![](media/image1.png){width="1.4006944444444445in" height="2.0in"}

**United States Department of Labor**

**Office of Disability Employment Policy**

**Survey of Employer Perspectives on the Employment of People with
Disabilities**

***Technical Report***

**November 2008**

This report was produced under U.S. Department of Labor Contract No.
GS10F006M, B03-009 with CESSI.

The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and
do not necessarily represent the views of the funding agency.

Suggested citation: Domzal, C., Houtenville, A., and Sharma, R. (2008).
*Survey of Employer Perspectives on the Employment of People with
Disabilities: Technical Report.* (Prepared under contract to the Office
of Disability and Employment Policy, U.S. Department of Labor). McLean,
VA: CESSI.

###### Table of Contents

## 

[Executive Summary 1](#executive-summary)

[Purpose of the Employer Survey 6](#purpose-of-the-employer-survey)

[Project Scope 7](#project-scope)

[Sampling 7](#sampling)

[Data Collection 7](#data-collection)

[Results 8](#results)

[Employing People with Disabilities
9](#employing-people-with-disabilities)

[Recruiting People with Disabilities
10](#recruiting-people-with-disabilities)

[Hiring People with Disabilities 12](#hiring-people-with-disabilities)

[Advancing People with Disabilities
18](#advancing-people-with-disabilities)

[Retaining People with Disabilities
19](#retaining-people-with-disabilities)

[Collecting Accommodations Data 21](#collecting-accommodations-data)

[Knowledge of One-Stop Career Centers
22](#knowledge-of-one-stop-career-centers)

[Knowledge of the Job Accommodation Network
23](#knowledge-of-the-job-accommodation-network)

[Knowledge of the Employer Assistance and Recruiting Network
23](#knowledge-of-the-employer-assistance-and-recruiting-network)

[References 26](#references)

[Appendix A: Sample Design 27](#appendix-a-sample-design)

[Appendix B: Advance Letter and Questionnaire
37](#appendix-b-advance-letter-and-questionnaire)

[Appendix C: Data Collection Procedures
53](#appendix-c-data-collection-procedures)

[Appendix D: Supplementary Statistical Tables
62](#appendix-d-supplementary-statistical-tables)

#   {#section-1 .Style-Heading-1-+-Centered}

###### List of Tables

[Table l. Number of completed interviews, by major industry sector and
company size 8](#__RefHeading___Toc217461062)

[Table 2. Number and percent of companies currently employing people
with disabilities, by company size and industry
9](#__RefHeading___Toc217461063)

[Table 3. Number and percent of companies that actively recruit
applicants with disabilities, by company size and industry
10](#__RefHeading___Toc217461064)

[Table 4. Strategies used by companies to proactively recruit people
with disabilities 11](#__RefHeading___Toc217461065)

[Table 5. Type of information that would persuade companies that do not
actively recruit people with disabilities, by company size
12](#__RefHeading___Toc217461066)

[Table 6. Number and percent of companies that hired a person with
disabilities in the past 12 months, by company size and industry
12](#__RefHeading___Toc217461067)

[Table 7. Percent of companies citing challenges in hiring people with
disabilities, by company size 13](#__RefHeading___Toc217461068)

[Table 8. Percent of companies citing the nature of the work as a
challenge to hiring people with disabilities, by industry
14](#__RefHeading___Toc217461069)

[Table 9. Percent of companies citing challenges in hiring people with
disabilities, by whether the company actively recruits people with
disabilities 15](#__RefHeading___Toc217461070)

[Table 10. Percent of companies citing concerns about hiring people with
disabilities, by company size 16](#__RefHeading___Toc217461071)

[Table 11. Percent of companies citing concerns about hiring people with
disabilities, by whether the company actively recruits people with
disabilities 16](#__RefHeading___Toc217461072)

[Table 12. Percent of companies citing hiring strategies that would be
helpful in hiring people with disabilities, by company size
17](#__RefHeading___Toc217461073)

[Table 13. Percent of companies citing hiring strategies that would be
helpful in hiring people with disabilities, by whether the company
actively recruits people with disabilities
18](#__RefHeading___Toc217461074)

[Table 14. Percent of companies that employ people with disabilities
citing challenges to advancing employees with disabilities, by company
size 18](#__RefHeading___Toc217461075)

[Table 15. Percent of companies that employ people with disabilities
citing advancement strategies, by company size
19](#__RefHeading___Toc217461076)

[Table 16. Percent of companies that employ people with disabilities
citing challenges to retaining employees with disabilities, by company
size 20](#__RefHeading___Toc217461077)

[Table 17. Percent of companies that employ people with disabilities
citing retention strategies, by company size
21](#__RefHeading___Toc217461078)

[Table 18. Percent of companies that cited reasons for collecting data
on accommodations, by company size 21](#__RefHeading___Toc217461079)

[Table 19. Percent of companies aware of the services of the One-Stop
Career Centers and percent of those companies that used One-Stop
services, by company size and industry type
22](#__RefHeading___Toc217461080)

[Table 20. Percent of companies familiar with the services of the Job
Accommodation Network (JAN) and percentage of those companies that used
JAN services, by company size and industry type
23](#__RefHeading___Toc217461081)

[Table 21. Percent of companies familiar with the services of the
Employer Assistance and Recruiting Network (EARN) and percent of those
companies that used EARN services, by company size and industry type
24](#__RefHeading___Toc217461082)

#  {#section-2 .Style-Heading-1-+-Centered}

# Survey of Employer Perspectives on the Employment of People with Disabilities

###### Technical Report

###### November 2008

### Executive Summary

The U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Disability Employment Policy
(ODEP), conducted the 2008 Survey of Employer Perspectives on the
Employment of People with Disabilities. The objective of this nationally
representative survey was to inform the development and promotion of
policy and practice by comparing employer perspectives across various
industries and within companies of varying sizes. ODEP will use the data
from this survey to formulate targeted strategies and policies for
increasing employment opportunities for people with disabilities. This
survey emphasized current attitudes and practices of employers in 12
industry sectors, including some high growth industries as projected by
the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).

The majority of statistics on the employment of people with disabilities
are derived from nationally representative surveys, such as the Survey
of Income and Program Participation, American Community Survey, National
Health Interview Survey, and soon the Current Population Survey.
However, there were no comprehensive surveys examining the employer side
of issues related to recruiting, hiring, advancing and retaining people
with disabilities. This 2008 ODEP Survey of Employer Perspectives on the
Employment of People with Disabilities was designed to provide a source
of nationally representative statistics on the employment of people with
disabilities from the perspective of employers.

ODEP conducted a 15-minute telephone survey of a representative sample
of senior executives representing 12 industries by company size: small
(5-14 employees), medium (15-249 employees), and large companies (250 or
more employees). The industries are:

1.  Construction

2.  Wholesale trade

3.  Retail trade

4.  Transportation and warehousing

5.  Information

6.  Financial activities

7.  Professional and business services

8.  Education and health services

9.  Leisure and hospitality

10. Other services: establishments in this sector are primarily engaged
    in activities, such as equipment and machinery repairing, promoting
    or administering religious activities, grant making, advocacy, and
    providing dry cleaning and laundry services, personal care services,
    death care services, pet care services, photofinishing services,
    temporary parking services, and dating services.

11. State and local government

12. Manufacturing

Interviewing was conducted from February through June 2008. Interviews
were completed with 3,797 respondents, for a response rate of 51.4
percent. The 3,797 companies in the sample represent 2,469,000
companies.

The strength of this survey is the ability to examine patterns by
company size and industry. Results are provided for all companies and
separately by company size and by three broad industry types. These
three broad industry types follow the super-sectors of the North
American Industry Classification System (NAICS). Goods-producing
industries include construction and manufacturing. Service-producing
industries include retail trade, wholesale trade,
transportation/warehousing, leisure/hospitality, education/health,
information, professional, finance, and other services. Public
administration is its own super-sector consisting of establishments of
federal, state, and local government agencies that administer, oversee,
and manage public programs and have executive, legislative, or judicial
authority over other institutions within a given area. The statistics in
this report are calculated using sample weights.

Key findings are:

> **Employing people with disabilities**

-   Among companies in the United States, 471,562 companies (19.1
    percent) report employing people with disabilities.

-   Among small companies (employing 5 to 14 people), 10.7 percent
    report employing people with disabilities, while 22.6 percent of
    medium-sized companies (employing 15 to 249 employees) and 53.1
    percent of large companies (employing 250 or more employees) report
    employing people with disabilities.

> **Recruiting people with disabilities**

-   326,721 companies (13.6 percent) report that they actively recruit
    people with disabilities.

-   Larger companies are more likely to actively recruit people with
    disabilities (33.8 percent) than smaller companies (7.8 percent).

-   In absolute numbers, there are more mid-sized companies (164,460)
    recruiting people with disabilities than small (96,052) and large
    companies (66,209).

-   Public administration organizations are more likely to actively
    recruit than their private sector counterparts.

-   Among private sector companies, those in service-producing
    industries are more likely to actively recruit than those in
    goods-producing industries. Service-producing industries have the
    largest number of employers that actively recruit.

> **Persuading companies to recruit people with disabilities**

-   When asked about the type of information that would persuade them to
    recruit people with a disability, companies that do not actively
    recruit cited information about performance, productivity, and how
    hiring people with disabilities can benefit a company's bottom line
    as the most persuasive information, while information about cost is
    the least persuasive.

-   Information on satisfactory job performance and how hiring people
    with disabilities can increase a company's productivity are cited by
    small and medium-sized company as most persuasive.

-   Large companies are more likely to be persuaded by information that
    is supported by statistics or research.

> **Hiring people with disabilities**

-   215,344 companies (8.7 percent) report having hired people with
    disabilities in the past 12 months.

-   Large companies are more likely to report having hired a person with
    disabilities in the past 12 months (32.6 percent) compared to
    medium-sized companies at 8 percent.

-   The nature of the work being such that it cannot be effectively
    performed by a person with a disability is cited as a hiring
    challenge by 72.6 percent of all companies. Attitudes of co-workers
    or supervisors are the least frequently cited challenges. Health
    care costs, workers compensation costs and fear of litigation are
    more challenging for small and medium companies than for large
    companies.

-   The cost of employing people with disabilities and the belief that
    workers with disabilities lack the skills and experience necessary
    are the most often cited concerns for small and mid-sized companies,
    while supervisor uncertainty about how to take disciplinary action
    is cited most often for large companies.

> **Advancing Employees with Disabilities**

-   For companies that currently employ people with disabilities, the
    cost of accommodation and lack of advancement potential are the top
    two challenges to advancing employees with disabilities, regardless
    of company size, far surpassing attitudes of customers, co-workers
    or supervisors.

> **Retaining Employees with Disabilities**

-   For companies that currently employ people with disabilities,
    finding ways to return employees to work after the onset of a
    disability is the number one challenge for medium and large
    companies.

-   For companies that currently employ people with disabilities,
    visible commitment from top management is an important strategy in
    retaining people with disabilities. Small and mid-sized companies
    are more likely to cite employer tax credits as a retention strategy
    than are large companies. Large companies most often cite mentoring
    as the top strategy for retention.

> **Knowledge of One-Stop Career Centers**

-   One-Stop Career Centers are designed to provide a full range of
    assistance to job seekers and employers in one location. Established
    under the Workforce Investment Act, the centers offer training
    referrals, career counseling, job listings, and other
    employment-related services. Twenty-five percent of employers are
    aware of local One-Stop Career Centers. Large companies (42.6
    percent) and employers in public administration (38.1 percent) are
    more likely to know of local One-Stop Career Centers. Within the
    private sector, the proportion of employers in goods-producing
    industries aware of One-Stop services (25.5 percent) is roughly the
    same as the proportion of employers in service-producing industries
    (24.6 percent).

-   When companies were asked if they used One-Stop services, 15.3
    percent said they did. The use of One-Stop services increases with
    company size: small companies (7 percent), medium-sized companies
    (14.9 percent), and large companies (43.6 percent). Public
    administration employers are much more likely to use One-Stop
    services (41.5 percent) than service-producing and goods-producing
    employers (14.6 percent and 14.3 percent, respectively).

> **Job Accommodation Network**

-   The Job Accommodation Network (JAN) is a service that provides
    information on job accommodations, entrepreneurship, and related
    subjects. The services of JAN are familiar to 7.4 percent of
    companies. Large companies are much more likely to be familiar with
    JAN services than are small and medium-sized companies (21.6 percent
    compared to 6 percent and 5.9 percent, respectively). Public
    administration employers are more likely to be familiar with JAN
    (19.2 percent) than are employers in service (7.3 percent) or
    goods-producing industries (6.2 percent).

-   Of the 7.4 percent of companies that are familiar with JAN services,
    27.7 percent report using the services.

> **Employer Assistance and Recruiting Network**

-   The Employer Assistance and Recruiting Network (EARN) is a service
    of ODEP that assists employers in locating and recruiting qualified
    workers with disabilities and provides technical assistance on
    disability employment-related issues. Eight percent of employers are
    familiar with EARN services. Large companies are more likely to be
    familiar with EARN services than small and medium-sized companies
    (14.3 percent compared to 6.8 percent and 6 percent, respectively).
    However, there was no difference among industries types with regard
    to familiarity with EARN.

-   Of the 8 percent of companies that are familiar with EARN services,
    12.4 percent use the services.

When examining the results on challenges, concerns, and strategies,
several patterns emerge. The strength of this survey is the ability to
examine patterns by company size and industry. Policy initiatives can be
better developed by considering these differences.

Large companies are more likely to employ, hire and actively recruit
people with disabilities. This suggests that policies and information
should be geared to the small and mid-sized businesses. The findings
also suggest the type of information that is needed. When we asked
companies that do not actively recruit people with disabilities what
type of information would persuade them to recruit, information about
satisfactory job performance, increases to the company's productivity,
and benefits to the company's bottom line were the three most
persuasive. But breaking down these results by company size revealed
that small and medium companies find information about satisfactory job
performance most persuasive, while large companies are most persuaded by
information supported by statistics or research.

Large companies ranked inability to find qualified people with
disabilities as their number one challenge. Even though large companies
are more likely to be familiar with the employment services of EARN,
there is room for improvement in helping companies find qualified
candidates.

A high percentage of employers cited nature of the work as a concern
about hiring people with disabilities, but this concern was most
prevalent among employers in industries that require physically
demanding work.

Not knowing how much accommodations will cost and the actual cost of
accommodating disability are major concerns associated with hiring.
These concerns reflect a need for education not only to increase the
number of companies that recruit, but to better prepare them to make a
hiring decision when considering a qualified candidate with a
disability.

Health care costs, workers compensation costs and fear of litigation are
more challenging for small and medium sized companies than for large
companies. These challenges are especially strong among companies that
do not actively recruit people with disabilities, so information geared
toward allaying these fears among small and medium companies would be
helpful.

For companies that employ people with disabilities, the lack of
advancement potential is cited as a challenge more frequently than are
attitudes of customers, co-workers or supervisors.

Small and medium companies are also challenged by the cost of workers
compensation premiums and health care coverage much more than are large
companies. To deal with these challenges, small and medium companies
cite employer tax credits and large companies cite mentoring of
employees as a successful strategy for retaining employees with
disabilities. Also important to all companies is a visible top
management commitment. Developing information that shows how small
companies can retain their valued employees through accommodations and
how mentoring works for large companies may serve to strengthen
retention.

Public administration organizations tend to actively recruit and hire
people with disabilities more than their private sector counterparts,
which suggests a need to develop policy initiatives targeted toward the
private sector.

### Purpose of the Employer Survey 

The U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Disability Employment Policy
(ODEP), conducted the 2008 Survey of Employer Perspectives on the
Employment of People with Disabilities. This survey emphasized current
attitudes and practices of employers in 12 industry sectors, including
some high growth industries as projected by the Bureau of Labor
Statistics (BLS). ODEP was also interested in understanding employer
perspectives by company size.

Previous surveys have documented employer response to the Americans with
Disabilities Act and have identified barriers that employers experience
or believe they will encounter in recruiting, hiring, retaining, and
promoting workers with disabilities. For example, a 2003 telephone
survey of 502 randomly selected private sector employers asked about
employer views on people with disabilities in the workplace,
accommodations, and economic issues (Dixon, 2003). However, there are
several findings from this study that needed clarification and
explanation. For example, when employers were asked what the greatest
barrier to hiring people with disabilities was, 32 percent said the
nature of work is such that people with disabilities cannot effectively
perform it, while 22 percent answered they didn't know. Another study
found that 22 percent of employers identified attitudes and stereotypes
as a significant barrier to employment for people with disabilities
(Bruyère, 2000). In order to increase employment opportunities for
people with disabilities, it is important to know whether these beliefs
are more prevalent in certain industries or vary by company size.

A literature review also revealed the following weaknesses in the
methods utilized in the research about employers (Hernandez, Keys, &
Balcazar, 2000; Unger, 2002):

-   **Industry sectors**. Little data exist to substantiate a comparison
    of practices between industries.

-   **High growth industries**. Little research has been conducted on
    companies in rapidly growing industries. There is a high likelihood
    that an interest in recruiting employees with disabilities may exist
    in these industries.

-   **Company size**. Little research has compared employer perspectives
    on the employment of people with disabilities based on company size.

ODEP concluded that the research on employer perspectives on employing
people with disabilities needed a strategic and scientifically based
approach that rigorously collects and aggregates data from multiple
types of employers. This survey was designed to fill a gap in knowledge
about the practices and organizational challenges that employers face in
recruiting, retaining, and advancing people with disabilities. There
have been surveys conducted on employer attitudes, but there were no
nationally representative studies on employer practices and challenges
by company size and industry sector.

This survey focused on industry segments and company size to ask
detailed questions about practices, challenges and strategies. The
strength of this survey is its emphasis on comprehensive sampling based
on industry sectors, company size, and individuals at the executive
level.

This new knowledge on employer perspectives on employing people with
disabilities will help ODEP formulate targeted strategies and policies
for increasing employment opportunities for people with disabilities.
While ODEP has conducted focus groups with high level executives, this
survey provided detailed and comprehensive data on employer attitudes
and practices regarding hiring, recruitment, and retention for the
industries involved.

### Project Scope

The main objective of this project was to survey a nationally
representative sample of senior executives representing 12 industries by
company size: small (5-14 employees), medium (15-249 employees), and
large companies (250 or more employees). The telephone interview was
structured and contained questions to:

-   Assess respondent demographics (title, number of years with company,
    number of years in position, number of employees supervised);

-   Identify company practices in recruiting people with disabilities
    (number of employees with a disability, recruiting practices,
    information that would promote recruiting of people with
    disabilities);

-   Address issues related to hiring and retaining employees with
    disabilities (perceived challenges and concerns in hiring, advancing
    and retaining employees with disabilities, as well as strategies to
    overcome these challenges);

-   Assess recordkeeping on accommodations for employees with
    disabilities; and

-   Determine familiarity with disability employment resources, such as
    the Job Accommodation Network (JAN), the Employer Recruiting and
    Assistance Network (EARN), and the One-Stop Career Centers.

### Sampling 

The target population of this survey included all employers with at
least five employees in 12 industries in the United States. Firms with
fewer than five employees were excluded from the target population. The
three size classes were based on the total number of employees of the
company: small (5-14 employees), medium (15-249 employees), and large
(250 or more employees). There were a total of 36 domains of interest
(three size classes within 12 industry sectors).

The survey utilized a stratified random sample design. The sample was
obtained by drawing an equal probability sample of companies within each
of the 36 size by industry sector strata. Larger companies were over
sampled, but all companies were selected with equal probability within
each stratum. Appendix A describes the sample design in detail,
including the sampling frame, precision requirements, sample size,
stratification, and sampling selection.

### Data Collection 

ODEP received OMB clearance for the survey on November 28, 2007. Westat,
a leading statistical survey research organization, conducted the survey
using Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing (CATI). Special
arrangements were necessary to accommodate the respondent (e.g.,
scheduling appointments and conducting the interview over several
sessions when needed).

**Pilot Test.** The research team conducted a pretest of the contact
procedures and the questionnaire. The contact procedures were pre-tested
to insure that they allowed us to determine the correct respondent
quickly. During the administration of the pre-test questionnaire, if the
respondent hesitated when responding, we asked the respondent to explain
the difficulty he or she was having answering the question. We timed the
length of administration of the questionnaire and determined that the
time did not vary significantly from the estimated administration time
of 15 minutes. We also asked respondents follow-up questions, such as if
they had difficulty understanding certain terms, if any of the questions
did not apply to them and why, and if there was something we did not ask
but should have in order to better understand the employer perspective.
Once the pilot interviews were completed, we determined that the
questionnaire did not need to be revised. Changes to the contact
procedures were minor.

**Advance Letter.** An introductory letter was sent to sampled
businesses. The letter was on ODEP letterhead and signed by an official
at ODEP. The purpose of this letter was to introduce the study,
emphasize confidentiality, explain respondent's rights, and alert the
respondents that an interviewer will be calling. A toll-free number was
included so that respondents could call to verify the legitimacy of the
study, to ask questions or to set up an appointment for an interview. We
sent all small and medium-sized businesses the advance letter prior to
the interviewer's call. Large businesses were called to obtain the name
of the most senior knowledgeable respondent. We then sent the advance
letter to that respondent. Once the letter was sent, an interviewer
called to complete the interview. If we could not speak with that
respondent, we then determined the name of another knowledgeable
respondent. We asked for respondents by title, using the titles cited in
the questionnaire. In a large company, many of the questions on the
survey were referred to Human Resources for responses. Large companies
often have human resources employees who are responsible for recruiting
employees with disabilities and tracking accommodations made for
employees.

Interviewing began the second week of February 2008 and continued
through June 2008. The advance letter and questionnaire are in Appendix
B. Detailed data collection procedures are in Appendix C.

### Results

The statistics in this report are calculated using sample weights. In
other words, the 3,797 companies in the sample represent 2,469,000
companies. A sample weight is how many companies a sample member
represents. In the tables in this section, responses of "don't know" and
refusals are treated as missing values. The supplementary statistical
tables in Appendix D contain all estimates and corresponding standard
errors, confidence intervals, and sample sizes. Estimates with
coefficients of variation greater that 30 percent are indicated with
daggers in the appendix tables and are not shown in the tables in this
section nor interpreted in the text.

Interviews were completed with 3,797 respondents, for a response rate of
51.4 percent. Table 1 displays the number of completed interviews in
each of the 36 cells.

  --------------------------------- ------------- ------------ ------------ -----------
  []{#__RefHeading___Toc217461062                                           
  .anchor}Table l. Number of                                                
  completed interviews, by major                                            
  industry sector and company size                                          

  **Major industry sector**         **Number of                             ** **
                                    employees**                             

                                    **5-14**      **15-249**   **250 or     **Total**
                                                               more**       

  Construction                      90            98           97           285

  Manufacturing                     103           96           104          303

  Wholesale Trade                   93            111          97           301

  Retail Trade                      115           115          83           313

  Transportation & Warehousing      98            120          105          323

  Information                       101           97           92           290

  Finance                           94            99           92           285

  Professional                      114           114          91           319

  Education & Health                111           122          151          384

  Leisure & Hospitality             113           104          103          320

  Other Services                    105           101          82           288

  State & Local Government          125           103          158          386

  Total                             1,262         1,280        1,255        3,797
  --------------------------------- ------------- ------------ ------------ -----------

##### Employing People with Disabilities

Companies were asked, "To your knowledge, do any of your company's
current employees have a physical or mental disability?" Table 2
provides the number and percentage of companies that currently employ
people with disabilities. These statistics are provided for all
companies and separately by company size and then by three broad
industry types.[^1] Among companies in the United States, 471,562
companies (19.1 percent) report employing people with disabilities.

  ------------------------------------------ ------------- ---------------
  []{#__RefHeading___Toc217461063                          
  .anchor}Table 2. Number and percent of                   
  companies currently employing people with                
  disabilities, by company size and industry               

  **Company size and industry**              **Number**    **Percent**

  All companies (5 or more employees)        471,561       19.1

  Small (5--14 employees)                    133,588       10.7

  Medium (15--249 employees)                 229,098       22.6

  Large (250 or more employees)              108,875       53.1

  Service-producing industries               376,905       18.9

  Goods-producing industries                 94,656        17.5

  Public administration                      19,685        42.7

  Source: 2008 Survey of Employer                          
  Perspectives on the Employment of People                 
  with Disabilities, ODEP.                                 

  Note: Based on question 10, \"To your                    
  knowledge, do any of your company's                      
  current employees have a physical or                     
  mental disability?\"                                     

  All 3,797 companies were asked this                      
  question.                                                
  ------------------------------------------ ------------- ---------------

With regard to company size, the larger a company, the more likely it is
to employ people with disabilities. As shown in Table 2, among small
companies (employing 5 to 14 people), 10.7 percent report employing
people with disabilities, while 22.6 percent of mid-sized companies
(employing 15 to 249 employees) and 53.1 percent of large companies
(employing 250 or more employees) report employing people with
disabilities. It is not surprising that companies with more employees
are more likely to employ at least one employee with a disability. These
companies simply have more employment opportunities and may be more
likely to commit to a diverse workplace.

Employers in the public administration sector are much more likely to
employ people with disabilities (42.7 percent) than employers in
service-producing (18.9 percent) and goods producing industries (17.5
percent).

##### Recruiting People with Disabilities

All companies were asked, "Does your company actively recruit job
applicants who are people with disabilities?"[^2] Table 3 provides the
number and percent of companies that actively recruit applicants with
disabilities. These statistics are provided for all companies, by
company size and industry type. Table 3 shows that 326,721 companies
(13.6 percent) report that they actively recruit people with
disabilities. Larger companies are more likely to actively recruit
people with disabilities (33.8 percent) than smaller companies (7.8
percent). In absolute numbers, there are more mid-sized companies
(164,460) recruiting people with disabilities than are small (96,052) or
large companies (66,209). By comparison, the distribution of companies
in the United States is: 205,000 large companies, 1,014,000 mid-sized
companies and 1,248,000 small companies.

Public administration organizations are more likely to actively recruit
than their private sector counterparts. Among private sector companies,
those in service-producing industries are more likely to actively
recruit than those in goods-producing industries. Service-producing
industries have the largest number of employers that actively recruit
applicants with disabilities.

  ------------------------------------------- -------------- -------------
  []{#__RefHeading___Toc217461064                            
  .anchor}Table 3. Number and percent of                     
  companies that actively recruit applicants                 
  with disabilities, by company size and                     
  industry                                                   

  **Company size and industry**               **Number**     **Percent**

  All companies (5 or more employees)         326,721        13.6

  Small (5--14 employees)                     96,052         7.8

  Medium (15--249 employees)                  164,460        16.8

  Large (250 or more employees)               66,209         33.8

  Service-producing industries                269,718        13.9

  Goods-producing industries                  39,368         9.4

  Public administration                       17,617         39.5

  Source: 2008 Survey of Employer                            
  Perspectives on the Employment of People                   
  with Disabilities, ODEP.                                   

  Note: Based on question 13, \"Does your                    
  company actively recruit job applicants who                
  are people with disabilities?\"                            

  All 3,797 companies were asked this                        
  question.                                                  
  ------------------------------------------- -------------- -------------

**Recruiting Strategies.** Companies that actively recruit people with
disabilities were asked, "How do you proactively recruit job applicants
who are people with disabilities?" Table 4 ranks the strategies cited by
all companies; sample sizes are insufficient to generate statistics
based on company size. The most frequently cited recruiting strategy is
*postings at job service or workforce employment center*---23.7 percent
of companies that actively recruit people with disabilities use this
strategy.

  --------------------------------------------------- ------------- ----------
  []{#__RefHeading___Toc217461065 .anchor}Table 4.                  
  Strategies used by companies to proactively recruit               
  people with disabilities                                          

  **Strategy**                                        **All         
                                                      companies**   

                                                      **Percent**   **Rank**

  Postings at job service or workforce employment     23.7          1
  center                                                            

  Contacting college and university career centers    13.1          2

  Partnerships with disability-related advocacy       11.8          3
  organizations                                                     

  Including people w/disabilities in diversity        9.5           4
  recruitment goals                                                 

  Postings at disability-related publications         8.8           5

  Postings at disability-related websites             8.3           6

  Postings or tables at disability-related job fairs  6.8           7

  Postings at Department of Vocational Rehabilitation 4.0           8

  Establishing summer internship and mentoring        NA            NA
  programs                                                          

  Postings at Independent Living Centers              NA            NA

  Source: 2008 Survey of Employer Perspectives on the               
  Employment of People with Disabilities, ODEP.                     

  Note: Based on question 13a, \"How do you                         
  proactively recruit job applicants who are people                 
  with disabilities?\"                                              

  Note: Sample sizes were insufficient to study                     
  company size.                                                     

  Statistics based on the 840 surveyed companies that               
  actively recruit people with disabilities.                        

  NA indicates statistics that are not available due                
  to insufficient sample size.                                      
  --------------------------------------------------- ------------- ----------

**Persuading Companies to Recruit.** We asked companies that do not
actively recruit people with disabilities about the type of information
that would persuade them to recruit people with disabilities. Table 5
ranks the types of information cited by respondents. Information about
performance, productivity, and the bottom line is considered to be the
most persuasive information, while information about costs is the least
persuasive. The two most cited types of information (satisfactory job
performance and increases company's productivity) are consistent among
small and medium-sized companies. However, large companies are more
likely to be persuaded by information that is supported by statistics or
research. Addressing concerns about costs is by far the least cited type
of information. The relative rankings of the types of information are
more consistent among small and medium-sized companies. Large companies
tend to cite each type of information more often than other companies.

+----------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+----+----+----+
| []{#__RefHeading___Toc217461066  |   |   |   |   |   |    |    |    |
| .anchor}Table 5. Type of         |   |   |   |   |   |    |    |    |
| information that would persuade  |   |   |   |   |   |    |    |    |
| companies that do not actively   |   |   |   |   |   |    |    |    |
| recruit people with              |   |   |   |   |   |    |    |    |
| disabilities, by company size    |   |   |   |   |   |    |    |    |
+----------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+----+----+----+
| **Type of information**          | * |   | * |   | * |    | *  |    |
|                                  | * |   | * |   | * |    | *L |    |
|                                  | A |   | S |   | M |    | ar |    |
|                                  | l |   | m |   | e |    | ge |    |
|                                  | l |   | a |   | d |    | ** |    |
|                                  | * |   | l |   | i |    |    |    |
|                                  | * |   | l |   | u |    | ** |    |
|                                  |   |   | * |   | m |    | (2 |    |
|                                  | * |   | * |   | * |    | 50 |    |
|                                  | * |   |   |   | * |    | or |    |
|                                  | c |   | * |   |   |    | mo |    |
|                                  | o |   | * |   | * |    | re |    |
|                                  | m |   | ( |   | * |    | )  |    |
|                                  | p |   | 5 |   | ( |    | ** |    |
|                                  | a |   | - |   | 1 |    |    |    |
|                                  | n |   | - |   | 5 |    |    |    |
|                                  | i |   | 1 |   | - |    |    |    |
|                                  | e |   | 4 |   | - |    |    |    |
|                                  | s |   | ) |   | 2 |    |    |    |
|                                  | * |   | * |   | 4 |    |    |    |
|                                  | * |   | * |   | 9 |    |    |    |
|                                  |   |   |   |   | ) |    |    |    |
|                                  |   |   |   |   | * |    |    |    |
|                                  |   |   |   |   | * |    |    |    |
+----------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+----+----+----+
|                                  | \ | R | \ | R | \ | Ra | \% | Ra |
|                                  | % | a | % | a | % | nk |    | nk |
|                                  |   | n |   | n |   |    |    |    |
|                                  |   | k |   | k |   |    |    |    |
+----------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+----+----+----+
| Satisfactory job performance,    | 6 | 1 | 6 | 1 | 6 | 1  | 76 | 3  |
| attendance and retention         | 8 |   | 7 |   | 8 |    | .4 |    |
|                                  | . |   | . |   | . |    |    |    |
|                                  | 2 |   | 4 |   | 0 |    |    |    |
+----------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+----+----+----+
| Increases to your company's      | 6 | 2 | 6 | 2 | 6 | 2  | 77 | 2  |
| productivity                     | 7 |   | 6 |   | 7 |    | .0 |    |
|                                  | . |   | . |   | . |    |    |    |
|                                  | 4 |   | 2 |   | 6 |    |    |    |
+----------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+----+----+----+
| Benefits to your company's       | 6 | 3 | 6 | 3 | 6 | 3  | 72 | 5  |
| bottom line                      | 5 |   | 5 |   | 5 |    | .3 |    |
|                                  | . |   | . |   | . |    |    |    |
|                                  | 7 |   | 0 |   | 6 |    |    |    |
+----------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+----+----+----+
| Benefits other companies in your | 6 | 4 | 6 | 4 | 6 | 4  | 74 | 4  |
| industry                         | 3 |   | 1 |   | 4 |    | .2 |    |
|                                  | . |   | . |   | . |    |    |    |
|                                  | 7 |   | 5 |   | 9 |    |    |    |
+----------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+----+----+----+
| Supported by statistics or       | 6 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 6 | 5  | 77 | 1  |
| research                         | 1 |   | 8 |   | 1 |    | .5 |    |
|                                  | . |   | . |   | . |    |    |    |
|                                  | 0 |   | 5 |   | 8 |    |    |    |
+----------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+----+----+----+
| Testimonials from human          | 5 | 6 | 5 | 6 | 5 | 6  | 69 | 6  |
| resources managers               | 4 |   | 2 |   | 5 |    | .5 |    |
|                                  | . |   | . |   | . |    |    |    |
|                                  | 6 |   | 5 |   | 0 |    |    |    |
+----------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+----+----+----+
| Testimonials from senior         | 5 | 7 | 5 | 7 | 5 | 7  | 60 | 9  |
| executives                       | 2 |   | 1 |   | 3 |    | .9 |    |
|                                  | . |   | . |   | . |    |    |    |
|                                  | 8 |   | 3 |   | 4 |    |    |    |
+----------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+----+----+----+
| Testimonials from line managers  | 5 | 8 | 5 | 8 | 5 | 8  | 65 | 7  |
|                                  | 2 |   | 0 |   | 3 |    | .0 |    |
|                                  | . |   | . |   | . |    |    |    |
|                                  | 3 |   | 1 |   | 1 |    |    |    |
+----------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+----+----+----+
| Benefited nationally recognized  | 4 | 9 | 4 | 9 | 4 | 9  | 62 | 8  |
| companies                        | 6 |   | 3 |   | 8 |    | .7 |    |
|                                  | . |   | . |   | . |    |    |    |
|                                  | 8 |   | 7 |   | 4 |    |    |    |
+----------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+----+----+----+
| Addresses concerns about costs   | 3 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 10 | 39 | 10 |
|                                  | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 |    | .7 |    |
|                                  | . |   | . |   | . |    |    |    |
|                                  | 4 |   | 8 |   | 4 |    |    |    |
+----------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+----+----+----+
| Source: 2008 Survey of Employer  |   |   |   |   |   |    |    |    |
| Perspectives on the Employment   |   |   |   |   |   |    |    |    |
| of People with Disabilities,     |   |   |   |   |   |    |    |    |
| ODEP.                            |   |   |   |   |   |    |    |    |
+----------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+----+----+----+
| Note: Based on question 14,      |   |   |   |   |   |    |    |    |
| "Would any of the following      |   |   |   |   |   |    |    |    |
| types of information persuade    |   |   |   |   |   |    |    |    |
| you to recruit people with a     |   |   |   |   |   |    |    |    |
| disability?"                     |   |   |   |   |   |    |    |    |
+----------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+----+----+----+
| Statistics based on the 2,857    |   |   |   |   |   |    |    |    |
| companies that do not actively   |   |   |   |   |   |    |    |    |
| recruit people with              |   |   |   |   |   |    |    |    |
| disabilities. Also excluded from |   |   |   |   |   |    |    |    |
| the calculations are companies   |   |   |   |   |   |    |    |    |
| that said they already have the  |   |   |   |   |   |    |    |    |
| information.                     |   |   |   |   |   |    |    |    |
+----------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+----+----+----+

##### Hiring People with Disabilities

Table 6 provides the number and percentage of companies that hired a
person with disabilities in the past 12 months. These statistics are
provided for all companies and separately by company size and then by
three broad industry types. Table 6 shows that 215,344 companies (8.7
percent) report having hired people with disabilities in the past 12
months. This is substantially lower than the 19.1 percent of companies
that reported employing people with disabilities. As with employing
people with disabilities, large companies are more likely to report
having hired a person with disabilities (32.6 percent) compared to
medium-sized companies at 8.0 percent.

