2020 Progress Report on 

National Disability Policy 

Increasing Disability 

Employment

National Council on Disability

July 24, 2020
National Council on Disability (NCD)

1331 F Street NW, Suite 850

Washington, DC 20004

2020 Progress Report on National Disability Policy: Increasing Disability Employment

National Council on Disability, July 24, 2020

Celebrating 36 years as an independent federal agency

This report is also available in alternative formats. Please visit the National Council on Disability 

(NCD) website (www.ncd.gov) or contact NCD to request an alternative format using the following 

information:

ncd@ncd.gov Email

202-272-2004 Voice

202-272-2022 Fax

The views contained in this report do not necessarily represent those of the Administration, as this and 

all NCD documents are not subject to the A-19 Executive Branch review process.
National Council on Disability

An independent federal agency making recommendations to the President and Congress 

to enhance the quality of life for all Americans with disabilities and their families.

Letter of Transmittal

July 24, 2020

The President

The White House

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President:

Each year, the National Council on Disability (NCD) submits a statutorily mandated report to the 

President and Congress assessing the status of the nation in achieving policies that guarantee 

equal opportunity for all people with disabilities and that empower them to achieve economic 

self-sufficiency. On behalf of NCD, I am pleased to submit the 2020 Progress Report on National 

Disability Policy, titled Increasing Disability Employment.

In 1986, four years before the enactment of the Americans with Disabilities Act (the ADA), the Harris 

Poll examined the experiences of people with disabilities, encapsulating its findings about employment 

as follows:

Not working is perhaps the truest definition of what it means to be disabled. Two-thirds of all 

disabled Americans between the ages of 16 and 64 are not working . . . unemployment among 

persons with disabilities as a group is a bigger problem than among any other demographic group 

of working-age Americans.1

Thirty-three years later, the ADA has dramatically changed the landscape of the nation for people 

with disabilities. It has increased inclusion on a broad scale, and its prohibition on employment 

discrimination and requirements for reasonable accommodations have opened the door to employment 

for millions of people with disabilities. Notwithstanding the ADA’s positive impact, people with 

disabilities continue to struggle to obtain and retain employment. Barriers continue to exist that 

contribute to people with disabilities remaining largely outside of the nation’s workforce. This is true 

despite subsequent federal legislation and billions spent annually on federal programs directed at 

assisting people with disabilities to enter the workforce and has resulted in continued poverty and 

a lack of adequate housing, transportation, and health care for millions of working-age people with 

disabilities.

1 Louis Harris, The ICD Survey of Disabled Americans: Bringing Disabled Americans into the Mainstream

(New York: L. Harris and Associates, 1986), 46.

1331 F Street, NW ■ Suite 850 ■ Washington, DC 20004

202-272-2004 Voice ■ 202-272-2074 TTY ■ 202-272-2022 Fax ■ www.ncd.gov
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics illustrate the persistence of this issue. Between 2008 and 2016, people 

with disabilities were employed at an average of only 18 percent, while people without disabilities were 

employed at an average of 65 percent. Between 2017 and 2019, we have seen incremental progress: 

in 2017, 18.7 percent of people with disabilities were employed, compared to 65.7 percent of people 

without disabilities; in 2018, 19.1 percent of people with disabilities were employed, compared to 

68.4 percent of their nondisabled peers, and in 2019, 19.3 percent of people with disabilities were 

employed, in contrast to 66.3 percent of people without disabilities. It is imperative that we take steps 

to continue to increase these percentages.

From its establishment in 1984, NCD has reported on several federal disincentives to employment for 

people with disabilities and the conflicts that exist in federal programs that are barriers to obtaining 

competitive employment. NCD has made recommendations to several Administrations, Congress, and 

federal agencies on how these barriers could be dismantled, and while some have been acted on or 

remedied, other barriers remain.

This report, issued on the 30th anniversary of the ADA, was informed by NCD reports on employment, 

the input of national experts on employment of people with disabilities, data from five federal agencies, 

and interviews of stakeholders and Federal Government representatives. It focuses on four areas that 

are critical to increasing the ability of people with disabilities to enter the American workforce:

■ Services for Transitioning Youth: The need for increased skills training, coordination between 

systems, and employment-related services and supports available to transition-age youth

■ Public Benefits: The need to dismantle disincentives to work present in the Social Security Act and 

the Medicaid Act

■ Federal Employment and Support of Entrepreneurship: Continued challenges to recruiting and 

hiring people with targeted disabilities and exclusion from entrepreneurship support

■ Employer Engagement: Its role in opening government and private sector employment 

opportunities and highlights of federal and private initiatives to engage private sector employers

While we started to see an uptick in the employment of people with disabilities during the past 3 years, 

this report was published in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic that unleashed widespread economic 

havoc, with millions of Americans losing jobs. People with disabilities have been particularly hard hit: 

many, due to their preexisting medical conditions, had to leave jobs due to their high susceptibility 

to the virus; many of those who need the assistance of direct health care workers lost that support 

because of the danger of infection from personal contact. Without such support, it is impossible for 

certain people with disabilities to meet their needs and get to their jobs. These are just two examples 

of the pandemic’s impact on employment. Although we do not know how long the pandemic will 

continue to impact the nation’s employment, we do know from previous recessions that when the 

economy improves and employment rates begin to rise, people with disabilities lag behind their 

nondisabled peers in obtaining employment. We urge Congress and federal agencies to act quickly to 

implement the recommendations in this report so that as the nation recovers from this pandemic and 

regains its robust economy, all people with disabilities who can work and who want to work will be able 

to fully benefit from that recovery.

2 National Council on Disability
America is a better place when all our people have the opportunity to work. NCD stands ready to 

work with your Administration, Congress, and federal agencies to improve our nation’s disability policy 

so that people with disabilities may achieve increased employment, financial independence, and full 

inclusion in the economic growth of the nation.

Respectfully,

Neil Romano

Chairman

(The same letter of transmittal was sent to the President Pro Tempore of the U.S. Senate and the Speaker of the 

U.S. House of Representatives.)

2020 Progress Report on National Disability Policy: Increasing Disability Employment 3
4 National Council on Disability
National Council on Disability Members and Staff

(Listing accurate as of date of vote to approve the report)

Members

Neil Romano, Chairman

James Brett, Vice Chair

Billy Altom

Jim Baldwin

Rabia Belt

Andrés Gallegos

Wendy S. Harbour

Benro Ogunyipe

Clyde Terry

Staff

Lisa Grubb, Executive Director & Chief Executive Officer

Joan M. Durocher, General Counsel & Director of Policy

Anne Sommers, Director of Legislative Affairs & Outreach

Stacey S. Brown, Staff Assistant

Kimie Eacobacci, Legislative Affairs Specialist

Netterie Lewis, Administrative Support Specialist

Amy Nicholas, Attorney Advisor

Nicholas Sabula, Public Affairs Specialist

Amged Soliman, Attorney Advisor

Ana Torres-Davis, Senior Attorney Advisor

Keith Woods, Financial Management Analyst

2020 Progress Report on National Disability Policy: Increasing Disability Employment 5
Contents

Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Acronym Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  1

Chapter 1: Employment of People with Disabilities Since Passage 

of the ADA: A Retrospective of Good and Bad News . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Chapter 2: The Role of Government-Funded Employment Services 

and Supports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3

IDEA and Youth Transition Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3

The Service System for People with Disabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3

Vocational Rehabilitation Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3

Medicaid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3

Title I of WIOA/American Job Centers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4

AbilityOne . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4

Chapter 3: Employment Barriers for Transitioning Youth 

and Employment Disincentives Tied to Means-Tested Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4

Barriers to Transition-Age Youth Finding, Obtaining, 

and Retaining Employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4

Filling the Youth Skills Gap and Gaining Access 

to Higher Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5

Strong Disincentives to Employment Tied to Means-Tested 

Public Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5

Ticket to Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6

Medicaid Buy-In . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6

6 National Council on Disability
Chapter 4: Federal Employment and Support of Entrepreneurship . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6

Remaining Challenges and Obstacles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7

The Schedule A Hiring Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7

New Hires (Excludes Transfers) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7

Issues with Selective Placement Program Coordinators . . . . . . . . . . . 74

The SBA 8(a) Business Development Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

Federal Contractor Hiring of People with Disabilities Under 

Section 503 and OFCCP Oversight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7

Contractor Hiring and OFCCP Compliance Efforts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7

Focused Reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7

Complaints Received and Investigated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8

Training, Technical Assistance, and Awards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8

The 2017 EEOC Rule on Affirmative Action for People 

with Disabilities in Federal Employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8

Centralized Accommodation Funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8

Chapter 5: Need for Increased Effective Employer Engagement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8

Notable Federal Initiatives and Efforts Engage Employers in 

Disability Inclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8

DOL/ODEP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8

Council of State Administrators of Vocational 

Rehabilitation—The NET . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8

DOL/ODEP: The Employer Assistance and Resource Network 

on Disability Inclusion (EARN) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8

DOL ODEP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9

EEOC, OPM, and DOL: Inclusion@Work: A Framework 

for Building a Disability-Inclusive Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9

ODEP/DOL Workforce Recruitment Program (WRP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9

Employment Challenge: An Inclusive Talent Pipeline 

for American Businesses—HHS Administration for 

Community Living (ACL) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9

Multi-Agency Task Force on Increasing Employment 

Opportunities for People with Disabilities...

2020 Progress Report on National Disability Policy: Increasing Disability Employment 7
Notable Examples of Nongovernmental Efforts to Engage 

Employers in Disability Inclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9

The Valuable 500 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9

Disability:IN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9

The Rockefeller Foundation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9

A Federal Agency with the Potential to Impact Broadscale 

Improvement in Private Sector Disability Inclusion Through 

Employer Engagement: The SBA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9

Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9

Research Methodology Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107

Endnotes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109

8 National Council on Disability
Acknowledgments

This report was developed under a cooperative agreement with Inclusivity Consulting. We thank Regina 

Kline for her work on this report and thank each member of the advisory group for their valuable input. 

We also thank the many individuals who were interviewed and who shared written information and data.

2020 Progress Report on National Disability Policy: Increasing Disability Employment 9
Executive Summary

T

his year, 2020, marks the 30th anniversary 

of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 

historic legislation that fundamentally 

changed the way Americans with disabilities live, 

work, and participate in the broader community. 

The ADA sought to end discriminatory practices, 

and among other things, it guaranteed equal 

opportunity and nondiscrimination in 

employment, public services, and places of 

public accommodation. As an incomparable 

legislative achievement, 

the law served as an 

example to the world that 

institutional isolation, 

exclusion, and 

discrimination that had 

been perpetuated against 

people with disabilities 

for centuries had no 

place in America or its 

future. Indeed, among the important 

achievements of civil and human rights of the 

twentieth century, the ADA was a sea change for 

nearly every aspect of American society and 

paved the road to the economic inclusion of 

Americans with disabilities. The ADA advanced a 

vision for people with disabilities that included 

among its core principles economic selfsufficiency and full participation in the 

mainstream economy. Following the ADA’s 

enactment, more Americans with disabilities than 

ever before came of age with the expectation 

that they would live at home and in their 

communities, go to school, and ultimately, join 

the workforce in a job or career of their choosing. 

And more, in fact, did. Research demonstrates 

that after the ADA, there was a significant 

improvement in employment for those with 

severe functional and daily activity limitations of a 

nature that did not prevent work.1 In other words, 

the population of people 

deemed “qualified 

individuals with 

disabilities” by the ADA 

increasingly became 

employed.2 A good many 

people with disabilities 

who had never previously 

been employed found 

that the ADA’s 

nondiscrimination protections helped open the 

doors to employment.

These changes were the product of a 

dramatic shift brought about by the ADA in 

how employers were required to evaluate the 

capabilities of people with disabilities. In the 

pre-ADA world, workers with disabilities were 

adjudged based on productivity as compared 

to peers without disabilities, but without any 

right for those workplace barriers that may have 

[T]he law served as an example to 

the world that institutional isolation, 

exclusion, and discrimination that 

had been perpetuated against people 

with disabilities for centuries had no 

place in America or its future

10 National Council on Disability
needlessly curtailed productivity to be removed. 

The disparity in productive performance that 

resulted from the lack of accommodations and 

barrier removal created collateral consequences 

detrimental to people with disabilities in obtaining 

work. These consequences included stigma 

and a lack of additional investment in education, 

on-the-job training, and vocational experiences, 

as such investments were presumed futile. As 

a result, in the pre-ADA period, deeply rooted 

societal presumptions of unemployability were 

damaging and widespread and perpetuated 

further unemployment and economic 

disenfranchisement. These presumptions about 

future unemployability deeply impacted the lives 

of children with disabilities who often spent years 

experiencing the low expectations of parents, 

educators, counselors, and peers. But the postADA world is one primed by law to break through 

this destructive cycle, to break stereotypic 

assumptions and mythologies about the 

capabilities of people with disabilities, to afford 

a fair chance for such people to be educated, 

to receive appropriate training, and to compete 

fairly and on equal terms for employment. The 

ADA continues to catalyze these important 

changes, finding traction over the past 30 years 

in reversing centuries of low expectations and 

stigmatization.

Unquestionably, in the past 30 years, more 

progress has been made in opening the doors 

to employment to people with disabilities than 

most, if not all, of the history that preceded 

it. In the past three decades, there has been 

a revolution in understanding that disability 

is a natural part of life and not a signpost for 

unemployability or exclusion. Moreover, in 

the same period, there was development 

of a significant body of research into the 

accommodations, services, and supports 

that would allow individuals with even the 

most significant support needs to compete 

and succeed in a wide range of employment 

settings.3 Our society has learned that when 

people with disabilities work, it not only gives 

rise to economic self-sufficiency and leads 

to a corresponding reduction in government 

expenditures, but it is vital to the lifeblood of the 

community and to the diversity and strength of 

workplaces, and is in fact a social determinant of 

health.4 Moreover, as the ADA has come of age, 

our collective expectations and understanding 

about the capabilities of people with disabilities 

have elevated. Now most youth with disabilities 

“definitely expect to work” following completion 

of their education.5 Likewise, many large 

companies see disability employment as a vital 

component of diversity, inclusion, and strategic 

recruitment to improve their bottom line.6 And 

a fair percentage of people with disabilities 

currently receiving means-tested public benefits 

want to work, if given the right supports to 

enter or return to the workplace.7 In addition, 

over the past half century, the public workforce 

system has grown substantially in size to support 

people with disabilities to find, obtain, and retain 

employment.

Yet, even as many people with disabilities 

have been ushered into employment as a 

result of these significant post-ADA changes 

and important systems, many other people 

with disabilities—in economic good times 

and bad—have remained persistently locked 

out of employment. Many nonworking people 

with disabilities participate in social safety net 

programs like the Supplemental Security Income 

(SSI) and Social Security Disability Insurance 

(SSDI) that have strong, systemic disincentives 

2020 Progress Report on National Disability Policy: Increasing Disability Employment 11
to work. These disincentives contribute to 

the overall number of people with disabilities 

excluded from the labor force participation 

rate each year. These disincentives have been 

raised repeatedly as a barrier to the competitive 

employment of people with disabilities, but the 

system has resisted change.

While the ADA fundamentally 

changed the workforce participation of people 

with disabilities and their access to the economy, 

in reality, the chasm between people with 

and without disabilities who participate in 

employment has remained significant and 

somewhat steady since the enactment of the 

ADA. Americans with 

disabilities comprise 

the largest minority 

group in the United 

States, estimated to 

include between 40 and 

57 million people.8 One in 

five families has 

a family member with 

a disability.9 And for 

years, the labor force 

participation rate has consistently demonstrated 

a large difference in employment between 

people with and without disabilities. To illustrate 

this, statistics from the Census Bureau show 

that between 2008 and 2017, people with 

disabilities were employed at an average of only 

18 percent, while people without disabilities 

were employed at an average of 65 percent.10

In 2019, 19.3 percent of people with disabilities 

were employed; in contrast, the employmentpopulation ratio for people without disabilities 

was 66.3 percent.11

Certainly, “[p]eople with disabilities have 

endured, in good times as well as bad, 

unemployment rates that would be considered a 

national crisis if experienced by other groups.”12

The heart of this problem is perhaps threefold. 

First, there are a great many people who have 

been “counted out” of work on the basis of 

disability who should not have been—those who 

are qualified to work, given rapid advancements 

in accommodations, technology, and newfound 

workplace flexibilities, but who now require 

support and access to these innovations that are 

necessary to enter the competitive marketplace. 

Second, strong disincentives to work that have 

been built into the important public safety 

net have kept many others from entering or 

reentering work, even 

though they are qualified 

to work. Finally, efforts 

to engage employers 

in recruiting and hiring 

people with disabilities 

have yet to be scaled 

as aggressively as is 

required to offset the 

employment disparity 

created by having left 

so many people that can and want to work out. 

This means that the public workforce system’s 

employer engagement efforts must become 

more sophisticated and robust and include a 

wider array and diversity of employers to be 

effective. These three points, among others, 

are discussed at length in this 30th Anniversary 

Progress Report.

Of significant note are incredible broadscale 

changes—perhaps unfathomable in 1990 when 

the ADA was enacted—that have taken place in 

the overall economy and impacted the nature 

of work in succeeding years. Macroeconomic 

trends have dictated that over time many 

[S]tatistics from the Census Bureau 

show that between 2008 and 

2017, people with disabilities were 

employed at an average of only 

18 percent, while people without 

disabilities were employed at an 

average of 65 percent

12 National Council on Disability
jobs and job requirements have dramatically 

shifted in ways that demand new and different 

experiences, skills, and training for workers 

with disabilities to compete. The importance of 

information, knowledge-based, and technological 

skills training has far eclipsed any preparation 

for work that preceded it. Yet, formative portions 

of the public workforce system were conceived 

of during the manufacturing-based economy of 

the early twentieth century, and new updates 

to the system brought about through recent 

changes to the legislative landscape have yet 

to show significant traction in meeting the 

demands of the new global economy. While an 

uptick in Federal Government hiring of people 

with disabilities gives grounds for optimism, 

substantially more work is needed to sustain 

this progress and to address the barriers 

that keep people with disabilities severely 

underrepresented in private sector positions. 

Significant infrastructure development, through 

public and private investment, may well be 

required to lay the appropriate predicate for the 

upward mobility of workers with disabilities. 

For example, without additional access to new 

and advanced skills training and credentialing, 

personal computing devices, broadband Internet, 

new business development tools, and reliable 

forms of transportation, manual skills training will 

not produce substantial increases in employment 

in the twenty-first century and may well 

contribute to ever-widening inequality. Targeted 

public and private investments are needed for 

the infrastructure, education, and skills training 

required for the jobs of the new century to fall 

within reach of many people with disabilities.

2020 Progress Report on National Disability Policy: Increasing Disability Employment 13
Acronym Glossary

ABLE Achieving a Better Life Experience Act of 2014

ACL Administration on Community Living

ADA Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990

AJC American Job Center

ANPRM Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

AT assistive technology

CAF centralized accommodation fund

CAP Computer/Electronic Accommodations Program

CMS Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services

CRP community rehabilitation provider

CSAVR Council of State Administrators of Vocational Rehabilitation

DEI Disability Employment Initiative

DOL Department of Labor

EARN Employer Assistance and Resource Network

ED Department of Education

EEOC Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

EN employment network

ETA Employment and Training Administration

GAO Government Accountability Office

HEOA Higher Education Opportunity Act

HHS Department of Health and Human Services

I/DD intellectual and developmental disabilities

IDEA Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

IEP Individualized Education Program

IPE Individual Plan for Employment

iTOPSS Internet Ticket Operations and Provider Support System

LEA local education agency

MSG measurable skills gain

NDEAM National Disability Employment Awareness Month

NDI National Disability Institute

NEON National Expansion of Employment Opportunities Network

NET National Employment Team

14 National Council on Disability
NIDILRR National Institute on Disability, Independent Living and Rehabilitation Research

NLTS National Longitudinal Transition Study

NPO National Provider Organization

ODEP Office of Disability Employment Policy

OFCCP Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs

OMB Office of Management and Budget

OPM Office of Personnel Management

OSERS Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services

PAS personal assistance service

PASS Plan to Achieve Self-Support

PCI Pathways to Careers Initiative

PWTDs people with targeted disabilities

PY program year

RSA Rehabilitation Services Administration

SBA Small Business Administration

SCORE SBA’s Service Corps of Retired Executives

SEIE student earned income exclusion

SGA substantial gainful activity

SOC Standard Occupational Code

SPPC Selective Placement Program Coordinator

SSDI Social Security Disability Insurance

SSI Supplemental Security Income

STEM science, technology, engineering, and mathematics

TAP Talent Acquisition Portal

TEN Training and Employment Notice

TPSID Transition and Postsecondary Programs for Students with Intellectual Disabilities

TTW Ticket to Work

VEVRAA Vietnam Era Veterans’ Readjustment Assistance Act

VR Vocational Rehabilitation Services

WIOA Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act

WRP Workforce Recruitment Program

2020 Progress Report on National Disability Policy: Increasing Disability Employment 15
In the final analysis, what people 

with disabilities want and need are 

services and supports that enable 

them to work—not benefits and 

services at the expense of work

16 National Council on Disability
Introduction

T

he National Council on Disability (NCD) 

is congressionally mandated to advise 

the President, Congress, and other 

policymakers on disability policies and practices 

that enhance equal opportunity for people with 

disabilities to achieve economic self-sufficiency, 

independent living, and inclusion and integration 

into all aspects of society. NCD’s 2020 Progress 

Report fulfills the congressional mandate by 

advising policymakers on policies and practices 

that act as barriers to employment and making 

recommendations for removing these obstacles 

so that Americans with disabilities can achieve 

equal opportunity and economic self-sufficiency, 

and in turn, can achieve and sustain access to 

independent living, inclusion, and integration in 

the community.

This Progress Report, issued on the 

30th anniversary of the Americans with 

Disabilities Act (the ADA), focuses on the 

continuing issues that prevent people with 

disabilities from obtaining and retaining 

employment and provides specific, practical 

recommendations on how to dismantle them. 

Informed by NCD reports and recommendations 

on employment and poverty from 1997 to the 

present, the input of an Advisory Group of six 

national experts on disability employment, data 

from five federal agencies, and 23 interviews 

of stakeholders and Federal Government 

representatives, it describes the most significant 

barriers to employment for people with 

disabilities since passage of the ADA, reviews 

federal actions taken to improve opportunities 

for private sector and federal employment, and 

focuses attention on three areas where federal 

law, policies, and practices continue to impede 

or prevent people with disabilities from obtaining 

and retaining competitive employment. These 

areas are as follows:

■ Services for transitioning youth: The need 

for increased effective coordination, skills 

training, and employment-related services 

and supports available to transition-age 

youth

■ Public benefits: Long-standing disincentives 

to work tied to essential health care and 

other benefits in the Social Security Act and 

the Medicaid Act

Report Areas of Focus

■ Services for transitioning youth

■ Public benefits

■ Federal employment and support of 

entrepreneurship

■ Employer engagement

2020 Progress Report on National Disability Policy: Increasing Disability Employment 17
■ Federal employment and support of 

entrepreneurship: Continued challenges 

to recruiting and hiring people with 

targeted disabilities and exclusion from 

entrepreneurship support

The report also focuses on the topic 

of Employer Engagement: Describing the 

critical role it plays in increasing employment 

opportunities for people with disabilities with 

private sector employers—from the thousands 

of small businesses across the nation, to major 

corporations.

As the nation celebrates the 30th anniversary 

of the enactment of the ADA, the majority of 

Americans with disabilities are not participants 

in the nation’s workforce—this report provides 

some of the reasons why and is a call for 

action. The barriers described can and must 

be addressed so that people with disabilities 

who can work, and want to work, can enter 

or reenter the workforce and achieve financial 

independence and full inclusion in the economic 

growth of the nation.

18 National Council on Disability
Chapter 1: Employment of People with Disabilities 

Since Passage of the ADA: A Retrospective of 

Good and Bad News

T

he achievement of equal opportunity 

in employment remains vital to the full 

inclusion of people with disabilities in the 

United States nearly 30 years after the enactment 

of the ADA. Even though the United States has 

been the leader in the world in advancing the 

civil and human rights of people with disabilities 

for the past half century, today Americans with 

disabilities remain disproportionately poor and 

unemployed, and they face significant barriers 

to joining and remaining in the American 

middle class.

The ADA is indeed an 

antidiscrimination law, 

among other things, 

specifically aimed at 

ending discrimination 

in employment.13

Consequently, it was 

designed to interrupt 

the stigma, prejudice, and lack of understanding 

that accompanied the long history of exclusion 

of people with disabilities from the American 

workplace. Yet, even though the ADA was 

constructed to prevent discriminatory practices, 

its statutory purpose also conveyed an affirmative 

vision for employment in America, one of 

optimism, expansion, and economic freedom. 

In fact, the statute clearly articulates its purpose 

“to provide a clear and comprehensive national 

mandate for the elimination of discrimination 

against individuals with disabilities . . . the 

Nation’s proper goals regarding individuals with 

disabilities are to assure equality of opportunity, 

full participation, independent living, and 

economic self-sufficiency for such individuals” 

(emphasis added).14

When President George H. W. Bush signed 

the ADA on the South Lawn of the White House, 

the following words were among his remarks:

I also want to say a 

special word to our 

friends in the business 

community. You have 

in your hands the 

key to the success 

of this act, for you 

can unlock a splendid 

resource of untapped human potential that, 

when freed, will enrich us all. . . . This act 

does something important for American 

business, though—and remember this: 

You’ve called for new sources of workers. 

Well, many of our fellow citizens with 

disabilities are unemployed. They want 

to work, and they can work, and this 

is a tremendous pool of people. And 

[The ADA’s] statutory purpose also 

conveyed an affirmative vision for 

employment in America, one of 

optimism, expansion, and economic 

freedom

2020 Progress Report on National Disability Policy: Increasing Disability Employment 19
remember, this is a tremendous pool of 

people who will bring to jobs diversity, 

loyalty, proven low turnover rate, and 

only one request: the chance to prove 

themselves. And when you add together 

Federal, State, local, and private funds, 

it costs almost $200 billion annually to 

support Americans with disabilities—

in effect, to keep them dependent. 

Well, when given the opportunity to be 

independent, they will move proudly into 

the economic mainstream of American life, 

and that’s what this legislation is all about.15

(emphasis added)

That was 30 years 

ago. This is now. What 

happened to that 

“splendid resource 

of untapped human 

potential” in the 

interim? Across all age 

groups, education, 

and experience levels, 

people with disabilities 

today remain much 

less likely than workers 

without disabilities to be employed, or if 

employed, are more likely to work part-time and 

in occupations that demand lower wages, offer 

fewer opportunities for advancement, and lack 

employer-paid health care and other benefits.16

This has resulted in additional economic 

consequences that cascade through the 

American economy. Among them, people with 

disabilities have been excluded from savings, 

asset accumulation, and consumer spending, 

while the costs of Federal Government programs 

continue to increase.

Placed in its proper context, the ADA was 

a Bill of Rights for Americans with disabilities, 

one designed to declare an independence that 

was, in part, economic, where economic selfsufficiency was placed on par with equality of 

opportunity, full participation, and independent 

living. In this regard, it was one of the explicit 

purposes of the ADA to address the long history 

of economic apartheid experienced by people 

with disabilities, a constituency that had spent 

the better part of our Nation’s history isolated, 

institutionalized, and removed from what 

President Bush referred to as “the economic 

mainstream of American 

life.” It was the ADA 

that dismantled the 

long-held assumption, 

imbued by a medical 

model of disability, that 

unemployment and 

government dependence 

is an inevitable and 

irreversible consequence 

of mental or physical 

disabilities. Instead, 

the ADA required an 

understanding that 

disability, itself, does not impose a lack of 

qualification for employment upon people, it is 

stigma, societal low expectations, and specific 

environmental barriers in the workplace that 

so often do. As the World Health Organization 

has since recognized, “disability exists only 

in the gap between the person’s abilities 

and capacities and the demands of the 

environment.”17 In this regard, the ADA codified 

into law a dramatic shift in societal expectation 

that a great many people with disabilities can 

and want to work, and the statute posited 

Across all age groups, education, 

and experience levels, people with 

disabilities today remain much 

less likely ... to be employed, or 

employed, are more likely to work 

part-time and in occupations that 

demand lower wages, offer fewer 

opportunities for advancement, and 

lack employer-paid health care and 

other benefits

20 National Council on Disability
that they ought to be given an equal chance to 

compete when they do so. Even though the 

ADA has established the right to be free from 

discrimination in employment, people with 

disabilities are still vastly underrepresented in 

workplaces across America, so thus far, we 

have failed to fulfill the ADA’s vision of economic 

inclusion.

In 2007, at a considerable inflection point 

for innovation and technological change in the 

United States,18 NCD commented on the “good 

news” and the “bad news” about disability 

employment: “The bad news is that people with 

disabilities are currently 

under-represented 

in the occupations 

projected to grow the 

fastest between 2004 

and 2014—they are 

currently more likely to 

be in slower-growing 

service and blue-collar 

occupations.”19 But the 

report continued with 

what was considered 

then to be grounds 

for optimism, “The good news is a) growth in 

computers and new information technologies that 

help compensate for many types of disabilities 

and increase the possibilities for productive 

employment; b) growth in telecommuting 

and flexible work arrangements, which are 

appropriate for many people with disabilities; 

and c) increased attention to issues of diversity 

in U.S. companies, in which disability is often 

included as a dimension of diversity.” However, 

despite the occurrence of many of these critical 

changes to the way work was done over the 

past 13 years, the changes appear to have done 

little to disrupt the persistence of the bad news. 

It raises the important question of why people 

with disabilities were not included in many of 

the broadscale changes that the world of work 

and the U.S. economy experienced over the last 

several decades.

Indeed, despite both the enactment of 

the ADA and the rapid pace of innovation 

infusing disruptive changes into the American 

workplace—including greater flexibilities, 

technology, and diversity—the overall picture 

for Americans with disabilities has remained 

largely unchanged over the past three decades. 

The bird’s-eye view of 

participation of people 

with disabilities in the 

labor market is still 

mostly marked by 

entrenched poverty and 

economic exclusion. In 

1997, just seven years 

after the enactment of 

the ADA, NCD stated, 

“America’s citizens with 

disabilities want very 

much to contribute to 

their country’s continued preeminence in the 

world of nations. They have the talents and 

the capabilities to do so; and if the proposals 

presented in this report are enacted, they 

undoubtedly will.”20 In 2001, 11 years after the 

enactment of the ADA, NCD lamented the 

failure to meet the expectations of people 

with disabilities who can and want to work, 

stating, “in perhaps no area of public policy has 

the expectations gap so stubbornly resisted 

our efforts to achieve equality. Whatever set 

of statistics one chooses from among the 

varying estimates of employment rates of 

[D]espite both the enactment of the 

ADA and the rapid pace of innovation 

infusing disruptive changes into 

the American workplace—including 

greater flexibilities, technology, 

and diversity—the overall picture 

for Americans with disabilities has 

remained largely unchanged over the 

past three decades

2020 Progress Report on National Disability Policy: Increasing Disability Employment 21
Americans with disabilities, the rate and level of 

employment for this population remain far too 

low.”21 In July 2007,17 years after the enactment 

of the ADA, NCD observed that people with 

disabilities were nearly three times as likely as 

people without disabilities to live in poverty—the 

same ratio as before the passage of the ADA 

in 1990.22

In October 2007, NCD reflected with great 

optimism upon significant labor shortages 

caused by the retirement of the Baby Boomer 

generation, invoking hope that utilizing the 

untapped resource of workers with disabilities 

to fill that labor shortage would reverse the 

disability unemployment trendline.23 But by the 

very next fall, the Great Recession took hold, and 

analysts feared that employers were less likely to 

take risks on employees with additional support 

needs, demonstrating concern that bias and 

discrimination in hiring would take precedence 

when times were tough. In a 2009 report, NCD 

remarked:

Today, however, with the ranks of the 

unemployed growing by hundreds of thousands 

per month, some may say that unemployment 

among people with disabilities cannot be a 

major issue in an environment in which jobs are 

becoming scarcer for everyone. Such expressions 

reinforce many of the very stereotypes that 

explain why, even in periods of rapid economic 

growth, people with disabilities have not shared 

in the fruits of the economy.24

As predicted, even after the market 

experienced considerable recovery from the 2008 

recession and the nationwide unemployment 

rate fell dramatically, the employment population 

ratio for people with disabilities continued at 

approximately the same level as it had for years.25

In 2013, NCD reported, “[e]mployment numbers 

for Americans with disabilities have not changed 

much since passage of the ADA, which was 

intended to increase civil rights protections for 

millions of Americans with disabilities and to 

guarantee their equal opportunity in employment. 

The 40 percent chasm between the employment 

rates for Americans with and without disabilities 

is inarguably disparate and unacceptable.”26 The 

report continued by saying, “[i]t should come 

as no surprise that the number one topic on 

the minds of those that NCD interviewed for 

the 2013 Progress Report was employment and 

workforce participation.”

