Employment is a crucial part of adult life and is associated with improved health outcomes (Cocks et al., Reference Cocks, Thoresen and Lee2015) as well as general life satisfaction (Lucas et al., Reference Lucas, Clark, Georgellis and Diener2004). However, despite legal efforts, including the Americans with Disabilities Act (Katz & DeRose, Reference Katz and DeRose2010), individuals with disabilities continue to face discrimination and marginalisation, resulting in low employment rates. According to the 2017 American Community Survey, the employment rate for working-age individuals without disabilities (79.4%) is more than double the employment rate for individuals with disabilities (37.3%; Erickson, Lee, & Von Schrader, Reference Erickson, Lee and Von Schrader2017). Further, reports indicate that only 16% of individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) were employed in 2015 (Hiersteiner et al., Reference Hiersteiner, Bershadsky, Bonardi and Butterworth2016), demonstrating that people with IDD suffer from even lower employment rates compared to people with other disabilities. Unfortunately, the significant employment gap between people with and without disabilities has steadily grown since 2008 (Kraus, Reference Kraus2017), which is why increasing our understanding of the challenges and concerns that employers face when it comes to recruiting, hiring, and retaining individuals with IDD is critical.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) intellectual disability is present when an individual is limited in their ability to learn ‘at an expected level and function in daily life’ (CDC, 2018, p. 1). The term ‘developmental disability’ has a broader meaning that describes the presence of intellectual disability, physical disability, or both (CDC, 2019). Common developmental disabilities include autism spectrum disorder (ASD), attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and intellectual disability. Thus, in this study, the term ‘IDD’ is used when an intellectual disability co-occurs with other disabilities. While recent research indicates growing efforts to prepare individuals with IDD for independent living and gainful employment (Burke et al., Reference Burke, Wagner, Marolda, Quintana and Maddux2019), impactful initiatives are still necessary to bridge the employment gap, in order to create and sustain a diverse and inclusive workforce.
Common Barriers Impacting Employment Rates
Successful employment opportunities for individuals with IDD rest on the availability of appropriate employment options and support systems at work. Most importantly, it depends on the attitudes of employers and their willingness to employ those with IDD (Burge et al., Reference Burge, Ouellette-Kuntz and Lysaght2007). According to Erickson et al. (Reference Erickson, VanLooy, von Schrader and Bruyère2018), commonly cited barriers to employment for people with disabilities, in general, include the availability of qualified candidates, sufficient training, and impediments associated with employment skills (i.e., supply-side barriers), and organisational culture, beliefs regarding costs, and negative attitudes among workers (i.e., demand-side barriers). Unfortunately, individuals with IDD tend to suffer from greater stigmatisation when it comes to employment, in comparison to individuals with other disabilities (Kersh, Reference Kersh2011). As such, companies are often hesitant to facilitate disability employment practices specifically for individuals with IDD out of concern for increased organisational costs (Ellenkamp et al., Reference Ellenkamp, Brouwers, Embregts, Joosen and van Weeghel2016a), and the belief that individuals with disabilities do not possess the necessary skills to complete job tasks successfully (Scheef et al., Reference Scheef, Barrio, Poppen, McMahon and Miller2018).
While the belief that people with IDD simply cannot perform the work is perhaps the greatest barrier to employment, Scior and Werner (Reference Scior and Werner2016) describe many stigmas (including the belief that most people with IDD are unemployable or should only work in ‘special’ workshops) that contribute to low employment outcomes among this population. Other reported barriers include inadequate knowledge and training about antidiscrimination legislation and accommodations, and the absence of disability as a defined group in an organisation’s mission, policies, and procedures (Chan et al., Reference Chan, Strauser, Maher, Lee, Jones and Johnson2010).
Another significant barrier to employment is the fact that fewer people with IDD attend postsecondary education (PSE). According to Griffin et al. (Reference Griffin, McMillan and Hodapp2010), parent and teacher perspectives were inconsistent when asked whether a PSE program was an option after high school. Teachers were less encouraging, while parents often felt their child would benefit from attending a PSE program. Further, more than half of the parents in this study reported that the scope of their child’s Individualized Education Plan (IEP) did not go beyond high school. A lack of information about planning for PSE programs was also cited a barrier to PSE for children with intellectual disability (Grigal et al., 2010). Given these findings, young adults with intellectual disability are reported to have the lowest rate of PSE attendance beyond high school in comparison to other disabilities (Newman et al., Reference Newman, Wagner, Knokey, Marder, Nagle, Shaver and Wei2011). However, with the revision of the Higher Education Opportunity Act in 2008 (Higher Education Opportunity Act, 2008) as well as the introduction of legislation including the Achieving a Better Life Experience Act in 2014 (see Rephan & Groshek, Reference Rephan and Groshek2016) and the Workforce Innovation Opportunity Act in 2014 (see Hoff, n.d.), the number of young adults with IDD participating in PSE is increasing.