  ------------------------------------------ -------------- -------------
  []{#__RefHeading___Toc217461067                           
  .anchor}Table 6. Number and percent of                    
  companies that hired a person with                        
  disabilities in the past 12 months, by                    
  company size and industry                                 

  **Company size and industry**              **Number**     **Percent**

  All companies (5 or more employees)        215,344        8.7

  Small (5--14 employees)                    67,459         5.4

  Medium (15--249 employees)                 81,173         8.0

  Large (250 or more employees)              66,714         32.6

  Service-producing industries               178,417        9.0

  Goods-producing industries                 27,959         6.5

  Public administration                      8,960          19.7

  Source: 2008 Survey of Employer                           
  Perspectives on the Employment of People                  
  with Disabilities, ODEP.                                  

  Note: Based on question 12, "In the past                  
  12 months has your company hired any                      
  people with disabilities?"                                

  All 3,797 companies were asked this                       
  question.                                                 
  ------------------------------------------ -------------- -------------

**Hiring Challenges***.* All companies were asked, "I am now going to
describe several factors in hiring people with disabilities that we
often hear from employers. How much of a challenge are the following
factors to your company in *hiring* people with disabilities? I would
like you to say whether it is a major challenge, somewhat of a challenge
or not a challenge."

Table 7 provides the percentage of companies that cited a particular
factor as a major challenge or somewhat of a challenge. The percentages
and rankings are provided for each factor for all companies and by
company size.

The nature of the work being such that it cannot be effectively
performed by a person with a disability is cited as a challenge by 72.6
percent of all companies. Attitudes of co-workers or supervisors are
least frequently cited as a challenge, especially for small and medium
size companies. When looking across company size, the rankings suggest
that health care costs, workers compensation costs and fear of
litigation are more challenging for small and medium sized companies
than for large companies.

Also note that not knowing how much accommodations will cost is
considered more of a hiring challenge than the actual cost of
accommodation, which suggests that aversion to risk may be a challenge
that needs to be addressed in the cost of accommodation literature.

+-----------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+----+
| []{#__RefHeading___Toc217461068   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |    |
| .anchor}Table 7. Percent of       |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |    |
| companies citing challenges in    |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |    |
| hiring people with disabilities,  |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |    |
| by company size                   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |    |
+-----------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+----+
| **Challenge**                     | * |   | * |   | * |   | * |    |
|                                   | * |   | * |   | * |   | * |    |
|                                   | A |   | S |   | M |   | L |    |
|                                   | l |   | m |   | e |   | a |    |
|                                   | l |   | a |   | d |   | r |    |
|                                   | c |   | l |   | i |   | g |    |
|                                   | o |   | l |   | u |   | e |    |
|                                   | m |   | * |   | m |   | * |    |
|                                   | p |   | * |   | * |   | * |    |
|                                   | a |   |   |   | * |   |   |    |
|                                   | n |   | * |   |   |   | * |    |
|                                   | i |   | * |   | * |   | * |    |
|                                   | e |   | ( |   | * |   | ( |    |
|                                   | s |   | 5 |   | ( |   | 2 |    |
|                                   | * |   | - |   | 1 |   | 5 |    |
|                                   | * |   | - |   | 5 |   | 0 |    |
|                                   |   |   | 1 |   | - |   | o |    |
|                                   |   |   | 4 |   | - |   | r |    |
|                                   |   |   | ) |   | 2 |   | m |    |
|                                   |   |   | * |   | 4 |   | o |    |
|                                   |   |   | * |   | 9 |   | r |    |
|                                   |   |   |   |   | ) |   | e |    |
|                                   |   |   |   |   | * |   | ) |    |
|                                   |   |   |   |   | * |   | * |    |
|                                   |   |   |   |   |   |   | * |    |
+-----------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+----+
|                                   | \ | R | \ | R | \ | R | \ | Ra |
|                                   | % | a | % | a | % | a | % | nk |
|                                   |   | n |   | n |   | n |   |    |
|                                   |   | k |   | k |   | k |   |    |
+-----------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+----+
| Nature of the work                | 7 | 1 | 7 | 1 | 7 | 1 | 6 | 2  |
|                                   | 2 |   | 3 |   | 2 |   | 7 |    |
|                                   | . |   | . |   | . |   | . |    |
|                                   | 6 |   | 7 |   | 4 |   | 1 |    |
+-----------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+----+
| Not knowing how much              | 6 | 2 | 6 | 2 | 6 | 3 | 6 | 3  |
| accommodation will cost           | 3 |   | 3 |   | 3 |   | 3 |    |
|                                   | . |   | . |   | . |   | . |    |
|                                   | 7 |   | 9 |   | 5 |   | 4 |    |
+-----------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+----+
| Cannot find qualified people with | 6 | 3 | 6 | 4 | 6 | 2 | 6 | 1  |
| disabilities                      | 3 |   | 1 |   | 5 |   | 8 |    |
|                                   | . |   | . |   | . |   | . |    |
|                                   | 6 |   | 7 |   | 1 |   | 0 |    |
+-----------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+----+
| Actual cost of accommodating      | 6 | 4 | 6 | 3 | 6 | 4 | 5 | 4  |
| disability                        | 1 |   | 3 |   | 0 |   | 7 |    |
|                                   | . |   | . |   | . |   | . |    |
|                                   | 6 |   | 0 |   | 9 |   | 1 |    |
+-----------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+----+
| Concern about cost of workers     | 4 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 2 | 12 |
| compensation premiums             | 7 |   | 4 |   | 3 |   | 2 |    |
|                                   | . |   | . |   | . |   | . |    |
|                                   | 4 |   | 8 |   | 3 |   | 8 |    |
+-----------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+----+
| Concern about the cost of health  | 4 | 6 | 5 | 6 | 4 | 6 | 2 | 10 |
| care coverage                     | 6 |   | 2 |   | 2 |   | 7 |    |
|                                   | . |   | . |   | . |   | . |    |
|                                   | 2 |   | 6 |   | 0 |   | 8 |    |
+-----------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+----+
| Fear of litigation                | 4 | 7 | 4 | 7 | 3 | 8 | 2 | 11 |
|                                   | 0 |   | 5 |   | 8 |   | 6 |    |
|                                   | . |   | . |   | . |   | . |    |
|                                   | 6 |   | 0 |   | 0 |   | 6 |    |
+-----------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+----+
| Lack of knowledge or information  | 3 | 8 | 3 | 8 | 3 | 7 | 4 | 5  |
|                                   | 9 |   | 9 |   | 9 |   | 4 |    |
|                                   | . |   | . |   | . |   | . |    |
|                                   | 7 |   | 4 |   | 2 |   | 3 |    |
+-----------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+----+
| Attitudes of customers            | 3 | 9 | 3 | 9 | 3 | 9 | 3 | 6  |
|                                   | 4 |   | 5 |   | 1 |   | 8 |    |
|                                   | . |   | . |   | . |   | . |    |
|                                   | 3 |   | 8 |   | 7 |   | 3 |    |
+-----------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+----+
| Discomfort or unfamiliarity       | 3 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 9  |
|                                   | 2 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 9 | 0 | 9 |    |
|                                   | . |   | . |   | . |   | . |    |
|                                   | 2 |   | 5 |   | 9 |   | 5 |    |
+-----------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+----+
| Attitudes of co-workers           | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 8  |
|                                   | 9 | 1 | 8 | 1 | 9 | 1 | 2 |    |
|                                   | . |   | . |   | . |   | . |    |
|                                   | 1 |   | 1 |   | 7 |   | 0 |    |
+-----------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+----+
| Attitudes of supervisors          | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 7  |
|                                   | 0 | 2 | 7 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 |    |
|                                   | . |   | . |   | . |   | . |    |
|                                   | 3 |   | 8 |   | 1 |   | 1 |    |
+-----------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+----+
| Source: 2008 Survey of Employer   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |    |
| Perspectives on the Employment of |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |    |
| People with Disabilities, ODEP.   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |    |
+-----------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+----+
| Note: Based on question 15, "I am |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |    |
| now going to describe several     |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |    |
| factors in hiring people with     |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |    |
| disabilities that we often hear   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |    |
| from employers. How much of a     |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |    |
| challenge are the following       |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |    |
| factors to your company in hiring |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |    |
| people with disabilities? I would |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |    |
| like you to say whether it is a   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |    |
| major challenge, somewhat of a    |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |    |
| challenge or not a challenge."    |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |    |
+-----------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+----+
| All 3,797 companies were asked    |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |    |
| this question.                    |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |    |
+-----------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+----+

Because such a large percentage of respondents cited the nature of the
work as a hiring challenge, we examined this response by industry. Table
8 presents the percentage of companies reporting the nature of the work
as a challenge to hiring people with disabilities, across industries.
Companies in the construction, manufacturing (goods-producing
industries) and retail trade industries are most likely to cite the
nature of the work, while companies in the financial services,
professional services, and information services industries are the least
likely to cite the nature of the work. In fact, in the follow-up
question, companies cited the difficult physical demands as the reason
why a person with a disability could not effectively perform the jobs
within their companies.

  --------------------------------------------- -------------------------
  []{#__RefHeading___Toc217461069 .anchor}Table 
  8. Percent of companies citing the nature of  
  the work as a challenge to hiring people with 
  disabilities, by industry                     

  **Industry**                                  **Percent**

  All companies                                 72.6

  Construction                                  88.8

  Manufacturing                                 84.9

  Retail trade                                  83.7

  Transportation and warehousing                78.7

  Leisure and hospitality                       77.0

  Wholesale trade                               76.1

  Public administration                         74.6

  Education and health                          68.1

  Other services                                63.0

  Information services                          59.2

  Professional services                         58.8

  Finance services                              56.2

  Source: 2008 Survey of Employer Perspectives  
  on the Employment of People with              
  Disabilities, ODEP.                           

  Note: Based on question 15, "I am now going   
  to describe several factors in hiring people  
  with disabilities that we often hear from     
  employers. How much of a challenge are the    
  following factors to your company in hiring   
  people with disabilities? I would like you to 
  say whether it is a major challenge, somewhat 
  of a challenge or not a challenge."           

  All 3,797 companies were asked this question. 
  --------------------------------------------- -------------------------

Since all companies were asked about hiring challenges, we split the
respondents into two groups: those that actively recruit people with
disabilities and those that do not. As shown in Table 9, the rankings of
the factors are remarkably similar for the two groups. Table 9 also
shows the percentage difference between companies that recruit and
companies that do not recruit. Overall, companies that do not recruit
people with disabilities are more likely to report a particular factor
to be a challenge---with the notable exception of lack of knowledge or
information. The biggest differences between companies that recruit and
those that do not recruit are in the challenges related to workers
compensation costs, health insurance costs, fear of litigation, actual
cost of accommodations, and attitudes of co-workers.

+-----------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+-------+
| []{#__RefHeading___Toc217461070   |   |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| .anchor}Table 9. Percent of       |   |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| companies citing challenges in    |   |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| hiring people with disabilities,  |   |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| by whether the company actively   |   |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| recruits people with disabilities |   |   |   |   |   |   |       |
+-----------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+-------+
| **Challenge**                     | * |   | * |   |   |   | ** ** |
|                                   | * |   | * |   |   |   |       |
|                                   | A |   |   |   |   |   | *     |
|                                   | l |   | A |   |   |   | *Perc |
|                                   | l |   | c |   |   |   | ent** |
|                                   | * |   | t |   |   |   |       |
|                                   | * |   | i |   |   |   | **Di  |
|                                   |   |   | v |   |   |   | ffere |
|                                   | * |   | e |   |   |   | nce** |
|                                   | * |   | l |   |   |   |       |
|                                   | c |   | y |   |   |   |       |
|                                   | o |   | R |   |   |   |       |
|                                   | m |   | e |   |   |   |       |
|                                   | p |   | c |   |   |   |       |
|                                   | a |   | r |   |   |   |       |
|                                   | n |   | u |   |   |   |       |
|                                   | i |   | i |   |   |   |       |
|                                   | e |   | t |   |   |   |       |
|                                   | s |   | s |   |   |   |       |
|                                   | * |   | * |   |   |   |       |
|                                   | * |   | * |   |   |   |       |
+-----------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+-------+
|                                   |   |   | * |   | * |   |       |
|                                   |   |   | * |   | * |   |       |
|                                   |   |   | Y |   | N |   |       |
|                                   |   |   | e |   | o |   |       |
|                                   |   |   | s |   | * |   |       |
|                                   |   |   | * |   | * |   |       |
|                                   |   |   | * |   |   |   |       |
+-----------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+-------+
|                                   | \ | R | % | R | \ | R |       |
|                                   | % | a | . | a | % | a |       |
|                                   |   | n |   | n |   | n |       |
|                                   |   | k |   | k |   | k |       |
+-----------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+-------+
| Nature of the work                | 7 | 1 | 6 | 1 | 7 | 1 | -17.4 |
|                                   | 2 |   | 1 |   | 4 |   |       |
|                                   | . |   | . |   | . |   |       |
|                                   | 6 |   | 5 |   | 4 |   |       |
+-----------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+-------+
| Not knowing how much              | 6 | 2 | 5 | 3 | 6 | 2 | -20.4 |
| accommodation will cost           | 3 |   | 2 |   | 5 |   |       |
|                                   | . |   | . |   | . |   |       |
|                                   | 7 |   | 4 |   | 8 |   |       |
+-----------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+-------+
| Cannot find qualified people with | 6 | 3 | 5 | 2 | 6 | 3 | -9.3  |
| disabilities                      | 3 |   | 8 |   | 4 |   |       |
|                                   | . |   | . |   | . |   |       |
|                                   | 6 |   | 6 |   | 6 |   |       |
+-----------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+-------+
| Actual cost of accommodating      | 6 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 6 | 4 | -29.6 |
| disability                        | 1 |   | 5 |   | 4 |   |       |
|                                   | . |   | . |   | . |   |       |
|                                   | 6 |   | 3 |   | 3 |   |       |
+-----------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+-------+
| Concern about cost of workers     | 4 | 5 | 3 | 8 | 5 | 5 | -39.5 |
| compensation premiums             | 7 |   | 0 |   | 0 |   |       |
|                                   | . |   | . |   | . |   |       |
|                                   | 4 |   | 7 |   | 7 |   |       |
+-----------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+-------+
| Concern about the cost of health  | 4 | 6 | 3 | 6 | 4 | 6 | -35.2 |
| care coverage                     | 6 |   | 1 |   | 8 |   |       |
|                                   | . |   | . |   | . |   |       |
|                                   | 2 |   | 6 |   | 8 |   |       |
+-----------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+-------+
| Fear of litigation                | 4 | 7 | 3 | 9 | 4 | 7 | -29.3 |
|                                   | 0 |   | 0 |   | 2 |   |       |
|                                   | . |   | . |   | . |   |       |
|                                   | 6 |   | 1 |   | 6 |   |       |
+-----------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+-------+
| Lack of knowledge or information  | 3 | 8 | 4 | 5 | 3 | 8 | 8.4   |
|                                   | 9 |   | 2 |   | 9 |   |       |
|                                   | . |   | . |   | . |   |       |
|                                   | 7 |   | 5 |   | 2 |   |       |
+-----------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+-------+
| Attitudes of customers            | 3 | 9 | 3 | 7 | 3 | 9 | -9.8  |
|                                   | 4 |   | 1 |   | 5 |   |       |
|                                   | . |   | . |   | . |   |       |
|                                   | 3 |   | 6 |   | 1 |   |       |
+-----------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+-------+
| Discomfort or unfamiliarity       | 3 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 1 | -18.0 |
|                                   | 2 | 0 | 7 | 0 | 2 | 0 |       |
|                                   | . |   | . |   | . |   |       |
|                                   | 2 |   | 0 |   | 9 |   |       |
+-----------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+-------+
| Attitudes of co-workers           | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 1 | -29.2 |
|                                   | 9 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 |       |
|                                   | . |   | . |   | . |   |       |
|                                   | 1 |   | 5 |   | 4 |   |       |
+-----------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+-------+
| Attitudes of supervisors          | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | -19.4 |
|                                   | 0 | 2 | 6 | 2 | 0 | 2 |       |
|                                   | . |   | . |   | . |   |       |
|                                   | 3 |   | 8 |   | 9 |   |       |
+-----------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+-------+
| Source: 2008 Survey of Employer   |   |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| Perspectives on the Employment of |   |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| People with Disabilities, ODEP.   |   |   |   |   |   |   |       |
+-----------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+-------+
| Note: Based on question 15, "I am |   |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| now going to describe several     |   |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| factors in hiring people with     |   |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| disabilities that we often hear   |   |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| from employers. How much of a     |   |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| challenge are the following       |   |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| factors to your company in hiring |   |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| people with disabilities? I would |   |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| like you to say whether it is a   |   |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| major challenge, somewhat of a    |   |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| challenge or not a challenge."    |   |   |   |   |   |   |       |
+-----------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+-------+
| All 3,797 companies were asked    |   |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| this question.                    |   |   |   |   |   |   |       |
+-----------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+-------+

**Hiring Concerns.** All companies were asked, "Some employers have
concerns about hiring people with disabilities. Here are some of the
concerns we often hear from employers. For each, please let me know how
much of a concern it is for your company."

Table 10 shows the percent of companies that cite a particular concern
as a major concern or somewhat of a concern. The percentages and
rankings are provided for each concern for all companies and by company
size. As shown in Table 10, the cost of employing people with
disabilities and the belief that workers with disabilities lack the
skills and experience necessary are the most often cited concerns for
small and mid-sized companies, while it is the supervisor's uncertainty
about how to take disciplinary action that is cited most often for large
companies. In contrast, supervisors not comfortable with managing people
with disabilities is the least cited by small and medium sized
companies, but still accounts for about a third of these companies. That
people with disabilities may not be as safe and productive as other
workers is the least cited concern by large companies.

+-----------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+-----+
| []{#__RefHeading___Toc217461071   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |     |
| .anchor}Table 10. Percent of      |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |     |
| companies citing concerns about   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |     |
| hiring people with disabilities,  |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |     |
| by company size                   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |     |
+-----------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+-----+
| **Concern**                       | * |   | * |   | * |   | * |     |
|                                   | * |   | * |   | * |   | * |     |
|                                   | A |   | S |   | M |   | L |     |
|                                   | l |   | m |   | e |   | a |     |
|                                   | l |   | a |   | d |   | r |     |
|                                   | * |   | l |   | i |   | g |     |
|                                   | * |   | l |   | u |   | e |     |
|                                   |   |   | * |   | m |   | * |     |
|                                   | * |   | * |   | * |   | * |     |
|                                   | * |   |   |   | * |   |   |     |
|                                   | c |   | * |   |   |   | * |     |
|                                   | o |   | * |   | * |   | * |     |
|                                   | m |   | ( |   | * |   | ( |     |
|                                   | p |   | 5 |   | ( |   | 2 |     |
|                                   | a |   | - |   | 1 |   | 5 |     |
|                                   | n |   | - |   | 5 |   | 0 |     |
|                                   | i |   | 1 |   | - |   | o |     |
|                                   | e |   | 4 |   | - |   | r |     |
|                                   | s |   | ) |   | 2 |   | m |     |
|                                   | * |   | * |   | 4 |   | o |     |
|                                   | * |   | * |   | 9 |   | r |     |
|                                   |   |   |   |   | ) |   | e |     |
|                                   |   |   |   |   | * |   | ) |     |
|                                   |   |   |   |   | * |   | * |     |
|                                   |   |   |   |   |   |   | * |     |
+-----------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+-----+
|                                   | \ | R | \ | R | \ | R | \ | R   |
|                                   | % | a | % | a | % | a | % | ank |
|                                   |   | n |   | n |   | n |   |     |
|                                   |   | k |   | k |   | k |   |     |
+-----------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+-----+
| It costs more to employ workers   | 5 | 1 | 6 | 1 | 5 | 1 | 3 | 5   |
| with disabilities                 | 8 |   | 4 |   | 4 |   | 9 |     |
|                                   | . |   | . |   | . |   | . |     |
|                                   | 1 |   | 0 |   | 4 |   | 7 |     |
+-----------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+-----+
| Workers with disabilities lack    | 4 | 2 | 5 | 2 | 4 | 2 | 4 | 4   |
| the skills and experience to do   | 9 |   | 2 |   | 7 |   | 1 |     |
| our jobs                          | . |   | . |   | . |   | . |     |
|                                   | 4 |   | 1 |   | 6 |   | 5 |     |
+-----------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+-----+
| People with disabilities may not  | 4 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 6   |
| be as safe and productive as      | 5 |   | 9 |   | 2 |   | 5 |     |
| other workers                     | . |   | . |   | . |   | . |     |
|                                   | 7 |   | 9 |   | 7 |   | 0 |     |
+-----------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+-----+
| Supervisors are not sure how to   | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 1   |
| take disciplinary action          | 4 |   | 4 |   | 3 |   | 7 |     |
|                                   | . |   | . |   | . |   | . |     |
|                                   | 3 |   | 4 |   | 6 |   | 6 |     |
+-----------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+-----+
| Supervisors are not sure how to   | 4 | 5 | 3 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 3   |
| evaluate                          | 0 |   | 9 |   | 1 |   | 3 |     |
|                                   | . |   | . |   | . |   | . |     |
|                                   | 7 |   | 8 |   | 3 |   | 1 |     |
+-----------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+-----+
| Supervisors are not comfortable   | 3 | 6 | 2 | 6 | 3 | 6 | 4 | 2   |
| with managing                     | 0 |   | 8 |   | 0 |   | 4 |     |
|                                   | . |   | . |   | . |   | . |     |
|                                   | 8 |   | 7 |   | 5 |   | 9 |     |
+-----------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+-----+
| Source: 2008 Survey of Employer   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |     |
| Perspectives on the Employment of |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |     |
| People with Disabilities, ODEP.   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |     |
+-----------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+-----+
| Based on question 19, "Some       |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |     |
| employers have concerns about     |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |     |
| hiring people with disabilities.  |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |     |
| Here are some of the concerns we  |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |     |
| often hear from employers. For    |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |     |
| each, please let me know how much |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |     |
| of a concern it is for your       |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |     |
| company." The following responses |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |     |
| were available: a major concern   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |     |
| somewhat of a concern or not a    |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |     |
| concern.                          |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |     |
+-----------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+-----+
| All 3,797 companies were asked    |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |     |
| this question.                    |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |     |
+-----------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+-----+

Table 11 splits the respondents into two groups: those that actively
recruit people with disabilities and those that do not. As shown in
Table 11, the rankings of the concerns differ. The biggest differences
between companies that recruit and those that do not recruit are in the
concerns related to safety and productivity, skills and experience, and
cost, with companies that do not recruit citing these concerns more
frequently than companies that recruit people with disabilities.

+------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+-------+
| []{#__RefHeading___Toc217461072    |   |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| .anchor}Table 11. Percent of       |   |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| companies citing concerns about    |   |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| hiring people with disabilities,   |   |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| by whether the company actively    |   |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| recruits people with disabilities  |   |   |   |   |   |   |       |
+------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+-------+
| **Concern**                        | * |   | * |   |   |   | ** ** |
|                                    | * |   | * |   |   |   |       |
|                                    | A |   |   |   |   |   | *     |
|                                    | l |   | A |   |   |   | *Perc |
|                                    | l |   | c |   |   |   | ent** |
|                                    | * |   | t |   |   |   |       |
|                                    | * |   | i |   |   |   | **Di  |
|                                    |   |   | v |   |   |   | ffere |
|                                    | * |   | e |   |   |   | nce** |
|                                    | * |   | l |   |   |   |       |
|                                    | c |   | y |   |   |   |       |
|                                    | o |   | R |   |   |   |       |
|                                    | m |   | e |   |   |   |       |
|                                    | p |   | c |   |   |   |       |
|                                    | a |   | r |   |   |   |       |
|                                    | n |   | u |   |   |   |       |
|                                    | i |   | i |   |   |   |       |
|                                    | e |   | t |   |   |   |       |
|                                    | s |   | s |   |   |   |       |
|                                    | * |   | * |   |   |   |       |
|                                    | * |   | * |   |   |   |       |
+------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+-------+
|                                    |   |   | * |   | * |   |       |
|                                    |   |   | * |   | * |   |       |
|                                    |   |   | Y |   | N |   |       |
|                                    |   |   | e |   | o |   |       |
|                                    |   |   | s |   | * |   |       |
|                                    |   |   | * |   | * |   |       |
|                                    |   |   | * |   |   |   |       |
+------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+-------+
|                                    | \ | R | \ | R | \ | R |       |
|                                    | % | a | % | a | % | a |       |
|                                    |   | n |   | n |   | n |       |
|                                    |   | k |   | k |   | k |       |
+------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+-------+
| It costs more to employ workers    | 5 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 6 | 1 | -27.4 |
| with disabilities                  | 8 |   | 4 |   | 0 |   |       |
|                                    | . |   | . |   | . |   |       |
|                                    | 1 |   | 1 |   | 7 |   |       |
+------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+-------+
| Workers with disabilities lack the | 4 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 2 | -29.4 |
| skills and experience to do our    | 9 |   | 6 |   | 1 |   |       |
| jobs                               | . |   | . |   | . |   |       |
|                                    | 4 |   | 3 |   | 4 |   |       |
+------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+-------+
| People with disabilities may not   | 4 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 4 | 3 | -37.0 |
| be as safe and productive as other | 5 |   | 0 |   | 8 |   |       |
| workers                            | . |   | . |   | . |   |       |
|                                    | 7 |   | 5 |   | 4 |   |       |
+------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+-------+
| Supervisors are not sure how to    | 4 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 4 | 4 | -5.0  |
| take disciplinary action           | 4 |   | 2 |   | 4 |   |       |
|                                    | . |   | . |   | . |   |       |
|                                    | 3 |   | 5 |   | 8 |   |       |
+------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+-------+
| Supervisors are not sure how to    | 4 | 5 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 5 | -2.2  |
| evaluate                           | 0 |   | 9 |   | 0 |   |       |
|                                    | . |   | . |   | . |   |       |
|                                    | 7 |   | 8 |   | 7 |   |       |
+------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+-------+
| Supervisors are not comfortable    | 3 | 6 | 2 | 6 | 3 | 6 | -19.0 |
| with managing                      | 0 |   | 5 |   | 1 |   |       |
|                                    | . |   | . |   | . |   |       |
|                                    | 8 |   | 6 |   | 7 |   |       |
+------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+-------+
| Source: 2008 Survey of Employer    |   |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| Perspectives on the Employment of  |   |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| People with Disabilities, ODEP.    |   |   |   |   |   |   |       |
+------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+-------+
| Based on question 19, "Some        |   |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| employers have concerns about      |   |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| hiring people with disabilities.   |   |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| Here are some of the concerns we   |   |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| often hear from employers. For     |   |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| each, please let me know how much  |   |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| of a concern it is for your        |   |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| company."                          |   |   |   |   |   |   |       |
+------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+-------+
| All 3,797 companies were asked     |   |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| this question.                     |   |   |   |   |   |   |       |
+------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+-------+

**Helpful Hiring Strategies.** All companies were asked about strategies
that would be helpful in hiring people with disabilities. Table 12 ranks
these strategies. Regardless of company size, the top five strategies to
facilitate hiring are very similar across company size: employer tax
credits, disability awareness training, visible top management
commitment, mentoring, and assistive technology. The relative rankings
of the other strategies vary by company size, with tax credits most
important to small and medium companies and visible top management
commitment most important to large companies. Small companies are also
more likely to cite flexible work schedules as a strategy to facilitate
hiring. And regardless of company size, a centralized accommodations
fund and reassignment are the least cited strategies. The larger the
company size, the more likely a given strategy is cited.

