[Ohio-talk] Workforce Integration Task Force
Eric Duffy
peduffy63 at gmail.com
Sun Mar 1 03:22:10 UTC 2015
Richard asked for a copy of this report a few days ago.
Deborah indicated that it is available on NFB-NEWSLINE. Last I checked, only the Executive Summary is available that way. Here is the complete report.
Workforce Integration Task Force
Final Report to Governor John R. Kasich
TABLE OF CONTENTS
A MESSAGE FROM THE CO-CHAIRS ............................................................................................................................ 3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................................... 3
Background ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 4
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................................ 7
Key Task Force Findings on Barriers to Employment......................................................................................................................... 9
Specific Barriers................................................................................................................................................................................ 9
Recommendations...........................................................................................................................................................................13
Recommendation #1: OOD and ODJFS Collaboration on Uniform and Effective Communication.....................................................13
Recommendation #2: Business to Business Engagement...................................................................................................................14
Recommendation #3: Building a Culture of Diversity & Inclusion ...................................................................................................... 15
Recommendation #4: Explore Ways to Connect Employers with Individuals with Disabilities .......................................................... 16
Recommendation #5: Developing Standards for Services .................................................................................................................. 17
Recommendation # 6: Working Group on Program Alignment.......................................................................................................... 18
Recommendation #7: Disincentives to Work...................................................................................................................................... 19
Recommendation #8: Access to Pre-vocational and Vocational Training.......................................................................................... 19
Recommendation #9: Immersive and Hands on Training .................................................................................................................. 20
Recommendation #10: Transportation...............................................................................................................................................21
CONCLUSION................................................................................................................................................................... 22
APPENDIX A: WORKFORCE INTEGRATION TASK FORCE MEMBERS........................................................... 24
APPENDIX B: SURVEY DATA FOCUS GROUP SUMMARY................................................................................... 26
Questionnaires ................................................................................................................................................................................26
Focus Groups...................................................................................................................................................................................27
APPENDIX C: DEMOGRAPHICS AND ANALYSIS GUIDE ..................................................................................... 28
...................................................................................................................................................................................................
2
A Message from the Co-Chairs
December 30, 2014
Six short months ago, Ohioís General Assembly passed legislation creating the Workforce
Integration Task Force. Requested as part of Governor John R. Kasichís Mid-Biennium Review,
the task force was charged with gathering and analyzing data in order to make
recommendations regarding barriers to employment and income parity for Ohioans who are
deaf or blind. The goal is to better understand the current employment environment for deaf
and blind communities, and as a result, develop effective strategies aimed at helping these
citizens, like all Ohioans, reach their highest employment potential.
The pages that follow present the results of this important and foundational work. This report
synthesizes the findings from surveys, focus groups and an exhaustive literature review. Task
force members analyzed the results, discussed their own life and work experiences, and
identified multiple recommendations.
To some extent, the task forceís findings confirmed what many of us knew from our own
experiences. Not only do employers have much to learn about workers with disabilities and
how to effectively integrate them into Ohioís workforce, but Ohioís deaf and blind communities
need greater access to career training and development. Perhaps the most encouraging finding,
however, was that although barriers to employment exist, many of them can be reduced
through increased awareness and engagement on the part of employers. This means we are in
a position to make a significant difference in the lives of Ohioans who are blind, deaf, or
deafblind.
Of course, this report represents just the first step. The next phase will require action on the
part of employers and the disability community. We are grateful to the task force members for
volunteering their time and energy to this important work, and look forward to seeing the
results in the lives of the people we serve and the positive impact on Ohioís economy.
Cynthia C. Dungey, Director Kevin L. Miller, Director
Ohio Department of Job and Family Services Opportunities for Ohioans with Disabilities
Executive Summary
Background
House Bill 483 of the 130th Ohio General Assembly established the Workforce Integration Task
Force (WIT) to be co-chaired by the executive director of the Opportunities for Ohioans with
Disabilities Agency (OOD) and the director of the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services
(ODJFS). The co-chairs were given authority to appoint the remaining task force members.
The task force was charged with making recommendations regarding how deaf and blind
Ohioans ìmay be more fully integrated into the workforce to increase employability and
income parityî and issuing a report to the Governor no later than January 1, 2015. Upon the
issuance of its report, the task force ceases to exist.
Through a process of data and information gathering, a series of in person meetings,
conference calls, and regular interaction and dialogue, the WIT worked together to produce this
report. A fundamental theme emerged: the need for significantly greater and broader
awareness and understanding of the issues facing Ohioans with disabilities; specifically those
who are blind, deaf, and deafblind. Individuals who recruit, hire, train and retain employees
too often lack an appropriate level of awareness and knowledge regarding the disability
community. As a result, they may not provide the necessary services and communication, and
instead inadvertently create barriers to employment and full community integration.
This work led the task force to identify the following barriers:
.
A disconnect between Ohio employersí need for qualified and dedicated workers and
the available talents, skills and abilities of blind, deaf, and deafblind Ohioans;
.
The specific, tangible benefits of integrating individuals with disabilities into the
workforce are not widely known or effectively and consistently communicated to
employers;
.
Employers often fail to understand, or appropriately plan for, the reasonable
accommodations Ohioans with disabilities need upon entering the workforce;
.
Employers act, or fail to act, based on misunderstandings and/or fears about
performance, safety and liability issues related to hiring individuals with disabilities;
.
Workforce integration services and programs available for Ohio employees and
employers are not widely known or effectively and consistently communicated;
.
State and federal programs inadvertently create disincentives to work through asset and
income limits;
.
Employers fail to adopt and implement uniform and quality standards for services
offered to blind, deaf, and deafblind individuals;
.
Ohioans with disabilities often lack critical vocational and career planning skills and the
appropriate training opportunities to acquire them are not always widely available;
.
Ohioís transportation system often lacks effective options and services for Ohioans with
disabilities.
Ohio is well positioned to lead efforts to tackle these broad and often daunting barriers and
challenges. Ohio can be a national leader in the education and training of employers and
employees in the benefits of integrating individuals with disabilities into the workforce;
ensuring that all employees and employers are aware of and sensitive to the challenges facing
Ohioans with disabilities. We can also work to ensure that all services and programs provide
truly equal access and necessary accommodations that enable a path toward employment and
independence for all.
A focused campaign to position Ohio as a leader in this area would not only result in a
significant increase in the number of blind, deaf and deafblind individuals employed, but it
would boost morale, productivity and economic growth across the stateís economy.
To start on a path towards achieving these goals, the task force makes the following
recommendations:
1.
OOD and ODJFS should work collaboratively to create, collect and communicate clear,
uniform and comprehensive information to employers about integrating blind, deaf,
and deafblind Ohioans into the workforce.
2.
OOD and ODJFS should develop strategies to more effectively engage business
leadership organizations and networks to facilitate business to business and peer to
peer conversations on how best to address and reduce barriers to employment and
income parity for blind, deaf, and deafblind Ohioans.
3.
The state of Ohio should seek out ways to more effectively build a culture of inclusion
and accessibility by including disability awareness in any required diversity and
inclusion training programs; and through the development of mentoring and
relationship-building opportunities.
4.
Ohio should encourage and facilitate opportunities to connect blind, deaf, and
deafblind Ohioans with employers and to connect employers interested in integrating
individuals with disabilities into their workforce with those who have successfully
implemented such integration.
5.
All Ohio employers should commit themselves to developing standards and
benchmarks for effectively serving individuals with disabilities in key areas including:
communications and education; access and accommodation; and hiring and
employment.
6.
OOD should work with the Governorís Office of Workforce Transformation (OWT) to
coordinate a working group of related agencies and programs to develop a unified
plan to more effectively align state of Ohio employment and workforce programs and
services for Ohioans with disabilities.
7.
State and federal governments should explore ways to remove disincentives to work
that result from income and asset limits for blind, deaf, and deafblind Ohioans.
8.
The state of Ohio should ensure that pre-vocational and vocational training is available
and accessible for blind, deaf, and deafblind Ohioans throughout the state.
9.
Ohio should explore ways to better leverage the facilities, programs, and services
available in order to create immersive and hands on training opportunities for blind,
deaf and deafblind communities across the state.
10. Ohio should continue to pursue a more integrated and wider-ranging system of
transportation for individuals with disabilities in both urban and rural areas and to
explore options to reduce transportation as a barrier to employment for blind, deaf,
and deafblind Ohioans.
Introduction
As noted above, House Bill 483 established the Workforce Integration Task Force (WIT) to be
co-chaired by the executive director of the Opportunities for Ohioans with Disabilities Agency
(OOD) and the director of the Department of Job and Family Services (ODJFS), who were given
authority to appoint the remaining task force members.
The agency directors finalized the composition of the task force by adding seven members with
diverse backgrounds and experience. The membership includes Ohioans from the deaf and
blind communities; representatives from the business community, nonprofit organizations, and
community leaders; and those with an academic background in disability issues. (See Appendix
A for biographies of task force members).
Workforce Integration Task Force (WIT) Members
Kevin L. Miller, Co-Chair, Executive Director, Opportunities for Ohioans with Disabilities
Cynthia C. Dungey, Co-Chair, Director, Ohio Department of Job and Family Services
Deborah Kendrick, Independent Journalist
John Moore, CEO/Executive Director, Deaf Services Center
Dr. J.W. Smith, Professor of Speech Communication, Ohio University
Steve Brubaker, Chief of Staff, InfoCision
Sherry Williams, President and CEO, Prevent Blindness, Ohio Affiliate
Dr. Jamie McCartney, Coordinator, ASL/English Interpreting Program, Kent State
University
Arlon Nash, Teacher, Springfield High School
Data and Information Collection
In preparation for the work of the task force, staff at OOD and ODJFS collected relevant data
and information, as outlined in the enabling legislation, through a review of available literature,
the development and deployment of a set of questionnaires/surveys, and by conducting focus
groups throughout the state.
Given the timeframe and costs involved, it was not possible for WIT to conduct a large-scale
professional survey focused on the data elements included in the enabling legislation. There
are, however, surveys such as the Current Population Survey and the American Community
Survey, conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau, which provide high-quality relevant data.
Agency staff also developed informal surveys targeted for three groups: members of the
blindness and deafness communities; employers; and service providers, advocates and parents.
Staff conducted 17 focus groups, in six different regions of the state, with Ohioans who are
blind or deaf and working (or seeking work) to talk about barriers to employment and
recommendations. (Further details available in Appendix B)
Task force members used this data, along with their own knowledge and experience, to identify
the major barriers to employment and income parity for people who are deaf, blind, or deaf-
blind.
Note on Terminology Used in this Report
In most surveys, people self-identify as deaf, hard of hearing, blind, visually impaired, or deafblind.
These terms embrace any degree of vision or hearing loss that seriously affects an individualís ability to
perceive information readily evident to someone who has usual degrees of vision and hearing. Our
research ranged from those with mild impairments to those who have become blind or deaf due to
illness or injury and, finally, to those born totally blind or deaf. For the purposes of this report, the
terms ìblindî and ìdeafî include the entire range of vision and hearing loss.
It is also worth noting that the deaf community prefers to capitalize the term (i.e. Deaf). For
consistency and uniformity, however, the phrase ìblind, deaf, and deafblindî is used throughout this
report to describe these individuals and communities.
Background
In order to place the WIT findings and recommendations into the appropriate context, it is helpful to
review some of the underlying data:
.
More than 250,000 Ohioans are blind or have a vision disability and more than 416,000 are deaf
or have a hearing disability.1
.
