Employer benefits and costs of employing a person with a disability

Joseph Graffama,, Kaye Smitha, Alison Shinkfieldb and Udo Polzina

Institute of Disability Studies, Deakin University, Burwood, Vic, Australia
School of Psychology, Deakin University, Burwood, Vic, Australia

Abstract. This paper derives from a national study of employer outcomes when 
employing a person with a disability. Questionnaires were completed by 643 
Australian employers who had employed a person with a disability. Individual 
performance was considered by comparison of the employee with a disability and 
the “average” employee. The “average” employee was rated significantly better on 
productivity variables, and employees with a disability were rated somewhat, but 
not significantly,
better on reliability variables and employee maintenance variables. Organization 
performance was considered in terms of benefits and costs of workplace 
modifications and changes to staff training and supervision. In each domain, 
employers identified more organization benefits than costs, a large majority 
considering the financial effect of modifications and changes cost-neutral, with
financial benefit more common than net cost. Employers reported short-term, but 
no long-term or broader benefits from employer subsidies and/or incentives. The 
need to take a broad, “big picture” view to understand cost effectiveness is 
discussed.

Keywords: Cost benefit analysis, disability, employing a person with a 
disability

1. Introduction
Benefits and costs experienced by employers when
employing a person with a disability have received very
little attention by researchers thus far. Most of the
work that has been done focuses on cost effectiveness,
cost of accommodations and adjustments, or employer
subsidies and incentives.

Very few cost effectiveness studies have been conducted. Crow [5] reported 
results of a 1987 Harris
Poll of 900 managers. In reference to attendance and punctuality, 40% of 
managers rated employees with a disability as better than and another 40% rated 
them the same as their non-disabled co-workers. In addition, 75% reported that 
the cost of employing someone with a disability was the same as that for a non-
disabled person. In a job performance survey employer/trainers
reported that the workers with a learning disability outperformed their peers 
without a learning disability in punctuality, attendance at work, and ability to 
accept constructive criticism or redirection. Six behavioural conditions were 
considered more problematic forworkers
with a learning disability. Those included insecurity about role, lowself-
esteem, memory problems, distractibility, inability to transfer learning, and 
inability to follow directions [15].

In another study [19] employers rated attendance,punctuality, and willingness to 
work hard as the most important aspects of a job, while leadership and ability 
to handle work were rated least important. Employees with an intellectual 
disability rated high in the three most important aspects. They were rated as 
performing significantly better than expected for the job in work
safety, reliability, motivation, bearing responsibilities,willingness to work 
hard, honesty, and speed. They were rated belowexpectation in 
appearance,transportation to work, experience, and personality, and equal to 
expectation in education. Employees with an intellectual disability received an 
average of 30% less income for performing the same jobs as employees without a
disability.

Samorodov [16] has suggested employers may assume that employing a person with a 
disability will result in higher costs due to loss of productivity and 
additional costs required in accommodating the disability. He has also suggested 
that the fact that very few cost effectiveness studies have been undertaken 
supports the view that factors other than cost also impact on employers’ 
decisions to hire, and that cost effectiveness studies can give misleading 
results if a short term perspective only is taken. In any case, cost 
effectiveness studies that have been conducted have focused on either employee 
performance, the effects of workplace accommodations and adjustments, or 
incentives and subsidies.

Costs of workplace accommodations have also been investigated. Samorodov [16] 
argued that costs for
workplace modifications were not high. He cited 906 pounds as the average cost 
in the United Kingdom for equipment granted under the Special Aids to Employment 
Scheme. The European Trade Union Committee [7] reported that half the 
accommodations resulting from the Americans with Disabilities Act cost employers 
less than US$500. Lower costs have been anonymously reported [1] by citing 
evidence from surveys conducted by the Job Accommodation Network in 1994 in 
which just over half the accommodations made by employers cost a maximum of 
US$200 with over two thirds costing no more than US$500. This investigator also 
reported that almost a third of employers considered
that accommodations had benefited them more than US$15,000.

