Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation 23 (2005) 39–49 39

IOS Press

The employer’s perception: Employment of

individuals with developmental disabilities
Robert L. Morgan∗ and Melina Alexander
Department of Special Education and Rehabilitation, Utah State University, 2865 Old Main Drive, Logan, UT
84322-2865, USA

Abstract. In this study, employers with and without experience in hiring individuals with developmental disabilities were surveyed
regarding their perceptions. Respondents were surveyed and their responses were divided based on location (small or large city),
type and size of business, average length of employment, and educational qualifications. Most respondents with experience
indicated the employment usually or sometimes worked well and they were likely to hire again. Many inexperienced respondents
were also receptive to hiring. Experienced respondents identified advantages to employing individuals with disabilities at higher
rates than inexperienced respondents. The most frequently identified advantages were consistent attendance, workforce diversity,
long-term employment, and co-worker partnerships. Experienced respondents also identified more concerns than inexperienced
respondents. The most frequently identified concern was safety. Implications of the research are examined.

Keywords: Employer perceptions, employers with experience, employers without experience, inter-coder reliability

1. Introduction In the past 20 years, survey research has addressed

Job placement for individuals with developmental
disabilities is a complex process involving identifica-
tion of preferred employment, assessment of the extent
to which skills match preferred jobs, assistance from
support team members, and support from employers [5,
6]. Field et al. [6] note active involvement of all stake-
holders in the job placement process is a key point in the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Rehabil-
itation and supported employment professionals have
developed procedures to assess job preferences, skills,
job tasks, and family support [20]. However, the extent
to which employers support employment of individuals
with disabilities is a key component [22]. Kregel and
Unger [10] underscored the critical nature of employer
support by stating: “the willingness of employers to
accept and accommodate individuals with disabilities
in their businesses and companies is the single most
significant factor that determines the ultimate success
of supported employment” (pp. 19–20).
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 435 797 3251; Fax: +1 435 797
3572; E-mail: bmorgan@cc.usu.edu.
employers’ perspectives of individuals with develop-
mental disabilities [4,10,11,14,16–21]. For a review of
the literature on employer perceptions see Unger [24].
Most research sought information from employers on
hiring individuals with disabilities (e.g. [16]). Some
researchers exclusively surveyed employers with expe-
rience hiring employees with disabilities [10,11,17,19–
21] while others sought information from employers
with and without experience [4,14,16,20]. Although
some employers identified distinct advantages in hir-
ing individuals with developmental disabilities, such as
dedication, consistent attendance, job coach assistance,
and reduced turnover [16,20], others [10,20] remained
hesitant to hire. These findings were supported by Peck
and Kirkbride [18] who described employers’ concerns
about costs associated with hiring, additional supervi-
sion, loss of productivity, difficulty in carrying out ter-
minations, and skill deficits. However, these authors
suggested such concerns were largely unjustified.
Consistently, researchers have found employers with
experience in hiring were more likely to hire in the
future than employers without experience [4,11,16,
20]. Additional survey research on employers with and