+-------------------------------+-----+---+----+---+---+---+----+----+
| []                            |     |   |    |   |   |   |    |    |
| {#__RefHeading___Toc217461073 |     |   |    |   |   |   |    |    |
| .anchor}Table 12. Percent of  |     |   |    |   |   |   |    |    |
| companies citing hiring       |     |   |    |   |   |   |    |    |
| strategies that would be      |     |   |    |   |   |   |    |    |
| helpful in hiring people with |     |   |    |   |   |   |    |    |
| disabilities, by company size |     |   |    |   |   |   |    |    |
+-------------------------------+-----+---+----+---+---+---+----+----+
| **Strategy**                  | *   |   | *  |   | * |   | *  |    |
|                               | *Al |   | *S |   | * |   | *L |    |
|                               | l** |   | ma |   | M |   | ar |    |
|                               |     |   | ll |   | e |   | ge |    |
|                               | *   |   | ** |   | d |   | ** |    |
|                               | *co |   |    |   | i |   |    |    |
|                               | mpa |   | *  |   | u |   | ** |    |
|                               | nie |   | *( |   | m |   | (2 |    |
|                               | s** |   | 5- |   | * |   | 50 |    |
|                               |     |   | -1 |   | * |   | or |    |
|                               |     |   | 4) |   |   |   | m  |    |
|                               |     |   | ** |   | * |   | or |    |
|                               |     |   |    |   | * |   | e) |    |
|                               |     |   |    |   | ( |   | ** |    |
|                               |     |   |    |   | 1 |   |    |    |
|                               |     |   |    |   | 5 |   |    |    |
|                               |     |   |    |   | - |   |    |    |
|                               |     |   |    |   | - |   |    |    |
|                               |     |   |    |   | 2 |   |    |    |
|                               |     |   |    |   | 4 |   |    |    |
|                               |     |   |    |   | 9 |   |    |    |
|                               |     |   |    |   | ) |   |    |    |
|                               |     |   |    |   | * |   |    |    |
|                               |     |   |    |   | * |   |    |    |
+-------------------------------+-----+---+----+---+---+---+----+----+
|                               | \%  | R | \% | R | \ | R | \% | Ra |
|                               |     | a |    | a | % | a |    | nk |
|                               |     | n |    | n |   | n |    |    |
|                               |     | k |    | k |   | k |    |    |
+-------------------------------+-----+---+----+---+---+---+----+----+
| Employer tax credits and      | 6   | 1 | 66 | 1 | 7 | 1 | 77 | 5  |
| incentives                    | 9.2 |   | .8 |   | 0 |   | .1 |    |
|                               |     |   |    |   | . |   |    |    |
|                               |     |   |    |   | 5 |   |    |    |
+-------------------------------+-----+---+----+---+---+---+----+----+
| Disability awareness training | 6   | 2 | 59 | 5 | 6 | 2 | 82 | 3  |
|                               | 4.3 |   | .1 |   | 6 |   | .8 |    |
|                               |     |   |    |   | . |   |    |    |
|                               |     |   |    |   | 9 |   |    |    |
+-------------------------------+-----+---+----+---+---+---+----+----+
| Visible top management        | 6   | 3 | 59 | 4 | 6 | 3 | 84 | 1  |
| commitment                    | 4.2 |   | .4 |   | 5 |   | .9 |    |
|                               |     |   |    |   | . |   |    |    |
|                               |     |   |    |   | 8 |   |    |    |
+-------------------------------+-----+---+----+---+---+---+----+----+
| Mentoring                     | 6   | 4 | 60 | 2 | 6 | 4 | 84 | 2  |
|                               | 3.4 |   | .7 |   | 2 |   | .3 |    |
|                               |     |   |    |   | . |   |    |    |
|                               |     |   |    |   | 3 |   |    |    |
+-------------------------------+-----+---+----+---+---+---+----+----+
| Assistive technology          | 6   | 5 | 59 | 5 | 5 | 6 | 80 | 4  |
|                               | 1.1 |   | .1 |   | 9 |   | .3 |    |
|                               |     |   |    |   | . |   |    |    |
|                               |     |   |    |   | 7 |   |    |    |
+-------------------------------+-----+---+----+---+---+---+----+----+
| Using a specialized           | 6   | 6 | 57 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 76 | 6  |
| recruiting source             | 0.8 |   | .3 |   | 1 |   | .6 |    |
|                               |     |   |    |   | . |   |    |    |
|                               |     |   |    |   | 8 |   |    |    |
+-------------------------------+-----+---+----+---+---+---+----+----+
| Flexible work schedule        | 6   | 7 | 59 | 3 | 5 | 7 | 71 | 12 |
|                               | 0.0 |   | .7 |   | 8 |   | .8 |    |
|                               |     |   |    |   | . |   |    |    |
|                               |     |   |    |   | 1 |   |    |    |
+-------------------------------+-----+---+----+---+---+---+----+----+
| Training existing staff       | 5   | 8 | 54 | 8 | 5 | 8 | 76 | 7  |
|                               | 7.9 |   | .7 |   | 8 |   | .1 |    |
|                               |     |   |    |   | . |   |    |    |
|                               |     |   |    |   | 0 |   |    |    |
+-------------------------------+-----+---+----+---+---+---+----+----+
| On-site consultation or       | 5   | 9 | 54 | 9 | 5 | 9 | 73 | 9  |
| technical assistance          | 7.1 |   | .5 |   | 7 |   | .1 |    |
|                               |     |   |    |   | . |   |    |    |
|                               |     |   |    |   | 0 |   |    |    |
+-------------------------------+-----+---+----+---+---+---+----+----+
| Disability targeted           | 5   | 1 | 53 | 1 | 5 | 1 | 74 | 8  |
| internship program            | 5.4 | 0 | .0 | 0 | 4 | 1 | .3 |    |
|                               |     |   |    |   | . |   |    |    |
|                               |     |   |    |   | 4 |   |    |    |
+-------------------------------+-----+---+----+---+---+---+----+----+
| Short-term on the job         | 5   | 1 | 50 | 1 | 5 | 1 | 72 | 10 |
| assistance with job coach     | 4.3 | 1 | .5 | 1 | 5 | 0 | .4 |    |
|                               |     |   |    |   | . |   |    |    |
|                               |     |   |    |   | 2 |   |    |    |
+-------------------------------+-----+---+----+---+---+---+----+----+
| Developing a targeted         | 5   | 1 | 47 | 1 | 5 | 1 | 72 | 11 |
| recruitment program           | 0.7 | 2 | .3 | 2 | 0 | 2 | .2 |    |
|                               |     |   |    |   | . |   |    |    |
|                               |     |   |    |   | 5 |   |    |    |
+-------------------------------+-----+---+----+---+---+---+----+----+
| Centralized accommodations    | 4   | 1 | 43 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 64 | 13 |
| fund                          | 7.1 | 3 | .3 | 3 | 8 | 3 | .1 |    |
|                               |     |   |    |   | . |   |    |    |
|                               |     |   |    |   | 4 |   |    |    |
+-------------------------------+-----+---+----+---+---+---+----+----+
| Reassignment                  | 4   | 1 | 37 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 54 | 14 |
|                               | 0.1 | 4 | .8 | 4 | 0 | 4 | .5 |    |
|                               |     |   |    |   | . |   |    |    |
|                               |     |   |    |   | 1 |   |    |    |
+-------------------------------+-----+---+----+---+---+---+----+----+
| Source: 2008 Survey of        |     |   |    |   |   |   |    |    |
| Employer Perspectives on the  |     |   |    |   |   |   |    |    |
| Employment of People with     |     |   |    |   |   |   |    |    |
| Disabilities, ODEP.           |     |   |    |   |   |   |    |    |
+-------------------------------+-----+---+----+---+---+---+----+----+
| Note: Based on question 20,   |     |   |    |   |   |   |    |    |
| "I will read you a few        |     |   |    |   |   |   |    |    |
| strategies that some          |     |   |    |   |   |   |    |    |
| companies have used when      |     |   |    |   |   |   |    |    |
| hiring people with            |     |   |    |   |   |   |    |    |
| disabilities. For each,       |     |   |    |   |   |   |    |    |
| please tell me if these       |     |   |    |   |   |   |    |    |
| strategies would be helpful   |     |   |    |   |   |   |    |    |
| in reducing barriers to       |     |   |    |   |   |   |    |    |
| hiring people with            |     |   |    |   |   |   |    |    |
| disabilities into your        |     |   |    |   |   |   |    |    |
| company." Yes/no responses    |     |   |    |   |   |   |    |    |
| were available.               |     |   |    |   |   |   |    |    |
+-------------------------------+-----+---+----+---+---+---+----+----+
| All 3,797 companies were      |     |   |    |   |   |   |    |    |
| asked this question.          |     |   |    |   |   |   |    |    |
+-------------------------------+-----+---+----+---+---+---+----+----+

Table 13 splits the respondents into two groups: those that actively
recruit people with disabilities and those that do not. As shown in
Table 13, the rankings of the three most cited strategies (employer tax
credits and incentives, disability awareness training, and visible top
management commitment) and of the two least cited strategies
(centralized accommodations fund and reassignment) are the same
regardless of whether a company actively recruits. Table 13 also shows
that for each of the strategies, companies that do not recruit people
with disabilities are less likely to report a strategy to be helpful
than companies that recruit people with disabilities. The biggest
difference between those that recruit and those that do not recruit is
in developing a targeted recruitment program, with companies that
actively recruit more likely to cite this as helpful in reducing
barriers to hiring.

+------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+-------+
| []{#__RefHeading___Toc217461074    |   |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| .anchor}Table 13. Percent of       |   |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| companies citing hiring strategies |   |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| that would be helpful in hiring    |   |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| people with disabilities, by       |   |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| whether the company actively       |   |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| recruits people with disabilities  |   |   |   |   |   |   |       |
+------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+-------+
| **Strategy**                       | * |   | * |   |   |   | ** ** |
|                                    | * |   | * |   |   |   |       |
|                                    | A |   |   |   |   |   | *     |
|                                    | l |   | A |   |   |   | *Perc |
|                                    | l |   | c |   |   |   | ent** |
|                                    | * |   | t |   |   |   |       |
|                                    | * |   | i |   |   |   | **di  |
|                                    |   |   | v |   |   |   | ffere |
|                                    | * |   | e |   |   |   | nce** |
|                                    | * |   | l |   |   |   |       |
|                                    | c |   | y |   |   |   |       |
|                                    | o |   | r |   |   |   |       |
|                                    | m |   | e |   |   |   |       |
|                                    | p |   | c |   |   |   |       |
|                                    | a |   | r |   |   |   |       |
|                                    | n |   | u |   |   |   |       |
|                                    | i |   | i |   |   |   |       |
|                                    | e |   | t |   |   |   |       |
|                                    | s |   | s |   |   |   |       |
|                                    | * |   | * |   |   |   |       |
|                                    | * |   | * |   |   |   |       |
+------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+-------+
|                                    |   |   | * |   | * |   |       |
|                                    |   |   | * |   | * |   |       |
|                                    |   |   | Y |   | N |   |       |
|                                    |   |   | e |   | o |   |       |
|                                    |   |   | s |   | * |   |       |
|                                    |   |   | * |   | * |   |       |
|                                    |   |   | * |   |   |   |       |
+------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+-------+
|                                    | \ | R | \ | R | \ | R |       |
|                                    | % | a | % | a | % | a |       |
|                                    |   | n |   | n |   | n |       |
|                                    |   | k |   | k |   | k |       |
+------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+-------+
| Employer tax credits and           | 6 | 1 | 8 | 1 | 6 | 1 | 23.7  |
| incentives                         | 9 |   | 2 |   | 7 |   |       |
|                                    | . |   | . |   | . |   |       |
|                                    | 2 |   | 8 |   | 0 |   |       |
+------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+-------+
| Disability awareness training      | 6 | 2 | 8 | 3 | 6 | 3 | 32.1  |
|                                    | 4 |   | 0 |   | 1 |   |       |
|                                    | . |   | . |   | . |   |       |
|                                    | 3 |   | 8 |   | 2 |   |       |
+------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+-------+
| Visible top management commitment  | 6 | 3 | 8 | 2 | 6 | 2 | 32.1  |
|                                    | 4 |   | 1 |   | 1 |   |       |
|                                    | . |   | . |   | . |   |       |
|                                    | 2 |   | 2 |   | 5 |   |       |
+------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+-------+
| Mentoring                          | 6 | 4 | 7 | 5 | 6 | 4 | 29.5  |
|                                    | 3 |   | 8 |   | 0 |   |       |
|                                    | . |   | . |   | . |   |       |
|                                    | 4 |   | 8 |   | 9 |   |       |
+------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+-------+
| Assistive technology               | 6 | 5 | 7 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 36.5  |
|                                    | 1 |   | 9 |   | 8 |   |       |
|                                    | . |   | . |   | . |   |       |
|                                    | 1 |   | 2 |   | 1 |   |       |
+------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+-------+
| Using a specialized recruiting     | 6 | 6 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 7 | 35.2  |
| source                             | 0 |   | 8 |   | 7 |   |       |
|                                    | . |   | . |   | . |   |       |
|                                    | 8 |   | 0 |   | 7 |   |       |
+------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+-------+
| Flexible work schedule             | 6 | 7 | 7 | 8 | 5 | 6 | 27.7  |
|                                    | 0 |   | 3 |   | 7 |   |       |
|                                    | . |   | . |   | . |   |       |
|                                    | 0 |   | 7 |   | 7 |   |       |
+------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+-------+
| Training existing staff            | 5 | 8 | 7 | 9 | 5 | 8 | 32.5  |
|                                    | 7 |   | 3 |   | 5 |   |       |
|                                    | . |   | . |   | . |   |       |
|                                    | 9 |   | 5 |   | 5 |   |       |
+------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+-------+
| On-site consultation or technical  | 5 | 9 | 7 | 1 | 5 | 9 | 30.4  |
| assistance                         | 7 |   | 1 | 2 | 4 |   |       |
|                                    | . |   | . |   | . |   |       |
|                                    | 1 |   | 6 |   | 9 |   |       |
+------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+-------+
| Disability targeted internship     | 5 | 1 | 7 | 1 | 5 | 1 | 35.9  |
| program                            | 5 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 |       |
|                                    | . |   | . |   | . |   |       |
|                                    | 4 |   | 7 |   | 8 |   |       |
+------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+-------+
| Short-term on the job assistance   | 5 | 1 | 7 | 1 | 5 | 1 | 40.9  |
| with job coach                     | 4 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 1 |       |
|                                    | . |   | . |   | . |   |       |
|                                    | 3 |   | 3 |   | 3 |   |       |
+------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+-------+
| Developing a targeted recruitment  | 5 | 1 | 7 | 7 | 4 | 1 | 57.5  |
| program                            | 0 | 2 | 3 |   | 6 | 2 |       |
|                                    | . |   | . |   | . |   |       |
|                                    | 7 |   | 8 |   | 9 |   |       |
+------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+-------+
| Centralized accommodations fund    | 4 | 1 | 6 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 38.3  |
|                                    | 7 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 3 |       |
|                                    | . |   | . |   | . |   |       |
|                                    | 1 |   | 9 |   | 8 |   |       |
+------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+-------+
| Reassignment                       | 4 | 1 | 5 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 57.2  |
|                                    | 0 | 4 | 8 | 4 | 7 | 4 |       |
|                                    | . |   | . |   | . |   |       |
|                                    | 1 |   | 4 |   | 1 |   |       |
+------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+-------+
| Source: 2008 Survey of Employer    |   |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| Perspectives on the Employment of  |   |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| People with Disabilities, ODEP.    |   |   |   |   |   |   |       |
+------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+-------+
| Note: Based on question 20, "I     |   |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| will read you a few strategies     |   |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| that some companies have used when |   |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| hiring people with disabilities.   |   |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| For each, please tell me if these  |   |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| strategies would be helpful in     |   |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| reducing barriers to hiring people |   |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| with disabilities into your        |   |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| company." Yes/no responses were    |   |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| available.                         |   |   |   |   |   |   |       |
+------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+-------+
| All 3,797 companies were asked     |   |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| this question.                     |   |   |   |   |   |   |       |
+------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+-------+

##### Advancing People with Disabilities

**Advancement Challenges.** Companies that currently employ people with
disabilities were asked about factors in advancing a person with a
disability. Table 14 provides the percent of companies that cited each
factor as a major challenge or somewhat of a challenge. The actual cost
of accommodation and lack of advancement potential are the top two cited
challenges to advancing employees with disabilities, regardless of
company size, far surpassing attitudes of customers, co-workers or
supervisors.

+--------------------------+------+---+----+----+----+----+-----+---+
| []{#__R                  |      |   |    |    |    |    |     |   |
| efHeading___Toc217461075 |      |   |    |    |    |    |     |   |
| .anchor}Table 14.        |      |   |    |    |    |    |     |   |
| Percent of companies     |      |   |    |    |    |    |     |   |
| that employ people with  |      |   |    |    |    |    |     |   |
| disabilities citing      |      |   |    |    |    |    |     |   |
| challenges to advancing  |      |   |    |    |    |    |     |   |
| employees with           |      |   |    |    |    |    |     |   |
| disabilities, by company |      |   |    |    |    |    |     |   |
| size                     |      |   |    |    |    |    |     |   |
+--------------------------+------+---+----+----+----+----+-----+---+
| **Challenge**            | **A  |   | *  |    | ** |    | **L |   |
|                          | ll** |   | *S |    | Me |    | arg |   |
|                          |      |   | ma |    | di |    | e** |   |
|                          | *    |   | ll |    | um |    |     |   |
|                          | *com |   | ** |    | ** |    | **( |   |
|                          | pani |   |    |    |    |    | 250 |   |
|                          | es** |   | *  |    | *  |    | or  |   |
|                          |      |   | *( |    | *( |    | m   |   |
|                          |      |   | 5- |    | 15 |    | ore |   |
|                          |      |   | -1 |    | -- |    | )** |   |
|                          |      |   | 4) |    | 24 |    |     |   |
|                          |      |   | ** |    | 9) |    |     |   |
|                          |      |   |    |    | ** |    |     |   |
+--------------------------+------+---+----+----+----+----+-----+---+
|                          | Pct. | R | Pc | Ra | Pc | Ra | P   | R |
|                          |      | a | t. | nk | t. | nk | ct. | a |
|                          |      | n |    |    |    |    |     | n |
|                          |      | k |    |    |    |    |     | k |
+--------------------------+------+---+----+----+----+----+-----+---+
| Actual cost of           | 43.9 | 1 | 51 | 2  | 42 | 1  | 3   | 1 |
| accommodating disability |      |   | .3 |    | .1 |    | 8.5 |   |
+--------------------------+------+---+----+----+----+----+-----+---+
| Lack of advancement      | 41.4 | 2 | 52 | 1  | 39 | 2  | 3   | 2 |
| potential                |      |   | .4 |    | .3 |    | 2.6 |   |
+--------------------------+------+---+----+----+----+----+-----+---+
| Attitudes of customers   | 25.3 | 3 | 29 | 3  | 24 | 3  | 2   | 5 |
|                          |      |   | .4 |    | .4 |    | 2.0 |   |
+--------------------------+------+---+----+----+----+----+-----+---+
| Attitudes of co-workers  | 21.4 | 4 | 20 | 4  | 21 | 4  | 2   | 4 |
|                          |      |   | .3 |    | .4 |    | 3.1 |   |
+--------------------------+------+---+----+----+----+----+-----+---+
| Attitudes of supervisors | 19.4 | 5 | 16 | 5  | 17 | 5  | 2   | 3 |
|                          |      |   | .4 |    | .7 |    | 6.7 |   |
+--------------------------+------+---+----+----+----+----+-----+---+
| Source: 2008 Survey of   |      |   |    |    |    |    |     |   |
| Employer Perspectives on |      |   |    |    |    |    |     |   |
| the Employment of People |      |   |    |    |    |    |     |   |
| with Disabilities, ODEP. |      |   |    |    |    |    |     |   |
+--------------------------+------+---+----+----+----+----+-----+---+
| Note: Based on question  |      |   |    |    |    |    |     |   |
| 17, "In your opinion,    |      |   |    |    |    |    |     |   |
| how much of a challenge  |      |   |    |    |    |    |     |   |
| are the following        |      |   |    |    |    |    |     |   |
| factors to your company  |      |   |    |    |    |    |     |   |
| in advancing a person    |      |   |    |    |    |    |     |   |
| with a disability?" The  |      |   |    |    |    |    |     |   |
| following responses were |      |   |    |    |    |    |     |   |
| available: a major       |      |   |    |    |    |    |     |   |
| challenge, somewhat of a |      |   |    |    |    |    |     |   |
| challenge or not a       |      |   |    |    |    |    |     |   |
| challenge.               |      |   |    |    |    |    |     |   |
+--------------------------+------+---+----+----+----+----+-----+---+
| Statistics based on the  |      |   |    |    |    |    |     |   |
| 1,148 companies that     |      |   |    |    |    |    |     |   |
| employ people with       |      |   |    |    |    |    |     |   |
| disabilities.            |      |   |    |    |    |    |     |   |
+--------------------------+------+---+----+----+----+----+-----+---+

**Helpful Advancement Strategies.** Companies that currently employ
people with disabilities were also asked about strategies that would be
helpful in advancing people with disabilities. Table 15 provides the
percentage of companies that cited a particular strategy and the rank of
each strategy. In contrast to hiring strategies shown in Table 12, where
employer tax credits and incentives were the least cited strategy
regardless of company size, employer tax credits and incentives are the
most frequently cited strategy for advancing employees with disabilities
for small and mid-sized companies. The difference from the results in
Table 12 may be due to the fact that all companies were asked about
hiring strategies, while Table 15 is based on companies that employ
people with disabilities. A visible commitment from top management is
important to advancing people with disabilities, regardless of company
size. The least cited strategy---reassignment---is common across company
size.

+------------------------------+----+---+----+---+----+---+-----+---+
| []{                          |    |   |    |   |    |   |     |   |
| #__RefHeading___Toc217461076 |    |   |    |   |    |   |     |   |
| .anchor}Table 15. Percent of |    |   |    |   |    |   |     |   |
| companies that employ people |    |   |    |   |    |   |     |   |
| with disabilities citing     |    |   |    |   |    |   |     |   |
| advancement strategies, by   |    |   |    |   |    |   |     |   |
| company size                 |    |   |    |   |    |   |     |   |
+------------------------------+----+---+----+---+----+---+-----+---+
| **Strategy**                 | *  |   | *  |   | ** |   | **L |   |
|                              | *A |   | *S |   | Me |   | arg |   |
|                              | ll |   | ma |   | di |   | e** |   |
|                              | ** |   | ll |   | um |   |     |   |
|                              |    |   | ** |   | ** |   | **( |   |
|                              | *  |   |    |   |    |   | 250 |   |
|                              | *c |   | *  |   | *  |   | or  |   |
|                              | om |   | *( |   | *( |   | m   |   |
|                              | pa |   | 5- |   | 15 |   | ore |   |
|                              | ni |   | -1 |   | -- |   | )** |   |
|                              | es |   | 4) |   | 24 |   |     |   |
|                              | ** |   | ** |   | 9) |   |     |   |
|                              |    |   |    |   | ** |   |     |   |
+------------------------------+----+---+----+---+----+---+-----+---+
|                              | \% | R | \% | R | \% | R | \%  | R |
|                              |    | a |    | a |    | a |     | a |
|                              |    | n |    | n |    | n |     | n |
|                              |    | k |    | k |    | k |     | k |
+------------------------------+----+---+----+---+----+---+-----+---+
| Employer tax credits and     | 77 | 1 | 82 | 1 | 75 | 1 | 7   | 6 |
| incentives                   | .2 |   | .6 |   | .3 |   | 4.7 |   |
+------------------------------+----+---+----+---+----+---+-----+---+
| Visible top management       | 75 | 2 | 70 | 3 | 73 | 2 | 8   | 1 |
| commitment                   | .2 |   | .3 |   | .5 |   | 4.8 |   |
+------------------------------+----+---+----+---+----+---+-----+---+
| Mentoring                    | 74 | 3 | 71 | 2 | 70 | 4 | 8   | 2 |
|                              | .0 |   | .3 |   | .6 |   | 4.3 |   |
+------------------------------+----+---+----+---+----+---+-----+---+
| Disability awareness         | 71 | 4 | 62 | 7 | 71 | 3 | 8   | 3 |
| training                     | .6 |   | .1 |   | .9 |   | 2.7 |   |
+------------------------------+----+---+----+---+----+---+-----+---+
| Assistive technology         | 68 | 5 | 65 | 5 | 66 | 7 | 7   | 4 |
|                              | .7 |   | .5 |   | .0 |   | 8.5 |   |
+------------------------------+----+---+----+---+----+---+-----+---+
| Flexible work schedule       | 68 | 6 | 68 | 4 | 67 | 5 | 6   | 9 |
|                              | .1 |   | .7 |   | .4 |   | 8.7 |   |
+------------------------------+----+---+----+---+----+---+-----+---+
| Training existing staff      | 67 | 7 | 59 | 9 | 66 | 6 | 7   | 5 |
|                              | .1 |   | .5 |   | .9 |   | 6.5 |   |
+------------------------------+----+---+----+---+----+---+-----+---+
| On-site consultation or      | 65 | 8 | 58 | 1 | 66 | 7 | 7   | 7 |
| technical assistance         | .5 |   | .3 | 0 | .0 |   | 3.4 |   |
+------------------------------+----+---+----+---+----+---+-----+---+
| Short-term on the job        | 63 | 9 | 60 | 8 | 62 | 9 | 7   | 8 |
| assistance with job coach    | .7 |   | .2 |   | .1 |   | 1.1 |   |
+------------------------------+----+---+----+---+----+---+-----+---+
| Disability targeted          | 60 | 1 | 64 | 6 | 54 | 1 | 6   | 1 |
| internship program           | .1 | 0 | .1 |   | .8 | 0 | 6.7 | 1 |
+------------------------------+----+---+----+---+----+---+-----+---+
| Centralized accommodations   | 54 | 1 | 53 | 1 | 49 | 1 | 6   | 1 |
| fund                         | .7 | 1 | .7 | 1 | .1 | 1 | 7.7 | 0 |
+------------------------------+----+---+----+---+----+---+-----+---+
| Reassignment                 | 49 | 1 | 52 | 1 | 47 | 1 | 5   | 1 |
|                              | .7 | 2 | .9 | 2 | .0 | 2 | 1.5 | 2 |
+------------------------------+----+---+----+---+----+---+-----+---+
| Source: 2008 Survey of       |    |   |    |   |    |   |     |   |
| Employer Perspectives on the |    |   |    |   |    |   |     |   |
| Employment of People with    |    |   |    |   |    |   |     |   |
| Disabilities, ODEP.          |    |   |    |   |    |   |     |   |
+------------------------------+----+---+----+---+----+---+-----+---+
| Note: Based on question 21,  |    |   |    |   |    |   |     |   |
| "For each of the following,  |    |   |    |   |    |   |     |   |
| please tell me if these      |    |   |    |   |    |   |     |   |
| strategies would be helpful  |    |   |    |   |    |   |     |   |
| in advancing people with     |    |   |    |   |    |   |     |   |
| disabilities within your     |    |   |    |   |    |   |     |   |
| company." Yes/no responses   |    |   |    |   |    |   |     |   |
| were available.              |    |   |    |   |    |   |     |   |
+------------------------------+----+---+----+---+----+---+-----+---+
| Statistics based on the      |    |   |    |   |    |   |     |   |
| 1,148 companies that employ  |    |   |    |   |    |   |     |   |
| people with disabilities.    |    |   |    |   |    |   |     |   |
+------------------------------+----+---+----+---+----+---+-----+---+

##### 

##### Retaining People with Disabilities

**Retention Challenges.** Companies that currently employ people with
disabilities were asked, "In your opinion, how much of a challenge are
the following factors to your company in retaining a person with a
disability?" Table 16 provides the percent of companies that cite a
particular factor as a major challenge or somewhat of a challenge.
Finding ways to return employees to work after the onset of a disability
is the number one challenge to medium and large companies. For small
companies, it is the actual cost of accommodation, followed by finding
ways to return employees to work. Costs of health-care and workers
compensation are less of a challenge to retention for larger companies.
Again, attitudes are the least frequently cited challenge by small and
medium-sized companies.

+--------------------------------+----+---+---+---+---+---+---+----+
| [                              |    |   |   |   |   |   |   |    |
| ]{#__RefHeading___Toc217461077 |    |   |   |   |   |   |   |    |
| .anchor}Table 16. Percent of   |    |   |   |   |   |   |   |    |
| companies that employ people   |    |   |   |   |   |   |   |    |
| with disabilities citing       |    |   |   |   |   |   |   |    |
| challenges to retaining        |    |   |   |   |   |   |   |    |
| employees with disabilities,   |    |   |   |   |   |   |   |    |
| by company size                |    |   |   |   |   |   |   |    |
+--------------------------------+----+---+---+---+---+---+---+----+
| **Challenge**                  | *  |   | * |   | * |   | * |    |
|                                | *A |   | * |   | * |   | * |    |
|                                | ll |   | S |   | M |   | L |    |
|                                | ** |   | m |   | e |   | a |    |
|                                |    |   | a |   | d |   | r |    |
|                                | *  |   | l |   | i |   | g |    |
|                                | *c |   | l |   | u |   | e |    |
|                                | om |   | * |   | m |   | * |    |
|                                | pa |   | * |   | * |   | * |    |
|                                | ni |   |   |   | * |   |   |    |
|                                | es |   | * |   |   |   | * |    |
|                                | ** |   | * |   | * |   | * |    |
|                                |    |   | ( |   | * |   | ( |    |
|                                |    |   | 5 |   | ( |   | 2 |    |
|                                |    |   | - |   | 1 |   | 5 |    |
|                                |    |   | - |   | 5 |   | 0 |    |
|                                |    |   | 1 |   | - |   | o |    |
|                                |    |   | 4 |   | - |   | r |    |
|                                |    |   | ) |   | 2 |   | m |    |
|                                |    |   | * |   | 4 |   | o |    |
|                                |    |   | * |   | 9 |   | r |    |
|                                |    |   |   |   | ) |   | e |    |
|                                |    |   |   |   | * |   | ) |    |
|                                |    |   |   |   | * |   | * |    |
|                                |    |   |   |   |   |   | * |    |
+--------------------------------+----+---+---+---+---+---+---+----+
|                                | \% | R | \ | R | \ | R | \ | Ra |
|                                |    | a | % | a | % | a | % | nk |
|                                |    | n |   | n |   | n |   |    |
|                                |    | k |   | k |   | k |   |    |
+--------------------------------+----+---+---+---+---+---+---+----+
| Finding a way to return        | 51 | 1 | 5 | 2 | 4 | 1 | 5 | 1  |
| employees to work              | .3 |   | 3 |   | 9 |   | 3 |    |
|                                |    |   | . |   | . |   | . |    |
|                                |    |   | 3 |   | 1 |   | 6 |    |
+--------------------------------+----+---+---+---+---+---+---+----+
| Lack of advancement potential  | 45 | 2 | 5 | 3 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 2  |
|                                | .9 |   | 3 |   | 5 |   | 8 |    |
|                                |    |   | . |   | . |   | . |    |
|                                |    |   | 2 |   | 2 |   | 5 |    |
+--------------------------------+----+---+---+---+---+---+---+----+
| Actual cost of accommodating   | 42 | 3 | 5 | 1 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3  |
| disability                     | .3 |   | 3 |   | 0 |   | 2 |    |
|                                |    |   | . |   | . |   | . |    |
|                                |    |   | 9 |   | 1 |   | 8 |    |
+--------------------------------+----+---+---+---+---+---+---+----+
| Concern about the cost of      | 35 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 1 | 7  |
| workers compensation premiums  | .4 |   | 1 |   | 3 |   | 9 |    |
|                                |    |   | . |   | . |   | . |    |
|                                |    |   | 7 |   | 7 |   | 7 |    |
+--------------------------------+----+---+---+---+---+---+---+----+
| Concern about the cost of      | 32 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 2 | 5 | 1 | 8  |
| health care coverage           | .9 |   | 0 |   | 9 |   | 8 |    |
|                                |    |   | . |   | . |   | . |    |
|                                |    |   | 4 |   | 7 |   | 7 |    |
+--------------------------------+----+---+---+---+---+---+---+----+
| Attitudes of customers         | 22 | 6 | 2 | 6 | 2 | 7 | 2 | 4  |
|                                | .4 |   | 3 |   | 0 |   | 4 |    |
|                                |    |   | . |   | . |   | . |    |
|                                |    |   | 5 |   | 8 |   | 3 |    |
+--------------------------------+----+---+---+---+---+---+---+----+
| Attitudes of co-workers        | 21 | 7 | 1 | 7 | 2 | 6 | 2 | 6  |
|                                | .2 |   | 9 |   | 1 |   | 2 |    |
|                                |    |   | . |   | . |   | . |    |
|                                |    |   | 3 |   | 8 |   | 1 |    |
+--------------------------------+----+---+---+---+---+---+---+----+
| Attitudes of supervisors       | 18 | 8 | 1 | 8 | 1 | 8 | 2 | 5  |
|                                | .9 |   | 4 |   | 9 |   | 3 |    |
|                                |    |   | . |   | . |   | . |    |
|                                |    |   | 7 |   | 1 |   | 4 |    |
+--------------------------------+----+---+---+---+---+---+---+----+
| Source: 2008 Survey of         |    |   |   |   |   |   |   |    |
| Employer Perspectives on the   |    |   |   |   |   |   |   |    |
| Employment of People with      |    |   |   |   |   |   |   |    |
| Disabilities, ODEP.            |    |   |   |   |   |   |   |    |
+--------------------------------+----+---+---+---+---+---+---+----+
| Note: Based on question 18,    |    |   |   |   |   |   |   |    |
| "In your opinion, how much of  |    |   |   |   |   |   |   |    |
| a challenge are the following  |    |   |   |   |   |   |   |    |
| factors to your company in     |    |   |   |   |   |   |   |    |
| retaining a person with a      |    |   |   |   |   |   |   |    |
| disability?" The following     |    |   |   |   |   |   |   |    |
| responses were available: a    |    |   |   |   |   |   |   |    |
| major challenge, somewhat of a |    |   |   |   |   |   |   |    |
| challenge or not a challenge.  |    |   |   |   |   |   |   |    |
+--------------------------------+----+---+---+---+---+---+---+----+
| Statistics based on the 1,148  |    |   |   |   |   |   |   |    |
| companies that employ people   |    |   |   |   |   |   |   |    |
| with disabilities.             |    |   |   |   |   |   |   |    |
+--------------------------------+----+---+---+---+---+---+---+----+

**Helpful Retention Strategies.** Companies that currently employ people
with disabilities were asked about strategies that would be helpful in
retaining people with disabilities. Table 17 shows how the strategies
rank by company size. A visible commitment from top management is
important to retaining people with disabilities, regardless of company
size. Small and mid-sized companies are more likely to cite employer tax
credits and incentives as a retention strategy than large companies.
Large companies most often cite mentoring as the top strategy for
retention. In fact, except for employer tax credits or incentives, large
companies cite each strategy more frequently than small or medium
companies, perhaps because they are more likely to hire and actively
recruit people with disabilities than their smaller counterparts.
Regardless of company size, the two least cited strategies are a
centralized accommodations fund and reassignment.