The Job Accommodation Network reported that in 1994 the majority of workplace 
accommodations cost
less than US$500, with the median cost being US$250. Of employers asked to 
assign a dollar value to the savings resulting from accommodations,38% reported 
$1–$5,000, 33% reported $5,000–$20,000, 25% reported $20,000–$200,000, and 3% 
reported no discernible value. The median benefit was $29 for every $1 spent on 
accommodations [4]. There are, however, no figures available for comparison on 
the Australian experience to date.

Financial incentives to the employer in the form of subsidies have been shown to 
have little impact on an employer’s decision to employ a person with a 
disability [13]. Factors such as an ability to perform the job and a low risk of 
absenteeism are more powerful determinants for employers than financial 
incentives [6,21]. The Vocational Rehabilitation Branch – ILO [21] advocated 
subsidies that emphasize training and integration rather than rewarding 
employers for “good will”. Trach, Beatty, and Shelden [18] indicated that 
employers who had employed people with a disability
not only reported a willingness to provide supports, but did not discriminate 
between the supports provided to staff with and without a disability. These 
authors suggested that service providers should focus on benefits to the 
employer of employing a particularworker rather than emphasizing financial 
incentives.

The present study investigated employer benefits and costs associated with 
employing a person with a disability. Unlike earlier studies that have tended to 
focus purely on individual performance, this study also looked at the impact of 
the employee with a disability on organization performance. Individual 
performance was considered by comparing productivity ratings(speed/rate 
anduality/accuracy), reliability ratings (attendance and sick leave records), 
and employee
maintenance costs (recruitment, occupational health and safety, compensation, 
and insurance costs) of the employee with a disability with those of the 
“average employee”. Organization performance was considered in terms of reported 
benefits and costs associated with workplace modifications and changes to 
general staff training and supervision resulting from employing the person with 
a disability. The employer-reported value of employer subsidies and/or 
incentiveswas also investigated.

2. Method

2.1. Participants

A total of 643 Australian employers participated in the study, all having 
employed a person with a disability through a funded disability employment 
service during the preceding three years. Participants presented a mixture of 
major metropolitan (43.8%), regional centre (29.1%), rural (19.0%), and multiple 
(8.1%) locations across all states and territories. Approximately
three-quarters were from very small or small organizations (0–49 employees), 
with approximately 15%
from medium sized organizations (50–199 employees) and 10% from either large or 
very large organizations (200+ employees). Industry distribution was broad with 
manufacturing (16.7%), health and community services (14.5%), hospitality 
(14.0%), and trade/sales (13.6%) most prevalent. The size and industry spreads 
are very typical of Australian organizations in general.The gender split was 58% 
male respondents and 42% female respondents. The age distribution of respondents
was 18–30 years (9.2%), 31–40 years (30.8%), 41–50 years (36.8%) and 51+ years 
(23.2%).

2.2. Instrument

The 7-page questionnaire was developed in consultation with representatives from 
disability employment services, national and state chambers of commerce and 
industry, disability self-advocacy organizations, and the Commonwealth 
government. Definition and selection of variables for measurement, as well as 
methods of measurement, resulted from this consultation process.
Separate sections addressed: characteristics of the employer organization and 
respondent; factors that can impact on decisions to hire and retain a person 
with a disability; characteristics of the employment conditions of a referent 
employee with a disability; impact of the employee with a disability on the 
workplace; benefits and costs of employing a person with a disability
and other employees; and summary questions. Results reported in this paper 
relate to the benefits and costs of employing the person with a disability in 
terms of individual and organization performance. 

In the benefits and costs section, employers were asked to specify by employer 
records or estimates: the number of occupational health and safety incidents and 
accrued costs; the number of worker compensation incidents and accrued costs; 
accrued “other insurance” costs; accrued unexpected costs and benefits; number 
of days absent and accrued cost of absenteeism and sick
leave; speed/rate and accuracy/quality of work; and accruedcost of recruitment. 
Comparisons between the employee with a disability and the average employee were 
included.