1052-2263/05/$17.00 © 2005 – IOS Press and the authors. All rights reserved
40 R.L. Morgan and M. Alexander / The employer’s perception: Employment of individuals with developmental disabilities
without experience may yield important information to
target particular jobs for placement. Further, exami-
nation of employer perceptions may also generate in-
formation to guide educational efforts directed at re-
ducing fears, strengthen services provided by rehabil-
itation and supported employment programs, and es-
tablish mechanisms for communication between edu-
cators/service providers and business professionals.
1.1. Purpose of study
The purpose of this survey was to extend existing
literature on employer perceptions in two ways. First,
the study systematically replicated previous survey re-
search examining perceptions of employers with and
without experience. Second, the survey studied dif-
ferences in perceptions of employers with and without
experience as a function of (a) size of city, (b) type
of business, (c) size of business, (d) length of employ-
ment, and (e) educational qualifications of employees.
Potential findings and their importance are described
below.
1.1.1. Size of city
Employer perceptions regarding individuals with
disabilities may differ as a function of size of cities if
the populations vary based on economic or sociological
aspects. However, no research was found investigating
potential differences.
1.1.2. Type of business
Nietupski et al. [16] analyzed perceptions of em-
ployers in different types of businesses (banks, credit
unions, grocery stores, and retail stores). No interac-
tion effects were found between business type and per-
ception. Additional research should explore potential
relationships.
1.1.3. Size of business
More positive perceptions have been found among
large than small businesses [16]. Given favorable per-
ceptions and the trend toward larger businesses [11],
rehabilitation professionals and supported employment
providers may be advised to focus on larger-scale cor-
porations. However, additional research on size of
business is needed.
1.1.4. Length of employment
No recent research was found examining employer
perceptions in comparison to length (i.e., duration) of
employment. However, an earlier study by Gruen-
hagen [9] indicated that fast food managers held pos-
itive perceptions towards individuals with disabilities
because they remained in employment longer. Updated
research on length of employment is needed.
1.1.5. Educational qualifications of employees
No research investigating employer perceptions in
comparison to minimum educational requirements of
entry employees in a business was found. It could be ar-
gued that more positive employer perceptions would be
found where qualifications were low (e.g., high school
status or graduation) because employees with disabil-
ities could compete or perform tasks comparatively
well. On the other hand, employers requiring higher
educational qualifications may better understand issues
related to management of employees with disabilities
and/or more clearly delineate an employee’s roles and
responsibilities. Research is needed to investigate dif-
ferences in perceptions as a function of educational
qualifications.
1.2. Research questions
The study addressed the following questions:
1. How many employers have experience employing
individuals with developmental disabilities?
2. What differences exist in the numbers of employ-
ers with/without experience in employing indi-
viduals with disabilities as a function of (a) small
versus large city, (b) size of business, (c) type
of business, (d) average length of employment of
entry-level employees, and (e) formal education
qualifications of employees?
3. What advantages do employers identify in em-
ploying individuals with disabilities?
4. What concerns do employers identify in employ-
ing individuals with disabilities?
5. Do advantages or concerns differ as a function
of whether employers have experience in hiring
individuals with disabilities?
6. Do frequencies and types of advantages or con-
cerns differ as a function of (a) small versus large
city, (b) size of business, (c) type of business,
(d) average length of employment of entry-level
employees, or (e) formal education required for
entry-level employees?
 R.L. Morgan and M. Alexander / The employer’s perception: Employment of individuals with developmental disabilities
7. How many employers state that, in the future,
they would hire individuals with disabilities?
8. Do numbers of employers indicating they would
hire individuals with disabilities vary as a func-
tion of experience?
9. Do numbers of employers who indicate they
would hire individuals with disabilities vary as a
function of (a) size of business, (b) type of busi-
ness, (c) average length of employment of entry-
level employees, and (d) formal education quali-
fications for entry-level employees?
2. Method
2.1. Selection of survey respondents
Using telephone book listings and a random numbers
chart, an assistant randomly selected 600 businesses in
both a small city and a large city located in the West-
ern US. A sample size of 600 was selected because it
represented about 20% of total businesses in the small
city and about 3% in the large city. The 3% represen-
tation in the large city was very low but was limited
by financial constraints of the study. No business was
excluded from selection. However, in the large city, ge-
ographic selections were restricted to businesses with
zip codes in the city itself, i.e., businesses in suburban
communities or outlying locations were excluded. In
the small city, no such restrictions were necessary as
all businesses carried the same zip code.
2.2. Setting demographics
According to the 2000 census, the population of the
small city was 42,670. The median age was 24, me-
dian income for a household was $30,778, and median
income per capita was $13,765 [25]. The population
of the large city was about one million [25] exclusive
of suburban areas. The median age was 30, median
income for a household was $36,944, and per capita
income was $20,752.
2.3. Survey instrument and procedures
Figure 1 shows the survey instrument. A brief cover
letter described the purpose of the survey. The remain-
der of the instrument was divided into the following
categories: (a) nature of the business (e.g., type, size,
formal educational requirements, average length of em-
ployment), (b) hiring experience, (c) advantages of em-
41
ploying individuals with disabilities, (d) concerns about
employing individuals with disabilities, and (e) future
hiring intent. Types of businesses (e.g., Service, Retail,
Manufacturing, etc.) were identified based on the 2002
North American Industry Classification System [15].
Size of business was divided into six categories accord-
ing to number of employees (i.e., from 1–10 to over
200 employees). Respondents completed the survey
by checking boxes next to statements best describing
perceptions. For example, in regards to hiring experi-
ence, respondents checked one of six statements, such
as “I have not employed anyone with a disability.” The
cover letter and first sentence in three categories of the
survey used the phrase “employing people with disabil-
ities such as mental retardation” to focus the respondent
on individuals with developmental disabilities.
The project assistant mailed surveys to selected busi-
nesses. Approximately three weeks after the initial
mailing, an assistant made telephone calls to nonre-
spondents. In these calls, the assistant asked to speak to
the manager or human resources director. To maintain
consistency with mailed survey procedures, the assis-
tant read each survey item to respondents and asked
for a response to multiple-choice items and to yes/no
response items. When the assistant was referred to
a corporate office or human resource organization, he
made up to five telephone calls in attempt to complete
the survey. Two additional assistants independent of
the project compiled surveys and entered data into a
spreadsheet. One assistant checked 5% of the sec-
ond assistant’s surveys to assess inter-coder reliability
of data entry. Inter-coder reliability, computed by di-
viding agreements by agreements plus disagreements
times 100, equaled 100%.
2.4. Data compilation and analysis
Data from Questions 1–8 were addressed by exam-
ining frequencies and percentages of responses to sur-
vey items (e.g., frequencies of types and sizes of busi-
nesses). Frequencies were subdivided according to lo-
cation (i.e., large or small city), employers with/without
experience, business type, business size, average length
of employment, and formal education requirements.
Frequencies were also expressed as percentages of re-
spondents within a particular category (e.g., percent-
age of respondents representing Service businesses who
had hired individuals with disabilities). Data from
Question 9 (i.e., whether hiring varied as a function of
size of business) were addressed using chi square anal-
ysis and a one-way ANOVA [8]. Chi square statistics
42 R.L. Morgan and M. Alexander / The employer’s perception: Employment of individuals with developmental disabilities