Since 2008, the number of PSE programs has grown exponentially from 49 to approximately 280 in the US, which has helped to increase the employment rates among this population of individuals (Butler et al., Reference Butler, Sheppard-Jones, Whaley, Harrison and Osness2016). Many of these programs, called Transition and Postsecondary Education Programs for Students with Intellectual Disability (or TPSID projects), are federally funded and coordinated by ThinkCollege (Grigal & Hart, Reference Grigal and Hart2010). ThinkCollege is a national organisation that develops and expands PSE options for young adults with intellectual disability by supporting TPSID and other programs, evaluating TPSID programs, and readying middle-school students for transition, among other initiatives.
Despite these efforts, even PSE programs can struggle to find students with IDD employment opportunities due to several different reasons. For example, employer attitudes and perceptions about the abilities of people with IDD and a lack of available support personnel within organisations were both cited as ‘critical barriers’ to providing students from a PSE program with work experience (Scheef et al., Reference Scheef, Barrio, Poppen, McMahon and Miller2018). Therefore, despite significant improvements in this area, research indicates that even individuals with IDD who have PSE can experience underemployment, low job retention rates, difficulty adjusting to new job environments and earn less than their neurotypical peers (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2017; Hendricks, Reference Hendricks2010).
Since fewer individuals with disabilities attend PSE, they tend to occupy part-time or temporary positions at a higher rate compared to other people (Schur, Reference Schur2002). For example, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the percentage of individuals without disabilities who work full-time (60.3%) is more than double the percentage of individuals with disabilities working in full-time employment (23.9%). For people with IDD, this problem is even greater, as those who can find employment consistently work only part-time (on average only 13 hours per week) in entry-level positions with less access to benefits and low pay (Hiersteiner et al., Reference Hiersteiner, Bershadsky, Bonardi and Butterworth2016; Winsor et al., Reference Winsor, Timmons, Butterworth, Shepard, Landa, Smith and Landim2017).
Despite the difficulty people with IDD face gaining employment, many of these individuals report having work goals and the intention to work within the next five years (Livermore et al., Reference Livermore, Bardos and Katz2017). As such, they should be afforded the same benefits that come with having full-time work, such as feeling more integrated within the community and having a purpose, financial autonomy, independence, and so on (Ellenkamp et al., Reference Ellenkamp, Brouwers, Embregts, Joosen and van Weeghel2016b). There are many benefits to hiring individuals with disabilities, including increased profitability, competitive advantage, inclusive culture, and ability awareness (Lindsay et al., Reference Lindsay, Cagliostro, Albarico, Mortaji and Karon2018), and several cited benefits specifically for the IDD population, including increased attention to detail and work ethic (Scott et al., Reference Scott, Jacob, Hendrie, Parsons, Girdler, Falkmer and Falkmer2017). Therefore, not only it is crucial that employers are made more aware of the benefits of being inclusive, but they also need to be exposed to strategies that have been successful in helping organisations recruit, hire, and retain individuals with IDD.
Initiatives To Increase Hiring
Efforts have been made by the U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Disability Employment Policy (ODEP), to support employers who are willing to hire individuals with IDD. Initiatives such as the Employer Assistance and Resource Network on Disability Inclusion (EARN), Workforce Recruitment Program for College Students with Disabilities (WRP), and Job Accommodation Network (JAN), have been designed to enhance employment opportunities. Specifically, ODEP’s Campaign for Disability Employment aims to increase awareness of the value people with disabilities add to the economy and positively shift their acceptance in workspaces (U.S. Department of Labor, n.d.).