In 2015, 25 years after the enactment of 

the ADA and years into the recovery from the 

Great Recession, the unemployment rate was 

twice the national average as for people without 

disabilities, and even when employed, there was 

a pay gap accounting for average lower wages 

for workers with disabilities than those without 

disabilities.27

In 2020, now 30 years after the enactment 

of the ADA, workers with disabilities contend 

with rising inequality in a job market that is 

at or near full employment, with a national 

unemployment rate in February 2020 as low 

as 3.5 percent.28 Yet, there remain 22 million 

working-age Americans with disabilities, with 

nearly two-thirds of such people left out of the 

labor market altogether,29 and for those who 

are actively looking for work, such people still 

experience an unemployment rate that is twice 

that of workers without disabilities.30 According 

to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, on average, 

only approximately 19 percent of people with 

disabilities were employed during the nine-year 

period between 2009 and 2018 as compared 

22 National Council on Disability
to approximately more than 65 percent of 

people without disabilities. See Figures 1 and 2. 

Significantly, the nearly 40 percentage point 

gap between the employment population ratio 

and labor force participation of people with and 

without disabilities remained steady across 

the very decade that, 

as economists have 

observed, experienced 

among the greatest 

disruptions to the 

way people work 

and live since the 

industrial revolution; 

the same decade that 

experienced a historic 

march from recession 

to recovery to the 

lowest unemployment rate in decades.31 The 

data shows that the technological and social 

changes that NCD predicted in 2007, and that 

materialized to allow people with disabilities 

to enter the workforce, had little effect on 

the overall labor force participation of people 

with disabilities.

As noted by NCD in its 2018 report, From 

the New Deal to the Real Deal, the nation’s 

economy is increasingly 

a digital and informationbased one, and the 

physical world is steadily 

being reimagined and 

realigned to keep pace 

with new technologies.32

Yet, many people with 

disabilities, in large part, 

are locked out of these 

changes and have lacked 

access to the very kinds 

of training needed to fill the new demands 

of the global economy.33 Secondary school 

youth transition programs, and the workforce 

development system, including the Vocational 

Rehabilitation (VR) program, historically have 

connected people with disabilities to retail 

and manual skills training that has become 

in considerably far less demand than other 

emerging information, knowledge, and 

technology-based industries. As a group, people 

with disabilities continue to be more likely 

than those without disabilities to work in jobs 

in the very industries that are most subject to 

displacement by new technologies.34

This is not a new phenomenon, as it has 

been a persistent theme across time—and since 

the enactment of the ADA—that people with 

disabilities are vastly underrepresented in the 

fastest-growing occupations in the economy 

and overrepresented in the occupations with 

Pre-COVID-19 February 2020 

national employment

■ Job market at or near full employment

■ National unemployment rate in February 

2020 as low as 3.5 percent.

■ Nearly two-thirds of 22 million working-age 

Americans with disabilities left out of the 

labor market altogether

■ For those people with disabilities actively 

looking for work, such people still 

experience an unemployment rate that is 

twice that of workers without disabilities.

According to the Bureau of Labor 

Statistics, on average, only 

approximately 19 percent of people 

with disabilities were employed 

during the nine-year period between 

2009 and 2018 as compared to 

approximately more than 65 percent 

of people without disabilities

2020 Progress Report on National Disability Policy: Increasing Disability Employment 23
Figure 1. Bureau of Labor Statistics Data Employment-Population Ratios

2009–2018

Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Figure 2. Labor Force Participation Rate of Civilian Population Ages 16–64 Year

Source: National Trends in Disability and Employment (nTIDE) Report, University of New Hampshire and 

Kessler Foundation.

24 National Council on Disability
the fastest rate of decline. In fact, people 

with disabilities are most likely to work in 

jobs that place an unnecessary emphasis on 

workers’ physical limitations, even though new 

technologies, services, and supports otherwise 

exist to assist them to enter jobs in a range 

of new and emerging industries. For example, 

the sectors projected to experience the fastest 

annual employment growth from 2018 to 

2028 are health care and social assistance, 

private educational services, computer and 

mathematical occupations, and construction 

(including infrastructure projects and renewable 

energy).35 The health care and social assistance, 

private educational assistance, and construction 

sectors alone are 

projected to create 

4.6 million jobs by 

2028.36 During the same 

period, the sectors 

expected to experience 

the greatest decline 

in jobs, among others, 

are manufacturing, 

sales and retail trade, wholesale trade, utilities, 

and administrative office support.37 Given 

the aging of the Baby Boomer population, 

demographics dictate that health and caregiving 

trades will expand dramatically over the next 

decade, whereas retail jobs are predicted to be 

disrupted significantly by the continued rise of 

e-commerce, with manufacturing weakened by 

the confluence of outsourcing and automation.

Yet, current Bureau of Labor Statistics 

data demonstrates that in 2018, people with 

disabilities were more concentrated in service 

occupations than people without disabilities 

(19 percent, compared with 17.2 percent).38

Moreover, workers with disabilities were also 

more likely than those without disabilities to 

work in production, transportation, and material 

moving occupations (13.9 percent, compared 

with 11.8 percent) and were less likely to work 

in management, professional, and related 

occupations than those without disabilities 

(33.7 percent, compared with 40.3 percent).

In the new global economy, abstract 

reasoning, social skills, and problem-solving have 

positive economic returns, while “routine tasks 

and manual tasks are both negative.”39 A 2013 

study found that the tasks that remain resistant 

to automation are creativity and ideation, tasks 

related to social and emotional intelligence, and 

tasks related to perception and manipulation.40

As one study observed, 

the fact that people with 

disabilities are more 

likely to perform routine 

or manual tasks may 

account for the widening 

wage gap between 

people with and without 

disabilities, as demand 

for social and problem-solving skills command 

higher wages.41 Even more concerning is the 

risk of displacement of people with disabilities 

who are already employed or underemployed, 

given the threat posed by the burgeoning 

automation of traditional manufacturing and 

manual skills tasks.

Given these trends, the “good news” 

of 2020 is much like that of 2007, in that—

with the market’s continued acceleration 

away from physical job skills toward greater 

flexibilities, new technology, and demand for 

abstract, social, and emotional reasoning—

the global economy remains ripe for the full 

inclusion of people with disabilities. The coming 

[P]eople with disabilities are 

vastly underrepresented in the 

fastest-growing occupations in the 

economy and overrepresented in 

the occupations with the fastest rate 

of decline

2020 Progress Report on National Disability Policy: Increasing Disability Employment 25
decades should give rise to an economy 

where accommodation is increasingly viewed 

as an intrinsic part of innovation, rather than 

something contrary to it. Indeed, we only need 

to reflect backward in time to understand the 

dynamism of the present moment and how 

far we have come. Throughout the 1990s and 

2000s, NCD and other commentators focused 

many of their recommendations about disability 

employment on the inflexibility of employers in 

allowing telecommuting and flextime, the cost 

associated with setting up home offices, and the 

resistance of large bureaucratic organizations in 

providing reasonable accommodations; they also 

criticized the lack of personalized consideration 

for employees’ technology needs.42

Today, while there remains more to be 

accomplished on these fronts, at the very least, 

workplace flexibility, telecommuting, technology, 

and workplace modifications have entered the 

mainstream of successful businesses in the 

United States. Certainly, workplace policies 

have become more universally designed 

for employees with and without disabilities. 

This makes sense in a market where people 

can work from anywhere, are connected at 

all times through smartphones, tablets, and 

other Internet-connected devices, and enjoy 

broadband Internet access and cloud computing 

in the same way that they do other public 

utilities. Moreover, because of the widespread 

and common use of technology, the cost of 

modifications to employers has fallen, making 

access to accommodation, telecommuting, selfemployment, and technology far easier.

More good news is that, over the past 

30 years, a new generation of Americans with 

disabilities has come of age with the ADA well in 

place, shifting and raising societal expectations 

and creating demand for meaningful education, 

job preparation, and experiences in mainstream 

employment. As the Senate Health, Education, 

Labor, and Pensions Committee observed in 

2012, “we now have a new generation of young 

adults with disabilities, the ‘ADA generation,’ 

who have high expectations for themselves 

and who are ready, willing and able to pursue 

a good career in high-growth sectors of our 

Nation’s economy that will allow them to 

become and stay part of the middle class.”43

Moreover, the desire of not only youth but adults 

with disabilities to work and achieve economic 

self-sufficiency and to engage in mainstream 

employment has been well documented in 

the years since the passage of the ADA and 

remains strong.44

Additionally, unfounded fears about the 

high costs of reasonable accommodations 

have diminished dramatically since the 

enactment of the ADA, as employers have 

become accustomed to providing reasonable 

accommodations at very little cost. In fact, the 

average accommodations have proven to be 

less expensive and yield significantly higher 

returns than critics of the law initially estimated. 

Survey results from the U.S. Department of 

Labor’s Job Accommodation Network show that, 

“the benefits employers receive from making 

workplace accommodations [are documented to] 

far outweigh the associated costs.”45 Employers 

reported providing accommodations that 

resulted in such benefits as “retaining valuable 

employees, improving productivity and morale, 

reducing workers’ compensation and training 

costs, and improving company diversity.”46

Employers also reported that “a high percentage 

26 National Council on Disability
(58 percent) of accommodations cost absolutely 

nothing to make ($0), while the rest of the 

accommodations made had a typical cost of 

only $500.”47

In addition, companies are engaged in 

“cutting-edge disability recruitment, hiring, 

and on-boarding strategies, not as charity 

or marketing, but because it serves their 

bottom line.”48 As the executive director of the 

Marriott Foundation’s Bridges from School to 

Work program told NCD, “there’s now a war 

for talent,” and workers with disabilities bring 

strategic advantage to 

any employer’s position 

in that war, including 

by increasing job 

retention, introducing 

new efficiencies, and 

increasing and widening 

diversity.49 Companies are 

increasingly awakening to the economic value 

and new efficiencies created by hiring people 

with disabilities.

In this war for talent, employers now 

routinely recruit job-ready candidates with 

disabilities for competitive integrated 

employment to enhance their bottom line, 

deeply enrich the skills available within 

companies, and promote diversity. For 

example, in 2012, the Federal Home Loan 

Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) partnered 

with the Autistic Self Advocacy Network to 

create an Autism Internship Program to match 

the needs of its company with the capabilities 

of autistic people who had college degrees 

in the fields of 

computer science, 

mathematics, and 

finance.51 Likewise, 

companies like 

JP Morgan, SAP, DXC 

Technology (formerly 

Hewlett Packard 

Enterprise), and Microsoft also have autism 

hiring programs, built on the idea that such 

employees have unique skills traits that are 

especially useful in science, technology, 

engineering, and mathematics (STEM) 

industries and that removing barriers to entry 

for them will allow such companies to access 

an untapped labor pool. In 2019, JP Morgan 

Chase reported that employees in its Autism at 

Work program were 48 percent more accurate 

and as much as 92 percent more productive 

than peers in comparable positions.52

That was the good news. Unfortunately, 

there continues to be much bad news. Given 

the market’s strong acceleration toward greater 

technology, flexibility, and modification, the 

more people with disabilities are excluded from 

these important innovations and opportunities, 

A business case for hiring people 

with disabilities

A 2018 report issued by the consulting giant 

Accenture that looked at 45 companies that 

specialized in building disability inclusive 

policies and practices revealed that those 

companies achieved, on average, 28 percent 

higher revenue, double the net income, and 

30 percent higher economic profit margins 

over the four-year period analyzed, compared 

to other companies in the sample.50

[C]ompanies are engaged in 

“cutting-edge disability recruitment, 

hiring, and on-boarding strategies, 

not as charity or marketing, but 

because it serves their bottom line.

2020 Progress Report on National Disability Policy: Increasing Disability Employment 27
the harder the economic consequences will 

fall on them, including widening inequality and 

economic marginalization. It is incumbent upon 

the public and private sectors to clear the runway 

for people with disabilities to launch their talents 

into the twenty-first century global economy, 

including the necessary education, accessible 

technology, equipment, 

advanced skills training, 

and transportation 

infrastructure required to 

compete in it. Even the 

greatest optimists among 

us will recognize that 

the mere presence of 

technology and training 

cannot entirely rectify or remove underlying 

stigma, inattention to the accommodation 

and accessibility needs of employees, and 

discriminatory attitudes and stereotypes 

perpetuated by some employers about the 

capabilities of employees with disabilities. 

Consistent work is 

necessary to build 

awareness about the 

good news about 

disability employment 

and, most importantly, to 

convert that knowledge 

into actual hiring in the 

coming decades.

Technology and 

other such disruptive changes at once carry the 

possibility for transformative inclusion and near 

categorical exclusion of people with disabilities 

from employment, for instance, “in the past, 

working as a cashier required a person to have 

some math skills and the capacity to work 

a cash register,” eliminating some people 

with intellectual and other disabilities from 

consideration for the job.53 “Now, of course, 

a person just has to scan the bar codes for each 

product and provide change indicated by the 

‘point of sale computer’ that has replaced cash 

registers.”54 Alternatively, the authors soberly 

observed the harsh economic consequences 

when technology 

unjustifiably excludes 

people with disabilities, 

“if one wants to apply 

for many jobs in today’s 

employment context, 

that process begins 

with filling out a form 

that is online. If the web 

browser or computer lacks accessibility, then one 

cannot complete the form.”55 Certainly the latter 

scenario applies not just to people who are blind 

or with intellectual or developmental disabilities, 

but also to people with disabilities who lack 

access to a computer or broadband Internet 

access altogether.

Research has 

documented the 

expanding digital divide, 

as people with disabilities 

are less likely than those 

without disabilities to 

receive computer training 

or use computers at 

work or elsewhere, in 

large part because of resource constraints.56 At 

the start of the new millennium, in 2002, the 

U.S. Department of Commerce documented that 

people with multiple disabilities aged 25–60 years 

were almost half as likely to have access to the 

Internet as people without disabilities.57 However, 

in the years since, few, if any, government 

Technology and other such 

disruptive changes at once carry 

the possibility for transformative 

inclusion and near categorical 

exclusion of people with disabilities 

from employment

Research has documented the 

expanding digital divide, as people 

with disabilities are less likely than 

those without disabilities to receive 

computer training or use computers 

at work or elsewhere, in large part 

because of resource constraints

28 National Council on Disability
interventions have directly addressed the 

underlying access to technology issue, let alone 

as an employment issue—including access 

to basic infrastructure like broadband Internet 

or mainstream digital computing devices that 

most businesses now depend on. A 2017 Pew 

Research survey revealed that the digital divide 

had expanded exponentially from where it was 

reported in 2002 to people with disabilities 

being three times as likely not to access the 

Internet as people without disabilities 15 years 

later.58 Instead of directly tackling this digital 

divide, government systems, in large part, have 

marshaled resources toward assistive technology 

(AT), carrying on the narrow mandate to 

reimburse technology 

that is definitionally 

tied to improving 

deficits caused by 

disability whether to 

“increase, maintain, 

or improve functional 

capabilities,” as 

defined by the 

Individuals with 

Disabilities Education 

Act (IDEA) and other 

federal laws.59 While 

AT is important, the expansive vision of the ADA 

toward full economic inclusion is one broader 

than merely offsetting perceived deficits. It 

calls for attention to technology as a means to 

compete and succeed in the open market, not 

simply to offset deficits to functional capacity.

A study of blind transition-age youth found 

those with a “high self-perceived level of 

computer competence” were significantly more 

likely to have paid jobs than those with “low 

self-perceived computer competence,” when 

gender, severity of vision loss, and multiple 

disability status were held constant.60 The study 

examined data on 200 in-school youths and 

190 out-of-school youths with a primary disability 

of visual impairment. The data indicated that 

while the current job market requires computer 

skills as a threshold matter for most job seekers, 

computer technologies can also help overcome 

certain employment barriers specific to visual 

impairments and blindness. As has been 

documented by previous studies for years, 

among other things, technology can overcome 

access barriers to transportation and mobility, 

reading print, the lack of job-related information, 

and difficulties with job applications including 

accessing and filling out 

application forms.61

Students with intellectual 

and developmental 

disabilities (I/DD) often 

emerge from secondary 

schools having been 

trained by special education 

transition programs in 

“work readiness” or 

“prevocational” skills 

training, a form of vocational 

training entirely devoid 

of technology in most instances.62 In such 

programs, students perform manual, often 

menial, tasks and rote processes in preparation 

for their transition to postsecondary employment. 

These programs commonly model and prepare 

students with I/DD for segregated adult 

employment programs, including subminimum 

wage employment in sheltered workshops, 

rather than competitive integrated employment.63

The skills training offered in these programs most 

often consists of such manual tasks, without 

Students with intellectual and 

developmental disabilities (I/DD) 

often emerge from secondary 

schools having been trained 

by special education transition 

programs in “work readiness” or 

“prevocational” skills training, a form 

of vocational training entirely devoid 

of technology in most instances

2020 Progress Report on National Disability Policy: Increasing Disability Employment 29
the use of machines or equipment, as sorting, 

shredding, folding, recycling, serving food, 

cleaning, maintaining flower beds, doing laundry, 

and handling trash.64 In other words, these 

programs provide skills training in the industries 

that will be most subject to decline in the future. 

Even though computers and personal digital 

assistants have been documented to improve the 

performance of people with I/DD in “vocational, 

transition, and employment skills,” most people 

with I/DD receive skills training that lacks such 

technology.65

Twenty-first century technology is 

commonplace in employment, and possessing 

knowledge of information and electronic 

technology platforms is a requirement for most 

jobs including those in high-growth industries. 

Yet many people with disabilities, aside from not 

receiving training in technology, lack the means 

to purchase computing devices that fall outside 

of the narrow definition of AT, or alternatively, 

for those with the purchasing power, the 

market has not created technologies universally 

designed so that they can access and use them. 

Consequently, the market for job-related and 

business development technology tailored to 

people with disabilities has been substantially 

constrained by the outdated “deficits-based” 

view of disability. As a result, more research and 

development pertaining to technology that is 

individually tailored to people with disabilities’ 

on-the-job needs, and accompanying systematic 

instruction techniques, is urgently needed.

Likewise, people with disabilities have long 

faced significant obstacles to employment 

because they cannot find an accessible or 

affordable means of transportation to get 

to work. Some disruptive new technologies 

are rewriting the rules for transportation. For 

example, the dawn of ride-sharing apps in 

2013 was nearly instantly transformative for 

some Americans with disabilities who needed 

a reliable way to get to work. As is the case 

with new technology, for other people with 

disabilities, it led to claims of discrimination 

and exclusion from such services, such as 

wheelchair users and those travelling with 

service animals.66 Nevertheless, the apps 

were an advancement made possible by a 

confluence of other technological innovations, 

including the prevalence of smartphones, 

effective GPS navigation systems, and cellular 

networks. The creation of real-time ride-sharing 

significantly reduced transportation barriers, for 

instance, for people who are blind; for some, it 

revolutionized the flexibility of their schedules 

to work more hours or at alternative times. 

Likewise, it increased the possibility that other 

people with disabilities who drive and own 

vehicles could find work in the gig economy that 

was flexible and available with low barriers to 

entry. However, to avail themselves of the new 

technology, such people still need disposable 

income to purchase the transportation service, 

or alternatively own a car to provide the service, 

and must live somewhat near an urban center 

where such apps have been mostly deployed. 

Not to mention that they need smartphones 

and a cellular connection to even hail their first 

ride.67 This explains why only 7 percent of adults 

with a disability say they have ever used a ridehailing app, compared with 18 percent of adults 

who do not have a disability.68 Similar resource 

constraints and access issues must be taken into 

account as governments and the private sector 

negotiate the future of autonomous vehicles.

30 National Council on Disability
In addition, for people with disabilities, 

perhaps even more so than for people without 

disabilities, where one lives certainly has direct 

effects on the likelihood that one will work. 

According to the 2010 Census, 19 percent of 

the U.S. population lives in rural areas, but only 

6 percent of federal transit funds are allocated 

to serve rural communities. Moreover, according 

to the 2014–2018 American Community Survey 

5-year estimates, an estimated 9,122,197 

noninstitutionalized people with disabilities live in 

a rural community.69 This equates to people with 

disabilities comprising 15.1 percent of people 

living in rural areas, 

higher than the national 

average (12.6 percent).70

“[T]his means that there 

is minimal or nonexistent 

transportation services 

in many rural areas,”71

with many Americans 

with disabilities in rural 

areas facing limitations 

in finding any reliable 

means of transportation 

to get to work. This 

is partly the result of 

legal limitations on where paratransit must be 

provided. By law, paratransit service is only 

provided within a three-quarter-mile radius of a 

fixed-route bus stop, to be comparable to existing 

fixed-route transit (as required by Department 

of Transportation regulations implementing 

the ADA’s requirements). Moreover, existing 

paratransit systems often have drawn arbitrary 

lines between rural jurisdictions, causing 

interruptions in service between where people 

live and where they work. Accordingly, the most 

effective transportation solutions afforded to 

city-dwellers of the new millennium—including 

public transportation systems and ride-sharing 

solutions—may well continue to elude those with 

disabilities in rural areas or even outer exurbs 

that lack basic infrastructure, without additional 

reforms in place.

Thus, across various domains—including 

access to skills training, personal computing 

devices, business development tools, the 

Internet and broadband, or transportation—

technology and innovation now carry in nearly 

equal proportion the dramatic potential (1) 

to include people 

with disabilities in 

employment that 

formerly lacked the 

kind of supports and 

accommodations 

that exist now or (2) 

to resolutely exclude 

people with disabilities 

from employment if 

the means to access 

these innovations lies 

out of reach. These two 

distinct and diametrically 

opposed possibilities reflect that the future of 

disability employment balances on a razor’s edge. 

In 2020, it is not an overstatement to suggest 

that innovations exist that have the potential to 

fundamentally transform the way people with 

disabilities work, where they work, how they 

work, and the impact such work has on the 

overall economy, but people with disabilities risk 

not accessing them, sitting curbside as those 

with low barriers to entry to twenty-first century 

employment parade by as participants of the new 

[T]he most effective transportation 

solutions afforded to city-dwellers 

of the new millennium—including 

public transportation systems 

and ride-sharing solutions—may 

well continue to elude those 

with disabilities in rural areas or 

even outer exurbs that lack basic 

infrastructure, without additional 

reforms in place

2020 Progress Report on National Disability Policy: Increasing Disability Employment 31
global, information-based, and digital economy. 

That is only the case, however, if persistent 

structural barriers to employment and powerful 

misaligned incentives remain unaddressed. The 

government has the power to advance new 

interventions, in partnership with the private 

sector, that can reverse this course, making the 

coming decade the beginning of the new century 

of employment for people with disabilities. In this 

next decade, the deficits-based view of disability 

employment can be permanently filed away 

in the annals of history, and accommodation 

can become synonymous with innovation and 

economic potential.

32 National Council on Disability
Chapter 2: The Role of Government-Funded 

Employment Services and Supports

T

he persistence of the disability 

unemployment crisis, and the 

40 percentage point gap in labor force 

participation between people with and without 

disabilities, as reflected in Figure 2, is even more 

vexing when viewed through the lens of the 

government resources and programs committed 

toward ending barriers to the employment 

of people with 

disabilities. While federal 

responses to disability 

unemployment can 

hardly be characterized 

as lackadaisical—

there are more than 

45 government programs 

devoted to such efforts 

spanning numerous 

government agencies—

the government has 

been largely ineffective at 

interrupting the low labor 

force participation of people with disabilities, and 

its services often are overlapping, ill-coordinated, 

and lacking a focus on upward mobility.72 Some 

might observe that this is the result of the 

design of many government interventions that 

are largely analgesic rather than curative, muting 

the pain of poverty and the consequences of 

protracted unemployment, and are not measured 

by success in eliminating root causes or success 

in assisting such people to enter the mainstream 

market and achieve economic self-sufficiency.

The gap in the labor force participation 

of people with and without disabilities is 

well documented, but only a small fraction 

(1.2 percent) of the estimated $429 billion the 

Federal Government and the states expended on 

people with disabilities 

in FY 2008 was used 

to improve prospects 

for employment and 

economic independence. 

More than 95 percent 

of federal-state disability 

expenditures paid for 

health care expenses 

and income maintenance 

benefits, with more than 

half the total (55 percent) 

devoted to health care 

spending (primarily 

Medicare and Medicaid payments) and most of 

the remainder (41 percent) to Social Security, 

SSI, and other government benefit payments.73

NCD’s 2013 Progress Report referenced a recent 

analysis that found that the existing “complex, 

many program model devotes far more spending 

on a safety net than on programs to directly 

advance the goals of ‘equality of opportunity, full 

[M]any government interventions 

are largely analgesic rather than 

curative, muting the pain of 

poverty and the consequences of 

protracted unemployment, and 

are not measured by success in 

eliminating root causes or success 

in assisting such people to enter 

the mainstream market and achieve 

economic self-sufficiency

2020 Progress Report on National Disability Policy: Increasing Disability Employment 33
participation, independent living, and economic 

self-sufficiency for people with disabilities 

as articulated in the 1990 Americans with 

Disabilities Act.’”74

The safety net is, in part, the product of 

Great Society programs that sought to eliminate 

poverty in the United States. Few would 

doubt the vital importance of the safety net in 

ensuring that people with disabilities who live 

in poverty can access food, housing, and health 

care, and maintain access to essential longterm services and supports. Certainly, a lack 

of health care coverage, and these other vital 

benefits, places participation in employment far 

out of reach for many people with disabilities. 

Moreover, the long history of exclusion, 

discrimination, and institutional isolation of 

people with disabilities gave rise to the need for 

these services; certainly, depriving people with 

disabilities of them when they need them would 

only serve to further solidify their economic 

disenfranchisement. Others might observe that 

it is precisely this important safety net, including 

Social Security and Medicaid, that has caught so 

many people with disabilities who can and want 

to work in a “poverty trap,” where they agonize 

over the choice between maintaining the health 

care that they need to live and work, or a job that 

they are qualified for and desire, given the asset 

limitations imposed by means-tested programs 

that are attached to health care.75 Social Security 

and Medicaid are only part of the larger story 

of disability unemployment and the programs 

devoted to assisting people with disabilities to 

obtain meaningful employment.

Millions of Americans with disabilities 

depend on school transition programs, including 

special education services set forth under 

the IDEA, the VR and the programs in the 

workforce development system (set forth 

under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 as revised 

by the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity 

Act [WIOA]), and/or their state developmental 

disability service or mental health service 

systems (governed, in part, by provisions of 

the Medicaid Act) for assistance in finding, 

obtaining, and retaining a job. These valuable 

programs shepherd billions of dollars in training 

and services each year to Americans with 

disabilities to assist them to leave school, enter 

the workforce, and maintain economic selfsufficiency. Such programs play a crucial role 

in assisting people with disabilities to obtain 

career development counseling, work-based 

learning experiences, supported employment, 

AT, and other services and supports. Although 

these programs are authorized under different 

statutes, to be most helpful, they need to 

be coordinated and seamless as participants 

transition from one set of services to another. 

Moreover, the success of such federal and 

state employment systems depends, in large 

Federal Government’s and states’ 

expenditures on people with 

disabilities, FY 2008

$429 billion total

■ 1.2 percent used to improve prospects for 

employment and economic independence

■ 95+ percent used for health care expenses 

and income maintenance

● 55 percent health care spending

● 41 percent Social Security, SSI, other 

government benefit payments

34 National Council on Disability
part, on ensuring that the private sector is a 

fully engaged partner in recruiting, hiring, and 

retaining job-ready candidates who emerge 

from secondary schools and adult service 

programs. A persistent identified barrier to the 

employment of people with disabilities has been 

service gaps presented by the transition from 

the entitlement-based set of IDEA services to 

the eligibility-based adult employment system, 

and the lack of meaningful engagement of the 

private sector by public systems at most critical 

points along the way.

IDEA and Youth 

Transition Services

Each year, 400,000 

students with disabilities 

exit the nation’s 

schools, and as one 

study approximated, 

more than 66,000 of 

them require transition 

services to bridge the 

gap between school and 

work.76 Under the IDEA 

entitlement system of 

services, students with disabilities participate 

in the transition planning process through the 

Individualized Education Plan (IEP) beginning “not 

later than the first IEP to be in effect when the 

child turns 16” or younger if deemed appropriate 

by an IEP team.77 The IEP must include 

appropriate postsecondary goals, among other 

things, related to education and employment.78

Further, the IEP must include transition services 

needed to assist the child in reaching these 

goals, including as they relate to the employment 

objectives and the provision of a functional 

vocational evaluation.79

In 1975, Congress promised to cover 

40 percent of the average cost to educate a 

child with disability under IDEA. But Congress 

later amended the law to say that the Federal 

Government would pay a “maximum” of 

40 percent of per-pupil costs. Today, the 

Federal Government pays less than half 

of what it originally promised in 1975 or 

roughly 18 percent of the total.80 In addition 

to other systemic barriers contributing to the 

problem, the failure to fully fund IDEA has 

had lasting adverse consequences for the 

full implementation 

of IEP plans and 

services, including 

students’ postsecondary 

employment goals. 

Schools have pointed 

to reduced staff and 

significant budgetary 

restrictions to suggest 

that connecting 

students with 

disabilities with effective 

employment-related 

transition services to 

bridge the gap from school to work requires 

additional staffing, training, and investment to 

be successful.

Despite the requirements of the IDEA 

to focus on postsecondary education and 

employment outcomes, students with 

disabilities have historically yielded poorer 

outcomes than their peers without disabilities 

on both measures. Young adults with disabilities 

are more likely to not have attained a high 

school diploma (including GED or alternative 

certificate) when compared to young people 

without disabilities. In 2018, 16.7 percent of 

A persistent identified barrier to 

the employment of people with 

disabilities has been service gaps 

presented by the transition from 

the entitlement-based set of IDEA 

services to the eligibility-based adult 

employment system, and the lack 

of meaningful engagement of the 

private sector by public systems at 

most critical points along the way

2020 Progress Report on National Disability Policy: Increasing Disability Employment 35
young adults with disabilities had not attained 

a high school diploma, compared to 7.7 percent 

of their peers without disabilities.81 This is 

unacceptable. “The vast majority of special 

education students (80-85 percent) can meet 

the same achievement standards as other 

students if they are given specially designed 

instruction, appropriate access, supports, and 

accommodations, as required by IDEA.”82 and 

“[u]nnecessary placement into an alternative 

diploma track has a lasting impact on future 

economic self-sufficiency for students with 

disabilities.”83 An alternate diploma lacks 

the same currency with employers, and 

like having no diploma, has proven negative 

effects on wages and upward mobility. 

Certainly, not having a high school diploma 

or a regular diploma is a barrier to most jobs, 

and economists have consistently found 

approximately a 10 percent increase in wages/

salary with each additional year of education.84

Young people with disabilities are also less 

likely to have attained a bachelor’s degree when 

compared to young people without disabilities; 

in 2018, 15.6 percent of people with disabilities 

had a bachelor’s degree or more versus 

38.4 percent of people without disabilities.85

While the lack of educational attainment has 

negative effects on employment and wages, 

for those without plans for higher education, it 

also makes employment even more important 

following exit from high school. The National 

Longitudinal Transition Study (NLTS [2005]) 

documented that 95 percent of transition-age 

youth with disabilities definitely expect that 

they will get a paid job after exiting school.86

Yet, according to the National Longitudinal 

Transition Survey 2 (NLTS 2 [2011]), outcomes 

for transition-age youth demonstrate that only 

17 percent of youth with I/DD and 12 percent of 

youth with multiple disabilities were employed 

one year out of school.87 The 2011 study revealed 

that 86 percent of youth with I/DD stated 

that they wanted to be employed following 

graduation, but a 2018 study found that the same 

population was less likely to have competitive 

employment goals written into their IEPs and 

more likely to have sheltered employment 

goals and outcomes compared with students 

with other disabilities.88 Additionally, among the 

young adults with disabilities surveyed who 

were employed after school exit, more than 

half (55 percent) reported finding work on their 

By the numbers: 

Students with disabilities

■ 400,000 students with disabilities exit 

schools a year

● 66,000 require transition services 

between school and work

■ 16.7 percent young adults with disabilities 

had not attained a high school diploma 

(compared to 7.7 percent of peers without 

disabilities)

■ 15.6 percent of people with disabilities 

have a bachelor’s degree (compared to 

38.4 percent of peers without disabilities)

■ 95 percent of transition-age youth with 

disabilities expect to have a paid job after 

school

■ Only 17 percent of youth with I/DD and 

12 percent of youth with multiple disabilities 

are employed one year out of school

36 National Council on Disability
own,89 not through the assistance of school 

or the adult employment system. The lack of 

effective coordination between schools and the 

adult system (including VR and Medicaid-funded 

services, skills training, and employment-related 

services and supports) is 

well documented and has 

remained a consistent 

barrier to postsecondary 

employment for decades.

The Service 

System for People 

with Disabilities

The eligibility-based 

service system is largely 

governed by the VR 

program, Medicaid, and 

the public workforce system.

Vocational Rehabilitation Services

Approximately 1.2 million youth and adults are 

served by the 100-year-old VR program each 

year, a system designed to assist people with 

disabilities, including those with the most 

significant disabilities, 

who have visual, 

auditory, physical, 

intellectual and 

learning disabilities, 

and psychosocial or 

psychological disabilities, 

to achieve and maintain 

employment. Eligible 

people must require VR services to achieve 

employment, and vocational goals must be 

consistent with each person’s unique strengths, 

resources, priorities, concerns, abilities, 

capabilities, interests, and informed choice.