+------------------------------+----+---+----+---+---+---+---+----+
| []{                          |    |   |    |   |   |   |   |    |
| #__RefHeading___Toc217461078 |    |   |    |   |   |   |   |    |
| .anchor}Table 17. Percent of |    |   |    |   |   |   |   |    |
| companies that employ people |    |   |    |   |   |   |   |    |
| with disabilities citing     |    |   |    |   |   |   |   |    |
| retention strategies, by     |    |   |    |   |   |   |   |    |
| company size                 |    |   |    |   |   |   |   |    |
+------------------------------+----+---+----+---+---+---+---+----+
| **Strategy**                 | *  |   | *  |   | * |   | * |    |
|                              | *A |   | *S |   | * |   | * |    |
|                              | ll |   | ma |   | M |   | L |    |
|                              | ** |   | ll |   | e |   | a |    |
|                              |    |   | ** |   | d |   | r |    |
|                              | *  |   |    |   | i |   | g |    |
|                              | *c |   | *  |   | u |   | e |    |
|                              | om |   | *( |   | m |   | * |    |
|                              | pa |   | 5- |   | * |   | * |    |
|                              | ni |   | -1 |   | * |   |   |    |
|                              | es |   | 4) |   |   |   | * |    |
|                              | ** |   | ** |   | * |   | * |    |
|                              |    |   |    |   | * |   | ( |    |
|                              |    |   |    |   | ( |   | 2 |    |
|                              |    |   |    |   | 1 |   | 5 |    |
|                              |    |   |    |   | 5 |   | 0 |    |
|                              |    |   |    |   | - |   | o |    |
|                              |    |   |    |   | - |   | r |    |
|                              |    |   |    |   | 2 |   | m |    |
|                              |    |   |    |   | 4 |   | o |    |
|                              |    |   |    |   | 9 |   | r |    |
|                              |    |   |    |   | ) |   | e |    |
|                              |    |   |    |   | * |   | ) |    |
|                              |    |   |    |   | * |   | * |    |
|                              |    |   |    |   |   |   | * |    |
+------------------------------+----+---+----+---+---+---+---+----+
|                              | \% | R | \% | R | \ | R | \ | Ra |
|                              |    | a |    | a | % | a | % | nk |
|                              |    | n |    | n |   | n |   |    |
|                              |    | k |    | k |   | k |   |    |
+------------------------------+----+---+----+---+---+---+---+----+
| Visible top management       | 75 | 1 | 73 | 2 | 7 | 2 | 8 | 2  |
| commitment                   | .2 |   | .1 |   | 2 |   | 3 |    |
|                              |    |   |    |   | . |   | . |    |
|                              |    |   |    |   | 2 |   | 9 |    |
+------------------------------+----+---+----+---+---+---+---+----+
| Employer tax credits and     | 75 | 1 | 81 | 1 | 7 | 1 | 7 | 6  |
| incentives                   | .2 |   | .1 |   | 3 |   | 2 |    |
|                              |    |   |    |   | . |   | . |    |
|                              |    |   |    |   | 1 |   | 3 |    |
+------------------------------+----+---+----+---+---+---+---+----+
| Mentoring                    | 72 | 3 | 69 | 3 | 6 | 4 | 8 | 1  |
|                              | .0 |   | .7 |   | 7 |   | 5 |    |
|                              |    |   |    |   | . |   | . |    |
|                              |    |   |    |   | 0 |   | 2 |    |
+------------------------------+----+---+----+---+---+---+---+----+
| Flexible work schedule       | 69 | 4 | 68 | 4 | 6 | 3 | 7 | 8  |
|                              | .4 |   | .5 |   | 9 |   | 1 |    |
|                              |    |   |    |   | . |   | . |    |
|                              |    |   |    |   | 2 |   | 1 |    |
+------------------------------+----+---+----+---+---+---+---+----+
| Assistive technology         | 68 | 5 | 66 | 5 | 6 | 6 | 7 | 4  |
|                              | .8 |   | .8 |   | 4 |   | 9 |    |
|                              |    |   |    |   | . |   | . |    |
|                              |    |   |    |   | 8 |   | 7 |    |
+------------------------------+----+---+----+---+---+---+---+----+
| Disability awareness         | 68 | 6 | 63 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 7 | 5  |
| training                     | .3 |   | .3 |   | 6 |   | 7 |    |
|                              |    |   |    |   | . |   | . |    |
|                              |    |   |    |   | 7 |   | 9 |    |
+------------------------------+----+---+----+---+---+---+---+----+
| On-site consultation or      | 67 | 7 | 62 | 8 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 3  |
| technical assistance         | .0 |   | .6 |   | 3 |   | 0 |    |
|                              |    |   |    |   | . |   | . |    |
|                              |    |   |    |   | 4 |   | 0 |    |
+------------------------------+----+---+----+---+---+---+---+----+
| Training existing staff      | 65 | 8 | 64 | 6 | 6 | 8 | 7 | 7  |
|                              | .5 |   | .4 |   | 3 |   | 1 |    |
|                              |    |   |    |   | . |   | . |    |
|                              |    |   |    |   | 1 |   | 7 |    |
+------------------------------+----+---+----+---+---+---+---+----+
| Short-term on the job        | 62 | 9 | 59 | 9 | 6 | 9 | 6 | 9  |
| assistance with job coach    | .1 |   | .0 |   | 0 |   | 9 |    |
|                              |    |   |    |   | . |   | . |    |
|                              |    |   |    |   | 4 |   | 5 |    |
+------------------------------+----+---+----+---+---+---+---+----+
| Disability targeted          | 57 | 1 | 57 | 1 | 5 | 1 | 6 | 10 |
| internship program           | .8 | 0 | .3 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 6 |    |
|                              |    |   |    |   | . |   | . |    |
|                              |    |   |    |   | 8 |   | 7 |    |
+------------------------------+----+---+----+---+---+---+---+----+
| Centralized accommodations   | 54 | 1 | 55 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 6 | 10 |
| fund                         | .3 | 1 | .0 | 1 | 8 | 1 | 6 |    |
|                              |    |   |    |   | . |   | . |    |
|                              |    |   |    |   | 0 |   | 7 |    |
+------------------------------+----+---+----+---+---+---+---+----+
| Reassignment                 | 50 | 1 | 51 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 5 | 12 |
|                              | .5 | 2 | .5 | 2 | 7 | 2 | 5 |    |
|                              |    |   |    |   | . |   | . |    |
|                              |    |   |    |   | 8 |   | 2 |    |
+------------------------------+----+---+----+---+---+---+---+----+
| Source: 2008 Survey of       |    |   |    |   |   |   |   |    |
| Employer Perspectives on the |    |   |    |   |   |   |   |    |
| Employment of People with    |    |   |    |   |   |   |   |    |
| Disabilities, ODEP.          |    |   |    |   |   |   |   |    |
+------------------------------+----+---+----+---+---+---+---+----+
| Note: Based on question 22,  |    |   |    |   |   |   |   |    |
| "For each of the following,  |    |   |    |   |   |   |   |    |
| please tell me if these      |    |   |    |   |   |   |   |    |
| strategies would be helpful  |    |   |    |   |   |   |   |    |
| in retaining people with     |    |   |    |   |   |   |   |    |
| disabilities within your     |    |   |    |   |   |   |   |    |
| company." Yes/no responses   |    |   |    |   |   |   |   |    |
| were available.              |    |   |    |   |   |   |   |    |
+------------------------------+----+---+----+---+---+---+---+----+
| Statistics based on the      |    |   |    |   |   |   |   |    |
| 1,148 companies that employ  |    |   |    |   |   |   |   |    |
| people with disabilities.    |    |   |    |   |   |   |   |    |
+------------------------------+----+---+----+---+---+---+---+----+

##### Collecting Accommodations Data

Workplace accommodations play an important role in the productivity of
people with disabilities. Companies that employ people with disabilities
were asked about the purposes for keeping data on the accommodations for
employees with disabilities. Table 18 provides the percentage of the
companies that keep data for a particular reason and how those reasons
rank by company size. Regardless of company size, the top two reasons
are regulatory reporting requirements (36.4 percent) and disability
claim coordination (32.2 percent), while the least cited is tracking
accommodation costs (13.3 percent). Large companies cited each reason
more frequently than other companies.

+-------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| []{#__RefHeading___Toc217461079     |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| .anchor}Table 18. Percent of        |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| companies that cited reasons for    |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| collecting data on accommodations,  |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| by company size                     |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
+-------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| **Reason for collecting data on     | * |   | * |   | * |   | * |   |
| accommodations**                    | * |   | * |   | * |   | * |   |
|                                     | A |   | S |   | M |   | L |   |
|                                     | l |   | m |   | e |   | a |   |
|                                     | l |   | a |   | d |   | r |   |
|                                     | * |   | l |   | i |   | g |   |
|                                     | * |   | l |   | u |   | e |   |
|                                     |   |   | * |   | m |   | * |   |
|                                     | * |   | * |   | * |   | * |   |
|                                     | * |   |   |   | * |   |   |   |
|                                     | c |   | * |   |   |   | * |   |
|                                     | o |   | * |   | * |   | * |   |
|                                     | m |   | ( |   | * |   | ( |   |
|                                     | p |   | 5 |   | ( |   | 2 |   |
|                                     | a |   | - |   | 1 |   | 5 |   |
|                                     | n |   | - |   | 5 |   | 0 |   |
|                                     | i |   | 1 |   | - |   | o |   |
|                                     | e |   | 4 |   | - |   | r |   |
|                                     | s |   | ) |   | 2 |   | m |   |
|                                     | * |   | * |   | 4 |   | o |   |
|                                     | * |   | * |   | 9 |   | r |   |
|                                     |   |   |   |   | ) |   | e |   |
|                                     |   |   |   |   | * |   | ) |   |
|                                     |   |   |   |   | * |   | * |   |
|                                     |   |   |   |   |   |   | * |   |
+-------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
|                                     | \ | R | \ | R | \ | R | \ | R |
|                                     | % | a | % | a | % | a | % | a |
|                                     |   | n |   | n |   | n |   | n |
|                                     |   | k |   | k |   | k |   | k |
+-------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| Regulatory reporting requirements   | 3 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 5 | 1 |
|                                     | 6 |   | 1 |   | 7 |   | 2 |   |
|                                     | . |   | . |   | . |   | . |   |
|                                     | 4 |   | 9 |   | 4 |   | 0 |   |
+-------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| Disability claim coordination       | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 2 |
|                                     | 2 |   | 0 |   | 1 |   | 8 |   |
|                                     | . |   | . |   | . |   | . |   |
|                                     | 2 |   | 6 |   | 4 |   | 1 |   |
+-------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| Future accommodations in similar    | 2 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 4 |
| situations                          | 4 |   | 9 |   | 1 |   | 8 |   |
|                                     | . |   | . |   | . |   | . |   |
|                                     | 8 |   | 5 |   | 3 |   | 5 |   |
+-------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| Dispute resolution/settlement       | 2 | 4 | 1 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 |
|                                     | 4 |   | 6 |   | 1 |   | 8 |   |
|                                     | . |   | . |   | . |   | . |   |
|                                     | 0 |   | 9 |   | 5 |   | 8 |   |
+-------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| Tracking accommodation costs        | 1 | 5 | 1 | 5 | 1 | 5 | 1 | 5 |
|                                     | 3 |   | 2 |   | 2 |   | 6 |   |
|                                     | . |   | . |   | . |   | . |   |
|                                     | 3 |   | 2 |   | 2 |   | 9 |   |
+-------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| Source: 2008 Survey of Employer     |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Perspectives on the Employment of   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| People with Disabilities, ODEP.     |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
+-------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| Note: Based on question 23, "Does   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| your company keep data on the       |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| accommodations it makes for         |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| employees with disabilities for any |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| of the following purposes?"         |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
+-------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| Statistics based on the 1,148       |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| companies that employ people with   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| disabilities.                       |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
+-------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+

##### Knowledge of One-Stop Career Centers

One-Stop Career Centers are operated by state and local agencies and are
designed to provide a full range of assistance to job seekers and
employers in one location. Established under the Workforce Investment
Act, the centers offer training referrals, career counseling, job
listings, and other employment-related services. All companies were
asked, "Are you aware that your local One-Stop Center offers services to
businesses?" Table 19 shows that 25 percent of employers are aware of
local One-Stop Centers. Large companies (42.6 percent) and employers in
public administration (38.1 percent) are more likely to know of local
One-Stop Centers. Within the private sector, the proportion of employers
in goods-producing industries aware of One-Stop services is the roughly
the same as the proportion of employers in service-producing industries.

When companies were asked if they used One-Stop services, 15.3 percent
said they did. The use of One-Stop services increases with company size:
small companies (7 percent), medium-sized companies (14.9 percent), and
large companies (43.6 percent). Public administration employers are much
more likely to use One-Stop services (41.5 percent) than
service-producing and goods-producing employers (14.6 percent and 14.3
percent, respectively).

[]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

  ------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------
  []{#__RefHeading___Toc217461080                      
  .anchor}Table 19. Percent of                         
  companies aware of the services of                   
  the One-Stop Career Centers and                      
  percent of those companies that used                 
  One-Stop services, by company size                   
  and industry type                                    

  **Company size and industry type**   **Percent aware **Percent that
                                       of One-Stop     used services
                                       Career          among those
                                       Centers**       aware**

  All companies (5 or more employees)  25.0            15.3

  Small (5--14 employees)              21.6            7.0

  Medium (15--249 employees)           25.6            14.9

  Large (250 or more employees)        42.6            43.6

  Service-producing industries         24.6            14.6

  Goods-producing industries           25.5            14.3

  Public administration                38.1            41.5

  Source: 2008 Survey of Employer                      
  Perspectives on the Employment of                    
  People with Disabilities, ODEP.                      

  Note: Based on question 26a,                         
  "One-Stop Career Centers are                         
  publicly-operated by State and local                 
  agencies and are designed to provide                 
  a full range of assistance to job                    
  seekers and employers in one                         
  location. Established under the                      
  Workforce Investment Act, the                        
  centers offer training referrals,                    
  career counseling, job listings, and                 
  similar employment-related services.                 
  Are you aware that your local                        
  One-Stop Center offers services to                   
  businesses?" and question 26b: "In                   
  the past 12 months, has your company                 
  used any of those business services                  
  from the One-Stop Center?"                           

  All 3,797 companies were asked                       
  question 26a.                                        
  ------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------

[]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

Respondents were also asked which services they used. However, the
sample of respondents that used One-Stop services was too small---not
all strata are represented---therefore standard errors could not be
estimated.

##### Knowledge of the Job Accommodation Network 

The Job Accommodation Network (JAN) is a service provided by ODEP. Its
mission is to facilitate the employment and retention of workers with
disabilities by providing information on job accommodations,
entrepreneurship, and related subjects. All companies were asked, "Are
you familiar with the services of the Job Accommodation Network?" Table
20 shows that 7.4 percent of employers are familiar with JAN services.
Large companies are much more likely to be familiar with JAN services
than small and medium-sized companies (21.6 percent compared to 6
percent and 5.9 percent, respectively). Public administration employers
are more likely to be familiar with JAN (19.2 percent) than are
employers in service (7.3 percent) or goods-producing industries (6.2
percent).

Of the companies that are familiar with JAN services, 27.7 percent
report using the services.

[]{.mark}

  -------------------------------------- ------------ --------------------
  []{#__RefHeading___Toc217461081                     
  .anchor}Table 20. Percent of companies              
  familiar with the services of the Job               
  Accommodation Network (JAN) and                     
  percentage of those companies that                  
  used JAN services, by company size and              
  industry type                                       

  **Company size and industry type**     **Percent    **Percent that used
                                         familiar**   services among those
                                                      familiar**

  All companies (5 or more employees)    7.4          27.7

  Small (5--14 employees)                6.0          NA

  Medium (15--249 employees)             5.9          NA

  Large (250 or more employees)          21.6         NA

  In service-producing industries        7.3          NA

  In goods-producing industries          6.2          NA

  In public administration               19.2         NA

  Source: 2008 Survey of Employer                     
  Perspectives on the Employment of                   
  People with Disabilities, ODEP.                     

  Note: Based on question 24, "Are you                
  familiar with the services of the Job               
  Accommodation Network?" and question                
  24a, "Have you used the services of                 
  the Job Accommodation Network?"                     

  All 3,797 companies were asked                      
  question 24.                                        

  NA indicates that estimates are not                 
  available due to small sample size.                 
  -------------------------------------- ------------ --------------------

[]{.mark}

##### Knowledge of the Employer Assistance and Recruiting Network 

The Employer Assistance and Recruiting Network (EARN) is a service
provided by ODEP. It is a national toll-free telephone and electronic
information referral service which became available to the public in
March 2001. It assists employers in locating and recruiting qualified
workers with disabilities and provides technical assistance on general
disability employment-related issues. All companies were asked, "Are you
familiar with the services of the \[EARN\]?" Table 21 shows that 8
percent of employers are familiar with EARN services. As with JAN
services, large companies are more likely to be familiar with EARN
services than are small and medium-sized companies (14.3 percent
compared to 6.8 percent and 6 percent, respectively). However, there was
no difference among the three types of industries with regard to
familiarity with EARN.

Companies that indicated familiarity with EARN services were asked if
they used these services. Table 21 shows that 12.4 percent of these
companies use EARN services.

[]{.mark}

  --------------------------------------- ------------ --------------------
  []{#__RefHeading___Toc217461082                      
  .anchor}Table 21. Percent of companies               
  familiar with the services of the                    
  Employer Assistance and Recruiting                   
  Network (EARN) and percent of those                  
  companies that used EARN services, by                
  company size and industry type                       

  **Company size and industry type**      **Percent    **Percent that used
                                          familiar**   services among those
                                                       familiar**

  All companies (5 or more employees)     8.0          12.4

  Small (5--14 employees)                 6.8          NA

  Medium (15--249 employees)              8.0          NA

  Large (250 or more employees)           14.3         NA

  In service-producing industries         8.1          NA

  In goods-producing industries           7.6          NA

  In public administration                8.6          NA

  Source: 2008 Survey of Employer                      
  Perspectives on the Employment of                    
  People with Disabilities, ODEP.                      

  Note: Based on question 25, "Are you                 
  familiar with the services of the                    
  Employer Assistance and Recruiting                   
  Network (EARN)?" and question 25a,                   
  "Have you used the services of the                   
  EARN?\"                                              

  All 3,797 companies were asked question              
  25.                                                  

  NA indicates that estimates are not                  
  available due to small sample size.                  
  --------------------------------------- ------------ --------------------

**Limitations of the data**

When delving deeper into specific issues, it will be important to
consider the number of companies that can address these issues. For
instance, when looking at recruiting strategies, the sample was limited
to the 840 respondents that actively recruit people with disabilities,
restricting the ability to analyze this issue by company size and
industry. However, this finding is a useful indicator that more needs to
be done to encourage employers to actively recruit people with
disabilities.

When studying disability issues, it is important to consider cultural
and experiential differences. For instance, there is concern that the
prevalence of disability in some states is too high or too low because
of systematic differences in the way people perceive disability.
Vignette approaches have been used successfully to obtain quasi-baseline
information about respondent perception. In this approach, the
interviewer reads a vignette about an individual, and then respondent is
asked if the person in the vignette has a disability. After several
vignettes, the respondent is asked if he or she has a disability. A
similar approach could be used to solicit information about an
employer's perspective regarding the nature of disability and the types
of jobs employers believe that people with a disability can and cannot
do.

**Conclusions**

When examining the results on challenges, concerns, and strategies,
several patterns emerge. The strength of this survey is the ability to
examine patterns by company size and industry. Policy initiatives can be
better developed by considering these differences.

Large companies are more likely to employ, hire and actively recruit
people with disabilities. This suggests that policies and information
should be geared to the small and mid-sized businesses. The findings
also suggest the type of information that is needed. When we asked
companies that do not actively recruit people with disabilities what
type of information would persuade them to recruit, information about
satisfactory job performance, increases to the company's productivity,
and benefits to the company's bottom line were the three most
persuasive. But breaking down these results by company size revealed
that small and medium companies find information about satisfactory job
performance most persuasive, while large companies are most persuaded by
information supported by statistics or research.

Large companies ranked inability to find qualified people with
disabilities as their number one challenge. Even though large companies
are more likely to be familiar with the employment services of EARN,
there is room for improvement in helping companies find qualified
candidates.

A high percentage of employers cited nature of the work as a concern
about hiring people with disabilities, but this concern was most
prevalent among employers in industries that require physically
demanding work. When probed, some companies cited sales work as being
difficult for a person with a disability to perform because of the
travel involved. This may reflect a lack of knowledge about
accommodations available and these employers may benefit from
information on how travel is not necessarily a barrier for people with
disabilities.

Not knowing how much accommodations will cost and the actual cost of
accommodating disability are major concerns associated with hiring. At
the same time, not knowing how much accommodations will cost is
considered more of a hiring challenge than the actual cost of
accommodation, which suggests that aversion to risk needs to be
addressed in the literature on the cost of accommodations. These
concerns reflect a need for education not only to increase the number of
companies that recruit, but to better prepare them to make a hiring
decision when considering a qualified candidate with a disability.

Health care costs, workers compensation costs and fear of litigation are
more challenging for small and medium sized companies than for large
companies. These challenges are especially strong among companies that
do not actively recruit people with disabilities, so information geared
toward allaying these fears among small and medium companies would be
helpful.

For companies that employ people with disabilities, the lack of
advancement potential is cited as a challenge more frequently than are
attitudes of customers, co-workers or supervisors. Not surprisingly,
lack of advancement potential was more of challenge for small companies
than for medium and large companies.

Companies are challenged by finding ways to return employees to work
after the onset of a disability, and for small firms, the cost of
accommodating disability was the major challenge in retaining employees
with disabilities. These findings show that return to work can present
special challenges even for companies that already employ people with
disabilities, and for small companies that must bear the cost of
accommodations. Small and medium companies are also challenged by the
cost of workers compensation premiums and health care coverage much more
than are large companies. To deal with these retention challenges, small
and medium companies cite employer tax credits and large companies cite
mentoring of employees as a successful strategy for retaining employees
with disabilities. Also important to all companies is a visible top
management commitment. Developing information that shows how small
companies can retain their valued employees through accommodations and
how mentoring works for large companies may serve to strengthen
retention.

Public administration organizations tend to actively recruit and hire
people with disabilities more than their private sector counterparts,
which suggests a need to develop policy initiatives targeted toward the
private sector.

### References

Bruyère, S. M. (2000). *Disability employment policies and practices in
private and federal sector organizations.* Ithaca, NY: Cornell
University, School of Industrial and Labor Relations Extension Division,
Program on Employment and Disability.

Dixon, K.A. (2003). *Restricted access: A survey of employers about
people with disabilities and lowering barriers to work.* Rutgers, NJ:
The John J. Heldrich Center for Workforce Development.

Hernandez, B., Keys, C., & Balcazar, F. (2000). Employer attitudes
toward workers with disabilities and their ADA employment rights: A
literature review. *Journal of Rehabilitation*, *66*, 4-16.

Unger, D.D. (2002). Employers' attitudes toward people with disabilities
in the workforce: Myths or realities. *Focus on Autism and Other
Developmental Disabilities*, *17*(1), 2-10.

## Appendix A: Sample Design

## 

This appendix describes the sample design. It includes a description of
the sampling frame, precision requirements and sample size,
stratification, and sample selection.

**Sampling Frame**

The sampling frame for the survey was the Duns Market Identifiers (DMI)
register maintained by Dun & Bradstreet (D&B). DMI is a file produced by
D&B, Inc., contains basic company data, executive names and titles,
mailing and location addresses, corporate linkages, D-U-N-S numbers,
employment and sales data on over 10 million U.S. business establishment
locations, including public, private, and government organizations. DMI
is the single comprehensive publicly available database to provide
coverage of business establishments. An alternative comprehensive
database is BusinessUSA, however it does not provide corporate linkages
and only a small number of records can be accessed at a time and thus it
is not convenient for drawing random samples. Other alternative
databases are generally restricted to certain sectors.

DMI's coverage of the target population is relatively complete. A Westat
study, conducted in eight states, found that its coverage of
establishments is high[^3]. The study claims that the coverage of
establishments, based on the eight states, appears to be near 98 or 99
percent. However, coverage of new establishments can be much lower. The
study in eight states found that about one-half of new establishments
are included in the list within the first year. The coverage of smaller
establishments can also be relatively lower.

The sampling frame records contained the following fields from DMI: a
D-U-N-S number; North American Industry Classification System (NAICS)
code and Standard Industrial Classification (SIC code); FIPS State code;
SMSA code; number of employees at the location; total number of
employees for the entire organization; status indicator, i.e., single
location, headquarters, or branch; a subsidiary indicator; D-U-N-S
numbers of the domestic topmost firm, headquarters, and parent (if a
subsidiary); a hierarchy code to identify its location within the
corporate structure; and DIAS code.

Employer policies and practices on the employment of people with
disabilities may vary among large firms. Some may be highly centralized;
others may have separate policies in branches. DMI provided the option
of choosing alternative organizational levels. The DMI list included
both headquarters and branch level records. DMI defines a headquarters
as a business establishment that has branches or divisions reporting to
it, and is financially responsible for those branches or divisions. We
included only the headquarters record for those companies with multiple
branches. Therefore, the sampling units were the single location (a
business establishment with no branches or subsidiaries reporting to it)
companies and the headquarters of the companies that have multiple
branches. The headquarters record provided the total number of employees
for the company, including the employees in the branches. Another
corporate family linkage relationship provided by DMI is the subsidiary
to parent linkage. A subsidiary is a corporation with more than 50
percent of its capital stock is owned by another corporation and will
have a different legal business name from its parent company. The
subsidiaries and parent companies were included as separate sampling
units.

**Precision Requirements and Sample Size Determination**

The domains of the population of interest for the survey were based on
company size classes within the major industry sectors. The 12 industry
sectors and their definitions in terms of 2002 NAICS codes are shown in
Table A.1.

The size classes were small, medium, and large. The size classes were
based on the total number of employees of the company. A uniform set of
size class boundaries was used for all industry sectors, e.g., small
(5-14 employees), medium (15-249 employees), and large companies (250 or
more employees). There were a total of 36 (three size classes within 12
industry sectors) domains of interest.

+-------------------------+--------------------------------------------+
| **Table A1. Definition  |                                            |
| of Major Industry       |                                            |
| Sectors by 2002 NAICS   |                                            |
| Codes**                 |                                            |
+-------------------------+--------------------------------------------+
| **Industry Sector**     | **2002 NAICS**                             |
+-------------------------+--------------------------------------------+
| Construction            | 23: Construction                           |
+-------------------------+--------------------------------------------+
| Manufacturing           | 31-33: Manufacturing                       |
+-------------------------+--------------------------------------------+
| Wholesale Trade         | 42: Wholesale Trade                        |
+-------------------------+--------------------------------------------+
| Retail Trade            | 44-45: Retail Trade                        |
+-------------------------+--------------------------------------------+
| Transportation and      | 48: Transportation                         |
| Warehousing             |                                            |
|                         |                                            |
|                         |                                            |
|                         |                                            |
|                         |                                            |
+-------------------------+--------------------------------------------+
|                         | 492: Couriers & Messengers                 |
+-------------------------+--------------------------------------------+
|                         | 493: Warehousing & Storage                 |
+-------------------------+--------------------------------------------+
| Information             | 51: Information                            |
+-------------------------+--------------------------------------------+
| Financial Activities    | 52: Finance and Insurance                  |
|                         |                                            |
|                         |                                            |
+-------------------------+--------------------------------------------+
|                         | 53: Real Estate and Rental and Leasing     |
+-------------------------+--------------------------------------------+
| Professional & Business | 54: Professional, Scientific, and          |
| Services                | Technical Services                         |
|                         |                                            |
|                         |                                            |
|                         |                                            |
|                         |                                            |
+-------------------------+--------------------------------------------+
|                         | 55: Management of Companies and            |
|                         | Enterprises                                |
+-------------------------+--------------------------------------------+
|                         | 56: Administrative and Support and Waste   |
|                         | Management and Remediation Services        |
+-------------------------+--------------------------------------------+
| Education & Health      | 61: Education Services                     |
| Services                |                                            |
|                         |                                            |
|                         |                                            |
+-------------------------+--------------------------------------------+
|                         | 62: Health Care and Social Assistance      |
+-------------------------+--------------------------------------------+
| Leisure & Hospitality   | 71: Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation    |
|                         |                                            |
|                         |                                            |
+-------------------------+--------------------------------------------+
|                         | 72: Accommodation and Food Services        |
+-------------------------+--------------------------------------------+
| Other Services          | 81: Other Services                         |
+-------------------------+--------------------------------------------+
| Public Administration   | 92: Public Administration                  |
+-------------------------+--------------------------------------------+

Table A.2 shows the number of company records in the sampling frame by
major industry sector and company employee size classes. Single location
companies and headquarters of companies with multiple branches were used
in the sampling frame. That is, a company with a headquarters and
multiple branches in different locations was included as a single unit.
The number of employees for the headquarters refers to the total number
of employees in the company, including the employees in the branches.
The number of employees includes full-time and part-time employees as
well as the owners/proprietors.

  ------------------- -------------- ------------- ------------ -----------
  **Table A2. Number                                            
  of Companies by                                               
  Major Industry                                                
  Sector and Company                                            
  Employee Size                                                 
  Sampling Strata**                                             

  **Industry Sector** **Number of                               ** **
                      Employees**                               

                      **5-14**       **15-249**    **250 or     Total
                                                   more**       

  Construction        203,555        102,087       2,634        308,276

  Manufacturing       124,616        119,963       12,676       257,255

  Wholesale Trade     128,176        69,984        3,371        201,531

  Retail Trade        243,026        102,809       3,298        349,133

  Transportation &    45,064         32,364        1,920        79,348
  Warehousing                                                   

  Information         37,732         35,259        2,364        75,355

  Financial           155,783        86,982        5,875        248,640
  Activities                                                    

  Professional &      322,603        145,739       8,429        476,771
  Business Services                                             

  Education & Health  263,654        197,577       15,657       476,888
  Services                                                      

  Leisure &           164,051        325,885       4,368        494,304
  Hospitality                                                   

  Other Services      222,110        67,055        1,688        290,853

  Public              10,796         39,922        4,478        55,196
  Administration                                                

  Total               1,921,166      1,325,626     66,758       3,313,550

  Note: The companies                                           
  with an unknown                                               
  employee size are                                             
  included in the                                               
  15-249 size                                                   
  category.                                                     

  About 1.5 percent                                             
  of the total number                                           
  of companies had an                                           
  unknown employee                                              
  size.                                                         
  ------------------- -------------- ------------- ------------ -----------

The population parameters of interest are mainly in the form of
proportions. These include within each company size class and industry
sector, the proportion of companies with employees that have disability,
the proportion of companies that hired any person with disabilities
within the past 12 months, the proportion of companies that proactively
recruit job applicants who are people with disabilities, etc. For
example, the estimate of the proportion of companies with employees
having disability in size class *k* within industry sector *h*,
${\hat{p}}_{\text{hk}}$will be obtained as:

$${\hat{p}}_{\text{hk}} = \frac{\sum_{i \in S_{\text{hk}}}^{}{w_{\text{hki}}y_{\text{hki}}}}{\sum_{i \in S_{\text{hk}}}^{}w_{\text{hki}}}$$

where,

*S~hk~* is the set of responding companies in company size class *k*
within industry sector *h;*

*w~hki~* is the nonresponse adjusted sampling weight attached to
responding company *i* in company size class *k* within industry sector
*h* (see the weighting section below for the derivation of the sampling
weights);

*y~hki~* is the indicator of the presence of an employee with disability
in company *i* in company size class *k* within industry sector *h*.

The sample size in each size class within the major industry sector
should be large enough to provide a sufficient number of completed
interviews to obtain estimates with a reasonable precision. We decided
to select a sample to yield 100 completed interviews in each of the 36
size class by industry sector strata. Therefore, in total, we targeted
to obtain 3,600 completed interviews. The maximum percent error for
estimates of percentages obtained from a simple random sample yielding
100 completed interviews should not exceed 10 percent, 95 percent of the
time. The percent error is the largest for a 50 percent proportion and
decreases as proportion moves further away from the 50 percent / 50
percent split. For example, for an 80 percent / 20 percent split, the
error is 8 percent. Thus, 100 completed interviews in each of the size
by industry strata should provide an adequate precision level for
estimates of percentages.

There is also interest in comparing the proportions across company size
classes and industry sectors. The sample sizes should be large enough to
provide more than 80 percent power to detect reasonable differences in
proportions. The power of a test is the probability of rejecting the
null hypothesis of no difference between two proportions, when the null
hypothesis is false and the alternative hypothesis is true. If the power
of the test is inadequate, when the null hypothesis of no difference is
not rejected, we can not conclude with a reasonable confidence that
there is no difference between the proportions because this may be due
to the fact that the sample size is too small to detect the difference.
A power of 80 percent is generally considered as adequate. Given, a
certain power level, larger sample sizes are needed to detect smaller
differences. A sample size of 100 can detect, with more than 80 percent
power, differences of only about 20 percent or larger. Thus, with the
planned sample size of 100 in each stratum, in comparing proportions
between company size classes within a given industry sector or between
industries within a given size class, differences of only about 20
percent or larger can be detected with adequate power. Smaller
differences can be detected with adequate power if comparisons are made
across industry sectors as aggregated across the size classes or between
the company size classes as aggregated across the industry sectors.

The overall target response rate for the survey was 40 percent.
Therefore, to obtain 3,600 completed interviews, we needed to contact
9,000 eligible companies. We assumed varying eligibility rates across
size classes. We assumed 20 percent of companies selected from the small
size stratum, 5 and 2 percents of companies selected from the medium and
large size strata, respectively, will be identified with less than 5
employees in the interview and thus will be ineligible for the survey.
In addition, we assumed 20 percent of companies selected from small size
strata and 10 percent from medium and large strata will be found as
out-of-business. We also increased the sample size by 20 percent to
allow for a reserve sample. Note that it was not possible to identify
and exclude the federal government agencies from the D&B's sampling
frame. This has to be done after the sample selected by screening in the
beginning of the interview. We increased the sample size of the public
administration sector, by about 10 percent to allow for screening and
excluding the federal government agencies from the survey. Thus, the
initial total sample size was determined to be 14,654 company records.

**Stratification and Sample Selection**

The sampling strata were formed by three (small, medium, and large) size
classes within each major industry sector. The small, medium, and large
size strata were defined as: 5-14 employees, 15-249 employees, and 250
or more employees. The companies were selected with equal probability
within each size by industry sector stratum. The sample selection was
independent across these sampling strata.

