Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation

, Volume 20, Issue 4, pp 443–455 | Cite as

Employee Retention and Integrated Disability Management Practices as Demand Side Factors

  • Rochelle Habeck
  • Allan Hunt
  • Colleen Head Rachel
  • John Kregel
  • Fong Chan
Article

Abstract

Introduction Demand-side employment research on company policies and practices related to retention and absence and disability management (ADM) can contribute to our understanding of employment issues related to people with disabilities from the employers’ perspective. Aim To examine company ADM and retention practices and their effectiveness, as well as how these company policies and practices might influence hiring of people with disabilities. Method Disability Management Employer Coalition employer members (N = 650) were surveyed by internet and the survey data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, correlation, and multiple regression. Results Ninety-five participants responded to the survey resulting in a response rate of 14%. Retention practice was found to be associated with retention effectiveness (r = .39, P < .01). Items most highly correlated with retention effectiveness address the provision of development opportunities to employees at every level, seeking the ideas and involvement of employees, and assuring they know how their work and performance support the mission. ADM practice was related to improving health and managing health conditions (r = .26, P < .05) and resolving disability and bringing back to work (r = .37, P < .01). Consistent RTW procedures (r = .21), employee-oriented culture (r = .23), safety/risk prevention (r = .21), and very early intervention (r = .21) correlated with delaying/preventing employment exits related to health impairment. Retention practice, ADM practice, retention effectiveness, ADM effectiveness and disability attitudes comprised a model to predict the hiring of people with disabilities. The six-predictor model was significant, F(6, 86) = 13.54, P < .001 and accounted for 49% of the variance in hiring. However, only the disability attitudes factor (β = .628, P < .001) was found to be significantly associated with hiring. Conclusions Findings substantiate a positive relationship among retention practices, ADM practices and outcomes. Both are associated with retaining employees who develop potentially disabling conditions; but they are not directly connected to hiring people with disabilities. These appear to be two different policy and practice issues within most companies.

Keywords

Disability management Retention Absence management Return to work Demand-side employment Attitudes toward disability 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank the leadership, staff, and employer members of the Disability Management Employer Coalition for their outstanding facilitation of and willing participation in this research. The development of this manuscript was supported by Grant No. H133B040011 from the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR), US Department of Education. The opinions expressed are solely those of the authors. No endorsement on the part of NIDRR or the US Department of Education is implied.

References

  1. 1.
    Stapleton DC, Burkhauser RV, editors. The decline in employment of people with disabilities: a policy puzzle. Kalamazoo, MI: W.E. Upjohn Institute; 2003.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Frank FD, Finnegan RP, Taylor CR. The race for talent: retaining and engaging workers in the 21st century. Hum Resource Plann. 2004;27:12–26.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    ACOEM Special Committee on Health, Productivity, and Disability Management. Healthy workforce/healthy economy: the role of health, productivity, and disability management in addressing the nation’s health care crisis. J Occup Environ Med. 2009;51(1):114–9.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Burkhauser RV, Daly MC. Employment and economic well-being following the onset of a disability: the role for public policy. In: Mashaw JL, Reno V, Burkhauser RV Berkowitz M, editors. Disability, work and cash benefits. Kalamazoo, MI: W.E. Upjohn Institute; 1996. p. 59–101.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Burkhauser RV, Weathers RR. The importance of accommodation on the timing of disability insurance applications: results from the survey of disability and work and the health retirement study. J Hum Resour. 1999;34:589–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    McMahon BT, Danczyk-Hawley CE, Reid C, Flynn D, Habeck R, Kregel J, et al. The progression of disability benefits. J Vocat Rehabil. 2000;15:1–16.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Loeppke R, Taitel M, Richling D, Parry T, Kessler R, Hymel P, et al. Health and productivity as a business strategy. J Occup Environ Med. 2007;49(7):712–21.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ferguson TF, Ferguson WL, Muedder K, Fitzgerald MP. The case for total absence management and integrated benefits. Hum Resource Plann. 2001;24(3):36–47.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Franche RL, Cullen K, Clarke J, Irvin E, Sinclair S, Frank J, et al. Workplace-based return-to-work interventions: a systematic review of the quantitative literature. J Occup Rehabil. 4;15:607–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Habeck RV, Hunt HA, VanTol B. Workplace factors associated with preventing and managing work disability. Rehabil Counsel Bull. 1998;42(4):98–143.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Loprest P. Strategic assessment of the state of the science in research on employment for individuals with disabilities. Final report submitted to The Department of Education, National Disability and Rehabilitation Research Institute under Contract Number GS23F8198H, Task Order Number ED-07-DO-0036. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute; 2007.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Danczyk-Hawley C, McMahon B, Flynn B. Progression of disability benefits as a measure of disability management program effectiveness: implications for future research. In: Wehman P, editor. An evaluation of the progression of disability benefits among workers in American industry: impact, outcomes and implication. Richmond, VA: The Virginia Commonwealth University; 2002. p. 71–84.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wyatt W. Building an effective health and productivity framework. Staying at work report 2007/2008. National Business Group on Health; 2007. p. 1–23.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Habeck R, Kregel J, Head C, Yasuda S. Salient and subtle aspects of demand side approaches for employment retention: lessons for public policymakers. J Vocat Rehabil. 2007;26:21–7.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Habeck R, Crockett S, Rachel C, Kregel J. Organizational factors that facilitate successful job retention with health impairments and disabilities. In: Wehman P, Kregel J, Brooke V, editors. Research in review. Workplace supports and job retention: promoting an employer driven approach to employment of people with disabilities. Richmond, VA: The Virginia Commonwealth University; 2008. p. 39–65.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Shaw W, Hong Q, Pransky G, Loisel P. A literature review describing the role of return-to-work coordinators in trial programs and interventions designed to prevent workplace disability. J Occup Rehabil. 2008;18:2–15.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gilbride D, Stensrud R, Vandergoot D, Golden K. Identification of the characteristics of work environments and employers open to hiring and accommodating people with disabilities. Rehabil Counsel Bull. 2003;46(3):130–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    H.R. 3195—110th Congress: ADA Amendments Act of 2008. In GovTrack.us (database of federal legislation). Available from http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-3195&tab=summary (2007). Retrieved 17 Aug 2009.
  19. 19.
    Stapleton DC, Burkhauser RV, She P, Weathers RR II, Livermore G. Income security for workers: a stressed support system in need of innovation. J Disabil Pol Stud. 2009;19(4):204–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rochelle Habeck
    • 1
  • Allan Hunt
    • 2
  • Colleen Head Rachel
    • 3
  • John Kregel
    • 3
  • Fong Chan
    • 4
  1. 1.Habeck & AssociatesKalamazooUSA
  2. 2.W. E. Upjohn Institute for Employment ResearchKalamazooUSA
  3. 3.Rehabilitation Research and Training Center on Workplace Supports & Job RetentionVirginia Commonwealth UniversityRichmondUSA
  4. 4.Department of Rehabilitation Psychology and Special EducationUniversity of Wisconsin-MadisonMadisonUSA

Personalised recommendations