting that flexibility of retail industry benefits both workers with and without disabilities Because employee reported, unable to collect info on costs

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. In addition to the positive findings with job performance and supervision � In addition to the positive findings with job performance and supervision �

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) This is a starting point (exploratory study) Additional data are needed to verify our findingsThis is a starting point (exploratory study) Additional data are needed to verify our findings

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) Participating businesses 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