Employers were also asked to identify whether there were any benefits or costs 
resulting from employing a person with a disability in terms ofworkplace 
modifications, training, and supervision. Possible benefits and costs were 
related to productivity, profits, staff skills, staff practices, work practices, 
staff relations, customer relations, and “other”. Employers were also asked to
judge the overall financial effect of employing a person with a disability as 
beneficial, neutral, or a cost. An additional aspect of potential benefits and 
costs to employers relates to receipt of subsidies and/or incentives. In this 
study, employers were asked two questions, one relating to their use of 
financial subsidies and/or incentives, and one concerning the relative 
importance
of financial subsidies and/or incentives in decisions on employing a person with 
a disability.

2.3. Procedure

Employer lists were solicited from all funded disability employment services 
throughout Australia. Lists were received from 127 of the 291 funded employment 
services. This is an agency participation rate of 43%.Questionnaires were sent 
to all employers who had employed a person through those agencies between 1996 
and 1998. The response rate was 12.5%. Representativeness of the sample was 
tested in relation to a national database of employment for people with a 
disability over the preceding 12 quarters. Thirteen variables were tested. The 
sample was within one standard
deviation (SD) for 5 of the 8 states/territories in Australia, “permanent 
regular” employment, “percent of employees earning less than $200 per 
fortnight”, and “intellectual/learning disability” and within two SDs for one 
state and “psychiatric disability”. With respect to two states and gender, the 
sample was not representative of the national database.

2.4. Analysis

Results were analyzed in terms of whole group responses and in terms of within-
group and betweengroup differences. Frequencies, means, standard deviations, 
independent t-tests, and analyses of variance were the main data analytic 
techniques. Where appropriate, post-hoc Tukey tests were performed as well. 
Because of the sample sizes involved in most of the analyses, a confidence level 
of p < 0.01 was adopted for consideration of statistical significance.

3. Results

3.1. Benefits and costs associated with individual
performance

Table 1 presents results of analyses of benefits and costs in terms of 
individual performance of the referent employee with a disability compared with 
the performanceof an “average” employee. Ten individualperformance variables 
were included. Two related to productivity (speed/rate and accuracy/quality), 
two related to reliability (days absent and cost of sick leave), and six related 
to employee maintenance (recruitment, occupational health and safety, worker 
compensation
and insurance costs). For each item a mean value isprovided based on employer 
records and estimated values.

Analyses of variance were conducted to examine within-group differences between 
record and estimatebased responses. Only two significant differences emerged 
between record and estimate values for thereferent employee with a disability. 
First, a significant difference was found between the record and estimate values 
for accrued other insurance costs over employment,
F(1, 75) = 13.85, p < 0.001, with estimate values being significantly higher (M 
= $411) than for
record-based values (M = $40). Second, there was a significant difference 
between the record and estimate values for accrued costs associated with workers 
compensation claims over employment, F(1, 42) = 7.29,p < 0.01, with estimate 
values being significantly higher (M = $1318) than for record-based values (M = 
$82). Clearly, employer estimates of these tangible costs of employing a person 
with a disability were higher than actual (recorded) costs. There were no 
significant differences, however, between record and estimate values for the 
“average” employee.

Record-based values were examined further because they were considered more 
inherently reliable, and because of the lack of significant difference between 
record and estimate-based values. Only with respect to speed/rate of work and 
accuracy/quality of work did results favour average employees. With respect to 
these two variables, “average” employees were rated higher
than employees with a disability. However, the average ratings for employees 
with a disability were very near the mid-point descriptor “medium” for both 
variables. 

With respect to reliability factors, employees with a disability had 
approximately 62% of the absent days of average employees. Their accrued costs 
of absent/sick leave were 34% that of average employees. Employee maintenance 
costs were also lower for employees with a disability. The cost of recruiting 
employees with a disability was 13% that of average employees. They averaged 
approximately 12% of the recorded occupational health and safety incidents of 
average employees and 26% of the dollar cost. They averaged approximately18% of 
the recordedworker compensation incidents of average employees and 4% of the 
dollar cost. Other insurance costs were also 4% of the dollar
amount reported for average employees. 

