Search results

The purpose of this study is to determine the nature of financial inclusion for individuals with various types of disabilities.

Data from 2015, 2017 and 2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services was pooled, and binary logistic regressions were used to investigate differences in barriers to financial inclusion (e.g. unbanked) between people with different types of disabilities (e.g. cognitive) and those without such disabilities.

Using five separate barrier measures, the authors found specific disability types face different barriers to financial inclusion. For example, respondents with cognitive, ambulatory or two or more disabilities were more likely to use nonbank transaction products and alternative financial services. And, those with vision or cognitive disabilities were more likely to be denied or receive reduced credit. When examining aggregate barriers to financial inclusion (total number of barriers faced) respondents with cognitive, ambulatory, hearing or two or more disabilities experienced the lowest degree of financial inclusion in the authors’ dataset.

Causal inference cannot be made due to the cross-sectional nature of the data. The data only covers the US population, and the measurement of disability type could include those with short-term impairments. Further, there may be an omitted variable bias.

Best practices to maximize financial inclusion for those with different disability types should address accessibility issues, bank staff education, financial literacy education and poverty issues. Additional government policies and oversight are also needed to protect and enhance the overall financial inclusion of people with disabilities.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this paper is the first to examine the relationship between various barriers to financial inclusion and aggregate barriers to financial inclusion by disability type. Specific disability types are found to face different barriers to financial inclusion.

Despite several concerted efforts and directives, Indian organizations have a long road to travel with respect to the inclusion of persons with disabilities in the workforce. Disability taking different forms often impacts organizational decisions on employment and inclusion of persons with disabilities. Acknowledging the role of employers in improving their employment prospects, the purpose of this paper is to examine key factors that direct the decisions regarding targeted recruitment of persons with various types of disabilities.

The exploratory study is based on thematic analysis of senior executives' accounts to examine the factors that direct their decisions pertaining to employment of persons with varied types of disabilities.

Findings highlight organizational determinants that enable/disable employment of persons with varied types of disabilities. The organizational determinants reported are: knowledge about type of disability; work characteristics; accommodations based on type of disability; accessibility of physical infrastructure and external pressures; whereas, persons with orthopedic, vision, hearing and intellectual disabilities are represented in the employee base.

The present study contributes to employer perspectives on workplace disability inclusion toward understanding the nuances of organizational dynamics and human perceptions. Future studies could explore perspectives of other key stakeholders and the conditions under which organizational determinants are perceived as enabling or disabling.

The present study highlights how disability type influences leaders' views on recruitment of persons with disabilities, in an under-researched study context of Indian organizations.

In the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) 2001, the World Health Organization (WHO) defines disability as: ‘an umbrella term for impairments, activity limitations and participation restrictions. It denotes the negative aspects of the interaction between an individual (with a health condition) and that individual's contextual factors (environmental and personal factors)’, with environmental factors including assistance from other people, from equipment and from formal sources. WHO previously defined disability, in the context of health experience, as “any restriction or lack (resulting from impairment) of ability to perform an action in the manner or within the range considered normal for a human being” (World Health Organization, 1980, p. 28).

This chapter assesses how gender and disability status intersect to shape employment and earnings outcomes for working-age adults in the United States.

The research pools five years of data from the 2010–2015 Current Population Survey to compare employment and earnings outcomes for men and women with different types of physical and cognitive disabilities to those who specifically report work-limiting disabilities.

The findings show that people with different types of limitations, including those not specific to work, experienced large disparities in employment and earnings and these outcomes also varied for men and women. The multiplicative effects of gender and disability on labor market outcomes led to a hierarchy of disadvantage where women with cognitive or multiple disabilities experienced the lowest employment rates and earnings levels. However, within groups, disability presented the strongest negative effects for men, which created a smaller gender wage gap among people with disabilities.

This chapter provides quantitative evidence for the multiplicative effects of gender and disability status on employment and earnings. It further extends an intersectional framework by highlighting the gendered aspects of the ways in which different disabilities shape labor market inequalities. Considering multiple intersecting statuses demonstrates how the interaction between disability type and gender produce distinct labor market outcomes.

This paper investigates the extent to which disability type contributes to differential evaluation of employees by managers. In particular, the authors examined managerial prejudice against 3 disability diagnoses (i.e. psychiatric, physical disability and pending diagnosis) compared to a control group in a return-to-work scenario.

Working managers (N = 238) were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 scenarios containing medical documentation for a fictional employee that disclosed either the employee's psychiatric disability, physical disability, or a pending diagnosis. The authors also collected a separate sample (N = 42) as a control group that received a version of the medical documentation but contained no information about the disability diagnosis.