Vocational rehabilitation (VR) programs or other supported employment agencies are a popular option for individuals with IDD who might be seeking assistance in obtaining gainful employment (Hendricks, Reference Hendricks2010). Individuals with IDD who have support from VR or other support providers have been found to have greater emotional well-being, increased productivity, an increased understanding of their work role, and are more likely to understand and comply with rules and policies (Beyer et al., Reference Beyer, Brown, Akandi and Rapley2010). However, the length of time a VR or supported agency remains in a supportive role once individuals with IDD are employed varies considerably, which is why organisations must have the infrastructure in place to be able to fully support employees with IDD once their partnership ends.
Despite the introduction of these initiatives and programs, a 2014 survey of employer perspectives on the employment of people with disabilities, conducted by the Families and Work Institute (Matos, Reference Matos2014), found that only 39% of companies had a formal plan that included provisions for hiring and retaining people with disabilities, 9% had a formal plan that did not include any provisions, and 50% did not have any formal staffing plan to hire or retain individuals with disabilities. Therefore, employer training on laws and policies related to hiring and retention, in addition to clarifying misconceptions held about individuals with disabilities, have been suggested as key topics to address employer concerns (Lindstrom et al., Reference Lindstrom, Kahn and Lindsey2013).
Since improving relationships between employers and support services can ‘create a greater focus on work participation of employees with ID’ (Ellenkamp et al., Reference Ellenkamp, Brouwers, Embregts, Joosen and van Weeghel2016a, p. 66), an employment conference was organised that brought together employers in the local community and experts from companies with successful inclusion programs to address this significant employment gap and encourage the implementation of these recommendations. Specifically, this conference aimed to demonstrate strategies and methods that have been successful in improving employment outcomes for people with IDD, to encourage the creation of local partnerships, and to increase our understanding of current employer practices and barriers to recruiting, hiring, and retaining individuals with IDD.
Methods
FIU Embrace is a university-wide initiative at Florida International University that promotes health, wellness, and overall functioning for young adults with IDD. An employment conference was organised by FIU Embrace in March 2018, which brought together a group of employers who have implemented programs within their organisations and have successfully maintained the employment of individuals with IDD. Speakers included leaders from Ekkobar and Walgreens, who discussed the benefits of neurodiversity in the workforce and shared their organisational strategies and initiatives aimed at increasing the number of employed individuals with developmental disabilities. Other speakers included the US Business Leadership Network (USBLN) president and chief executive officer, who delineated the company’s efforts to increase international disability inclusion. Multiple panel discussions also included members of the community with disabilities who have successfully gained employment and have excelled in their positions. Additionally, Baptist Health, South Florida, and Freddie Mac described their paid internship programs, which intend to integrate members of this population into employment. Overall, the conference offered participants the opportunity to network with colleagues from various industries, connect with supported employment organisations, and learn about various models for creating a diverse workforce.
The conference agenda began with a welcome session held from 8:30 to 8:40 am, followed by an overview of FIU Embrace. From 9.00 am to 9:20 am, a session titled ‘Are We Truly Inclusive?’ was presented by USBLN, and from 9:25-9:35 am, an employment initiative was presented by Autism Speaks. A keynote address titled ‘Why I Hired a Workforce Others Overlook’ was then presented by a leader in disability inclusion, a networking session, and a panel discussion titled, ‘Creating and Sustaining Systemic Change Within an Organization’ presented by members from Baptist Health and Freddie Mac. This was followed by two keynote speakers, one from an alum of the Florida ABLE Trust Youth Leadership Forum, and the other from Ekkobar. At 1.30 pm, a panel discussion titled ‘Supporting and Building a Diverse Workforce’ took place, with panelists from Walgreens, Viability, Holland and Knight, and Best Buddies. This panel was followed by another networking session, and a panel run by leaders from Hidden Talent LLC and The Dan Marino Foundation titled ‘The Evolution of Employment Practices’. The conference ended at 4.45 pm with closing remarks and a call to action. Specifically, this call to action urged employers to either expand their current initiatives for hiring and retaining individuals with IDD or create new inclusive programs.
Data Collection
Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval was obtained prior to data collection. Before the conference, participants completed an online questionnaire with questions targeting different aspects that can affect organisations or business owner’s decision to hire people with IDD. Attendees then participated in the conference. After the conference, participants completed a satisfaction survey. The preconference survey questions were derived from the Survey of Employer Perspectives on the Employment of People with Disabilities (Domzal et al., Reference Domzal, Houtenville and Sharma2008), which was created by the U.S. Department of Labor, ODEP.
