SHRM Survey Findings: Employing People With Disabilities: Practices and Policies Related to Accessibility and Accommodation In collaboration with and commissioned by Cornell University ILR School Employment and Disability Institute May 17, 2012

Introduction SHRM, in collaboration with and commissioned by the Cornell University ILR School Employment and Disability Institute, conducted a survey with its members about organizational practices and policies related to employing people with disabilities. Areas focused upon in this survey research included: Part 1: Recruitment and Hiring (Released April 11, 2012) Part 2: Accessibility and Accommodation (Released May 17, 2012) Part 3: Retention and Advancement (To be released soon) In addition, the survey explored metrics that organizations track for all employees as well as for employees with disabilities, and potential barriers in the employment of and advancement of people with disabilities. The data findings included in this document focus on Part 2 of the research: Practices and Policies Related to Accessibility and Accommodation for Employees with Disabilities.

Part 2: Policies and Practices Related to Accessibility and Accommodation

Study Purpose, Partners and Funding Study Purpose: to provide new knowledge about differences in HR practices related to hiring, retaining and advancing individuals with disabilities, and the relationship between these practices and positive employment outcomes. Partners: SHRM, in collaboration with Cornell University. Funding: U.S. Department of Education, National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research grant to Cornell University, Rehabilitation Research and Training Center on Employer Practices (Grant No. H133B040013).

Definitions For this survey we define a “person with a disability” as someone who has a physical and/or mental impairment that substantially limits a major life activity. This could include (but is not limited to) individuals with a physical disability, a chronic health condition, a vision or hearing impairment, a mental health condition, or a workplace injury or illness. We define an “effective practice or policy” as one that leads to improved recruitment, hiring, retention, engagement, workplace climate and/or advancement of people with disabilities.

Key Findings What policies and practices related to accessibility and accommodation for people with disabilities are currently being implemented by organizations? Three out of four (75%) organizations designate an office or person to address accommodation questions. Organizations also allow employees to exceed the maximum duration of medical leave as an accommodation (73%) and require training for supervisors on legal requirements of disability non-discrimination and accommodation (73%). Majority of organizations have established grievance procedures to address reasonable accommodation issues (68%) and evaluate pre-employment occupational screenings to ensure they are unbiased (65%). Among organizations that have implemented policies and practices related to accessibility and accommodation for employees with disabilities, which policies and practices were found to be very effective? More than one-half of organizations (56%) indicate that having a centralized accommodation fund (i.e., companywide fund to provide accommodations for people with disabilities) was a very effective practice. In addition, a designated office or person to address accommodation questions (54%) and a formal (i.e., written, documented) decision-making process for the case-by-case provision of accommodations (54%) were found to be very effective practices related to the accommodation of employees with disabilities.

Key Findings (Continued) Are some organizations more likely to have policies and practices related to accessibility and accommodation for people with disabilities depending on the organization’s staff size or sector? Larger organizations are more likely to have polices and practices related to accessibility and accommodation of people with disabilities compared with smaller organizations. Publicly owned for-profit organizations also are more likely to have some of these policies and practices in place compared with privately owned for-profit organizations and nonprofit organizations.

Policies and Practices Related to Accessibility and Accommodation Our organization… Note: Respondents who answered “don’t know” and “in development/under review" were excluded from this analysis.

Policies and Practices Related to Accessibility and Accommodation (Continued) Our organization… Note: Respondents who answered “don’t know” and “in development/under review" were excluded from this analysis.

Effectiveness of Policies and Practices Our organization… Very Effective Somewhat Effective Not Effective Effectiveness Not Known Has a centralized accommodations fund (i.e., companywide fund to provide accommodations for people with disabilities) (n = 99) 56% 27% 2% 15% Has a designated office or person to address accommodation questions (n = 461) 54% 28% 17% Has a formal (i.e., written, documented) decision-making process for the case-by-case provision of accommodations (n = 262) 24% 1% 21% Evaluates pre-employment occupational screenings to ensure they are unbiased (n = 353) 50% 31% Note: Respondents who answered that a policy and practice related to accessibility and accommodation was “not in place,” “in development / under review” or “don’t know” were excluded from this analysis. Percentages may not equal 100% due to rounding.