Independent t-tests were conducted to identify any statistically significant 
differences between recordbased responses for employees with a disability and 
average employees for each of the variables. Results revealed two significant 
differences: one referring to speed/rate of work, t(34) = 4.15, p < 0.001, with 
average employees rated higher for speed/rate of work (M = 2.63) than employees 
with a disability (M = 1.97); and one referring to accuracy/quality of work,
t(34) = 4.58, p < 0.001, with average employees rated higher for 
accuracy/quality of work (M = 2.69) than employees with a disability (M = 2.09). 

3.2. General organization performance

Organization benefits and costs associated with workplace modifications and 
changes to staff training and staff supervision that occur with the employment 
of a person with a disability were investigated. The financial effects of those 
modifications and changes were also investigated. Table 2 presents the results 
in terms of the frequency of reported benefits and costs related to those 
changes. The effects of those changes on organization productivity, profits, 
staff skills, staff practices, general work practices, staff relations and 
customer relations are reported.

Employers made a total of 3,511 benefit and cost reports, 2,464 (70.2%) reported 
benefits and 1,047
(29.8%) reported costs. In rating the financial effects associated with 
workplace modifications, training, and supervision, cost neutral outcomes were 
reported most often. Of 2,024 responses referring to financial effects, 65.0% 
rated the financial effect to be cost neutral, with 20.0% identifying an overall 
financial benefit and 15.0% identifying an overall financial cost.

There were more benefits than costs reported for six of the seven aspects of 
organization performance:productivity (822 reports, 61.3% reporting benefits); 
staff skills (519 reports, 82.9% reporting benefits); staff practices (450 
reports, 75.1% reporting benefits); general work practices (635 reports, 73.2% 
reporting benefits); staff relations (517 reports, 78.7% reporting benefits); 
and customer relations (253 reports, 72.3% reporting benefits. Only in relation 
to profits were there more costs than benefits reported (257 reports, 40.9% 
reporting benefits). This seems inconsistent with the otherwise high percentage 
of reported benefits. It may result from a narrow consideration of “profit” or 
from consideration of simple monetary cost when considering
effects on profit of implemented modifications and changes.

The greatest number of reported benefits and costs was in relation to training 
(N = 1541). There were 1162 (75.4%) benefit reports and 379 (24.6%) cost 
reports. A majority (471 = 62.1%) reported the financial effect resulting from 
changes to training to be cost neutral. However, a substantial number reported a 
fi- nancial benefit (189 = 24.9%) and only 98 (12.9%) reported an overall cost. 
The second greatest number of reported benefits and costs was in relation to 
staff supervision (N = 1098). There were 766 (69.8%) benefit reports, while 332 
(30.2%) were cost reports. A majority (302 = 55.9%) reported the financial 
effect resulting from changes to supervision to be cost neutral,
with somewhat fewer reporting either a financial benefit (124 = 23.0%) or cost 
(114 = 21.1%). The
least number of reported benefits and costs was in relation to workplace 
modifications (N = 872). There were 536 (61.5%) benefit reports and 336 (38.5%) 
costreports. A large majority (542 = 74.7%) reported the financial effect of 
workplace modifications to be cost neutral, with fewer reporting either a 
financial benefit or cost (92 = 12.7% each).

Analyses of variance on the number of reported benefits and costs in the areas 
of workplace modifications, training, and supervision were conducted for a 
number of employer variables including the age, gender, education level and 
disability type of the referent employee,
and the employer participant’s job role, size of organization, and organization 
location. There were no significant main effects for referent employee 
variables. There was one significant main effect for employer age for costs 
associated with workplace modifi-cations, F(3, 123) = 3.85, p < 0.01. Post-hoc 
Tukey tests (p < 0.05) subsequently showed that respondents aged 31–40 years 
reported significantly fewer workplace modification costs (M = 2.14) than those 
aged
51 years and over (M = 3.55).