In FY 2020, the Rehabilitation Services 

Administration requested an annual budgetary 

amount of $3.6 billion for the VR program, 

an increase over the $3.5 billion authorized 

in FY 2019.90 An examination of VR program 

performance data 

from the last decade—

FYs 2010 through 

2019—reveals that 

each year, there were 

approximately one million 

people with disabilities 

receiving VR services 

under an Individual 

Plan for Employment 

(Table 1), and that an 

average of 169,000 

individuals exited VR with 

competitive integrated employment outcomes 

each of those years.91 Approximately 7 percent 

of all individuals receiving VR services under an 

Individual Plan for Employment (IPE) obtained 

employment outcomes from 2010 through 2019 

(Table 1).92 Also, during this period, VR program 

services yielded an average employment rate 

of almost 53 percent, 

when those exiting 

with employment 

outcomes were averaged 

against those exiting 

the program without 

employment (Table 2).93

The rehabilitation or 

employment rate fell 

below 50 percent in each of the last three years 

(49.5 percent in 2017, 47.23 percent in 2018, and 

45.5 percent in 2019).

VR program data also depicts the median 

hourly wages and median hours worked per 

86 percent of youth with I/DD 

stated that they wanted to be 

employed following graduation, but 

a 2018 study found that the same 

population was less likely to have 

competitive employment goals 

written into their IEPs and more 

likely to have sheltered employment 

goals and outcomes 

Approximately 7 percent of all 

individuals receiving VR services 

under an Individual Plan for 

Employment (IPE) obtained 

employment outcomes from 2010 

through 2019

2020 Progress Report on National Disability Policy: Increasing Disability Employment 37
week for individuals exiting the VR program 

with employment outcomes, as reflected in 

Table 3. This data shows that individuals achieved 

employment with wages that were slightly above 

the federal minimum wage, and for less than 

full-time hours.94 In 2010, those who exited VR 

with employment earned median hourly wages 

of $8.25 and median hours worked of 34 hours 

per week. A decade later, in 2019, those who 

exited with employment earned median wages 

of $11.25 per hour and median hours worked of 

30 hours per week.

The enactment of WIOA in 2014 significantly 

emphasized services to youth and expanded 

the role of the VR program in assisting students 

with disabilities to transition from school to a 

competitive integrated employment. However, 

this expansion occurred without additional 

funds appropriated to the VR program, adding 

to the challenge of implementation. Among 

38 National Council on Disability

Table 1: Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) Program Data Number of Applicants, 

Eligible Individuals, and Eligible Individuals Receiving VR Services under 

Individual Plan for Employment (IPE) (FFY 2010–2019)

FFY 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019*

Applicants 701,779 673,578 652,756 619,265 590,820 583,246 602,400 569,530 528,386 446,919

Eligible 

individuals

693,628 653,314 638,959 601,327 578,490 578,997 582,788 536,483 484,674 399,587

Eligible 

individuals 

receiving 

services 

under IPE

1,011,395 1,011,602 1,011,671 1,001,814 944,593 954,024 972,155 975,359 932,119 1,236,663

Source: Cumulative Quarterly Case Report (RSA-113) (OMB control number 1820-0013).

* Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA) discontinued collecting RSA-113 data from state VR agencies at the 

end of FFY 2018; therefore, the source of data for FFY 2019 is the Case Service Report (RSA-911) (OMB control 

number 1820-0508).

Table 2: Vocational Rehabilitation Employment Outcomes at Exit and 

Employment Rate (FFY 2010–2019) 

FFY 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Individuals exiting 

with employment 

outcome

164,674 171,490 173,975 176,788 176,065 178,110 179,476 175,458 153,293 142,523

Individuals 

exiting without 

employment 

outcome

152,587 146,277 138,116 152,956 134,345 135,798 136,207 179,003 171,205 170,521

Employment rate 51 .9% 54 .0% 55 .7% 53 .6% 56 .7% 56 .7% 56 .9% 49 .5% 47 .23% 45 .5%

Source: Case Service Report (RSA-911) (OMB control number 1820-0508).
other things, WIOA requires (1) VR agencies 

to reserve 15 percent of their federal VR grant 

funds to provide pre-employment transition 

services for students with disabilities95 who 

are potentially eligible for the VR program (e.g., 

have not applied) and those who are eligible; 

(2) interagency collaboration between VR, local 

education agencies (LEAs) and schools, and 

workforce development systems to facilitate 

students with disabilities’ 

transition from school to 

competitive integrated 

employment; and 

(3) under Section 511 of 

the Rehabilitation Act, 

that a series of steps 

must be taken before a 

student with a disability 

can enter or continue 

working in subminimum 

wage employment.96 The 

role of the VR program in implementing WIOA 

bears great potential for improving employment 

outcomes for youth with disabilities as is 

discussed more fully in this report.

As this report was in the final editing stage, 

the Department of Education released a report97

that outlines some of the factors that may 

contribute to recent performance trends in the 

VR program, including requirements related to 

serving students and youth with disabilities, 

Section 511, and the relatively new common 

performance measures in section 116 of WIOA.

Medicaid

The Medicaid Home and Community-Based 

Waiver program provides ongoing employment 

services to people with disabilities and is the 

largest federal source 

of funds for day and 

employment services 

provided to people 

with I/DD. Nationwide, 

between 5,000 and 

6,000 community 

rehabilitation providers 

(CRPs) provide vocational 

services (most typically 

federal-state Medicaid 

services) to people 

with disabilities in employment service systems 

in every state, and the majority (70 percent) 

of those served by CRPs are people with 

I/DD.98 According to the Institute for Community 

Inclusion, in 2017, total funding for Medicaid 

reimbursable day and employment services 

was just over $9 billion, with only approximately 

$1 billion appropriated to employment services 

Table 3: Median Hourly Wages and Median Hours Worked per Week of 

Individuals Exiting with Employment Outcome at Exit

FFY 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Median hourly 

wages

$8.25 $8.28 $8.45 $8.50 $8.50 $9.00 $9.00 $10.00 $11

Median hours 

worked per week

34 34 32 32 30 30 30 30 30 30

Source: Case Service Report (RSA-911) (OMB control number 1820-0508).

In 2010, those who exited VR with 

employment earned median hourly 

wages of $8.25 and median hours

worked of 34 hours per week

A decade later, in 2019, those who 

exited with employment earned 

median wages of $11.25 per hour

and median hours worked of 

30 hours per week

2020 Progress Report on National Disability Policy: Increasing Disability Employment 39
provided in typical job settings in the community 

(i.e., competitive integrated employment).99

NCD reported in 2018 that there were 

approximately 321,131 workers with disabilities 

employed by segregated sheltered workshops 

that were authorized to pay subminimum 

wages to workers 

with disabilities under 

Section 14(c) of the Fair 

Labor Standards Act.100

The report stated that 

“[p]erhaps no segment of 

the disability population 

experiences . . . negative 

effects and barriers to 

financial self-sufficiency more than people who 

continue to earn subminimum wages in exchange 

for their labor.”101 In 2020, the vast majority of 

Medicaid-funded employment services continue 

to be provided in segregated settings, where 

people with disabilities typically perform rote, 

repetitive manual tasks with only other people 

with disabilities under the supervision of paid 

support staff (i.e., sheltered workshops), rather 

than in competitive integrated employment. 

And the consequences 

of this public investment 

are significant. Not only 

does this place many 

states at risk of violating 

Title II of the ADA and the 

Supreme Court’s decision 

in Olmstead v. L.C., but it 

has imposed significant limitations on the overall 

number of people with I/DD who are employed 

in competitive employment.102 The service 

provider capacity to serve individuals with higher 

support needs, including those with I/DD, on 

the job in competitive employment has often 

been insufficient to meet the need, and as a 

consequence, people are relegated to segregated 

sheltered workshops that exist outside of the 

open market. Likewise, many youth are referred 

to sheltered workshops directly from school, 

given state systems’ overreliance on them 

and exceedingly low 

expectations. And, as 

mentioned earlier, youth 

with I/DD are often made 

to participate in school 

transition programs that 

resemble adult sheltered 

workshops where they 

are cultivated and trained 

to perform manual tasks, placing them at serious 

risk of referral to adult sheltered workshops after 

leaving school.103 People with disabilities often 

remain in sheltered workshops for decades at a 

time and are deprived of the opportunity to earn 

competitive wages and to become taxpayers.104

Title I of WIOA/American Job Centers

In addition to schools, VR, and Medicaid, 

the public workforce system also provides 

employment services 

to people with 

disabilities, albeit to 

a smaller share of 

self-identified people 

with disabilities, 

through American Job 

Centers (AJCs).

Under Title I of WIOA, individuals with 

“barriers to employment,” including adults 

and youth with disabilities, are eligible for a 

range of services provided by AJCs, including 

assistance to job seekers; hard and soft skill 

guidance, career planning, and job placement 

“Perhaps no segment of the disability 

population experiences ... negati

effects and barriers to financial selfsufficiency more than people who 

continue to earn subminimum wages 

in exchange for their labor.

[M]any youth are referred to 

sheltered workshops directly 

from school, given state systems’ 

overreliance on them and 

exceedingly low expectations

40 National Council on Disability
services; labor market demand and occupational 

information; job-driven training options; and 

work-based training opportunities.105 More 

specifically, the AJC network may provide 

people with disabilities 

with apprenticeship 

opportunities, on-the-job 

training, and incumbent 

worker training.

Data from July 2016 

through December 

2018, required to be 

collected under WIOA, 

demonstrates that 

the public workforce/AJC system served 

2.8 million individuals during that two-year 

period, of which just 6.7 percent (or 187,600 

people) disclosed that they had a disability.106

Of those exiting WIOA services during the 

two-year period, 69.1 percent of people with 

disabilities were employed at some time in the 

four quarters following program exit versus 

84.2 percent of those 

without a disability.107

For the same group, 

total earnings over the 

four quarters following 

program exit were just 

$11,400 versus $20,800 

for those without a 

disability.108 Historically, 

AJCs have been 

found to be physically and programmatically 

inaccessible to people with disabilities and not 

well coordinated with the other parts of the 

adult employment system,109 although several 

Data from July 2016 through 

December 2018 ... demonstrat

that the public workforce/AJC 

system served 2.8 million individuals

during that two-year period, of which 

just 6.7 percent (or 187,600 people)

disclosed that they had a disability

2020 Progress Report on National Disability Policy: Increasing Disability Employment 41
identified steps are being taken to remedy 

these barriers, as discussed later.

AbilityOne

In addition, the U.S. AbilityOne Program, 

one of the largest employment programs for 

people with disabilities in the United States, 

provides approximately 50,000 employment 

opportunities for people who are blind or have 

significant disabilities. These opportunities are 

in the manufacture and delivery of products and 

services to the Federal Government. AbilityOne 

supplies approximately $3.6 billion per year of 

federal set-aside contracts.110 Many AbilityOne 

employers participate in the payment of 

subminimum wages under Section 14(c) of FLSA 

and/or run manufacturing facilities where people 

with disabilities are congregated together under 

the supervision of paid staff, unlike competitive 

integrated employment. NCD conducted a 

separate review of the AbilityOne program in 

its February 2019 report, A Cursory Look at 

AbilityOne,

111 and has an additional forthcoming 

2020 report on the program.

42 National Council on Disability
Chapter 3: Employment Barriers for Transitioning 

Youth and Employment Disincentives Tied to 

Means-Tested Benefits

Barriers to Transition-Age Youth 

Finding, Obtaining, and Retaining 

Employment

Since the passage of the ADA, NCD has 

consistently identified the importance 

of preparing youth with disabilities to 

obtain the education, credentials, training, and 

experience to transition from school directly into 

competitive integrated employment. In doing 

so, it has raised concerns about the continued 

high prevalence of alternative certificates rather 

than high school diplomas, the low educational 

attainment rate, the lack of interagency 

collaboration, and the need for meaningful 

work-based learning experiences prior to school 

exit to be stubborn barriers to the economic 

self-sufficiency of young adults with disabilities. 

These barriers must be addressed to correct the 

low disability labor force participation rate and 

persistently high unemployment of people with 

disabilities.

A major contributing factor to transition-age 

students lacking viable access to postsecondary 

employment and careers is ineffective transition 

planning:

In practice, transition planning for students 

with disabilities is often inadequate. 

Preparing students without disabilities 

for skills development and economic 

independence often includes early 

opportunities such as job shadowing, 

internships, part-time jobs, and volunteer 

work. However, students with disabilities 

are less likely to have these opportunities, 

which sets them further behind their peers 

when they enter the competitive job market 

and postsecondary application process.112

Since the ADA was enacted, students 

with disabilities exiting school have often 

lacked timely, adequate, or effective access to 

transition services including work-based learning 

experiences and have consequently been 

underrepresented in the mainstream workforce 

as compared to their peers without disabilities. 

For example, 43.9 percent of young people with 

disabilities ages 20–24 years were employed in 

2014, as compared to 71.9 percent of their peers 

without disabilities.113 In 2014, with the bi-partisan 

enactment of the WIOA, Congress passed one of 

the most substantial pieces of legislation since 

the enactment of the ADA, designed, in part, to 

directly address the pattern of low labor force 

participation and high disability unemployment of 

young people with disabilities.

2020 Progress Report on National Disability Policy: Increasing Disability Employment 43
WIOA, a bi-partisan piece of legislation, was 

conceived during a time of relative economic 

growth, a tight labor market, and persistently 

high disability unemployment. Prior to his vote on 

WIOA, Senator Rob Portman (R-OH) stated,

These millions of unfilled jobs are an 

indictment of the [workforce investment] 

program[s]. In other words, we should be 

doing a better job of getting the skills we 

need to fill these jobs if we are spending 

$15 to $18 billion of hard-earned taxpayer 

money on it.114

Senator Portman’s frustration with existing 

systems reflected concern for the growing skills 

gap and the number of 

economic opportunities 

that people with 

disabilities were excluded 

from, despite federal 

systems that were in 

place and a growing 

economy. Likewise, 

Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) described the purpose 

of the WIOA amendments to the Rehabilitation 

Act of 1973 (“Rehab Act”):

This bill makes major steps to correct the 

injustice. It will help a new generation of 

young people with disabilities to prepare 

for, obtain, and succeed in competitive 

integrated employment, not substandard 

subminimum wage dead-end jobs but in jobs 

in which people with disabilities can learn 

and grow to their maximum potential.115

Among other things, WIOA sought to address 

the growing skills gap, to divert students and 

youth with disabilities away from segregated 

subminimum wage jobs (or in Senator Harkin’s 

words “dead-end jobs”), and to tackle the 

persistent underemployment and unemployment 

of people with disabilities.

To this end, WIOA requires that VR 

agencies reserve 15 percent of their federal 

award specifically to provide Pre-Employment 

Transition Services to students with disabilities, 

even when those students are not VR clients. 

WIOA established five pre-employment 

transition services that VR agencies must 

provide to transition-age students with 

disabilities: (1) job exploration counseling, 

(2) work-based learning experiences, 

(3) counseling on opportunities for enrollment 

in comprehensive 

transition or 

postsecondary 

educational programs, 

(4) workplace 

readiness training, and 

(5) instruction in selfadvocacy.116 These five 

re-employment transition services provide 

a range of employment-related services to 

students with disabilities:

■ Job exploration counseling includes such 

things as information and counseling on 

in-demand industry sectors and occupations, 

labor market composition, vocational 

interest inventories, and identification of 

career pathways of interest to students.

■ Work-based learning experiences are work 

experiences such as job shadowing, or 

mentoring opportunities provided in an 

integrated environment in the community to 

the maximum extent possible.

43.9 percent of young people with

disabilities ages 20–24 years were 

employed in 2014, as compared to 

71.9 percent of their peers without

disabilities

44 National Council on Disability
■ Counseling on opportunities for enrollment

includes counseling on comprehensive 

transition or postsecondary educational 

programs at institutions of higher 

education.

■ Workplace readiness training includes 

services to develop social skills and soft 

skills training and independent living, 

including effective communication and 

interpersonal skills and understanding 

employer expectations.

■ Instruction in self-advocacy can include peer 

mentoring and person-centered planning 

where students can learn their rights, 

responsibilities, 

and how to request 

accommodations 

and services.117

Pre-employment 

transition services 

carry the promise of 

interrupting the youth 

disability unemployment 

cycle, where students 

leave school with high 

expectations and a willingness to work but 

have a correspondingly low employment rate as 

compared to their peers without disabilities.

In 2017, 4 years after enactment of WIOA, 

NCD issued a report examining the success 

of early efforts to implement pre-employment 

transition services.118 NCD found that the 

Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA) 

had provided very little substantive direction to 

agencies on how to track and measure preemployment transition services and costs; that 

RSA had significantly delayed much needed 

guidance on pre-employment transition services 

implementation to agencies (only issuing formal 

technical assistance 13 months after WIOA’s 

enactment on actions VR agencies were actually 

required to take a year prior); and that significant 

challenges remained in agencies’ understanding 

of data sharing, data collection, and consent for 

the release of records between schools and VR.

NCD recognized that while pre-employment 

transition services brought the promise of 

expanded transition services for students 

with disabilities, they also imposed a new 

fiscal burden on VR without a corresponding 

budgetary increase to account for those new 

responsibilities. WIOA 

requires that VR provide 

pre-employment 

transition services not 

only to all transition-age 

students with disabilities 

who are VR clients, but 

also to all potentially 

eligible transition-age 

students with disabilities. 

This requirement was 

intended to ensure 

that all students with 

disabilities, not just students who are VR clients, 

have immediate access to transition services 

without having to go through the process of 

applying for VR services—a process that can be 

quite lengthy and delay service provision for a 

significant time or even indefinitely. Thus, 

re-employment transition services’ requirements 

help ensure that potentially eligible students 

do not fall into a service gap after completing 

high school, a gap with significant adverse 

consequences for obtaining postsecondary 

employment.

Pre-employment transition services 

carry the promise of interrupting 

the youth disability unemployment 

cycle, where students leave school 

with high expectations and a 

willingness to work but have a 

correspondingly low employment 

rate as compared to their peers 

without disabilities

2020 Progress Report on National Disability Policy: Increasing Disability Employment 45
The effect of the expansion of VR services 

is evident when you take a close look at the VR 

program’s more recent performance data. In 2017, 

NCD documented that the VR program served 

1 million people with disabilities through its state 

VR agencies, approximately 35 percent of whom 

were transition-age youth with disabilities aged 

14–24 years.119 We now know that in program 

year (PY) 2017, 49 percent or VR participants 

were age 24 years and under, and in PY 2018, 

51 percent fell into that same demographic. 

This means that by PY 2018, four years after 

implementation of WIOA, more than half of 

all of those served by VR were younger than 

25 years old. VR also reported that in PY 2017 it 

provided 179,716 students with pre-employment 

transition services (94,471 students who applied 

for VR services, and 85,245 students who were 

potentially eligible for VR), and in PY 2018, VR 

served 248,320 students with pre-employment 

transition services (100,556 students who were 

eligible for VR services, and 137,780 students 

who were potentially eligible for VR services). 

This data, as reflected in Table 4, demonstrates 

that overall provision of pre-employment 

transition services has expanded—by PY 2018, 

slightly more students who were potentially 

eligible for VR services received pre-employment 

transition services than those who had already 

enrolled in the VR program.

Stakeholders of the VR system, including the 

Council of State Administrators of Vocational 

Rehabilitation (CSAVR), have suggested that the 

additional requirements imposed on VR agencies 

by WIOA, without an accompanying budget 

increase, have caused VR agencies to make hard 

decisions about resource allocation and have 

slowed its progress with WIOA implementation. 

For example, interview respondents suggested 

that the 15 percent required reserve for 

pre-employment transition services has had to 

come out of other key services, reducing VR’s 

Table 4: Provision of Pre-Employment Transition Services to Students with 

Disabilities (PYs 2017 and 2018)

Students with Disabilities

PY 17

Number/Percent

of Students

PY 18

Number/Percent

of Students

Number of students with disabilities reported 525,958 638,601

Number of students with disabilities who received a 

pre-employment transition service

179,716 248,320

Percent of students with disabilities reported who 

received a pre-employment transition service

34.2% 38.

Number of potentially eligible students with disabilities 

who received a pre-employment transition service

85,245 137,780

Number of students with disabilities who applied for 

Vocational Rehabilitation services and received a preemployment transition service

94,471 110,556

Source: RSA Case Service Report (RSA-911) (OMB control number 1820-0508).

46 National Council on Disability
ability to serve adults with significant disabilities. 

In FY 2016, the State Plans of 37 out of 80 VR 

agencies documented that the agency had 

established an Order of Selection, meaning there 

were not enough resources to serve everyone 

who was eligible for VR services.120 As of October 

2019, 41 out of 78 VR agencies had established 

an Order of Selection, 31 

of which had one or more 

priority categories closed 

to prioritize serving 

people with the most 

significant disabilities 

first, as they were not 

able to serve everyone 

due to the loss of funding 

created by the preemployment transition 

services set aside and other factors.121 Currently, 

there are eight VR agencies that have closed all

categories within Orders of Selection122—this 

is a cause for concern. According to CSAVR, in 

addition to the impact of the 15 percent reserve, 

until the IDEA is reauthorized and includes 

statutory language 

that mirrors statutory 

language in WIOA on 

the provision of preemployment transition 

services and requires 

cooperation between 

LEAs and State VR Agencies in the delivery of 

these services, some states will continue to 

encounter challenges.

WIOA imposes collaboration between the 

VR program and other core programs in the 

workforce development systems to facilitate the 

transition of students with disabilities from school 

to competitive integrated employment. One 

potential solution to the resource issue is for VR 

agencies to become more adept at leveraging the 

programs and services of their federal partners 

in this system, including the AJCs funded by the 

U.S. Department of Labor’s Employment and 

Training Administration. The nearly 2,400 AJCs 

located throughout 

the nation provide free 

support to job seekers for 

career and employmentrelated needs. There 

are two types of AJCs: 

comprehensive and 

affiliate. Comprehensive 

AJCs provide a full 

array of employmentand training-related 

services for workers, youth, and businesses. 

These locations include the mandatory WIOA 

partners on-site (this includes VR). Affiliate AJCs 

provide limited employment- and training-related 

services. AJCs also have experienced career 

counselors on staff who work with job seekers 

to identify their interests, 

assess their skills and 

abilities, and advise 

them on in-demand 

jobs and potential 

training opportunities. 

Many AJCs also offer 

recruiting events, workshops on resume writing, 

interviewing skills, and job search activities.123

To be a truly valuable partner to VR agencies, 

AJCs must be physically and programmatically 

accessible, but AJCs’ accessibility received mixed 

reviews in a 2017 report.124 Recent efforts have 

aimed to ensure that access. For example, the 

As of October 2019, 41 out of 78 VR 

agencies had established an Order 

of Selection, 31 of which had one or 

more priority categories closed 

[I]nterview respondents suggested 

that the 15 percent required reserve 

for pre-employment transition 

services has had to come out 

of other key services, reducing 

VR’s ability to serve adults with 

significant disabilities

2020 Progress Report on National Disability Policy: Increasing Disability Employment 47
Department of Labor (DOL) Office of Disability 

Employment Policy (ODEP) and the Employment 

and Training Administration (ETA) jointly funded 

the Disability Employment Initiative (DEI) from 

2010 through 2017 (projects funded in 2017 

actually end in 2020) to improve how workforce 

development systems serve people with 

disabilities. ETA awarded grants to 55 projects 

in 30 states totaling about $139 million in 

investment to help states implement best 

practices and policies from DEI evaluations 

including evaluations of AJCs.125 ETA also hosted 

a Workforce Innovation Cohort on Disability 

and Employment during FY 2019, where WIOA 

program partners across 18 states participated in 

a 6-month peer exchange. State and local teams 

were composed of a 

cross section of WIOA 

core program partners 

and other stakeholders 

that focused on 

accessibility, customer 

service, and employer 

engagement of the public workforce system. The 

teams came up with solutions and innovations 

to support AJCs to improve these core areas.126

NCD has not been able to ascertain whether the 

efforts of the DEI and the Cohort have improved 

the accessibility issue identified in the 2017 

report, but these efforts to address them are an 

important part of ensuring that the AJCs can be 

the most effective partners possible in supporting 

the efforts of people with disabilities who are 

seeking employment and training opportunities.

NCD requested data from the ETA on the 

AJCs. In response, ETA provided raw data on the 

Wagner Peyser Program. ETA has no established 

way of pulling unduplicated counts for the total 

number of people with disabilities served by 

AJCs. However, the nearest approximation is data 

available from its Wagner Peyser Employment 

Services Program. In PY 2016, the number of 

Wagner Peyser (WP) participants with disabilities 

was 268,702 out of the 5.4 million people 

served that year; in PY 2017 the number of WP 

participants with disabilities decreased to 208,911 

out of the 4.3 million people served that year; 

and in PY 2018 the number of WP participants 

with disabilities decreased to 192,865 out of 

a total of 3.8 million people served that year. 

Based on this raw data, although the number of 

people with disabilities served by WIOA title I 

programs has decreased, not increased, in recent 

years along with decreasing participation by all 

categories of job seekers, the percentage of 

people with disabilities 

served increased slightly 

from PY 2017 to PY 2018. 

There is some evidence 

that people with 

disabilities have made 

progress in expanding 

access to the public workforce system during this 

period.

Other interview respondents expressed 

the view that the provision of pre-employment 

transition services and implementation of 

the amendments to the Rehabilitation Act 

made by WIOA are not a resource issue but 

a matter of prioritization of resources. WIOA 

puts added requirements on the vocational 

rehabilitation system to marshal its resources 

toward early intervention for students with 

disabilities to introduce the world of work and 

raise expectations for meaningful employment 

as adults. Pre-employment transition services 

are viewed as the first step on a continuum of 

services available to students with disabilities 

Currently, there are eight VR agencies 

that have closed all categories within 

Orders of Selection—this is a cause 

for concern

48 National Council on Disability
who can also apply for the VR programs where 

they can receive the specialized services and 

training to pursue and maximize meaningful 

employment outcomes and careers. Early 

engagement with students with disabilities can 

assist in career exploration leading to greater 

success in achieving competitive integrated 

employment and expanding opportunities 

beyond employment in nonintegrated work 

settings at subminimum wages. Additionally, 

early engagement of students with disabilities 

may lessen the likelihood of school dropout or 

dislocation. The theory behind this strategy is 

that spending more resources—the 15 percent 

reserve of federal grant funds—on students with 

disabilities, including those who are potentially 

eligible for VR services, for the provision of 

pre-employment transition services, will be 

cost-effective in the long run and yield better 

employment outcomes. While VR data supports 

the view that WIOA has imposed additional 

financial stressors on the VR system, there is also 

substantial research that confirms that serving 

youth as early as age 14 years as they transition 

from school to work is more cost efficient and 

effective in the long run than serving them as 

adults who are unemployed or underemployed.127

NCD’s 2017 pre-employment transition 

services report128 found several restrictions on 

what VR agencies could permissibly pay for out of 

their set-aside 15 percent reserve when it came 

to potentially eligible students with disabilities. 

For example, agencies could not pay for clothing, 

transportation, and AT out of the 15 percent 

reserve for these students, even when one or 

more of these items were needed to participate 

2020 Progress Report on National Disability Policy: Increasing Disability Employment 49
in pre-employment transition services like workbased learning experiences, internships, and 

apprenticeships. The only way to get these was 

to apply to become a VR participant, which takes 

time, and sometimes, a long time. If the preemployment transition service was work related, 

timing was important. If a student was offered 

an internship but did not have the resources to 

buy a uniform or to pay for transport, he or she 

could miss out on that important opportunity. In 

that report, NCD recommended that RSA allow 

VR agencies to pay for these services out of 

the 15 percent reserve or, alternatively, provide 

them as reasonable accommodations. Six years 

after the enactment of WIOA, these funding 

restrictions remain in place.

On February 28, 2020, RSA issued a “Policy 

Interpretation” published in the Federal Register

that clarified the agency’s interpretation 

of Section 113(b) of the Rehabilitation Act 

(as revised by WIOA) and its implementing 

regulations to mean that VR funds from the 

15 percent reserve could be used for preemployment transition services and “auxiliary 

aids and services” for potentially eligible students 

who have sensory and communication disorders 

to access or participate in pre-employment 

transition services.129 Such auxiliary aids and 

services could include, for example, “interpreter 

services or video-based telecommunication 

products.”130 RSA previously provided this policy 

interpretation to VR agencies through an email 

issued to VR agency directors and posted on its 

website on December 28, 2016. In that policy 

interpretation, RSA explained that other VR 

services like maintenance services to purchase 

clothing for a work-based learning experience, 

transportation to enable the student to travel 

to and from a work-based learning experience 

or work readiness training, or rehabilitation 

technology including personal devices and 

services (like prescription eyeglasses and hearing 

aids), and coaching during work-based learning 

experiences, may be provided to students with 

disabilities who have been determined eligible 

under an IPE with the funds reserved for preemployment transition services. Nonetheless, 

RSA confirmed in the 2020 policy interpretation 

that these same VR services could not be 

provided to potentially eligible students with 

disabilities using the reserved funds.

RSA’s rationale is that pre-employment 

transition services fall within a continuum of 

services and that they “should be provided 

to the broadest population of students with 

disabilities to ensure that as many students with 

disabilities as possible are able to receive the 

services that they need to prepare for postschool 

activities, including postsecondary education 

and employment.”131 Yet, the interpretation 

limits who can access additional services, that 

in NCD’s view are necessary to succeed in 

pre-employment transition services, to only 

those youth who have been found eligible for 

VR services who have an IPE. The agency 

states, “the Department has observed through 

monitoring that these IPEs for students with 

disabilities are underutilized.”132 Yet, in its 

interpretation, it points to no plan for how the 

agency will expand the number of students 

with disabilities who are found eligible, enrolled, 

and placed on IPEs. And the performance data, 

as discussed earlier, reveals that there are 

increasingly more students who are potentially 

eligible for pre-employment transition services, 

who are served by the VR system, than those 

who apply and are determined eligible. It remains 

the position of NCD that VR agencies should be 

50 National Council on Disability
able to use the 15 percent reserve to purchase 

certain items that are necessary to allow 

potentially eligible students with disabilities to 

participate in pre-employment transition services.

An important question is how many students 

with disabilities are receiving each of the five preemployment transition 

services? Newly available 

VR performance data, 

displayed in Table 5, 

sheds significant light 

on this.

In 2017, there were 

179,716 students 

with disabilities 

who received a preemployment transition service. The next year, 

in 2018, this number grew to 248,320 students. 

VR program performance data (as reflected in 

Table 5) indicates that in PY 2017, the largest 

percentage of pre-employment transition 

services was provided in job exploration 

counseling (26.7 percent) and workplace 

readiness training (25.9 percent), with relatively 

fewer services provided in work-based learning 

experiences (17 percent), instruction in selfadvocacy (15.1 percent), and counseling 

on enrollment in postsecondary education 

programs (15.2 percent). 

The following year in 

PY 2018, these trends 

continued for the most 

part. But while these 

percentages account 

for some of the preemployment transition 

services provided, it is 

also worth looking at 

the total growth of all such services between 

2017 and 2018. In PY 2017, for example, the 

VR program provided a total of 747,837 preemployment transition services, whereas 

the following year in PY 2018, the total preemployment transition services provided 

Table 5: Provision of Pre-Employment Transition Services

Pre-Employment Transition 

Services

PY 17

Number 

Provided

PY 17

Percentage of Total 

Pre-Employment 

Transition Services 

Provided

PY 18

Number 

Provided

PY 18

Percentage of Total 

Pre-Employment 

Transition Services 

Provided

Total pre-employment 

transition services provided

747,837 – 1,227,841 –

Job exploration counseling 199,562 26.7% 314,245 25.

Work-based learning 

experiences

127,067 17.0% 218,415 17.

Counseling on enrollment 

opportunities

114,045 15.2% 198,040 16.

Workplace readiness training 193,874 25.9% 292,807 23.

Instruction in self-advocacy 113,289 15.1% 204,334 16.

Source: Case Service Report (RSA-911) (OMB control number 1820-0508).

It remains the position of NCD that 

VR agencies should be able to use 

the 15 percent reserve to purchase 

certain items that are necessary to 

allow potentially eligible students 

with disabilities to participate in 

pre-employment transition services

2020 Progress Report on National Disability Policy: Increasing Disability Employment 51
was 1,227,841. While work-based learning 

experiences comprise just approximately 

17 percent of all pre-employment transition 

services, between 2017 and 2018, the number of 

work-based learning experiences provided nearly 

doubled (from 127,067 to 

218,415), showing some 

progress and traction in 

WIOA implementation.

In regard to seeing 

the impact of preemployment transition 

services on student 

employment outcomes: 

RSA cannot track 

employment outcomes 

for potentially eligible 

students. However, 

for those students 

who become VR participants, RSA tracks their 

employment status when they exit the VR 

program and will track post-exit employment 

status for a year and a half (six quarters) as 

required by the WIOA. RSA currently has 2 full 

years of data available 

on VR participants who 

received pre-employment 

transition services but 

explained to NCD that it 

is too soon to understand 

how receiving these 

services may or may 

not impact employment. 

For some students 

who become VR participants, it may be years 

until they exit the VR program. For example, 

in some states, a student can start receiving 

pre-employment transition services at 14 years 

of age and may be allowed to continue until the 

age of 24 years. That student could then enter a 

VR program and receive further services before 

achieving an employment outcome and exiting 

the VR program. It would be another year and a 

half before RSA had the full picture.