Disabilities are more common with age, but among Ohioans age 18-64, about 132,000 are blind
or have a vision disability and about 159,000 are deaf or have a hearing disability. This is about
1.9 percent and 2.2 percent, respectively, of Ohioís 18-to-64 age population.
.
Ohioans with disabilities are less likely to be in the labor force than those without disabilities.
o
Among Ohioans in the labor force, the unemployment rate for those who are deaf or
have a hearing disability was about 13.3 percent and for those who are blind or have a
vision disability, 18.9 percent.2 The unemployment rate for all Ohioans in the labor force
was 8.3 percent. [It is important to note that these figures do not include a large
portion of Ohioans who are blind, deaf or deafblind who are underemployed or have
abandoned the job search.]
.
Earnings among individuals with disabilities tend to be lower. Median earnings for those with a
disability were $18,341 compared to $30,074 for those without a disability.3
1 American Community Survey 2011-2013 data.
2 American Community Survey 2011-2013 data. These data are different from the unemployment statistics reported by the
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. They are, however, useful in showing differences between groups.
3 American Community Survey 2011-2013 data.
.
Data from Opportunities for Ohioans with Disabilities shows that among those using OODís
services, average hourly wages upon employment averaged $13.62 for those with a vision
impairment and $13.57 for those with a hearing impairment, significantly below the average
hourly wage of $20.76 for all occupations in Ohio.4
.
According to the 2012 Cornell Report, income disparity for Ohioís full-time workers with a visual
disability is more significant than for Ohioans with a hearing disability.
o
Median earnings for Ohioans with visual impairments are almost 25 percent lower than
for individuals without a disability.
o
Median earnings for individuals with a hearing disability are almost equivalent to those
without a disability. [Note: most people categorized as having a hearing disability
developed hearing loss later in life, after already establishing careers prior to the onset
of their disability.]
Key Task Force Findings on Barriers to Employment
WIT determined that the barriers to employment and income parity among blind, deaf, and deafblind
Ohioans are symptoms of a larger issue: a fundamental lack of awareness and knowledge about
individuals with disabilities, their culture, their strengths and weaknesses, the challenges they face, and
the opportunities they can provide. This in turn fuels a lack of knowledge about the benefits of
integrating these individuals into the workforce. Additionally, many blind, deaf, and deafblind Ohioans
lack the necessary skills for developing a successful career path in todayís economy and access to the
training opportunities needed to acquire them.
Specific Barriers
The task force specifically identified the following important barriers:
.
A disconnect between Ohio employersí need for qualified and dedicated workers and the
available talents, skills and abilities of blind, deaf, and deafblind Ohioans;
.
The specific, tangible benefits of integrating individuals with disabilities into the workforce are
not widely known or effectively and consistently communicated to employers;
.
Employers often fail to understand, or appropriately plan for, the reasonable accommodations
Ohioans with disabilities need upon entering the workforce;
.
Employers act, or fail to act, based on misunderstandings and/or fears about performance,
safety and liability issues related to hiring individuals with disabilities;
.
Workforce integration services and programs available for Ohio employees and employers are
not widely known or effectively and consistently communicated;
.
State and federal programs inadvertently create disincentives to work through asset and
income limits;
.
Employers fail to adopt and implement uniform and quality standards for services offered to
blind, deaf, and deafblind individuals;
.
Ohioans with disabilities often lack critical vocational and career planning skills and the
appropriate training opportunities to acquire them are not always widely available;
4 OOD wage data on successful job outcomes from October 2010 to May 2014. Ohio 2013 average hourly wage from the
Occupation Employment Statistics program of the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
.
Ohioís transportation system often lacks effective options and services for Ohioans with
disabilities.
Benefits of Workforce Integration
WIT identified a clear need for increased education and training targeted towards employers on the
benefits, available incentives and services, and successful practices involved in recruiting, hiring and
retaining Ohioans who are blind, deaf, or deafblind. Currently, too many employers lack even basic
knowledge about how to recruit, hire and promote people with disabilities.
Many employers lack an understanding and awareness of the talents, skills and abilities of blind, deaf,
and deafblind Ohioans and the disability community more broadly. As a result employers do not view
this group of Ohioans as a resource and talent pool and so do not explore integrating these individuals
into their workforce, despite an often-stated need for greater access to qualified and dedicated
workers. Clearly, a disconnect exists between what employers need and want and what Ohioans with
disabilities have to offer.
Similarly, employers do not have a clear understanding of the benefits of integrating blind, deaf, and
deafblind individuals into their workforce. Experience shows that integrating individuals with
disabilities into the workforce has a positive impact on business morale, productivity and profitability.
Integration can bring higher retention rates, lower absenteeism and higher productivity. Individuals
with disabilities have proven to be dedicated, conscientious, and highly productive workers when given
the opportunity. Meanwhile, businesses frequently note the cost of high turnover and absenteeism
and the need for qualified workers.
Educating employers on the benefits of workforce integration is critical to overcoming these
knowledge gaps and barriers but too often information is fragmented across agencies and
organizations; and across programs, services, and access points.
Reasonable Accommodations ñ
Attitudes and Available Services
In 2011, researchers H. Stephen Kaye, Lita H. Jans, and Erica C. Jones examined attitudes among HR
professionals and supervisors at companies that had been identified as resistant to hiring persons with
disabilities 5. Common reasons companies might not hire persons with disabilities included: the cost of
accommodations, lack of awareness in how to deal with workers with disabilities and their
accommodation needs, fear of being stuck with a worker who cannot be disciplined or fired because of
a possible lawsuit, difficulty in assessing an applicantís ability to perform job tasks, concerns over
supervisory time, concerns over work quality, lack of job candidates with disabilities, and a perception
that workers with disabilities cannot perform essential job duties.
The surveys conducted for this task force validate these findings and indicate that the attitudes of
those in hiring and management roles greatly impact the career opportunities for blind, deaf, and
deafblind Ohioans. Employers who responded to the task force survey identify concerns about
accommodations and safety as the number one reason they do not target deaf and blind applicants for
5 Why Donít Employers Hire and Retain Workers with Disabilities? H. Stephen Kaye, Lita H. Jans, and Erica C. Jones
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10926-011-9302-8
employment. Employer concerns about medical, legal and safety issues also create reluctance or fear
to address these topics.
In the survey of the deaf and blindness communities, employer attitude toward disability was
overwhelmingly identified by job seekers as the number one barrier to employment (65%). In the
survey of deaf and vision service providers, employer concerns for liability and safety ranked as the
number one barrier (73.4%). In the employer survey, employers themselves highlighted concerns
about liability and safety as a top concern (61.1%).
Employers also often fail to anticipate and plan for the necessary accommodations and services
needed to effectively integrate their workforce. According to the Job Accommodation Network, many
employers do not think about how they will support a person with disabilities until they encounter
someone during the hiring process. As a consequence, these employers have little understanding of
how to provide reasonable accommodations. This ad hoc rather than strategic planning is a barrier to
employment and effective integration.
WIT focus group responses also indicated that employers are not sure how to best onboard people
with disabilities and help them integrate into their company culture. For example, one focus group
participant said, ìYou are in a position of continually having to teach other people about your
disability.î
The impact of these myths, fears, and misunderstandings can be significantly reduced as barriers to
employment and successful workforce inclusion through focused education, awareness and training.
There are many services currently available to help employers in this area. However, this requires a
much wider distribution of information on available services and programs designed to help employers
both understand the issue of accommodations and the resources available.
Disincentives to Work
The receipt of Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) may
also influence whether people pursue part-time or full-time employment. OOD consumers who
attained employment but are still receiving SSI/SSDI benefits tend to work fewer hours and therefore
earn less income from employment than people who are not receiving SSI/SSDI benefits. In addition,
the average hourly wage of individuals that work more hours is higher than those who work fewer
hours or part-time. Concerns about loss of benefits can be a barrier to employment and further
exacerbate the income gap. State income or asset limits may create similar disincentives to work or to
working full-time.
Inclusion and Accessibility
The attitudes and knowledge of those making decisions about the recruitment, hiring, retention, and
promotion of individuals with disabilities are critical, but peers and fellow employee attitudes are also
an important element of successful workforce integration for blind, deaf, and deafblind Ohioans. A
lack of awareness and sensitivity to the challenges Ohioans with disabilities face, the skills and talents
they offer, and the accommodations they may require can create barriers and hinder effective
workforce integration. A lack of direct relationships within and between employers when it comes to
Ohioans with disabilities can also be a barrier.
Diversity and inclusion programs and training sessions are a common aspect of human resources
departments and employer engagement activity. The issues surrounding disability, however, are not
always included so an opportunity to raise awareness and remove barriers is missed.
Accessibility is also a significant barrier to employment. Whether it is getting to work on time, asking
directions, filling out an application, or convincing an employer that you deserve a raise, access is an
element that pervades all aspects of life as a member of Ohioís blindness or deafness community.
Whereas a sighted or hearing Ohioan can be reasonably certain that spoken or written information will
be available as a job seeker or as an employee, this is often not the case for those with vision or
hearing loss. Even when information is ostensibly available, it is common to find low-quality products
and services when accessing Internet content, Brailled materials or interpreters. This is why so many
Ohioans who are blind, deaf or deafblind can become frustrated and possibly abandon a job search.
WIT members were able to point to examples, from employment advertising to the application
process, where significant improvements could be made at little or no cost to the entities involved and
yet result in improved services for the blind, deaf, and deafblind job seeker. WIT surveys and focus
groups noted that trouble with access begins at the front door, or at the first webpage, with an often
laborious sign-in process.
Barriers also include dauntingly bureaucratic testing language or position descriptions, minimum
qualifications, and licensure standards that unnecessarily exclude Ohioans with disabilities. One
example is the specific demand on many state job applications for a valid driverís license despite the
fact that needing to drive is not an essential qualification for the position (a driverís license is likely
being used simply as identification but no alternative is offered or listed). Another would be
requirements for vision or hearing tests that unnecessarily exclude individuals with disabilities from
positions where acute hearing or vision is not an essential function (e.g. requiring a hearing test for a
Commercial Driverís License (CDL) or a vision test in order to be certified as a teacher).
Uniform and quality standards for services offered to blind, deaf and deafblind individuals is thus
critical to their ability to find and retain employment. If these individuals canít access important
information and services on an equally effective basis, or are unnecessarily exclude from the applicant
pool, they will be at a competitive disadvantage.
Skills Training and Career Planning
It was once possible to be trained in a trade or specific skill and find employment in a specific industry
and thereby acquire a long term, stable career. Individuals with disabilities frequently benefited from
this available path to employment. The path to employment in todayís job market, however, is often
more complex and fluid and may require constant re-training to keep up with technology. Navigating
the system and the frequent retraining can be a challenge for the blind, deaf, and deafblind
communities. In order to be able to acquire in-demand skills, these individuals must have access to the
training and career services available to the general public, in a location and format that is appropriate.
Focus group members expressed dissatisfaction regarding accessibility to the training and career
services offered to their non-deaf or non-blind counterparts. Deaf attendees stated that they could
not sign up for some services because service providers would not accept relay calls. When they were
finally able to sign up for training, the training itself was not culturally accessible to them. Finally, they
had difficulty obtaining reliable interpreting and extra time for tests.
Blind attendees could not access certain training programs because the written or electronic material
was not accessible. Some attendees stated that they lack the basic computer skills to benefit from
electronic information. Other attendees stated that electronic information may have been available,
but the computer monitors were not large enough, or speech software was not available for their
reading needs. All of this points to a need for both effective service standards and more widely
accessible and available training options.
Transportation
In nearly every survey taken, and in every conversation about the challenges and barriers facing
individuals with disabilities, transportation is at or near the top of the list. The lack of available and
reliable transportation options is without a doubt a significant barrier to blind, deaf, and deafblind
Ohioans finding and retaining employment.