3.3. Employer subsidies and incentives When asked whether they had used 
financial subsidies and/or incentives, 546 employers responded: 59%responded 
‘yes’, 39% responded ‘no’, and 2% were unsure. When asked if financial subsidies 
and/or incentives were important in their decision to employ the person with a 
disability, 375 employers responded: 51% responded ‘yes’, 44% responded ‘no’ and 
5% were undecided.

Receipt of subsidies and/or incentives was investigated in relation to working 
conditions of employees with a disability, employer decision-making, rated 
impact of the employee on the work environment, and  identified benefits and 
costs. There was a significant main effect for use of financial incentives for 
length of time in position,F(1, 478) = 9.37,p < 0.01. Employers
using financial incentives reported employees with significantly shorter time in 
their position (M = 20.11 months) than those not using incentives (M = 27.04 
months). With respect to employer decision-making, there was a significant main 
effect related to influence of cost factors in decision-making, F(2, 595) = 
11.08, p < 0.001. Cost factors were rated as significantly
more important by employers using financial incentives (M = 3.20) than for those 
who did not (M = 2.92). There was a significant main effect related to employee 
impact on the work environment, F(1, 575) = 9.34, p < 0.01. The employee’s 
impact on the work environment was rated significantly better by employers who 
did not use financial incentives (M = 4.06) than by those who did (M = 3.90). 
There was no significant main effect related to any of the benefit/cost factors.

4. Discussion

Previous to this study, there has not been a largescale study of benefits and 
costs to employers of employing a person with a disability, other than one 
general analysis of disability costs to industry/business in the US [14] and a 
small number of studies that investigated
costs of workplace accommodations. This study has identified benefit advantages 
related to individual employee performance and general organization performance 
associated with employing a person with a  disability.

The most basic consideration of employer benefits and costs is in terms of 
individual performance. Although more variable, the performance of employees 
with a disability as a groupwas in certain respects comparable to that of 
“average” (non-disabled) employees. In general, employees with a disability were 
rated lower than average employees on productivity factors (speed and accuracy) 
and better than average employees on reliability factors (attendance and sick 
leave) and employee maintenance factors (recruitment, safety, insurance costs). 
However, productivity was found to
be statistically significantly lower, while reliability and employee maintenance 
costs, although better than the average employee, were not statistically 
significantly better. The outcome for an employer is generally a reasonably 
productive, reliable employee who costs marginally less to maintain in 
employment. Employee maintenance costs have not been included in previous 
studies. Results reported here, although not statistically significant, 
consistently favoured the employees
with a disability, suggesting the importance of considering such effects in 
future studies of benefits and costs to employers.

In addition to consideration of individual performance, the impact of employing 
a person with a disability on organization performance was also considered. In 
this study, workplace modifications and changes to staff training and 
supervision were each reported, by employers, to result in benefit advantages to 
productivity, staff skills and practices, and workplace and customer
relations. Indeed, 70% of more than 3,500 reports referring to those aspects of 
organization performance were benefit reports. Financial effects were most 
frequently reported as cost neutral, with more fi- nancial benefits than costs 
reported. Previous studies of workplace accommodations suggest that 
approximately half of all employees with a disability require no accommodations, 
and most accommodations are inexpensive [1,7]. Workplace accommodations have 
also been shown to produce significant financial benefits to the employer [4].