Effectiveness of Policies and Practices (Continued) Our organization… Very Effective Somewhat Effective Not Effective Effectiveness Not Known Requires training for supervisors on legal requirements of disability non-discrimination and accommodation (n = 426) 46% 38% 1% 15% Allows an employee to exceed the maximum duration of medical leave as an accommodation (n = 406) 45% 35% 19% Has an established grievance procedure to address reasonable accommodation issues (n = 398) 31% 0% 24% Regularly reviews the accessibility of our online application system to people with visual, hearing, finger dexterity and cognitive impairments (n = 144) 40% 30% 2% 28% Provides advance notice to job applicants that reasonable accommodations are provided during the job application process (n = 349) 39% 25% Note: Respondents who answered that a policy and practice related to accessibility and accommodation was “not in place,” “in development / under review” or “don’t know” were excluded from this analysis. Percentages may not equal 100% due to rounding.

Comparison by Organization Sector

Definition of Sectors Publicly owned for-profit organization is a limited liability company that offers its securities (stock/shares, bonds/loans, etc.) for sale to the general public, typically through a stock exchange, or through market makers operating in over-the-counter markets. This is separate and distinct from a government-owned corporation, which might be described as a publicly owned company. Privately owned for-profit organization is a business company owned either by nongovernmental organizations or by a relatively small number of shareholders or company members. This organization does not offer or trade its stock (shares) to the general public on the stock market exchanges, but rather the company's stock is offered, owned and traded or exchanged privately. Less ambiguous terms for a privately held company are unquoted company and unlisted company. Nonprofit organization is neither a legal nor technical definition but generally refers to an organization that uses surplus revenues to achieve its goals rather than to distribute them as profit or dividends. States in the United States defer to the IRS designation conferred under U.S. Internal Revenue Code Section 501(c), when the IRS deems an organization eligible. A nonprofit organization may or may not have shareholders.

Comparison by Organization Sector Our organization… regularly reviews the accessibility of its online application system to people with visual, hearing, finger dexterity and cognitive impairments Organization sector Differences based on organization sector Publicly owned for-profits (44%) Privately owned for-profits (24%) Publicly owned for-profits > privately owned for-profits evaluates pre-employment occupational screenings to ensure they are unbiased Organization sector Differences based on organization sector Publicly owned for-profits (78%) Privately owned for-profits (58%) Publicly owned for-profits > privately owned for-profits Note: Respondents who answered “don’t know” and “in development/under review" were excluded from this analysis. Only statistically significant differences are shown.

Comparison by Organization Sector (Continued) Our organization… has an established grievance procedure to address reasonable accommodation issues Organization sector Differences based on organization sector Publicly owned for-profits (78%) Privately owned for-profits (61%) Publicly owned for-profits > privately owned for-profits allows an employee to exceed the maximum duration of medical leave as an accommodation Organization sector Differences based on organization sector Publicly owned for-profits (81%) Privately owned for-profits (69%) Publicly owned for-profits > privately owned for-profits Note: Respondents who answered “don’t know” and “in development/under review" were excluded from this analysis. Only statistically significant differences are shown.

Comparison by Organization Sector (Continued) Our organization… has a formal (i.e., written, documented) decision-making process for the case-by-case provision of accommodations Organization sector Differences based on organization sector Publicly owned for-profits (65%) Privately owned for-profits (38%) Nonprofits (41%) Publicly owned for-profits > privately owned for-profits, nonprofits requires training for supervisors on legal requirements of disability non-discrimination and accommodation Organization sector Differences based on organization sector Publicly owned for-profits (86%) Privately owned for-profits (67%) Nonprofits (68%) Publicly owned for-profits > privately owned for-profits, nonprofits has a centralized accommodations fund (i.e., companywide fund to provide accommodations for people with disabilities) Organization sector Differences based on organization sector Publicly owned for-profits (33%) Nonprofits (28%) Privately owned for-profits (11%) Publicly owned for-profits , nonprofits > privately owned for-profits Note: Respondents who answered “don’t know” and “in development/under review" were excluded from this analysis. Only statistically significant differences are shown.

Comparison by Organization Staff Size

Comparison by Organization Staff Size Our organization… regularly reviews the accessibility of its online application system to people with visual, hearing, finger dexterity and cognitive impairments Smaller organizations Larger organizations Differences based on organization staff size 1 to 99 employees (19%) 100 to 499 employees (21%) 500 to 2,499 employees (29%) 2,500 to 24,999 employees (52%) 25,000 or more employees (73%) Larger organizations > smaller organizations provides advance notice to job applicants that reasonable accommodations are provided during the job application process Smaller organizations Larger organizations Differences based on organization staff size 1 to 99 employees (52%) 2,500 to 24,999 employees (74%) 25,000 or more employees (80%) Larger organizations > smaller organizations evaluates pre-employment occupational screenings to ensure they are unbiased Smaller organizations Larger organizations Differences based on organization staff size 1 to 99 employees (55%) 100 to 499 employees (53%) 2,500 to 24,999 employees (80%) 25,000 or more employees (88%) Larger organizations > smaller organizations Note: Respondents who answered “don’t know” and “in development/under review" were excluded from this analysis. Only statistically significant differences are shown.