Participants
Overall, 44 individuals completed the survey. Ages of participants ranged from 23 to 72, and the majority identified as female (63.6%), White (85%), and Hispanic or Latino (57.5%). The majority of participants reported having received a bachelor’s degree (29.5%) or a master’s degree (43.2%). Participants self-reported their occupation, and these were grouped into three broad areas: (a) business management, (b) supported employment, and (c) other occupations. Within the business management category (n = 20), most participants worked in human resources (n = 6) or were store managers (n = 3) or consultants (n = 3), with the rest reporting working as a vice president, chief executive officer, businessman, in management (n = 2), executive director, director, and administrator. Within the supported employment category (n = 18), most participants worked as waiver support coordinators (n = 7), supported living coaches (n = 2), director of rehabilitation programs (n = 2), or employment specialists (n = 2), while the rest reported working as a transition specialist, access consultant, disability inclusion specialist, employment advocacy, and employment placement. Finally, in the ‘other’ category (n = 6), participants reported working as an author and consultant, bar worker, physician, in restaurant franchises, as a certified public accountant, and as a registered nurse. Several sectors of industry were represented (e.g., finance, education, health, technology, government, manufacturing, retail, and professional), with the majority belonging to an ‘other services’ category (29.5%). Finally, 50% of participants worked within a large company of more than 250 employees.
Measures and Data Analysis
The preconference survey asked participants to respond to several questions regarding their current recruitment practices, strategies, or information that they would find helpful for recruiting and hiring people with IDD, hiring challenges, and retention challenges. First, participants selected which methods of recruitment they currently used (postings at job service or workforce employment centres, college and university career centres, postings at disability-related publications, websites, independent living centres or job fairs, or partnerships with disability-related advocacy organisations) and whether they include people with IDD in diversity recruitment goals or have established summer internship and mentoring programs. Next, participants selected which type of information would be helpful to ready their company (or company[s]) to actively recruit people with IDD (e.g., satisfactory job performance, attendance, and retention statistics, increases to company’s productivity, benefits to company’s bottom line, benefits to other companies in the same industry, supporting statistics or research, testimonials from human resource managers, senior executives, or line managers, benefitted nationally recognised companies, and information that addresses concerns about costs). The next question asked participants to identify their challenges regarding hiring people with IDD. Challenges included the nature of the work, not knowing how much accommodations cost, the difficulty in finding qualified applicants, and so on, and were rated on a 3-point scale (1 = not a challenge, 2 = somewhat a challenge, 3 = major challenge).
Participants then rated their concerns with hiring people with IDD on a 3-point scale (1 = not a concern, 2 = somewhat of a concern, 3 = major concern). An example concern was ‘people with IDD may not be as safe and productive as other workers’. Participants then rated which hiring strategies (e.g., mentoring, assistive technology, disability awareness training, flexible work schedules) would be helpful on a 3-point scale (1 = not very helpful, 2 = somewhat helpful, 3 = very helpful). Last, participants rated their challenges with the retention (e.g., lack of advancement potential, the actual cost of accommodating a disability, attitudes of customers) of employees with IDD (1 = not a challenge, 2 = somewhat a challenge, 3 = major challenge). Demographics such as age, sex, education, race, ethnicity, occupation, industry sector, and company size were also gathered. Descriptive statistics were conducted on all preconference survey questions.
An ordinal logistic regression was conducted on all questions involving three response categories (e.g., major concern, somewhat of a concern, and not a concern) to examine whether responses differed by various demographic variables. Finally, satisfaction with the overall conference was assessed with a post-survey asking participants to rate nine satisfaction items on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (very dissatisfied) to 5 (very satisfied). Finally, participants also responded to two items asking whether the conference changed their ideas/attitudes towards disability and whether they are more likely to employ individuals with IDD after the conference.
Results
When participants (N = 44) were presented with a list of options used to recruit applicants with IDD, the most commonly selected avenues were via postings at job service or workforce employment centres (45.5%), partnerships with disability-related advocacy organisations (38.6%), and through contacting college and university career centres (34.1%). When asked about which information would be helpful to ready companies for recruiting individuals with IDD, most participants selected that they would find having information about satisfactory job performance, attendance, and retention statistics (65.9%) to be helpful.