Recommendations
Once the task force identified and outlined the above barriers to employment and income parity, the
following recommendations were developed on how best to begin reducing and removing these
barriers.
We are confident that implementing the recommendations that follow will spur job and income
growth and community integration for individuals with disabilities across Ohio. By focusing on both the
outstanding barriers to employment, and enabling long term career success, the recommendations will
position Ohio employers to fill critical workforce needs and develop a more stable and productive
workforce. Additionally, more people with disabilities will be able to achieve and retain employment,
therefore not only reducing the draw on government services, but also allowing them to contribute to
the economy and become more independent.
Recommendation #1: OOD and ODJFS Collaboration on Uniform and
Effective Communication
Opportunities for Ohioans with Disabilities (OOD) and Ohio Department of Job and Family Services
(ODJFS) should work collaboratively to create, collect and communicate clear, uniform and
comprehensive information to employers about integrating blind, deaf, and deafblind Ohioans into
the workforce.
Employers in Ohio need targeted outreach and educational material on how to recruit, interview, hire,
retain, and promote individuals with disabilities. The information must also be made available to all
workforce development programs in the State of Ohio so that employers receive accurate and uniform
information. Workforce development staff should have training on the information so that Ohio
employers have the support they need regardless of the agency or program serving as the contact or
entry point.
Topics that should be included:
.
Information on Ohioís vocational rehabilitation program as well as the services offered to
employers across all education, training and workforce programs.
.
Availability of sensitivity and awareness training, mentorship programs, and on-the-job training
opportunities.
.
Economic incentives available to businesses that hire employees with disabilities.
.
Technical assistance and continuing education to employers on reasonable accommodations.
The task force strongly believes that clearly articulating, and more effectively and uniformly promoting,
the business case for hiring blind, deaf, and deafblind applicants, along with providing training on
accommodations and liability concerns, is a critical step in removing barriers to employment and
career success.
Recommendation #2: Business to Business Engagement
OOD and ODJFS should jointly develop strategies to more effectively engage business leadership
organizations and networks to facilitate business to business, and peer to peer, conversations about
reducing barriers to employment and income parity for blind, deaf, and deafblind Ohioans.
The Business Leadership Network (OHBLN)6 is well positioned to play a role in engaging the business
community on addressing barriers to employment for Ohioans who are blind, deaf and deafblind (and
Ohioans with disabilities more broadly). The agencies should work with the membership of OHBLN on
how best to strengthen and grow the reach and impact of business to business communications and
programs.
OOD and ODJFS should also seek input and collaboration from organizations like the Ohio Chamber of
Commerce (and local chambers of commerce), the National Federation of Independent Businesses
Ohio chapter, the Ohio Council of Retail Merchants, and the Ohio Business Roundtable. These
organizations, and others, need to be integrated into a statewide network that can discuss barriers to
employment for Ohioans with disabilities, explore strategies and approaches to removing or reducing
those barriers, and share the benefits of workforce integration for employers. In order to learn from
and be mentored by those representing the cultures of blindness and deafness themselves, such a
network should also invite participation by representatives from consumer organizations such as the
National Federation of the Blind, Ohio Association of Deafblind, etc.
6 The Ohio Business Leadership Network (OHBLN) is an affiliate of the United States Business Leadership Network (USBLN),
a national organization that promotes the business imperative to include people with disabilities in the workforce using a
business-to-business model. http://ohiobln.org/
Recommendation #3: Building a Culture of Diversity & Inclusion
The state of Ohio should seek out ways to more effectively build a culture of inclusion and
accessibility by ensuring that disability awareness is included in any required diversity and inclusion
training programs; and through the development of mentoring and relationship-building
opportunities.
Some areas to explore would include:
Disability is Diversity
The state of Ohio is a significant employer and has the opportunity to be a role model on issues
pertaining to integrating individuals with disabilities into the workforce. The state should therefor
explore opportunities to more effectively build equality and accessibility into its workforce and culture.
As noted above, awareness and sensitivity to the challenges and opportunities faced by blind, deaf,
and deafblind individuals by both employers and employees is an important element of identifying and
breaking down barriers. Disability, however, is not always included in traditional diversity and
inclusion training opportunities and programs which mean this awareness, knowledge and sensitivity
may not develop or do so in a uniform and effective fashion. Ohio should look for ways to incorporate
disability awareness and training into its larger diversity and inclusion policies, procedures, and training
programs to ensure a basic and uniform level of knowledge for employees.
It is also worth exploring whether employees who are involved in workforce development, human
resources, and policy development on issues surrounding these topics should complete more in-depth
training in order to better understand the larger issues surrounding the recruiting, hiring and retaining
of people with disabilities.
Mentoring
Mentoring is a potentially powerful tool in breaking down barriers and building relationships.
Mentoring fosters increased awareness and knowledge about the disability community, the challenges
people with disabilities face, and the skills and resources they offer while at the same time giving
individuals with disabilities the opportunity to learn more about employers, and potential employers,
and their job seeking peers and colleagues.
Both sides benefit through these relationships. Blind, deaf, and deafblind individuals would benefit
from being mentored by both employer leaders and by peers in order to better understand what it
takes to succeed in a given industry or career and what options are available, etc. Employers would
benefit from being mentored in order to better understand the perspective of people with disabilities,
their challenges, as well as their skills and talents. Direct connections between people make
knowledge and awareness concrete and real in a way that basic training does not.
The focus groups confirmed the importance of Ohioans with disabilities themselves interacting with
Ohio employers and sharing their experiences and expertise in workforce integration. ìItís a good idea
for groups to go to employers and show, not tell, what they can do even with a disability,î noted a
participant.
And according to the National Council on Disability, a survey of employers found that 59 percent rated
mentoring as "effective" or "very effective" for reducing barriers to employment, or for advancement
for people with disabilities in their organizations.
Affinity Groups
Affinity Groups, employer-sponsored entities comprised of employees who have shared interests and
experiences and have at one time felt underrepresented in the workplace, are also worth exploring.
Focus groups often indicated that the information and experience sharing that peers with similar
disabilities provide are powerful tools in promoting independence and generating job satisfaction.
Ohio should develop mentoring and relationship-building opportunities within its workforce to further
build a culture of diversity and inclusion and to foster effective integration of blind, deaf, and deafblind
individuals.
Recommendation #4: Explore Ways to Connect Employers with
Individuals with Disabilities
Ohio should encourage and facilitate opportunities to connect blind, deaf, and deafblind Ohioans
with employers and to connect employers interested in integrating individuals with disabilities into
their workforce with those who have successfully implemented such integration.
As noted above, mentoring is a potentially powerful tool to identify and remove barriers to
employment and to create a culture of diversity and inclusion that fosters successful workforce
integration. The State of Ohio can be a role model in this effort, but it should also encourage
connections between blind, deaf and deafblind Ohioans with businesses seeking to more effectively
integrate their workforce and help facilitate employer to employer mentoring and relationship building
opportunities.
Employer to Employer Connections
Employers that hire people with disabilities are in the unique position to assist other businesses with
the most effective approaches to the recruiting, hiring, and onboarding of employees with disabilities
and are in a position to mentor one another to dispel myths, share trade strategies, and provide
mutual support.
Some Ohio businesses such as Procter and Gamble already have disability mentoring projects
underway and are enjoying success. Such companies should be encouraged to reach out to the wider
business community to share their success and offer advice on effective implementation of similar
programs and strategies. The OHBLN can also play a lead role in facilitating these connections.
Connecting with Businesses
As discussed above, Ohioís disability community would benefit from stronger connections and
relationships with employers. If there are ways the State of Ohio can help connect blind, deaf, and
deafblind individuals with the business community it should take advantage of those opportunities.
These direct relationships would strengthen the business community and foster greater employment
and independence for Ohioans with a disability.
Task force conducted focus groups and the Employer survey also highlighted the fact that once one
member of the blindness or deafness community is on-boarded with a given employer, that individual
often paves the way by example, or by networking, for others to apply successfully. Like-disability and
like-occupation networking is an effective support tool for this process, providing ongoing advice,
creative ideas on accommodations and peer support.
Recommendation #5: Developing Standards for Services
All Ohio employers should commit themselves to developing standards and benchmarks for
effectively serving individuals with disabilities in key areas including communications and education,
access and accommodation, and hiring and employment.
A lack of clear and uniform service and accessibility standards is clearly a barrier to employment. Truly
equal access to services, training, and information is critical to successful employment. Unfortunately,
unequal access and low quality service is something frequently encountered by blind, deaf, and
deafblind Ohioans seeking employment, retention and promotion.
Ohio employers should be encouraged to develop standards for serving Ohioans with disabilities and
regularly reviewing their policies, procedures, and services to measure their success.
Areas for employers to consider when developing these standards and benchmarks include:
.
Communications: All print, web based, and audio/visual information should be accessible to
deaf and blind Ohioans (including quality captioning and interpreting).
o
Online job postings, applications, company information, and all state agency online
presences should be in compliance with guidelines provided by the Web Accessibility
Initiative to ensure accessibility to Ohioans who are blind or do not read conventional
print.
.
Access and Accommodations: Ohioans who are deaf and blind should be able to receive the
same level of service as those who do not have disabilities:
o
Facility accessibility
o
Equal access and effectiveness for in person training and meetings
o
Available and knowledgeable staff
o
Clear policies/procedures for reasonable accommodations
.
Hiring and Employment
o
Appropriate levels of awareness and sensitivity training for HR staff
o
Access and ease of use for applications, testing, interviews, etc.
o
Reviewing and removing unintended barriers created through unnecessary or overly
specific qualifications, descriptions, or testing (i.e. State ID not driverís license, hearing
and vision tests, etc.)
A commitment to developing standards and setting benchmarks will help identify barriers to
employment and ineffective recruitment, hiring and onboarding processes and procedures.
In addition to ensuring that quality services are being provided and building a stronger and more
effective workforce, this commitment will also generate significant goodwill among Ohioís disability
community; a potentially impactful market segment for businesses.
Recommendation # 6: Working Group on Program Alignment
OOD should work with the Governorís Office of Workforce Transformation (OWT) to coordinate a
working group of related agencies and programs to develop a unified plan to more effectively align
State of Ohio employment and workforce programs and services for Ohioans with disabilities.
The recently passed Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA), is moving federal law toward
unified state workforce development plans using specific standards and metrics to measure progress
toward shared goals. The state of Ohio has already worked with stakeholders and local providers to
develop a unified plan, which includes the Workforce Investment Act, Adult and Basic Literacy
Education, and Carl Perkins funding. This recommendation will build upon that unified plan and will
now include OODís resources as required under WIOA. This addition will allow for better program
alignment among agencies and ensure that programs are effectively working together to serve Ohioans
with disabilities and that available resources are being leveraged and spent under the guidance of a
statewide strategic plan. This alignment would also mean serving more people and doing so more
effectively.
WIT saw a strong consensus when it comes to better cross-agency program and services alignment.
Case after case was described in focus groups of those with visual impairments reliant on alternate
transportation being shuttled from one office to another, and from groups of Ohioans who are deaf,
arriving only to find a less-than-competent interpreter, and more often, no interpreter at all.
Particular collaboration suggestions focused on not only OOD and ODJFS collaboration and
streamlining, but also efforts to include other agencies that commonly provide an array of services to
people who are blind, deaf, and deafblind. These include, but are not limited to, the Ohio Bureau of
Motor Vehicles, the Ohio Bureau of Workers Compensation, the Ohio Department of Aging, the Ohio
Department of Medicaid; and many law enforcement and criminal justice entities.