The types of preemployment transition 

services that are the 

most likely to increase 

employment outcomes is 

a topic worth examining. 

Individuals interviewed 

for this report questioned 

the efficacy of some 

pre-employment 

transition services. 

They questioned the 

effect of providing more 

overall pre-employment 

transition services (or in PY 2018 1,227,841 

services provided to 248,320 students) when 

perhaps only one service, work-based learning 

experiences, has substantial research to support 

that it leads to postsecondary employment 

outcomes.133 While the 

number of work-based 

learning experiences 

increased during the 

past two years of recordkeeping, that service 

is a relatively small 

proportion of all the preemployment transition 

services delivered in 

2018 (17 percent in 2018 of all pre-employment 

transition services provided). Yet, considerable 

research establishes that no single factor is 

more determinative in increasing the likelihood 

of postsecondary employment outcomes 

While work-based learning 

experiences comprise just 

approximately 17 percent of all 

pre-employment transition services, 

between 2017 and 2018, the number 

of work-based learning experiences 

provided nearly doubled (from 

127,067 to 218,415), showing some 

progress and traction in WIOA 

implementation

[C]onsiderable research establishes 

that no single factor is more 

determinative in increasing the 

likelihood of postsecondary 

employment outcomes than work 

experience in typical employment 

settings while in secondary school

52 National Council on Disability
than work experience in typical employment 

settings while in secondary school.134 The lack 

of evidence that workplace readiness training 

or job exploration counseling have substantial 

relation to postsecondary employment outcomes 

concerns advocates and stakeholders; however, 

workplace readiness training and job exploration 

counseling comprised the largest piece of the 

pre-employment transition services pie in 2018.

As a result, experts in school transition fear 

that work readiness training and job exploration 

counseling may be provided inside school or 

segregated employment settings without real 

context for or meaningful information about 

competitive integrated employment. Many 

states have incorrectly interpreted the WIOA 

requirements to allow 

work-based learning 

experiences on school 

campuses or in adult 

sheltered workshops 

if subminimum wages 

are not paid to the 

student.135 Yet, WIOA’s 

regulations are explicit that work-based learning 

experiences must be “provided in an integrated 

environment to the maximum extent possible.”136

States must be supported to model and 

implement truly integrated work-based learning 

experiences. These programs should incorporate 

new technologies and workplace and business 

development tools, wherever possible.

Only time will tell if such services, when 

provided in segregated settings, in school 

classrooms, or generally in isolation of a real 

work experience, in fact, lead to employment 

outcomes. If they do not, federal programs 

will have channeled federal investment toward 

services that perpetually prepare people for 

employment but never place them in it. This 

would be a significant step backward and repeat 

the design flaws of the sheltered workshop 

model, where, on average, only approximately 

5 percent of people ever leave for competitive 

integrated employment.137

Prior research “strongly substantiates the 

value of paid employment above and beyond all 

other types of work-based learning activities.”138

New research has yielded data that indicates 

that applying VR service funds well before 

school exit—when braided with school and 

other community resources—around the 

defining experience of work-based learning, 

will actually reduce VR service costs, create 

new cost efficiencies, and increase the overall 

return on investment 

of those public service 

dollars.139 The legislative 

history and purpose of 

Title IV of WIOA stress 

the importance of job 

experience, and as 

such, it is NCD’s view 

that work-based learning experiences are a 

critical pre-employment transition service for 

students with disabilities, and that maximum 

efforts should be made to provide experiences 

in competitive integrated employment. Job 

exploration counseling and any training around 

soft skills development conducted as part of 

job readiness training should wrap-around the 

core job experience in competitive integrated 

employment settings.

Filling the Youth Skills Gap and 

Gaining Access to Higher Education

Over the past three decades, NCD has 

documented the widening skills gap between 

WIOA’s regulations are explicit that 

work-based learning experiences 

must be “provided in an integrated 

environment to the maximum 

extent possible.

2020 Progress Report on National Disability Policy: Increasing Disability Employment 53
students with and without disabilities, noting 

the kinds of rote and manual training tasks 

that students with disabilities are most likely 

to engage in both while in school and following 

school. Given the disparity in wages and 

upward mobility between manual skills jobs and 

jobs that require training in STEM backgrounds, 

in 2009 NCD called upon Congress to 

fund a series of antistigma demonstration 

projects targeted to transition-age youth with 

disabilities, designed to encourage them to 

consider careers in STEM, “and to expose 

such youth to the careers and opportunities 

these and other high-growth, high-income 

disciplines entail.”140 NCD’s predictions about 

the importance of 

STEM were confirmed 

by the dramatic growth 

in the technology and 

innovation sectors 

during the past decade; 

however, a coordinated 

effort toward STEM 

career development 

for students with disabilities has not been 

undertaken. The default skills training for 

students with disabilities in America has been 

and remains job skills training targeted toward 

the very industries with the steadiest rate of 

decline, and that carry the highest propensity 

to depend on physical or manual processes. 

Consequently, students with disabilities lack 

exposure to the skills training most pertinent 

to the fastest-growing industries and sectors 

in our economy, including skilled labor sectors 

and information and communication technology. 

This is sobering, considering that “by 2030, it is 

estimated that the demand for skilled workers 

will outstrip supply, resulting in a global talent 

shortage of more than 85.2 million people.”141

And no one should give short shrift to the scale 

of this problem. The Disability Status Report

for 2015 indicates that the overall percentage 

of young people (ages 16–20 years) with a 

disability in the United States is 5.9 percent 

or almost 1.3 million youth, over one-third of 

whom do not achieve a high school diploma 

compared to 25 percent of youth without a 

disability.142 Opportunities in the economy of 

the future will abound but will require new 

training and upskilling for this population, 

and continuous listening and learning from 

employers about the skills that best meet 

industry’s changing needs.

In addition, some 

states have recognized 

that the skills gap is 

not solely the product 

of the gap in access to 

postsecondary education, 

but also results from a 

failure to obtain concrete 

postsecondary vocational 

skills credentials. For example, featured 

prominently on the Virginia VR agency website 

is the following statistic: “Of the 1.5 million job 

vacancies expected in the next decade in Virginia, 

more than half will require more than a high 

school diploma but less than a bachelor’s degree. 

Instead, businesses will seek job applicants 

who hold an associate’s degree and/or industryrecognized certifications.143 Yet, for people 

with disabilities, access to industry-recognized 

certifications through traditional avenues 

including the public workforce system has been 

lacking.

WIOA’s new performance standards require 

VR agencies to report on the measurable skills 

The default skills training for 

students with disabilities in America 

has been and remains job skills 

training targeted toward the very 

industries with the steadiest rate of 

decline

54 National Council on Disability
gains (MSGs) achieved by service recipients 

during the reporting period. MSG is defined as:

The percentage of program participants 

who, during the program year, are in 

an education or training program that 

leads to a recognized postsecondary 

credential or employment and who are 

achieving measurable skills gains, defined 

as documented academic, technical, 

occupational, or other forms of progress, 

towards such a credential or employment.144

VR reported just 21.1 percent of participants 

achieving an MSG in PY 2017 and 23.1 percent 

of participants in PY 2018. This means less than 

one-third of VR program participants are achieving 

documented academic, technical, or occupational 

credentials.

The mismatch between how youth and 

adults with disabilities are being prepared for 

employment and the fastest-growing industries 

in the economy is well documented, including 

through current RSA data on job placements 

during its recent VR program years. For example, 

the VR system serves people with a wide 

range of physical and/or mental disabilities and 

educational levels, including people with high 

school, postsecondary, and graduate degrees. 

Nevertheless, in PY 2018, the top five Standard 

Occupational Codes (SOCs) for VR job outcomes 

were (1) stock clerks or order fillers; (2) customer 

service representatives; (3) janitors and cleaners 

(except maids and housekeeping cleaners); (4) 

laborers and freight, stock, and material movers; 

and (5) retail salespeople.145 As previously 

mentioned, these five job categories are among 

those with the fastest expected rate of decline 

in the coming decade. This may explain why in 

2019, those who exited VR with employment 

earned median wages of $11.25 per hour and 

median hours worked of 30 hours per week. The 

economy is showing signs of considerably less 

demand for these tasks, suppressing wages 

and opportunities. Meanwhile, these wages and 

hours are not sufficient to sustain a household 

income above the poverty line.

While no comprehensive efforts by the 

Federal Government to fund and pilot STEM 

training programs for students with disabilities 

have been deployed, several piecemeal federal 

and private efforts have shown real promise 

and are worthy of consideration. For example, 

in Texas, the state VR agency entered a 

statewide Pathways to Careers Initiative (PCI), 

to expand WIOA required pre-employment 

transition services to include, among other 

things, a component to assist Texas students 

with disabilities to explore career pathways in 

STEM. In 2018, 228 students with disabilities 

Top 5 Standard Occupational Codes 

(SOCs) for VR outcomes, PY 2018

1. Stock clerks or order fillers

2. Customer service representatives

3. Janitors and cleaners (except maids and 

housekeeping cleaners)

4. Laborers and freight, stock, and material 

movers

5. Retail salespeople.

These job categories are among those 

with the highest rate of decline in the next 

decade.

2020 Progress Report on National Disability Policy: Increasing Disability Employment 55
participated in Explore STEM!, a Texas 

Workforce Commission (TWC) initiative, where 

TWC partnered with 10 universities, colleges, 

and technical schools statewide to serve as 

hosts for Explore STEM! summer camps for the 

students, aged 14–22 years.146 Each camp was 

five to seven days with hands-on, interactive 

instruction on topics that included computational 

engineering, cybersecurity, biotechnology, 

manufacturing, forensic science, archeology, 

astronomy, plant biology, and robotics.147

While a relatively modest-sized program, and 

designed for a summertime camp and not 

ongoing training, one could see the potential for 

larger pilots of STEM-related pre-employment 

transition services 

constructed as a talent 

pipeline to committed 

private sector employers. 

Such programs could 

afford employers a 

reliable source of jobready candidates and 

a platform through 

which to provide input 

to committed partners about the skills gaps 

experienced in a given industry. Moreover, 

employers could partner, along with committed 

service providers, with institutions of higher 

learning to individually tailor university, college, 

and technical skills curriculum and customize 

training to fill their talent needs. Ultimately, 

the success of any such program would be 

measured, at least in part, by the number 

of work-based learning experiences and 

employment outcomes created in these new 

and emerging industries.

Interviews with both RSA and CSAVR 

confirmed that STEM training is viewed as an 

objectively appropriate priority for students with 

disabilities, but that resource constraints have 

limited VR programs from rolling out any kind of 

coordinated effort in this regard. For example, 

the previous example in Texas is the only STEMrelated program in the nation that CSAVR could 

easily identify.

Similarly, in December 2016, the U.S. 

Department of Labor’s Employment and Training 

Administration published a final rule, setting 

forth regulations requiring a national utilization 

goal of 7 percent for people with disabilities 

participating in apprenticeship programs 

(mirroring that established by the Office of 

Federal Contract Compliance Programs [OFCCP] 

under Section 503 of the 

Rehab Act for federal 

contractors).

The preamble to the 

2016 final rule contained 

a projection by advocacy 

organizations that the 

7 percent utilization goal 

for ETA apprenticeships 

could create 26,000 

additional job training opportunities for people 

with disabilities, thus providing a significant 

opportunity for people with disabilities entering 

or reentering the workforce to engage in 

apprenticeships across all economic sectors, 

specifically for new and emerging industries 

and labor market sectors that are expanding.148

However, there is no requirement that ETA 

focus the 7 percent utilization goal toward 

any particular industry sectors. The 7 percent 

utilization goal, while a significant positive 

development, would be best focused on 

apprenticeships in the industries most likely to 

lead to job growth in the overall economy.

While no comprehensive efforts by 

the Federal Government to fund and 

pilot STEM training programs for 

students with disabilities have been 

deployed, several piecemeal federal 

and private efforts have shown real 

promise

56 National Council on Disability
Likewise, ODEP’s Inclusive Apprenticeship 

Initiative for Youth and Adults with Disabilities 

was established in 2018 for the purpose of 

exposing people with disabilities to high-demand, 

well-paying careers in information technology, 

health care, and advanced manufacturing. To 

date, it has placed 150 youth in apprenticeships 

in information technology, health care, and 

advanced manufacturing, but only 10 percent 

are people with disclosed disabilities versus 

51 percent veterans, and 14 percent other youth 

and young adults.149 Additional resources are 

necessary to scale such endeavors specifically 

to students with disabilities, including those with 

higher support needs and who are or will be 

eligible for adult service 

systems.

Some universities 

have begun to offer 

skills development 

programs for youth 

with disabilities who 

may not have earned a 

college degree. Inclusive 

postsecondary education programs are growing 

on college campuses and have been made 

possible through federal funds. Students with 

I/DD experienced improved access to higher 

education following the passage of the Higher 

Education Opportunity Act in 2008 (HEOA),150

which created comprehensive Transition and 

Postsecondary Programs for Students with 

Intellectual Disabilities (TPSID) to allow students 

with I/DD to continue their academic, career and 

technical, and independent living instruction at 

an institution of higher education to prepare for 

gainful employment.151 The HEOA authorized the 

support for program development and expansion 

of model demonstration projects. In 2010, the 

Office of Postsecondary Education at the U.S. 

Department of Education awarded grants to 

27 institutes of higher education to fund model 

demonstration projects now known as TPSID.152

The HEOA was explicit that these postsecondary 

education programs include a focus on gainful 

employment, and that the programs accomplish 

this through person-centered planning to 

identify career goals, work-based learning plans, 

access to job coaches and job developers, job 

shadowing, paid and unpaid work experiences, 

internships, and apprenticeships throughout a 

student’s course of study.

TPSID programs in Hawaii, California, 

and Washington work closely with state VR 

agencies, in strong 

partnerships, to achieve 

the goal of competitive 

integrated employment 

prior to exit from the 

program. But proposed 

budget cuts threaten the 

integrity of the HEOArelated postsecondary 

disability programs. NCD sees these programs 

as essential to the economic self-sufficiency 

of transitioning students with disabilities, and 

rather than cut them, these vital programs 

should be expanded to include more students 

and more possibilities for skill development and 

credentialing.

Strong Disincentives to 

Employment Tied to MeansTested Public Benefits

Perhaps no barrier to employment is more 

consistently identified as imposing unnecessary 

limitations on the access of people with 

disabilities to economic self-sufficiency than 

The 7 percent utilization goal, while 

a significant positive development, 

would be best focused on 

apprenticeships in the industries 

most likely to lead to job growth in 

the overall economy

2020 Progress Report on National Disability Policy: Increasing Disability Employment 57
the disincentives tied to means-tested public 

benefits. Every expert interviewed for this 

report, and nearly all stakeholders, agreed. For 

decades, NCD has documented the problem that 

government programs that provide necessary 

health care and supports to people with 

disabilities, jeopardize the ability of recipients, 

who can and want to, to fully engage in work 

without risking losing important health care and 

valuable supports.

The Social Security Administration (SSA) 

administers two programs, Social Security 

Disability Insurance (SSDI) and Supplemental 

Security Income (SSI), that provide essential 

cash supports for more than 13 million 

Americans with disabilities and their families.153

SSI and SSDI provide 

financial support to 

cover living expenses 

and other costs for 

those individuals who 

are “unable to work due 

to severe physical and/

or mental limitations.” 

The cash supports provided through SSDI and 

SSI are targeted toward people who cannot 

engage in “substantial gainful activity” (SGA) 

because of one or more severe physical or 

mental impairments that are expected to last at 

least a year or result in death. In 2020, SGA is 

defined as $2,110 for blind people and $1,260 

for people with disabilities who are not blind.154

While some might view this as a modest sum, 

the program plays a crucial role in keeping 

many Americans with disabilities out of poverty. 

Approximately 80 percent of beneficiaries get 

at least half of their income from the SSDI 

program, while 36 percent of beneficiaries 

rely on SSDI benefits as their sole source of 

income, and estimates have projected that 

SSDI alone has pulled 2.7 million households 

out of poverty in 2015.155

Yet, this vitally important safety net, while 

successful in pulling people slightly above 

the federal poverty line, has also worked to 

create barriers to upward mobility for many of 

those same people because of the perverse 

economic disincentives built into the program. 

For example, in order to be eligible for disability 

insurance benefits through SSDI, people with 

disabilities must demonstrate to the SSA 

that they cannot work. This requirement is 

built upon the exceedingly low expectations 

of people with disabilities that existed at the 

time of the development and enactment of the 

Social Security Act: 

the requirements for 

SSDI and SSI were 

first discussed in the 

late 1930s, the SSDI 

program was passed 

into law in 1956, and 

the SSI program, as 

we now know it, was enacted in 1972. The 

Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon 

administrations operated under presumptions 

informed by a medical model of disability that 

government had to “take care” of people with 

significant disabilities without regard for the 

possibility that such people could work with the 

right accommodations, supports, and health 

care in place. In 2020, the presumption in SSA 

programs that people with disabilities cannot 

work disregards the interests of a significant 

segment of the current disability population—

including those who have come of age and live 

in a post-ADA America—who can and want to 

work. The presumption of unemployability also 

[I]n order to be eligible for disability 

insurance benefits through SSDI, 

people with disabilities must 

demonstrate to the SSA that they 

cannot work

58 National Council on Disability
disregards the seismic technological changes 

that have occurred since such programs were 

conceived, changes that have transformed the 

nature of work, and effectively modified the 

work environment, making it more possible 

than ever before for people with significant 

physical and mental disabilities to be employed. 

Commentators have noted that the ADA 

combined with these significant technological 

changes have in fact declaratively “denigrated the 

medical model of disability among disability rights 

advocates.”156

Significantly, SSA programs remain tied to 

critical access to health care. SSDI beneficiaries 

qualify for Medicare after 24 months of 

enrollment in the program. Those people with 

disabilities with limited 

income and assets who 

qualify for SSI are, in turn, 

qualified for the Medicaid 

program. Medicaid 

Home and Community 

Based Services waivers 

(set forth under 

Section 1915[c] of the Social Security Act) provide 

people with disabilities access to a range of vital 

services in addition to health care, like personal 

care services, case management, and respite. 

Paradoxically, Social Security Act 1915(c) services 

also provide millions of people with disabilities 

with day habilitation, pre-vocational training (e.g., 

sheltered workshop), and supported employment 

services, to assist them to work even though 

they have qualified for the program based on their 

inability to work. But much like SSA eligibility, 

some of these day services, like day habilitation 

and sheltered employment, are based on a 

deficits-based view of disability and have resulted 

in unnecessary segregation and downwardly 

adjusted wages, whereas supported employment 

services are often necessary, among other 

things, to support a person to work the maximum 

hours that they can at competitive wages. 

Nevertheless, many people with disabilities who 

receive supported employment services, and 

who are participants of the SSDI or SSI program, 

remain restricted in the number of hours they can 

work in competitive employment without fear of 

losing access to public benefits and health care if 

their incomes exceed the SGA amount.

The disability determination process for SSDI 

and SSI eligibility is also quite often protracted, 

and perhaps unnecessarily complicated, taking 

months or sometimes even years. Participants 

must continuously prove their inability to work 

throughout the process, 

discouraging such 

people from working 

competitively even as 

they wait to achieve 

eligibility. And when 

individuals do choose 

to work, they often find 

themselves in low-paying jobs, for fewer hours 

than full-time, and lacking in employer-paid health 

care and other necessary benefits.

The frequent need for beneficiaries to pay 

back benefits when their earnings fluctuate 

creates additional barriers to employment. SSI 

benefits are predicated and adjusted based on 

earnings, but the adjustments of benefit levels 

are often delayed by several months as they are 

adjusted retroactively. If SSA determines that a 

person received an overpayment, beneficiaries 

are obliged to remit the overpaid amount back 

to SSA. Often the determination of adjustments 

can take years before an overpayment is even 

identified by the agency. Thus, this need to remit 

The presumption of unemployability 

also disregards the seismic 

technological changes that have 

occurred since such programs were 

conceived 

2020 Progress Report on National Disability Policy: Increasing Disability Employment 59
payment back to SSA can catch participants off 

guard and lead to even further financial instability 

and further dissuade people from continuing to 

try to increase their earnings.

Thus, beneficiaries of these programs 

are members of the “precariat”—lodged in 

an employment precariousness—unable to 

advance upward, in part, based on fears that the 

opportunities available to them in competitive 

employment will not offset the benefits available 

through public services, yet unable to sink below 

the floor afforded by 

means-tested public 

benefits, that is, if they 

can keep such benefits. 

For example, SSDI 

recipients face a “cash 

cliff” where earnings that 

exceed SGA will result in 

loss of the full amount of 

the cash benefit, where 

often the cash benefit 

may in fact be greater 

than their earnings. Other 

people with disabilities 

may find that while they 

can attain competitive 

employment, and an 

income that well exceeds 

the cash benefit amount, such employment 

is plainly out of reach without the health care 

and supports available to them through public 

services. For example, people with disabilities 

often need personal care services, AT, and other 

long-term services and supports to work, but 

face losing them if their earnings exceed SGA. 

And despite their dependency on public benefits, 

research has documented that nearly 40 percent 

of beneficiaries do want to, and intend to, 

work,157 if only these considerable barriers were 

removed. This is indisputably a poverty trap, one 

if not corrected with more decisive action will 

continue to thwart any positive change to the 

labor force participation of people with disabilities 

in the United States.

The Federal Government has long recognized 

this dilemma and has instituted policy reforms 

that were intended to counteract this specific 

set of barriers, but the results from such 

reforms have been decidedly mixed. Over the 

past 40 years, there has 

only been a 3.1 percent 

increase in the 

percentage of “blind and 

disabled SSI recipients” 

who are receiving 

benefits and working.158

In 2009, NCD noted in 

its Progress Report:

Strategies to reduce 

these disincentives 

have included: 

creating new types of 

specialized, sheltered 

accounts; raising 

applicable limits 

and thresholds; and 

attempting to make benefit reductions 

gradual. These strategies have only resulted 

in further complexity. Only through the 

elimination of disincentives can people who 

want to work do so without jeopardizing 

needed supports. In the final analysis, what 

people with disabilities want and need are 

services and supports that enable them 

to work—not benefits and services at the 

expense of work.159

[B]eneficiaries of these 

programs are members of the 

“precariat”— ... unable to advan

upward, in part, based on fears 

that the opportunities available to 

them in competitive employment 

will not offset the benefits available 

through public services ... This 

indisputably a poverty trap, one if 

not corrected ... will continue 

thwart any positive change to the 

labor force participation of people 

with disabilities 

60 National Council on Disability
One of the strategies introduced was the 

Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Improvement 

Act of 1999160 (TTW) and another was the 

Medicaid Buy-in Program.

Ticket to Work

TTW was designed to eliminate unnecessary 

dependence on Social Security cash benefits 

by, among other things: (1) expanding options 

for employment preparation and placement 

services to beneficiaries in the program with 

the express goal of reducing dependence on 

cash benefits; and (2) allowing beneficiaries 

to maintain access to health care even if they 

no longer qualify for SSI or SSDI because 

their incomes exceed SGA. With regard to the 

latter, TTW expanded 

access to health care 

by encouraging states 

to allow people with 

disabilities to purchase 

the Medicaid coverage 

necessary to maintain 

employment and by giving people on SSDI 

the option of maintaining Medicare coverage 

while working. Section 1619(b) of the Social 

Security Act allows individuals to continue 

to receive Medicaid benefits if their earnings 

disqualify them for SSI cash payments, but it is 

determined that they still cannot afford private 

health insurance. In addition, TTW allowed for 

expedited reinstatement of benefits for those 

who try to work and fail, deferral of the medical 

continuing disability review for individuals using 

a ticket, and access to benefit planning and 

counseling to make informed choices about 

the impact of work on benefits (through the 

Benefit, Planning, Assistance, and Outreach 

Program).

TTW is an outcome-based employment 

program, where eligible SSI and SSDI 

beneficiaries with disabilities and those who 

are blind receive a “ticket” that they may use 

to obtain vocational rehabilitation, employment, 

or other support services from an approved 

“employment network” (EN). State VR agencies 

or other qualifying providers can serve as ENs. 

Beneficiaries may choose the ENs to receive 

services from, and ENs voluntarily participate in 

the program. Social Security provides payments 

to ENs only when the ticket holder attains certain 

milestone outcomes toward employment.

The number of recipients nationally that 

have taken advantage of the TTW program, 

however, has been small. In 2019, there were 

approximately 330,000 

tickets in use and 

assigned, as reflected 

in Figure 3—2.5 percent 

of the beneficiary 

population. It is notable 

that about 80 percent 

of tickets are assigned through VR (combined 

Tickets In-Use SVR and Tickets Assigned to 

VRs), while just 20 percent of tickets have 

been assigned through other ENs, even though 

the program offers beneficiaries the choice to 

participate even if they are not VR clients.

SSA commented that comparing program 

participation to the entire beneficiary population 

is misleading because the SSA has a stringent 

definition of disability (any medically determinable 

physical or mental impairment that can be 

expected to result in death or has lasted or can 

be expected to last for a continuous period of 

not less than 12 months). Therefore, the majority 

of potential TTW candidates are likely unable 

to return to work.161 But if that is the case, it 

In 2019, there were approximately 

330,000 tickets in use and 

assigned, .. 2.5 percent of 

beneficiary population

2020 Progress Report on National Disability Policy: Increasing Disability Employment 61
means these numbers will never rise unless 

the definition changes. It is equally likely that 

beneficiaries who discover that TTW’s goal is to 

help them gain employment that will increase 

their income enough to make them ineligible 

for benefits will lose interest in the program. 

Certainly, some who redeem their tickets, obtain 

training, and find employment will face the same 

SSDI earnings cliff and sharp reductions in SSI 

benefits as they did before participating in TTW.

These trends are confirmed by data reflecting 

a 10-year period. As reflected in Table 6, most 

tickets from 2008 to 2018 were assigned to VR 

agencies and not to other ENs. And, while the 

total number of TTW participants grew across 

the decade, by 2019, the total tickets assigned 

remained a small percentage of all participants 

in the program: slightly less than one-third 

(28 percent).

Historically, one of the primary criticisms of 

the TTW program has been that the SSA’s delay 

in processing EN payment requests, combined 

with the program’s complex administrative 

requirements, made it challenging for ENs to 

get paid early enough in the return to work 

process for it to remain financially feasible for 

them to provide services. In fact, as a result, 

many ENs are nonprofits receiving funding 

from other funding streams. To address this, in 

2008, SSA revised the regulations in order to 

make participation more attractive to service 

providers, but the revisions also reduced provider 

incentives to help beneficiaries give up their 

benefits for work. A 2015 study found that 

provider and beneficiary participation increased 

substantially after the regulations changed, but 

the percentage of participants forgoing benefits 

for work declined. The extent to which that 

Figure 3. Snapshot of Ticket Assignments, August 201

62 National Council on Disability

Source: SSA 2020.
decline reflected the effects of the recession 

versus an increase in TTW program use by those 

with a relatively low chance of forgoing benefits 

for work could not be determined.162

SSA has taken several more recent actions 

to improve the TTW program, including the 

following:

■ iTOPSS: In 2015, SSA launched the 

Internet Ticket Operations and Provider 

Support System (iTOPSS) to automate 

TTW business processes and enable ENs 

to conduct essential business transactions 

on behalf of beneficiaries in real time 

(i.e., ticket assignment, request for 

payment, etc.). iTOPSS as of 2017 has been 

expanded to include VR agencies’ business 

transactions. SSA reports that iTOPSS’ 

automation has expedited the ability of 

ENs and VR service providers to conduct 

business transactions.

■ Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(ANPRM): On February 10, 2016, the SSA 

issued an ANPRM to solicit public input on 

whether and how it might revise the current 

TTW program rules to improve the program 

to help beneficiaries and the providers that 

serve them.

Table 6: Cumulative 10-Year Ticket Data, Ticket to Work Program (TTW) 2008–2019

Fiscal 

Year

Tickets in Use 

with a VR Under 

CR Option

Tickets 

Assigned 

to a VREN

Tickets 

Assigned 

to an EN

Total 

Assigned 

Tickets

Total TTW 

Participants

2008 236,110 6,985 18,231 25,216 261,326

2009 248,648 9,717 27,803 37,520 286,168

2010 266,097 12,597 37,698 50,295 316,392

2011 280,554 16,783 48,882 65,665 346,219

2012 379,697 21,434 48,029 69,463 449,160

2013 326,196 26,032 52,520 78,552 404,748

2014 331,016 29,383 55,458 84,841 415,857

2015 345,200 31,784 59,629 91,413 436,613

2016 350,661 35,643 65,990 101,633 452,294

2017 354,914 31,956 75,943 107,899 462,813

2018 340,702 36,556 85,254 121,810 462,512

2019 326,216 39,543 91,168 130,711 456,927

Source: SSA 2020.*

* The data provided in this table is cumulative (not point-in-time) for each category. For example, if a ticket were 

assigned in 2008 and remained assigned through 2010, then that ticket would be counted in 2008, 2009, and 2010.

** A tickets assigned “In Use with a VR under CR Option” means that the ticket was in use with a Vocational 

Rehabilitation (VR) agency under the Cost Reimbursement Program (the traditional payment system for VR).

*** Ticket assigned to “VREN” means that the ticket was assigned to the VR agency; however, the VR agency 

chose to receive payment under the EN Milestone/Outcome system.

2020 Progress Report on National Disability Policy: Increasing Disability Employment 63
■ ePAY: In 2016, SSA launched ePAY to allow 

ENs to receive a payment from SSA for 

services provided without having to obtain 

paystubs from their clients if the earnings 

are already in SSA’s system. SSA already has 

verified earnings for payments, so ENs do 

not need to send in duplicate information 

for reimbursement purposes (avoiding 

further grounds for delay in processing). 

Through this program, SSA creates a data 

file showing beneficiary earnings and ticket 

assignment, and it can be used to generate 

payments to the ENs on a quarterly basis. 

SSA reports that ePAY led to an initial 

increase in the amount of payments to 

service providers and has ensured payment 

is made to service providers for services 

rendered.

■ EN Marketing Pilot: Also, in 2016, SSA 

began a marketing pilot to expand the 

outreach of ENs to beneficiaries to inform 

them about TTW and the employment 

services offered by ENs. The pilot tested the 

secure transmission of limited beneficiary 

contact information to ENs who then 

contacted beneficiaries to market their 

services. SSA reports that the marketing 

pilot led to the assignment of 11,000 tickets 

as of November 2019.

■ DOL Training and Employment Notice 

(TEN): In March 2019, to support SSA’s 

goals for the TTW program, DOL issued 

guidance to its public workforce system 

to help expand the capacity of the AJC 

network and other public workforce 

entities to serve ticket holders through 

new administrative processes intended to 

expand individuals’ access to AJCs that 

serve as ENs.163

■ Additionally, SSA has recently taken 

active steps to engage poor performing or 

inactive ENs to engage in the program or to 

terminate services.

These efforts show the intent to improve the 

TTW program and are commendable. While some 

progress has been made and other solutions are 

within reach, more must be done to understand 

Table 7: TTW Program Performance FY 2017–2019

08/31/17 08/31/18 8/31/19 Two-Year change

Number of tickets assigned to Employment 

networks (# of beneficiaries served by ENs)

65,499 70,785 66,816 +1%

Number of tickets in use under Vocational 

Rehabilitation Cost Reimbursement

250,365 239,104 229,328 −8%

Number of beneficiaries whose earnings 

generated payments to ENs

62,856 74,688 84,101 +34%

Number of beneficiaries with EN support 

which benefits were not paid due to earnings

21,783 26,773 31,262 +42%

Source: SSA 2020.

64 National Council on Disability
why the program remains underutilized and 

resolve those barriers, determine how to simplify 

the program’s complexities, and take quick action 

to do so.

Important innovations have been born from 

the need to expand the reach of the TTW 

program and increase participation. SSA reports 

that there are multiple ENs that have found 

ways to administer the program effectively 

and grow their organization’s ticket services—

providing benefits counseling and other important 

employment support services. Several national 

ENs have grown significantly, including

■ Employ Reward Solutions from 5,000 tickets 

assigned in September 2018 to 8,000 tickets 

assigned in March 2020

■ Allsup from 1,400 tickets assigned to 7,205 

(same timeframe)

■ Disability Service of America from 727 

tickets assigned to 1,160 (same timeframe)

Case study of an effective EN: the American 

Dream Employment Network (ADEN)—a 

division of the National Disability Institute 

(NDI)—functions as a national umbrella EN, 

providing employment services to ticket holders 

through its large network of qualified providers 

(approximately 70 agencies) that span the 

country under the technical guidance of ADEN 

national subject matter experts.164

ADEN has minimized inefficiencies in the 

TTW process for its members while scaling its 

reach across the country and into the business 

community through employer engagement 

strategies. ADEN also provides expertise to its 

member agencies to ensure that they develop 

a stable revenue stream and the full benefits 

of the program by quickly assigning tickets and 

achieving employment outcomes. ADEN has 

assigned approximately 800 tickets through 

its member agencies and reports a better than 

50 percent outcome status for those leaving 

means-tested public benefits as a result of 

its services.165 ADEN’s model has shown that 

reducing the administrative burdens associated 

with ticket reimbursement is critical to the overall 

success of the TTW program.