After selecting the initial sample, the sampled records in each of the
36 employee size and industry sector strata were partitioned into
approximately equal sized random groups. These random groups were
released in waves to the data collection center to conduct interviews,
as needed. In total, we released 9,118 company records for interview.
Note that the number of random groups released varied across
industry/size sampling strata to achieve the goal of obtaining close to
100 completed interviews in each reported industry/size stratum. Table
A.3 shows the number of company records released in each industry/size
sampling stratum.

  ------------------------ ------------- ------------ ----------- ----------
  **Table A3. Number of                                           
  Companies Released for                                          
  Interview by Major                                              
  Industry Sector and                                             
  Company Employee Size                                           
  Sampling Strata**                                               

  **Industry Sector**      **Number of                            ** **
                           Employees**                            

                           **5-14**      **15-249**   **250 or    Total
                                                      more**      

  Construction             299           202          234         735

  Manufacturing            269           203          214         686

  Wholesale Trade          296           221          236         753

  Retail Trade             269           203          254         726

  Transportation &         354           202          275         831
  Warehousing                                                     

  Information              324           243          331         898

  Financial Activities     352           282          255         889

  Professional & Business  271           200          258         729
  Services                                                        

  Education & Health       271           203          179         653
  Services                                                        

  Leisure & Hospitality    272           260          234         766

  Other Services           271           203          256         730

  Public Administration    303           224          195         722

  Total                    3,551         2,646        2,921       9,118
  ------------------------ ------------- ------------ ----------- ----------

**Sampling Weights**

The sampling weight is attached to every company record with a completed
interview (1) to account for differential probabilities of selection
across the industry/size sampling strata and (2) to reduce the potential
bias resulting from nonresponse. The sampling weights are necessary for
unbiased estimation of the population characteristics of interest in
this survey.

The first step in derivation of the sampling weights was to derive a
base weight, which is the reciprocal of the probability of selection of
the company. Then, the base weights were adjusted for nonresponse in
order to reduce potential biases resulting from not obtaining an
interview with every company in the sample. These adjustments were made
by redistributing the weights of nonresponding companies to responding
companies with similar propensities for nonresponse. A predictive model
for response propensity was developed to identify subgroups of
population with differential response rates within industry/size
sampling strata. These subgroups were then used as nonresponse
adjustment cells and a separate weight adjustment was applied in each
cell. The potential predictors that can be used in this modeling effort
have to be known for both respondents and nonrespondents. These include
major industry sector, company employee size classes, Census region,
MSA/non-MSA status, and single location company or headquarters
identifier for the company.

If response propensity is independent of survey estimates within
nonresponse adjustment cells, then nonresponse-adjusted weights yield
unbiased estimates. There are several alternative methods of forming
nonresponse adjustment cells to achieve this result. We used Chi-Square
Automatic Interaction Detector (CHAID) software (SPSS, 1993[^4]) to
guide us in forming the cells. CHAID partitions data into homogenous
subsets with respect to response propensity. To accomplish this, it
first merges values of the individual predictors, which are
statistically homogeneous with respect to the response propensity and
maintains all other heterogeneous values. It then selects the most
significant predictor (with the smallest p-value) as the best predictor
of response propensity and thus forms the first branch in the decision
tree. It continues applying the same process within the subgroups
(nodes) defined by the \"best\" predictor chosen in the preceding step.
This process continues until no significant predictor is found or a
specified (about 20) minimum node size is reached. The procedure is
stepwise and creates a hierarchical tree-like structure.

All sample companies were classified into five major survey response
categories based on the outcome of the survey. These five categories
were:

-   respondent -- interview completed;

-   nonrespondents, identified as inscope (in business) but eligibility
    (based on the interview) could not be determined (company name and
    being in business were verified but was not able to conduct the
    interview);

-   identified as inscope (in business) but determined to be ineligible
    in the interview;

-   inscope (in business) status could not be verified (mainly
    nonlocatable cases);

-   out-of-scope (company is no longer in business).

See Table 8.1 for a detailed breakdown of these major response
categories by survey disposition codes and the number of sampled cases.
Note that we refer to cases that were identified as being no longer in
business as out-of-scope. A number of companies although they were in
business (which we refer as inscope), later were identified as
ineligible during the interview, for such reasons as, with less than 5
employees, a federal government agency, etc.

We developed separate models for the nonresponding companies with
unknown inscope status (nonlocatables) and for the nonresponding inscope
companies. After forming two separate sets of adjustment cells, we first
adjusted the weights to compensate for those nonresponding companies
with unknown inscope status. This weight adjustment factor was computed
within each adjustment cell, as the ratio of the weighted (by the base
weight) total number of sampled companies to the weighted number of
companies, whose inscope status could be determined. In the second step,
we adjusted the weights to compensate for nonresponding inscope
companies. This nonresponse adjustment factor was computed as the ratio
of the weighted (after adjusting for nonlocatables) number of all
inscope companies (including those identified as ineligible in the
interview) to the weighted number of companies, whose eligibility could
be determined (the companies with a completed interview plus those that
were identified as ineligible in the interview) within each nonresponse
adjustment cell. Next, we discuss each weight adjustment in detail and
present the formulae.

Adjusting the Weights to Compensate for Nonresponding Cases with Unknown
Inscope Status (nonlocatables)

First, the weights were adjusted to compensate for nonresponding cases
with unknown inscope status (nonlocatables). The adjustment factor for
the adjustment class *c* ($\lambda_{c}$) was computed as:

$$\lambda_{c} = \frac{\sum_{i \in S_{1c}}^{}{W_{\text{ci}}^{B} + \sum_{i \in S_{2c}}^{}{W_{\text{ci}}^{B} + \sum_{i \in S_{3c}}^{}{W_{\text{ci}}^{B} + \sum_{i \in S_{4c}}^{}{W_{\text{ci}}^{B} + \sum_{i \in S_{5c}}^{}W_{\text{ci}}^{B}}}}}}{\sum_{i \in S_{1c}}^{}{W_{\text{ci}}^{B} + \sum_{i \in S_{2c}}^{}{W_{\text{ci}}^{B} + \sum_{i \in S_{3c}}^{}{W_{\text{ci}}^{B} + \sum_{i \in S_{5c}}^{}W_{\text{ci}}^{B}}}}}$$

where,

*S~1c~* is the set of companies with a completed interview in adjustment
class *c*,

*S~2c~* is the set of nonresponding inscope companies in adjustment
class *c*,

*S~3c~* is the set of companies that were identified as ineligible in
the interview in adjustment class *c*,

*S~4c~* is the set of sampled cases with undetermined inscope status
(nonlocatables) in adjustment class *c*,

*S~5c~* is the set of out-of-scope (no longer in business) sample cases
in adjustment class *c*,

$W_{\text{ci}}^{B}$ is the base weight for company record *i* in
adjustment class *c*.

Then, the weight adjusted for the nonresponding cases with unknown
inscope status (nonlocatables) for sampled record *i* in adjustment
class *c*, ($W_{\text{ci}}^{U}$), was computed as:

$$W_{\text{ci}}^{U} = W_{\text{ci}}^{B} \times \lambda_{c}$$

Adjusting the Weights for Nonresponding Inscope Companies

After forming the nonresponse adjustment cells, the weights were
adjusted to compensate for the nonresponding inscope companies. This
nonresponse adjustment factor for cell α, δ~α~ was computed as:

$$\delta_{\alpha} = \frac{\sum_{i \in S_{1\alpha}}^{}{W_{\alpha i}^{U} + \sum_{i \in S_{2\alpha}}^{}{W_{\alpha i}^{U} + \sum_{i \in S_{3\alpha}}^{}W_{\alpha i}^{U}}}}{\sum_{i \in S_{1\alpha}}^{}{W_{\alpha i}^{U} + \sum_{i \in S_{3\alpha}}^{}W_{\alpha i}^{U}}}$$

where,

*S~1α~* is the set of companies with a completed interview in adjustment
class *α*,

*S~2α~* is the set of nonresponding inscope companies in adjustment
class *α,*

*S~3α~* is the set of companies that were found to be ineligible during
the interview in adjustment class *α,*

$W_{\alpha i}^{U}$ is the weight adjusted for unknown inscope cases for
provider *i* in adjustment class *α.*

Then, the final nonresponse adjusted weight was computed by multiplying
the weight that was adjusted for the nonresponding cases with unknown
inscope status, with the nonresponse adjustment factor. The final
nonresponse adjusted sample weight for company *i* in nonresponse
adjustment class $\alpha$, $W_{\alpha i}^{F}$, was computed as follows:

> $$W_{\alpha i}^{F} = W_{\alpha i}^{U} \times \delta_{\alpha}$$

**Response Rate**

The survey achieved a final survey response rate of 51.4 percent. Table
A.4 shows the major response categories defined by disposition codes and
the number of sampled cases.

+-----------------------------------------------------+----------------+
| **Table A4. Major response categories, survey       |                |
| disposition codes, and the number of sampled        |                |
| cases**                                             |                |
+-----------------------------------------------------+----------------+
| ** **                                               | **Number of**  |
|                                                     |                |
| **Major Response Categories and Disposition Codes** | **Sampled      |
|                                                     | Cases**        |
+-----------------------------------------------------+----------------+
| **Total Sample**                                    | **9,118**      |
+-----------------------------------------------------+----------------+
| **1. Respondent - Completed Interview**             | **3,797**      |
+-----------------------------------------------------+----------------+
| C1: Complete                                        | 3,797          |
+-----------------------------------------------------+----------------+
| **2. Nonrespondent - Inscope - Eligibility          | **3,169**      |
| unknown**                                           |                |
+-----------------------------------------------------+----------------+
| RB: Final refusal                                   | 799            |
+-----------------------------------------------------+----------------+
| RM: Maximum call refusal                            | 423            |
+-----------------------------------------------------+----------------+
| LM: Maximum number attempts to administer survey to | 53             |
| respondent with problem communicating in English    |                |
+-----------------------------------------------------+----------------+
| LP: Final inability to administer survey in English | 3              |
+-----------------------------------------------------+----------------+
| MC: Maximum contact in English                      | 1,835          |
+-----------------------------------------------------+----------------+
| MR: Maximum number calls on a refusal case          | 33             |
+-----------------------------------------------------+----------------+
| NO: No way found to reach a contact without a name  | 22             |
| or extension due to IVR systems or company policy   |                |
+-----------------------------------------------------+----------------+
| NP: Not available in field period                   | 1              |
+-----------------------------------------------------+----------------+
| **3. Inscope - Ineligible in interview**            | **817**        |
+-----------------------------------------------------+----------------+
| I2: fewer than 5 employees                          | 714            |
+-----------------------------------------------------+----------------+
| I3: Federal government agency                       | 48             |
+-----------------------------------------------------+----------------+
| I4: Ineligible industry, e.g., agricultural,        | 3              |
| utility                                             |                |
+-----------------------------------------------------+----------------+
| I5: Company does no hiring (company has volunteers  | 41             |
| or elected personnel only)                          |                |
+-----------------------------------------------------+----------------+
| I6: All hiring done outside of U.S.                 | 4              |
+-----------------------------------------------------+----------------+
| I7: All hiring outsourced, e.g. by unions, outside  | 7              |
| employment agencies                                 |                |
+-----------------------------------------------------+----------------+
| **4. Nonrespondent - Unknown Inscope status**       | **1,207**      |
+-----------------------------------------------------+----------------+
| MP: Maximum number phone numbers tried &            | 2              |
| establishment unfound                               |                |
+-----------------------------------------------------+----------------+
| MT: Maximum number call attempts made across more   | 11             |
| than 1 phone number                                 |                |
+-----------------------------------------------------+----------------+
| NL: Nonlocatable                                    | 1,194          |
+-----------------------------------------------------+----------------+
| **5. Out-of-Scope**                                 | **128**        |
+-----------------------------------------------------+----------------+
| OC: Not in business                                 | 127            |
+-----------------------------------------------------+----------------+
| OD: Duplicate                                       | 1              |
+-----------------------------------------------------+----------------+

In Table 8.1, the first major response category includes respondents,
who completed the interview. The second category includes inscope
nonrespondents, who are identified as being in business but was unable
to conduct the interview. The third category includes inscope companies
that were identified as ineligible in the interview. The fourth category
includes those cases whose inscope status could not be determined
(mostly nonlocatables). The out-of-scope category includes mostly the
cases that were no longer in business.

The unweighted response rate is calculated as:

$$R = \text{100} \times \frac{S_{1}}{S_{1} + \text{bS}_{2} + \text{abS}_{4}}$$

where,

*S~1~* is the number of completed interviews,

*S~2~* is the number of inscope nonrespondents whose eligibility could
not be determined,

*S~4~* is the number of nonrespondents whose inscope status could not be
determined,

*b* is the estimated proportion of sample inscope cases of unknown
eligibility that are eligible,

*a* is the estimated proportion of sample cases of unknown inscope
status that are inscope,

*b* is estimated as:

$$b = \frac{S_{1}}{S_{1} + S_{3}}$$

*a* is estimated as:

$$a = \frac{S_{1} + S_{2} + S_{3}}{S_{1} + S_{2} + S_{3} + S_{5}}$$

where

*S~3~* is the number of inscope sample cases that are determined to
ineligible in the interview,

*S~5~* is the number of sample cases that are identified as
out-of-scope.

The weighted response rate for this survey is calculated as 54.4
percent.

## ![](media/image2.wmf){width="8.083333333333334in" height="1.125in"}Appendix B: Advance Letter and Questionnaire

Dear \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

The Office of Disability Employment Policy (ODEP) at the U.S. Department
of Labor provides policy analysis and technical assistance to increase
employment opportunities for people with disabilities and to assist
employers. ODEP is interested in learning how employers in various
industries successfully recruit and retain employees with disabilities.
Gathering this information from senior executives will promote effective
partnerships between ODEP and employers in developing innovative
practices and strategies that will improve the employment of people with
disabilities. Additional information about ODEP is available at
www.dol.gov/odep.

Your company has been randomly selected to participate in the *Survey of
Employer Perspectives on the Employment of People with Disabilities*.
Westat is conducting the interviews for the Department of Labor. Within
the next few weeks, someone from Westat will call you to complete a
short interview. Your cooperation is essential to the success of this
effort to identify successful practices and share them with other
employers. Individually identifiable data will be accessible only to
authorized project staff at Westat. Individual responses are analyzed
only in combination with other responses collected nationwide. The
responses will not be linked with your company or with your name.

Privacy: Responses to this data collection will be used only for
statistical purposes. The reports prepared for this study will summarize
findings across the sample and will not associate responses with a
specific firm or individual. We will not provide information that
identifies you or your firm to anyone outside the study team, except as
required by law.

As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act, ODEP received approval from
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) (approval number 1230-0005).
The approval covers sampling businesses and conducting executive
interviews to better inform ODEP's policies.

You may call Westat at 1-888-280-4573 if you have any questions about
the study, or to set an appointment for an interview. Please call me if
you have any questions about this survey at 202-693-4923. Thank you for
your assistance in this project.

Sincerely,

Richard Horne

Supervisory Research Analyst, Research and Evaluation Team

![](media/image3.wmf){width="8.5in" height="1.25in"}

**Survey of Employer Perspectives on the Employment of People with
Disabilities**

**IF LARGE COMPANY, FIRST ASK:**

SC1. Hello, may I please have the name of your company president? \[IF
NEEDED: I am calling from Westat, a survey research firm in Rockville,
MD. We need to send some information about a survey we are conducting
for the U.S. Department of Labor.\]

Name \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

SC2. And would we address a letter to him/her at \[ADDRESS ON FILE}?

> Yes 1
>
> No 2  \[**GO TO SC3\]**
>
> Refused -7
>
> Don't know -8 

SC3. May I please have the correct address?

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Number Street

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Suite/Office number

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

City State Zip code

**Thank-you very much.**

**PACKAGE WILL BE MAILED. WHEN INTERVIEWER CALLS BACK, INTERVIEW WILL
START AT SC4.**

SC4. Hello. May I please speak with {NAME OF EXECUTIVE TO WHOM THE
LETTER WAS MAILED}?

> \[My name is {INTERVIEWER'S NAME} and I am calling on behalf of the U.
> S. Department of Labor. {EXECUTIVE'S NAME} recently received a letter
> about a study of people with disabilities.\]
>
> Available/coming to the phone 1  \[**GO TO SC6\]**
>
> Not available 2
>
> At another telephone number 3
>
> No such person/no longer here/new respondent needed ....... 4  \[**GO
> TO SC5\]**
>
> Telephone company recording 5
>
> Answering machine/voice mail AM
>
> Retry dialing RT
>
> Go to result GT

SC5. I'd like to speak with someone else who makes decisions on hiring
at the overall company level such as your company President or Human
Resources Manager. Would you please connect me to such a person?

\[alternate titles:

President/owner

Vice-president, finance

Vice-president, human resources

Vice president

Director

Assistant director

Manager

Assistant manager

Supervisor\]

> Speaking/coming to the phone 1  \[**GO TO SC6\]**
>
> Collect name of best respondent 2
>
> Don't know best respondent; callback 3
>
> Go to result GT

SC6. Hello, my name is \[INTERVIEWER NAME\], and I am calling from
Westat, a research firm in Rockville, MD. We are conducting a survey for
the U.S. Department of Labor. We recently sent a letter introducing the
study. This is a brief survey of business executives in high growth
industries to see what opportunities might be available in these
industries for people with disabilities.

The survey will take about 20 minutes.

> This survey is for research purposes only and is not part of an
> investigation or audit by the Department of Labor. Your cooperation is
> voluntary. Your responses will not be linked with your company or with
> your name. First, I would like to ask about your business.
>
> \[IF NEEDED: You can skip any question you do not want to answer, and
> you can stop at anytime.\]

**I. Demographic Information.**

1.  We show that your business is mostly in the {BUSINESS TYPE} industry
    group. Is that correct?

> Yes 1
>
> No 2 \[**go to 1a\]**
>
> Refused -7 
>
> Don't know -8 
>
> 1a. Mostly what type of business is it?
>
> Construction 1
>
> Wholesale trade 2
>
> Retail trade 3
>
> Transportation and warehousing 4
>
> Information 5
>
> Financial activities 6
>
> Professional and business services 7
>
> Education and health services 8
>
> Leisure and hospitality 9
>
> Equipment and machinery repairing 10
>
> Promoting or administering religious activities 11
>
> Grantmaking 12
>
> Advocacy 13
>
> Drycleaning and laundry services 14
>
> Personal care services 15
>
> Death care services 16
>
> Pet care services 17
>
> Photofinishing services 18
>
> Temporary parking services 19
>
> Dating services 20
>
> State and local government 21
>
> Manufacturing 22
>
> Other 91
>
> (specify)
>
> Refused -7
>
> Don't know -8

13. We show you have {NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES}. Is that correct?

    \[IF NEEDED: Please count all employees, not just full time
    employees.\]

> Yes 1
>
> No 2  \[**GO TO 2a\]**
>
> Refused -7 
>
> Don't know -8 

2a. Including your corporate headquarters, subsidiaries, and branches,
how many employees does your business have? Would you say...

\[IF NEEDED: Please count all employees, not just full time employees.\]

> Fewer than 5, 1  **\[GO TO THANKB\]**
>
> 5 to 14, 2
>
> 15 to 249, or 3
>
> 250 or more? 4
>
> Refused -7
>
> Don't know -8

**THANKB: Thank-you, but we are only interested in companies with 5 or
more employees.**

14. How many employees do you have at your location?

    \[IF NEEDED: Please count all employees, not just full time
    employees.\]

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ Number of employees at
location

> Refused -7
>
> Don't know -8

15. We show your business headquarters is in {STATE}. Is that correct?

> Yes 1
>
> No 2  \[**GO TO 4a\]**
>
> Refused -7 
>
> Don't know -8 

4a. In what state or U.S. territory is your business
[headquartered]{.underline}?

\[IF NEEDED: We want to know where your U.S. headquarters is located.\]

+-------------------------------------+--------------------------------+
| Alabama 1                           | Montana 29                     |
+-------------------------------------+--------------------------------+
| Alaska 2                            | Nebraska 30                    |
+-------------------------------------+--------------------------------+
| American Samoa 3                    | Nevada 31                      |
+-------------------------------------+--------------------------------+
| Arkansas 4                          | New Hampshire 32               |
+-------------------------------------+--------------------------------+
| Arizona 5                           | New Jersey 33                  |
+-------------------------------------+--------------------------------+
| California 6                        | New Mexico 34                  |
+-------------------------------------+--------------------------------+
| Colorado 7                          | New York 35                    |
+-------------------------------------+--------------------------------+
| Connecticut 8                       | North Carolina 36              |
+-------------------------------------+--------------------------------+
| Delaware 9                          | North Dakota 37                |
+-------------------------------------+--------------------------------+
| District of Columbia                | Northern Mariana               |
|                                     |                                |
| (Washington, DC) 10                 | Islands 38                     |
+-------------------------------------+--------------------------------+
| Florida 11                          | Ohio 39                        |
+-------------------------------------+--------------------------------+
| Georgia 12                          | Oklahoma 40                    |
+-------------------------------------+--------------------------------+
| Guam 13                             | Oregon 41                      |
+-------------------------------------+--------------------------------+
| Hawaii 14                           | Pennsylvania 42                |
+-------------------------------------+--------------------------------+
| Idaho 15                            | Puerto Rico 43                 |
+-------------------------------------+--------------------------------+
| Illinois 16                         | Rhode Island 44                |
+-------------------------------------+--------------------------------+
| Indiana 17                          | South Carolina 45              |
+-------------------------------------+--------------------------------+
| Iowa 18                             | South Dakota 46                |
+-------------------------------------+--------------------------------+
| Kansas 19                           | Tennessee 47                   |
+-------------------------------------+--------------------------------+
| Kentucky 20                         | Texas 48                       |
+-------------------------------------+--------------------------------+
| Louisiana 21                        | U.S. Virgin Islands 49         |
+-------------------------------------+--------------------------------+
| Maine 22                            | Utah 50                        |
+-------------------------------------+--------------------------------+
| Maryland 23                         | Vermont 51                     |
+-------------------------------------+--------------------------------+
| Massachusetts 24                    | Virginia 52                    |
+-------------------------------------+--------------------------------+
| Michigan 25                         | Washington 53                  |
+-------------------------------------+--------------------------------+
| Minnesota 26                        | West Virginia 54               |
+-------------------------------------+--------------------------------+
| Mississippi 27                      | Wisconsin 55                   |
+-------------------------------------+--------------------------------+
| Missouri 28                         | Wyoming 56                     |
+-------------------------------------+--------------------------------+

> Refused -7
>
> Don't know -8

16. We show [your]{.underline} location is in {STATE}. Is that correct?

> Yes 1
>
> No 2  \[**GO TO 5a\]**
>
> Refused -7 
>
> Don't know -8 

5a. In what state or U.S. territory are you located?

+-------------------------------------+--------------------------------+
| Alabama 1                           | Montana 29                     |
+-------------------------------------+--------------------------------+
| Alaska 2                            | Nebraska 30                    |
+-------------------------------------+--------------------------------+
| American Samoa 3                    | Nevada 31                      |
+-------------------------------------+--------------------------------+
| Arkansas 4                          | New Hampshire 32               |
+-------------------------------------+--------------------------------+
| Arizona 5                           | New Jersey 33                  |
+-------------------------------------+--------------------------------+
| California 6                        | New Mexico 34                  |
+-------------------------------------+--------------------------------+
| Colorado 7                          | New York 35                    |
+-------------------------------------+--------------------------------+
| Connecticut 8                       | North Carolina 36              |
+-------------------------------------+--------------------------------+
| Delaware 9                          | North Dakota 37                |
+-------------------------------------+--------------------------------+
| District Of Columbia                | Northern Mariana               |
|                                     |                                |
| (Washington, DC) 10                 | Islands 38                     |
+-------------------------------------+--------------------------------+
| Florida 11                          | Ohio 39                        |
+-------------------------------------+--------------------------------+
| Georgia 12                          | Oklahoma 40                    |
+-------------------------------------+--------------------------------+
| Guam 13                             | Oregon 41                      |
+-------------------------------------+--------------------------------+
| Hawaii 14                           | Pennsylvania 42                |
+-------------------------------------+--------------------------------+
| Idaho 15                            | Puerto Rico 43                 |
+-------------------------------------+--------------------------------+
| Illinois 16                         | Rhode Island 44                |
+-------------------------------------+--------------------------------+
| Indiana 17                          | South Carolina 45              |
+-------------------------------------+--------------------------------+
| Iowa 18                             | South Dakota 46                |
+-------------------------------------+--------------------------------+
| Kansas 19                           | Tennessee 47                   |
+-------------------------------------+--------------------------------+
| Kentucky 20                         | Texas 48                       |
+-------------------------------------+--------------------------------+
| Louisiana 21                        | U.S. Virgin Islands 49         |
+-------------------------------------+--------------------------------+
| Maine 22                            | Utah 50                        |
+-------------------------------------+--------------------------------+
| Maryland 23                         | Vermont 51                     |
+-------------------------------------+--------------------------------+
| Massachusetts 24                    | Virginia 52                    |
+-------------------------------------+--------------------------------+
| Michigan 25                         | Washington 53                  |
+-------------------------------------+--------------------------------+
| Minnesota 26                        | West Virginia 54               |
+-------------------------------------+--------------------------------+
| Mississippi 27                      | Wisconsin 55                   |
+-------------------------------------+--------------------------------+
| Missouri 28                         | Wyoming 56                     |
+-------------------------------------+--------------------------------+

> Refused -7
>
> Don't know -8

17. What is your job title?

> President/Owner 1
>
> Vice-President, Finance 2
>
> Vice-President, Human Resources 3
>
> Vice President 4
>
> (Specify)
>
> Director 5
>
> Assistant Director 6
>
> Manager 7
>
> Assistant Manager 8
>
> Supervisor 9
>
> Other 91
>
> (Specify)
>
> Refused -7
>
> Don't Know -8

18. About how many years have you been working for {COMPANY NAME}?

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ Number

> Refused -7
>
> Don't know -8

19. About how many years have you been the {RESPONSE FROM 6}?

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ Number

> Refused -7
>
> Don't know -8

20. How many employees do you supervise?

    \[IF NEEDED: Please count all employees, not just full time
    employees.\]

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ Number

> Refused -7
>
> Don't know -8

**II. Company Practices**

21. To your knowledge, do any of your company's current employees have a
    physical or mental disability?

> \[IF NEEDED: *Under the Americans with Disabilities Act, an individual
> with a disability is defined as a person who (1) has a physical or
> mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life
> activities; (2) has a record of such an impairment; or (3) is regarded
> as having such an impairment*.
>
> Yes, 1  **\[GO TO 11\]**
>
> I'm not sure, or 2 
>
> No, not to my knowledge? 3  **\[GO TO 12\]**
>
> Refused -7 
>
> Don't know -8 

22. Do you happen to know how many employees in your company have a
    disability?

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ Number

> We don't track that information DT
>
> Not sure how many NS
>
> Refused -7
>
> Don't know -8

23. In the past 12 months has your company hired any people with
    disabilities?

> Yes, 1
>
> No, not to my knowledge, or I'm not sure? 2
>
> Refused -7
>
> Don't know -8

24. Does your company actively recruit job applicants who are people
    with disabilities?

> Yes 1  **\[GO TO 13a\]**
>
> No 2 
>
> Refused -7  **\[GO TO 14\]**
>
> Don't Know -8 
>
> 13a. How do you proactively recruit job applicants who are people with
> disabilities?
>
> **\[CODE ALL THAT APPLY. Probe: Any other ways?\]**
>
> Including people with disabilities in diversity recruitment goals 1
>
> Creating partnerships with disability- related advocacy organizations
> 2
>
> Contacting career centers at colleges and universities when vacancies
> arise 3
>
> Posting job announcements in disability-related publications 4
>
> Posting job announcements on disability-related websites 5
>
> Posting job announcements and/or hosting a table
>
> at disability-related job fairs 6
>
> Establishing summer internship and mentoring programs
>
> targeted at youth with disabilities 7
>
> Posting jobs with centers for independent Living (CILS) 8
>
> Posting jobs with the department of Vocational rehabilitation 9
>
> Posting jobs with the job service or workforce employment center
>
> (if needed: unemployment Offices) 10
>
> Other ways 91
>
> (specify)
>
> Refused -7
>
> Don't know -8

**IF 13=1, YES, GO TO Q15.**

25. Would any of the following types of information persuade you to
    recruit people with a disability? What about...

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  Response categories: **Yes, No , Already Have This Information/ Already
  Know This, Refused, Don't Know**

  a\. Information that addresses your concerns about costs?

  b\. Information showing how hiring people with disabilities has
  benefited other companies in your industry?

  c\. Information showing how hiring people with disabilities has
  benefited nationally recognized companies, for example a Fortune 500
  company?

  d\. Information showing how hiring people with disabilities can benefit
  your company's bottom line?

  e\. Information showing how hiring people with disabilities can
  increase your company's productivity?

  f\. Information that is supported by statistics or research?

  g\. Information on satisfactory job performance, attendance, and
  retention of people with disabilities?

  h\. Testimonial information of senior executives attesting to the
  success for their companies?

  i\. Testimonial information of human resources managers attesting to
  the success for their companies?

  j\. Testimonial information of line managers attesting to the success
  for their companies?

  91\. Anything else? (Specify\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_)
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

**III. Issue Areas**

26. I am now going to describe several factors in hiring people with
    disabilities that we often hear from employers. How much of a
    challenge are the following factors to your company in
    [hiring]{.underline} people with disabilities? I would like you to
    say whether it is a major challenge, somewhat of a challenge or not
    a challenge.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| a\. Discomfort or unfamiliarity regarding hiring people with          |
| disabilities? Would you say this is a major challenge, somewhat of a  |
| challenge or not a challenge?                                         |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| b\. Lack of knowledge or information about people with disabilities   |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| c\. Attitudes of co-workers                                           |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| d\. Attitudes of supervisors                                          |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| e\. Attitudes of customers                                            |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| f\. Not knowing how much accommodation will cost                      |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| g\. Actual cost of accommodating disability                           |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| h\. Concern about the cost of health care coverage                    |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| i\. Concern about the cost of workers compensation premiums           |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| j\. Fear of litigation                                                |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| k\. You cannot find qualified people with disabilities                |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| l\. The nature of the work is such that it cannot be effectively      |
| performed by people with disabilities                                 |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 91\. Anything else?                                                   |
|                                                                       |
| (specify\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_)                 |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

**IF L =1, YES, GO TO 16.**

27. Can you please describe the nature of the job or jobs in your
    company which would pose a challenge to a person with a disability?

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

**PROGRAMMER NOTE: IF 10=1, YES, ASK 17 and 18. Else, Skip to 19.**

28. In your opinion, how much of a challenge are the following factors
    to your company in [advancing]{.underline} a person with a
    disability? How about...

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  a\. Attitudes of co-workers? Would you say this is a major challenge,
  somewhat of a challenge or not a challenge?

  b\. Attitudes of supervisors

  c\. Attitudes of customers

  d\. Actual cost of accommodating disability

  e\. Lack of advancement potential

  91Anything else? (SPECIFY\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_)
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

29. In your opinion, how much of a challenge are the following factors
    to your company in [retaining]{.underline} a person with a
    disability?

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  a\. Lack of opportunity for advancement \[IF NEEDED: Would you say this
  is a major challenge, somewhat of a challenge or not a challenge?\]

  b\. Attitudes of co-workers

  c\. Attitudes of supervisors

  d\. Attitudes of customers

  e\. Actual cost of accommodating a disability

  f\. Concern about the cost of health care coverage

  g\. Concern about the cost of workers compensation premiums

  h\. Finding a way to return employees to work who have been on
  disability leave or workers compensation

  91Anything else? ( Specify\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_)
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

30. Some employers have concerns about hiring people with disabilities.
    Here are some of the concerns we often hear from employers. For
    each, please let me know how much of a concern it is for your
    company.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  a\. Supervisors are not comfortable managing people with disabilities.
  \[IF NEEDED: Would you say this is a major concern, somewhat of a
  concern or not a concern?\]

  b\. Supervisors are not sure how to evaluate a person with a
  disability.

  c\. Supervisors are not sure how to take disciplinary action for a
  person with a disability.

  d\. Workers with disabilities lack the skills and experience to do our
  jobs

  e\. People with disabilities may not be as safe and productive as other
  workers.

  f\. It costs more to employ workers with disabilities than those
  without disabilities due to accommodations, additional management time,
  or healthcare and insurance costs

  91 Anything else? (SPEC IFY\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_)

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

31. I will read you a few strategies that some companies have used when
    hiring people with disabilities. For each, please tell me if these
    strategies would be helpful in reducing barriers to
    [hiring]{.underline} people with disabilities into your company.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| a\. Using a recruiting source that specializes in placing people with |
| disabilities                                                          |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| b\. Developing a targeted recruitment program for people with         |
| disabilities                                                          |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| c\. Short-term on the job assistance with an outside job coach?       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| d\. Training existing staff                                           |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| e\. On-site consultation or technical assistance                      |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| f\. Mentoring                                                         |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| g\. Visible top management commitment                                 |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| h\. Centralized accommodations fund \[IF NEEDED: A company-wide fund  |
| to provide accommodations for people with disabilities\]              |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| i\. Disability awareness training                                     |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| j\. Disability targeted internship program                            |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| k\. Assistive technology                                              |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| l\. Flexible work schedule                                            |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| m\. Employer tax credits and incentives                               |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| n\. Reassignment                                                      |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 91\. Anything else                                                    |
|                                                                       |
| (SPECIFY\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_)     |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

**IF 10=1, YES, ASK 21, 22, and 23. ELSE, SKIP TO 24.**

32. For each of the following, please tell me if these strategies would
    be helpful in [advancing]{.underline} people with disabilities
    within your company.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  a\. Short-term on the job assistance with an outside job coach

  b\. Training existing staff

  c\. On-site consultation or technical assistance

  d\. Mentoring

  e\. Visible top management commitment

  f\. Centralized accommodations fund \[IF NEEDED: A company-wide fund to
  provide accommodations for people with disabilities\]

  g\. Disability awareness training

  h\. Disability targeted internship program

  i\. Assistive technology

  j\. Flexible work schedule

  k\. Reassignment

  l\. Employer tax credits and incentives

  91\. Anything else?
  (SPECIFY\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_)
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

33. For each of the following, please tell me if these strategies would
    be helpful in [retaining]{.underline} people with disabilities
    within your company.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  a\. Short-term on the job assistance with an outside job coach

  b\. Training existing staff

  c\. On-site consultation or technical assistance

  d\. Mentoring

  e\. Visible top management commitment

  f\. Centralized accommodations fund \[IF NEEDED: A company-wide fund to
  provide accommodations for people with disabilities\]

  g\. Disability awareness training

  h\. Disability targeted internship program

  i\. Assistive technology

  j\. Flexible work schedule

  k\. Reassignment

  l\. Employer tax credits and incentives

  91\. Anything else?
  (SPECIFY\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_)
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

34. Does your company keep data on the accommodations it makes for
    employees with disabilities for any of the following purposes?