Type of business (CHECK ONE) Manufacturing Retail Service Education

Professional Medical Farming Technical/Technological Transportation
Building/Construction Government Finance/Insurance Other (describe):

Number of employees (CHECK ONE) 1-10 11-25 26-50 51-100 101-200 over 200

Generally, the average length of employment of entry-level employees in my business is

(CHECK ONE) 1-6 months 7-12 months over 12 months

Generally, formal education required for entry-level employees involves (CHECK ONE)
high school status high school graduate college student college degree

In regards to my experience in employing people who have disabilities such as mental

retardation (check ONE ITEM that best applies),
__It worked well. My experience was generally satisfactory.
__Sometimes it worked well.
__It did not work well. My experience was generally unsatisfactory.
__I have not employed anyone with a disability.
__Other - DESCRIBE HERE:

I recognize advantages of employing people with disabilities such as mental retardation which include the
following (check EACH STATEMENT that applies),
__The job was done because of support received from the job coach.
__Consistent attendance.
__Long-term employment (less turnover).
__No change in insurance rates.
__Higher quality.
__Higher productivity.
__Improved attitudes of co-workers.
__Presents a diverse workforce to consumers (general public)
__Co-workers develop partnerships and help employee.
__Other: DESCRIBE HERE:
__None of the above.

Fig. 1. The survey instrument.

 R.L. Morgan and M. Alexander / The employer’s perception: Employment of individuals with developmental disabilities 43

I recognize concerns about employing people with disabilities such as mental retardation which
include the following (check EACH STATEMENT that applies),
__Lack of support from the job coach or agency.
__Safety concerns for the employee and co-workers.
__Increased insurance rates.
__Quality control problems.
__Reduced productivity.
__Compensation requirements.
__Negative attitudes of co-workers.
__Negative attitudes of consumers (general public).
__Co-workers could tease and take advantage.
__Potential behavior problems or motivational problems of the employee.
__Other: DESCRIBE HERE:
__None of the above.
In regards to future employment of people with disabilities, my viewpoint is best described in
this statement (check ONE ITEM that best applies),
__I would hire a person with a disability because it would likely be a positive experience.
__I would not hire a person with a disability because it would likely be a negative experience.
__Other: DESCRIBE HERE:

Fig. 1, continued.