Results of this study indicate cost neutral effects for most workplace 
accommodations, with financial bene- fits outnumbering costs. Therewas a clear 
performance benefit advantage resulting from workplace modifications and changes 
to staff training and supervision associated
with all aspects of organization performance except profit. These results 
suggest that employers have experienced material and non-material benefits to 
their organizations from employing a person with a disability, with those 
benefits being financially cost neutral or cost beneficial in a large proportion 
of cases. There are at least three possible reasons for the widespread reporting 
by employers of such significant benefit advantages to the organization as a 
whole. Integrating
an employee with a disability into a work environment may raise awareness of 
previously less than
optimal conditions in that work environment including training and supervisory 
practices, basic work practices, and health and safety issues. This heightened 
awareness may lead to improved practices by workplace trainers, supervisors, 
health and safety representatives,
and all employees. Another possible reason for the generally positive reported 
effect that an employee with a disability has had on overall organization 
performance relates to improved co-worker and customer relations. Improved 
relations may contribute to improved performance within the work group or 
organization as a whole, since high morale has often been associated
with high performance within organizations. A third possible explanation is that 
the individual performance of an employee with a disability, in terms of 
reliability and productivity measures, especially those who are average or above 
average performers, may raise expectations
and standards for performance for all employees, thereby improvingwork group or 
organization performance. In any case, an employee with a disability can be seen 
as a catalyst for positive change, a catalyst for improved organization 
performance. 

Research on financial incentives to the employer has found that subsidies have 
little impact on an employer’s decision to employ a person with a disability 
[13]. Factors such as ability to perform the job and a low risk of absenteeism 
are more powerful determinants for employers than financial incentives [6,21]. 
This study likewise found that, although more than half of employers
had received a subsidy and/or incentive, receipt of a subsidy and/or 
incentivewas associated with somewhat poorer employee working conditions and 
resulted in no difference to benefit-cost outcome.

When considering benefits and costs of employing a person with a disability, an 
additional consideration is that the costs of employing a person with a 
disability are not constant over time. Initial costs such as modi- fications to 
the workplace, specialized equipment and training can give a skewed indication 
of the costs involved, as these tend to be one-off costs. It is important
to not only consider the impact of costs in relation to other factors such as 
job retention, lower maintenance costs (occupational health and safety, worker 
compensation, etc), and any further potential advantages to staff and customers 
resulting from accommodations and adjustments. In considering costs related to 
the employment of people with a disability, it should also be kept in mind that 
certain costs are associated with the employment of any new employee.

Results of this study show that employer outcomes associated with employing a 
person with a disability provide examples of positive effects, particularly in 
organization performance, of employing a person whose “difference” is in some 
way apparent. It provides some evidence of employers acknowledging and accepting  
diversity in the workplace/organization. The managing
diversity approach [2,3,8,10,11,17] involves flexibility and accommodation to 
individual differences in accomplishing workplace and organization objectives. 
This approach recognizes, accepts, and values diversity amongworkers, and indeed 
values diversity as a source
of organization development. This is relevant to employers who employ a person 
with a disability because with such an approach to management, the person is no 
longer an extra-ordinary or special case, but simply part of a natural diversity 
within the workplace. Employers who employ a person with a disability are 
demonstrating at least implicit commitment to the managing diversity approach 
described in the literature. In doing so, they are in the forefront of emerging 
management
practices. On a practical level, as described above, these employers are already 
experiencing benefits of this approach to managing a workforce. 
 
Other potential benefit outcomes for employers when employing a person with a 
disability relate to community values and compliance with the law. 
Internationally, there is a strong and prolonged trend away from considering 
employment for people with a disability as a welfare issue toward treating it as 
an equal opportunity and human rights issue. The United Nations, the 
International Labor Organization, and several employer bodies have endorsed 
employment as an equal opportunity issue for people with a disability. Australia 
is among many nations that have passed equal
opportunity legislation with direct reference to employment for people with a 
disability. Australia is also a signatory of several international covenants and 
rules endorsing equal opportunity in employment for people with a disability. 

Many benefits resulting from the employment of a person with a disability are 
intangible and not easily quantifiable. Examples of intangible benefits for the 
new employee include improved self-esteem, selfaffirmation, social contact, and 
personal satisfaction, as well as a shift from being the recipient of services 
to a provider of services. The availability of a wider range
of workers for an employer, improved equity in the workplace, various outcomes 
for a society that supports equality of opportunity, and the changes in societal 
attitudes that result from the inclusion of people with a disability in labour 
market activities are additional intangible
benefits. The value of these benefits to society, although not easily 
quantifiable, is none-the-less very important.