In response to questions about the main challenges faced when hiring people with IDD, the majority of participants reported that the nature of the work (59.5%), not knowing how much accommodations will cost (48.6%), difficulty finding qualified applicants with IDD (50%), actual cost of accommodating a disability (56.8%), and cost of specialised training (54.1%), were somewhat of a challenge, while the same number of participants reported concerns about the cost of worker compensation premiums as somewhat of a challenge and not a challenge (45.9%). Finally, the majority of participants reported that concerns about the cost of healthcare coverage (52.8%), fear of litigation (56.8%), lack of knowledge or information about this workforce (43.2%), discomfort or unfamiliarity with this workforce (44.7%), and attitudes of customers (47.2%), coworkers (54.1%), and supervisors (51.4%) as not a challenge.
Most participants reported that the following statements were not a concern when it comes to hiring people with IDD: ‘It costs more to employ workers with IDD’ (68.6%); ‘People with IDD may not be as safe and productive as other workers’ (55.6%); ‘Supervisors are not sure how to take disciplinary action’ (41.7%); ‘Supervisors are not sure how to evaluate employees with IDD’ (44.4%); and ‘That supervisors are not comfortable with managing employees with IDD’ (47.2%). Finally, most participants reported that the statement, ‘People with IDD lack the skills and experience to do our jobs’, was somewhat of a concern (45.9%).
In response to questions asking about which hiring strategies would be helpful, the majority of participants reported that employer tax credits and incentives (62.2%), disability awareness training (65.8%), visible top management commitment (62.2%), mentoring (73.7%), assistive technology (52.6%), using specialised recruiting sources (44.7%), flexible work schedules (59.5%), training existing staff (59.5%), on-site consultations or technical assistance (52.8%), disability targeted internship programs (62.2%), and centralised accommodation funds (47.2%), would be very helpful, while the majority reported that reassignment would be somewhat helpful (42.9%).
When asked about specific challenges faced in the retention of employees with IDD, the majority of participants reported that finding a way to return employees to work (44.4%), concerns about the cost of workers compensation (61.3%), concern about the cost of healthcare coverage (53.6%), and the attitudes of coworkers (56.7%) and supervisors (53.3%), were not a challenge’ The same percentage of participants reported that the actual cost of accommodating a person with IDD was not a challenge and somewhat of a challenge (45.2%). Finally, a lack of advancement potential (62.5%) and attitude of customers (45.2%) was mostly reported to be somewhat of a challenge to the retention of employees with IDD.
Table 1 shows the results of the ordinal logistic regression. For questions about hiring challenges, responses to fear of litigation significantly differed based on the industry sector. For a 1-unit increase in the industry sector (from health to service), we expect a 5.081 unit decrease in the ordered log-odds of finding fear of litigation more of a challenge, given all other variables in the model are held constant (p < .05). This indicates that participants in the health sector felt that fear of litigation was less of a challenge in relation to hiring employees with IDD, compared to participants in the service sector. Additionally, responses to ‘supervisor attitudes’ significantly differed based on race and ethnicity. For a 1-unit increase in race (from Black or African American to White), we expect a 6.877 unit increase in the ordered log-odds of finding supervisor attitudes to be more of a challenge, given all other variables in the model are held constant (p < .05). This indicates that White participants felt that supervisor attitudes were more of a challenge in relation to hiring employees with IDD, compared to Black or African American participants. For a 1-unit increase in ethnicity (from Hispanic/Latino to non-Hispanic/non-Latino), we expect a 4.941 unit increase in the ordered log-odds of finding supervisor attitudes to be more of a challenge, given all other variables in the model are held constant (p < .05). This indicates that non-Hispanic or Latino participants felt that fear of litigation was more of a challenge in relation to hiring employees with IDD, compared to Hispanic or Latino participants.
Ordinal Logistic Regression Results
Note:
* p < .05.
Reference level for factors: Sex — Female; Race — White; Ethnicity — non-Hispanic/Latino; Education — postgraduate degree; Company size — large (250 or more employees); Industry sector — service.
For questions asking about helpful hiring strategies, responses to having visible top management significantly differed based on company size. For a 1-unit increase in company size (from small 5–14 employees to large 250 or more employees), we expect a 3.335 unit decrease in the ordered log-odds of finding having visible top management to be a more useful hiring strategy, given all other variables in the model are held constant (p < .05). In other words, participants from smaller companies felt that having visible top management was more of a helpful hiring strategy, compared to participants from large-sized companies.