Better program alignment also gives an opportunity for the State of Ohio and other government
entities to investigate cost-sharing and information-sharing options in the provision of
accommodations to Ohio constituents. This also builds a natural support system for ensuring that
agencies explore and consider the service standards suggested earlier in this report.
Building off the success of the stateís current unified plan, this working group would be in a position to
jump start Ohioís program alignment in anticipation of WIOA requirements. This will help ensure that
all of Ohioís workforce and employment related programs and services are effectively serving blind,
deaf and deafblind job seekers and the disability community more broadly.
Recommendation #7: Disincentives to Work
State and federal governments should explore ways to remove disincentives to work that result from
income and asset limits for Ohioans who are blind, deaf and deafblind.
As discussed above, the receipt of Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and Social Security Disability
Insurance (SSDI) can influence whether people pursue part-time or full-time employment.
OOD consumers who attained employment but are still receiving SSI/SSDI benefits tend to work fewer
hours and therefore earn less income from employment than people who are not receiving SSI/SSDI
benefits. In addition, the average hourly wage of individuals that work more hours is higher than those
who work fewer hours or part-time.
Ohio policies, rules and regulations may have the same effect, since Ohioans who are blind, deaf, and
deafblind are naturally worried about losing access to important benefits. Even if the employment
opportunity affords a great income, some are reluctant to lose current income benefits for the
possibility of greater future income.
These rules and regulations in effect create a barrier to effective employment and reduce income
parity. Government at the state and federal level should explore ways to remove these disincentives
and encourage employment without threatening benefits. In the long run, the benefits of successful
employment will outweigh the cost of a transition period for benefits.
Recommendation #8: Access to Pre-vocational and Vocational Training
Pre-vocational and vocational training for Ohioans who are blind, deaf and deafblind should be
available and accessible throughout Ohio.
Ensuring that job seekers of all ages not only acquire the skills and qualifications required for available
and in-demand jobs, but also have the skills necessary to successfully navigate todayís job market is a
fundamental element of workforce development in Ohio. Like many without disabilities, however,
individuals who are blind, deaf and deafblind often lack the soft skills and competencies needed to
conduct a job search, network with potential employers, effectively interview, negotiate employment,
and build a career.
In order to encourage and facilitate the acquisition of these skills, equal access and availability is
critical. Ohioans who are blind, deaf, and deafblind should have access to the same vocational training,
programs and services as Ohioans who are non-disabled.
OhioMeansJobs Centers
Survey data from Ohioans who are blind, deaf, and deafblind indicates that the second largest barrier
to employment is a lack of available jobs. At the same time, employers indicate that their largest
barrier to hiring people with disabilities is a lack of applicants. OhioMeansJobs centers stand in a
unique position to bridge this gap between qualified workers and available jobs. Given this reality, a
review of all OhioMeansJobs centers should be conducted to ensure that Ohioans who are blind, deaf,
and deafblind have equal access to employment training and job seeking services.
Specific Training for Deaf and/or Blind Ohioans
Accessibility for deaf people goes beyond ensuring that sign language interpreting or captioning is
available. Studies indicate that instruction from a person who can communicate directly with the deaf
person is far more effective than instruction via a sign language interpreter. While interpreters are
very valued in the deaf community, introducing a third person into a scenario will almost always dilute
the timing, meaning, and effectiveness of communication. With this in mind, increased vocational
services specifically designed for and targeting deaf and/or blind Ohioans should also be explored and
encouraged.
Recommendation #9: Immersive and Hands on Training
Ohio should explore ways to better leverage the facilities, programs, networks, and services
currently available in order to create immersive and hands on training opportunities for blind, deaf
and deafblind communities across the state.
Some members of the task force emphasized that a residential or immersive training center is crucial
for developing self-confidence, alternative skills and socialization needs. Specifically for those who lose
vision as adults and therefore lack the auditory, tactile and literacy skills that blind children pick up
naturally and through special education.
There is a strong network of Community Centers for the Deaf, vision centers, Deaf Studies and/or
Interpreter Training Programs at universities, and other non-profit institutions across Ohio that provide
specific services to the deaf and blind communities.
In the blindness community, however, a great loss was suffered in 2012 when Columbus-based Vision
and Vocational Services (formerly Vision Center 1927-2008) closed down. Like other centers in
Cincinnati, Toledo and Cleveland, this nonprofit served as a training, social and workshop employment
center for low-vision needs in Central Ohio. Its closure left the Central Ohio region unserved. Given its
central location, the population involved, and the connection to state government and other important
resources, the need in Central Ohio is particularly acute. Short-term residential training centers for
blind and visually impaired adults in such states as Maryland, Louisiana, Colorado, and others have
documented the increased job acquisition and retention of adults who experience such immersion
training in the independence and adaptive skills of blindness.
In the deaf community, no residential or immersive programs exist for adults in Ohio. The
Comprehensive Program for the Deaf (housed at the Columbus Speech and Hearing Center) stopped
providing residential services a decade or more ago and the Ohio School for the Deaf in Columbus
serves K-12 students who live outside Franklin and contiguous counties. Deaf individuals often spend
their entire lives within the hearing world. Ninety percent of deaf children are born to hearing parents,
the majority of whom do not sign. With the mainstreaming of deaf students in schools, this results in
deaf individuals with little to no interaction with peers, mentors and role models who are deaf.
Given the potential benefits of immersive and hands on education and training for independence,
employment and quality of life, Ohio should explore ways to better leverage existing resources,
facilities, programs, and services to create a statewide network of these type of training and
educational opportunities.
Recommendation #10: Transportation
Ohio should continue to pursue a more integrated and wider-ranging system of transportation for
individuals with disabilities in both urban and rural Ohio and to explore options to reduce
transportation as a barrier to employment for blind, deaf, and deafblind Ohioans.
As mentioned in the barriers section above, in nearly every survey taken, and in every conversation,
about the challenges and barriers facing individuals with disabilities, transportation is at or near the
top of the list. The lack of available and reliable transportation options is without a doubt a significant
barrier to blind, deaf, and deafblind Ohioans finding and retaining employment. It is a component of
access just like those areas discussed above. It will have to be addressed in order to truly spur
increased employment and income opportunities for Ohioís blind, deaf, and deafblind.
There are a number of ongoing activities and research on this topic being conducted by agencies and
organizations throughout Ohio. Those projects should continue and will hopefully provide concrete
recommendations for improvement.
A few areas for further consideration:
.
Para-transit and other transportation related services and programs are often administered or
funded at the county level. This creates barriers and complications for job seekers crossing
county borders for employment.
o
Focus groups in the Cleveland area praised the regionís transportation system which
crosses county lines.
.
Ride sharing companies like Uber and Lyft may provide options that were heretofore
unavailable at least in urban areas.
.
Employers seeking to expand their talent pool and integrate Ohioans with disabilities into their
workforce should strongly consider the role of transportation in the needs of their employees.
o
Transportation vouchers, creative carpooling incentives, company-provided drivers or
other accommodations may provide effective solutions to individual needs without
having to undertake system wide changes.
.
The states of Minnesota and Washington have the reputation as having the best transportation
systems for the blind, deaf, and deafblind. They may provide models and examples for policy
makers seeking to improve Ohioís system of transportation.
o
Members of the ODOT Transit Needs Study team also found that these two states
(specifically Seattle and Minneapolis-St. Paul)) are models for effective transit services
for all ridership. This demonstrates the finding that, when public transportation systems
innovate for the general community, they are likely to positively impact riders with
disabilities, including those who are blind, deaf, and deafblind.
Conclusion
In many respects, effectively integrating individuals who are blind, deaf, and deafblind into the
workforce in order to achieve equality and opportunity is a complex and difficult task. It involves
federal, state and local government entities and programs, businesses of varying scope, size and
industry, and a diverse population with very different needs, cultures, and circumstances. In many
cases, true integration will require upending longstanding ways of doing business, overcoming the
communication challenges of reaching employers of every size and industry, and changing the way
people see the world.
At the same time, the task is also a simple one. It involves raising awareness about the challenges and
benefits of recruiting, hiring and promoting individuals who are blind, deaf, and deafblind, setting high
standards for services, and creating a culture of diversity and inclusion within Ohioís workforce where
everyone is welcomed and valued for their contributions to our communities and the economy.
If implemented, the above recommendations would position Ohio as a national leader in this effort.
More importantly, taking concrete action on these recommendations would serve citizens better. It
would create a more diverse and inclusive workforce, and spur employment, economic growth and a
better quality of life for many Ohioans.
The impact on individuals who are blind, deaf, and deafblind would be significant:
.
Increased independence, quality of life and career opportunities
.
A welcoming and more inclusive work environment
.
Greater accessibility to services and programs
.
Opportunities for mentoring and leadership roles
Many of the recommendations will require determination and significant effort to enact. They will
require a significant investment of time and resources. Some will involve a change in perspective and a
willingness to be uncomfortable in order to learn and change.
In every case, however, the benefits of a more diverse and inclusive workforce far outweigh the costs.
Now is the time to act, to build a better state not only for individuals who are blind, deaf, and
deafblind, and their families and communities, but for all Ohioans.
Appendix A: Workforce Integration Task Force Members
Steve Brubaker
Steve Brubaker began his career at InfoCision in 1985. In his current role as chief of staff, he is a member of the
executive team and is responsible for HR, internal/external communications and manages InfoCisionís legal and
compliance departments. Brubaker is active in a number of professional organizations, including the Direct
Marketing Association, Society for Consumer Affairs Professionals and Professional Association for Customer
Engagement, formerly known as American Teleservices Association (ATA). He served on ATAís national board of
directors over a period of two decades. In 2007 he was awarded the ATAís highest honor, the prestigious
Fulcrum Award, in recognition of his extraordinary contributions to the call center industry. Mr. Brubaker also
received the Simonetti Distinguished Business Alumni Award from The University of Akron in 2012 and The
University of Akron Honors College Distinguished Alumni Award in 2014. Brubakerís blog at InfoCision.com
provides timely and insightful recommendations for companies wishing to delight consumers with extraordinary
customer service experiences.
Deborah Kendrick
Deborah Keefer Kendrick is an award-winning journalist, poet and technologist. Her newspaper column on
disability rights has appeared in numerous newspapers since 1986, including the Cincinnati Enquirer, Columbus
Dispatch and San Francisco Chronicle, among others. Kendrick also serves as senior features editor for
AccessWorld, a technology news magazine for individuals who are blind or visually impaired published by the
American Foundation for the Blind. Deborah has written the Jobs That Matter series of books for AFB Press, a
series profiling a wide variety of blind and visually impaired individuals and the jobs they do. Her features,
editorials and reviews have also appeared in numerous regional and national publications, including Womanís
Day, Parenting, Marriage and Family, St. Anthony Messenger, and many others. She serves on a number of
boards and councils, has three grown children, and lives in Cincinnati.
Jamie McCartney
Jamie McCartney has been a professional interpreter in Ohio for 21 years and an interpreter educator for 18
years. She is currently the coordinator for the American Sign Language/ English Interpreting Program at Kent
State University. McCartney holds a doctorate in secondary education curriculum and instruction and a masterís
and bachelorís degree in technical education, all from the University of Akron. She also holds an associateís
degree in interpreting/ transliterating for the deaf from Columbus State Community College. She has interpreted
in a variety of venues, such as postsecondary, employment, medical, social services, deaf-blind and platform
interpreting. She has also interpreted for Sorenson Video Relay Service, where she worked in the capacities of
manager, director and video interpreter. McCartney is a member of the Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf, Inc.