ADEN and its host organization, NDI, also 

have been at the leading edge of demonstrating 

that beneficiaries’ choice of whether to work—

given the impact of work on public benefits—

is one that necessitates meaningful access 

to concrete financial literacy and planning 

information. While the country has experienced 

a shortage of certified benefits counselors who 

possess the training and qualification necessary 

to decipher the rules and regulations that 

govern means-tested public benefits and asset 

limitations, ADEN requires that all of its ENs 

have a sufficient number of certified Community 

Work Incentives Coordinators (CWICs) that 

are trained in these requirements and, more 

broadly, in financial literacy counseling. Among 

other things, counselors throughout the ADEN 

network advise beneficiaries on the use of taxadvantaged savings and investment accounts 

like those authorized under the Achieving 

a Better Life Experience Act of 2014 (ABLE 

accounts). ABLE accounts allow people with 

disabilities to save (up to $14,000 for each 

individual contributor) for qualified disability 

expenses related to transportation, health care, 

housing, education, retirement, and more, 

without those savings counting against SSA 

asset limits.166 ADEN assures that beneficiaries, 

2020 Progress Report on National Disability Policy: Increasing Disability Employment 65
themselves, are supplied with objective 

information to make meaningful choices about 

the impact of income on benefits and financial 

counseling. NCD agrees that the nation needs 

significant additional resources and staff for this 

exact purpose.

In addition, NDI in conjunction with the bank 

CITI has conducted research on the benefits of 

embedding financial literacy, empowerment, 

and planning programs into the provision of 

employment services, especially at critical 

financial decision points like when an individual 

is deciding whether to leave public benefits 

and return to work.167

According to this model, 

discussion of the impact 

of work on public 

benefits is not divorced 

from discussion of a 

person’s overall financial 

goals and the need for 

employment services 

and supports, rather it 

is a core component of 

the process. NDI and 

CITI highlight research 

that demonstrates that when clients actively 

establish financial goals as part of employment 

planning and services—and then strategize 

about the various ways those financial goals can 

be met—it leads to better overall employment 

outcomes.168

Many of those interviewed for this report, 

however, acknowledged that the most successful 

interventions often hinge on the timing of the 

financial counseling and employment services 

provided to people with disabilities. For decades, 

advocates and stakeholders have proposed an 

early intervention strategy with regard to benefits 

counseling, designed around advancing the 

referral of those who are potentially eligible for 

SSA cash benefits away from those programs

at the critical moment when individuals are 

waiting for a determination of eligibility. This 

strategy would instead redirect such people 

toward employment with the right supports from 

the VR and state employment service systems 

while they are waiting for the determination of 

eligibility.

Along these lines, CSAVR has long endorsed 

a proposal that would construct an Employment 

First program, through 

a partnership between 

VR and SSA, for those 

seeking eligibility for SSA 

programs, which would 

feature the following:

■ The program would 

be voluntary and 

extend to those in the 

SSA disability benefit 

application process.

■ Participants would be granted immediate 

access to temporary cash assistance (for 

up to 12 months at an equal amount to SSI 

or SSDI), along with access to health care 

coverage.

■ Individuals would be linked as soon as 

possible with VR services to assist them to 

find, obtain, and retain employment with the 

right supports.

■ Once employment above SGA was found, 

suspension of the SSA disability application 

process would occur.

For decades, advocates ... ha

proposed an early intervention 

strategy ... designed arou

advancing the referral of those 

who are potentially eligible for 

SSA cash benefits away from those 

programs at the critical moment 

when individuals are waiting for a 

determination of eligibility

66 National Council on Disability
■ If the employment effort fails, the work 

effort would not be considered evidence of 

an inability to engage in SGA.169

The key to CSAVR’s proposal is that it would 

allow individuals applying for SSA benefits 

(1) to choose the long-term disability program 

or short-term supports that would include 

access to both cash and medical benefits, 

(2) alongside VR employment supports, (3) to 

allow individuals to pursue returning to work, 

without actually compromising their application 

for long-term benefits, should employment not 

prove successful. Such 

a joint VR/SSA program 

has never been formally 

adopted but has the 

potential to yield positive 

outcomes.

Others have focused 

their advocacy efforts 

toward seeking to raise SSA’s exceptionally 

modest SGA limits to allow individuals to earn 

relatively higher income before either losing 

their public benefits or having them offset by the 

earnings amount. Recent proposed congressional 

legislation, H.R. 4280, for example, seeks to 

simplify the process for claiming SSI benefits, 

raise income limits, and eliminate reductions in 

benefits for more people with disabilities to enter 

employment. The bill seeks to increase the asset 

limit for people who are blind to $20,000 and for 

people with other disabilities to $10,000, under 

Section 1617(d) of the Social Security Act.

No matter how you look at the problem, it is 

clear that the Social Security Act still makes far 

too many Americans choose between their health 

care and vitally important supports or a job—a 

choice that NCD finds unacceptable, contrary 

to the ADA, and long overdue for revision. 

NCD maintains that the focus of government 

programs needs to shift to supporting people 

with disabilities to be healthy and productive, not 

healthy or productive, and this policy shift cannot 

happen soon enough.

Medicaid Buy-In

People with disabilities, especially those with 

higher support needs, tend to have different, at 

times more extensive, or more long-term, health 

care needs than people without disabilities. 

Traditional employeesponsored health 

care typically serves 

employees who do not 

have these extensive, 

long-term, or specialized 

needs. In addition, many 

employers do not offer 

health care benefits to part-time employees or 

contractors, yet longitudinal data demonstrates 

that people with disabilities are more likely 

to work part-time. As a result, many potential 

employees with disabilities do not benefit 

from employer-sponsored health care but can 

and want to work. Private market individual 

insurance policies will not cover their long-term 

specialized needs.

Medicaid was created to cover the 

specialized long-term disability-related services 

needs of people with disabilities, however, 

and the Medicaid Buy-In program allows 

people with disabilities to pay part of their 

Medicaid premiums and continue to work 

in competitive employment. Nevertheless, 

Medicaid imposes caps on income at which a 

NCD maintains that the focus of 

government programs needs to shift 

to supporting people with disabilities 

to be healthy and productive, not 

healthy or productive

2020 Progress Report on National Disability Policy: Increasing Disability Employment 67
person is not eligible for the Buy-In program. 

Federal law caps the program at monthly 

income of $2,512.50 and asset limits of $2,000 

(a relatively meager amount) but allows states 

to impose lower limits.170 Because of the cap, 

people with disabilities cannot accept jobs that 

result in earnings over the limit because they 

lose their Medicaid benefits. This continues 

to thwart many people with disabilities 

from entering the workforce, giving up cash 

assistance, and becoming taxpayers. The low 

Buy-In limits are counterproductive and in need 

of reform.

68 National Council on Disability
Chapter 4: Federal Employment and 

Support of Entrepreneurship

T

he previous chapters of this report detail 

obstacles and weaknesses in federal 

statutes, regulations, and policies that 

act as obstacles to the entry and reentry into 

the nation’s workforce. This section takes a 

different direction and looks at current obstacles 

and weaknesses that negatively impact people 

seeking federal employment and federal support 

for growing a small business. Certainly, the 

majority of Americans work in private sector 

employment, but the 

Federal Government 

is the nation’s 

largest employer 

with a workforce 

of approximately 

2.1 million171 public 

servants located in every 

state. As such, barriers to 

federal employment and 

barriers to participation 

in federal programs that assist small business 

owners are important to dismantle to increase 

the workforce participation of people with 

disabilities.

The Federal Government holds a unique and 

important position in relation to the employment 

of people with disabilities. Seventeen years 

prior to the passage of the ADA, with the goal 

of eliminating underrepresentation of people 

with disabilities in the federal workforce, 

Congress established a mandate for federal 

disability inclusion in Section 501 of the 

Rehabilitation Act.172 Section 501 prohibits 

federal agencies from discriminating on the 

basis of disability in hiring, advancement or 

discharge, compensation, job training, or 

other terms, conditions, and privileges of 

employment.173 Section 501 imposes far greater 

obligations on federal agencies than the ADA 

imposes on private 

industry employers: It 

requires the Federal 

Government to be a 

“model employer” of 

people with disabilities 

by taking affirmative 

actions to promote the 

recruitment, hiring, and 

advancement of people 

with disabilities.174 It also 

requires each agency to adopt and implement an 

affirmative action plan that provides assurances, 

procedures, and a commitment to hire and 

provide advancement opportunities for people 

with disabilities.175

As the model employer for people with 

disabilities, the Federal Government leads 

the way and sets the national example for 

private sector employers on best practices 

Section 501 ... requires t

Federal Government to be a 

“model employer” of people with 

disabilities by taking affirmative 

actions to promote the recruitment, 

hiring, and advancement of people 

with disabilities

2020 Progress Report on National Disability Policy: Increasing Disability Employment 69
in recruiting, hiring, and retaining people 

with disabilities. In the years since the 

501 regulations were issued, the Federal 

Government has taken numerous steps to 

increase the representation of people with 

disabilities in its nationwide workforce through 

various management directives and executive 

orders.176 Additionally, Federal Government 

agencies have issued numerous reports over 

the years identifying barriers and making 

recommendations to dismantle them and 

increase the hiring of people with disabilities 

(including NCD, Government Accountability 

Office [GAO], Office of Personnel Management 

[OPM], DOL, and Equal Employment 

Opportunity Commission 

[EEOC]). No entity has 

more information and 

resources devoted 

to hiring people with 

disabilities and best 

practices on recruiting, 

hiring, accommodating, 

and retaining employees 

with disabilities than the Federal Government—

all of which can assist private sector employers 

in creating and sustaining their disability 

inclusion efforts.

Currently, people with disabilities comprise 

more of the federal workforce than at any other 

time in history as a result of a steady increase 

in hiring spurred by Executive Order 13548 

(EO 13548), “Increasing Federal Employment 

of Individuals with Disabilities,” that mandated 

specific, coordinated actions by federal agencies 

and a numerical hiring goal of 100,000 to be met 

within five years.177 Recognizing the fact that 

Americans with disabilities currently represented 

just over 5 percent of the nearly 2.5 million 

people in the federal workforce and that people 

with targeted disabilities represented less 

than 1 percent of the federal workforce, EO 

13548 commanded executive branch agencies 

to improve their efforts to employ people with 

disabilities through increased recruitment, 

hiring, and retention, and called for agencies to 

increase the number of people with disabilities in 

the federal workforce by 100,000 over the next 

five years.

EO 13548 required, among other things, that

■ Within 2 months, OPM, with DOL, EEOC, 

and Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB), design model 

recruitment and hiring 

strategies for agencies 

and develop mandatory 

training programs for 

both human resources 

personnel and hiring 

managers on the 

employment of people 

with disabilities.

■ Within 120 days, each agency develops 

a plan for promoting employment 

opportunities for people with disabilities and 

includes performance, target, and numerical 

goals for hiring people with disabilities and 

subgoals for those with targeted disabilities.

■ Each agency increases its use of Schedule 

A and increases participation of people 

with disabilities in internships, fellowships, 

training, and mentoring programs.

As reflected in Table 8, the interagency 

coordination and individual agency actions 

Currently, people with disabilities 

comprise more of the federal 

workforce than at any other time 

in history as a result of a steady 

increase in hiring spurred by 

Executive Order 13548 (EO 13548)

70 National Council on Disability
combined was an effective formula to increase 

hiring at a level never previously achieved.

The notable progress made during the last 

10 years in federal hiring shows what can be 

done when a goal is set and actions are taken to 

accomplish it.

Remaining Challenges and Obstacles

This section describes four issues that continue 

to hinder the federal employment of people with 

disabilities and their ability to access support for 

growing a small business on par with others:

■ There is a lack of understanding among 

agency human resources (HR) staff on 

how to use the Schedule A Hiring Authority 

(Schedule A) for people with targeted 

disabilities (PWTD).

■ Business owners with disabilities 

continue to be ineligible to participate in 

Table 8: New Hires of Federal Employees with Disabilities from 2010 to 2018 

(Excludes Transfers)

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

New hires 138,783 108,464 89,907 76,932 92,298 122,792 129,124 109,392 126,952

Targeted 

disability

1,102 972 1,051 1,079 1,356 1,672 1,762 2,020 2,964

Percentage 

targeted 

disability

0.79% 0.90% 1.17% 1.40% 1.47% 1.36% 1.36% 1.

Other 

disability

7,666 7,643 7,694 7,806 9,442 11,447 11,341 12,868 25,875

Percentage 

other 

disability

5.52% 7.05% 8.56% 10.15% 10.23% 9.32% 8.78% 11.7

All disability 

including 

30 percent 

or more 

veterans 

with 

disabilities

17,147 15,833 14,679 14,078 18,183 23,405 24,540 23,615 37,438

Percentage 

all disability 

including 

30 percent 

or more 

veterans 

with 

disabilities

12.36% 14.60% 16.33% 18.30% 19.70% 19.06% 19.00% 21.5

Source: OPM 2020.

2020 Progress Report on National Disability Policy: Increasing Disability Employment 71
the Small Business Administration (SBA) 

8(a) Business Development Program 

(8[a]), which assists small businesses in 

competing for government contracts.

■ Federal contractors still lag in hiring qualified 

people with disabilities as the Section 503 

regulation only sets aspirational goals.

■ EEOC regulations provide an indefinite time 

period for federal agencies to meet disability 

hiring goals.

Each of these barriers are solvable—we need 

only the federal will to do so.

The Schedule A Hiring Authority

As Table 8 reveals, people with “targeted 

disabilities” (the term that the Federal 

Government uses to refer 

to severe disabilities) 

have been staggeringly 

underrepresented in 

federal hires, even 

as other people with 

disabilities have largely 

benefitted by recent 

gains in hiring. This is 

most apparent when 

comparing the yearly 

hires of people with targeted disabilities with the 

yearly hires of people with “other disabilities” 

in Table 8, and when realizing that of the 

29.49 percent of all people with disabilities 

hired in 2018, for example, hires with targeted 

disabilities comprised only 2.33 percent. This is 

not new—it is a persistent issue.

In its 2008 report, Improving the Participation 

Rate of People with Targeted Disabilities in the 

Federal Work Force, the EEOC used federal 

hiring statistics for a 20-year period to detail 

the glaring numerical disparity between the 

federal workforce participation of people with 

targeted disabilities (PWTDs) and people without 

disabilities.178 The EEOC found that despite 

the initiatives of multiple administrations and 

the efforts of various agencies charged with 

administering programs for the employment of 

PWTDs, the percentage of federal employees 

with targeted disabilities had declined each 

year since a peak of 1.24 percent in fiscal years 

(FY) 1993 and 1994, and that in FY 2006, the 

participation rate of PWTDs was 0.94 percent of 

the Federal Government’s total work force, the 

lowest participation rate in 20 years.179 EEOC 

also found that despite medical and technological 

advancements that afford greater opportunities 

for PWTDs to work, the participation rate of 

PWTDs had declined 

even as the federal 

workforce had grown: 

From FY 1997 to FY 

2006, the total federal 

workforce increased 

by 135,732 employees, 

a net change of 

5.48 percent, but the 

number of PWTDs 

decreased from 28,671 

in FY 1997 to 24,442 in FY 2006, a net change of 

–14.75 percent.180

Schedule A is an immensely important 

tool for hiring qualified PWTDs. People with 

disabilities may compete for any federal job 

for which they are eligible and meet the 

qualifications, but only PWTDs may also use 

the Schedule A hiring authority. The Federal 

Government recognized that PWTDs face 

significant barriers to employment, above 

and beyond the barriers faced by people 

[P]eople with “targeted disabilities” 

(the term that the Federal 

Government uses to refer to severe 

disabilities) have been staggeringly 

underrepresented in federal 

hires, even as other people with 

disabilities have largely benefitted 

by recent gains in hiring

72 National Council on Disability
with the broader range of disabilities—

barriers often due to myths, fears, and 

stereotypes about such disabilities.181 Targeted 

disabilities include developmental disabilities, 

deafness, blindness, missing extremities, 

paralysis, epilepsy, intellectual disabilities, 

and dwarfism.182 Schedule A was created to 

increase employment opportunities for PWTDs 

by streamlining the federal hiring process 

and making hiring 

qualified employees 

less costly and time 

consuming. It allows 

federal agencies to 

appoint qualified PWTDs 

noncompetitively and 

allows for conversion 

to competitive service 

after two years of 

satisfactory service.183 Although it is a hiring 

tool that agencies may use to help achieve their 

affirmative action goals and the model employer 

mandate, it has been underutilized and remains 

underutilized by agencies. Schedule A hires 

have historically made up, and to date make up 

a miniscule portion of the federal workforce. 

Table 9 shows that the use of Schedule A 

remains low compared to the use of other hiring 

authorities.

New Hires (Excludes Transfers)

The EEOC and NCD have previously expressed 

concerns about Schedule A. In 2008, the EEOC 

raised concerns about 

the underutilization 

of Schedule A due 

to agency managers 

and officials, including 

DPMs and SPPCs, not 

fully understanding 

the regulations.184

It found that many 

agencies did not 

have procedures in place for receiving and 

disbursing unsolicited applications from 

PWTDs, and as a result, these applicants 

may not be considered for employment 

opportunities. EEOC recommended that, at a 

Although [Schedule A] is a hiring 

tool that agencies may use to help 

achieve their affirmative action 

goals and the model employer 

mandate, it has been underutilized 

and remains underutilized by 

agencies

Table 9: Hiring Authorities for All Disability Including 30 Percent or More Veterans 

with Disabilities

FY 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Schedule A 1,461 1,318 1,659 2,080 2,414 2,126 2,742

Schedule A % 9.95% 9.36% 9.12% 8.89% 9.84% 8.96

VRA 2,182 1,919 3,042 3,516 3,454 3,250 4,552

VRA % 14.86% 13.63% 16.73% 15.02% 14.07% 13.70%

VEOA 3,037 2,922 3,201 4,872 5,340 4,927 7,865

VEOA % 20.69% 20.76% 17.60% 20.82% 21.76% 20.77%

All other hiring avenues 7,999 7,919 10,282 12,937 13,332 13,420 22,279

All other hiring avenues % 54.49% 56.25% 56.55% 55.27% 54.33% 56.57%

Source: OPM 2020.

2020 Progress Report on National Disability Policy: Increasing Disability Employment 73
minimum, DPMs and SPPCs should possess 

the (1) knowledge of laws and regulations 

related to the Rehabilitation Act; (2) knowledge 

of agency reasonable accommodation policies 

and procedures; (3) knowledge and ability to 

recruit and place PWTDs, with and without 

the use of special hiring authorities; (4) 

ability to work with advocacy groups in the 

disability community; and (5) ability to develop 

strategic plans for the recruitment, hiring, and 

advancement of PWTDs. In 2009, NCD made 

similar findings on underutilization and the 

low rate of PWTDs in the federal workforce 

and recommended 

Schedule A training for 

all federal agencies.185

Eight years later, a 

2016 GAO study found 

that federal agencies 

relied on 20 hiring 

authorities for 91 percent 

of the 196,226186 new 

appointments made that 

year, and that Schedule 

A was ranked 16th of 

the 20 hiring authorities 

used—only 2,204 PWTDs were hired through 

Schedule A.187 Notably, Veterans Recruitment 

Appointment, another way to hire people with 

disabilities into the federal workforce, was 

ranked ninth, and used to hire 7,733 people 

in 2016.

Issues with Selective Placement 

Program Coordinators

What should be an important role in Schedule 

A hiring, the Selective Placement Program 

Coordinator (SPPC), has been and remains 

largely a missed opportunity for agencies to 

use Schedule A to hire PWTDs, a cause for 

frustration for job seekers seeking Schedule 

A appointments. There are several reasons for 

this, all of which, if addressed, would help more 

PWTDs gain employment and help agencies 

meet their 2 percent hiring goal under the 2017 

EEOC regulation.

SPPCs are promoted by OPM as people 

who can help PWTDs get their resumes in front 

of hiring managers and who have expertise in 

reasonable accommodations and architectural 

barrier identification. The SPPC description on the 

OPM website makes it 

appear that the SPPC is 

the agency’s Schedule A 

expert.

Contrary to popular 

belief, federal agencies 

are not required to 

use Schedule A. 

Those that do—most 

federal agencies—have 

SPPCs who have many 

responsibilities, including 

the following:

■ Advising managers about candidates 

available for placement in jobs under special 

hiring authorities, as well as providing 

managers with information on reasonable 

accommodation and needs assessments for 

applicants and employees.

■ Helping managers determine the essential 

duties of the position, identify architectural 

barriers and possible modifications that 

allow people with disabilities to perform 

essential duties.

What should be an important role 

in Schedule A hiring, the Selective 

Placement Program Coordinator 

(SPPC), has been and remains 

largely a missed opportunity for 

agencies to use Schedule A to hire 

PWTDs, a cause for frustration 

for job seekers seeking Schedule 

A appointments

74 National Council on Disability
■ Helping people with disabilities get information 

about current job opportunities, types of jobs 

in the agency and how these jobs are filled, 

and reasonable accommodation.

■ Working with public and private 

organizations involved in the placement 

of applicants with disabilities to provide 

information about their agency program 

and job opportunities and to facilitate the 

placement of applicants with disabilities in 

their agency.

■ Monitoring and evaluating selective 

placement program efforts and activities 

for people with disabilities to determine 

their effectiveness and making changes as 

needed to improve program effectiveness.188

The description 

provides a basis for 

people with disabilities 

to believe that the 

SPPC is there to help 

them through the process. However, other 

important facts about SPPCs are not included 

in this description. An SPPC is not a classified 

position, rather, it is a title and a role given to an 

HR employee as an addition to his or her regular 

duties.189 No training is required on Schedule A 

for SPPCs or anyone in federal HR departments 

by the Schedule A regulation.190

NCD has learned anecdotally from people 

with disabilities that they have not been 

successful in using Schedule A to enter the 

federal workforce: that they get conflicting 

information from agencies about SPPCs; that 

they are not able to contact the SPPC because 

the position is vacant; that they do not receive 

return calls or emails; that the SPPC does not 

know how to use Schedule A; that the SPPC 

does not show resumes to hiring managers prior 

to a competitive announcement; and that each 

agency has different processes and requirements 

that make the process confusing.191

One person interviewed for this report with 

significant experience in Schedule A reported 

that federal HR employees lack understanding 

and knowledge about how to proactively use 

Schedule A, regional/field offices frequently 

do not use Schedule A because they do not 

know how it works, and they do not think it 

can be used for promotions. OPM reported the 

importance of increased use of Schedule A and 

consistent communication across each agency 

on how to proactively 

implement the policy. 

OPM has made 

resources on Schedule 

A hiring available, 

encouraging increased 

emphasis on its use 

and communication to regional/field offices on 

department/agency policy and procedures for 

Schedule A.192

For agencies to consistently implement and 

correctly use Schedule A, OPM should take the 

lead by, among other things, ensuring mandatory 

training is available online and in person. There 

should also be a manner by which OPM can track 

compliance with the training, encouraging each 

agency utilizing Schedule A to have an SPPC who 

has expertise in Schedule A. As previously stated, 

the use of Schedule A is optional, and agencies 

are not required to have SPPCs; however, both 

are encouraged as part of a strategy to increase 

the employment of people with disabilities.

No training is required on Schedule 

A for SPPCs or anyone in federal 

HR departments by the Schedule 

A regulation

2020 Progress Report on National Disability Policy: Increasing Disability Employment 75
The SBA 8(a) Business 

Development Program

The 8(a) Business Development Program (8[a] 

BD program) offers a broad scope of assistance 

to firms that are owned and controlled at 

least 51 percent by socially and economically 

disadvantaged individuals and is an essential 

instrument for helping disadvantaged 

entrepreneurs gain access to the economic 

mainstream of American society.196 The 

program helps thousands of aspiring 

entrepreneurs to gain a foothold in government 

contracting.

To be eligible for the 8(a) BD program, a 

small business must be unconditionally owned 

and controlled by at least one “socially and 

economically disadvantaged” individual of 

good character, who is a U.S. citizen residing 

in the United States, and who demonstrates 

potential for success.197 To be categorized as 

socially disadvantaged, an individual needs to be 

subjected to racial or ethnic prejudice or cultural 

bias because of his or her identity as a member 

of a group and without regard to his or her 

individual qualities, and the social disadvantage 

must come from circumstances beyond the 

individual’s control. SBA regulations establish 

specific groups that are presumed to be socially 

disadvantaged,198 but thus far, people with 

disabilities are not included in this presumptively 

eligible group although they clearly meet the 

criteria. Individuals who are not included in the 

presumptively eligible group must prove that they 

have experienced individual social disadvantage 

to SBA in order to participate in the 8(a) BD 

program—detailed evidence is required, and 

SBA will only approve if the proof submitted 

shows disadvantage by a “preponderance of the 

evidence.”199

People with disabilities, particularly, visible 

disabilities and “severe” disabilities, clearly meet 

the standards for inclusion in the presumptively 

OPM Removal of Schedule A Training: A Step Back from 

Progress Under EO 13548

EO 13548 required OPM to develop mandatory training on Schedule A for federal agencies 

in 2010. OPM’s FY 2014 report to the President reported completing development of the 

mandatory training, A Roadmap to Success: Hiring, Retaining and Including People with 

Disabilities.

193 During the development of this report, NCD learned that the training was 

posted on OPM’s website in 2013, but that it was removed from OPM’s “Federally Mandated 

Training” page in March 2018.194 Additionally, a check of the OPM website in February 2020, 

during the development of this report, revealed that links to training videos “that provide an 

overview of the process of hiring people with disabilities using Schedule A,” were broken.195

No other area of OPM’s website contained Schedule A training or tool kits despite the critical 

need for this information.

76 National Council on Disability
eligible group for the 8(a) BD program. As 

a group, they have been subjected to welldocumented cultural bias due to their disabilities 

throughout the history of the United States, 

and much of that bias continues today. This bias 

has long resulted in employment discrimination, 

denial of educational opportunities, social 

marginalization, and the denial of human and civil 

rights. This bias resulted in discrimination and 

poverty so prevalent and damaging that Congress 

passed the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 to prohibit 

discrimination against people with disabilities 

in federal programs and to create programs 

to train and employ them. In 1990, due to the 

persistent social and economic disadvantages 

faced by people with disabilities (e.g., 

employment discrimination), and the inability 

to access public and private accommodations, 

technology/communications, and transportation, 

Congress passed the ADA—landmark civil rights 

legislation aiming to open long-closed doors to 

societal inclusion and economic opportunity. 

The prejudice and deeply rooted stereotypes 

held by employers, and society, toward people 

with disabilities—resulting in ostracization and 

continued discrimination—are “circumstances 

beyond the control” of people with disabilities. 

This report highlights the fact that people 

with disabilities continue to struggle to get a 

foothold in the economy through competitive 

work. There is, therefore, no doubt that people 

with disabilities meet the criteria and should be 

included in the presumptively eligible groups for 

the 8(a) BD program.

SBA regulations allow representatives of 

an identifiable group whose members believe 

that the group has suffered chronic racial or 

ethnic prejudice or cultural bias to petition 

SBA to be included as a presumptively socially 

disadvantaged group under the 8(a) BD 

regulations.200 According to the regulations, once 

SBA is presented with substantial evidence that 

members of the group have been subjected 

to cultural bias because of their identity as a 

group and without regard to their individual 

qualities, SBA will publish a notice in the Federal 

Register that it has received and is considering 

such a request, and that it will consider public 

comments.201 NCD has corresponded with 

SBA providing information and requesting SBA 

action.202 NCD also met with SBA officials on this 

subject in 2015 and 2018, but the SBA declined 

to take any action. Consequently, people with 

disabilities are excluded from one of the premier 

resources for entrepreneurs trying to grow 

small businesses. The SBA should take action as 

required under its regulation.

SBA’s 8(a) BD program eligibility

Small business must be:

■ unconditionally owned and controlled by 

at least one “socially and economically 

disadvantaged” individual of good 

character

■ who is a U.S. citizen residing in the United 

States

■ who demonstrates potential for success.

SBA regulations establish specific groups that 

are presumed to be socially disadvantaged, 

but thus far, people with disabilities are not 

included in this presumptively eligible group 

although they clearly meet the criteria.

2020 Progress Report on National Disability Policy: Increasing Disability Employment 77
Federal Contractor Hiring of People 

with Disabilities Under Section 503 

and OFCCP Oversight

In addition to federal affirmative action obligations 

under Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act 

of 1973, Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act 

(“Section 503”) prohibits federal contractors 

and subcontractors from discriminating in 

employment on the basis of disability and also 

requires these employers to take affirmative 

action to recruit, hire, promote, and retain 

qualified people with disabilities.

On September 24, 2013, DOL’s OFCCP203

published a Final Rule revising the regulations 

implementing Section 503. The regulations, 

which became effective on March 24, 2014,204

aim to strengthen the affirmative action 

provisions for federal contractors in recruiting 

and hiring qualified people with disabilities by, 

for the first time, establishing a “7 percent 

utilization goal” for employing qualified people 

with disabilities. Under the revised rule, federal 

contractors must apply this goal to each of 

their job groups, or they may apply it to their 

entire workforce if they have 100 or fewer 

employees.205 Section 503 is applicable to any 

nonexempt entity that has a federal contract 

or subcontract of more than $15,000, but the 

threshold to create a written affirmative action 

program under Section 503 regulations applies 

to contractors with 50 or more employees 

and at least one single federal contract or 

subcontract of $50,000 or more.206 Contractors 

must conduct an annual analysis of their 

utilization of people with disabilities, and if it is 

below the 7 percent utilization goal, they must 

identify problem areas and establish specific 

action-oriented programs to correct the problem 

areas. All personnel involved in the recruitment, 

screening, selection, promotion, disciplinary, 

and related processes must be trained to ensure 

that the commitments in the contractor's 

affirmative action program are implemented.207

The regulations require contractors to invite 

people with disabilities to self-identify at both 

the pre- and post-employment stages, and to 

invite employees to self-identify once every 

five years with one additional reminder within 

five years.208 The regulations also require that 

contractors document and update annually their 

quantitative data about the number of people 

with disabilities who apply for jobs and the 

number of such people they hire, and such data 

must be maintained for three years.

Contractors can work toward achieving 

the 7 percent utilization goal in various ways, 

including through recruitment and hiring of 

people with disabilities and/or increasing the 

level of self-identification among both applicants 

and employees with disabilities.209 If contractors 

retain and advance employees with disabilities 

already in the workplace, it further supports the 

7 percent utilization goal.210

OFCCP has explained that the 7 percent 

utilization goal is “aspirational” and a goal created 

to be a “yardstick against which [contractors] can 

measure the success of their efforts in outreach 

to and recruitment of people with disabilities.”211

The agency has stated clearly that “the goal 

is not a quota.”212 That the 7 percent is not a 

requirement, but only an aspirational goal, raises 

the question of whether the revised Section 503 

regulations have the power to materially increase 

the amount of applicants with disabilities hiring 

by federal contractors.

Nevertheless, a 2018 survey of 274 federal 

contractors yielded data demonstrating numerous 

positive changes in recruitment—including 

78 National Council on Disability
posting on disability job boards and partnerships 

with community organizations—building disabilityinclusive cultures, and changing on-boarding 

and self-identification processes, as a result 

of the revised Section 503 regulations.213 In 

fact, 88 percent of these contractors reported 

that they explicitly changed their affirmative 

action goals and targets as a direct result of 

Section 503.214 Yet, when those same contractors 

were surveyed about whether the Section 503 

regulations would lead to increased employment 

of people with disabilities 

in their organization or 

unit, only 6.3 percent 

strongly agreed, and 

only 23.4 percent agreed 

somewhat.215

Contractor Hiring 

and OFCCP 

Compliance Efforts

In 2016, the GAO 

estimated that 

approximately 

200,000 contractor 

establishments are 

subject to OFCCP’s 

jurisdiction every year.216

In 2020, NCD requested information and data 

from OFCCP about contractors’ progress in 

attaining the 7 percent utilization goal to inform 

this report. OFCCP provided NCD with data, not 

validated by OFCCP, showing that over the past 

five years, contractors reported 10,103 hires of 

people with disabilities, approximately 2,000 

hires per year, across all federal contractors under 

OFCCP jurisdiction.

OFCCP first started tracking this data in its 

compliance management system in the fourth 

quarter of FY 2018. Table 10 shows data from the 

OFCCP system on the number of people with 

disabilities hired by 1,383 contractors during the 

past three and a half years.217

OFCCP’s number is slightly higher than 

the contractors’ self-reported data—about 

5,200 a year during the three-and-a-half-year 

period, across all such federal contractors. 

The data shows that the total number of 

reported hires of people with disabilities by the 

approximately 200,000 federal contractors under 

OFCCP jurisdiction is 

exceedingly small.