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  a\. Future accommodations in similar situations

  b\. Tracking accommodation costs

  c\. Dispute resolution/settlement

  d\. Regulatory reporting requirements

  e\. Disability claim coordination

  f\. Anything else?
  SPECIFY\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_)

  g\. Do not keep data on accommodations
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

35. Are you familiar with the services of the Job Accommodation Network?
    \[IF NEEDED: The Job Accommodation network, also known as JAN,
    "facilitates the employment and retention of workers with
    disabilities by providing employers, employment providers, people
    with disabilities, their family members and other interested parties
    with information on job accommodations." Their website is
    [**http://www.jan.wvu.edu/**](http://www.jan.wvu.edu/)\]

> Yes 1  \[GO TO 24a\]
>
> No 2  \[GO TO 25\]
>
> Refused -7  \[GO TO 25\]
>
> Don't know -8 

24a. Have you used the services of the Job Accommodation Network?

> Yes 1
>
> No 2
>
> Refused -7
>
> Don't know -8

36. Are you familiar with the services of the Employer Assistance and
    Recruiting Network (EARN)? \[IF NEEDED: EARN is a free service that
    connects employers looking for quality employees with skilled job
    candidates. Their website is http://www.earnworks.com/\]

> Yes 1  \[GO TO 25a\]
>
> No 2 \[GO TO 26\]
>
> Refused -7  \[GO TO 26\]
>
> Don't know -8 

25a. Have you used the services of EARN?

> Yes 1
>
> No 2
>
> Refused -7
>
> Don\'t know -8

37. One-Stop Career Centers are publicly-operated by State and local
    agencies and are designed to provide a full range of assistance to
    job seekers and employers in one location.  Established under the
    Workforce Investment Act, the centers offer training referrals,
    career counseling, job listings, and similar employment-related
    services.

> 26a. Are you aware that your local One-Stop Center offers services to
> businesses?

A.  Yes.............................................. 1  \[GO TO 26b\]

B.  No .............................................. 2 \[GO TO 27\]

C.  Never heard of a One-Stop............... 3 \[GO TO 27\]

D.  D/K............................................. 4 \[GO TO 27\]

E.  Refused....................................... 5 \[GO TO 27\]

> 26b. In the past 12 months, has your company used any of those
> business services from the One-Stop Center?

A.  Yes.............................................. 1  \[GO TO 26c\]

B.  No.............................................\... 2 \[GO TO 27\]

C.  D/K............................................... 3 \[GO TO 27\]

D.  Refused......................................... 4 \[GO TO 27\]

> 26c.     I will now ask you a series of questions about business
> services that your company may have used with the One-Stop Center. In
> the past 12 months, has the One-Stop center provided your company with
> .....

A.  recruitment, job referral, and candidate screening?

B.  Job task analysis to formally identify knowledge skills and
    abilities for specific jobs?

C.  Outplacement services for employees?

D.  Analysis of local business trends?

E.  Analysis of the local labor pool?

F.  Disability Program Navigator Staff

G.  Assistance in recruiting qualified workers?

H.  Assistance to customize training plans for new hires?

I.  An offer to train current employees?

J.  Literacy, ESL or basic skills training for current or prospective
    employees?

K.  Services on to help your company with specific HR issues, such as
    high turnover?

L.  Services on how to create employment opportunities, such as
    recruitment, retention, and promotion, for individuals with
    disabilities?

M.  Other services?
    \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

N.  Don't know

**\[If needed for option F: Disability Program Navigators (DPN).** In
2002, the Department of Labor\'s Employment (DOL) and Training
Administration (ETA) and the Social Security Administration (SSA)
established a new position, ***the Disability Program Navigator
(DPN),*** located within DOL\'s One-Stop Career Center.  The ***DPN, or
Navigator,*** guides One-Stop Career Center staff in helping people with
disabilities to access and navigate the complex provisions of various
programs that impact on their ability to gain and retain employment. In
addition, the DPNs:  develop linkages and collaborate on an ongoing
basis with employers to facilitate the employment of people
with disabilities; develop partnerships to achieve integrated services,
system change, and expand the capacity of the One-Stop Career Centers to
serve customers with disabilities; conduct outreach to
agencies/organizations that serve people with disabilities; serve as
resources on SSA\'s work incentives; serve as resources on the federal,
state, and local programs that impact on the ability of people with
disabilities to enter into and remain in the workforce; and
facilitate the transition of in- and out- of school youth to obtain
employment and achieve economic self-sufficiency.\]

38. Those are all the questions I have. Do you have any questions or
    comments about the survey?

> Yes 1  **\[GO TO 27a\]**
>
> No 2 
>
> Refused -7  **\[GO TO 28\]**

27a. What are your questions or comments?

> \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

39. Would you be interested in receiving a report via e-mail on the
    results of this survey? Your e-mail address will not be associated
    with your completed survey.

> Yes 1  **\[GO TO 28a\]**
>
> No 2 
>
> Refused -7  **\[GO TO THANK\]**
>
> 28a. May I have your email address, please?
>
> \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_@\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

**THANK: Thank you very much for participating in this very important
survey.**

## Appendix C: Data Collection Procedures

**CATI Telephone Procedures**

Westat has five Telephone Research Center (TRC) facilities as well as at
home interviewers working in secured private work environments. The TRCs
are located across the continental United States, including the main TRC
in Maryland, as well as additional TRCs in California, Florida, and
Maryland. The at home interviewing staff spans the United States. For
this study, Westat utilized interviewers to best cover all U.S time
zones for the survey. In general, most calls for this study were made
Monday through Friday between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. in the respondent's
time. However, if there were businesses that needed to be called in the
evening or on the weekends, these were accommodated as needed. (If a
business' telephone number had been disconnected, Westat did not attempt
to obtain a new number, because businesses regularly close.)

Westat administered the employer questionnaire using Computer Assisted
Telephone Interviewing (CATI). Westat worked closely with CESSI and ODEP
to revise, format, and finalize the questionnaire for computer-assisted
telephone interviewing (CATI) (minor modifications were necessary to
format the questionnaire for CATI). Computer assisted telephone
interviewing (CATI) provides several advantages over traditional methods
of telephone data collection and preparation. Some advantages are:

-   The skip pattern logic of CATI questionnaires is fully computerized
    so that interviewer choice in question branching is eliminated. This
    assures that all questions that should be answered are asked during
    the interview, eliminating the need to edit for un-needed responses
    at the end of data collection;

-   Question wording choices, including the insertion of information
    from previous questions in the CATI survey, are performed for the
    interviewer by the CATI software. This assures that respondents are
    asked the correct, applicable questions;

-   The validity checks of response codes for closed-ended questions are
    performed during the interview so that invalid codes cannot be
    entered into the data files. This saves editing time at the end of
    data collection, since these types of edits are pre-programmed into
    CATI;

-   Legal ranges for continuous variables, such as ages, dates, dollar
    amounts, etc., are checked during the interview. This eliminates the
    need to edit out-of-range responses at the end of data collection;

-   Consistency checking between related items is performed on line, and
    questions with inconsistent entries are re-asked or probed with
    additional questions to minimize both respondent error and
    interviewer entry error;

-   Because so much editing is performed during data collection, the
    need for routine data retrieval is eliminated;

-   Post-data-collection machine editing is minimized, facilitating the
    rapid preparation of data files for analysis; and

-   Questionnaires can be designed to use special question series aimed
    at particular respondent subgroups, because the branching to and
    around these items is handled by the CATI software.

The system of CATI software used for this survey is called the Cheshire
System and was developed by Westat especially for use on large
government surveys that demand high standards of quality for deliverable
datasets. Because the software was developed by Westat staff (as opposed
to being purchased or leased from an outside source), Westat has both
the legal rights and the staff capabilities to augment and modify the
system whenever new features or variations are desired.

**Programming the CATI**

Westat programmed the paper questionnaire developed by ODEP into the
CATI system. This involved

-   reviewing the questionnaire;

-   inserting specifications into the questionnaire;

-   preparing the specifications for the CATI programmer; and

-   programming and testing the questionnaire into CATI

**Reviewing the questionnaire**

ODEP developed the survey instrument. Westat, in consultation with
CESSI, reviewed the questionnaire for wording that needed to be added to
insure ease of flow on the telephone.

**Inserting specifications into the questionnaire**

Westat inserted specification language into the questionnaire. Skips and
logic checks are specified on the electronic version of the
questionnaire. Skips are programmed so that interviewers are taken to
the next question based on the respondent's previous answers. Logic
checks are inserted to verify answers interviewers have entered into
CATI that may not make sense (e.g. respondent's number of years with
company of 100 years). One "help" screen with an extended definition was
programmed. It was accessible by a function key as needed by the
interviewer. This screen was made known to the interviewers during
training as well as by the indication of "HELP" on the applicable
screen.

**Preparing the specifications for the CATI programmer**

The design document produced:

-   **details on skips and different ways questions may need to be asked
    in CATI.** Details of how skips worked in the questionnaire as well
    as the needed question variations.

-   **screen displays**. These specifications were for how the actual
    screens looked in CATI for each question. In addition to creating
    screen displays for all questions, some questions required more than
    one screen display. For example, if there is more than one way to
    ask a question (e.g. asking a question in the present tense vs.
    asking the question in the past tense), this would require more than
    one screen to be designed.

The document that is produced during this phase of CATI programming is
used:

-   By the programmers to program the questionnaire into CATI;

-   By the testers to check if the questionnaire has been programmed;

-   By the trainers to produce training materials. These specifications
    can have project specific comments in them, so that the trainers
    have additional information on what is important to emphasize during
    training; and

-   Data preparation/editing staff use the document to make edits to the
    data. They are able to check in the document for the relevance of
    comments interviewers have added into the CATI and to upcode "other
    specify" responses, if needed.

The TRC also developed specifications for contact procedures for the
survey. Contact procedures for this study included contacting the
appropriate respondent, setting appointments for interviews, as well as
specifications for other call results, such as a ring no answer or a
busy signal. The TRC staff also checked the wording of the questions for
grammatical errors and the specifications for syntax errors. If errors
were found, they contacted project staff to update the questionnaire and
the specifications.

**Programming and testing the questionnaire into CATI**

Once the specifications for the questionnaire were completed, they were
ready for programming into CATI. As the programmer worked through the
specifications, s/he needs to contact project staff for clarification.
After the programming specifications were complete, the instrument was
divided into questionnaire sections for programming. As each section was
programmed, it underwent two rounds of code testing. First, the original
programmer proofed the screen library against the screen text in the
specifications, checked the data dictionary against variable definitions
in the specifications, and checked the flow language programming against
the skip patterns in the instrument. Once the first round of testing was
completed, the section was turned over to another programmer who
reproduced first round checks and assessed overall section presentation.
This second round of testing resulted in recommendations for changes to
screen layout, or question flow that enhanced the effectiveness of the
instrument versions. All errors or recommended changes were documented
on problem sheet forms that are routed to key project members for
guidance, discussion, and reconciliation. After all questionnaire
sections completed the two rounds of testing, the individual sections
were assembled into a complete instrument. The third round of testing
focused on transitions from one questionnaire section to another and on
restart points to ensure that the flow between sections and topics was
smooth, and that all questionnaire sections appeared in the proper
sequence. The final stage of testing occurred after the first three
stages of code testing were complete. Project personnel, interviewer
supervisors, and programmers all participated in testing at this stage
which considered screen layout, question item wording, transitions, and
skip patterns.

**Training interviewers**

The quality of the data is directly related to the quality of the
training of the interviewers. Westat thoroughly trains interviewers in
all aspects of data collection, from initial contact procedures to
conducting the interview to refusal avoidance and conversion. The
training materials that were developed for the study's interviewers
included the following:

> **Training Agenda**\--The agenda documents the 4 Pre-Production
> Training sessions: The On-Line Self-Tutorial, WebEx 1 Session, Role
> Play Session, WebEx 2 Follow-Up Session. It divided the training into
> timed sessions on specific topics
>
> **Interviewers' On-Line Self-Tutorial Training and Training
> Materials**. The training materials document survey procedures for the
> interviewer and can be printed and serve as references. The on-line
> tutorial provides an overview of the study, along with needed
> question-by-question specifications for each item in each
> questionnaire and an introduction to the Questions and Answers for the
> study. All interviewers have access to an on-line application for
> their individual project. This provides space for memos, procedural
> updates, and goal charts as well as an opportunity for interviewers to
> comment on successes or ask questions to be answered.
>
> **WebEx1 Training.** The trainer acts as a respondent for many
> different scripted contact scenarios and 1 lengthy questionnaire
> scenario. The trainees take turns acting as the [verbal]{.underline}
> respondents to these scenarios, using professional manners and
> techniques. As needed the trainer makes necessary comments as well as
> pointing out the best techniques being used by the trainees. The
> trainer does control the CATI questionnaire being viewed by the
> trainees. However, the trainer enters the answers the trainee acting
> as verbal interviewer dictates. These **Interactives** help
> familiarize the interviewers with the questionnaire and reading the
> questions and categories. In addition, it provides practice in seeking
> the appropriate respondent, avoiding refusals, requesting re-mails of
> the introductory letter, handling of interim results, that is, busy
> signals, ring no answers, voice mails and leaving messages,
> appointment making. Answers to the expected **commonly asked questions
> and objections** are provided by the interviewers during this session
> and a written assignment on this is provided to reinforce refusal
> avoidance. A **Demonstration interview** to show the proper flow of
> the instrument is performed during this session with the trainer as
> the interviewer and the session's group leader acting as the
> respondent.
>
> **Role Plays---**During this session, the trainees are partnered and
> approximately 5 sets of partners were assigned a Team Leader who would
> answer questions, monitor, and coach. One partner started as
> interviewer and the other acted as the respondent using a scripted
> role play book. During this session, the interviewer had control of
> the instrument and entered answers. These scripts require the
> "interviewer" partner to practice several interviewing techniques,
> that is, probe, avoid refusals, answer questions, make comments in the
> instrument appropriately, correct changed answers. For the next
> scripted role play, the partners reversed roles and the "interviewer"
> became the "respondent" and vice versa. There were 4 questionnaire
> role play books plus a contact role play divided into multiple
> scenarios for the 2 partners. The team leaders decided which trainees
> needed more role play practice. No interviewer was allowed to make
> live calls to respondents until they successfully passed this part of
> the training.
>
> **WebEx 2---**This session reviewed the problems noted during role
> plays, the written question and answer exercise assigned during
> WebEx1, and answered any outstanding trainee questions about the
> instrument and study protocol.

# Monitoring Data Collection Quantity

**CATI Scheduler**

**Scheduling System.** The scheduler component of the CATI system is
used to manage the flow and assignment of questionnaires to
interviewers. The basis for this system is a structure of queues. Each
queue contains a list of assignment IDs to be interviewed. The number of
queues, and the purpose of each queue, is defined by project staff prior
to commencing work. For example, a simple configuration of queues would
be: Ring No Answer, Busy, Callback - Appointment, Ready. Each queue has
several controls associated with it that can be altered by project staff
while CATI operations are under way. These are default priority,
weighting factor, queue open/close time and case release time. A brief
explanation of the purpose of each parameter follows:

> **The priority number** controls the order in which queues are
> searched for the next ID to interview. Each queue can have a separate
> priority number assigned, or several queues can have the same
> priority. When each queue has a separate priority number, they are
> emptied in order from highest to lowest priority. However, when
> several queues have equal priority, one ID is taken from each queue in
> a roundtable fashion until all the queues with the same priority are
> empty;
>
> **The weighting factor** gives the project staff additional control
> over the selection of queues when a group of queues has the same
> priority. Initially, all queues are assigned a weight of 1. If, for
> example, the project staff wanted to make assignments from the small
> business queue at 3 times the rate of the other queues, that queue
> would be assigned a weight of 3. This forces the scheduler to take 3
> cases from the small business queue before moving on to select 1 each
> from the remaining queues. Altering priority numbers and weighting
> factors gives the project staff maximum flexibility in scheduling work
> assignments;
>
> **Each queue has a start and stop time** that is examined by the
> scheduler before a potential case is selected from the queue. Queue
> start and stop times can be staggered across the country to follow the
> time zone in each area. For example, this prevents embarrassing
> situations where an East Coast interviewer starting at 9:00 AM
> contacts a California respondent at 6:00 AM.
>
> **Certain queues have a time attribute** associated with each case
> that is examined by the scheduler before releasing the case from the
> queue \-- for instance, the Ring No Answer, Busy, or Callback queues.
> The project staff may want to make adjustments to case release times
> for the queues depending on interviewer or data entry workload. By
> altering the case release times, the project staff can release work
> earlier than expected or postpone work until a later time.
>
> **Scheduler Operations.** The Cheshire System scheduler uses a
> \"real-time\" approach to distributing work and rescheduling
> additional interviewing. Project staff may interactively monitor and
> intervene to adjust specific scheduling facets, but, in practice, this
> is seldom necessary. When an interviewer requires work, the program
> requests work from the scheduler. The scheduler process uses the
> priority, weight, and start/stop time of queues and the individual
> appointment time of interviews to select the next case available for
> work. When the case is next scheduled, it is determined through a
> rescheduling algorithm by the result of the work performed and the
> status of the case. This algorithm may be adjusted for specific
> projects. The highlights of Westat\'s standard algorithm include the
> following:

-   Cases are immediately rescheduled for an appointed time when a
    specific appointment is made.

-   Contacts without specific appointments are (1) rescheduled for the
    general time indicated by the respondent as good to re-contact or
    (2) rescheduled for a time corresponding to the original successful
    contact.

-   Unsuccessful contacts are rotated among time slots for recontact on
    a calculated basis.

-   Busy-tone calls are scheduled for recall in fifteen minutes.

-   Firm appointments that result in non-contact are scheduled for
    recall in twenty minutes.

**Quality Control Procedures**

This survey was conducted using Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing
(CATI) software. CATI is programmed to follow skip patterns.
Interviewers are trained to probe to get complete answers to all survey
questions. If a respondent does not know how to answer a question, or
refuses to answer a particular question, those options are allowed on
the questionnaire as well. However, no question can be skipped.

For the survey, Westat implemented procedures to review and edit
questionnaire responses. Westat maintains a large in-house data
preparation staff experienced in performing tasks for all study types
conducted at Westat. During a CATI study, data preparation staff checked
the CATI responses for consistency and continuously monitored the data.
Interviewer comments and problem sheets were reviewed daily and updates
were made as necessary. Frequencies of responses to all data items were
reviewed to ensure that appropriate skip patterns were followed by the
CATI system. Each item is checked to make sure that the correct number
of responses is represented. When a discrepancy was discovered, the
problem cases were identified and reviewed.

Westat incorporated quality control into the design and implementation
of each component of the survey. Westat views quality control as a
continuous process that is integrated seamlessly into the development
and conduct of the entire survey process.

> **Recruiting.** Quality control for data collection started with a
> strong and sensitive staff of interviewers who read well, speak
> clearly on the telephone, are articulate, have good listening skills,
> and have an assertive but pleasant business manner.
>
> **Training.** Those individuals who possess these qualities are
> invited to general interviewer training (GIT) where they undergo
> further scrutiny. This training is a self-paced on-line tutorial
> composed of survey information and techniques and exercises geared to
> target those who passed the initial screening but who are otherwise
> not suitable for interviewing, for example, cannot follow directions.
> The next step is CATI Train which, for this study, covered Westat\'s
> Cheshire system. Most mastered this quickly; those who did not were
> released. At this point the successful trainees were sent to
> project-specific training. This training, like GIT and CATI Train, is
> fully scripted to ensure consistency across training groups. Lead
> trainers' evaluate the performance of the trainees with the Group
> Leader. During training, the group leader completes an evaluation form
> for each trainee, which permits trainee performance to be ranked on
> factors such as reading ability, questionnaire navigation,
> understanding of concepts, answering respondent questions, and refusal
> avoidance. Monitoring sheets, which are completed on the scripted role
> plays, are also part of the trainee evaluation. Those who do not
> successfully complete training are released.
>
> **Production.** Standard quality control procedures include systematic
> and rigorous monitoring of telephone interviewer performance
> throughout the telephone data collection field period. This silent
> monitoring is from secure audio-visual stations on site and in homes
> of team leaders. The monitoring rate was the highest at the beginning
> of data collection and was higher for new interviewers than for
> experienced interviewers. All monitoring was documented on a
> Monitoring Document Form and feedback given immediately to the
> interviewer. Monitoring forms for each interview were reviewed weekly
> by the TRC supervisory staff and any interviewers who were identified
> as in need of additional monitoring were monitored more heavily the
> following week. Reinforcement coaching was carried out as needed. In
> addition, a project coordinator reviewed monitoring sheets to identify
> common problems across interviewers that might reveal the need for
> additional training. Team leaders also answered questions interviewers
> had during interviews. Production, refusal, attendance, and attrition
> rates were monitored, also. Weekly interviewer meetings, on-line
> memoranda and bulletin board postings kept the interviewers apprised
> of procedural modifications, response counts and increases by industry
> and size, and other project activities. Any discrepancies or mailing
> errors were quickly identified by staff and discussed with the
> associated interviewers.
>
> **Data editing.** The CATI program's edit checks ensured that during
> the course of each interview, non-contradictory data or data within
> reasonable ranges would be entered as responses to the survey
> questions. In addition, after completion of the surveys,
> computer-assisted editing was performed to ensure data consistency;
> reconcile hierarchical database segments (e.g., if the answer to one
> question requires that there be a specific response to another);
> identify outliers, and range edits through the use of Westat's range
> verification utility that passes all response entries through the data
> dictionary range specifications and produces a report flagging all
> items that exceed the range; and verify the completeness of each
> finalized case.

Frequencies of responses to open-ended and other/specify responses were
also run. These responses were reviewed and were either upcoded into
existing response categories (for other/specify responses) or categories
were developed (for both open-ended and other/specify responses) for
analysis. Cases in which the industry type changed were reviewed to
determine that the industry remained in scope. A few cases where the
industry was coded agricultural and a utility company were changed from
a complete to ineligible status.

**Screening and Recruiting Respondents**

We contacted the selected companies and conducted a 15 minute telephone
interview with the senior executives knowledgeable about company
policies and practices on recruiting, hiring, retaining and advancing
employees with disabilities. This activity began after OMB clearance,
and once the pilot study was completed. Westat employed appropriate
telephone interviewing methods to insure cooperation of senior
executives for this short survey.

The research team's extensive experience with business surveys has shown
that response rates are maximized when procedures for achieving them are
designed into and executed at every stage of a study\'s implementation.
These procedures began with the plan for development of the sample frame
and continued through the development of the questionnaire and data
collection. Factors that specifically influence reluctant individuals to
participate include the following:

> **Advance Letter.** An introductory letter was sent to sampled
> businesses. The letter was on ODEP letterhead and signed by an
> official at ODEP. The goal of this letter was to introduce the study,
> emphasize confidentiality, explain respondent's rights, and alert the
> respondents that an interviewer will be calling. A toll-free number
> was included so that respondents could call to verify the legitimacy
> of the study, to ask questions or to set up an appointment for an
> interview.
>
> **Contacting the most appropriate respondent**. Westat sent all small
> and medium-sized businesses the advance letter prior to the
> interviewer's call. Large businesses were called to obtain the name of
> the most senior knowledgeable respondent. That respondent was then
> sent the advance letter. Once the letter was sent, an interviewer
> called to complete the interview. If we could not speak with that
> respondent, we then determined the name of another knowledgeable
> respondent. We asked for respondents by title, using the titles cited
> in the questionnaire. In a large company, many of the questions on the
> survey were referred to Human Resources for responses. Large companies
> often have human resources employees who are responsible for
> recruiting employees with disabilities and tracking accommodations
> made for employees.
>
> **Contacting the corporate headquarters.** Westat contacted the
> business' corporate headquarters, if applicable, and tried to
> interview a respondent at the corporate office. If this was not
> possible, Westat then conducted the interview with a senior
> knowledgeable respondent at one of the company's locations.
>
> **Experienced executive interviewers.** Westat has a dedicated staff
> of experienced, executive interviewers whose job it is to conduct
> interviews with senior level business executives.
>
> **Interviewers' ability to obtain cooperation.** Westat uses
> experienced and well trained interviewers. All interviewers were
> monitored, evaluated, and provided with instant feedback on their
> performance to eliminate interaction patterns or telephone demeanor
> that might be detrimental to achieving cooperation. (Newer
> interviewers were monitored at a higher rate than experienced
> interviewers.)
>
> **Flexibility in scheduling interviews.** Being available to speak
> with people when it is most convenient for them is sometimes
> overlooked as a factor that can tip the balance in favor of
> cooperation for an individual who has doubts about participating.
> Interviewing activities for the survey were scheduled to coincide with
> the hours people are most likely to be at work. In the event the
> respondents needed to schedule interviews for a particular time, the
> CATI system accommodated their needs. Special arrangements were made
> for those respondents available to be interviewed only on a weekend or
> in the evening as staff was generally scheduled only Monday through
> Friday 9 a.m. -- 5 p.m. in Eastern through Pacific time zones.
>
> **Well-worded introductory statement.** Our telephone interviewing
> experience has shown that one of the main reasons for nonresponse is
> that respondents hang up before the interviewer has a chance to
> explain the study. Immediately reassuring the person answering the
> telephone that the interviewer is not a salesperson and that the study
> was being done for the Department of Labor was crucial to the
> respondent's decision to listen to the rest of the introduction.
>
> **Refusal avoidance and refusal conversion.** Perhaps the most
> significant technique for persuading reluctant individuals to
> participate is the interviewer training segment that encourages
> respondent participation. Nearly as important is a well-planned and
> concerted effort to convert each refusal to final cooperation. For
> each case in which the respondent refused to participate, the
> interviewer completed a Non-Interview Response Form (NIRF). The form
> captured information about key characteristics of the refusing
> respondent and the stated reason(s) for refusing to participate.
> Special interviewer training sessions were led by highly experienced
> supervisors for a select group of interviewers. The sessions included
> participating in the analysis of survey-specific and generic reasons
> for refusal, preparing answers and statements that are responsive to
> the objections; effective use of voice and manner on the telephone,
> and role-playing of different situations. This team of customer
> cooperation interviewers re-contacted the reluctant respondents.
>
> **Penetrating companies with difficult access.** Four interviewers
> were trained in various ways to reach wanted respondents when an IVR
> system allowed no access without an individual's name and/or extension
> or when company policy prohibited the operator from transferring a
> call without a name or extension. This required use of the Internet,
> specifically Googling the company or a general phone directory site
> which sometimes would include key employee names and direct telephone
> numbers. The training consisted of periodic sharing of verbal phrases
> that produced the best results in breaking through these company
> barriers.

**Interviewer Debriefing Report**

The interviewers noted the following problem areas:

> **Errors or Outdated Information in Sample.** These included
> individual names that never had a business of any kind and individuals
> who had not been in business for many years.
>
> **Questions.** A request was made that questions in future
> questionnaires be more explicit and less confusing to the respondent.
> For this, probably a larger pretest would have been needed. The
> primary examples given were:
>
> **Question 1.** We show that you have \[NUMBER\] employees. Is that
> correct? \[IF NEEDED: Please count all employees, not just full time
> employees.\] Respondents employed by companies with more than 1
> location tended to say no, thinking only of their location or division
> or asked if that was "just here or all branches?" So, the interviewers
> felt that part of Q2 should have been incorporated in Q1: "Including
> any corporate headquarters, subsidiaries, and branches, we show that
> you have \[NUMBER\] employees. Is that correct?"
>
> **Question 14.** Would any of the following types of information
> persuade you to recruit people with a disability? What about \...
> There was a general impression that smaller and non-profit companies
> tended to be impatient with many in this set of questions because they
> considered the options to be geared toward larger companies.
>
> Many respondents perceived the questions as being repetitive. Although
> training emphasized the need to stress the words hiring, retaining,
> advancing, the interviewers offered two suggestions for future
> interviews with this type questioning. (1) Ask the question, and then
> ask the effect on hiring, retaining, advancing or (2) Have a preface
> indicating that the following series of questions are going to be
> asked about hiring and then about retaining, and then about advancing
> employees with disabilities. The first set is about hiring. Then when
> you reach retaining, state: \"The next questions are about retaining
> employees with disabilities. We have found that sometimes companies
> have the same answers as for hiring but others have different answers.
> We appreciate your input on this.\" Then use the same approach for a
> preface on advancing people with disabilities.
>
> **Contacting the Correct Respondent.** The interviewers stated that
> this was the number one challenge. Company policies and Interactive
> Voice Response systems have increased the inability to reach
> designated respondents in the most timely fashion. The large firms
> were the most difficult to interview because many used automated voice
> mail systems that were very difficult to penetrate and key employees
> were well protected by their staff.