(RID), and the Ohio Chapter of the Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf. She holds the following national
certifications from RID: a certificate of transliteration, a certification of interpretation and a master-level
national interpreter Certification.
John L. Moore
John L. Moore is the CEO/executive director of Deaf Services Center, Inc., a nonprofit organization committed to
the needs of deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals and their families throughout a 37-county service area. Moore
earned a bachelor of science degree in government and history from Gallaudet University in Washington D.C.
and a masterís in public administration from Northeastern University in Boston. He has worked with local grassroots
organizations, as well as the public and private sector, and is currently the president of Community Shares
of Mid-Ohio, where he works with 60 area nonprofits and is the first individual with a disability in this role. He
has been involved in various deafness and disability organizations and has an extensive range of experience in
dealing with organizations, agencies and interest groups on the state and local levels.
Arlon Nash
Arlon Nash teaches at Springfield High School in Springfield, Ohio. Nash graduated from Bowling Green State
University with a Bachelor of Science degree in business administration. He also holds a masterís degree in deaf
education from McDaniel College in Westminster, Maryland. He is a member of the American Sign Language
Teachers Association and holds a qualified certification. He is currently co-leader for the Clark County Deaf
Community Organization. He also is involved as a leader in several organizations that promote leadership for the
deaf and that support and cherish American Sign Language as the first and native language for individuals who
are deaf.
J. Webster Smith
J. Webster Smith (J.W.) was born blind on March 9, 1959, in Chicago. Dr. Smith is a professor of speech
communication in the School of Communication Studies at Ohio University in Athens, Ohio. He received his
Bachelor of Arts degree in history and speech communication from Indiana University, his Master of Arts degree
in speech communication from Purdue University, and his PhD from Wayne State University. He is a member of
the National Communication Association, Central States Communication Association, National Federation of the
Blind, National Federation of the Blind of Ohio (where he served as president from 2008 to 2012), and the
National Association of Blind Educators. In addition, Dr. Smith has served as a member of the Ohio State Library
Consumer Advisory Committee, the State Consumer Advisory Committee of Opportunities for Ohioans with
Disabilities (formerly known as the Ohio Rehabilitation Services Commission), and the Ohio Governorís Council
on People with Disabilities.
Sherill K. Williams
Sherill K. Williams has served as president and CEO of Prevent Blindness, Ohio Affiliate (PBO) since 1986. Prior to
joining the PBO staff, Williams served as national director of youth volunteers for the March of Dimes Birth
Defects Foundation and as executive director of the Fairfield County, Connecticut chapter of the March of
Dimes. She received her bachelor of arts in speech/communication from the University of Minnesota and a
masterís in public administration/health care administration from Pace University of New York. Williams is on
the advisory board of GroundWorkGroup and is a member of the Ohio Association of Nonprofit Organizationís
Standards of Excellence Advisory Committee. Additionally, she serves as an advisor for the Ann Ellis Fund of The
Columbus Foundation and is a founding member of the SOS (Save Our Sight) Coalition, Ohio Eye Care Coalition,
Ohio Fireworks Safety Coalition and Ohio Aging Eye Public Private Partnership. She is a graduate of Leadership
Columbus and served as a commissioner for the International Year of the Child Presidential National Commission
in Washington, D.C.
Appendix B: Survey Data Focus Group Summary
Questionnaires
A single questionnaire was developed for both Ohioans who are blind/low-vision and deaf/hearingimpaired.
This WIT constituent questionnaire was developed using both questions from other disability
surveys and group input. The SurveyMonkey questionnaire was tested for screen readers (nonvisual
audience), with each question containing an embedded video of an American Sign Language
translation of the question. It was not possible to distribute the questionnaire randomly to
constituents. Instead, 43 organizations were asked to direct constituents to the questionnaire website.
A second questionnaire was developed for Ohio employers. Since businesses can be difficult to survey,
the questionnaires were distributed by business service representatives from the Ohio Department of
Job and Family Services using tablets at 11 job fairs around the state. In addition, a link to the
questionnaire was on the employer portion of OhioMeansJobs.com.
Due to interest generated by the constituent survey, another SurveyMonkey questionnaire was
developed for a third group, which was made up of service providers, advocates and parents.
Constituent Survey
.
The constituent survey generated 427 useable responses. Overall educational attainment of the
respondents was above average. About 40 percent of the respondents had a bachelorís degree
or higher, compared to 27 percent of Ohio adults 25 and older.
.
Just over half the respondents were working or self-employed. Their hourly wages ranged from
$4.58 to $52.64, with a median of $12.50 per hour. Some respondents reported annual wages,
which ranged from $1,500 to $200,000. The median annual wage was $41,000. More than a
third of the respondents were between ages 51 and 64, with earnings often higher than the
average. Only 11 percent of the respondents said they had never worked.
.
About 20 percent of respondents said they had turned down work or extra hours to keep their
Supplemental Security Income (SSI) or Supplemental Security Disability Insurance (SSDI)
benefits. This was more common among those not working.
.
About 46 percent said their disability made it very difficult or impossible to find work or be self-
employed. However, among those who had worked, only 18 percent said their disability made
doing a job very difficult or impossible.
.
The most commonly mentioned barrier to work was employer attitudes toward disabilities (65
percent). The second most commonly mentioned barrier was the availability of jobs (58
percent).
Employer Survey
.
The employer questionnaire generated 162 responses. About 66 percent of respondents said
they had experience hiring or recruiting persons with disabilities, of which about 76 percent
had experience hiring persons with hearing or vision impairments.
.
About 74 percent said the jobs for which they were currently hiring could be especially
challenging for persons with hearing or vision impairments.
.
Seventy-three percent mentioned the hearing or vision requirements of jobs as a challenge for
persons with hearing or vision impairments; 61 percent said safety and liability issues were a
concern.
.
Among non-occupational challenges, lack of applicants (37 percent) followed by transportation
(33 percent) were most commonly cited.
Service Provider, Advocate and Family Survey
.
The third survey generated 84 responses. Sixty-three percent of respondents said they had
worked with or assisted people with a vision or hearing loss for more than 10 years.
.
About 45 percent of respondents said that 25 to 74 percent of their clients, associates or family
members in the vision or hearing loss communities had turned down work to maintain SSI/SSDI
benefits, a notably higher percent than reported on the constituent survey.
.
The barrier to employment most commonly mentioned was employer attitudes toward
disabilities (82 percent), followed by availability of jobs (79 percent). Service providers most
commonly mentioned safety and liability issues (73 percent) as one of the business
communityís perceived challenges to hiring people with disabilities. Service providers most
commonly mentioned accommodation costs (73 percent) as one of the business communityís
perceived non-occupational challenges.
Focus Groups
Staff from Opportunities for Ohioans with Disabilities conducted 17 focus groups at six locations
around the state. The focus groups were divided among four types of constituents: visually impaired
and working, visually impaired and not working, hearing impaired and working, and hearing impaired
and not working. Topics included the vocational rehabilitation system and benefits, the search for
work, the effect of a disability on independent living, life on the job, and recommendations.
Findings
The following is a summary of the focus group participantsí views:
.
Many focus group participants felt that because of their disabilities, they had been ìput in a
boxî with regard to their career aspirations and choices. People expressed frustration about
not getting ìreal jobs.î
.
Some Ohio vocational rehabilitation consumers ìskip the borderî to get services in other states.
Many consider Ohioís vocational rehabilitation services underfunded and behind other states.
.
Many participants felt that employer attitudes toward persons with disabilities prevented them
from being considered for jobs. Many experienced the lack of reasonable accommodations,
both on the job and during the application and interview process. Many of those in the deaf
community said it was difficult to find good interpreters. Many of those in the reading-impaired
community said reading/writing technology was often inadequate.
.
Although technology could be a job barrier, most participants saw the value in learning new
technologies for independent living and employment.
.
Among those with job experience, many said they felt the need to prove themselves or explain
their disabilities on an ongoing basis. Many said they were afraid to ask for reasonable
accommodations or that they made their own accommodations. Social isolation was often a
problem, especially for the deaf community.
.
The need for inter-and cross-agency collaboration was mentioned often. Many said services do
not work well together or could work together better.
.
Many mentioned the need for a deaf commission similar to those in other states. Visually
impaired participants mentioned the need for reliable public or private transportation.
Appendix C: Demographics and Analysis Guide
See separately attached Demographics and Analysis Guide.
Workforce Integration
Task Force
Demographics and Analysis Guide
2014
Workforce Integration
Task Force
Demographics and Analysis Guide
2014
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PURPOSE .......................................................................................................................................................................2
METHODOLOGY.............................................................................................................................................................2
Research Publications.........................................................................................................................................2
BACKGROUND...............................................................................................................................................................3
Ohio Labor Market Participation Trends ñ All Disabilities.............................................................................3
Ohio Job Seeker Proportionality by Disability Type ........................................................................................4
OhioPrevalence Rates byDisability Type........................................................................................................5
Ohio Employment Rates by Disability Type .....................................................................................................5
Maps ñ Ohio County Disability Type Population and Prevalence Rates......................................................6
OHIO INCOME LEVELS AND INCOME DISPARITY FACTORS...................................................................................8
Annual Earnings ...................................................................................................................................................8
Full-Time versus Part-Time Employment..........................................................................................................8
Income Disparity ñ Education and Full-Time v Part-Time Employment......................................................9
OOD -Education, Income, and SSI/SSDI Benefits....................................................................................... 10
SSI/SSDI Benefit Program Impact and Quick Facts ................................................................................... 11
OCCUPATIONS AND EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS .............................................................................................. 12
OOD ñ Successful Employment Outcomes by Major Standard Occupation Code (SOC)....................... 12
OOD ñ Successful Employment October by Jobs Ohio Regions (October 2010ñ June 2014).............. 13
Ohioís Labor Market Information and Projections....................................................................................... 14
BARRIERS TO EMPLOYMENT................................................................................................................................... 17
Barriers to employment for persons with a disability ñ Survey Statistics ............................................... 17
Barriers to employment for persons with a disability ñ Literature Review.............................................. 18
Workforce Integration Task Force ñ Data and Information Resources ................................................... 20
For questions regarding this report, please contact: Raivo Murnieks, Deputy Director of Performance and
Innovation, Opportunities for Ohioans with Disabilities, at Raivo.Murnieks at OOD.ohio.gov or 614-438-1254.
Workforce Integration Task Force | Demographics and Analysis
PURPOSE
The purpose of this report is to provide the Ohio Workforce Integration Task Force (WIT) members with
data and information to support their decision-making and resulting recommendations to the Governor
by January 1, 2015 as it pertains to Section 751.20 of Ohio H.B. 483, which was enacted into law on June
16, 2014. Specifically, the information in this report will inform the task force so that it can make
recommendations regarding how those individuals may be more fully integrated into the workforce to
increase employability and income parity:
.
Number of individuals who are blind or deaf
.
The average income levels for those individuals who are employed compared to those who are
not employed
.
Where those individuals are geographically located
.
The number of those individuals who are employed and in what job categories they are employed
.
Whether barriers to employment exist for those individuals
METHODOLOGY
There is no single accepted definition of disability. Different definitions and disability questions may
identify different populations with disabilities and result in larger or smaller estimates. For consistency,
the WIT data research subgroup determined that the most effective source of data to address Ohio
specific information regarding the total number of individuals who are blind or deaf is through the U.S.
Census Bureauís American Community Survey (ACS).
The two ACS survey questions used to identify persons with vision and hearing disabilities are as follows:
Hearing Disability (asked of all ages): Is this person deaf or does he/she have serious difficulty hearing?