and F ratios were computed on variables (future hir-
ing intent, advantages marked and concerns marked)
and levels of variables (location, hiring status, future
hiring decisions, business type, business size, length of
employment, and education requirements). Statistical
significance tests were conducted on chi squares and F
ratios to determine probabilities of occurrence.
3. Results
Of 1,200 mailed surveys, 120 (10.0%) were re-
turned undeliverable. Of the remaining 1,080 surveys,
534 were returned via mail or completed in telephone
follow-up calls. Overall, the return rate was 49.4%.
Large city businesses accounted for 260 surveys (48.7%
return rate) while small city accounted for 274 surveys
(51.3% return rate).
As shown in Table 1, largest numbers of respondents
represented Service (n = 206, 38.8%), and Manufac-
turing and Retail businesses (each with n = 87, 16.3%).
Differences in the large and small city samples were
found in Service (large city n = 61, 23.5%; small city
n = 146, 53.3%), Manufacturing (large city n = 64,
24.6%; small city n = 23, 8.4%), and Retail (large
city n = 59, 22.7%; small city n = 28, 10.2%). Few
respondents represented Professional (n = 14, 2.6%)
and Educational (n = 10, 1.9%) organizations. Most
respondents were from businesses of 25 employees or
less (n = 421, 78.6%) and reported an average length of
employment over 12 months (n = 415, 77.7%). Most
respondents indicated the minimum formal education
required was either High School Status or High School
Graduation (combined n = 394, 73.8%).
3.1. Respondents with/without experience in hiring
Table 2 presents data on respondents’ experience hir-
ing individuals with developmental disabilities. Over-
all, 164 respondents (30.9%) reported hiring expe-
rience. Respondents with experience indicated the
employment had “usually” (64.9%) or “sometimes”
(20.4%) worked well (total = 85.3%). Percentages
of respondents with experience in the large and small
44 R.L. Morgan and M. Alexander / The employer’s perception: Employment of individuals with developmental disabilities

Table 1
Demographic data regarding survey respondents
Large city Small city Total
n % n % n %
Total Respondents 260 49.2 274 51.3 534 100.0
Type of Business
Service 61 23.5 146 53.3 207 38.8
Manufacturing 64 24.6 23 8.4 87 16.3
Retail 59 22.7 28 10.2 87 16.3
Technical/Technological 15 5.8 16 5.8 31 5.8
Building/Construction 12 4.6 16 5.8 28 5.2
Medical 13 5.0 14 5.1 27 5.1
Financial/Insurance 8 3.1 14 5.1 22 4.1
Professional 11 4.2 3 1.1 14 2.6
Education 4 1.5 6 2.2 10 1.9
Transportation 3 1.2 1 0.4 4 0.7
Farming 0 0.0 3 1.1 3 0.6
Government 0 0.0 2 0.7 2 0.4
Other 1 0.4 2 0.7 3 0.6
No Response 9 3.5 0 0.0 9 1.7
Number of Employees
1–10 129 49.6 165 60.2 294 55.1
11–25 58 22.3 69 25.2 127 23.8
26–50 39 15.0 14 5.1 53 9.9
51–100 19 7.3 14 5.1 33 6.2
101–200 3 1.2 4 1.5 7 1.3
Over 200 8 3.1 7 2.6 15 2.8
No Response 4 1.5 1 0.4 5 0.9
Average Length of Employment
1–6 months 10 3.8 17 6.2 27 5.1
7–12 months 40 15.4 35 12.8 75 14.0
Over 12 months 205 78.8 210 76.6 415 77.7
No Response 5 1.9 12 4.4 17 3.2
Formal Education Qualifications
High School Status 55 21.2 85 31.0 140 26.2
High School Graduate 128 49.2 126 46.0 254 47.6
College Student 27 10.4 26 9.5 53 9.9
College Degree 19 7.3 26 9.5 45 8.4
Other 5 1.9 2 0.7 7 1.3
No Response 26 10.0 9 3.3 35 6.6

cities were 28.3% and 33.6%, respectively. Types of
businesses with most hiring experience included Edu-
cation (n = 5, 50%) and Professional (n = 6, 42.7%);
however, numbers of respondents in these categories
were relatively small. In businesses with over 20 total
respondents, Technical/Technological (n = 12 of 30,
40.0%), Retail (n = 29 of 87, 33.8%), and Service
(n = 69 of 206, 33.5%) had the most experience and
Financial/Insurance (n = 3 of 22, 13.6%), and Build-
ing/Construction (n = 5 of 28, 17.9%) had the least
experience. Respondents with most hiring experience
were from businesses of 11 employees or more (com-
bined n = 109, 67.7%). Of 15 respondents from busi-
nesses of 200 employees or more, 13 (86.7%) had hir-
ing experience. Respondents from businesses with 7–
12 months average length of employment had most hir-
ing experience (n = 32, 42.0%). Between 30–40% of
respondents requiring High School Status/Graduation
or College Status reported experience. Overall, most
respondents had no experience (n = 367, 69.1%) in
hiring. Respondents with least hiring experience rep-
resented businesses of 10 or fewer employees, busi-
nesses with over 12 months average employment, and
businesses requiring college degrees.
3.2. Respondents’ experience and future hiring intent
Table 3 shows 97.0% of respondents with hiring ex-
perience indicated they would hire again in the future.
In contrast, 80.4% of respondents without experience
indicated they may hire in the future. In most types of
businesses, the majority of respondents with and with-
out experience indicated they may hire in the future.
Businesses reporting least intent to hire were Medical
 R.L. Morgan and M. Alexander / The employer’s perception: Employment of individuals with developmental disabilities 45