Whenever considering employer benefits and costs of employing a person with a 
disability, it is importantto take into account more than the productivity and 
reliability of the individual employee, which is generally good. It is also 
important to take into account more than the effects on workplace conditions, 
staff training, and supervision, which are typically quite positive. It
is important to take into account the “big picture”, the importance of 
increasing workplace diversity to continuing organization development, the 
importance of compliance with the lawand community standards, and the importance 
to good business of relationships within
the organization and the community.

Acknowledgement

We would like to thank the Australian Commonwealth Department of Family and 
Community Services
for funding this project and for providing advice and other support during its 
conduct.
References

[1] Anonymous, Adjusting the workplace: Employer’s duty under the Disability 
Discrimination Bill, Equal Opportunities Review 61 (1995), 11–18.

[2] M. Bond and J. Pyle, The ecology of diversity in organizational settings: 
Lessons from a case study, Human Relations 51(5) (1998), 589–624.

[3] T. Brady, The downside of diversity, HR Focus 73(8) (1996),
22–23.

[4] A. Cantor, The costs and benefits of accommodating employees with 
disabilities, 1996, Available: http://www. empowermentzone. com/cost ben.txt 
[1998, 21 August].

[5] S.M. Crow, Excessive absenteeism and the Disabilities Act, Arbitration 
Journal 48(1) (1993), 65–70.

[6] E. De Vos, S. Andriessen and M. Ziekenmeijer, Case studies on employment of 
people with disabilities in small and medium sized enterprises – the 
Netherlands, Report for the Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment on behalf 
of the European Foundation for the improvement of
living and working conditions, Amsterdam: NIA-TNO. 1997.

[7] European Trade Union Committee, The employment of disabled people. Trade 
Union draft document, 1995.

[8] J. Iannuzzi, Reaping diversity’s competitive rewards, Business Forum 22(2–3) 
(1997), 4–5.

[9] G.M. Jeltes, An analysis of financial and employment outcomes of people with 
an intellectual disability provided in a community based employment service, 
Australian Disability Review 1 (1991), 29–34.

[10] S. Liff and J. Wajcman, Sameness and difference revisited: Which way 
forward for equal opportunity initiatives? Journal of Management Studies 33(1) 
(1996), 79–94.

[11] F. Lynch, The diversity machine, Society 34(5) (1997), 32–44.

[12] W. McCaughrin, W. Ellis, F. Rusch and L. Heal, Costeffectiveness of 
supported employment, Mental Retardation 31 (1993), 41–48. 

[13] J. Mangan, The effectiveness of wage subsidies for persons with 
disabilities, Australian Bulletin of Labour 16(1) (1990), 32–43.

[14] E. Reisenwitz, Asecond look at theADA:ADAshould be seen as ally in 
improving productivity, Business Insurance 26(47) (1992), 23–24.
 
[15] S. Reisman and J. Reisman, Supervision of employees with moderate special 
needs, Journal of Learning Disabilities 26(3) (1993), 199–206.

[16] A. Samorodov, Indicators of cost-effectiveness of policy options for 
workers with disabilities, Geneva: International Labour Organization, 1996.

[17] C. Stoner and L. Russell-Chapin, Creating a culture of diversity 
management: Moving from awareness to action, Business Forum 22(2–3) (1997), 6–
12.

[18] J. Trach, S. Beatty and D. Shelden, Employers’ and service providers’ 
perspectives regarding natural supports in the work environment, Rehabilitation 
Counseling Bulletin 41(4)
(1998), 293–312.

[19] J. Tse, Employers’ expectations and evaluation of the job performance of 
employees with intellectual disability, Australia and New Zealand Journal of 
Developmental Disabilities 19(2)
(1994), 139–147.

[20] P. Tuckerman, J. Morgan, B. Smith and R. Delahunt, The relative costs of 
supported employment: Jobsupport six years on, Australian Disability Review 4 
(1992), 49–60.

[21] Vocational Rehabilitation Branch – ILO, Wage subsidies for disabled 
persons, ILO discussion paper, Geneva: International Labour Office, 1994.