Visual Disability (asked of all ages): Is this person blind or does he/she has serious difficulty seeing
even when wearing glasses?
Note that the Census Bureau / ACS refers to each of the individual types as "difficulty" while in this report the term
"disability" is used. The terms ìdisabilityî and ìimpairmentî are used in this report.
Further, to get the most accurate information of these individuals to be representative of all counties, the
ACS 5-Year estimates are being used in this report. This data source will address the two elements of the
number of blind or deaf and where they are geographically located. In addition, it aligns with the 2012
Comprehensive Statewide Needs Assessment (CSNA). National level trend charts regarding overall
disability employment and workforce participation trends provided in the ëBackgroundí section of this
report utilized Current Population Survey data as a source.
Research Publications
The Ohio Longitudinal Transition Study -Annual State Report Spring 2014
http://www.olts.org/state-reports/2014-state-report.pdf
2012 Vocational Rehabilitation Comprehensive Statewide Needs Assessment (JAWS Accessible)
http://ood.ohio.gov/docs/internet-documents/rsc-csna-report-2012_final-jaws.pdf (Pages 56-78)
Disability Statistics ñ American Community Survey and Current Population Survey (Query Tool and
Reports) www.disabilitystatistics.org ñ Query Tool
http://www.disabilitystatistics.org/StatusReports/2012-PDF/2012-StatusReport_OH.pdf?CFIDñOhio Report
Ohio Labor Market Information ñ Ohio Job Outlook 2020 Projections
Workforce Integration Task Force | Demographics and Analysis
http://ohiolmi.com/proj/OhioJobOutlook.htm
BACKGROUND
Nationally, in 2013, 17.6 percent of persons with a disability were employed. In contrast, the
employment-population ratio for those without a disability was 64.0 percent. The employment-population
ratio was little changed from 2012 to 2013 for both groups. The unemployment rate for those with a
disability was 13.2 percent in 2013, higher than the rate for persons with no disability (7.1 percent). The
jobless rate for persons with a disability was little changed from 2012 to 2013, while the rate for those
without a disability declined. (Source Bureau of Labor Statistics News Release PERSONS WITH A
DISABILITY: LABOR FORCE CHARACTERISTICS ó2013 ñ
June 11, 2014) Note: The unemployment rate is the
percentage of total workforce who are unemployed and who are actively looking for a paid job; this does not include
individuals who are not actively seeking employment.
Read more: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/unemployment-rate.html#ixzz37ReM4Rlt
Ohio Labor Market Participation Trends ñ
All Disabilities
Source: Current Population Survey -www.disabilitystatistics.org
In the year 2011, an estimated 9.7 percent (plus or minus 1.3 percentage points) of civilian non-
institutionalized, men and women, aged 21-64 in Ohio reported a work limitation. In other words,
651,000 out of 6,709,000 (or about one in 10) civilian non-institutionalized, men and women, aged 2164
in Ohio reported a work limitation. The estimated percentage above is based on a sample of 2,975
persons who participated in the Current Population Survey (CPS).
Workforce Integration Task Force | Demographics and Analysis
In the year 2011, an estimated 17.1 percent (plus or minus 5.2 percentage points) of civilian non-
institutionalized, men and women with a work limitation, aged 18-64 in Ohio worked more than 52 hours
in the prior calendar year. In other words, 114,000 out of 667,000 (or about one in 6) civilian non-
institutionalized, men and women with a work limitation, aged 18-64 in Ohio worked more than 52 hours
in the prior calendar year.
In the year 2012, an estimated 10.4 percent (plus or minus 0.95 percentage points) of non-
institutionalized persons aged 21 to 64 years with a disability in Ohio who were not working, were actively
looking for work. While an estimated 11.0 percent (plus or minus 2.58 percentage points) with a visual
disability and 14.4 percent (plus or minus 2.9 percentage points) with a hearing disability in Ohio who
were not working, were actively looking for work.
Ohio Job Seeker Proportionality by Disability Type
Source: 2012 Vocational Rehabilitation Comprehensive Statewide Needs Assessment
In Ohio, of the projected 225,000 individuals with a disability that are seeking employment, more than
40,000 individuals with a visual or hearing impairment are seeking employment. The table above
demonstrates that the proportion of all Ohioans with disabilities estimated to be seeking employment,
10.4 percent are represented by those with a visual impairment and 7.5 percent are represented by
those with a hearing impairment.
Workforce Integration Task Force | Demographics and Analysis
Ohio Prevalence Rates by Disability Type
Ohio Employment Rates by Disability Type
In 2012, of working age Ohioans (21-64), the employment rate for individuals with a hearing disability
was 50.1 percent and for those with a visual disability it was 36.1 percent.
Workforce Integration Task Force | Demographics and Analysis
Maps ñ
Ohio County Disability Type Population and Prevalence Rates
Ohioans age 18-64 with a Hearing Disability -ACS 5-Year Estimate Total (n) = 157,951
According to the ACS, in 2012, there were almost 158,000 Ohioans with hearing disability. Counties in
the southeast portion of the state tend to have a higher prevalence (3% or more) of their age 18-64
populations with hearing disability as compared to counties in the northwest and northeast. In the three
largest metropolitan counties (Cuyahoga, Franklin, and Hamilton) the prevalence of hearing disability is
between one and two percent.
Workforce Integration Task Force | Demographics and Analysis
Ohioans age 18-64 with a Visual Disability -ACS 5-Year Estimate Total (n) = 122,192
According to the ACS, in 2012, there were more than 122,000 Ohioans with a vision disability. Counties
in the southern part of the state tend to have a higher prevalence (3% or more) of their age 18-64
populations with vision disability. The largest concentration in the numbers of individuals with vision
disability is in northeast and southwest Ohio.
Workforce Integration Task Force | Demographics and Analysis
OHIO INCOME LEVELS AND INCOME DISPARITY FACTORS
Annual Earnings
Income disparity for Ohioís full-time workers with a visual disability is more significant than for those
individuals with a hearing disability; their median earnings are almost 25 percent less than it is for
individuals without a disability. Median earnings for individuals with a hearing disability are almost
equivalent to those individuals without a disability.
Full-Time versus Part-Time Employment
Workforce Integration Task Force | Demographics and Analysis
Income Disparity ñ Education and Full-Time v Part-Time Employment
The table above is from an article from the National Technical Institute for the Deaf, titled ëThe Effect of
Education on the Occupational Status of Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing 26-64 Year Oldsí ñ by Gerard Walter
and Richard Dirmeyer.
Literature documenting the economic status of deaf and hard-of-hearing persons in the United States has
consistently indicated that these disabled persons are underemployed and earn significantly less than
their hearing peers. In the last quarter of the 20th century federal legislation sought to eliminate
discrimination based on disability, by requiring reasonable accommodations in school and in the
workplace. One result of this legislation has been increased access by deaf and hard-of-hearing persons
to colleges and universities in the United States. This paper reviews the literature on employment of
persons who are deaf or hard of hearing and reports results using the 2010 American Community Survey.
Results indicate that there have been significant gains in college attendance and graduation during the
last third of the 20th century and those individuals who attain a college degree realize significant
economic benefits, through increased employment and earnings, when compared with individuals who
have not graduated. It also appears from this study that college graduation aids in reducing, but not
eliminating, the gap between the earnings of deaf and hard of hearing persons who have a college
degree and hearing persons who have a college degree.
Workforce Integration Task Force | Demographics and Analysis
OOD -Education, Income, and SSI/SSDI Benefits
The tables above represent the subset of OOD served individuals who reported a visual or hearing
impairment as their primary disability and who exited Ohioís Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) program with
a successful employment outcome, between October 2010 and May 2014. This data supports the
summary findings of the Walter and Dirmeyer report.
Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) may also be contributing
factors in income earned from a job and whether individuals pursue part-time versus full-time employment; i.e.
of OOD consumers that attained employment but are still receiving SSI/SSDI benefits, tend to work less hours
earn less income from their job, than individuals who are not receiving SSI/SSDI benefits. In addition, the
average hourly wage, of individuals that work more hours, is higher than those who work less (part-time) hours;
this further exacerbates the income gap.
Workforce Integration Task Force | Demographics and Analysis
10
SSI/SSDI Benefit Program Impact and Quick Facts
Fast Facts and Figures about Social Security,
http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/chartbooks/fast_facts/2013/fast_facts13.pdf
In the year 2012, of non-institutionalized Ohioans aged 21 to 64 years, an estimated 19.5 percent
(plus or minus 2.61 percentage points) with a visual disability and 13.7 percent (plus or minus 2.00
percentage points) with a hearing disability received SSI benefits. (www.disabilitystatistics.org
ñ
ACS Supplemental Security Income query)
Workforce Integration Task Force | Demographics and Analysis
Per the SSAís ë2014 Red Bookí, http://www.ssa.gov/redbook/documents/TheRedBook2014.pdf,
Ohioís 2014 SSI threshold eligibility amount is $36,063. The ìthreshold amountî is the measure that
the Social Security Administration uses to decide whether earnings are high enough to replace SSI and
Medicaid benefits. The threshold amount is based on:
The amount of earnings that would cause SSI cash payments to stop and
The average annual per capita Medicaid expenditure for Ohio.
If gross earnings are higher than the threshold amount an individual may still be eligible if they have:
Impairment-related work expenses (see page 19 of 2014 Redbook);
Blind work expenses (see page 45 of 2014 Redbook );
A Plan to Achieve Self-Support (see page 22 of 2014 Redbook);
Publicly funded attendant or personal care; or
Medical expenses above the state per capita amount.
OCCUPATIONS AND EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS
OOD ñ Successful Employment Outcomes by Major Standard Occupation Code (SOC)
OOD Successfully Employed by Occupation*
October 2010 - May 2014
Major SOC Category DescriptionOOD Visually ImpairedAverage Hr. WageMajor SOC Category and Administrative Support Occupations280$11.20Office and Administrative and Related Occupations81$10.61Production Occupations100$Training and Library Occupations79$18.11Building and Grounds Cleaning Occupations76$10.13Transportation and Material and Grounds Cleaning and Maintenance Occu67$9.43Food Preparation and Serving and Social Services Occupations66$15.22Healthcare Practitioners Occupations63$17.36Personal Care and Service Preparation and Serving Related Occupations63$9.17Education, Training and and Material Moving Occupations54$11.59Installation, Maintenance Practitioners and Technical Occupations52$23.77Sales and Related Occupations49$Support Occupations48$15.00Management Occupations41$and Financial Operations Occupations39$15.76Community and Social Services Care and Service Occupations36$9.62Healthcare Support Occupations34$Maintenance and Repair Occupations36$13.31Arts, Design, Entertainment, Design, Entertainment, Sports, and Media Occ29$16.49Construction and Extraction and Extraction Occupations22$15.55Computer and Mathematical and Mathematical Occupations21$21.04Architecture and Engineering Occupations14$31.27Business and Financial Operations Service Occupations11$9.24Protective Service Occupations15$and Engineering Occupations9$21.77Life, Physical, and Social Physical, and Social Science Occupations5$22.44Legal Occupations4$Training, and Library Occupations3$31.13Farming, Fishing and Forestry Fishing and Forestry Occupations2$9.84Education, Training, and Total1156$13.62Grand Total1056$excludes 'RSA Special Occupations and Miscellaneous'
When evaluating where OOD has been traditionally successful in assisting individuals in finding a job,
occupations that require less education have resulted in a higher volume of placements. However, those
occupations pay significantly less than occupations requiring a technical or college degree.