Table 2
Experience in hiring individuals with developmental disabilities
Hired Not hired Hiring worked well: Hiring did not
n % n % usually/sometimes work well
(%) (%)
Location
All Locations 164 30.9 367 69.1 85.3 14.7
Large city 73 28.3 185 71.7 83.7 16.3
Small city 91 33.6 180 66.4 86.0 14.0
Business Type
Manufacturing 21 24.1 66 75.9 78.6 21.4
Retail 29 33.8 58 66.2 90.9 9.1
Service 69 33.5 137 66.5 87.9 12.1
Education 5 50.0 5 50 50.0 50.0
Professional 6 42.9 8 57.1 100 0.0
Medical 8 29.6 19 70.4 75.0 25.0
Farming 1 33.3 2 66.7 100 0.0
Technical/Technological 12 40.0 18 60 88.9 11.1
Transportation 0 N/A 4 100 N/A N/A
Bldng/Construction 5 17.9 23 82.1 100 0.0
Government 1 50.0 1 50 100 0.0
Finance/Insurance 3 13.6 19 86.4 66.7 33.3
Other 0 N/A 3 100 N/A N/A
Business Size
1–10 Employees 52 17.7 241 82.3 88.4 11.6
11–25 Employees 49 39.5 75 60.5 81.4 18.6
26–50 Employees 27 50.9 26 49.1 80.0 20.0
51–100 Employees 17 51.5 16 48.5 100 0.0
101–200 Employees 3 42.9 4 57.1 100 0.0
Over 200 Employees 13 86.7 2 13.3 77.8 22.2
Average Length of Employment
1–6 months 8 32.0 17 68 83.3 16.7
7–12 months 32 42.7 43 57.3 84.0 16.0
Over 12 months 120 29.1 292 70.9 85.1 14.9
Formal Education Requirements
High School Status 55 39.3 85 60.7 88.1 11.9
High School Graduate 79 31.6 171 68.4 85.5 14.5
College Student 21 39.6 32 60.4 76.5 100
College Degree 7 15.6 38 84.4 83.3 23.5
Other 0 N/A 7 100 N/A 16.7

(n = 14, 73.7%) and Financial/Insurance (n = 13,
68.4%).
3.3. Advantages and concerns
Figure 2 shows percentages of respondents who iden-
tified advantages and concerns regarding the hiring of
individuals with developmental disabilities. The most
frequently identified advantage among experienced re-
spondents was Consistent Attendance (n = 45, 27.4%).
Respondents with experience identified higher rates of
advantages, i.e., 1.4 advantages as compared to 0.7 ad-
vantages per respondent without experience.
Both respondents with and without experience iden-
tified concerns. For both groups, the most frequently
identified concern was Safety Issues (n = 232, 43.4%),
followed by Quality Control Problems (n = 147,
27.5%) and Reduced Productivity (n = 95, 17.8%).
Respondents with experience identified Potential Be-
havior Problems as a relatively high frequency concern
(n = 30, 18.3%) while respondents without experi-
ence identified it far less frequently (n = 23, 6.3%).
Respondents with experience identified higher rates of
concerns, i.e., 1.6 per respondent as compared to 1.2
per respondent without experience.
Table 4 presents chi square and ANOVA data. Lo-
cation (i.e., small city versus large city) did not re-
veal a statistically significant difference in terms of
respondents’ future employment intent, or identifica-
tion/concerns. Hiring status (i.e., hired versus not
hired) showed a statistically significant difference (p

0.05) in terms of future employment intent, indicating
respondents with experience were more likely to re-
port they would hire in the future. Hiring status also
46 R.L. Morgan and M. Alexander / The employer’s perception: Employment of individuals with developmental disabilities