Comparison by Organization Staff Size (Continued) Our organization… has a centralized accommodations fund (i.e., companywide fund to provide accommodations for people with disabilities) Smaller organizations Larger organizations Differences based on organization staff size 1 to 99 employees (9%) 100 to 499 employees (17%) 500 to 2,499 employees (19%) 2,500 to 24,999 employees (24%) 25,000 or more employees (59%) Larger organizations > smaller organizations Note: Respondents who answered “don’t know” and “in development/under review" were excluded from this analysis. Only statistically significant differences are shown.

Comparison by Organization Staff Size (Continued) Our organization… has a formal (i.e., written, documented) decision-making process for the case-by-case provision of accommodations Smaller organizations Larger organizations Differences based on organization staff size 1 to 99 employees (38%) 100 to 499 employees (35%) 2,499 to 24,999 employees (62%) 25,000 or more employees (74%) Larger organizations > smaller organizations requires training for supervisors on legal requirements of disability non-discrimination and accommodation Smaller organizations Larger organizations Differences based on organization staff size 1 to 99 employees (62%) 2,500 to 24,999 (83%) Larger organizations > smaller organizations Note: Respondents who answered “don’t know” and “in development/under review" were excluded from this analysis. Only statistically significant differences are shown.

Demographics: Organization Industry Percentage of Respondents Manufacturing 26% Finance and insurance 12% Professional, scientific and technical services Retail trade Wholesale trade 9% Transportation and warehousing 8% Accommodation and food services 7% Entertainment and recreation 5% Information Utilities Construction 4% Educational services Note: n = 637. Total does not equal 100% due to multiple response options.

Demographics: Organization Industry (Continued) Percentage of Respondents Health care and social assistance 4% Religious, grantmaking, civic, professional and similar organizations Repair and maintenance Real estate and rental and leasing 3% Administrative and support and waste management and remediation services 2% Management of companies and enterprises Public administration Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting 1% Mining Personal and laundry services Other 8% Note: n = 637. Total does not equal 100% due to multiple response options.

Demographics: Respondents by Organization Sector Note: n = 611. Percentages do not equal 100% due to rounding.

Demographics: Respondents by Organization Staff Size

Demographics: Other Does your organization have U.S.-based operations (business units) only or does it operate multinationally? U.S.-based operations only 60% Multinational operations 40% n = 617 Is your organization a single-unit or a multi-unit organization? Multi-unit organization: An organization that has more than one location 80% Single-unit organization: An organization in which the location and the organization are one and the same 20% n = 635 For multi-unit organizations, are HR policies and practices determined by the multi-unit corporate headquarters, by each work location or both? Multi-unit headquarters determines HR policies and practices 51% A combination of both the work location and the multi-unit headquarters determine HR policies and practices 46% Each work location determines HR policies and practices 3% n = 516 What is the HR department/function responded for throughout this survey? Corporate (companywide) 57% Facility/location 26% Business unit/division 17% n = 519

Further Information Available SHRM® Disability Employment Resource Page www.shrm.org/disabilityemployment HR Tips www.hrtips.org Employer Assistance and Resource Network (EARN) www.askEARN.org Job Accommodation Network (JAN) http://askjan.org National ADA Network www.adata.org Cornell Employment and Disability Institute publications online http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu Employment and Disability Institute at Cornell University www.ilr.cornell.edu/edi U.S. Disability Status Report www.disabilitystatistics.org We’ve added a few additional resources

Survey Methodology Response rate = 23% Sample consisted of 662 HR professional respondents from a randomly selected sample of SHRM’s membership. A series of e-mail reminders along with a call campaign were used to encourage survey participation. Margin of error is +/-3%. Survey fielded October 19-December 15, 2011 For more survey/poll findings, visit www.shrm.org/surveys For more information about SHRM’s Customized Research Services, visit www.shrm.org/customizedresearch Follow us on Twitter: http://twitter.com/SHRM_Research