Workforce Integration Task Force | Demographics and Analysis
OOD ñ
Successful Employment October by Jobs Ohio Regions (October 2010ñ
June 2014)
Visually Impaired ñ
All Occupations ñ
Number Employed and Average Wage by County
Workforce Integration Task Force | Demographics and Analysis
Hearing Impaired ñ All Occupations ñ Number Employed and Average Wage by County
Ohioís Labor Market Information and Projections
Employment projections are updated every two years by the Ohio Department of Job
and Family Services' Bureau of Labor Market Information. The projections are widely
used for studying long-range economic and employment trends, planning education
and training programs, and developing career information. The latest edition,
http://ohiolmi.com/proj/OhioJobOutlook.htm, uses employment statistics through 2010 as a foundation
to project employment conditions for the 10-year period ending in 2020.
For Ohioís six JobsOhio Network Regions, the difference between 2010 and 2020
projected change in employment ranges from 25,000 in the Nelsonville Region to 186,100 in the
Cleveland Region. The largest increase is projected in the Columbus Region, at 10.7 percent, followed by
the Cincinnati Region at 10.3 percent. The Cleveland Region matched the statewide average for
projected employment change at 9.3 percent. Regions where projected change fell below the state
average were Toledo Region at 8.5 percent, Dayton Region at 8.3 percent, and
Nelsonville Region at 7.5 percent.
Workforce Integration Task Force | Demographics and Analysis
From October 2010ñMay 2014, OOD has realized the greatest success in helping individuals with visual and
hearing impairments find and retain employment in ëoffice and administrative supportí occupations. The map
below demonstrates the projected labor market change through 2020, that indicates an across the board
increase in the number of jobs specific to this occupation, by Ohio region. Note: Labor Market Information (LMI)
occupation market change data is only available at a regional level, not by county, thus the numbers on the map represent
the total number by region, not for each county.
The map on the next page shows the county of residence of individuals OOD has assisted, with hearing
and visual impairments, along with their average hourly wage specific to ëoffice and administrative
supportí occupations. Although the forecast LMI map indicates that more openings are projected in the
Toledo Region versus the Dayton Region, the OOD data indicates that from October 2010-May 2014 that
almost twice as many OOD served individuals with visual and hearing impairments were placed in the
Dayton Region versus the Toledo Region. This is just one example of data analysis that is available to the
Task Force and can be explored for each major occupation; especially those occupations that have
resulted in successful employment outcomes.
Workforce Integration Task Force | Demographics and Analysis
15
OOD Average Wage
Workforce Integration Task Force | Demographics and Analysis
BARRIERS TO EMPLOYMENT
Barriers to employment for persons with a disability ñ
Survey Statistics
MAY 22, 2013 -HTTP://WWW.BLS.GOV/OPUB/TED/2013/TED_20130522.HTM
ìHalf of the 23.1 million men and women with a disability who were not employed in May 2012 reported
at least one barrier to employment. When asked to identify barriers they had encountered, most reported
that their own disability was a barrier to employment (80.5 percent).
Persons with a disability 16 years and over who were not employed with a barrier to employment
by age, sex, and type of barrier, May 2012
Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Persons with a disability 16 years and over who were not employed with a barrier to employment
by age, sex, and type of barrier, May 2012
Characteristic
Percent of total not employed with a barrier to employment by type of barrier
Loss of
government
assistance
Lack of job
counseling
Employer
or
coworker
attitudes
Need for
special
features at
the job
Lack of
transportation
Lack of
education
or training
Own
disability Other
Total, 16 years
and over
4.2 5.7 7.9 10.3 11.7 14.1 80.5 18.0
16 to 64 years 5.0 7.0 9.7 12.3 14.3 16.5 83.5 15.1
65 years and
over
2.6 2.6 4.1 5.9 5.9 8.6 74.1 24.4
Men 4.3 6.7 7.7 9.9 11.5 14.6 81.9 16.7
Women 4.2 4.8 8.1 10.7 11.8 13.6 79.5 19.1
NOTE: Percents may sum to more than 100 percent because persons with a disability were able to report more than one
barrier to employment.
Other barriers cited included lack of education or training (14.1 percent), lack of transportation (11.7
percent), and the need for special features at the job (10.3 percent). A greater proportion of persons ages
16 to 64 reported a barrier to employment than those age 65 and over, perhaps reflecting the fact that
older workers are, in general, less likely to participate in the labor force. Among persons with a disability
age 25 and over, a smaller proportion of persons with a college degree who were not employed reported
a barrier to employment than those with less than a high school diploma.î
Workforce Integration Task Force | Demographics and Analysis
Barriers to employment for persons with a disability ñ Literature Review
Barriers to employment can be thought of as falling into three broad groups: personal, societal, and
programmatic (OíDay, 1999).
Personal barriers are connected to the individual seeking work. These can include the personís disability or
disabilities; lack of education or educational weaknesses; lack of work experience or marketable skills; lack of
or poor social interaction and communication skills; lack of knowledge or motivation for a job search, and so
on (OíDay, 1999). Some personal barriers may have roots outside of the individual. For example, students with
disabilities may have received inadequate career guidance or negative feedback that which may later affect
their abilities and motivation for a job search (O'Day, 1999; Riesen, Morgan, Schultz, & Kupferman, 2014).
Those unsuccessful in the search for work may stopping looking for work and lose hope of finding work (OíDay,
1999).
A second group of barriers are societal (OíDay, 1999). These barriers are external to individuals or their
disabilities and cannot be ëovercomeí by the individualís own efforts. Societal barriers include negative public
attitudes about disabilities, social stigma, discrimination, the lack of access to technology, and the lack of
public transportation. Blind and visually impaired individuals may face issues with transportation. Local areas
may not have adequate public transportation, work sites or work schedules may not be convenient to public
transportation, and travel times may be prohibitively long (OíDay, 1999). Negative attitudes toward disabilities,
including limited expectations about the ability to perform a job, are a commonly mentioned major barrier to
finding and keeping a job. For example, McDonnall and colleagues (McDonnall, O'Mally, & Crudden, 2014)
found that employers often have limited or no knowledge of how a blind or visually impaired person might
perform routine job tasks. Participants in one study felt employers had difficulty in sorting out job
qualifications from disabilities (OíDay, 1999). Those participants felt the need for accommodation was a
barrier to employment, and participants that had been employed in the past had few or no accommodations.
Communication difficulties may be a major barrier for deaf workers, and they may be located with the
individual, the employment site, and service agencies (Luft, 2000). Many deaf individuals rely on American
Sign Language and are not fluent in English. This may limit the ability to take advantage of emerging
technologies in the workplace. Luft (2000) identified six areas in which there could be communications
difficulties in dealing with deaf workers: job training, socializing with coworkers, internal meetings, work-
related social functions, receiving work instruction and supervision, and performance evaluation. Luft (2000)
noted that those dealing with deaf workers need communication competency and cultural knowledge,
particularly members of the Deaf Community.
Kaye, Jans, and Jones (2011) examined attitudes among HR professionals and supervisors at companies that
had been identified as resistant to hiring persons with disabilities. Common reasons companies might not hire
persons with disabilities included: the cost of accommodations, lack of awareness in how to deal with workers
with disabilities and their accommodation needs, fear of being stuck with a worker who cannot be disciplined
or fired because of a possible lawsuit, difficultly an assessing an applicantís ability to perform job tasks,
concerns over supervisory time, concerns over work quality, lack of job candidates with disabilities, and a
perception that workers with disabilities cannot perform essential job duties. Common reasons companies
might not retain workers with disabilities included: lack of awareness as how to handle workersí needs,
concern that workers with disabilities will become legal or financial liabilities, concern over the cost of
accommodations, concerns over job performance, difficulty in assessing whether the worker can do the job,
belief the person cannot do the jobs, and belief that workers developing disabilities become less dependable.
Cornell Universityís Employment and Disability Institute surveyed HR professionals about barriers to
employment for people with disabilities (Erickson, 2013). Commonly mentioned barriers included a lack of
qualified candidates, a lack of skills and training on the part of individuals with disabilities, and lack of related
Workforce Integration Task Force | Demographics and Analysis
experience. Other barriers included a lack of supervisor knowledge about accommodations and attitudes and
stereotypes of those in the workplace. About 20 percent of those responding mentioned the cost of
accommodations.
A third set of barriers are programmatic. SSI and SSDI policies and the perceptions and attitudes of SSA staff
make it difficult for those receiving benefits to work or return to work (OíDay, 1999). Working too much may
result in loss of benefits. When work affects benefits, it may take months for changes to be processed, which
may result in over payments that must be repaid.
The U.S. General Accountability Office (2010) conducted a forum (which also used survey responses) on
actions that could increase work participation for adults with disabilities. Responses focused on individuals
with disabilities, employers, and Federal programs. In terms of individuals with disabilities, forum participants
wanted policies that improved incentives for individuals with disabilities to work while strengthening supports
and services on which they depend. Other suggestions include tax incentives to individuals and promotion of a
team approach to help individuals stay at or return to work.
When it came to employers, participants in the GAO forum proposed two different policy approaches aimed at
employers. One approach focused on an information campaign to raise employer awareness of the financial
benefits (rather than legal responsibilities) of retaining employees with disabilities or returning them to work.
Such a plan would be more accepted if it came from a well-known private research organization and not a
federal agency or a non-profit working with persons with disabilities. Information on the financial benefits of
retaining workers with disabilities should be distributed through a strategic and coordinated marketing plan.
However, participants noted an information campaign alone might not be enough, that a campaign might have
negative effects for individuals with certain disabilities, and the part information campaigns have had limited
success.
A second employer approach would increase incentives to employers by increasing employersí financial
responsibility for employees who exit the workforce. Employers who are less successful at retaining employees
with disabilities might pay higher payroll taxes. Employers would be required to provide disability benefits for
an extended period if employeesí disabilities prevented them from performing their job duties. Participants
noted this approach could create incentives for employees to avoid job candidates with greater risk of
experiencing work disabilities, increased privacy concerned related to employer involvement in employee
healthcare, and the difficulty in establishing experience-based payroll taxes for business.
Bibliography
Erickson, W. (2013). Research Brief: Employer Practices and Polcies Regarding the Employment of Persons with
Disabilities.
Kaye, H. S., Jans, L. H., & Jones, E. C. (2011). Why Don't Employers Hire and Retain Workers with Disabilities? Journal of
Occupational Rehabilitation, 21, 526-536.
Luft, P. (2000). Communication barriers for deaf employees: Needs assessment and problem-solving strategies. Work, 14,
51-59.
McDonnall, M. C., O'Mally, J., & Crudden, A. (2014, May-June). Employer Knowledge of and Attitudes Toward Employees
Who Are Blind or Visually Impaired. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 213-225.
O'Day, B. (1999, October). Employment Barriers for People with Visual Impairments. Journal of Visual Impairment &
Blindness, 93(10).
Riesen, T., Morgan, R., Schultz, J., & Kupferman, S. (2014). School-to-Work Barriers as Identified by Special Educators,
Vocational Rehabilitation Counselors, and Community Rehabilitation Professionals. Journal of Rehabiliation, 80(1), 33-44.
U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2010). Highlights of a GAO Forum: Actions that Could Increase Work Participation
for Adults with Disabilities. Washington, D.C.
