Employing the disabled is doing well by doing good

One of the very few bright spots in the last decade-plus of partisan gridlock and congressional dysfunction has been on disabilities policy. A few significant measures, with considerable bipartisan support, have actually been enacted by Congress and signed by the president, a rare occurrence in these days of political rancor and mutual suspicion. Broad agreement leading to real advancement on disabilities policy is an unreported story.

{mosads}First, there was the Kennedy-Brownback Act, passed by Congress and signed into law by President George W. Bush in 2008, enacted to ensure the provision of scientifically sound information and support services to patients receiving a positive diagnostic test for Down syndrome, and other pre- or post-natally diagnosed conditions. Finding common ground among those concerned about the high termination rates following a prenatal diagnosis of genetically based disabilities and those concerned about lack of support for families and parents with disabled children, the act sought to address a mutually acknowledged deficiency in balanced information commonly provided to parents who receive such a diagnosis. Unfortunately, the law was never funded due to disputes about informational content, but it spurred advocates in various states to pass their own versions of prenatal education legislation requiring the provision of balanced information on outcomes and resources. While the passage of the federal law was certainly a limited achievement, it demonstrated that consensus on disabilities issues is a possibility.

More recently came congressional passage of the ABLE Act, signed into law by President Obama in 2014. Written to address the inequitably severe limits placed on parents attempting to save money for their disabled children without endangering their future benefits as disabled adults, the measure was supported widely on both sides of the aisle. The aim of the ABLE Act was to ease the financial strain faced by individuals with disabilities and their parents by making tax-free savings accounts (similar to IRAs or college savings accounts) available to cover qualified expenses such as education, housing and transportation. Again, an encouraging step in the right direction showing broad and unusual agreement on policy principle between the parties.

Now another bipartisan effort, the ABLE to Work Act, seeks to expand on these previous efforts by making it possible for disabled people who work to save a portion of their income in an ABLE account without risking their benefits. This welcome measure highlights the absurdity of a system that encourages Americans with a disability to remain entirely dependent on public assistance, regardless of their capacity and desire to work, through perverse disincentives that punish self-sufficiency and earning.

While the enactment of the ABLE to Work Act would be a step toward reducing disincentives to work, much more needs to be done to address creating employment opportunities, as evidenced by the fact that the unemployment rate for people with disabilities is approximately double that of the population at large. Even more alarmingly, approximately 85 percent of those with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) do not have paid work.

Considering this vast untapped pool of labor, this is a tragedy of both unfulfilled individual and economic potential. A huge number of those with IDD finish their education willing and able to work productively, only to find that their way to gainful employment largely barred by negative attitudes, erroneous preconceptions about their abilities and special accommodations that might be required, and a sense that such a “charitable venture” would eat into profits. All of these myths were debunked in a study several years ago conducted by the Institute for Corporate Productivity, which demonstrated that hiring employees with IDD was actually good for corporate bottom lines. Three-fourths of the companies surveyed ranked their employees with IDD good to very good on quality of work, motivation, engagement, integration with co-workers, dependability and attendance; 80 percent of those employers reported a positive experience and over a third said that the IDD program exceeded their expectations, an almost unheard of positive response from human resource departments regarding hiring initiatives. Fears about diverting the company’s mission also proved unfounded: “High performance organizations” — defined by market share, revenue growth, profitability and customer satisfaction — were more than twice as likely to include people with IDD in their diversity goals than other companies. They also reported better sales and customer retention, as well as a better corporate image in the community.

It turns out, then, that efforts to recruit more employees with IDD make sound business sense, further buttressed by the fact that the population of those with IDD and their families is larger than ever before, and the ability to both market effectively and create more disposable income in this community will only help companies become more competitive.

Enormous hurdles still exist for those with IDD seeking work, but with a federal government facing an unprecedented budget crunch in coming years and continuing to expend hundreds of billions yearly on services and support for unemployed people with disabilities, there should be incentive enough to address the inequities. Today, the only “opportunities” for many are work in sheltered workshops at sub-minimum wage and various other separate-and-unequal arrangements. It would be fair to say that individuals with IDD are the last remaining big demographic in the U.S. to face systemic barriers to employment. It’s time to take those barriers down. And businesses should take the lead, if only out of a self-interested concern for their bottom line.

Robertson is CEO of Crispin Solutions, a public affairs and communications consulting firm, and co-founder of the Common Trust, a public policy group.