##  

## Appendix D: Supplementary Statistical Tables

## 

## 

  ------------------- ------------ ------ ------------ ------- -------- --------- -------- ------------ --------- --------
  Appendix Table D1.                                                                                              
  Supplementary                                                                                                   
  statistics                                                                                                      
  associated with                                                                                                 
  Table 2-employing                                                                                               
  people with                                                                                                     
  disabilities                                                                                                    

                      Percentage                                        Number                                    

                                          Confidence           Sample                      Confidence             Sample
                                          interval                                         interval               

  Company type        Est.         S.E.   Lower        Upper   size     Est.      S.E.     Lower        Upper     size

  All                 19.1         0.9    17.4         20.9    3,786    471,537   23,111   426,226      516,847   3,786

  Small               10.7         1.1    8.8          13.0    1,261    133,590   13,516   107,074      160,106   1,261

  Medium              22.6         1.5    19.8         25.8    1,277    229,070   15,986   197,708      260,432   1,277

  Large               53.1         3.6    46.0         60.1    1,248    108,877   9,792    89,666       128,087   1,248

  Service-producing   18.9         1.0    17.0         21.0    2,815    376,914   21,327   335,095      418,733   2,815
  industries                                                                                                      

  Wholesale trade     14.9         2.4    10.7         20.4    299      19,798    3,347    13,211       26,385    299

  Retail trade        17.0         2.5    12.7         22.4    311      45,914    6,854    32,427       59,401    311

  Trans. &            15.9         2.4    11.6         21.3    321      10,347    1,566    7,266        13,429    321
  warehousing                                                                                                     

  Information         27.5         3.8    20.7         35.5    290      16,953    2,626    11,785       22,121    290

  Finance             17.8         2.6    13.3         23.4    285      26,456    3,913    18,753       34,160    285

  Professional        14.1         2.4    10.0         19.5    318      48,973    8,335    32,573       65,373    318

  Education & Health  21.3         2.4    17.0         26.3    383      88,747    10,311   68,474       109,021   383

  Leisure &           22.7         3.2    17.1         29.6    320      83,200    12,583   58,444       107,957   320
  Hospitality                                                                                                     

  Other services      19.6         3.2    14.1         26.5    288      36,524    6,156    24,408       48,641    288

  Goods-producing     17.5         1.9    14.1         21.5    585      74,958    8,266    58,724       91,192    585
  industries                                                                                                      

  Construction        15.9         2.7    11.3         22.1    285      36,096    6,354    23,589       48,604    285

  Manufacturing       19.3         2.6    14.8         24.9    300      38,862    5,286    28,458       49,265    300

  Public              42.7         4.8    33.6         52.2    386      19,664    3,306    13,165       26,164    386
  administration                                                                                                  

  Source: 2008 Survey                                                                                             
  of Employer                                                                                                     
  Perspectives on the                                                                                             
  Employment of                                                                                                   
  People with                                                                                                     
  Disabilities, ODEP.                                                                                             
  ------------------- ------------ ------ ------------ ------- -------- --------- -------- ------------ --------- --------

  ------------------- ------------ ------ ------------ ------- -------- --------- -------- ------------ --------- --------
  Appendix Table D2.                                                                                              
  Supplementary                                                                                                   
  statistics                                                                                                      
  associated with                                                                                                 
  Table 3-actively                                                                                                
  recruiting people                                                                                               
  with disabilities                                                                                               

                      Percentage                                        Number                                    

                                          Confidence           Sample                      Confidence             Sample
                                          interval                                         interval               

  Company type        Est.         S.E.   Lower        Upper   size     Est.      S.E.     Lower        Upper     size

  All                 13.6         0.8    12.2         15.2    3,697    326,703   19,030   289,393      364,014   3,697

  Small               7.8          0.9    6.3          9.8     1,236    96,053    11,008   74,457       117,649   1,236

  Medium              16.8         1.4    14.2         19.6    1,240    164,446   13,632   137,702      191,191   1,240

  Large               33.8         3.4    27.6         40.7    1,221    66,204    7,426    51,636       80,772    1,221

  Service-producing   13.9         0.9    12.2         15.8    2,738    269,718   17,912   234,595      304,841   2,738
  industries                                                                                                      

  Wholesale trade     12.0         2.2    8.3          17.0    292      15,411    2,847    9,807        21,015    292

  Retail trade        10.2         1.9    7.0          14.5    300      26,385    4,923    16,696       36,074    300

  Trans. &            9.3          1.8    6.2          13.5    315      5,857     1,126    3,641        8,073     315
  warehousing                                                                                                     

  Information         22.8         3.1    17.2         29.5    279      13,585    1,783    10,074       17,096    279

  Finance             18.2         2.6    13.7         23.7    278      26,289    3,747    18,913       33,665    278

  Professional        11.6         2.1    8.0          16.4    305      38,799    7,130    24,769       52,830    305

  Education & Health  16.3         2.3    12.3         21.2    374      66,520    9,468    47,903       85,137    374

  Leisure &           15.8         2.9    10.9         22.2    310      55,904    10,464   35,314       76,495    310
  Hospitality                                                                                                     

  Other services      11.4         2.4    7.4          17.1    285      20,967    4,477    12,154       29,780    285

  Goods-producing     9.4          1.3    7.1          12.3    579      39,368    5,548    28,471       50,265    579
  industries                                                                                                      

  Construction        4.8          1.4    2.7          8.3     279      10,409    2,941    4,620        16,198    279

  Manufacturing       14.5         2.3    10.5         19.5    300      28,959    4,705    19,700       38,217    300

  Public              39.5         5.0    30.2         49.6    380      17,617    3,243    11,241       23,994    380
  administration                                                                                                  

  Source: 2008 Survey                                                                                             
  of Employer                                                                                                     
  Perspectives on the                                                                                             
  Employment of                                                                                                   
  People with                                                                                                     
  Disabilities, ODEP.                                                                                             
  ------------------- ------------ ------ ------------ ------- -------- --------- -------- ------------ --------- --------

  ---------------------------------------------- ----------- ------ ------------ ------- --------
  Appendix Table D3. Supplementary statistics                                            
  associated with Table 4-strategies used to                                             
  proactively recruit                                                                    

                                                 All                                     
                                                 companies                               

                                                                    Confidence           Sample
                                                                    interval             

  Strategy                                       Percent     S.E.   Lower        Upper   size

  Postings at job service or workforce           23.7        2.5    19.2         28.9    828
  employment center                                                                      

  Contacting college and university career       13.1        2.3    9.2          18.2    828
  centers when vacancies arise                                                           

  Partnerships with disability-related advocacy  11.8        2.2    8.2          16.7    828
  organizations                                                                          

  Including people with disabilities in          9.6         2.1    6.1          14.6    828
  diversity recruitment goals                                                            

  Postings at disability-related publications    8.8         1.7    6.1          12.7    828

  Postings at disability-related websites        8.3         1.6    5.7          12.0    828

  Postings or tables at disability-related job   6.8         1.7    4.1          11.1    828
  fairs                                                                                  

  Postings at Department of Vocational           4.0         1.0    2.5          6.6     828
  Rehabilitation                                                                         

  Establishing summer internship and mentoring   2.2^†^      0.9    1.0          4.9     828
  programs                                                                               

  Postings at Independent Living Centers         1.5^†^      0.8    0.5          4.3     828

  Source: 2008 Survey of Employer Perspectives                                           
  on the Employment of People with Disabilities,                                         
  ODEP.                                                                                  

  Note: All estimates are adjusted for the                                               
  complex design of the survey.                                                          

  Note: † indicates estimates with low                                                   
  precision\--a coefficient of variation greater                                         
  than 30 percent.                                                                       
  ---------------------------------------------- ----------- ------ ------------ ------- --------

  ----------------------- ----------- ------ ------------ ------- -------- --------- ------ ------------ ------- --------
  Appendix Table D4.                                                                                             
  Supplementary                                                                                                  
  statistics associated                                                                                          
  with Table 5-persuasive                                                                                        
  information                                                                                                    

                          All                                              Small                                 
                          companies                                                                              

                                             Confidence           Sample                    Confidence           Sample
                                             interval                                       interval             

  Information             Percent     S.E.   Lower        Upper   size     Percent   S.E.   Lower        Upper   size

  Satisfactory job        68.2        1.2    65.8         70.6    2,748    67.4      1.7    64.0         70.7    1,056
  perform., attend., and                                                                                         
  retention                                                                                                      

  Increases to your       67.4        1.2    65.0         69.8    2,756    66.2      1.7    62.7         69.5    1,064
  company's productivity                                                                                         

  Benefits to your        65.7        1.3    63.2         68.1    2,744    65.0      1.7    61.5         68.3    1,063
  company's bottom line                                                                                          

  Benefits other          63.7        1.3    61.1         66.2    2,662    61.5      1.8    57.9         65.0    1,014
  companies in your                                                                                              
  industry                                                                                                       

  Statistics or research  61.0        1.3    58.5         63.5    2,775    58.5      1.8    54.9         62.0    1,062

  Testimonials from human 54.6        1.3    52.0         57.2    2,784    52.5      1.8    48.9         56.1    1,060
  resources managers                                                                                             

  Testimonials from       52.8        1.3    50.2         55.4    2,771    51.4      1.8    47.7         54.9    1,060
  senior executives                                                                                              

  Testimonials from of    52.3        1.3    49.7         54.8    2,782    50.1      1.8    46.6         53.7    1,061
  line managers                                                                                                  

  Benefited nationally    46.8        1.3    44.2         49.4    2,720    43.7      1.9    40.1         47.3    1,038
  recognized companies                                                                                           

  Addresses concerns      32.4        1.2    30.0         34.9    2,644    30.8      1.7    27.5         34.2    1,014
  about costs                                                                                                    

                          Medium                                           Large                                 

  Satisfactory job        68.0        1.9    64.1         71.7    971      76.4      4.1    67.4         83.5    721
  perform., attend., and                                                                                         
  retention                                                                                                      

  Increases to your       67.6        2.0    63.6         71.4    966      77.0      4.1    68.0         84.0    726
  company's productivity                                                                                         

  Benefits to your        65.6        2.0    61.6         69.3    958      72.3      4.5    62.8         80.2    723
  company's bottom line                                                                                          

  Benefits other          64.9        2.0    60.9         68.8    941      74.2      4.1    65.4         81.5    707
  companies in your                                                                                              
  industry                                                                                                       

  Statistics or research  61.8        2.0    57.8         65.7    976      77.5      4.1    68.4         84.5    737

  Testimonials from human 55.0        2.0    51.0         58.9    991      69.5      4.0    61.0         76.8    733
  resources managers                                                                                             

  Testimonials from       53.4        2.1    49.4         57.4    980      60.9      4.5    51.8         69.2    731
  senior executives                                                                                              

  Testimonials from of    53.1        2.0    49.1         57.1    982      65.0      4.3    56.1         73.0    739
  line managers                                                                                                  

  Benefited nationally    48.4        2.1    44.3         52.5    959      62.7      4.6    53.4         71.2    723
  recognized companies                                                                                           

  Addresses concerns      33.4        1.9    29.7         37.3    924      39.7      4.7    30.9         49.3    706
  about costs                                                                                                    

  Source: 2008 Survey of                                                                                         
  Employer Perspectives                                                                                          
  on the Employment of                                                                                           
  People with                                                                                                    
  Disabilities, ODEP.                                                                                            

  Note: All estimates are                                                                                        
  adjusted for the                                                                                               
  complex design of the                                                                                          
  survey.                                                                                                        
  ----------------------- ----------- ------ ------------ ------- -------- --------- ------ ------------ ------- --------

  ------------------- ------------ ------ ------------ ------- -------- ----------- -------- ------------ --------- -------
  Appendix Table D5.                                                                                                
  Supplementary                                                                                                     
  statistics                                                                                                        
  associated with                                                                                                   
  Table 6-hiring                                                                                                    
  people with                                                                                                       
  disabilities                                                                                                      

                      Percentage                                        Number                                      

                                          Confidence           Sample                        Confidence             
                                          interval                                           interval               

  Company type        Est.         S.E.   Lower        Upper   size     Est.        S.E.     Lower        Upper     size

  All                 8.7          0.7    7.5          10.1    3,770    215,336     16,516   182,953      247,718   3,770

  Small               5.4          0.8    4.1          7.2     1,261    67,459      9,842    48,150       86,767    1,261

  Medium              8.0          1.0    6.3          10.2    1,273    81,162      10,018   61,509       100,815   1,273

  Large               32.7         3.5    26.2         39.9    1,236    66,715      8,694    49,659       83,771    1,236

  Service-producing   9.0          0.8    7.6          10.6    2,805    178,417     15,415   148,190      208,643   2,805
  industries                                                                                                        

  Wholesale trade     5.6          1.6    3.2          9.6     297      7,413       2,064    3,351        11,475    297

  Retail trade        8.5          1.9    5.4          13.1    310      22,900      5,213    12,643       33,158    310

  Trans. &            8.7          2.0    5.5          13.5    321      5,681       1,291    3,141        8,220     321
  warehousing                                                                                                       

  Information         12.5         2.2    8.7          17.5    289      7,695       1,310    5,118        10,273    289

  Finance             9.4          1.9    6.3          13.8    285      13,906      2,817    8,360        19,452    285

  Professional        3.9^†^       1.4    2.0          7.6     318      13,689^†^   4,705    4,432        22,947    318

  Education & Health  10.0         1.7    7.1          13.9    381      41,589      7,318    27,200       55,977    381

  Leisure &           14.4         2.7    9.9          20.6    317      52,415      10,269   32,212       72,619    317
  Hospitality                                                                                                       

  Other services      7.0          1.9    4.1          11.9    287      13,127      3,707    5,830        20,425    287

  Goods-producing     6.5          1.3    4.5          9.4     586      27,959      5,365    17,422       38,496    586
  industries                                                                                                        

  Construction        7.0          2.0    4.0          12.0    285      15,819      4,511    6,940        24,699    285

  Manufacturing       6.0          1.4    3.7          9.5     301      12,140      2,904    6,426        17,855    301

  Public              19.7         4.7    12.0         30.6    379      8,960       2,527    3,992        13,928    379
  administration                                                                                                    

  Source: 2008 Survey                                                                                               
  of Employer                                                                                                       
  Perspectives on the                                                                                               
  Employment of                                                                                                     
  People with                                                                                                       
  Disabilities, ODEP.                                                                                               

  Note: A dagger (†)                                                                                                
  indicates estimates                                                                                               
  with low                                                                                                          
  precision\--a                                                                                                     
  coefficient of                                                                                                    
  variation greater                                                                                                 
  than 30 percent.                                                                                                  
  ------------------- ------------ ------ ------------ ------- -------- ----------- -------- ------------ --------- -------

  ------------------------- ----------- ------ ------------ ------- -------- --------- ------ ------------ ------- --------
  Appendix Table D6.                                                                                               
  Supplementary statistics                                                                                         
  associated with Table                                                                                            
  7-hiring challenges                                                                                              

                            All                                              Small                                 
                            companies                                                                              

                                               Confidence           Sample                    Confidence           Sample
                                               interval                                       interval             

  Challenge                 Percent     S.E.   Lower        Upper   size     Percent   S.E.   Lower        Upper   size

  Nature of the work        72.7        1.0    70.6         74.6    3,690    73.7      1.5    70.7         76.5    1,233

  Not knowing how much      63.7        1.1    61.5         65.9    3,726    63.9      1.7    60.6         67.1    1,237
  accommodations will cost                                                                                         

  Cannot find qualified     63.6        1.2    61.3         65.9    3,519    61.7      1.7    58.2         65.0    1,158
  people with disabilities                                                                                         

  Actual cost of            61.6        1.2    59.3         63.9    3,679    63.0      1.7    59.7         66.2    1,221
  accommodating disability                                                                                         

  Concern about the workers 47.4        1.2    45.1         49.7    3,702    54.8      1.7    51.4         58.1    1,222
  compensation costs                                                                                               

  Concern about the cost of 46.2        1.2    43.9         48.5    3,728    52.6      1.7    49.3         56.0    1,233
  health care coverage                                                                                             

  Fear of litigation        40.6        1.2    38.4         42.9    3,718    45.0      1.7    41.7         48.4    1,227

  Lack of knowledge or      39.7        1.2    37.5         42.0    3,759    39.4      1.7    36.2         42.7    1,252
  information                                                                                                      

  Attitudes of customers    34.3        1.1    32.1         36.6    3,677    35.8      1.6    32.7         39.0    1,234

  Discomfort or             32.2        1.1    30.1         34.4    3,753    34.5      1.6    31.4         37.8    1,246
  unfamiliarity                                                                                                    

  Attitudes of co-workers   29.1        1.1    27.0         31.2    3,755    28.1      1.5    25.2         31.2    1,249

  Attitudes of supervisors  20.3        0.9    18.6         22.2    3,764    17.8      1.3    15.4         20.5    1,251

                            Medium                                           Large                                 

  Nature of the work        72.4        1.6    69.1         75.5    1,239    67.1      3.4    60.1         73.4    1,218

  Not knowing how much      63.5        1.8    60.0         66.9    1,253    63.4      3.4    56.5         69.7    1,236
  accommodations will cost                                                                                         

  Cannot find qualified     65.1        1.8    61.5         68.6    1,165    68.0      3.4    61.0         74.3    1,196
  people with disabilities                                                                                         

  Actual cost of            60.9        1.8    57.3         64.3    1,246    57.1      3.6    50.0         64.0    1,212
  accommodating disability                                                                                         

  Concern about the workers 43.3        1.8    39.8         46.9    1,251    22.8      3.1    17.3         29.4    1,229
  compensation costs                                                                                               

  Concern about the cost of 42.0        1.8    38.6         45.6    1,260    27.8      3.3    21.8         34.8    1,235
  health care coverage                                                                                             

  Fear of litigation        38.0        1.8    34.6         41.6    1,256    26.6      3.2    20.8         33.4    1,235

  Lack of knowledge or      39.2        1.8    35.8         42.7    1,270    44.3      3.6    37.3         51.4    1,237
  information                                                                                                      

  Attitudes of customers    31.7        1.8    28.4         35.3    1,237    38.3      3.8    31.2         45.9    1,206

  Discomfort or             29.9        1.7    26.8         33.3    1,268    29.5      3.4    23.3         36.6    1,239
  unfamiliarity                                                                                                    

  Attitudes of co-workers   29.7        1.7    26.5         33.1    1,267    32.0      3.5    25.6         39.2    1,239

  Attitudes of supervisors  21.1        1.4    18.4         24.1    1,270    32.1      3.4    25.8         39.2    1,243

  Source: 2008 Survey of                                                                                           
  Employer Perspectives on                                                                                         
  the Employment of People                                                                                         
  with Disabilities, ODEP.                                                                                         

  Note: All estimates are                                                                                          
  adjusted for the complex                                                                                         
  design of the survey.                                                                                            
  ------------------------- ----------- ------ ------------ ------- -------- --------- ------ ------------ ------- --------

+------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+---------+
| Appendix Table D7.     |        |        |        |        |         |
| Supplementary          |        |        |        |        |         |
| statistics associated  |        |        |        |        |         |
| with Table 8-nature of |        |        |        |        |         |
| work as a challenge,   |        |        |        |        |         |
| by industry            |        |        |        |        |         |
+------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+---------+
| Industry               | P      | St     | Conf   |        | Sample  |
|                        | ercent | andard | idence |        |         |
|                        |        | error  | In     |        | Size    |
|                        |        |        | terval |        |         |
+------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+---------+
|                        |        |        | Lower  | Upper  |         |
+------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+---------+
| All companies          | 72.6   | 1.0    | 70.6   | 74.6   | 3,690   |
+------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+---------+
| Construction           | 88.8   | 2.5    | 82.8   | 93.0   | 281     |
+------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+---------+
| Manufacturing          | 84.9   | 2.4    | 79.5   | 89.1   | 294     |
+------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+---------+
| Retail trade           | 83.7   | 2.5    | 78.2   | 88.0   | 304     |
+------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+---------+
| Trans. and warehousing | 78.7   | 3.3    | 71.6   | 84.4   | 313     |
+------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+---------+
| Leisure and            | 77.0   | 3.4    | 69.7   | 83.0   | 308     |
| hospitality            |        |        |        |        |         |
+------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+---------+
| Wholesale trade        | 76.1   | 3.0    | 69.6   | 81.5   | 294     |
+------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+---------+
| Public administration  | 74.6   | 3.5    | 67.0   | 80.9   | 375     |
+------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+---------+
| Education and health   | 68.1   | 2.9    | 62.2   | 73.6   | 376     |
+------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+---------+
| Other services         | 63.0   | 3.9    | 55.0   | 70.3   | 281     |
+------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+---------+
| Information services   | 59.2   | 3.8    | 51.5   | 66.4   | 279     |
+------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+---------+
| Professional services  | 58.8   | 3.5    | 51.8   | 65.6   | 308     |
+------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+---------+
| Finance services       | 56.2   | 3.5    | 49.2   | 62.9   | 277     |
+------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+---------+
| Source: 2008 Survey of |        |        |        |        |         |
| Employer Perspectives  |        |        |        |        |         |
| on the Employment of   |        |        |        |        |         |
| People with            |        |        |        |        |         |
| Disabilities, ODEP.    |        |        |        |        |         |
+------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+---------+
| Note: Based on         |        |        |        |        |         |
| question 15, \"I am    |        |        |        |        |         |
| now going to describe  |        |        |        |        |         |
| several factors in     |        |        |        |        |         |
| hiring people with     |        |        |        |        |         |
| disabilities that we   |        |        |        |        |         |
| often hear from        |        |        |        |        |         |
| employers. How much of |        |        |        |        |         |
| a challenge are the    |        |        |        |        |         |
| following factors to   |        |        |        |        |         |
| your company in hiring |        |        |        |        |         |
| people with            |        |        |        |        |         |
| disabilities? I would  |        |        |        |        |         |
| like you to say        |        |        |        |        |         |
| whether it is a major  |        |        |        |        |         |
| challenge, somewhat of |        |        |        |        |         |
| a challenge or not a   |        |        |        |        |         |
| challenge.\"           |        |        |        |        |         |
+------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+---------+
| \*All 3,797 surveyed   |        |        |        |        |         |
| companies were asked   |        |        |        |        |         |
| this question,         |        |        |        |        |         |
| regardless of whether  |        |        |        |        |         |
| they hire people with  |        |        |        |        |         |
| disabilities.          |        |        |        |        |         |
+------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+---------+

  ------------------------- ---------- ------ ------------ ------- -------- ---------- ------ ------------ ------- --------
  Appendix Table D8.                                                                                               
  Supplementary statistics                                                                                         
  associated with Table                                                                                            
  9-hiring challenges, by                                                                                          
  whether recruit                                                                                                  

                            Actively                                        Do not                                 
                            recruit                                         actively                               
                                                                            recruit                                

                                              Confidence           Sample                     Confidence           Sample
                                              interval                                        interval             

  Challenge                 Percent    S.E.   Lower        Upper   size     Percent    S.E.   Lower        Upper   size

  Nature of the work        61.5       3.1    55.3         67.3    810      74.4       1.1    72.2         76.6    2,792

  Not knowing how much      52.4       3.1    46.4         58.4    822      65.8       1.2    63.4         68.2    2,809
  accommodation will cost                                                                                          

  Cannot find qualified     58.6       3.3    52.1         64.8    787      64.6       1.3    62.0         67.0    2,655
  people with disabilities                                                                                         

  Actual cost of            45.3       3.2    39.2         51.6    802      64.3       1.3    61.8         66.7    2,784
  accommodating disability                                                                                         

  Concern about the workers 30.7       2.8    25.4         36.5    820      50.7       1.3    48.1         53.2    2,792
  comp. costs                                                                                                      

  Concern about the cost of 31.6       2.8    26.3         37.4    825      48.8       1.3    46.3         51.4    2,808
  health care coverage                                                                                             

  Fear of litigation        30.2       2.9    24.9         36.0    823      42.6       1.3    40.1         45.2    2,803

  Lack of knowledge or      42.5       3.1    36.5         48.7    827      39.2       1.3    36.8         41.7    2,835
  information                                                                                                      

  Attitudes of customers    31.6       3.0    26.1         37.7    797      35.1       1.3    32.6         37.6    2,786

  Discomfort or             27.0       2.7    22.0         32.7    828      32.9       1.2    30.6         35.4    2,828
  unfamiliarity                                                                                                    

  Attitudes of co-workers   21.5       2.5    17.0         26.8    830      30.4       1.2    28.1         32.8    2,829

  Attitudes of supervisors  16.8       2.2    12.9         21.6    831      20.9       1.0    18.9         23.0    2,835

  Source: 2008 Survey of                                                                                           
  Employer Perspectives on                                                                                         
  the Employment of People                                                                                         
  with Disabilities, ODEP.                                                                                         

  Note: All estimates are                                                                                          
  adjusted for the complex                                                                                         
  design of the survey.                                                                                            
  ------------------------- ---------- ------ ------------ ------- -------- ---------- ------ ------------ ------- --------

  ------------------------- ----------- ------ ------------ ------- -------- --------- ------ ------------ ------- --------
  Appendix Table D9.                                                                                               
  Supplementary statistics                                                                                         
  associated with Table                                                                                            
  10-hiring concerns                                                                                               

                            All                                              Small                                 
                            companies                                                                              

                                               Confidence           Sample                    Confidence           Sample
                                               interval                                       interval             

  Concern                   Percent     S.E.   Lower        Upper   size     Percent   S.E.   Lower        Upper   size

  It costs more to employ   58.1        1.2    55.8         60.4    3,664    64.0      1.7    60.7         67.2    1,224
  workers w/disabilities                                                                                           

  Workers w/disabilities    49.4        1.2    47.1         51.7    3,682    52.1      1.7    48.8         55.4    1,225
  lack the skills and exp.                                                                                         

  People w/disabilities may 45.7        1.2    43.4         48.0    3,731    49.9      1.7    46.6         53.2    1,238
  not be as safe/prod.                                                                                             

  Supervisors are not \...  44.3        1.2    42.0         46.6    3,750    44.4      1.7    41.1         47.7    1,252
  disciplinary action                                                                                              

  Supervisors are not sure  40.7        1.2    38.4         43.0    3,748    39.8      1.7    36.6         43.1    1,250
  how to evaluate                                                                                                  

  Supervisors are not       30.8        1.1    28.7         32.9    3,759    28.7      1.5    25.8         31.8    1,251
  comfortable                                                                                                      

                            Medium                                           Large                                 

  It costs more to employ   54.4        1.9    50.7         58.0    1,225    39.7      3.5    33.0         46.8    1,215
  workers w/disabilities                                                                                           

  Workers w/disabilities    47.6        1.8    44.1         51.3    1,234    41.5      3.7    34.5         48.8    1,223
  lack the skills and exp.                                                                                         

  People w/disabilities may 42.7        1.8    39.3         46.3    1,257    35.0      3.6    28.4         42.3    1,236
  not be as safe/prod.                                                                                             

  Supervisors are not \...  43.6        1.8    40.1         47.2    1,261    47.6      3.6    40.6         54.7    1,237
  disciplinary action                                                                                              

  Supervisors are not sure  41.3        1.8    37.8         44.9    1,258    43.1      3.6    36.2         50.2    1,240
  how to evaluate                                                                                                  

  Supervisors are not       30.5        1.7    27.3         33.8    1,268    44.9      3.6    37.9         52.1    1,240
  comfortable                                                                                                      

  Source: 2008 Survey of                                                                                           
  Employer Perspectives on                                                                                         
  the Employment of People                                                                                         
  with Disabilities, ODEP.                                                                                         

  Note: All estimates are                                                                                          
  adjusted for the complex                                                                                         
  design of the survey.                                                                                            
  ------------------------- ----------- ------ ------------ ------- -------- --------- ------ ------------ ------- --------

  ------------------- ---------- ------ ------------ ------- -------- ---------- ------ ------------ ------- --------
  Appendix Table D10.                                                                                        
  Supplementary                                                                                              
  statistics                                                                                                 
  associated with                                                                                            
  Table 11-hiring                                                                                            
  concerns, by                                                                                               
  whether recruit                                                                                            

                      Actively                                        Do not                                 
                      recruit                                         actively                               
                                                                      recruit                                

                                        Confidence           Sample                     Confidence           Sample
                                        interval                                        interval             

  Concern             Percent    S.E.   Lower        Upper   size     Percent    S.E.   Lower        Upper   size

  It costs more to    44.1       3.2    38.0         50.3    805      60.7       1.3    58.2         63.2    2,774
  employ workers                                                                                             
  w/disabilities                                                                                             

  Workers with        36.3       3.0    30.6         42.4    818      51.4       1.3    48.8         53.9    2,770
  disabilities lack                                                                                          
  the skills and                                                                                             
  experience                                                                                                 

  People with         30.5       2.8    25.3         36.3    830      48.4       1.3    45.9         51.0    2,806
  disabilities may                                                                                           
  not be as safe or                                                                                          
  productive                                                                                                 

  Supervisors are not 42.6       3.0    36.9         48.5    828      44.8       1.3    42.3         47.3    2,828
  \... disciplinary                                                                                          
  action                                                                                                     

  Supervisors are not 39.8       3.1    34.0         46.0    827      40.8       1.3    38.3         43.3    2,827
  sure how to                                                                                                
  evaluate                                                                                                   

  Supervisors are not 25.6       2.7    20.8         31.2    827      31.7       1.2    29.4         34.1    2,836
  comfortable                                                                                                

  Source: 2008 Survey                                                                                        
  of Employer                                                                                                
  Perspectives on the                                                                                        
  Employment of                                                                                              
  People with                                                                                                
  Disabilities, ODEP.                                                                                        

  Note: All estimates                                                                                        
  are adjusted for                                                                                           
  the complex design                                                                                         
  of the survey.                                                                                             
  ------------------- ---------- ------ ------------ ------- -------- ---------- ------ ------------ ------- --------

  ----------------------- ----------- ------ ------------ ------- -------- --------- ------ ------------ ------- --------
  Appendix Table D11.                                                                                            
  Supplementary                                                                                                  
  statistics associated                                                                                          
  with Table 12-hiring                                                                                           
  strategies                                                                                                     

                          All                                              Small                                 
                          companies                                                                              

                                             Confidence           Sample                    Confidence           Sample
                                             interval                                       interval             

  Strategy                Percent     S.E.   Lower        Upper   size     Percent   S.E.   Lower        Upper   size

  Employer tax credits    69.2        1.1    67.0         71.3    3,707    66.8      1.6    63.6         69.9    1,240
  and incentives                                                                                                 

  Disability awareness    64.3        1.1    62.1         66.4    3,747    59.1      1.7    55.7         62.3    1,243
  training                                                                                                       

  Visible top management  64.2        1.1    61.9         66.4    3,683    59.4      1.7    56.0         62.7    1,218
  commitment                                                                                                     

  Mentoring               63.4        1.1    61.1         65.6    3,723    60.7      1.7    57.4         64.0    1,234

  Assistive technology    61.1        1.2    58.8         63.4    3,634    59.1      1.7    55.7         62.3    1,213

  Using a specialized     60.8        1.2    58.5         63.0    3,713    57.3      1.7    53.9         60.6    1,230
  recruiting source                                                                                              

  Flexible work schedule  60.0        1.1    57.8         62.2    3,746    59.7      1.6    56.4         62.9    1,252

  Training existing staff 57.9        1.2    55.6         60.1    3,711    54.7      1.7    51.4         58.0    1,236

  On-site consultation or 57.1        1.2    54.8         59.4    3,720    54.6      1.7    51.2         57.9    1,243
  technical assistance                                                                                           

  Disability targeted     55.4        1.2    53.1         57.7    3,704    53.0      1.7    49.7         56.4    1,231
  internship program                                                                                             

  Short-term on the job   54.3        1.2    52.0         56.6    3,687    50.5      1.7    47.1         53.8    1,226
  assistance with job                                                                                            
  coach                                                                                                          

  Developing a targeted   50.7        1.2    48.4         53.1    3,707    47.3      1.7    44.0         50.7    1,226
  recruitment program                                                                                            

  Centralized             47.1        1.2    44.8         49.5    3,645    43.3      1.7    40.0         46.7    1,214
  accommodations fund                                                                                            

  Reassignment            40.1        1.2    37.8         42.6    3,347    37.8      1.8    34.4         41.3    1,115

                          Medium                                           Large                                 

  Employer tax credits    70.5        1.6    67.3         73.6    1,247    77.1      2.9    71.0         82.2    1,220
  and incentives                                                                                                 

  Disability awareness    66.9        1.7    63.5         70.1    1,263    82.8      2.5    77.3         87.1    1,241
  training                                                                                                       

  Visible top management  65.8        1.7    62.4         69.1    1,239    84.9      2.5    79.4         89.1    1,226
  commitment                                                                                                     

  Mentoring               62.4        1.8    58.9         65.7    1,249    84.3      2.2    79.5         88.2    1,240

  Assistive technology    59.7        1.8    56.0         63.2    1,213    80.3      2.9    73.9         85.5    1,208

  Using a specialized     61.8        1.8    58.2         65.2    1,252    76.6      2.9    70.5         81.8    1,231
  recruiting source                                                                                              

  Flexible work schedule  58.1        1.8    54.6         61.5    1,260    71.8      3.1    65.3         77.4    1,234

  Training existing staff 58.0        1.8    54.5         61.4    1,255    76.1      3.1    69.6         81.5    1,220

  On-site consultation or 57.0        1.8    53.4         60.5    1,253    73.1      3.1    66.7         78.7    1,224
  technical assistance                                                                                           

  Disability targeted     54.5        1.8    50.9         58.0    1,246    74.3      3.0    68.0         79.7    1,227
  internship program                                                                                             

  Short-term on the job   55.2        1.8    51.6         58.8    1,247    72.4      3.1    65.9         78.2    1,214
  assistance with job                                                                                            
  coach                                                                                                          

  Developing a targeted   50.6        1.8    47.0         54.1    1,249    72.2      3.1    65.7         78.0    1,232
  recruitment program                                                                                            

  Centralized             48.4        1.9    44.8         52.0    1,227    64.1      3.5    57.0         70.6    1,204
  accommodations fund                                                                                            

  Reassignment            40.1        1.9    36.4         43.9    1,134    54.5      3.8    47.0         61.8    1,098

  Source: 2008 Survey of                                                                                         
  Employer Perspectives                                                                                          
  on the Employment of                                                                                           
  People with                                                                                                    
  Disabilities, ODEP.                                                                                            

  Note: All estimates are                                                                                        
  adjusted for the                                                                                               
  complex design of the                                                                                          
  survey.                                                                                                        
  ----------------------- ----------- ------ ------------ ------- -------- --------- ------ ------------ ------- --------

  ----------------------- ---------- ------ ------------ ------- -------- ---------- ------ ------------ ------- --------
  Appendix Table D12.                                                                                            
  Supplementary                                                                                                  
  statistics associated                                                                                          
  with Table 13-hiring                                                                                           
  strategies, by whether                                                                                         
  recruit                                                                                                        

                          Actively                                        Do not                                 
                          recruit                                         actively                               
                                                                          recruit                                

                                            Confidence           Sample                     Confidence           Sample
                                            interval                                        interval             

  Strategy                Percent    S.E.   Lower        Upper   size     Percent    S.E.   Lower        Upper   size

  Employer tax credits    82.8       2.2    78.1         86.7    807      67.0       1.2    64.5         69.3    2,810
  and incentives                                                                                                 

  Disability awareness    80.8       2.3    75.8         85.0    829      61.2       1.3    58.7         63.6    2,821
  training                                                                                                       

  Visible top management  81.2       2.4    76.0         85.6    816      61.5       1.3    59.0         63.9    2,775
  commitment                                                                                                     

  Mentoring               78.9       2.5    73.5         83.4    826      60.9       1.3    58.4         63.3    2,803

  Assistive technology    79.2       2.5    73.9         83.8    804      58.1       1.3    55.5         60.6    2,746

  Using a specialized     78.0       2.6    72.5         82.6    822      57.7       1.3    55.1         60.2    2,798
  recruiting source                                                                                              

  Flexible work schedule  73.7       2.6    68.4         78.5    824      57.7       1.3    55.3         60.2    2,828

  Training existing staff 73.5       NA     NA           NA      821      55.5       1.3    53.0         58.0    2,798

  On-site consultation or 71.6       NA     NA           NA      809      55.0       1.3    52.4         57.5    2,816
  technical assistance                                                                                           

  Disability targeted     71.7       2.8    65.9         76.9    818      52.8       1.3    50.2         55.3    2,797
  internship program                                                                                             

  Short-term on the job   72.3       NA     NA           NA      807      51.3       1.3    48.8         53.9    2,793
  assistance with job                                                                                            
  coach                                                                                                          