Workforce Integration Task Force | Demographics and Analysis
19
Workforce Integration Task Force ñ
Data and Information Resources
Workforce Integration Task Force ñ
Data and Information Resources
Source Findings
Task Force
Value
ACS 5 Year Estimates ñ
Including Survey Definition of
Disability Questions
All counties available; Employment status;
Class of worker; Occupation; Industry;
Commuting to Work; Educational Attainment;
Earnings; Poverty Status
High
Ohio Labor Market Information
http://ohiolmi.com/proj/OhioJobOutlook.htm
The Ohio Job Outlook includes industry and
occupational employment projections for
Ohio, the six regions of the JobsOhio
Network
High
Social Security
http://www.socialsecurity.gov/disability/professionals/bl
uebook/2.00-SpecialSensesandSpeech-Adult.htm
Statutory definitions of blindness and deafness High
Ohio Department of Public Safety
http://bmv.ohio.gov/dl_vision_screening_areas.stm
Definition/guidelines of vision adequate for gett
drivers licenses
High
Ohio Vocational Rehabilitation Case Management System
(AWARE)
Comprehensive Disability Type and County
level information, including occupations,
wages, education attainment, etc. for all
successful closures for the past five years
(this data is most reliable from October
2010).
High
RSA 911 2012
https://rsa.ed.gov/view.cfm?rsaform=ARR&state=OH&fy=
2012&grant=H126A120052#skipnav
Income levels of those employed compared
to those not yet employed. Source is from
AWARE
High
Prevent Blindness
http://www.visionproblemsus.org/
Vision Impairment Prevalence Rates by State.
Some county information available.
High
2012 RSC Comprehensive Statewide Needs Assessment Ohio
Among other, includes discussion of barriers
to employment.
High
November 2012 National Industries of the Blind survey
based from Cincinnati
www.nib.org/sites/default/files/NIB%20Hiring%20Manag
er%20Study%20(Releasable).pdf
Views of over 400 employers nationwide on
their views of work barriers. *possibly* we
can get Ohio-related results.
High
Bureau of Labor Statistics
http://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2013/ted_20130522.htm
Employment Data on vision loss population
http://www.afb.org/info/living-with-vision-loss/blindnessstatistics/
adults/interpreting-bls-employment-data/1234
Barriers to Employment
National Employment Data Pertaining to
People with Vision Loss (16 Years of Age and
Over)
High
Workforce Integration Task Force | Demographics and Analysis
Ohio Longitudinal Transition Study
http://education.ohio.gov/Topics/Specialio Longitudinal Transition Study
http://education.ohio.gov/Topics/SpecialEducation/
Resources-for-Parents-and-Teachers-ofStudents-
wit/Ohio-Longitudinal-Transition-Study-OLTS
Report on special education students after
high school. Looks at higher education
enrollment, training program, and
competitive employment.
High
2013 Disability Statistics Compendium National and some state-by-state
comparative statistics regarding employment,
Medium
www.Disabilitystatistics.org
income such as SSI/SSDI, and cross-disability
comparisons
BLS Household data (Based on CPS)
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/dissup.pdf
Employment status by demographics and
disability status; employed persons by
disability and occupation; disability status by
industry; disability status by full v part time
work; disabled non-institutional population
employment; type of disability not available;
state level data is not available
Medium
Social Security Administration
2014 RED BOOK
http://www.ssa.gov/redbook/documents/TheRedBook20
14.pdf
Fast Facts about Social Security, 2013
http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/chartbooks/fast_facts/2
013/fast_facts13.pdf
A summary guide to employment supports
for persons with disabilities under the social
security disability insurance and
supplemental security income programs
Fast Facts & Figures answers the most
frequently asked questions about the
programs SSA administers. It highlights basic
program data for the Social Security
(retirement, survivors, and disability) and
Supplemental Security Income programs.
Social Security ñ
Income of Disabled Workers
http://www.socialsecurity.gov/policy/docs/chartbooks/in
come_workers/di_chart.pdf
Medium
BLS -Veteran Population Survey Presence of service connected disability
employment data (counts); Not available at
the state level.
Medium
Center for Instructional Supports and Accessible Materials County-by-county district break-down of Medium
(CISAM) http://cisam.ossb.oh.gov/FederalQuota.php blind/low-vision learners age 5-HS graduation
by geography and by preferred learning
medium (Braille, large print, and audio.)
American Printing house for the Blind
http://www.aph.org/federalquota/
dist11.html annual reports.
Prevent Blindness Ohio
http://ohiovisionproblems.preventblindness.org/common
-causes-of-visual-impairment-and-blindness/
Offers county-by-county breakdown of
blind/VI adults 40 and over.
Medium
Workforce Integration Task Force | Demographics and Analysis
Social Security, Congressional Statistics, December 2012 Ohio
http://www.socialsecurity.gov/policy/docs/factsheets/co
ng_stats/2012/oh.html
Breaks down SSI/SSDI blind recipients by
congressional district.
Medium
National Federation of the Blind
https://nfb.org/wtbw-main
Hundreds of nation-wide Individual
stories/categories of those offering their
career journey and advice.
Medium
American Foundation for the Blind Career Connect
http://www.afb.org/info/living-with-vision-loss/for-jobseekers/
12
Hundreds of mentors nation-wide with
searchable data base of those offering their
career journey and advice.
Medium
Rider survey draft report from ODOT;
http://campaign.r20.constantcontact.com/render?ca=108
46455-ddef-4cc4-bb7c-f491c6b3be28&c=31554ea0-b9aa11e3-
bfc5-d4ae52724810&ch=32c3abb0-b9aa-11e3805a-
d4ae52724810
5,500 respondents statewide, but not
disability-related, on views regarding public
transit. The majority of respondents have no
other means of transportation.
Medium
Ohio Department of Health: Regional Infant Hearing
Program legislative report
http://www.helpmegrow.ohio.gov/~/media/HelpMeGrow
/ASSETS/Files/Professionals%20Gallery/Infant%20Hearing
/Infant%20Hearing%20Reports/2009%20RIHP%20Report.
ashx
Number and location (9 geographic regions)
of infants diagnosed with hearing loss in Ohio
since 2004.
Medium
Ohio Department of Education Has data related to the number of hearing
and visually impaired children in Ohio, based
on school district. This information may be
very difficult to obtain based on the
perceived notion that releasing this data may
violate FERPA.
Medium
National Technical Institute of the Deaf: Annual Report
http://www.ntid.rit.edu/sites/default/files/annual_report
_2013.pdf
Report produced annually. Surveys recent
alumni after graduation to look at income,
employment information of Deaf graduates.
Includes occupational group, gender, and
ethnicity information.
Medium
National Technical Institute of the Deaf: Collaboratory on
Economic, Demographic, and Policy Studies
http://www.ntid.rit.edu/research/collaboratory
Richard Dirmyer, NTID Senior Institutional Researcher,
585.475.7227, rcdnvd at ntid.rit.edu
Uses info from SSA, ACS, and DOE to define
the status of the population of deaf and hard
of hearing. Looks beyond NTID to look at
access to postsecondary education and the
occupational status of deaf/hard of hearing
nationally. Also looks at ethnic distribution of
deaf/hard of hearing.
Medium
The Effect of Education on the Occupational Status of Deaf
and Hard-of-Hearing 26-64 Year Olds. Rochester, NY:
Investigates income disparity between
deaf/hard of hearing and hearing population
Medium
Workforce Integration Task Force | Demographics and Analysis
National Technical Institute for the Deaf, Rochester
Institute of Technology.
http://www.ntid.rit.edu/sites/default/files/effect_of_edu
cation_on_occupational.pdf
Institute of Technology.
http://www.ntid.rit.edu/sites/default/files/effect_of_edu
cation_on_occupational.pdf
nationally.
Gallaudet University: Annual Survey of Recent Graduates
http://www.gallaudet.edu/Documents/OIR/Alumni%20Su
rvey/Alumni_Survey_2011_12_Report_FINAL%200916201
3.pdf
Report produced annually. Surveys recent
undergraduate and graduate alumni after
graduation to look at income, employment
information of Deaf graduates. Includes
occupational group information.
Medium
National Federation of the Blind
https://nfb.org/images/nfb/publications/fr/fr19/fr05si03.
htm
Philosophical definition of blindness Medium
Ohio Medicaid Medicaid has diagnosis codes. However, they
are only primary diagnosis and will not
capture multiple disabilities or impairments.
They also tried looking at claims data but
found that to be unhelpful.
Low
CHRR ñ WDQI Of the data included in WDQI only ABLE data
has disability type designation.
No occupation data is available in CHRR at
this time.
Low
Ohio Means Jobs -OMJ Voluntary disability designation, type not
available
Low
SCOTI ñ JVSG If barrier to employment is disability, type is
only captured in case notes, cases could have
information about accommodations for work
Low
Bureau of Workerís Compensation Work connected disability data only Low
PepNet2 Research Brief: Employment data for adults who
are Deaf or hard-of-hearing:
http://www.pepnet.org/sites/default/files/employmentbr
ief_v5.pdf
Uses ACS data to draw conclusions about the
employment status of deaf/hard of hearing
nationally.
Low
NIH: NIDCD (Statistical Report: Prevalence of Hearing Loss
in US Children)
Most reports look at hearing loss as a
heterogeneous group. This report breaks out
hearing loss based on severity.
Low
Effect of postsecondary education on the economic status
of persons who are deaf or hard of hearing, Journal of
Deaf Studies and Deaf Education.
http://jdsde.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2011/02/0
Investigates the economic impact of college
education for d/hoh and specifically looks at
SSDI data in relation to deaf/hard of hearing.
Low
Workforce Integration Task Force | Demographics and Analysis
2/deafed.enq060.full.pdf+html
Change in Prevalence of Hearing Loss in US Adolescents.
Journal of the American Medical Association, 2010;
304(7): 772 DOI: 10.1001/jama.2010.1124
Prevalence of hearing loss has increased 30%
from 1988 to 2006, with 1 in 5 children
having hearing loss.
Low
Association of hearing loss with decreased employment
and income among adults in the United States. Ann Otol
Rhinol Laryngol, 2012 Dec; 121(12): 771-5
Study identifies differences in employment
and wage income ($7,791) for those with
hearing loss with economic impact.
Low
Prevalence of hearing aid use among older adults. Arch
Internal Medicine, 2012; 172(3): 292-293. DOI:
10.1001/archinternmed.2011.1408.
1 in 20 adults (age 50-59) use hearing aids
after being prescribed them, with any social,
employment, and economic impact on
families.
Low
The Impact of Untreated Hearing Loss in Household
Income. Better Hearing Institute, 2005 Aug.
Hearing loss negatively impacts household
income by $12,000, but the use of hearing
aids can mitigate the effects of hearing loss
by half. Broader economic impact is
discussed.
Low
Ohio Bureau of Workersí Compensation: Interpreter data Can provide data on where Deaf BWC
recipients are, including occupational codes,
by pulling data related to interpreter services.
Low
Note on CPS data: The Current Population Survey (CPS) is conducted monthly by the US census Bureau for the US
Department of Labor to measure various workforce conditions (this is the survey used as the basis for the monthly
unemployment rate). In 2008, a set of 6 disability related questions were added to the survey. However, disability
type is not collected. CPS notes the following reason (which we may want to keep in mind when we are developing
any possible surveys)
ìExtensive research conducted as part of the effort to include disability questions in the CPS demonstrated that it is
very difficult to accurately measure all persons with disabilities using only a few questions. In like manner, research
has also shown that it would be difficult to accurately identify persons with a specific type of disability using only
one question. For example, questions tested during the research process that were designed to elicit positive
responses from persons with one type of disability were equally likely to identify persons with other disabilities as
well. (Cognitive reports that show such results are available from the BLS upon request, and from the Census
Bureau's 2006 ACS Content Test Report Series, report P.4 (PDF).) Given this research and the relatively small sample
size of the CPS, data users are advised to avoid using the CPS for the purpose of identifying persons with specific
disabilities.î
Workforce Integration Task Force | Demographics and Analysis
More information about the Ohio-Talk
mailing list