Focused Reviews

On August 10, 2018, 

OFCCP issued Directive 

2018-04, stating that 

“OFCCP staff is directed 

to work towards 

ensuring that a portion 

of future scheduling lists, 

starting in Fiscal Year 

2019, include focused 

reviews.”218 Such focused 

reviews were to be 

selected from the same 

neutral selection system 

used to identify and create OFCCP's supply 

and service scheduling list.219 OFCCP staff was 

88 percent of these contractors 

reported that they explicitly changed 

their affirmative action goals 

and targets as a direct result of 

Section 503. Yet, when ... surve

about whether the Section 503 

regulations would lead to increased 

employment of people with 

disabilities in their organization 

or unit, only 6.3 percent strongly

agreed, and only 23.4 percent

agreed somewhat

Table 10: Number of People with 

Disabilities Hired by Federal 

Contractors FY17–FY20 (Q1–Q2)

FY 2020 

(Q1–Q2)

FY 

2019

FY 

2018

FY 

2017 Total

2,661 9,708 3,218 62 15,649

Source: OFCCP 2020.

2020 Progress Report on National Disability Policy: Increasing Disability Employment 79
further directed to develop a standard protocol 

for conducting the focused reviews anticipated 

by the Directive and to make this information 

publicly available.220 That protocol is now 

prominently featured on an OFCCP “Section 503 

focused reviews” website,221 and OFCCP 

believes the effort put forth on focused reviews 

is an excellent way to achieve compliance and to 

encourage compliance by contractors.

The Section 503 focused review protocol 

includes OFCCP’s review of a contractor’s 

disability “self-identification process” to verify 

whether an employee was reminded that he or 

she can change the disability status or received 

an invitation to self-identify every five years, 

pursuant to the Section 503 regulations.222

OFCCP has made technical assistance materials 

readily available to contractors on the process of 

self-identification and self-identification forms.223

In addition, the review protocol includes a review 

of a contractor’s written affirmative action plans, 

application, outreach, and recruitment strategies 

and processes.224 In its FY 2020 Budget 

Justification, OFCCP stated that one of its “top 

priorities in FY 2019 was the advancement 

of employment opportunities for people with 

disabilities [t]hrough focused reviews, contractor 

recognition programs, sharing of best practices, 

and stakeholder engagement.”225

According to OFCCP, as opposed to its 

standard compliance reviews, focused reviews 

are restricted to one or more components 

of a contractor’s organization or aspects of a 

contractor’s personnel practices and are an 

efficient use of agency resources. Focused 

reviews allow the agency to target its resources 

on areas that may otherwise not receive 

dedicated focus and bring attention to best 

practices to ensure compliance. They include 

interviews with managers responsible for 

equal employment opportunity and Section 503 

compliance (such as the ADA coordinator) as well 

as employees affected by those policies. OFCCP 

also evaluates hiring and compensation data, as 

well as the handling of accommodation requests, 

to ensure that people with disabilities are not 

being discriminated against in employment.

In FY 2019, OFCCP implemented an initiative 

that sought to ensure compliance with the equal 

employment opportunity and affirmative action 

obligations of Section 503 and its implementing 

regulations. To this end, it scheduled 500 

corporate headquarters establishments for 

focused reviews regarding their compliance with 

disability nondiscrimination and affirmative action 

obligations under Section 503. The first onsite 

investigations for Section 503 focused reviews 

began in December 2019.226 As of March 15, 

2020, OFCCP had opened 155 focused reviews, 

and of those reviews, 46 had closed with no 

findings and109 were in the review process.227

OFCCP reports that it is going to prepare a 

Section 503 report after FY 2020 to highlight 

its focused review efforts, including successes, 

and challenges, lessons learned, additional best 

practices, and resources.

Complaints Received and Investigated

OFCCP data shows that OFCCP retained 

2,574 complaints between FY15 and the 

second quarter of 2020 (after referring some 

filed to the EEOC). Almost half (1,059) were 

Section 503 complaints against federal 

contractors. OFCCP complaint investigations 

are conducted upon receipt of a complaint 

by an individual, group, or third party.228 As 

reflected in Table 11, during this five-and-a-halfyear period, OFCCP investigated a total of 627 

80 National Council on Disability
of the 2,574 complaints filed against federal 

contractors—only about one-quarter.229

Compliance activities, including compliance 

reviews, off-site records reviews, compliance 

checks, and focused reviews, provide necessary 

and critical oversight to Section 503. Given 

that OFCCP only reviews contractor written 

affirmative action plans and voluntary selfidentification procedures during compliance 

evaluations, and conducts a very limited 

number of complaint investigations—only 

investigating one-quarter 

of the complaints filed 

in the last five and a 

half years—oversight 

of the Section 503 

program should be 

increased. Further, given the low numbers of 

hires with disabilities pursuant to Section 503, a 

greater number of compliance reviews, focused 

reviews, and technical assistance efforts 

are needed.

OFCCP data pertaining to the number of 

supply and service compliance reviews—not 

focused reviews—conducted over the past five 

years, as reflected in Table 12, demonstrate 

that, despite OFCCP’s more recent efforts, the 

number of OFCCP compliance reviews has 

declined significantly over the past five fiscal 

years: OFCCP completed 2,036 compliance 

reviews in FY 2015 but only 1,366 in FY 

2019. Data collected for a 2018 NCD report 

demonstrates that in FY 2014, OFCCP completed 

more than both of those years combined, a total 

of 3,839 compliance reviews. In that 2018 report, 

NCD expressed concern for this downward slide 

in the number of compliance reviews.230 Using 

the GAO report estimate of 200,000 contractor 

establishments under 

OFCCP jurisdiction, 

NCD calculated that the 

number of compliance 

reviews in FY 2017 

represented only about 

0.6 percent of the total number of contractor 

establishments.231 In evaluating the data provided 

for this report, the number of compliance reviews 

in FY 2019 remained approximately 0.6 percent 

of the total number of contractor establishments. 

This remains cause for concern and leaves open 

the question of whether contractors have proper 

incentives and awareness of federal Section 503 

requirements to help them achieve the 7 percent 

utilization goal.

Table 11: Complaints Filed with OFCCP FY15–FY20 (Q1–Q2)

FY 2020 

(Q1–Q2)

FY 

2019

FY 

2018

FY 

2017

FY 

2016

FY 

2015

Number of complaints filed 837 1,475 1,418 686 588 670

Number of complaints referred to EEOC 420 764 786 401 328 401

Number of complaints retained by OFCCP 417 711 632 285 260 269

Number of 503 complaints 187 265 265 115 104 123

Number of complaints investigated 59 89 114 104 147 114

Source: OFCCP 2020.

[T]he number of OFCCP compliance 

reviews has declined significantly 

over the past five fiscal years

2020 Progress Report on National Disability Policy: Increasing Disability Employment 81
Training, Technical Assistance, 

and Awards

Federal contractors need an abundance of 

assistance in meeting the 7 percent utilization goal 

according to OFCCP data in Table 13, which shows 

that of the approximate 200,000 contractors 

under OFCCP jurisdiction, only 356 have met or 

exceeded the goal.

OFCCP seeks to help contractors meet the 

requirements of Section 503, and achieve the 

7 percent utilization goal, through training and 

technical assistance. For example, as part of the 

Section 503 focused reviews, OFCCP provides 

contractors with suggestions for voluntary best 

practices that may assist with their recruitment, 

hiring, and other equal employment opportunity 

obligations.

OFCCP also hosts a number of resources 

for contractors and workers on its website to 

promote compliance with Section 503. In 2019, 

OFCCP launched the Section 503 Focused 

Review landing page.233 The landing page 

provides compliance assistance resources and 

best practices to assist contractors with the 

recruitment, hiring, and retention of qualified 

people with disabilities, and highlights the 

successful disability and inclusion programs of 

several federal contractors. OFCCP’s website 

has a sample affirmative action program, 

resources for encouraging self-identification 

of disability, and resources to assist in 

outreach and recruitment efforts to people 

with disabilities. To assist workers, OFCCP 

has posted Frequently Asked Questions and 

Table 12: Supply and Service Compliance Reviews

FY 2020 

(Q1–Q2) FY 2019 FY 2018 FY 2017 FY 2016 FY 2015

Scheduled232 564 1,042 785 735 1,048 2,036

Completed 572 1,331 713 1,036 1,522 2,345

Conciliation 

agreement or 

consent decree

59

10.3

173

13%

115

16.1

202

19.5

275

18.1

343

14.6

EO 11246 

violation

140

24.5

184

13.8

127

17.8

195

18.8

258

17.0

297

12.7

Section 503 

violation

81

14.2

58

4.4

36

5.5

71

6.9

99

6.5

173

7.4

Section 4212 

violation

61

10.7

67

5.0

45

6.3

96

9.3

140

9.2

236

10.1

Discrimination 

violation

14

2.4

84

6.3

47

6.6

40

3.9

38

2.5

32

1.4

Number of workers 

in facilities reviewed 21,962 1,284,436 850,443 732,235 1,038,542 1,163,072

Source: OFCCP 2020. OFCCP reports that the numbers do not add up to the completed total and the percentages 

do not add to 100 percent because cases with no violations are not summarized, and the completion types are not 

mutually exclusive. Does not include administrative closures.

82 National Council on Disability
a Disability Rights Fact Sheet. The Fact Sheet 

is available in eight languages. Additionally, 

OFCCP has its Requesting Reasonable 

Accommodation pocket card, which explains 

in plain language how to request a reasonable 

accommodation.

In addition to its technical assistance 

materials, OFCCP provides incentives for federal 

contractors to promote disability employment 

through its awards. For example, OFCCP 

partnered with ODEP to create the Excellence 

in Disability Inclusion 

Award. The award 

seeks to recognize 

federal contractors 

that display excellence 

in disability inclusion 

and exceed the basic 

regulatory requirements by displaying innovative 

approaches to employing and advancing in 

employment qualified people with disabilities. 

To qualify for the award, contractors must 

meet several criteria, including that the 

contractor establishment applying for the 

award has current affirmative action programs 

under Executive Order 11246, Section 503 of 

the Rehabilitation Act (Section 503), and the 

Vietnam Era Veterans’ Readjustment Assistance 

Act (VEVRAA); and that the nomination package 

includes a description of the equal employment 

opportunity initiative that the contractor 

establishment implemented for people with 

disabilities under Section 503.

During National Disability Employment 

Awareness Month (NDEAM), in October 2019, 

OFCCP, in partnership with ODEP, opened the 

application period for the Excellence in Disability 

Inclusion Award. OFCCP created the award 

to recognize best practices among federal 

contractors.234 The 

Excellence in Disability 

Inclusion Award rewards 

winning contractors with 

a three-year moratorium 

on OFCCP compliance 

evaluations to “provide 

an incentive for contractors to improve practices 

while encouraging goodwill between OFCCP and 

the Federal contractor community.”235

NCD applauds awarding excellence in disability 

inclusion but rejects the notion that a moratorium 

on compliance evaluations of affirmative 

action obligations regarding hiring people with 

disabilities is a proper incentive toward the 

advancement of employment of people with 

disabilities. It is disappointing that a federal 

Table 13: Number of Contractors Under OFCCP Jurisdiction Meeting or 

Exceeding the 7 Percent Utilization Goal

Supply and Service

FY 2020 

Q2

FY 2020 

Q1

FY 2019 

Q4

FY 2019 

Q3

FY 2019 

Q2

FY 2019 

Q1

FY 2018 

Q4

Contractors Met or 

Exceed 503 7% Goal

356 257 204 193 161 118 85

Source: OFCCP 2020.

[O]f the approximate 200,000 

contractors under OFCCP jurisdiction, 

only 356 have met or exceeded the 

[7%] goal

2020 Progress Report on National Disability Policy: Increasing Disability Employment 83
enforcement agency would view a moratorium 

on compliance evaluations as an incentive. It 

is time for OFCCP to view increasing disability 

employment as part of the essential “goodwill 

between OFCCP and Federal contractors.” But 

under no condition should OFCCP see its role 

as protecting federal contractors from having to 

comply with Section 503 and its implementing 

regulations for purposes of that goodwill.

On March 26, 2020, the Director of OFCCP 

issued a memorandum granting a limited 

exemption and waiver 

from the affirmative 

action requirements 

under Section 503, for 

“contracts entered into 

specifically to provide 

Coronavirus relief for 

three months”236 It 

states in part, “OFCCP 

regulations authorize 

me to exempt contracts 

from requiring the 

inclusion of any part of the equal opportunity 

clause in any specific contract when I deem that 

special circumstances in the national interest 

so require, when it is impracticable to act upon 

requests for exemptions individually, and where 

such waiver will contribute to convenience in 

the administration of the authorities enforced 

by OFCCP.”237 The March 2020 OFCCP memo 

provides specific language that federal 

contractors can use in their contracts releasing 

them from affirmative action obligations. 

For example:

As a preamble to the insertion of 52.222-

36: Notice: The following terms of this 

clause are waived for this contract: in 

subparagraph (a), the phrase “and requires 

affirmative action by the Contractor to 

employ and advance in employment 

qualified individuals with disabilities”; 

additionally, in subparagraph (a), the 

phrase “requirements of the equal 

opportunity clause at 41 CFR 60-741.5(a)” 

shall be interpreted to exclude in full 

paragraphs 4-5 and 7 of 41 CFR 60-

741.5(a), and the phrase “take affirmative 

action to employ 

and advance in 

employment 

individuals with 

disabilities, and to” 

from paragraph 1 of 

41 CFR 60-741.5(a).238

One of the primary 

mechanisms that 

OFCCP has for ensuring 

equal employment 

opportunity is through Section 503’s 

affirmative action obligations, and OFCCP 

relies on proactive compliance evaluations 

to do so. As discussed herein, OFCCP also 

relies on data from federal contractors about 

their affirmative action programs as part 

of a preliminary assessment of their civil 

rights compliance, so even a temporary 

suspension of these obligations will impact 

OFCCP’s ability to fulfill its legal obligations 

to ensure nondiscrimination. This suspension 

hinders equal employment opportunities 

for a population that remains largely 

underrepresented in the federal workforce and 

among federal contractors.

NCD applauds awarding excellence 

in disability inclusion but rejects 

the notion that a moratorium 

on compliance evaluations of 

affirmative action obligations 

is a proper incentive toward the 

advancement of employment of 

people with disabilities

84 National Council on Disability
The 2017 EEOC Rule on Affirmative 

Action for People with Disabilities in 

Federal Employment

In a step toward continuing the progress made in 

federal hiring and retention of federal employees 

with disabilities spurred by EO 13548, EEOC 

issued a final rule effective 2018 amending 

regulations that require federal agencies to 

engage in affirmative action for people with 

disabilities.239 The rule stemmed from the 

EEOC’s determination that its prior regulations 

and subregulatory guidance were not doing 

enough to advance the 

employment of qualified 

people with disabilities.240

It clarifies the affirmative 

action obligations 

imposed by Section 501 

of the Rehabilitation 

Act241 and codifies a 

variety of long-standing 

obligations placed on 

federal agencies by 

management directives 

and executive orders 

issued over the years. The new EEOC regulation 

adds numerical goals for the hiring of people with 

disabilities: agencies must take specific steps to 

gradually increase the representation of people 

with disabilities to 12 percent of their workforce 

and increase the representation of people with 

targeted abilities to 2 percent.242 It also requires 

agencies to provide personal assistance services 

(PASs) to employees who, because of targeted 

disabilities, require PASs to be at work or to 

participate in work-related travel—an important 

accommodation that helps retain employees with 

disabilities.

Similar to the Section 503 Rule previously 

discussed, while the establishment of numerical 

goals for hiring people with disabilities is progress, 

unfortunately, the rule does not establish a 

deadline for achieving them, making them 

aspirational rather than required.243 This means 

that a big issue the EEOC was trying to address 

still has no resolution—agencies can plan and take 

steps to increase hiring, but with no set deadline, 

decades may pass before these aspirational goals 

are met. The EEOC’s explanation for this decision 

is that some agencies might need more time 

than others to meet the goals due to budgetary 

constraints (including 

hiring freezes), the 

number of additional 

PWTDs who would have 

to be hired, and the nature 

of certain jobs within 

an agency’s workforce 

that could include valid 

physical requirements 

that people with certain 

disabilities may not be 

able to meet.244

The rule does, however, require each 

agency’s Affirmative Action Plan to identify 

specific steps that are “reasonably designed” 

to gradually increase the number of people with 

disabilities or targeted disabilities employed at 

the agency until it meets the 12 percent and 

2 percent goals,245 and provides six steps as 

examples: (1) increased use of hiring authorities 

that take disability into account and hire or 

promote people with targeted disabilities, 

(2) consideration of disability or targeted 

disability status is a positive factor in hiring 

promotion or assignment decisions to the 

Similar to the Section 503 Rule 

previously discussed, while 

the [EEOC’s] establishment of 

numerical goals for hiring people 

with disabilities is progress, 

unfortunately, the rule does not 

establish a deadline for achieving 

them, making them aspirational 

rather than required

2020 Progress Report on National Disability Policy: Increasing Disability Employment 85
extent permitted by law, (3) disability-related 

training and education campaigns for employees, 

(4) additional outreach or recruitment efforts, 

(5) increased efforts to hire or keep employees 

who require supported employment (and 

whoever retained the services of a job coach 

at their own expense or the expense of a third 

party may be given permission to use the 

job coach during work hours as a reasonable 

accommodation), and (6) adoption of training 

mentoring or internship programs for people 

with disabilities.246 Unfortunately, while each of 

these are important, without a date certain for 

meeting the numerical goals, there is nothing 

pushing agencies to meet the goals in any haste.

Centralized Accommodation Funds

Last, but not least, is the issue of workplace 

accommodations and the ability of federal 

agencies to provide them and provide them 

in a timely manner. A delay in receiving or an 

inability to receive a reasonable accommodation 

prevents employees with disabilities from being 

able to function at their fullest on the job and, in 

many cases, retain employment. There, however, 

continues to be a lack of agency-specific 

centralized accommodation funds (CAFs) and 

inadequate funding for the existing Computer/

Electronic Accommodations Program (CAP), both 

of which hinder the ability of agencies to retain 

or even hire talented people with disabilities who 

need accommodations, such as screen readers 

or other communication technology, to work. 

NCD has engaged a working group on this topic 

and made recommendations to Congress and the 

CAP to resolve the issue.247 Thus far, no action 

has been taken on those recommendations, 

although the solution is quite easy to achieve.

86 National Council on Disability
Chapter 5: Need for Increased Effective 

Employer Engagement

I

ncreasing effective strategies for engagement 

with private sector employers is crucial to 

increasing employment opportunities and 

advancement for people with disabilities. 

Private sector employers understand that 

they have nondiscrimination obligations under 

Title I of the ADA, and employers that contract 

with the Federal Government know they have 

responsibilities under federal law to affirmatively 

recruit and hire qualified people with disabilities, 

but hiring will only 

increase when more 

employers are exposed 

to high-quality, easily 

accessible information on 

the benefits of a disability 

inclusive workforce. They 

also need information on 

recruitment strategies 

and accommodations. 

Employers, like anyone else not exposed to 

people with disabilities, may see a disability as a 

barrier to productivity, rather than see the person 

with skills and talents first. Effective engagement 

has the power to change such biases and 

stereotypes, creating opportunities for people 

with disabilities—whatever the disability—to 

obtain employment. Effective engagement helps 

employers view employees with disabilities as a 

natural part of a diverse, thriving workforce.

In the robust labor market of recent years, 

private industry has had an abundance of jobs to 

fill and has sought talented people to fill them, 

yet talented people with disabilities have largely 

not benefitted by the increased job openings. 

While we have discussed several barriers created 

by federal law, regulations, and programs that 

act as barriers or impediments to entering or 

reentering the workforce, a persistent and 

equally important barrier is employer attitudes 

about disability and 

misunderstandings and 

bias about employing 

people with disabilities.

One in five people 

have a disability; it is a 

natural part of human 

existence, not a ban on 

the ability to work or 

to be successful and 

productive on the job. Disability inclusion creates 

sustainable, long-term performance value—the 

challenge is to continue sharing this message 

with employers and reduce such biases and 

stereotypes so that employment opportunities 

expand. People with disabilities are a talent pool 

that has often been overlooked, but employers 

can benefit by engagement with federal agencies, 

VR agencies, and nongovernmental organizations 

that have expertise and abundant resources on 

In the robust labor market of recent 

years, private industry has had an 

abundance of jobs to fill and has 

sought talented people to fill them, 

yet talented people with disabilities 

have largely not benefitted by the 

increased job openings

2020 Progress Report on National Disability Policy: Increasing Disability Employment 87
disability inclusion. Such engagement raises 

awareness about the immense talent pool with 

disabilities and increases information sharing. 

At their best, these connections will help build 

pipelines between job seekers with disabilities and 

employers, help form partnerships with employers 

to create internships and job opportunities, and 

increase opportunities for easy access to technical 

assistance to employers on legal and regulatory 

topics—all helping increase the workforce 

participation of people with disabilities.

The most effective strategies for employer 

engagement on hiring employees with disabilities 

are those built on positive messaging about skills 

and talents, which helps counter stereotypes 

and bias about people with disabilities, and 

those highlighting the fact that disability inclusion 

contributes to a company’s bottom line.248 Employer 

engagement efforts, including campaigns and 

networking through disability inclusion-related 

conferences, are an important part of the picture 

because they help dismantle stereotypes about 

employees with disabilities, helping to open doors 

to inclusion in the nation’s workforce.

This section highlights some, but not all, 

of the initiatives and efforts by federal and 

nongovernmental entities to engage employers 

on the topic of employing and retaining 

employees with disabilities and highlights the 

important role that the U.S. SBA could play to 

dramatically change employment opportunities 

for people with disabilities nationwide.

Notable Federal Initiatives and 

Efforts Engage Employers in 

Disability Inclusion

DOL/ODEP

In April 2020, DOL/ODEP selected five National 

Provider Organizations (NPOs) to participate in its 

National Expansion of Employment Opportunities 

Network (NEON) initiative to increase competitive 

integrated employment for people with 

disabilities.249 According to DOL, “Partnership 

with provider networks is essential to promoting 

positive change . . . this initiative will help 

us better understand the barriers and, most 

importantly, solutions to increasing competitive 

integrated employment for individuals with 

significant disabilities.” Administered by ODEP, 

the initiative has selected the following five 

NPOs: ACCSES, a Washington, DC–based 

network of more than 1,200 organizations 

serving people with disabilities across the 

United States; American Network of Community 

Options and Resources (ANCOR), a national, 

nonprofit trade association in Alexandria, Virginia, 

representing more than 1,600 private community 

providers of services to people with disabilities; 

Association of People Supporting Employment 

First (APSE), a national, nonprofit membership 

organization in Rockville, Maryland, dedicated 

to Employment First, a vision that all people 

with disabilities have a right to competitive 

employment in an inclusive workforce; 

SourceAmerica, a Vienna, Virginia-based network 

of more than 750 community-based nonprofits 

that creates employment opportunities for a 

skilled and dedicated workforce of people with 

disabilities; and the Arc of the United States 

based in Washington, DC, the nation’s largest 

community-based organization of and for people 

with intellectual and developmental disabilities.

Each of the NPOs will receive intensive policy 

consulting, technical support, and peer mentoring 

to strengthen their service provider network’s 

capacity to help workers with disabilities 

prepare for and obtain competitive integrated 

employment.

88 National Council on Disability
Council of State Administrators of 

Vocational Rehabilitation—The NET

The National Employment Team (NET) is a 

network of VR business specialists that connect 

across all 78 VR agencies for the purpose 

of working with business, and engaging 

employers, via a single vision and strategy. It 

enables VR to work with businesses that have 

multiple locations, provide consultative services, 

and help build a talent pipeline that includes 

candidates with disabilities from any state, 

territory, or the District of Columbia. The NET 

is a function of CSAVR, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, 

and resourced by CSAVR’s membership dues 

from VR agencies. 

CSAVR has an annual 

budget of approximately 

$1.8 million.

The NET runs the 

Talent Acquisition Portal 

(TAP) in partnership 

with disABLEDpersons. 

TAP is an online portal 

that provides employers 

and businesses the 

opportunity to access a centralized talent 

pool of people with disabilities. Through TAP, 

employers can post jobs that can be accessed 

by all 78 VR agencies across 50 States, 

Territories, and DC to connect qualified job 

seekers with employers. And employers can 

access a large pool of qualified job applicants 

who have self-identified as having disabilities. 

There is also a Virtual Hiring Event function 

available.

TAP currently demonstrates great success 

in attracting job candidates and employers. TAP 

is host to approximately 22,000 job applicants, 

over 6,000 staff members through VR, and 

over 100 employers and 600 recruiters. TAP 

is supported through business-based fees to 

cover the cost of the operation between the 

two nonprofits, CSAVR and the nonprofit that 

manages the platform, disABLEDpersons. 

While TAP seems like it would be an ideal 

talent pipeline for federal agencies that 

currently participate in Schedule A and other 

hiring efforts, CSAVR reports that currently no 

federal agencies participate on the platform, 

although there has been participation in the 

past. Unfortunately, the current data available 

to determine how effective the TAP platform 

is limited. The system can track contacts and 

applications but can only track candidates with 

disabilities who have 

achieved employment 

if the candidate, VR, or 

the business reports 

that to TAP. According 

to CSAVR, to do that 

would require additional 

resources to respond to 

each employer’s unique 

tracking system.

DOL/ODEP: The Employer Assistance 

and Resource Network on Disability 

Inclusion (EARN)

Funded by DOL’s Office of Disability 

Employment Policy (ODEP) under a cooperative 

agreement with Cornell University, EARN is 

a resource for employers seeking to recruit, 

hire, retain, and advance qualified employees 

with disabilities. EARN has a tremendous 

amount of information and technical assistance 

for employers and is a strong example and 

model for how federal agencies can engage 

with employers to increase employment 

While TAP seems like it would be 

an ideal talent pipeline for federal 

agencies that currently participate in 

Schedule A and other hiring efforts, 

CSAVR reports that currently no 

federal agencies participate on the 

platform

2020 Progress Report on National Disability Policy: Increasing Disability Employment 89
opportunities for people with disabilities.250

In addition to an eye-catching website that 

is easy to navigate, EARN’s resources for 

employers are extensive. Some examples 

include the following:

■ Information on disability hiring initiatives, 

connecting with local disability service 

providers, and integrating disability into an 

organization’s diversity plan

■ Links to state and local community-based 

agencies and veterans’ organizations

■ Link to the Dinah Cohen Training Center 

for Disability 

Employment 

and Inclusion to 

access training and 

webinars on a range 

of topics related to 

advancing inclusion 

of people with 

disabilities in the 

workplace

■ Information on how 

employees with 

disabilities add value 

across all aspects of 

a business

■ Information on gaining confidence on 

communicating with and about people with 

disabilities in the workplace

■ Effective management policies and practices 

that can benefit a business

DOL ODEP

The “Working Works” Campaign, launched in 

October 2018, is a public service announcement 

told through stories that emphasize the 

importance of working together on effective stayat-work and return-to-work strategies.251

EEOC, OPM, and DOL: Inclusion@Work: 

A Framework for Building a DisabilityInclusive Organization

The Framework is a collaborative effort to help 

federal agencies make their workplaces inclusive 

and welcoming of people with disabilities. 

It reflects a combination of legal/regulatory 

requirements, strategies, and practices used 

by public sector employers, including actions 

identified in the Section 501 rule, EEOC 

Management Directive 

715 (MD-715), and other 

guidance provided by 

EEOC.252 It consists 

of six strategies and 

practices that agencies 

may include in their 

Affirmative Action plans 

to be inclusive of people 

with disabilities and 

their workforces, such 

as Lead the Way: Model 

Employer of Individuals 

with Disabilities; Build 

the Pipeline: Outreach 

and Recruitment; Hire (Advance and Keep) the 

Best: Personnel Processes; Ensure Productivity: 

Reasonable Accommodation and Personal 

Assistance Services Policies and Procedures; 

Be Tech Savvy: Accessible Information and 

Communication Technology; and Grow Success: 

Continuous Assessment and Improvement 

and Accountability. Each strategy is described 

in detail to support employers in their 

implementation.

EARN has a tremendous amount 

of information and technical 

assistance for employers and is a 

strong example and model for how 

federal agencies can engage with 

employers to increase employment 

opportunities for people with 

disabilities. In addition to an eyecatching website that is easy to

navigate, EARN’s resources for 

employers are extensive

90 National Council on Disability
ODEP/DOL Workforce Recruitment 

Program (WRP)

The WRP is a resource for federal employers 

to identify qualified temporary and permanent 

employees from a variety of fields of study—a 

pipeline of talent from which they can tap to fill 

temporary or permanent positions. The WRP has 

provided employment opportunities for more 

than 8,000 college students and recent college 

graduates students since 1995. In 2019, 260 

recruiters from 56 federal agencies conducted 

phone and remote interviews with students and 

recent graduates from more than 325 colleges 

and universities, resulting 

in a database containing 

application information 

on more than 1,850 

students with disabilities.

ODEP evaluated 

the WRP program in 

2017 and found that it 

needed an accurate way 

of knowing how many 

students and recent 

graduates had obtained 

jobs or internships—as having to rely on the 

students or federal supervisors to inform OPEP if 

they had hired from the database was unreliable. 

ODEP recently invested substantial resources 

in upgrading the WRP website and has a much 

better platform for federal recruiters and students 

while it also encourages the voluntary reporting 

of hires. ODEP is also exploring ways to make 

the database available to the private sector to 

increase the chances that the participants get 

jobs and meet the demand of employers. ODEP 

hopes to pilot the database with the private 

sector in 2020, if it can find a way to address 

privacy issues. The use of volunteer federal 

recruiters to interview candidates also limits the 

number of students in the database, so ODEP is 

exploring options to address that issue.

Employment Challenge: An Inclusive 

Talent Pipeline for American 

Businesses—HHS Administration for 

Community Living (ACL)

In 2019, ACL created a competition for private 

businesses to compete for cash prizes by 

creating and submitting plans designed to help 

employers nationwide reach a wider talent pool 

and create more employment opportunities for 

people with I/DD. The 

competition is notable 

because of its creative 

manner in engaging 

private sector employers 

in the employment of 

people with disabilities 

and its novel use of the 

America Competes Act 

to develop models of 

competitive employment. 

The competition has 

three stages: proposal submissions, piloting of 

programs, and last, showcasing what participants 

learned, the success of the employees, and the 

overall results before a panel of judges. Finalists 

will make presentations to ACL in October 2020 

during NDEAM. The winner will be awarded 

$100,000.

Multi-Agency Task Force on Increasing 

Employment Opportunities for 

People with Disabilities

In April 2018, a Multi-Agency Task Force was 

convened with a mission to share information 

on agency programs and initiatives pertaining 

In 2019, ACL created a competition 

for private businesses to compete 

for cash prizes by creating and 

submitting plans designed to help 

employers nationwide reach a 

wider talent pool and create more 

employment opportunities for 

people with I/DD

2020 Progress Report on National Disability Policy: Increasing Disability Employment 91
to employment of people with disabilities, 

identifying agency barriers to increased 

employment that could be removed without 

legislative change, and sharing plans of action 

that describe what each agency is committed 

to in order to increase employment of people 

with disabilities through agency guidance. The 

voluntary Task Force includes representatives 

from federal executive agencies, including the 

Departments of Education, Health and Human 

Services (HHS), Labor, Transportation, and 

Veterans Affairs, SBA, SSA, OPM, and NCD. 

The task force has created opportunities for 

agency collaboration, enhanced communications 

between participating agencies on disability 

employment issues and solutions, and brought 

together federal agencies and nongovernmental 

organizations concerned with disability 

employment.

Notable Examples of 

Nongovernmental Efforts 

to Engage Employers in 

Disability Inclusion

The Valuable 500

The first thing you see when visiting the Valuable 

500’s website is this statement: “If disability is 

not on your board agenda, neither is diversity” 

(nor is innovation, productivity, brand experience, 

talent, risk, reputation . . .).253 Founded in 2019, 

the Valuable 500 enlists companies and leaders 

who commit to putting disability inclusion on 

their business leadership agenda. It has a very 

active and visible presence on social media, 

posting inclusivity-themed messages every day 

on, for example, LinkedIn, and the head of the 

organization has brought the topic of disability 

inclusion to a new level of awareness across 

the globe. Valuable 500 member companies 

commit to disability inclusion and number in 

the hundreds.

The model of engaging through popular social 

media sites and consistent televised interviews 

has helped raise awareness of the number of 

people with disabilities, the immense talent 

in this population, and the need for increased 

employment.

Disability:IN

Disability:IN, formerly the U.S. Business 

Leadership Network (USBLN), is a 

nonprofit that is a resource for business 

disability inclusion with a network of over 

185 corporations that works to expand 

opportunities for people with disabilities. The 

Disability Equality Index, a joint initiative with 

AAPD, allows America’s leading corporations to 

self-report their disability policies and practices 

focusing on all aspects of disability inclusion, 

such as culture and leadership, accessibility 

across the enterprise, a wide range of 

employment practices, and community 

engagement. This evolving index objectively 

scores each corporation on a scale from 0 to 

100—100 representing the most inclusive.

The Rockefeller Foundation

The Rockefeller Foundation created #Solvable 

with mini-films and podcasts on innovative, 

effective, and scalable solutions to help meet the 

UN Sustainable Development Goals by removing 

the barriers that limit people’s lives or prospects. 

One of these films is exclusively focused on 

solving the problem of the low workforce 

participation of people with disabilities.254 This 

short but powerful film effectively and efficiently 

highlights the issue of untapped talent and 

opportunity for positive change. Films and 

92 National Council on Disability
public engagement strategies of this kind are an 

excellent model to increase the awareness of 

both federal and private employers about hiring 

people with disabilities.

