Preventive Factors in Hiring Individuals with ASD
The resources available are valuable, but it thought that there is insufficient guidance and support on the employer side to understand the full scope of the opportunity and a lack of employer tools available to smoothly integrate employees with ASD (Bruyere, 2000; Jans, Kaye, & Jones, 2011). For example, when people think of disabilities in the workforce, they think of physical and sensory disabilities. They do not usually think of people with developmental disabilities (Siperstein, Romano, Mohler, & Parker, 2006). There is also a deficit of knowledge and training for supervisors on how to make accommodations (Bruyere, 2000). The following outlines additional factors preventing individuals with ASD from being hired by businesses.
employer assumptions.
Overall, it is difficult to determine employer opposition to hiring and maintaining employees with disabilities. The barrier to hiring is thought to be summarized simply as fear (Kirkbride & Peck, 2001). Employers assume that people with disabilities are a liability for several reasons (Kirkbride & Peck, 2001). For example, they are concerned about possible safety issues that may arise as a result of the disability (Alexander & Morgan, 2005). In addition, employers fear they cannot terminate employees with disabilities after hiring them (Hernandez & Keys, 2000). There are also employers who feel that employees with disabilities are too protected, and therefore cannot be terminated, even if the employee does not meet the minimal expectations (Kirkbride & Peck, 2001). Furthermore, they worry that employees with disabilities will be expensive and may not hire them based on perceived costs (Hernandez & Keys, 2000). Employers tend to associate employees with disabilities as an expensive and risky investment. They do not understand the accommodations and do not know if the employee will meet expectations (Kirkbirde & Peck, 2001). Key cost concerns include training, supervision, and accommodations (Bruyere, 2000). Employers also assume that productivity will be compromised as a result of additional training and supervisor attention (Kirkbride & Peck, 2001). Lastly, employers are hesitant to trust vocational placement agencies. They know that the goal of placement agencies is to increase placement numbers and thus employers do not have confidence in that the candidate is truly qualified (Kirkbride & Peck, 2001).
employer attitudes.
While the exact reason is unknown, research suggests that one of the main preventative factors for hiring employees with disabilities is their preexisting attitude (Bruyere, 2000; Hernandez & Keys, 2000; Jans, Kaye, & Jones, 2011; Siperstein, Romano, Mohler, & Parker, 2006). A national survey of the hiring practices of federal agencies suggested that lack of employee experience with people with disabilities can be a contributing factor (Bruyere, 2000). Interestingly, the global attitudes of employers are positive. Global attitudes are defined as the response toward the general idea of something (Bruyere, 2000). In this case, employer global attitudes toward the idea of employees with disabilities in the workplace tend to be positive (Hernandez & Keys, 2000). However, employers tend to have negative attitudes about more specific and actionable ideas related to employees with disabilities, particularly those with intellectual disabilities (Hernandez & Keys, 2000). Specific and actionable ideas such as hiring, assigning tasks and promoting are all received with negative attitudes (Hernandez & Keys, 2000). The limitation of attitudinal studies is that the research does not measure actionable intention and behaviors of employers (Hernandez & Keys, 2000). Large and small business have different concerns that inhibit them from hiring persons with disabilities. Small businesses tend to be concerned about employee productivity; mid-sized companies are concerned about referral validity from rehabilitation centers; and large companies are challenged by resistance from managers (Bezyak, Chan, Copeland, & Fraser, 2010).
supportive services for individuals with ASD are inadequate.
According to a longitudinal study on vocational programs for young adults with ASD, evidence for positive benefits is inconclusive due to the poor quality of research and limited studies (Siperstein et al., 2006). In particular, studies related to supported employment and ASD are minimal, and cannot provide support for this type of service (Siperstein et al, 2006).
The VR system is valuable, but limited as less than .05% of their clients are diagnosed with ASD (Cimera & Oswald, 2009). The VR is not equipped to evaluate the diversity of ASD, resulting in individuals with ASD not finishing the evaluation process, and if they do, they end up with incompatible placements (Standifer, 2009). In addition, of all VR clients with disabilities, an average 66.5% leave because they cannot get employment (Cimera & Oswald, 2009).
If employers seek private resources, such as Diversity Inc. or USBLN, they are required to pay for the memberships. That means that accessing excellent resources can be expensive. In general, there is a lack of support for employers to successfully modify their hiring and training practices (Jans, Jones, & Kaye, 2011).