Table 3
Respondents’ experience and future hiring intent
Experience: Have hired Experience: Have not hired
Hire again Not hire Would hire Would not
again hire
n % n % n % n %
Location
All Locations 159 97.0 5 3.0 295 80.4 70 19.1
Large city 70 95.9 3 4.1 155 83.8 30 16.2
Small city 89 97.8 2 2.2 140 77.8 40 22.2
Business Type
Manufacturing 21 100 0 0.0 56 84.8 10 15.2
Retail 28 96.6 1 3.4 45 77.6 12 20.7
Service 66 95.7 3 4.3 109 79.6 27 19.7
Education 4 80.0 1 20.0 4 80.0 1 20.0
Professional 6 100 0 0.0 6 75.0 2 25.0
Medical 8 100 0 0.0 14 73.7 5 26.3
Farming 1 100 0 0.0 2 100 0 0.0
Technical/Technological 12 100 0 0.0 16 88.9 2 11.1
Transportation 0 N/A 0 N/A 4 100 0 0.0
Building/Construction 5 100 0 0.0 18 78.3 5 21.7
Government 1 100 0 0.0 1 100 0 0.0
Finance/Insurance 3 100 0 0.0 13 68.4 6 31.6
Other 0 N/A 0 N/A 3 100 0 0.0
Business Size
1–10 Employees 49 94.2 3 5.8 191 79.3 48 19.9
11–25 Employees 48 98.0 1 2.0 61 81.3 15 20.0
26–50 Employees 27 100 0 0.0 21 80.8 5 19.2
51–100 Employees 17 100 0 0.0 16 100 0 0.0
101–200 Employees 3 100 0 0.0 4 100 0 0.0
Over 200 Employees 13 100 0 0.0 2 100 0 0.0
Average Length of Employment
1–6 months 8 100 0 0.0 16 94.1 2 11.8
7–12 months 31 96.9 1 3.1 37 86.0 6 14.0
Over 12 months 116 96.7 4 3.3 231 79.1 58 19.9
Formal Education Requirements
High School Status 55 100 0 0.0 75 88.2 9 10.6
High School Graduate 75 94.9 4 5.1 136 79.5 35 20.5
College Student 21 100 0 0.0 26 81.3 6 18.8
College Degree 7 100 0 0.0 30 78.9 8 21.1
Other 0 N/A 0 N/A 4 57.1 3 42.9

showed a statistically significant difference (p
0.05)
in terms of advantages and concerns, indicating respon-
dents with previous hiring experience were more likely
to check concerns and advantages than those without
experience. Statistically significant differences were
also found between future hiring intent and advantages
(p < 0.05), formal education requirements and future
hiring intent (p < 0.05), and formal education require-
ments and concerns (p < 0.05).
4. Discussion
Overall, less than one-third of respondents reported
experience in hiring individuals with disabilities. Of
experienced respondents, the majority indicated em-
ploying individuals with disabilities had usually or
sometimes worked well. Consistent with Nietup-
ski et al. [16], experienced respondents were more
likely to hire again and identified advantages more fre-
quently than respondents without experience. Techni-
cal/Technological, Retail, and Service respondents had
more hiring experience. All Technical/Technological
respondents with experience indicated they would hire
again and only 11% without experience indicated they
would not hire. Although additional and more tar-
geted research must be conducted, it would appear
the technical and technology industries represent po-
tential job placements. Consistent with Nietupski et
al. [16], more positive perceptions were found among
large businesses than small ones. The most positive
respondents were those representing businesses of 200
 R.L. Morgan and M. Alexander / The employer’s perception: Employment of individuals with developmental disabilities 47

Respondents With Experience

Respondents Without Experience

Percentage of Respondents
Advantages 0 10 20 30 40 50

Consistent Attendance

Diverse Workforce

Co-Worker Partnerships

Long -Term Employment

Job Coach Support

Improved Attitudes

High Quality Work

High Productivity

No Change in Insurance

Concerns

Safety Issues

Quality Control Problems

Reduced Productivity

Behavior Problems

Lack of Support

Negative Attit. Consumers

Co-Worker Teasing

Compensation Requirements

Increased Insurance

Negative Attit. Co-Workers

Fig. 2. Respondents’ advantages and concerns on hiring individuals with disabilities.

employees or more. It should be noted that, in 20 cases,
the project assistant called large businesses and was re-
ferred to a human resource organization. However, the
assistant was unsuccessful in making contact with the
organization, even after repeated attempts. While large
businesses are more likely to hire and report positive
experiences, in some cases, it remains difficult to estab-
lish communications with some of them. Respondents
representing businesses whose employees had worked
7–12 months and those representing businesses whose
minimal educational qualifications were High School
Status, High School Graduation, and College Status had
more experience in hiring individuals with disabilities
and were more likely to hire again. Although more re-
search is necessary, survey findings may indicate busi-
nesses with higher turnover and lower entry-level re-
quirements generally represented more receptive job
placements.
Advantages were identified at a higher rate by em-
ployers with hiring experience than by those without
experience. Similar to findings of Sitlington and Eas-
terday [20], the most frequently identified advantage
48 R.L. Morgan and M. Alexander / The employer’s perception: Employment of individuals with developmental disabilities