These federal and nonfederal efforts to 

engage employers in hiring people with 

disabilities are a crucial component to 

moving the needle on 

employment for people 

with disabilities. It will 

take continued sustained 

and creative efforts such 

as these to make hiring 

people with disabilities 

part of corporate 

diversity efforts and a 

natural part of the way 

they recruit and hire.

A Federal Agency with the 

Potential to Impact Broadscale 

Improvement in Private Sector 

Disability Inclusion Through 

Employer Engagement: The SBA

The SBA is positioned to play a powerful role in 

increasing employment opportunities for people 

with disabilities through its engagement with 

thousands of businesses across the nation. 

According to the SBA, 97 percent of American 

businesses are “small,” making small businesses 

a major source of the jobs in the United States 

and a critical audience for engagement on the 

benefits of hiring employees with disabilities. 

SBA’s development of campaigns, employer 

resources, job fairs, and programs that educate 

and interest small businesses in hiring people 

with disabilities could assist a nation of small 

businesses to diversify their workforces, find 

skilled workers, and aid in breaking down 

stereotypes that create barriers to employment 

of people with disabilities.

The SBA, by legal mandate, has a robust 

program aimed at the small business hiring 

of veterans with disabilities, but to date, does 

not have a formal program or broad-scale 

initiatives on hiring talent with disabilities, 

nor does it conduct 

targeted outreach to 

entrepreneurs with 

disabilities who are not 

veterans.

In 2019, SBA made 

a start on engaging 

small businesses on 

hiring people with 

disabilities. As a result 

of its participation in the Multi-Agency Task 

Force on Increasing Employment Opportunities 

for People with Disabilities, the SBA developed 

a new resource for small businesses, titled 

“Hiring Employees with Disabilities.”255 This 

resource provides information on identifying job 

seekers and understanding accommodations, 

and highlights the main tax credits available 

to businesses hiring people with disabilities. 

The SBA also held a first-of-its-kind event 

in 2019 in Washington, DC, styled as an 

information and networking fair to educate local 

small businesses about resources for finding 

and hiring people with disabilities. The SBA 

office in Connecticut recently held a similarly 

styled event. According to SBA officials, they 

are interested in holding more of these events 

and in working with disability organizations 

around the nation in developing them; however, 

SBA will require additional resources in order 

to host and promote similar events on a 

consistent basis.

According to the SBA, 97 percent of 

American businesses are “small,” 

making small businesses a major 

source of the jobs in the United 

States and a critical audience for 

engagement on the benefits of 

hiring employees with disabilities

2020 Progress Report on National Disability Policy: Increasing Disability Employment 93
NCD recognized that SBA programs can 

provide significant support to engage people 

with disabilities in self-employment. In 2007, 

NCD reported that individuals who accessed 

SBA’s Service Corps 

of Retired Executives 

(SCORE) counselors and 

services had greater 

success in finding 

approval from VR for selfemployment business 

plans.256 Unfortunately, 

while Social Security 

programs under the Plan 

to Achieve Self-Support 

(PASS)—a program 

designed to discount 

or set aside resources 

or income dedicated to 

starting a business from 

Social Security income—

generally instruct staff to refer beneficiaries 

interested in self-employment PASS plans to 

SCORE, there is no formal partnership between 

the SSA and the SBA or SCORE that allows 

tracking of such referrals.257 SSA reports that 

there are only 17 PASS specialists, or Social 

Security employees with special knowledge 

of work incentives 

and business plan 

development, in the 

entire country.258 In an 

interview for this report, 

the acting chief executive 

officer of SCORE noted 

that the program pays 

particular attention 

to remaining ADA 

compliant, but for it to 

affirmatively outreach to 

people with disabilities, 

it would need additional 

dedicated program 

resources and staff for 

this purpose. SCORE did, 

however, welcome the chance to partner with 

other agencies and organizations that conduct 

outreach to people with disabilities.

[W]hile Social Security programs 

under the Plan to Achieve SelfSupport (PASS)—a program 

designed to discount or set aside 

resources or income dedicated to 

starting a business from Social 

Security income—generally instruct 

staff to refer beneficiaries interested 

in self-employment PASS plans 

to SCORE, there is no formal 

partnership between the SSA and 

the SBA or SCORE that allows 

tracking of such referrals

94 National Council on Disability
Conclusion

T

he Federal Government and the private 

sector must be able to attract and retain a 

top-quality workforce that can ensure our 

nation’s continued growth. Equal opportunity to 

obtain employment for people with disabilities 

is more than a matter of social justice—it is a 

national economic imperative. The barriers raised 

in this report harm people with disabilities by 

preventing or impeding them in reaching goals of 

self-sufficiency, independence, and full inclusion 

in American society. They must be addressed. 

They cost the American economy millions of 

dollars each year.

The Federal Government must tackle the 

barriers that continue to impede the ability of 

youth with disabilities to successfully transition 

from school to the world of competitive 

employment. It must dismantle, once and for 

all, the long-standing financial disincentives that 

make people with disabilities choose between 

health care and work—a cruel choice not befitting 

of a great nation.

Federal agencies have made significant strides 

in coordination and increased hiring of people 

with disabilities throughout the past decade. 

NCD encourages federal agencies to sustain 

their coordinated and individual efforts that have 

helped achieve these gains, and to pursue even 

greater gains in employment for people with 

disabilities in the future. Barriers to federal hiring 

continue to exist, however, and addressing them 

is imperative. The Federal Government has the 

knowledge, tools, initiatives, and programs in 

place—it is truly a matter of its will to tackle the 

barriers presented in this report.

But the Federal Government workforce is 

only a fraction of the nation’s workforce. Private 

sector employers—small businesses to major 

corporations—are a rich source of employment 

and are crucial to increasing the workforce 

participation of people with disabilities. Federal 

agencies like DOL, for example, have developed 

strong employer engagement tools, and the SBA 

has the potential to engage with thousands of 

small businesses through scaled-up engagement 

efforts. Private organizations have become 

actively involved in engaging private sector 

employers on the benefits of disability diversity 

and raising the visibility of the vast and talented 

population of people with disabilities who are 

ready and able to work. Connecting federal 

efforts with these private efforts may further 

leverage resources and start moving the needle 

toward greater employment opportunities for 

people with disabilities in the private sector.

At this time in our history, 30 years postADA, we should be reporting that youth and 

adults with disabilities are working in far greater 

2020 Progress Report on National Disability Policy: Increasing Disability Employment 95
numbers, in competitive positions. That the 

majority of people with disabilities are no longer 

living in poverty, but are using their talents and 

skills. That the persistent barriers that existed and 

led up to enactment of the ADA are a relic of the 

past. We have made some progress, but we have 

more to do to resolve the persistent barriers to 

employment.

NCD urges the nation’s policymakers to 

address the barriers to employment described in 

this report, and employers to work with federal 

partners to open doors to far greater employment 

opportunities. Allow the large population of 

talented youth and adults with disabilities to join 

the nation’s workforce and achieve the vision and 

purpose of the ADA.

96 National Council on Disability
Recommendations

Youth in Transition

The following recommendations address the lack of effective coordination, skills training, and 

employment-related services and supports available to transition-age youth.

Federal Agencies

■ RSA and ED (OSEP) should implement joint data sharing across data collection platforms to 

ensure that LEAs and state VR agencies can share information sufficient to demonstrate, 

of the students that receive pre-employment transition services, how many such students 

obtain competitive integrated employment after leaving school. RSA and ED should provide 

guidance about this “cross walk” of education and vocational rehabilitation data, and provide 

nationwide training on how to accurately record, share, and report such data across data 

collection platforms and as a single performance metric.

■ RSA should allow VR agencies to pay for transportation, AT, and clothing using funds from 

the WIOA 15 percent reserve, when these services are necessary for potentially eligible 

students with disabilities to participate in pre-employment transition services. Alternatively, 

RSA should promptly issue clear and concise guidance that transportation, AT, and clothing 

are considered reasonable accommodations for potentially eligible students with disabilities 

that may be paid for with the 15 percent reserve funds when they are necessary for such 

students to participate in pre-employment transition services.

■ RSA should provide clear and consistent guidance to VR agencies that the cornerstone of 

pre-employment transition services is the work-based learning experience in a competitive 

integrated employment setting, and that all pre-employment transition services must be 

provided in the least restrictive environment, as is required by WIOA, for the purpose of 

increasing the number of students who participate in competitive integrated employment 

settings prior to leaving school and, in turn, increasing postsecondary employment outcomes.

(continued)

2020 Progress Report on National Disability Policy: Increasing Disability Employment 97
Youth in Transition: continued

The guidance should explain that

● VR agencies must implement truly integrated work-based learning experiences. These 

experiences should incorporate AT, other new technologies, and workplace and business 

development tools, wherever possible.

● VR agencies, in partnership with schools, must collect and report information about 

where pre-employment transition services are provided, in what setting, and for what 

duration.

● VR agencies should increase engagement and partnerships with local businesses, AJCs, 

and with public, private, and nonprofit organizations to create greater opportunities for 

work-based learning experiences.

■ ED should fund a comprehensive pilot program targeted toward recipients of preemployment transition services to provide resources for state and LEAs and VR agencies 

to identify AT devices, business development tools, and technology used in modern 

manufacturing, logistics, and information technology, and to proliferate such technology 

and equipment to students with disabilities in work-based learning experiences specifically 

in high-growth industries.

■ A portion of the systems change grants of Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative 

Services (OSERS) should be expanded to include the piloting of training and systematic 

instruction around the use of technologies during transition, including the use of smart 

devices and business application tools, where appropriate, and in high-growth industries.

■ VR agencies should increase counseling and information about postsecondary educational 

opportunities, and partnerships with postsecondary institutions for skills training, 

certification, and postsecondary vocational credentialing.

■ RSA should create concrete incentives for VR agencies to connect students and youth with 

disabilities with marketable skills credentials in high-growth industries, including STEM, 

advanced manufacturing, caregiving, information technology credentials, and other new 

and emerging industries.

■ ED, including its Office of Postsecondary Education, should identify partnerships or programs 

to incubate and/or expand access to community college programs and other institutions 

of higher learning for professional development, certifications, and skills advancement, as 

students with disabilities are leaving school and entering the mainstream workforce.

(continued)

98 National Council on Disability
Youth in Transition: continued

■ ED, DOL, and HHS should jointly collaborate on further research and demonstration 

projects that showcase evidence-based practices such as internships, work-based learning 

experiences, mentoring, and family engagement in ensuring more effective education, 

transition, and employment outcomes for youth with disabilities. Part of this research should 

be designed specifically to encourage transition-age youth to consider careers in STEM, 

caregiving, and health care, and to expose such youth to the careers and opportunities 

these and other high-growth, high-income disciplines entail.

■ ED/RSA and DOL/ETA should issue a nationwide strategic plan for including and advancing 

the access of people with disabilities to career pathways in new and emerging industries 

and skilled twenty-first century jobs.

■ DOL/ETA should mandate that within the Title I WIOA public workforce system, a percentage 

of the local Adult and Dislocated Worker and Vocational Rehabilitation Program funds set aside 

to support apprenticeships for people with disabilities will be dedicated to apprenticeships in 

new and emerging industries and higher-skilled twenty-first century jobs.

Employer Engagement and Capacity Building

The following recommendations address the need to support and scale effective employer 

engagement strategies by public employment systems.

Congress

■ Congress should increase federal funding to RSA for VR offices to commit additional 

dedicated VR staff specifically to employer engagement, business outreach, and the 

incubation of small businesses and self-employment for people with disabilities. Funding 

should include the requirement that RSA ensure at least one dedicated staff person in 

every VR office for employer engagement, small business development, self-employment, 

and entrepreneurship and to work in collaboration with other workforce partners. The 

funding should include the requirement that dedicated VR staff participate in professional 

development activities to forge employer connections.

(continued)

2020 Progress Report on National Disability Policy: Increasing Disability Employment 99
Employer Engagement and Capacity Building: continued

■ Congress should increase federal funding to SSA to allow it to significantly increase 

the number of dedicated PASS specialists nationwide, ensuring that at least one such 

dedicated position exists in every state.

Federal Agencies

■ ODEP, OSERS, and National Institute on Disability, Independent Living and Rehabilitation 

Research (NIDILRR) should conduct comprehensive scientifically based research to 

determine the efficacy of various employer engagement practices by public workforce 

systems. This research should include study of CSAVR and the NET’s Talent Acquisition 

Portal and ODEP’s Workforce Recruitment Program, and other private online job platforms, 

to determine the efficacy of such tools and platforms, and how they may be best designed 

to increase employment outcomes and to scale such outcomes.

■ NIDILRR should

● Evaluate efforts to outreach to private businesses like those advanced by nonprofit 

organizations to determine what employer engagement strategies in particular are most 

likely to lead to (are causally linked to) competitive integrated employment outcomes.

● Study the impact, if any, of public awareness and media campaigns on employer 

attitudes and hiring practices.

● Examine what the most effective performance metric is by which to measure employer 

engagement, whether retention with the same employer, repeat business customers, 

employer penetration rate, or still other metrics.

● Study and document the economic impact to employers when employer engagement 

efforts are effective at allowing employers to on-board qualified people with disabilities. 

This research will substantially contribute to moving employer engagement from an art 

to a science in the coming decades.

■ RSA and ETA should issue guidance to all AJC and VR staff to deploy robust “business 

engagement strategies” within regional job markets on behalf of people with disabilities, 

as is required under Title I of WIOA.259

■ ETA, ODEP, RSA, and SSA should

● Jointly fund a pilot partnership with SBA and SCORE, for purposes of expanding the 

nationwide access of people with disabilities to small business resources, and small 

(continued)

100 National Council on Disability
Employer Engagement and Capacity Building: continued

business plan development. Through such a pilot, SCORE should be supported to scale 

and expand the access of people with disabilities to its services nationwide and should 

partner with SSA to assist individuals who seek to qualify for the PASS program to 

formulate business plans.

■ SBA should conduct nationwide outreach to small businesses on hiring employees with 

disabilities through significantly increased career fairs and other outreach events.

■ SBA should conduct nationwide outreach to people with disabilities to introduce them to 

SBA services and the opportunities available through small business ownership.

■ The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and SBA should conduct a nationwide employer outreach 

campaign to “middle market indexed companies” and large and small businesses. The 

campaign should link employers to qualified candidates with disabilities through, for 

example, outreach events, job fairs, and digital and social media online platforms. As part 

of this effort, the Chamber should partner with CSAVR’s the NET to link employers with the 

approximately 20,000 job candidates in its online portal who have self-identified and seek 

employment in a range of industries. The success of the campaign should be measured by 

job outcomes.

Disincentives Tied to Public Benefits

The following recommendations address long-standing disincentives to employment tied to 

health care and other benefits in the Social Security Act and the Medicaid Act.

Congress

■ Congress should exclude retirement savings in qualified retirement accounts from assets 

considered in determining eligibility for Social Security and Medicaid for people with 

disabilities.

■ Congress should significantly increase the earned income exclusions in Section 1612(b)(2)(A) 

and 1612(b)(4) of the Social Security Act to allow Medicaid coverage to be retained up to 

higher income thresholds.

2020 Progress Report on National Disability Policy: Increasing Disability Employment 101

(continued)
Disincentives Tied to Public Benefits: continued

■ Congress should significantly increase the resource limit (or Substantial Gainful Employment 

limit) for Social Security beneficiaries who have disabilities or who are blind, revising 

Section 1612(b)(4) of the Social Security Act. In doing so, Congress should also ensure 

that SSI benefits are based on individual earnings and income and that beneficiaries 

are not penalized for being married or for being adult children of beneficiaries who are 

retired, deceased, or have disabilities.

■ Congress should ease or modify the current “cash cliff” for SSDI beneficiaries by providing 

a gradual reduction in disability insurance cash benefits based on increases in earned 

income as the SSI program already does.

■ Congress should direct Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to ensure 

that people with significant disabilities are eligible for Medicaid long-term disability-related 

services (not necessarily full Medicaid) regardless of income and eligibility or employersponsored health benefits.

■ Congress should direct SSA to develop a strategic plan for encouraging beneficiaries to 

establish small businesses and microenterprises through full use of the current student 

earned income exclusion (SEIE) and the Plan to Achieve Self-Support (PASS).

■ Congress should authorize additional funding for training, assessment, and credentialing 

of benefits counselors or Certified Work Incentives Counselors, and for online counselor 

training for individuals in rural areas.

Federal Agencies

■ SSA should work collaboratively with other federal agencies to expand benefits counseling 

services to include the full range of financial education and advisement services, and 

information about ABLE accounts and other trust accounts, banking, credit, and access to 

other important financial literacy information.

■ CMS, RSA, and SSA should

● Encourage states to update Medicaid waiver service definitions to include financial 

literacy counseling into Medicaid reimbursable benefits counseling services provided 

under Medicaid Home and Community-Based waivers

● Collaborate to educate service providers about the importance of embedding financial 

literacy counseling, benefits counseling, and employment service provision together in 

the same set of services

(continued)

102 National Council on Disability
Disincentives Tied to Public Benefits: continued

■ SSA and RSA should jointly conduct an Early Intervention Demonstration program to test 

whether the provision of employment services, financial literacy counseling, and benefits 

counseling—to support specially selected applicants for SSI/SSDI—can improve such 

persons’ return to work. The demonstration should

● Be directed to those people who meet SSA’s criteria for eligibility for SSI or SSDI and 

who have commenced an application for benefits, would immediately redirect such 

people to services offered through VR.

● Direct applicants to a Social Security Vocational Rehabilitation Counselor equipped to 

provide access to financial counseling and vocational services to find work.

● Afford immediate access to temporary cash assistance and health care coverage during 

the job search process, and the SSDI application would be suspended if employment 

above SGA was found.

● Require data collection to measure the success of the demonstration.

■ SSA, CMS, and RSA should support state agencies and service providers to offer benefits 

counseling through remote methods for people who live in remote areas or who have 

difficulty traveling, to better serve rural areas.

■ Medicaid Buy-In program should be

● Expanded in every state for working people with disabilities who are not eligible for 

employer-provided health benefits without limitation on monthly income or assets

● Redesigned to raise income and asset limits significantly to account for increased outof-pocket disability-related expenses, such as transportation, personal care, assistive 

technology, and other disability-related employment expenses

Federal Employment and Support of Entrepreneurship

The President

The President should issue an Executive Order requiring federal agencies to, by a certain 

date, achieve a workforce that includes 12 percent of people with disabilities, and 2 percent 

of those with targeted disabilities.

(continued)

2020 Progress Report on National Disability Policy: Increasing Disability Employment 103
Federal Employment and Support of Entrepreneurship: continued

The Executive Order should include

■ A requirement that agency HR staff receive training on the Schedule A hiring authority, 

increase utilization of Schedule A in hiring, and ensure all job postings encourage 

applicants with disabilities and include information on how to apply using Schedule A, 

for those with targeted disabilities

■ A requirement that agencies leverage existing recruitment tools, such as DOL’s Workforce 

Recruitment Program (WRP); CSAVR’s The Net, Vocational Rehabilitation agencies, and 

create or strengthen connections with, for example, career offices in institutes of higher 

education and vocational training programs

■ A requirement that OPM and the EEOC publish annual reports on the progress of 

employment of people with disabilities in the executive branch

Congress

Should enact legislation

■ Requiring all federal agencies to use the Schedule A hiring authority to hire people with 

disabilities. This will ensure consistency across all federal agencies and help job seekers 

with targeted disabilities avoid varying requirements by agency when applying for federal 

employment.

■ Requiring annual Schedule A training for federal HR managers and staff, including SPPCs 

and Disability Program Managers and report to OPM annually on (1) how many staff 

participated and (2) their positions in the agency’s HR office. This will help ensure that 

information is not lost when HR staff leave or change positions.

Office of Personnel Management (OPM)

To continue the progress made in educating federal agencies on the use of Schedule A hiring 

under EO 13548, OPM should

■ Maintain online training on how to use Schedule A on its federally mandated training 

page

■ Highlight successful use of Schedule A by federal agencies that use it most frequently

(continued)

104 National Council on Disability
Federal Employment and Support of Entrepreneurship: continued

Small Business Administration (SBA)

The SBA should

■ Take the information provided in this report and, if necessary, gather further information on 

the historic and continuing cultural bias against people with disabilities

■ Take the actions required under the 8(a) Business Development program regulations to 

determine whether to include people with disabilities in the presumptively eligible group 

for the 8(a) program—starting by issuing a notice in the Federal Register

Department of Labor, OFCCP

OFCCP should

■ Amend its regulations to require that the 7 percent utilization for federal contractor hiring 

of people with disabilities be an enforceable mandatory requirement and not simply an 

aspirational goal

■ Amend its regulations to require that each contractor annually invite employees to selfdisclose a disability rather than every five years under the current regulations

■ Require federal contractors to maintain a written reasonable accommodation plan or review 

personnel policies annually as opposed to an undefined “periodic” review requirement

■ Significantly increase the number and scope of Section 503 compliance reviews

2020 Progress Report on National Disability Policy: Increasing Disability Employment 105
106 National Council on Disability
Research Methodology Appendix

Interviews

Andy Imparato, Association of University Centers on Disabilities

Brigette Weston, SCORE

Cheri Mitchell, People First Georgia, ADAPT

David Mank, Subject Matter Expert and Professor Emeritus, Indiana University

Emily “Shea” Tanis, University of Colorado

Jennifer Mizrahi, RespectAbility

John Connelly, Council of State Administrators of Vocational Rehabilitation

Julie Hocker, Administration on Community Living

Kathy West-Evans, Council of State Administrators of Vocational Rehabilitation/The NET

Kevin Nickerson, National Disability Institute–American Dream Employment Network

Marc Maurer, National Federation of the Blind

Commissioner Mark Schultz, Rehabilitation Services Administration

Michael Morris, National Disability Institute

Michael Rogers, Self-advocate (Washington State)

Michelle Schimp, Small Business Administration

Natalie Veeney, Office of Personnel Management

Richard Luecking, University of Maryland

Ruby Moore, Subject Matter Expert and Executive Director, Georgia Advocacy Office

Stephen Wooderson, Council of State Administrators of Vocational Rehabilitation

Susanne Bruyere, Cornell University

Tia Nelis, Director of Policy and Advocacy, TASH, past chairperson of the National Organization of SelfAdvocates Becoming Empowered

Data Collection

In December 2019 and January 2020, NCD requested and received data pertaining to the employment 

of people with disabilities from Office of Personnel Management (OPM), Social Security Administration 

(SSA), Office of Federal Contract Compliance Program (OFCCP), Office of Disability Employment Policy 

(ODEP), and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

Advisory Group

An advisory group of six individuals with expertise in disability employment policy ranked, refined, and 

grouped 10 barriers to employment that NCD had identified as persistently problematic in its reports 

since the passage of the ADA, and provided input and feedback throughout the research and drafting 

process.

2020 Progress Report on National Disability Policy: Increasing Disability Employment 107
Advisory group members include:

Alison Barkoff, Center for Public Representation

Cesilee Coulson, Washington Initiative on Supported Employment (WISE)

David Mank, University of Indiana (ret.)

Lynnae Ruttledge, Consultant

Rich Luecking, University of Maryland

Susanne Bruyere, Cornell University

108 National Council on Disability
Endnotes

1 Douglas Kruse and Lisa Schur, “Employment of People with Disabilities Following the ADA,” Industrial 

Relations 42, no. 1 (2003): 31–66; see generally H. Stephen Kaye, “Improved Employment Opportunities for 

People with Disabilities,” Disability Statistics Report 17 (2003); Peter Blanck et al., “Calibrating the Impact of 

the ADA’s Employment Provisions,” Stanford Law & Policy Review 14, no. 2 (2003): 267–90.

2 Ibid.

3 See generally Robert E. Drake et al., “Social Security and Mental Illness: Reducing Disability with Supported 

Employment,” Health Affairs 28, no. 3 (2009): 761–70; Gary R. Bond and Robert E. Drake, “Making the Case 

for IPS Supported Employment,” Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services 

Research 41, no. 1 (2012): 69–73; Paul Wehman et al., “Toward Competitive Employment for Persons with 

Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities: What Progress Have We Made and Where Do We Need to Go,” 

Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities 43, no. 3 (2018): 131–44.

4 “Employment Conditions,” Social Determinants of Health, World Health Organization, September 25, 2017, 

https://www.who.int/social_determinants/themes/employmentconditions/en/.

5 L. Newman et al., “The Post-High School Outcomes of Young Adults with Disabilities up to 8 Years After 

High School. A Report from the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2),” NCSER 2011-3005 (2011), 

https://ies.ed.gov/ncser/pubs/20113005/pdf/20113005.pdf.

6 American Association of People with Disabilities and Disability, “Getting to Equal: The Disability Inclusion 

Advantage,” Accenture, 2018, https://www.accenture.com/_acnmedia/pdf-89/accenture-disability-inclusionresearch-report.pdf.

7 Gina A. Livermore, “Social Security Disability Beneficiaries with Work-Related Goals and Expectations,” Social 

Security Bulletin 71, no. 3 (2011), https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v71n3/v71n3p61.html.

8 Michael Morris et al., “Closing the Disability Gap: Reforming the Community Reinvestment Act Regulatory 

Framework,” Georgetown Journal on Poverty Law and Policy 26, no. 3 (2019).

9 Ibid.

10 https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/disabl.pdf; https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/disabl_08252010

.htm; https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/disabl_06242011.pdf; https://www.bls.gov/news.release

/archives/disabl_06082012.htm; https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/disabl_06122013.htm; https://

www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/disabl_06112014.htm; https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/disabl

_06162015.pdf; https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/disabl_06212016.pdf; https://www.bls.gov/news

.release/archives/disabl_06212018.pdf.

11 https://www.bls.gov/news.release/disabl.nr0.htm.

12 “National Disability Policy: A Progress Report–March 2009,” National Council on Disability, 2009, https://ncd

.gov/progress_reports/Mar312009#r7.

13 42 U.S.C. § 12112 (prohibiting discrimination in recruitment, hiring, promotions, training, pay, social activities, 

and other privileges of employment, and requiring that employers make reasonable accommodation to the 

known physical or mental limitations of otherwise qualified individuals with disabilities, unless it results in 

undue hardship).

14 42 U.S.C. § 12101.

15 Remarks of President Bush at the Signing of the Americans with Disabilities Act, July 26, 1990, https://www

.archives.gov/research/americans-with-disabilities/transcriptions/naid-6037493-statement-by-the-president

-americans-with-disabilities-act-of-1990.html.

2020 Progress Report on National Disability Policy: Increasing Disability Employment 109
16 Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Persons with a Disability: Labor Force Characteristics,” February 2019, https://

www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/disabl.pdf; A. Karpur, “Research Brief: Job-Mobility for People with Disabilities: 

Impact of Employer-Paid Health Insurance,” Cornell University, ILR School, Employment and Disability 

Institute, October 2013.

17 Michael L. Wehmeyer, Shea Tanis, Daniel K. Davies, and Steven E. Stock, “The Role of Applied Cognitive 

Technology and Assistive Technology in Supporting the Adaptive Behavior of People with Intellectual 

Disability,” Handbook of Adaptive Behavior, 2020: 7.

18 According to a number of social commentators, including New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman 

in his book, Thank You for Being Late: An Optimist’s Guide to Thriving in an Age of Accelerations (2016), 

the year 2007 was a critical moment for innovation in this century, heralding disruptions to the way we 

work and live. For example, in 2007, the iPhone debuted, public cloud computing became prolific, Twitter 

and Facebook went global, and IBM Watson was invented. These innovations had relevance, among 

other things, to the way business works, recruits new employees, conducts e-commerce, advertises, 

telecommutes, and communicates with its customers and partners. See generally Lizzy Gurdus, “Your 

World Changed Forever in 2007, Get with the Program, Thomas Friedman Says,” CNBC, November 22, 2016, 

https://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/22/your-world-changed-forever-in-2007-with-iphone-and-tech-boom-thomas

-friedman.html.

19 “Empowerment for Americans with Disabilities: Breaking Barriers to Careers and Full Employment,” National 

Council on Disability, 2007, https://ncd.gov/publications/2007/Oct2007.

20 “Removing Barriers to Work: Action Proposals for the 105th Congress and Beyond,” National Council on 

Disability, 1997, https://ncd.gov/publications/1997/09241997#3p.

21 “National Disability Policy: A Progress Report—January 2001,” National Council on Disability, 2001: 93, 

https://ncd.gov/progress_reports/Jan2001.

22 “The Impact of the Americans with Disabilities Act: Assessing the Progress Toward Achieving the Goals of the 

ADA,” National Council on Disability, 2007: 83, https://ncd.gov/rawmedia_repository/f493e262_8a9e_49c8

_ad84_404a1b91d7c3.pdf.

23 “Empowerment for Americans with Disabilities: Breaking Barriers to Careers and Full Employment,” National 

Council on Disability, 2007, https://ncd.gov/publications/2007/Oct2007.

24 “National Disability Policy: A Progress Report—March 2009,” National Council on Disability, 2009, 

https://ncd.gov/progress_reports/Mar312009#r7.

25 “Persons with a Disability: Labor Force Characteristics,” Bureau of Labor Statistics, February 2019, 

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/disabl.pdf.

26 “2013 National Disability Policy: A Progress Report: Strength in Our Differences,” National Council on 

Disability, October 31, 2013: 16, https://ncd.gov/rawmedia_repository/08-27-2013%20ProgressReport-Final

%20NCD%20formatted%20V3%20KJ%20508%20final.pdf.

27 “The Impact of the Americans with Disabilities Act: Assessing the Progress Toward Achieving the Goals of the 

ADA,” National Council on Disability, 2007: 84, https://ncd.gov/rawmedia_repository/f493e262_8a9e_49c8

_ad84_404a1b91d7c3.pdf.

28 Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, “The Employment Situation— February 2020,” 

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf.

29 Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, “Persons with a Disability: Labor Force Characteristics 

Summary,” Economic News Release. February 26, 2020, http://www.bls.gov/news.release/disabl.nr0.htm.

30 Office of Disability Employment Policy, U.S. Department of Labor, http://www.dol.gov/odep/.

31 Klaus Schwab and Nicholas Davis, Shaping the Fourth Industrial Revolution (Geneva: World Economic Forum, 

2018): 24.

32 “National Disability Employment Policy. From the New Deal to the Real Deal: Joining the Industries of the 

Future,” National Council on Disability, October 11, 2018: 13, https://ncd.gov/sites/default/files/Documents

/NCD_Deal_Report_508.pdf.

110 National Council on Disability
33 Ibid.

34 Supra note 4, 3 (stating, “Of particular note is the fact that the largest percentages of people with disabilities 

appear in production and transportation, whereas the smallest shares appear in management, business, 

finance, and professional occupations.”).

35 Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Employment Projections: 2018–2028 Summary,” September 2019, https://www

.bls.gov/news.release/ecopro.nr0.htm; “Construction Industry: Projected Fast Growth Into 2020,” Tradesmen 

International, March 30, 2017, https://www.tradesmeninternational.com/construction-technology/construction

-industry-growth-predictions/.

36 Ibid.

37 Ibid.

38 “Persons with a Disability: Labor Force Characteristics,” Bureau of Labor Statistics, February 2019, 

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/disabl.pdf.

39 Supra note 4, 4.

40 Carl Benedikt Frey and Michael A. Osborne, “The Future of Employment: How Susceptible Are Jobs to 

Computerization?” Oxford University, September 2013, https://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/downloads

/academic/The_Future_of_Employment.pdf.

41 Ibid.

42 “The Impact of Americans with Disabilities Act: Assessing the Progress Toward Achieving the Goals of the 

ADA,” National Council on Disability, July 2007: 83, https://ncd.gov/rawmedia_repository/f493e262_8a9e

_49c8_ad84_404a1b91d7c3.pdf.

43 “Unfinished Business: Making Employment of People with Disabilities a National Priority,” Senate HELP 

Committee, 2012.

44 Ibid; L. Schur, D. Kruse, and P. Blanck, “Corporate Culture and the Employment of People with Disabilities,” 

Behavioral Sciences and the Law 23, no. 1 (2005): 3–20; M. Wagner et al., “Perceptions and Expectations of 

Youth with Disabilities. A Special Topic Report of Findings from the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 

(NTLS2),” SRI International.

45 Job Accommodation Network, “Workplace Accommodations: Low Cost, High Impact,” Office of Disability 

Employment Policy, U.S. Department of Labor, https://askjan.org/topics/costs.cfm.

46 Ibid.

47 Ibid.

48 “National Disability Employment Policy. From the New Deal to the Real Deal: Joining the Industries of the 

Future,” National Council on Disability, October 11, 2018: 130, https://ncd.gov/sites/default/files/Documents

/NCD_Deal_Report_508.pdf.

49 Ibid.

50 American Association of People with Disabilities and Disability, “Getting to Equal: The Disability Inclusion 

Advantage,” Accenture, 2018, https://www.accenture.com/_acnmedia/pdf-89/accenture-disability-inclusion

-research-report.pdf.

51 S. Bruyere, “Employment and Disability: Issues, Innovations, and Opportunities, Labor and Employment 

Relations Association Series,” and “Autism at Work: Targeted Hiring Initiatives and What We Can Learn from 

Other Groups,” 2019: 265–66.