  Developing a targeted   73.8       2.7    68.2         78.7    821      46.9       1.3    44.3         49.4    2,793
  recruitment program                                                                                            

  Centralized             61.9       3.0    55.9         67.6    796      44.8       1.3    42.2         47.3    2,761
  accommodations fund                                                                                            

  Reassignment            58.4       3.2    52.1         64.4    735      37.1       1.3    34.6         39.8    2,536

  Source: 2008 Survey of                                                                                         
  Employer Perspectives                                                                                          
  on the Employment of                                                                                           
  People with                                                                                                    
  Disabilities, ODEP.                                                                                            

  Note: All estimates are                                                                                        
  adjusted for the                                                                                               
  complex design of the                                                                                          
  survey.                                                                                                        

  Note: NA indicates                                                                                             
  variance-related                                                                                               
  estimates that are not                                                                                         
  available because not                                                                                          
  all size/industry                                                                                              
  strata were represented                                                                                        
  in the estimate.                                                                                               
  ----------------------- ---------- ------ ------------ ------- -------- ---------- ------ ------------ ------- --------

  ----------------------- ----------- ------ ------------ ------- -------- --------- ------ ------------ ------- --------
  Appendix Table D13.                                                                                            
  Supplementary                                                                                                  
  statistics associated                                                                                          
  with Table                                                                                                     
  14-advancement                                                                                                 
  challenges                                                                                                     

                          All                                              Small                                 
                          companies                                                                              

                                             Confidence           Sample                    Confidence           Sample
                                             interval                                       interval             

  Challenge               Percent     S.E.   Lower        Upper   size     Percent   S.E.   Lower        Upper   size

  Actual cost of          43.9        2.6    38.8         49.0    1,125    51.3      5.3    40.9         61.6    129
  accommodating                                                                                                  
  disability                                                                                                     

  Lack of advancement     41.4        2.6    36.4         46.6    1,129    52.4      5.1    42.3         62.4    129
  potential                                                                                                      

  Attitudes of customers  25.3        2.3    20.9         30.1    1,115    29.4      4.9    20.7         39.9    129

  Attitudes of co-workers 21.4        2.2    17.5         26.0    1,136    20.3      4.2    13.2         29.8    130

  Attitudes of            19.4        2.1    15.6         23.9    1,139    16.4      4.1    9.7          26.3    130
  supervisors                                                                                                    

                          Medium                                           Large                                 

  Actual cost of          42.1        3.8    35.0         49.7    287      38.5      4.7    29.8         48.1    709
  accommodating                                                                                                  
  disability                                                                                                     

  Lack of advancement     39.4        3.9    32.1         47.1    287      32.6      4.4    24.6         41.8    713
  potential                                                                                                      

  Attitudes of customers  24.4        3.3    18.4         31.5    284      22.0      4.2    14.9         31.2    702

  Attitudes of co-workers 21.4        3.1    15.9         28.0    289      23.1      4.3    15.6         32.6    717

  Attitudes of            17.7        2.8    12.8         23.9    289      26.7      4.7    18.6         36.8    720
  supervisors                                                                                                    

  Source: 2008 Survey of                                                                                         
  Employer Perspectives                                                                                          
  on the Employment of                                                                                           
  People with                                                                                                    
  Disabilities, ODEP.                                                                                            

  Note: All estimates are                                                                                        
  adjusted for the                                                                                               
  complex design of the                                                                                          
  survey.                                                                                                        
  ----------------------- ----------- ------ ------------ ------- -------- --------- ------ ------------ ------- --------

  ----------------------- ----------- ------ ------------ ------- -------- --------- ------ ------------ ------- --------
  Appendix Table D14.                                                                                            
  Supplementary                                                                                                  
  statistics associated                                                                                          
  with Table                                                                                                     
  15-advancement                                                                                                 
  strategies                                                                                                     

                          All                                              Small                                 
                          companies                                                                              

                                             Confidence           Sample                    Confidence           Sample
                                             interval                                       interval             

  Strategy                Percent     S.E.   Lower        Upper   size     Percent   S.E.   Lower        Upper   size

  Employer tax credits    77.2        2.0    73.0         80.9    1,115    82.6      3.9    73.6         89.0    128
  and incentives                                                                                                 

  Visible top management  75.2        2.2    70.5         79.3    1,134    70.3      5.0    59.6         79.2    130
  commitment                                                                                                     

  Mentoring               74.0        2.2    69.4         78.1    1,133    71.3      4.9    60.8         79.9    130

  Disability awareness    71.6        2.3    67.0         75.9    1,139    62.1      5.0    51.7         71.4    131
  training                                                                                                       

  Assistive technology    68.7        2.5    63.7         73.3    1,119    65.5      5.1    54.8         74.8    129

  Flexible work schedule  68.1        2.4    63.2         72.6    1,132    68.7      5.0    58.1         77.6    130

  Training existing staff 67.1        2.5    62.1         71.7    1,127    59.5      5.2    48.9         69.3    128

  On-site consultation or 65.5        2.4    60.7         70.0    1,131    58.3      5.0    48.1         67.8    130
  technical assistance                                                                                           

  Short-term on the job   63.7        2.5    58.6         68.5    1,125    60.2      5.4    49.2         70.2    129
  assistance with job                                                                                            
  coach                                                                                                          

  Disability targeted     60.1        2.6    54.9         65.2    1,126    64.2      5.2    53.3         73.7    128
  internship program                                                                                             

  Centralized             54.7        2.7    49.4         59.8    1,117    53.7      5.4    42.9         64.1    128
  accommodations fund                                                                                            

  Reassignment            49.7        2.7    44.4         54.9    1,047    52.9      5.5    42.1         63.5    121

                          Medium                                           Large                                 

  Employer tax credits    75.3        3.0    69.0         80.6    287      74.7      3.8    66.6         81.4    700
  and incentives                                                                                                 

  Visible top management  73.5        3.2    66.7         79.4    289      84.8      3.1    77.6         89.9    715
  commitment                                                                                                     

  Mentoring               70.6        3.3    63.7         76.7    287      84.3      3.0    77.5         89.3    716

  Disability awareness    71.9        3.3    65.1         77.8    290      82.7      3.2    75.6         88.0    718
  training                                                                                                       

  Assistive technology    66.0        3.6    58.6         72.7    286      78.5      3.9    69.8         85.2    704

  Flexible work schedule  67.5        3.4    60.5         73.7    288      68.7      4.4    59.4         76.6    714

  Training existing staff 66.9        3.6    59.6         73.5    288      76.5      3.8    68.4         83.1    711

  On-site consultation or 66.0        3.4    59.0         72.3    289      73.4      4.0    65.0         80.5    712
  technical assistance                                                                                           

  Short-term on the job   62.1        3.7    54.7         69.0    287      71.1      4.1    62.6         78.4    709
  assistance with job                                                                                            
  coach                                                                                                          

  Disability targeted     54.8        3.9    47.1         62.3    289      66.7      4.7    57.0         75.1    709
  internship program                                                                                             

  Centralized             49.1        3.9    41.5         56.8    287      67.7      4.2    59.1         75.3    702
  accommodations fund                                                                                            

  Reassignment            47.0        3.8    39.6         54.6    275      51.5      5.1    41.6         61.2    651

  Source: 2008 Survey of                                                                                         
  Employer Perspectives                                                                                          
  on the Employment of                                                                                           
  People with                                                                                                    
  Disabilities, ODEP.                                                                                            

  Note: All estimates are                                                                                        
  adjusted for the                                                                                               
  complex design of the                                                                                          
  survey.                                                                                                        
  ----------------------- ----------- ------ ------------ ------- -------- --------- ------ ------------ ------- --------

  ----------------------- ----------- ------ ------------ ------- -------- --------- ------ ------------ ------- --------
  Appendix Table D15.                                                                                            
  Supplementary                                                                                                  
  statistics associated                                                                                          
  with Table 16-retention                                                                                        
  challenges                                                                                                     

                          All                                              Small                                 
                          companies                                                                              

                                             Confidence           Sample                    Confidence           Sample
                                             interval                                       interval             

  Challenge               Percent     S.E.   Lower        Upper   size     Percent   S.E.   Lower        Upper   size

  Finding a way to return 51.3        2.7    46.1         56.5    1,129    53.3      5.5    42.5         63.8    128
  employees to work                                                                                              

  Lack of advancement     45.9        2.7    40.8         51.1    1,130    53.2      5.2    42.9         63.2    130
  potential                                                                                                      

  Actual cost of          42.3        2.6    37.3         47.4    1,122    53.9      5.3    43.4         64.0    129
  accommodating                                                                                                  
  disability                                                                                                     

  Concern about workers   35.4        2.5    30.7         40.5    1,133    51.7      5.3    41.3         62.0    129
  compensation costs                                                                                             

  Concern about the cost  32.9        2.5    28.2         37.9    1,128    50.4      5.5    39.7         61.2    126
  of health care coverage                                                                                        

  Attitudes of customers  22.4        2.3    18.2         27.2    1,116    23.5      4.6    15.6         33.8    129

  Attitudes of co-workers 21.2        2.2    17.2         25.9    1,139    19.3      4.4    12.0         29.6    129

  Attitudes of            18.9        2.2    15.0         23.5    1,138    14.7      4.1    8.4          24.7    129
  supervisors                                                                                                    

                          Medium                                           Large                                 

  Finding a way to return 49.1        3.9    41.6         56.7    286      53.6      4.9    44.0         62.9    715
  employees to work                                                                                              

  Lack of advancement     45.2        3.9    37.7         52.9    289      38.5      4.7    29.8         48.0    711
  potential                                                                                                      

  Actual cost of          40.2        3.8    33.0         47.7    285      32.8      4.5    24.7         42.1    708
  accommodating                                                                                                  
  disability                                                                                                     

  Concern about workers   33.7        3.6    27.0         41.1    289      19.7      3.7    13.4         28.1    715
  compensation costs                                                                                             

  Concern about the cost  29.7        3.5    23.3         36.9    286      18.7      3.7    12.5         27.0    716
  of health care coverage                                                                                        

  Attitudes of customers  20.8        3.2    15.2         27.7    284      24.3      4.8    16.2         34.8    703

  Attitudes of co-workers 21.8        3.2    16.2         28.7    292      22.1      4.2    14.9         31.4    718

  Attitudes of            19.1        3.0    13.9         25.7    291      23.4      4.7    15.5         33.8    718
  supervisors                                                                                                    

  Source: 2008 Survey of                                                                                         
  Employer Perspectives                                                                                          
  on the Employment of                                                                                           
  People with                                                                                                    
  Disabilities, ODEP.                                                                                            

  Note: All estimates are                                                                                        
  adjusted for the                                                                                               
  complex design of the                                                                                          
  survey.                                                                                                        
  ----------------------- ----------- ------ ------------ ------- -------- --------- ------ ------------ ------- --------

  ----------------------- ----------- ------ ------------ ------- -------- --------- ------ ------------ ------- --------
  Appendix Table D16.                                                                                            
  Supplementary                                                                                                  
  statistics associated                                                                                          
  with Table 17-retention                                                                                        
  strategies                                                                                                     

                          All                                              Small                                 
                          companies                                                                              

                                             Confidence           Sample                    Confidence           Sample
                                             interval                                       interval             

  Strategy                Percent     S.E.   Lower        Upper   size     Percent   S.E.   Lower        Upper   size

  Employer tax credits    75.2        2.1    70.9         79.0    1,116    81.1      3.8    72.4         87.5    130
  and incentives                                                                                                 

  Visible top management  75.2        2.3    70.5         79.4    1,135    73.1      4.8    62.6         81.5    131
  commitment                                                                                                     

  Mentoring               72.0        2.3    67.2         76.3    1,135    69.8      5.0    59.2         78.6    131

  Flexible work schedule  69.4        2.4    64.6         73.9    1,126    68.5      5.0    57.8         77.5    130

  Assistive technology    68.8        2.5    63.8         73.4    1,115    66.8      5.1    56.0         76.0    129

  Disability awareness    68.3        2.4    63.4         72.8    1,135    63.3      5.0    52.9         72.6    131
  training                                                                                                       

  On-site consultation or 67.0        2.4    62.2         71.6    1,136    62.6      5.1    52.1         72.1    130
  technical assistance                                                                                           

  Training existing staff 65.5        2.5    60.5         70.2    1,131    64.4      4.9    54.3         73.4    130

  Short-term on the job   62.1        2.6    57.0         67.0    1,130    59.0      5.3    48.3         69.0    131
  assistance with job                                                                                            
  coach                                                                                                          

  Disability targeted     57.8        2.6    52.5         62.9    1,129    57.4      5.4    46.6         67.5    130
  internship program                                                                                             

  Centralized             54.3        2.7    49.0         59.5    1,113    55.0      5.4    44.3         65.2    126
  accommodations fund                                                                                            

  Reassignment            50.5        2.7    45.2         55.8    1,057    51.5      5.6    40.5         62.4    120

                          Medium                                           Large                                 

  Employer tax credits    73.1        3.0    66.8         78.6    288      72.3      4.3    63.2         79.9    698
  and incentives                                                                                                 

  Visible top management  72.2        3.3    65.3         78.3    288      83.9      3.6    75.5         89.8    716
  commitment                                                                                                     

  Mentoring               67.0        3.5    59.7         73.6    288      85.2      2.7    79.1         89.7    716

  Flexible work schedule  69.2        3.4    62.2         75.4    287      71.1      4.3    61.9         78.8    709

  Assistive technology    64.8        3.7    57.2         71.6    285      79.7      3.6    71.6         85.9    701

  Disability awareness    66.7        3.5    59.6         73.1    288      77.9      4.2    68.7         85.0    716
  training                                                                                                       

  On-site consultation or 63.4        3.6    56.1         70.1    290      80.0      3.1    73.2         85.5    716
  technical assistance                                                                                           

  Training existing staff 63.1        3.7    55.7         70.0    288      71.7      4.5    62.2         79.6    713

  Short-term on the job   60.4        3.8    52.8         67.5    288      69.5      4.5    60.1         77.5    711
  assistance with job                                                                                            
  coach                                                                                                          

  Disability targeted     53.8        3.9    46.1         61.3    288      66.7      4.5    57.4         74.8    711
  internship program                                                                                             

  Centralized             48.0        4.0    40.3         55.8    286      66.7      4.4    57.6         74.8    701
  accommodations fund                                                                                            

  Reassignment            47.8        3.8    40.4         55.3    277      55.2      5.1    45.2         64.8    660

  Source: 2008 Survey of                                                                                         
  Employer Perspectives                                                                                          
  on the Employment of                                                                                           
  People with                                                                                                    
  Disabilities, ODEP.                                                                                            

  Note: All estimates are                                                                                        
  adjusted for the                                                                                               
  complex design of the                                                                                          
  survey.                                                                                                        
  ----------------------- ----------- ------ ------------ ------- -------- --------- ------ ------------ ------- --------

  ----------------------- ----------- ------ ------------ ------- -------- --------- ------ ------------ ------- --------
  Appendix Table D17.                                                                                            
  Supplementary                                                                                                  
  statistics associated                                                                                          
  with Table 18-reasons                                                                                          
  collecting                                                                                                     
  accommodations data                                                                                            

                          All                                              Small                                 
                          companies                                                                              

                                             Confidence           Sample                    Confidence           Sample
                                             interval                                       interval             

  Reason                  Percent     S.E.   Lower        Upper   size     Percent   S.E.   Lower        Upper   size

  Regulatory reporting    36.4        2.4    31.8         41.3    1,117    21.9      4.6    14.2         32.3    128
  requirements                                                                                                   

  Disability claim        32.2        2.5    27.5         37.3    1,101    20.6      4.7    12.7         31.5    127
  coordination                                                                                                   

  Future accommodations   24.8        2.3    20.7         29.5    1,119    19.5      4.3    12.3         29.5    127
  in similar situations                                                                                          

  Dispute                 24.0        2.2    19.9         28.7    1,112    16.9      4.1    10.2         26.5    129
  resolution/settlement                                                                                          

  Tracking accommodation  13.3        1.7    10.4         16.9    1,119    12.2      3.6    6.7          21.3    129
  costs                                                                                                          

                          Medium                                           Large                                 

  Regulatory reporting    37.4        3.6    30.7         44.7    287      52.0      4.9    42.5         61.4    702
  requirements                                                                                                   

  Disability claim        31.4        3.6    24.7         39.0    284      48.1      4.9    38.7         57.6    690
  coordination                                                                                                   

  Future accommodations   21.3        3.2    15.7         28.2    287      38.5      4.6    29.8         47.9    705
  in similar situations                                                                                          

  Dispute                 21.5        3.1    16.0         28.2    289      38.8      4.8    29.8         48.6    694
  resolution/settlement                                                                                          

  Tracking accommodation  12.2        2.2    8.5          17.3    286      16.9      3.1    11.6         23.9    704
  costs                                                                                                          

  Source: 2008 Survey of                                                                                         
  Employer Perspectives                                                                                          
  on the Employment of                                                                                           
  People with                                                                                                    
  Disabilities, ODEP.                                                                                            

  Note: All estimates are                                                                                        
  adjusted for the                                                                                               
  complex design of the                                                                                          
  survey.                                                                                                        
  ----------------------- ----------- ------ ------------ ------- -------- --------- ------ ------------ ------- --------

  ------------------- ------------ -------- ------------ --------- -------- ------------ ------- ------------ --------- --------
  Appendix Table D18.                                                                                                   
  Supplementary                                                                                                         
  statistics                                                                                                            
  associated with                                                                                                       
  Table 19-knowledge                                                                                                    
  of One-Stop                                                                                                           
  services                                                                                                              

                      Percentage                                            Percentage                                  
                      aware                                                 that used                                   
                                                                            services                                    
                                                                            among aware                                 

                                            Confidence             Sample                        Confidence             Sample
                                            interval                                             interval               

  Company type        Est.         S.E.     Lower        Upper     size     Est.         S.E.    Lower        Upper     size

  All                 25.0         1.0      23.1         27.1      3,785    15.3         1.5     12.6         18.4      1,118

  Small               21.6         1.4      19.0         24.5      1,258    7.0          1.9     4.1          11.7      293

  Medium              25.6         1.6      22.6         28.8      1,278    14.9         2.3     11.0         20.0      341

  Large               42.6         3.6      35.8         49.7      1,249    43.6         5.5     33.2         54.5      484

  Service-producing   24.6         1.2      22.4         26.9      2,813    14.6         1.7     11.5         18.3      787
  industries                                                                                                            

  Wholesale trade     24.6         3.1      19.1         31.2      301      11.4         3.7     5.8          20.9      93

  Retail trade        21.7         2.9      16.5         28.0      312      1.9          1.3     0.5          7.1       74

  Trans. &            26.7         3.2      20.9         33.4      322      23.4         5.4     14.4         35.7      89
  warehousing                                                                                                           

  Information         30.2         3.7      23.5         37.9      290      19.5         5.1     11.3         31.5      89

  Finance             24.7         3.0      19.3         31.1      284      6.3          3.1     2.3          16.2      70

  Professional        24.0         3.0      18.6         30.3      319      14.9         4.8     7.5          27.2      81

  Education & Health  28.9         2.8      23.7         34.6      381      27.3         4.7     19.1         37.4      131

  Leisure &           22.0         3.2      16.4         28.9      317      4.5          3.1     1.1          16.4      85
  Hospitality                                                                                                           

  Other services      23.1         3.3      17.2         30.3      287      16.9         5.9     8.1          32.0      75

  Goods-producing     25.5         2.3      21.3         30.2      586      14.3         3.0     9.3          21.3      163
  industries                                                                                                            

  Construction        26.8         3.4      20.6         34.0      284      6.4          3.3     2.2          17.0      78

  Manufacturing       24.1         2.9      18.9         30.3      302      24.2         5.3     15.2         36.3      85

  Public              38.1         4.3      30.0         46.9      386      41.5         6.7     29.1         55.1      168
  administration                                                                                                        

                      Number aware                                          Number used                                 
                                                                            services                                    

  All                 617,022      25,769   566,500      667,544   3,785    92,309       9,178   74,301       110,317   1,118

  Small               269,885      17,516   235,522      304,249   1,258    18,727       4,990   8,905        28,549    293

  Medium              259,326      16,523   226,911      291,742   1,278    37,661       5,702   26,444       48,877    341

  Large               87,810       9,177    69,805       105,815   1,249    35,922       5,179   25,745       46,099    484

  Service-producing   489,822      23,623   443,502      536,142   2,813    69,675       8,441   53,104       86,246    787
  industries                                                                                                            

  Wholesale trade     32,676       4,221    24,369       40,983    301      3,709        1,213   1,300        6,119     93

  Retail trade        58,407       8,142    42,386       74,428    312      1,104        732     -355         2,563     74

  Trans. &            17,489       2,075    13,405       21,572    322      3,961        938     2,096        5,827     89
  warehousing                                                                                                           

  Information         18,644       2,360    13,999       23,289    290      3,411        839     1,743        5,078     89

  Finance             36,668       4,521    27,768       45,569    284      2,139        1,063   19           4,260     70

  Professional        83,272       10,493   62,627       103,917   319      12,352       4,048   4,293        20,410    81

  Education & Health  119,737      12,042   96,060       143,414   381      32,614       6,163   20,421       44,808    131

  Leisure &           79,891       12,161   55,964       103,818   317      3,374        2,310   -1,222       7,970     85
  Hospitality                                                                                                           

  Other services      43,038       6,372    30,495       55,582    287      7,010        2,614   1,799        12,221    75

  Goods-producing     109,638      10,089   89,823       129,453   586      15,572       3,241   9,171        21,973    163
  industries                                                                                                            

  Construction        60,617       8,044    44,783       76,451    284      3,875        1,992   -94          7,843     78

  Manufacturing       49,021       6,089    37,038       61,004    302      11,697       2,556   6,612        16,783    85

  Public              17,561       2,051    13,528       21,595    386      7,062        1,573   3,956        10,169    168
  administration                                                                                                        

  Source: 2008 Survey                                                                                                   
  of Employer                                                                                                           
  Perspectives on the                                                                                                   
  Employment of                                                                                                         
  People with                                                                                                           
  Disabilities, ODEP.                                                                                                   
  ------------------- ------------ -------- ------------ --------- -------- ------------ ------- ------------ --------- --------

## 

  ------------------- ------------ -------- ------------ --------- -------- ------------ ------- ------------ -------- --------
  Appendix Table D19.                                                                                                  
  Supplementary                                                                                                        
  statistics                                                                                                           
  associated with                                                                                                      
  Table                                                                                                                
  20-Familiarity with                                                                                                  
  Job Accommodation                                                                                                    
  Network services                                                                                                     

                      Percentage                                            Percentage                                 
                      familiar                                              that used                                  
                                                                            services                                   
                                                                            among                                      
                                                                            familiar                                   

                                            Confidence             Sample                        Confidence            Sample
                                            interval                                             interval              

  Company type        Est.         S.E.     Lower        Upper     size     Est.         S.E.    Lower        Upper    size

  All                 7.4          0.7      6.1          9.0       2,998    27.7         4.7     19.4         37.8     284

  Small               6.0          1.0      4.4          8.2       908      NA           NA      NA           NA       NA

  Medium              5.9          1.0      4.2          8.2       978      NA           NA      NA           NA       NA

  Large               21.6         3.6      15.4         29.5      1,112    NA           NA      NA           NA       NA

  Service-producing   7.3          0.8      5.9          9.1       2,267    NA           NA      NA           NA       NA
  industries                                                                                                           

  Wholesale trade     8.5          2.4      4.9          14.5      238      NA           NA      NA           NA       NA

  Retail trade        5.4          1.9      2.7          10.8      252      NA           NA      NA           NA       NA

  Trans. &            5.8          2.1      2.8          11.7      262      NA           NA      NA           NA       NA
  warehousing                                                                                                          

  Information         10.7         3.2      5.9          18.6      242      NA           NA      NA           NA       NA

  Finance             6.2          1.7      3.6          10.6      228      NA           NA      NA           NA       NA

  Professional        7.0          2.2      3.7          12.6      244      NA           NA      NA           NA       NA

  Education & Health  8.0          1.8      5.1          12.3      308      NA           NA      NA           NA       NA

  Leisure &           8.4          2.6      4.5          15.2      259      NA           NA      NA           NA       NA
  Hospitality                                                                                                          

  Other services      6.5          2.3      3.2          12.9      234      NA           NA      NA           NA       NA

  Goods-producing     6.2          1.5      3.8          9.9       427      NA           NA      NA           NA       NA
  industries                                                                                                           

  Construction        7.9          2.6      4.1          14.8      201      NA           NA      NA           NA       NA

  Manufacturing       4.4          1.4      2.3          8.3       226      NA           NA      NA           NA       NA

  Public              19.2         5.5      10.5         32.3      304      NA           NA      NA           NA       NA
  administration                                                                                                       

                      Number                                                Number used                                
                      familiar                                              services                                   

  All                 136,338      13,698   109,479      163,196   2,998    37,678       7,342   23,218       52,138   284

  Small               53,959       8,586    37,109       70,809    908      NA           NA      NA           NA       NA

  Medium              45,277       7,944    29,688       60,867    978      NA           NA      NA           NA       NA

  Large               37,101       7,128    23,115       51,087    1,112    NA           NA      NA           NA       NA

  Service-producing   110,995      12,739   86,013       135,977   2,267    NA           NA      NA           NA       NA
  industries                                                                                                           

  Wholesale trade     8,544        2,425    3,766        13,322    238      NA           NA      NA           NA       NA

  Retail trade        11,090       3,989    3,234        18,946    252      NA           NA      NA           NA       NA

  Trans. &            2,910        1,074    795          5,024     262      NA           NA      NA           NA       NA
  warehousing                                                                                                          

  Information         5,281        1,638    2,054        8,507     242      NA           NA      NA           NA       NA

  Finance             7,162        1,989    3,242        11,083    228      NA           NA      NA           NA       NA

  Professional        17,567       5,510    6,712        28,422    244      NA           NA      NA           NA       NA

  Education & Health  25,541       5,775    14,178       36,904    308      NA           NA      NA           NA       NA

  Leisure &           23,521       7,589    8,576        38,467    259      NA           NA      NA           NA       NA
  Hospitality                                                                                                          

  Other services      9,380        3,376    2,729        16,031    234      NA           NA      NA           NA       NA

  Goods-producing     18,172       4,418    9,487        26,857    427      NA           NA      NA           NA       NA
  industries                                                                                                           

  Construction        11,785       3,919    4,057        19,513    201      NA           NA      NA           NA       NA

  Manufacturing       6,387        2,041    2,365        10,409    226      NA           NA      NA           NA       NA

  Public              7,170        2,413    2,423        11,918    304      NA           NA      NA           NA       NA
  administration                                                                                                       

  Source: 2008 Survey                                                                                                  
  of Employer                                                                                                          
  Perspectives on the                                                                                                  
  Employment of                                                                                                        
  People with                                                                                                          
  Disabilities, ODEP.                                                                                                  

  Note: NA indicates                                                                                                   
  variance-related                                                                                                     
  estimates that are                                                                                                   
  not available                                                                                                        
  because not all                                                                                                      
  size/industry                                                                                                        
  strata were                                                                                                          
  represented in the                                                                                                   
  estimate.                                                                                                            
  ------------------- ------------ -------- ------------ --------- -------- ------------ ------- ------------ -------- --------

  ------------------- ------------ -------- ------------ --------- -------- ------------ ------- ------------ -------- --------
  Appendix Table D20.                                                                                                  
  Supplementary                                                                                                        
  statistics                                                                                                           
  associated with                                                                                                      
  Table                                                                                                                
  21-Familiarity with                                                                                                  
  Employer Assistance                                                                                                  
  and Recruiting                                                                                                       
  Network (EARN)                                                                                                       
  services                                                                                                             

                      Percentage                                            Percentage                                 
                      familiar                                              that used                                  
                                                                            services                                   
                                                                            among                                      
                                                                            familiar                                   

                                            Confidence             Sample                        Confidence            Sample
                                            interval                                             interval              

  Company type        Est.         S.E.     Lower        Upper     size     Est.         S.E.    Lower        Upper    size

  All                 8.0          0.8      6.7          9.6       2,994    12.4         3.3     7.2          20.4     259

  Small               6.8          1.0      5.1          9.1       906      NA           NA      NA           NA       NA

  Medium              8.0          1.2      6.0          10.6      975      NA           NA      NA           NA       NA

  Large               14.3         3.2      9.2          21.7      1,113    NA           NA      NA           NA       NA

  Service-producing   8.1          0.9      6.6          9.9       2,262    NA           NA      NA           NA       NA
  industries                                                                                                           

  Wholesale trade     11.6         2.8      7.1          18.3      238      NA           NA      NA           NA       NA

  Retail trade        6.7          2.2      3.5          12.4      251      NA           NA      NA           NA       NA

  Trans. &            9.5          2.3      5.8          15.2      262      NA           NA      NA           NA       NA
  warehousing                                                                                                          

  Information         7.8          2.0      4.6          12.8      240      NA           NA      NA           NA       NA

  Finance             5.1          1.6      2.8          9.3       227      NA           NA      NA           NA       NA

  Professional        5.8          1.9      3.0          11.0      244      NA           NA      NA           NA       NA

  Education & Health  8.6          2.0      5.4          13.3      307      NA           NA      NA           NA       NA

  Leisure &           10.5         2.7      6.2          17.3      259      NA           NA      NA           NA       NA
  Hospitality                                                                                                          

  Other services      7.9          2.5      4.2          14.5      234      NA           NA      NA           NA       NA

  Goods-producing     7.6          1.6      5.0          11.5      427      NA           NA      NA           NA       NA
  industries                                                                                                           

  Construction        10.1         2.8      5.8          17.2      201      NA           NA      NA           NA       NA

  Manufacturing       5.0          1.5      2.7          9.0       226      NA           NA      NA           NA       NA

  Public              8.6          2.2      5.1          14.1      305      NA           NA      NA           NA       NA
  administration                                                                                                       

                      Number                                                Number used                                
                      familiar                                              services                                   

  All                                                                                                                  

  Small               147,685      14,064   120,108      175,262   2,994    18,106       5,132   7,992        28,221   259

  Medium              61,308       8,913    43,814       78,801    906      NA           NA      NA           NA       NA

  Large               61,706       9,098    43,852       79,561    975      NA           NA      NA           NA       NA

  Service-producing   24,671       5,966    12,966       36,376    1,113    NA           NA      NA           NA       NA
  industries                                                                                                           

  Wholesale trade     122,259      13,199   96,375       148,143   2,262    NA           NA      NA           NA       NA

  Retail trade        11,580       2,860    5,945        17,214    238      NA           NA      NA           NA       NA

  Trans. &            13,508       4,446    4,751        22,265    251      NA           NA      NA           NA       NA
  warehousing                                                                                                          

  Information         4,732        1,164    2,441        7,024     262      NA           NA      NA           NA       NA

  Finance             3,798        966      1,896        5,701     240      NA           NA      NA           NA       NA

  Professional        5,864        1,822    2,274        9,454     227      NA           NA      NA           NA       NA

  Education & Health  14,597       4,921    4,903        24,292    244      NA           NA      NA           NA       NA

  Leisure &           27,571       6,409    14,959       40,182    307      NA           NA      NA           NA       NA
  Hospitality                                                                                                          

  Other services      29,248       7,883    13,725       44,771    259      NA           NA      NA           NA       NA

  Goods-producing     11,360       3,638    4,192        18,528    234      NA           NA      NA           NA       NA
  industries                                                                                                           

  Construction        22,202       4,791    12,784       31,620    427      NA           NA      NA           NA       NA

  Manufacturing       15,070       4,288    6,614        23,526    201      NA           NA      NA           NA       NA

  Public              7,132        2,137    2,920        11,344    226      NA           NA      NA           NA       NA
  administration                                                                                                       

  Source: 2008 Survey                                                                                                  
  of Employer                                                                                                          
  Perspectives on the                                                                                                  
  Employment of                                                                                                        
  People with                                                                                                          
  Disabilities, ODEP.                                                                                                  

  Note: NA indicates                                                                                                   
  variance-related                                                                                                     
  estimates that are                                                                                                   
  not available                                                                                                        
  because not all                                                                                                      
  size/industry                                                                                                        
  strata were                                                                                                          
  represented in the                                                                                                   
  estimate.                                                                                                            
  ------------------- ------------ -------- ------------ --------- -------- ------------ ------- ------------ -------- --------

[^1]: These three broad industry types follow the super-sectors of the
    North American Industry Classification System (NAICS).
    Goods-producing industries include construction and manufacturing.
    Service-producing industries include retail trade, wholesale trade,
    transportation/warehousing, leisure/hospitality, education/health,
    information, professional, finance, and other services. Public
    administration is its own super-sector consisting of establishments
    of federal, state, and local government agencies that administer,
    oversee, and manage public programs and have executive, legislative,
    or judicial authority over other institutions within a given area.

[^2]: If needed, the following definition of person with a disability
    was read to respondents: Under the Americans with Disabilities Act,
    an individual with a disability is defined as a person who (1) has a
    physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more
    major life activities; (2) has a record of such an impairment; or
    (3) is regarded as having such an impairment.

[^3]: Marker, David A. and Sherm Edwards (1997). " Quality of the DMI
    File as a Business Sample Frame." Proceedings of the Section on
    Survey Research Methods, American Statistical Association, 1997, pp.
    21-30.

[^4]: SPSS (1993), SPSS for Windows: CHAID, Release 6.0, User's Guide,
    Jay Magidson/SPSS Inc., 1993.