Additionally, responses to having a flexible work schedule differed by education and company size. For a 1-unit increase in education (from high school/college/certificate to postgraduate degree), we expect a 4.280 unit decrease in the ordered log-odds of finding flexible work schedules to be a more useful hiring strategy, given all other variables in the model are held constant (p < .05), and from bachelor’s degree to postgraduate degree (master’s, PhD, MD, or JD), we expect a 4.397 unit increase in the ordered log-odds of finding flexible work schedules to be a more useful hiring strategy, given all other variables in the model are held constant (p < .05). This indicates that participants with postgraduate degrees felt that having flexible work schedules was less of a helpful hiring strategy, compared to participants with high school/some college/certificate degrees, and more helpful compared to participants with bachelor’s degrees. Lastly, for a 1-unit increase in company size (from small to large), we expect a 4.839 unit decrease in the ordered log-odds of finding flexible work schedules to be a more useful hiring strategy, given all other variables in the model are held constant (p < .05). In other words, participants from smaller companies felt that having flexible work schedules was more of a helpful hiring strategy, compared to participants from large-sized companies.
Finally, regarding the satisfaction with the conference, on average, participants (N = 22) rated being satisfied with the following items: general organisation of the conference (M = 4.14, SD = 1.552); relevance of keynote speakers and presenters (M = 4.05, SD = 1.527); time allocated for discussion (M = 4.05, SD = 1.527); the distributed handouts and materials (M = 4.05, SD = 1.558); the venue and its facilities (M = 4.00, SD = 1.574); relevance of this conference to your current work or functions (M = 4.09, SD = 1.571); extent to which you have acquired information that was new to you (M = 3.73, SD = 1.518); usefulness of the information that you acquired (M = 3.91, SD = 1.509); and the extent to which this conference matched the announced objectives (M = 4.05, SD = 1.527). Finally, the majority of participants (N = 25) responded that they believed the conference had changed their ideas/attitudes towards disability (88%) and that they were more likely to employ individuals with IDD after the conference (100%).
Discussion
This study aimed to increase our understanding of practices and barriers regarding the recruitment, hire, and retention of individuals with IDD, and also to evaluate a one-day conference that aimed to demonstrate strategies and methods that have been successful in improving employment outcomes for people with IDD. Findings revealed that it was common practice to put postings at job service or workforce employment centres, and engage in partnerships with advocacy organisations and college career centres to recruit employees with IDD. Knowing that local employers and advocates report these avenues as being useful to recruit people with IDD is helpful, as supported employment agencies and PSE programs can target these areas to increase recruitment rates in the future. Participants also reported wanting more information about satisfactory job performance, attendance, and retention rates of people with IDD, as this would be helpful in their recruitment efforts. This finding demonstrates the importance of having initiatives that make the business case for hiring people with IDD more visible.
The most commonly reported challenges and concerns related to hiring people with IDD included the nature of the work, not knowing how much accommodations cost, difficulty finding qualified applicants, cost of specialised training, and the belief that some individuals with IDD lack the skills needed to perform the job. Previous research has indicated employer concerns regarding costs associated with hiring individuals with disabilities (Domzal et al., Reference Domzal, Houtenville and Sharma2008; Kaye et al., Reference Kaye, Jans and Jones2011), so it is not surprising that participants also reported costs relating to accommodations and training as being a challenge. However, in contrast to prior research, the cost of health care, fear of litigation, lack of knowledge or discomfort with disabilities, lack of safety or productivity, and attitudes or comfort level of customers, coworkers, or supervisors were not considered challenges or concerns when it came to hiring people with IDD. Interestingly, participants from the health sector perceived fear of litigation to be more of a challenge in terms of hiring individuals with IDD, compared to participants from the service sector (i.e., financial, informational, professional), while White and non-Hispanic participants reported supervisor attitudes to be more of a challenge regarding hiring people with IDD, compared to Black or African American or Hispanic or Latino participants. These findings indicate that certain characteristics can impact how employers perceive different factors to be a challenge with regard to the hiring process of individuals with IDD. Thus, future research needs to further examine the reason for these differences, so that more targeted interventions can be created.