52 Ibid.

53 Michael L. Wehmeyer, Shea Tanis, Daniel K. Davies, and Steven E. Stock, “The Role of Applied Cognitive 

Technology and Assistive Technology in Supporting the Adaptive Behavior of People with Intellectual 

Disability,” Handbook of Adaptive Behavior, 2020.

54 Ibid.

55 Ibid.

56 Supra note 6, “Empowerment for Americans with Disabilities: Breaking Barriers to Careers and Fully 

Employment,” 22.

2020 Progress Report on National Disability Policy: Increasing Disability Employment 111
57 Susanne Bruyere, “Technology Changes Everything: Inclusive Tech and Jobs for a Diverse Workforce: Pierce 

Memorial Foundation Final Report,” October 25–26, 2017: 18.

58 “Disabled Americans Are Less Likely to Use Technology,” Pew Research Center, 2017, https://www.pewresearch

.org/fact-tank/2017/04/07/disabled-americans-are-less-likely-to-use-technology/.

59 Michael L. Wehmeyer, Shea Tanis, Daniel K. Davies, and Steven E. Stock, “The Role of Applied Cognitive 

Technology and Assistive Technology in Supporting the Adaptive Behavior of People with Intellectual 

Disability,” Handbook of Adaptive Behavior, 2020.

60 Li Zhou et al., “The Relationship Between Perceived Computer Competence and the Employment 

Outcomes of Transition-Aged Youths with Visual Impairments,” Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness

107, no. 1 (2013): 43–53, https://ourlittlecornerdotorg.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/the-relationship-between

-perceived-computer-competence-and-the-employment-outcomes-of-transition-aged-youths-with-visual

-impairments.pdf.

61 Ibid.

62 Eve Hill, Regina Kline, and Curtis Richards, “Preparing Transition-Age Youth with Disabilities for Work: What 

School Leaders Need to Know About the New Legal Landscape,” Institute for Educational Leadership, 2018, 

http://iel.org/sites/default/files/Preparing-Transition-Age-Youth-with-Disabilities-for-Work.pdf.

63 Ibid.

64 Ibid.

65 Emily Shea Tanis et al., “Self-Report Computer-Based Survey of Technology Use by People with Intellectual 

and Developmental Disabilities,” Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities 50, no. 1 (2012): 53–68.

66 See, for example, “Uber Discriminates Against Riders with Disabilities, Suit Says,” New York Times, July 18, 

2017, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/18/nyregion/uber-disabilities-lawsuit-new-york-city.html; “Disabled 

People with Service Dogs Say Uber, Lyft Drivers Are Denying Them Rides,” Daily Dot, January 24, 2020, 

https://www.dailydot.com/irl/disabled-uber-lyft-drivers-service-dog-harassment/.

67 Even within urban centers, however, other people with physical disabilities and mobility impairments have 

complained that this same option is off-limits to them because ride-sharing companies have failed to ensure 

a sufficient number or availability of accessible cars, and other blind people have complained that the 

companies have discriminated against them because they travel with service animals. Ibid.

68 “Disabled Americans Are Less Likely to Use Technology,” Pew Research Center, 2017, https://www.pewre

search.org/fact-tank/2017/04/07/disabled-americans-are-less-likely-to-use-technology/.

69 Rural Health Information Hub, “Disability in Rural Areas,” https://www.ruralhealthinfo.org/toolkits/disabilities/1

/rural-prevalence.

70 Ibid.

71 “National Disability Policy: A Progress Report—October 2017,” National Council on Disability, 2017: 58, 

https://ncd.gov/progressreport/2017/national-disability-policy-progress-report-october-2017.

72 U.S. Government Accountability Office, “Employment for People with Disabilities: Little Is Known About the 

Effectiveness of Fragmented and Overlapping Programs,” June 2012, https://www.gao.gov/assets/600

/592074.pdf.

73 “2013 National Disability Policy: A Progress Report: Strength in Our Differences,” National Council on 

Disability, October 31, 2013: 16, https://ncd.gov/rawmedia_repository/08-27-2013%20ProgressReport-Final

%20NCD%20formatted%20V3%20KJ%20508%20final.pdf.

74 Ibid.

75 David C. Stapleton et al., “Dismantling the Poverty Trap: Disability Policy for the Twenty-First Century,” The 

Milbank Quarterly 84, no. 4 (2006): 701–32.

76 Richard G. Luecking, Ed.D., “The Implications of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act for Seamless 

Transition of Youth with Significant Disabilities, A Policy Brief Prepared for the Collaboration to Promote SelfDetermination,” Collaboration to Promote Self-Determination, May 2016: 4, http://thecpsd.org/wp-content

/uploads/2016/06/CPSD-WIOA-and-Seamless-Transitionv2.pdf.

112 National Council on Disability
77 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(1)(A)(i)(VIII)(cc); 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(1)(B)(VII).

78 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(1)(A)(i)(VIII)(aa).

79 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(1)(A)(i)(VIII)(bb); 34 C.F.R. § 300.43.

80 “IDEA Series: Broken Promises, The Underfunding of the IDEA,” National Council on Disability, February 7, 

2018.

81 Houtenville, A. and Boege, S. (2019). Annual Report on People with Disabilities in America: 2018. Durham, NH: 

University of New Hampshire, Institute on Disability, 7.

82 “National Disability Policy: A Progress Report—October 2017,” National Council on Disability, 2017, https://ncd

.gov/progressreport/2017/national-disability-policy-progress-report-october-2017.

83 Ibid.

84 Ibid.

85 Houtenville, A. and Boege, S. (2019). Annual Report on People with Disabilities in America: 2018. Durham, NH: 

University of New Hampshire, Institute on Disability, 9.

86 A. A. Antosh et al., “A Collaborative Interagency, Interdisciplinary Approach to Transition from Adolescence to 

Adulthood,” Association of University Centers on Disability, April 2013.

87 Ibid.

88 “StateData: The National Report on Employment Services and Outcomes Through 2016, Institute for 

Community Inclusion, University of Massachusetts Boston, 2018: 10.

89 L. Newman et al., “The Post-High School Outcomes of Young Adults with Disabilities Up to 8 Years After High 

School. A Report from the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2),” NCSER 2011-3005 (2011): 91, 

https://ies.ed.gov/ncser/pubs/20113005/pdf/20113005.pdf.

90 U.S. Department of Education, Rehabilitation Services Administration, “Fiscal Year 2020 Budget Request,” 

https://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/budget20/justifications/i-rehab.pdf.

91 VR Program raw data demonstrates that from FFY 2010–2019 there were 5,968,679 VR applicants, and for the 

same period 5,748,335 people found eligible for VR services, and an average of 169,186 people exiting the 

program with employment annually.

92 During the technical review of NCD’s report, RSA pointed out that it was important to note that this 

percentage is not descriptive of employment outcomes for each year but an average across these years.

93 Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act Performance Accountability and Vocational Rehabilitation 

Program Data: RSA Update and State Agency Presentations, Council of State Administrators of Vocational 

Rehabilitation Fall Conference, PowerPoint presentation, Jacksonville, Florida (October 29, 2019).

94 Note, however, that VR regulations do not require employment outcomes to be full-time.

95 As defined in 34 C.F.R. 361.5(c)(51).

96 Ibid.

97 The State Vocational Rehabilitation Services Program Before and After Enactment of the Workforce Innovation 

and Opportunity Act in 2014. https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/osers/rsa/wioa/state-of-vr-program-after

-wioa.pdf.

98 “StateData: The National Report on Employment Services and Outcomes Through 2016, Institute for 

Community Inclusion, University of Massachusetts Boston, 2018: 4.

99 J. Winsor et al., “StateData: The National Report on Employment Services and Outcomes,” University of 

Massachusetts Boston, Institute for Community Inclusion, 2019: 43, https://www.statedata.info/sites/state

data.info/files/files/bluebook2019_Final.pdf.

100 Letter from Patricia Davidson, Deputy Administrator for Program Operations, U.S. Department of Labor to 

Senator Elizabeth Warren, July 5, 2018.

101 “National Disability Employment Policy. From the New Deal to the Real Deal: Joining the Industries of the 

Future,” National Council on Disability, October 11, 2018: 13, https://ncd.gov/sites/default/files/Documents

/NCD_Deal_Report_508.pdf.

102 Ibid.

2020 Progress Report on National Disability Policy: Increasing Disability Employment 113
103 Eve Hill, Regina Kline, and Curtis Richards, “Preparing Transition-Age Youth with Disabilities for Work: What 

School Leaders Need to Know About the New Legal Landscape,” Institute for Educational Leadership, 2018, 

http://iel.org/sites/default/files/Preparing-Transition-Age-Youth-with-Disabilities-for-Work.pdf.

104 Ibid.

105 29 U.S.C. § 3102(24).

106 “Response to Request for Data,” U.S. Department of Labor. Accessed August 2019.

107 Ibid.

108 Ibid.

109 “National Disability Policy: A Progress Report. Has the Promise Been Kept? Federal Enforcement of Disability 

Rights Laws,” National Council on Disability, October 31, 2018: 64–65; “National Disability Employment Policy. 

From the New Deal to the Real Deal: Joining the Industries of the Future,” National Council on Disability, 

October 11, 2018, https://ncd.gov/sites/default/files/Documents/NCD_Deal_Report_508.pdf.

110 “AbilityOne Program Fact Sheet,” U.S. AbilityOne Commission, September 2019, https://www.abilityone.gov

/media_room/documents/2019_AbilityOne_Fact_Sheet_v20190807.pdf.

111 Letter of Transmittal. February 22, 2019, https://ncd.gov/sites/default/files/Documents/A%20Cursory%20Look

%20at%20AbilityOne.pdf.

112 “National Disability Policy: A Progress Report—October 2017,” National Council on Disability, 2017, https://ncd

.gov/progressreport/2017/national-disability-policy-progress-report-october-2017.

113 “NCD’s Examination of the Early Implementation of WIOA’s Pre-Employment Transition Services by VR 

Agencies and RSA,” Implementation Report Memorandum, National Council on Disability, December 20, 2017.

114 Ibid.

115 Senator Tom Harkin, Congressional Record, Senate, Vol. 160, Pt. 8, 10862 (June 25, 2014).

116 “What Are the Required Pre-employment Transition Services?,” Pre-employment Transition 

Services, Workforce Innovation Technical Assistance Center, http://www.wintac.org/topic-areas/

pre-employment-transition-services#required_preemployemnts.

117 Section 113(b) of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as revised by the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act; 

34 CFR § 361.48(a)(2).

118 Implementation Report Memorandum, National Council on Disability, December 20, 2017, https://ncd.gov

/sites/default/files/FINAL_WIOA%20PETS%20Implementation%20Memorandum%20Report.pdf.

119 “NCD’s Examination of the Early Implementation of WIOA’s Pre-Employment Transition Services by VR 

Agencies and RSA,” Implementation Report Memorandum, National Council on Disability, December 20, 2017.

120 Ibid.

121 Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act Performance Accountability and Vocational Rehabilitation 

Program Data: RSA Update and State Agency Presentations, Council of State Administrators of Vocational 

Rehabilitation Fall Conference, PowerPoint presentation, Jacksonville, Florida (October 29, 2019).

122 Mark Schultz (director, Rehabilitation Services Administration), interview by author, January 28, 2020.

123 CareerOneStop Worker ReEmployment. “American Job Centers,” https://www.careeronestop.org/

WorkerReEmployment/JobSearch/AmericanJobCenters/american-job-centers.aspx.

124 “National Disability Policy: A Progress Report. Has the Promise Been Kept? Federal Enforcement of Disability 

Rights Laws,” National Council on Disability, October 31, 2018: 50.

125 “Response to Request for Data,” Office of Disability Employment Policy, U.S. Department of Labor. Accessed 

February 2020.

126 “Response to Request for Data,” Office of Disability Employment Policy, U.S. Department of Labor. Accessed 

February 2020.

127 Richard G. Luecking et al., “Vocational Rehabilitation Outcomes for Students Participating in a Model Transition 

Program,” Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin 61, no. 3 (September 2017): 154–63.

128 “NCD Examination of the Early Implementation of WIOA’s Pre-Employment Transition Services by VR 

Agencies and RSA,” National Council on Disability, December 20, 2017, https://ncd.gov/publications/2017

/early-implementation-wioa-PETS.

114 National Council on Disability
129 Federal Register 85, no. 40, “Policy Interpretation: Request for Comments,” Department of Education, 34 CFR 

Part 361 (February 28, 2020).

130 Ibid.

131 Ibid.

132 Ibid.

133 Richard G. Luecking, Ed.D., “The Implications of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act for Seamless 

Transition of Youth with Significant Disabilities, A Policy Brief Prepared for the Collaboration to Promote SelfDetermination,” Collaboration to Promote Self-Determination, May 2016: 4, http://thecpsd.org/wp-content

/uploads/2016/06/CPSD-WIOA-and-Seamless-Transitionv2.pdf.

134 Erik W. Carter, Diane Austin, and Audrey A. Trainor, “Predictors of Postschool Employment Outcomes for 

Young Adults with Severe Disabilities,” Journal of Disability Policy Studies 23, no. 1 (2011): 50–63.

135 “National Disability Employment Policy. From the New Deal to the Real Deal: Joining the Industries of the 

Future,” National Council on Disability, October 11, 2018: 120, https://ncd.gov/sites/default/files/Documents

/NCD_Deal_Report_508.pdf.

136 Section 113(b) of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as revised by the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act; 

34 CFR § 361.48(a)(2).

137 General Accounting Office (GAO), Special Minimum Wage Program, Centers Offer Employment and Support 

Services to Workers with Disabilities, But Labor Should Improve Oversight GAO-01-886, September 2001: 4.

138 Richard G. Luecking et al., “Vocational Rehabilitation Outcomes for Students Participating in a Model Transition 

Program,” Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin 61, no. 3 (September 2017): 154–63.

139 Ibid.

140 “National Disability Policy: A Progress Report—March 2009,” National Council on Disability, 2009, https://ncd

.gov/progress_reports/Mar312009#r7.

141 Susanne M. Bruyere, “Employment and Disability: Issues, Innovations, and Opportunities,” Labor and 

Employment Relations Association Series, 263.

142 Susanne Bruyere, “The Futures of Work and People with Disabilities,” Cornell University, 7.

143 Career Pathways for Individuals with Disabilities (Commonwealth of Virginia), https://vadars.org/drs/cpid/.

144 “Training and Employment Guidance Letter No. 10-16, Change 1,” Employment and Training Administration, 

U.S. Department of Labor, August 23, 2017: 7, https://wdr.doleta.gov/directives/corr_doc.cfm?DOCN=3255.

145 Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act Performance Accountability and Vocational Rehabilitation 

Program Data: RSA Update and State Agency Presentations, Council of State Administrators of Vocational 

Rehabilitation Fall Conference, PowerPoint presentation, Jacksonville, Florida (October 29, 2019).

146 “Texas HireAbility Campaign Connects Employers to Job Seekers with Disabilities,” 

Texas Workforce Commission, October 5, 2018, https://twc.texas.gov/news/

texas-hireability-campaign-connects-employers-job-seekers-disabilities.

147 Ibid.

148 Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, 29 CFR Parts 29 and 30 (“Apprenticeship 

Programs; Equal Employment Opportunity”), Federal Register, 81, no. 243 (2016).

149 “Response to Request for Data,” Office of Disability Employment Policy, U.S. Department of Labor. Accessed 

February 7, 2020.

150 Higher Education Opportunity Act (HEOA) (PL 110-315) (enacted August 14, 2008).

151 Meg Grigal, Debra Hart, and Cate Weir, “Postsecondary Education for People with Intellectual Disability: 

Current Issues and Critical Challenges,” Inclusion 1, no. 1 (2013): 50–63.

152 Comprehensive Transition and Postsecondary Programs for Students with ID (TPSID), https://www2.ed.gov

/programs/tpsid/awards.html.

153 “National Disability Policy: A Progress Report—October 2017,” National Council on Disability, 2017: 38, 

https://ncd.gov/progressreport/2017/national-disability-policy-progress-report-october-2017.

154 “Substantial Gainful Activity,” Social Security (Social Security Administration), https://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola

/sga.html.

2020 Progress Report on National Disability Policy: Increasing Disability Employment 115
155 “National Disability Policy: A Progress Report—October 2017,” National Council on Disability, 2017: 39, 

https://ncd.gov/progressreport/2017/national-disability-policy-progress-report-october-2017.

156 David C. Stapleton et al., “Dismantling the Poverty Trap: Disability Policy for the Twenty-First Century,” The 

Milbank Quarterly 84, no. 4 (2006): 701–32.

157 Gina A. Livermore, “Social Security Disability Beneficiaries with Work-Related Goals and Expectations,” Social 

Security Bulletin 71, no. 3 (2011), https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v71n3/v71n3p61.html.

158 Jean Winsor et al., “State Data: The National Report on Employment Services and Outcomes Through 2016,” 

Institute for Community Inclusion, 2018, 31.

159 “National Disability Policy: A Progress Report—March 2009,” National Council on Disability, 2009, https://ncd

.gov/progress_reports/Mar312009#r7.

160 Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act of 1999, P.L. 106-170.

161 Communication to NCD from SSA, May 1, 2020.

162 J. Schimmel Hyde and David C. Stapleton, “Changes to the Ticket to Work Regulations in 2008 Attracted 

Providers and Participants, but Impacts on Work and Benefits Are Unclear,” Social Security Bulletin 75, no. 4 

(2015). https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v75n4/v75n4p15.html.

163 Employment and Training Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, “Training and Employment Notice No. 16-18,” 

March 8, 2019, https://wdr.doleta.gov/directives/corr_doc.cfm?DOCN=4824.

164 Kevin Nickerson (co-director, American Dream Employment Network), interview by author, December 2019.

165 Kevin Nickerson (co-director, American Dream Employment Network), interview by author, December 2019.

166 “What Is ABLE?,” ABLE National Resource Center, https://www.ablenrc.org/employers/what-is-able/.

167 “Financial Empowerment Models: Community-Based Organizations Serving People with Disabilities,” 

and “Incorporating Savings Options for People with Disabilities into Financial Empowerment Programs,” 

Information Briefs, National Disability Institute and Citi Community Development.

168 “Financial Empowerment Models: Community-Based Organizations Serving People with Disabilities,” 

Information Briefs, National Disability Institute and Citi Community Development.

169 Council of State Agencies for Vocational Rehabilitation, “CSAVR Employment First,” White Paper.

170 Limits in participating states range from a low of $981 monthly ($11,772/year) income to a high of $6,250 

monthly ($75,000/year). Most participating states limit monthly income to $2,000–$3,000. State asset limits 

range from $2,000 to $75,000, with most states capping assets at below $15,000. Seven states do not 

participate in the Buy-In program at all.

171 Office of Personnel Management, September 2018, http://www.fedscope.opm.gov/. This estimate does not 

include the agencies and departments listed at http://www.fedscope.opm.gov/datadefn/aehri_sdm.asp#cpdf3.

172 29 U.S.C. § 791; 29 C.F.R. § 1614.203.

173 29 C.F.R. § 1614.203(b).

174 29 C.F.R. § 1614.203(c).

175 29 C.F.R. § 1614.203(d).

176 These include, but are not limited to, EEOC’s Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive 715, 

requiring all federal agencies to design model recruitment and hiring strategies for people with disabilities 

and implement programs to retain workers with disabilities; the establishment of ODEP within DOL 

to provide leadership to increase employment opportunities for adults and youth with disabilities, and 

President Bush’s 2001 New Freedom Initiative to promote the employment and integration of people with 

disabilities, Executive Order 13163—Increasing the Opportunity for Individuals with Disabilities (July 26, 

2000) was designed to add 100,000 employees with disabilities to the federal workforce within five years; 

Executive Order 13187 (January 10, 2001), establishing a President's Disability Employment Partnership 

Board to provide advice on facilitating the employment of people with disabilities and to assist in promoting 

the formation of public-private partnerships, use of economic incentives, provision of technical assistance 

regarding entrepreneurship, and other actions to enhance employment opportunities for people with 

disabilities. Executive Order 13583 (August 18, 2011) established a Coordinated Government-wide Initiative 

to Promote Diversity and Inclusion in the Federal Workforce, requiring OPM, OMB, and the EEOC to develop 

116 National Council on Disability
and issue a Government-wide Diversity and Inclusion Strategic Plan, updated every four years, focusing on 

workforce diversity, inclusion, and agency accountability and leadership.

177 “Executive Order 13548—Increasing Federal Employment of Individuals with Disabilities,” Office of the Press 

Secretary, The White House, July 26, 2010, https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/executive

-order-increasing-federal-employment-individuals-with-disabilities.

178 U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, “Improving the Participation Rate of People with Targeted 

Disabilities in the Federal Work Force,” January 2008, https://www.eeoc.gov/federal-sector/reports/improving

-participation-rate-people-targeted-disabilities-federal-work-force. Information on the federal workforce 

participation of people with nontargeted disabilities and veterans with disabilities over the last 35 years can 

be accessed at Office of Personnel Management, “Employment of People with Disabilities in the Federal 

Executive Branch FY 2015,” September 22, 2016:32, https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/diversity-and

-inclusion/reports/disability-report-fy2015.pdf.

179 “Applying MD-715 to Improve Participation of Employees with Targeted Disabilities,” U.S. Equal Employment 

Opportunity Commission, 2008, https://www.eeoc.gov/federal/directives/md715pwtd.cfm.

180 Also see, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity, “Commission Annual Report on the Federal Work Force 

FY 2003,” (The total federal workforce has declined from 2,630,755 employees in FY 1994 to 2,428,330 

employees in FY 2003, a net change of –7.7 percent. However, the number of federal employees with 

targeted disabilities has declined from 31,860 in FY 1994 to 25,551 in FY 2003, a net change of –19.8 percent. 

From FY 1999 to FY 2003, the rate of decline for employees with targeted disabilities was more than eight 

and a half times greater than the rate of decline for the federal workforce as a whole.) https://www.eeoc.gov

/federal-sector/reports/annual-report-federal-work-force-fiscal-year-2003.

181 “Questions and Answers: The EEOC’s Final Rule on Affirmative Action for People with Disabilities in Federal 

Employment,” U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, January 3, 2017, https://www.eeoc.gov/laws

/regulations/qanda-ada-disabilities-final-rule.cfm.

182 “Self-Identification of Disability,” U.S. Office of Personnel Management, October 2016, https://www.opm.gov

/forms/pdf_fill/sf256.pdf.

183 29 C.F.R. § 1614.203(a)(7); 5 C.F.R. § 213.3102(u). Also see earlier note on Standard Form 256 and the 

Applicant Flow form for a listing of disabilities that are considered “target disabilities” for federal hiring 

purposes.

184 “Applying MD-715 to Improve Participation of Employees with Targeted Disabilities,” U.S. Equal Employment 

Opportunity Commission, 2008, https://www.eeoc.gov/federal/directives/md715pwtd.cfm.

185 “Federal Employment of People with Disabilities,” National Council on Disability, March 31, 2009, https://ncd

.gov/publications/2009/MArch312009.

186 Total hires for executive branch agencies and Department of Defense combined.

187 This number does not correspond to the OPM number of hires in Table 9.

188 “Disability Employment: Selective Placement Program Coordinator,” U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 

https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/disability-employment/selective-placement-program-coordinator/.

189 Ibid.

190 5 C.F.R. § 213.3102(u).

191 Also see, NBC News, Shelby Hanssen, “Under Trump, discrimination complaints and firing of disabled federal 

workers rise,” August 8, 2019, https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/under-trump-discrimination

-complaints-firing-disabled-federal-workers-rise-n1036291. “NBC News called 50 coordinators from cabinetlevel agencies listed in the (SPPC) directory; however, 23 entries were out of date. Most had incorrect or 

disconnected phone numbers.” Further, in many instances, the job seeker may get an automated response 

with no follow-up or basic information on how to search for jobs on USAjobs.gov.”

192 Interview of January 10, 2019.

193 Office of Personnel Management, “Employment of People with Disabilities in the Federal Executive Branch 

FY 2014,” October 9, 2015, https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/diversity-and-inclusion/reports

/disability-report-fy2014.pdf. “OPM, in consultation with partner agencies, has developed an online course 

2020 Progress Report on National Disability Policy: Increasing Disability Employment 117
entitled, ‘A Roadmap to Success: Hiring, Retaining and Including People with Disabilities.’ This course, which 

is now available to all Federal agencies, provides Federal employees with basic information and resources 

to successfully hire, retain, and advance employees with disabilities. This course is provided to agencies at 

no cost on HR University. This course would benefit any Federal employee. In accordance with E.O. 13548, 

training is mandatory for human resources personnel and hiring managers.”

194 Office of Personnel Management, “Training and Development Wiki: Federally Mandated Training,” March 5, 

2018, https://www.opm.gov/wiki/training/Federally-Mandated-Training/History.aspx?Revision=94.

195 Office of Personnel Management, “Disability Employment,” https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight

/disability-employment/hiring/#url=Schedule-A-Hiring-Authority.

196 https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/oed_files/Contracting_8a_Overview.pdf.

197 13 C.F.R. §124.101.

198 13 C.F.R. § 124.103(b).

199 13 C.F.R. § 124.103(c).

200 13 C.F.R. 124.103(d).

201 Ibid.

202 NCD Letter to Small Business Administration regarding Its 8a Program (October 22, 2015). https://ncd.gov

/publications/2015/ncd-letter-small-business-administration. Also, email communications between NCD and 

SBA between April 2010 and September 2018.

203 OFCCP is composed of six geographic regions with 48 area and district offices and is the agency that 

administers and enforces federal equal employment opportunity laws applicable to federal contractors and 

subcontractors. https://www.dol.gov/ofccp/contacts/regkeyp.htm; U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Federal 

Contract Compliance Programs, “District and Area Office Directory,” https://www.dol.gov/ofccp/contacts

/ofnation2.htm.

204 41 CFR Part 60-741; “Regulations Implementing Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act,” Office of Federal 

Contract Compliance Programs, U.S. Department of Labor, https://www.dol.gov/ofccp/regs/compliance

/section503.htm.

205 41 C.F.R. §60-741.45(a)(2)(i).

206 41 C.F.R. § 60-741.40(b).

207 41 C.F.R. §60-741.44(j).

208 41 C.F.R. § 60-741.42(a)-(c).

209 Sarah von Schrader and Susanne M. Bruyere, “What Works? How Federal Contractors Are Implementing 

Section 503: Survey Report,” 2018: 14, https://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/edicollect/1361/.

210 Ibid.

211 “Section 503 Regulations Frequently Asked Questions,” Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs 

(U.S. Department of Labor, n.d.), https://www.dol.gov/ofccp/regs/compliance/faqs/503_faq.htm#Q3.

212 Ibid.

213 Sarah von Schrader and Susanne M. Bruyere, “What Works? How Federal Contractors Are Implementing 

Section 503: Survey Report,” 2018: 50–51, https://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/edicollect/1361/.

214 Ibid.

215 Ibid.

216 U.S. Government Accountability Office, “Strengthening Oversight Could Improve Federal Contractor 

Nondiscrimination Compliance.” September 2016, https://www.gao.gov/assets/680/679960.pdf. OFCCP 

calculated a higher end estimate of 251,300 contractor establishments covered under Section 503; 78 Fed. 

Reg. 58 (September 24, 2013): 714.

217 Email communication from OFCCP to NCD of May 14 and 15, 2020.

218 “Directive (DIR) 2018-04,” Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, U.S. Department of Labor, 

https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ofccp/directives/2018-04.

219 Ibid.

118 National Council on Disability
220 Ibid.

221 U.S. Department of Labor, Section 503—Focused Reviews, https://www.dol.gov/ofccp/Section503

-FocusedReviews/.

222 U.S. Department of Labor, Section 503—Focused Reviews, https://www.dol.gov/ofccp/Section503

-FocusedReviews/.

223 “Voluntary Self-Identification of Disability Form,” Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, U.S. 

Department of Labor, https://www.dol.gov/ofccp/regs/compliance/sec503/Self_ID_Forms/SelfIDForms.

htm; “Do Ask, Do Tell: Encouraging Employees with Disabilities to Self-Identify,” Employer Assistance and 

Resource Network on Disability Inclusion, https://askearn.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/EARN-Self-ID

-Fact-Sheet.pdf.

224 U.S. Department of Labor, Section 503—Focused Reviews, https://www.dol.gov/ofccp/Section503

-FocusedReviews/.

225 “FY 2020. Congressional Budget Justification,” Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, https://www

.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/general/budget/2020/CBJ-2020-V2-10.pdf.

226 OFCCP email to NCD of February 7, 2020.

227 OFCCP email to NCD of March 24, 2020.

228 U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, Federal Contract Compliance 

Manual, October 2014: 3–4, https://www.dol.gov/ofccp/regs/compliance/fccm/FCCM_FINAL_508c.pdf.

229 The data provided to NCD did not indicate how many of the 627 investigations were of Section 503 

complaints.

230 “National Disability Policy: A Progress Report. Has the Promise Been Kept? Federal Enforcement of Disability 

Rights Laws,” National Council on Disability, October 31, 2018: 64–65.

231 “National Disability Policy: A Progress Report. Has the Promise Been Kept? Federal Enforcement of Disability 

Rights Laws,” National Council on Disability, October 31, 2018: 64–65.

232 According to OFCCP, the compliance reviews scheduled between 2016 and 2019 equal: 2500 (2016), 800 

(2017), 1750 (2018), and 4000 (2019). Email from OFCCP to NCD, May 15, 2020.

233 U.S. Department of Labor, Section 503—Focused Reviews, https://www.dol.gov/ofccp/

Section503-FocusedReviews/.

234 “Response to Request for Data,” Office of Federal Contract Compliance Program, U.S. Department of Labor. 

Accessed February 2020.

235 Ibid.

236 U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, Memorandum from Craig Leen, 

Director, to All Contracting Agencies of the Federal Government, dated March 17, 2020, https://www.dol.gov

/sites/dolgov/files/OFCCP/National-Interest-Exemption-Memo-Coronavirus-Relief-Efforts.pdf.

237 Ibid.

238 Ibid.

239 82 Fed. Reg. 654 (January 3, 2017).

240 82 Fed. Reg. 654 (January 3, 2017): 657.

241 29 C.F.R. § 1614.203(a).

242 82 Fed. Reg. 654 (January 3, 2017): 680.

243 82 Fed. Reg. 654 (January 3, 2017): 669.

244 Ibid.

245 Ibid., 680.

246 Ibid.

247 The only centralized program that provides computer-related/electronic accommodations to federal employees 

with disabilities—the Computer/Electronic Accommodations Program (CAP)—typically runs out of funding 

each year, hindering the ability of small agencies to accommodate workers properly. And there is no 

government-wide policy requiring agencies to create a centralized accommodations fund, a best practice for 

2020 Progress Report on National Disability Policy: Increasing Disability Employment 119
ensuring that funds are available for any office within an agency to draw from for accommodations, rather 

than relying on individual office budgets. See, NCD letter of January 23, 2020, to Congress, https://ncd.gov

/publications/2020/ncd-letter-dod-cap.

248 American Association of People with Disabilities and Disability, “Getting to Equal: The Disability Inclusion 

Advantage,” Accenture, 2018, https://www.accenture.com/_acnmedia/pdf-89/accenture-disability-inclusion

-research-report.pdf.

249 U.S. Department of Labor, News Release, “U.S. Department of Labor Selects Five Organizations to Increase 

Employment for People with Disabilities,” April 29, 2020, https://www.dol.gov/newsroom/releases/odep

/odep20200429-0.

250 Employer Assistance and Resource Network on Disability Inclusion, https://askearn.org/wp-content/uploads

/2019/07/EARN_DI_Fact_-Sheet_0619-A.pdf.

251 What Can You Do? The Campaign for Disability Employment, https://www.whatcanyoudocampaign.org/psa

-campaigns/working-works-psa/.

252 “Federal Agency Employment Strategies: A Framework for Disability Inclusion (2018 Edition),” Employer 

Assistance and Resource Network on Disability Inclusion, 2018, https://askearn.org/wp-content/uploads

/2019/04/EARN-Federal-Framework-2018-Edition-Accessible.pdf.

253 The Valuable 500, https://www.thevaluable500.com/.

254 Employment Opportunities for Individuals with Disabilities Is #Solvable, Mini-Films (The Rockefeller 

Foundation, 2019), https://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/solvable/solvable-video-series/employment

-opportunities-individuals-disabilities-solvable/?utm_source=Rockefeller+Foundation+eAlerts&utm_campaign

=8b66490eac-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2019_12_30_SOLV_FINAL_EMAIL&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0

_6138ee88b7-8b66490eac-215621533&goal=0_6138ee88b7-8b66490eac-215621533&mc_cid=8b66490eac

&mc_eid=33dfe7f48e.

255 U.S. Small Business Administration, www.sba.gov.

256 “Empowerment for Americans with Disabilities: Breaking Barriers to Careers and Full Employment,” National 

Council on Disability, October 1, 2007: 22, 278, https://ncd.gov/publications/2007/Oct2007.

257 “Response to Request for Data,” Social Security Administration. Accessed February 2020.

258 “Response to Request for Data,” Social Security Administration. Accessed February 2020.

259 20 C.F.R. § 678.435; 34 C.F.R. § 361.435; 34 C.F.R. § 463.435.

120 National Council on Disability
National Council on Disability 

1331 F Street, NW, Suite 850 

Washington, DC 20004