Compared with employees without stated disabilities, employees with a psychiatric disability were evaluated as more aggressive toward other employees, less trustworthy and less committed to the organization. Compared to employees with either physical disabilities or pending diagnoses, employees with psychiatric disabilities were rated as less committed to the organization. The authors discuss implications for future research and the trade-offs inherent in disability labeling and disclosure.

The current study extends prior research by examining a broader range of outcomes (i.e. perceived aggressiveness, trustworthiness and commitment) and moving beyond performance evaluations of employees with disabilities. The authors also assess the relative status of a “pending diagnosis” category—a type of disclosure often encountered by managers in many jurisdictions as part of accommodating employees returning to work from medical-related absence.

A new measure of disability used in the 2000 Census allows an expanded data set on the population with disabilities within all regions of Brazil. Using two different conceptualizations of disability including limitations in activities and impairments in body function and structure, the questions provide a richer source of information for policy issues. Initial use of the data has provided increased knowledge about the age, sex and racial makeup of the populations with disabilities and the geographic distribution of this population within Brazil.

Access to health care, particularly for children, remains a topic of great importance to policy makers in the United States. Recent attention focuses primarily on the enactment and subsequent expansions of the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) (Kenney, Ullman & Weil, 2000). Though the legislation affects all qualifying low-income children, the unique service needs of children with disabilities justify a closer look at the relationship between health insurance, income, and needs amongst children with disabilities. This analysis seeks to answer the following questions. To what extent do children with disabilities need various supportive health services? Does this need vary across type of disability or income level? Do children with health insurance, either public or private, have fewer unmet needs than children without health insurance? Answers to these questions will assist policy makers when determining who should be targeted to receive additional assistance in the future as well as evaluate the effectiveness of current mechanisms in delivering supportive health services to children with disabilities.

People with intellectual disability have a low rate of employment in Australia and internationally. Their low employment rate is set within a context of limited employment choices. Further, the most common types of work currently undertaken by people with intellectual disability – open and sheltered employment – have limitations and may not be suitable for everyone. Expanding the employment choices available represents an important way forward, but evidence is needed to guide the expansion. This paper aims to contribute to the evidence required by comparing people with intellectual disability’s experience and outcomes in open and sheltered employment to their experience and outcomes working in social enterprises, which is becoming an important alternative employment option for this group.

The paper uses the qualitative accounts of 51 people with intellectual disability to compare experiences and outcomes in open, sheltered and social enterprise employment in Australia.

The paper finds that social enterprises combine some of the benefits of open and sheltered employment and thus expand employment choice. However, the level of business/market development and opportunities for employment in social enterprises are currently limited and require further development and scale to enable social enterprises to be an option for more people with intellectual disability. Policy implications are drawn out for expanding employment choice, in particular through social enterprise employment, for people with intellectual disability.

The paper offers the first three-way comparison of open, sheltered and social enterprise employment for people with intellectual disability, contributing to both the disability employment and social enterprise literature.

This paper aims to extend understanding of the cues that customers with disabilities use to judge inclusion/welcome (or not) in interactions in retail stores.

Critical incident interviews were conducted with 115 informants who provided rich descriptions of 113 welcoming incidents and 105 unwelcoming incidents. Interview transcripts were content analyzed to determine inductively the cues customers with disabilities use to perceive welcoming.

Four primary situational factors explain to what perceptions of welcome/inclusion are attributed: service personnel; store environmental factors; other customers; and product/service assortments. Further, a disability becomes salient only when there is an interaction between these situational factors and consumers' disabilities.

The findings suggest an extension to Bitner's servicescape conceptualization in that it specifies that the assessment of an environment as enabling or disabling is important for at least some customers in deciding whether they should stay, go, or return to a particular servicescape.

The results reveal that consumers with disabilities should be viewed as customers first, and only as possessing a disability in particular interactions in the customer‐firm interface.

This research presents the views of a set of customers who are under‐represented in research samples. It discusses how not all people with disabilities are alike and begins to develop a deeper understanding of their behavior as consumers. The research is valuable for retail managers and service providers who need useful information for training employees, for designing servicescapes that are welcoming for consumers with disabilities, and for fulfilling the inclusive intent of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). It will also be of interest to academics who are engaged in research that attempts to improve the quality of life for consumers.

The contributions of qualitative research to the study of behavioral–emotional disabilities, mild intellectual disabilities, and learning disabilities (the three types of high-incidence disabilities) are relatively recent and far from abundant. This chapter discusses qualitative, or “naturalistic” research by briefly examining the methodology used in such inquiry, reviewing many of the available studies concerning those with high-incidence disabilities, and providing implications from the existing empirical literature. It is not recommended that qualitative research takes the place of quantitative research in special education, but well-designed and executed naturalistic studies can contribute additional knowledge that is worthwhile to the field.