Getting hired: successfully employed people with disabilities offer advice on disclosure, interviewing, and job search.

INTRODUCTION: Many people with disabilities want to work, but face employment barriers that have resulted in dismal employment rates. Successfully employed people with disabilities have valuable experience that can help others seeking employment, yet research literature provides little information about their strategies for discussing disabilities with employers and negotiating the hiring process. METHOD: In five focus groups, 41 people competitively employed for at least 5 years discussed employment experiences related to their varied disabilities. The sample excluded people in disability-related jobs or self-employed. Data were coded and analyzed using a grounded theory method. RESULTS: Disclosure and discussion decisions were influenced by the nature of disability (visible, hidden, stigmatized, multiple), whether and when people needed accommodations, and the perceived "disability-friendliness" of organizations. Qualitative data analysis suggested guidelines for whether, when, and how to discuss disability, while acknowledging the complexity of decision-making depending on workplace culture and personal choices. Interview strategies included ways to emphasize strengths, gather information about duties and work environment, handle inappropriate questions, and address unspoken employer concerns. Participants gave disability-specific advice to help job-seekers balance their abilities and interests, and use networking and other approaches to find favorable opportunities. Concluding that people with disabilities must work harder than others to get a job, they described approaches and tools to help others achieve success. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest approaches to assist job-seekers to make decisions about disclosing or discussing their disability, present themselves in a straight-forward, disability-positive manner, and find satisfying work based on their skills and interests.

Why don't employers hire and retain workers with disabilities?

INTRODUCTION: Despite persistently low employment rates among working-age adults with disabilities, prior research on employer practices and attitudes toward workers with disabilities paints a generally rosy picture of successfully accommodated workers in a welcoming environment. Findings from previous studies might have been biased because of either employer self-selection or social desirability, yielding non-representative or artificially positive conclusions. METHODS: In this study, a novel approach was used to survey human resource professionals and supervisors working for employers known or reputed to be resistant to complying with the ADA's employment provisions. Attendees of employer-requested ADA training sessions were asked to assess various possible reasons that employers in general might not hire, retain, or accommodate workers with disabilities and to rate strategies and policy changes that might make it more likely for employers to do so. RESULTS: As cited by respondents, the principal barriers to employing workers with disabilities are lack of awareness of disability and accommodation issues, concern over costs, and fear of legal liability. With regard to strategies employers might use to increase hiring and retention, respondents identified increased training and centralized disability and accommodation expertise and mechanisms. Public policy approaches preferred by respondents include no-cost external problem-solving, subsidized accommodations, tax breaks, and mediation in lieu of formal complaints or lawsuits. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest straightforward approaches that employers might use to facilitate hiring and retention of workers with disabilities, as well as new public programs or policy changes that could increase labor force participation among working-age adults who have disabilities.

Assistive technology training: diverse audiences and multidisciplinary content.

PURPOSE: This study surveyed US programmes that train professionals in assistive technology (AT). Surveys contained questions regarding programme characteristics, audiences, training content, and approaches. METHOD: This multi-method, longitudinal study gathered information from 55 programmes in 27 states concerning their courses, curricula, and training audiences in 2002 and again in 2004. The study focused on 45 unique programmes conducting AT training for formal credit, which included graduate or undergraduate credit or degrees, continuing education units (CEUs), and/or AT credential. RESULTS: Twenty-five programmes at universities and colleges (average age 10 years) trained mainly graduate students, and typically offered five or six three-unit AT courses. Twenty community-based programmes (average age 7 years) offered mainly 1- or 2-day workshops. Special educators represented the largest group of trainees. Thirty-two training directors and 135 instructors described training barriers, curriculum issues, distance and hands-on learning methods, and future AT training directions. CONCLUSIONS: Multidisciplinary AT training not only reaches core audiences of disability-related professionals, but has expanded to include new audiences. Special and general educator training may be a model for inclusion. Although distance learning can reach diverse audiences, faculty in training programmes also emphasised hands-on training. AT training programmes experience considerable turnover and remain vulnerable to funding losses.