Table 4
Chi square and ANOVA statistical analysis
Chi square analysis ANOVA
χ2 F ratio
Future hiring intent df Advantage Concern
Location 0.8 1 3.5 2.5
Hiring status 24.2∗ 1 20.9∗ 7.3∗
Future intent N/A 1 11.0∗ < 0.1c
Business typea 4.5 12 1.3 1.4
Business sizeb 3.7 2 2.5 1.9
Average length of employment 2.6 3 0.7 1.9
Formal education requirements 7.9∗ 4 1.6 5.1∗
∗ Indicates significance at the p < 0.05; a categories excluded in χ2 due to 0 value;
b categories collapsed in χ2 ; c value = 0.001.

was Consistent Attendance. For respondents without
experience, identification of advantages was a hypo-
thetical issue. However, respondents without experi-
ence identified advantages at proportions similar to ex-
perienced ones.
Experienced respondents identified concerns at a
higher rate than inexperienced respondents. This find-
ing was at variance with results of Nietupski et al. [16]
and calls for future research to investigate whether ex-
perience increases or decreases employer concerns.
Almost half of respondents with and without experi-
ence listed Safety Issues as a concern. Yet, a 1990 study
by the DuPont Corporation examined safety records of
employees with disabilities and found that 97% rated
average or above average in comparison to other em-
ployees [3,23]. Nevertheless, concern for safety is a
primary finding of this survey and compels rehabilita-
tion and supported employment professionals to con-
sider two objectives. First, professionals should iden-
tify ways to improve management and supervision in
employment settings, particularly as it relates to safety
issues. Second, professionals should focus directly on
teaching safety-related skills, both in terms of problem
prevention and efficient reaction to hazards and emer-
gencies [13]. Although beyond the scope of this re-
search, a quick review of employment skill assessment
and transition curricula revealed only cursory attention
to safety issues [1,2,12]. Perhaps assessment special-
ists should consult employers to further examine the
priority given to teaching safety skills to individuals
with developmental disabilities. Further research is
suggested to explore the incident of actual workplace
accidents and injuries in respect to employers who ex-
perience a developmental disability.
Findings from this survey should be interpreted with
caution because of four limitations. First, the survey
return rate was only 49.4%, which is below levels nec-
essary for results to be considered representative of the
population [7]. Results may have been biased as a
function of characteristics of businesses responding to
the survey. Second, key information was not collected,
such as the respondent’s gender, the respondent’s title
and role within the business, and the degree to which the
respondent was familiar with employees who had dis-
abilities. Our intent was to gather as much information
as possible in a brief survey. Future research should
examine alternative ways to efficiently gather compre-
hensive data. Third, responses to hypothetical ques-
tions about future intent to hire individuals with disabil-
ities may be unrelated to actual hiring decisions. While
the survey indicates general receptivity about employ-
ment of individuals with disabilities, it falls short of
predicting employer behavior. Fourth, survey results
from two cities in one western state may fail to gen-
eralize to some job markets. Although the concept of
sampling within a city generated useful information at
a local level, future research should sample businesses
in cities from different job markets and geographical
areas.
Findings from this survey suggest employer respon-
dents were generally receptive to employing individ-
uals with disabilities. The findings also support em-
ployers’ concerns of lost productivity identified by Peck
and Kirkbride [18]. As Sitlington and Easterday [20]
note, professionals can influence behavior characteris-
tics of employees held to be most important by em-
ployers. That is, professionals can educate prospective
employees to work safely, check quality, be productive,
and consistently attend work. Although more research
is needed, this research would indicate at least some
employers await well-trained individuals with develop-
mental disabilities who are ready to enhance the em-
ployment environment and the quality of the business
product.
 R.L. Morgan and M. Alexander / The employer’s perception: Employment of individuals with developmental disabilities
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by a faculty grant
awarded by Utah State University. The authors wish
to thank Dr. Brent Miller, Vice President for Research,