Several strategies were highlighted as being helpful during the hiring process, including having a disability awareness training, having visible top management, mentoring programs, access to assistive technology, specialised recruitment sources, flexible work schedules, on-site training and consultations, disability-targeted internship programs, centralised accommodation funds, and knowing about employer tax credits and incentives. These findings can be used by support providers to provide organisations with the support and guidance they need to increase their hiring rates of employees with IDD. Further, participants from smaller companies also reported having visible top management and flexible work schedules to be more helpful hiring strategies, compared to participants from large-sized companies. In smaller companies, there is often less of a disparity between individuals of different hierarchy, compared to a large company with hundreds of employees, so having visible top management that shows support for inclusive initiatives is likely more important. Additionally, it may be easier for smaller companies to make schedules more flexible since there are fewer employees who will have to adapt to change. Future research should look to further examine the extent to which company size plays a role in the awareness of diversity and inclusion practices, as such information could be used to create more targeted interventions to increase the potential for increased awareness and knowledge of disabilities in the workplace.
Regarding the retention of employees with IDD, finding a way to return employees to work (for example, after temporary leave), the cost of worker compensation and attitudes of workers or supervisors were all reported as not being challenges. The finding concerning the attitudes of supervisors is encouraging, as prior research has indicated that supervisors may be uncomfortable overseeing employees with disabilities, particularly in regard to discipline and evaluation (Houtenville & Kalargyrou, Reference Houtenville and Kalargyrou2012). However, a lack of advancement potential and the attitudes of customers were cited as being more of a challenge in terms of retaining employees with IDD. While other research also indicates that a lack of promotion ability is a problem in terms of career development for employees with IDD, it is interesting that attitudes of customers were reported to be more of a problem in terms of the retention but not hiring of individuals with IDD, as mentioned previously. There is a lack of research which has examined customer attitudes in-depth (particularly in relation to employees with IDD), but Lengnick-Hall et al. (Reference Lengnick-Hall, Gaunt and Kulkarni2008) state that employers tend to cite fear of negative customer reactions as a reason not to hire people with disabilities, however customer attitudes has not been examined in the context of retention. Hence, this finding presents a key area for future research to examine further.
The overall evaluation of the conference was positive, with the majority of participants reporting being satisfied with the organisation, relevance of keynote speakers and presenters, time allocated for discussions, handouts and materials, venue and facilities, relevance of the conference to individuals work/functions, extent of new acquired information, usefulness of information, and extent to which the conference matched its objectives. Additionally, most participants reported having changed attitudes or ideas towards disability, and that they would be more likely to employ people with disabilities after they took part in the conference. Future research should look to address some of the limitations of this study. For example, studies should be conducted using larger sample sizes to get a better understanding of how the recruitment, hiring, and retention of employees with IDD differs based on varying characteristics (e.g., industry type, company size). Further, while it is difficult to collect pre-post data that can be matched from conferences such as the one in this study, future research should look to examine these variables over time to see if changes in attitudes occur over time or after an intervention.
Conclusion
Individuals with IDD face significant barriers to employment, which contributes to a lower quality of life, increased poverty, and a lack of independence. The present study aimed to increase our understanding of local employer practices and barriers regarding the recruitment, hire, and retention of individuals with IDD, and also to evaluate a one-day conference that provided participants with strategies and methods that have been previously successful in improving employment outcomes for people with IDD. Findings brought to light several key challenges and concerns faced by employers that can be used to create more targeted interventions and supports in the future. Further, responses to several questions differed by demographics, including company size and industry type, which presents important areas for future research to investigate. Overall, participants reported being satisfied with the conference, and many indicated that their attitudes had changed towards disability and that they were more likely to employ individuals with IDD in the future. Thus, conferences that aim to educate participants about successful programs and strategies represent a promising practice that can increase employment opportunities for individuals with IDD.
Acknowledgements
Thank you to FIU Embrace that provided financial support for the graduate research assistants involved.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee (IRB-18-0087-AM01) and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Dr Shanna Burke served as principal investigator and contributing writer for this project. Laura Heron, Rumi Agarwal, Ingrid Gonzalez, Tan Li, Marlaina Maddux and Nicole Attong were all contributing writers to this manuscript and the implementation of this project.
SLB has received research grants from FIU Embrace, the Florida Department of Health, the Dan Marino Foundation, and the Neuroscience Centers of Florida Foundation. LH, RA, and MM are funded by FIU Embrace as graduate research assistants. NA is the Director of FIU Embrace and the Chair of the Florida Independent Living Council.