Utah State University; Dr. Carol Strong, Associate
Dean of Research, Office of Research Services; and
Mr. Scott Brown, Project Assistant.
References
[1] D.E. Brolin, Life-Centered Career Education: A Competency
Based Approach, Arlington, VA: Council for Exceptional
Children, 1997.
[2] G.M. Clark, J.R. Patton and L.R. Moulton, Informal Assess-
ments for Transition Planning, Austin, TX: Pro-ed, 2000.
[3] M. Conlin, The new workforce [electronic version], Busi-
nessweek, March 20, 2000. Retrieved May 23, 2005 from
http://www.businessweek.com/2000/00 12/b3673022.htm.
[4] R. Eiginbroad and P. Retish, Work experience employers’ at-
titudes regarding the employability of special education stu-
dents, Career Development for Exceptional Individuals 11
(1988), 15–25.
[5] W.K. Ellis, F.R. Rusch, J. Tu and W. McCaughrin, Supported
employment in Illinois, in: Supported Employment: Models,
Methods, and Issues, F.R. Rusch, ed., Sycamore, IL: Sycamore
Press, 1990, pp. 31–44.
[6] S. Field, J. Martin, R. Miller, M. Ward and M. Wehmeyer,
A Practical Guide for Teaching Self-Determination, Reston,
VA: Council for Exceptional Children, 1998.
[7] M.D. Gall, W.R. Borg and J.P. Gall, Educational Research:
An Introduction, (6th ed.), New York: Longman, 1996.
[8] G.V. Glass and K.D. Hopkins, Statistical Methods in Edu-
cation and Psychology, (3rd ed.), Boston: Allyn & Bacon,
1996.
[9] K.A. Gruenhagen, Attitudes of fast food restaurant managers
towards hiring the mentally retarded: A survey, Career De-
velopment for Exceptional Individuals 5 (1982), 98–105.
[10] J. Kregel and D. Unger, Employer perceptions of the work
potential of individuals with disabilities: An illustration from
supported employment, Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation
3(4) (1993), 17–25.
[11] J.M. Levy, D.J. Jessop, A. Rimmerman and P.H. Levy, Atti-
tudes of Fortune 500 corporate executives toward the employ-
ability of persons with severe disabilities. A national study,
Mental Retardation 30 (1992), 67–75.
49
[12] R.J. Loyd and D.E. Brolin, Life-Centered Career Education:
Modified Curriculum for Individuals with Moderate Disabili-
ties, Arlington, VA: Council for Exceptional Children, 1997.
[13] R.C. Martella and M. Agran, Safety skills on the job, in:
Promoting Health and Safety: Skills for Independent Living,
M. Agran, ed., Brookes, Baltimore, 1994, pp. 121–134.
[14] C.S. McLoughlin, Barriers to hiring students with disabilities
in the workforce, International Education Journal 3 (2002),
13–23.
[15] NAICS, North American Industry Classification System,
Rockaway, NJ, author. Retrieved February 3, 2003, 2003 from
http://www.naics.com/info.htm.
[16] J. Nietupski, S. Hamre-Nietupski, N.S. Vanderhart and K.
Fishback, Employer perceptions of the benefits and concerns
of supported employment, Education and Training in Men-
tal Retardation and Developmental Disabilities 31(4) (1996),
310–323.
[17] D. Olson, A. Cioffi, P. Yovanoff and D. Mank, Employers
perceptions of employees with mental retardation, Journal of
Vocational Rehabilitation 16 (2001), 125–133.
[18] B. Peck and L.T. Kirkbride, Why businesses don’t employ
people with disabilities, Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation
16 (2001), 71–75.
[19] M.S. Shafer, H.W. Hill, J. Seyfarth and P. Wehman, Compet-
itive employment and workers with mental retardation: An
analysis of employers’ perceptions and experiences, American
Journal of Mental Retardation 92 (1987), 304–311.
[20] P.L. Sitlington and J.R. Easterday, An analysis of employer
incentive rankings relative to the employment of persons with
mental retardation, Education and Training in Mental Retar-
dation and Developmental Disabilities 27 (1992), 75–80.
[21] K. Smith, L. Webber, J. Graffam and C. Wilson, Employee
satisfaction with employees with disability: Comparisons with
other employees, Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation 21(2)
(2004), 61–69.
[22] K. Storey and L. Lengyel, Strategies for increasing interac-
tions in supported employment settings: A review, Journal of
Vocational Rehabilitation 2 (1992), 46–57.
[23] Treasury Board, Employment equity and strategic initiatives
division. Data related to employment and disability cost con-
siderations – myths and facts. Retrieved May 23, 2005 from
http://www.exec.gov.nl.ca/openingdoors/manmyths.htm.
[24] D.D. Unger, Employers’ attitudes toward persons with disabil-
ities in the workforce: myths or realities? Focus on Autism
and Other Developmental Disabilities 17 (2002), 2–10.
[25] Wikipedia, The free encyclopedia. Retrieved August 5, 2003,
from http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki.