print this page
© Copyright Commonwealth of Australia - Australian Public Service Commission
Home page
> State of the Service reports
> State of the Service Report 2005-06 > Equity and diversity > People with disability > Next: Employees from a non-English speaking background
‹ Previous page
Last updated: 30 November 2006
Chapter 5: Equity and diversity
Abbreviations
A list of the abbreviations used in this report is available in the Glossary
People with disability
The MAC report, Employment of People with Disability in the APS, recommends a definition of disability that all agencies should use when collecting and reporting data on disability status of employees (see the box on the MAC report).
Agency survey results reinforce the need for the use of more systematic definitions of disability across the APS. Only 26% of agencies were using a definition of disability when collecting data. Three main definition types were identified—the definition in the Disability Discrimination Act 1992, the definition that has been used by the Commission for APSED, and one based on a period of time (a person has a disability if they report a limitation, restriction or impairment, which has lasted or is likely to last, at least six months and restricts everyday activities).
Until agencies implement the MAC recommended definition, data collection is based on agencies using a variety of different approaches.
As noted above, the decline in employment of people with disability continued this year. In absolute terms, the number of employees increased during 2002–03, but fell in each of the past three years. At June 2006, people with disability represented 3.4% of ongoing APS employees, down from 5.3% in 1997. However, 5% of employees reported having an ongoing disability in the employee survey.
Some of the decline in the employment of people with disability is due to a substantial decrease in the number of positions at APS 1–2 levels, where people with disability were historically over-represented. However, over the past 10 years representation of people with disability has dropped at all classification levels (see Figure 5.7).
Figure 5.7: Proportion of ongoing employees with disability, 1997 to 2006
Source: APSED
During 2005–06, representation of people with disability fell proportionally in all classification groups. The number actually rose in EL, SES and trainee classifications, but the increases were smaller than the overall increase in these classification groups.
Employees with disability are somewhat less likely to have graduate qualifications than other employees— at June 2006, 42.0% of employees with disability had a bachelor’s degree or higher, compared with the APS average of 51.9%.19
Agencies with relatively high proportions of ongoing people with disability are the Commission (9.1%), Australian Industrial Registry (7.8%), AIATSIS (7.0%) and Questacon (6.8%). These are all small agencies, so the actual number of people with disability is relatively low.
Thirteen agencies reported that they had no ongoing employees with disability. All were small agencies.
Figure 5.8 shows the proportion of people with disability in agencies with more than 1000 ongoing employees.
Figure 5.8: Proportion of people with disability in agencies with more than 1000 ongoing employees, June 2006
Source: APSED
Overall, the engagement rate for people with disability fell this year (from 2.2% of all engagements in 2004–05 to 1.5% in 2005–06). The actual number of engagements rose (from 252 to 316), but the rise was proportionally less than for the APS overall. The engagement rate is now half of what it was a decade ago.
During 2005–06, the separation rate for people with disability rose (from 4.1% to 4.8%) and the actual number of separations also rose, from 429 to 456.The separation rate is still lower, however, than it was in 1996–97.
Challenges in the employment of people with disability
Agencies were less likely to report a range of specific challenges in relation to people with disability than they were for similar challenges relating to Indigenous employment, and most agencies did not report facing a challenge. As for challenges for Indigenous employment, a number of agencies identified each of the challenges as not being applicable.
Less than half (39%) of agencies reported facing at least one challenge with regard to the employment of people with a disability. Almost two-thirds of large agencies, however, reported facing one or more challenges.
The most common challenge facing agencies with respect to the employment of people with disability was the difficulty in recruiting people with disability with the required skills (28% of applicable agencies).
Although less common overall, challenges in relation to people with disability tended to focus more on skills and performance issues than the challenges for Indigenous employment, with difficulty in managing underperforming employees with disability, and ensuring that employees with disability have skills and/or knowledge to meet the agency’s requirements the second most commonly cited challenges.
Table 5.10 sets out the frequency of challenges faced by agencies in relation to the employment of people with disability.
| Challenges faced by agencies | Number of agencies (N = 84) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | No | Not applicable | |
| Loss of valued employees with disability | 7 | 51 | 25 |
| Difficulty recruiting graduates with disability with required skills as part of a formal graduate programme | 8 | 31 | 44 |
| Difficulty recruiting people with disability (other than for a formal graduate programme) with required skills | 15 | 38 | 29 |
| Difficulty in managing underperforming employees with disability | 11 | 45 | 27 |
| Difficulty providing mentors with appropriate experience for employees with disability | 6 | 35 | 42 |
| Managing the cost of providing reasonable adjustment | 4 | 58 | 21 |
| Difficulty in accessing information and/or assistance on reasonable adjustment | 2 | 58 | 23 |
| Ensuring that employees with disability have skills and/or knowledge to meet the agency’s requirements | 11 | 54 | 18 |
| Dealing with negative perceptions held by employees without disability of people with disability | 10 | 54 | 19 |
| Other | 0 | 38 | 17 |
Note: Agencies that did not respond to the question relating to the particular strategy are not included in the table. Source: Agency survey |
|||
Agency support for the employment of people with disability
The MAC report, Employment of People with Disability in the APS, highlights the importance of agency support for people with disability. The report sets out eight objectives for promoting the employment of people with disability, identifies a range of strategies for meeting those objectives, and calls on agencies to adopt strategies most appropriate to their circumstances.
It is important for agencies to take action on each of the eight objectives outlined in the case study in light of current trends in APS employment of people with disability.
Management Advisory Committee report No.6—better practices to promote the employment of people with disability Objective 1: A culture that values diversity and actively promotes the employment of people with disability. Strategies include:
- promoting commitment to upholding the APS Values of providing a workplace free from discrimination and promoting equity in employment
- highlighting the business case for employees with disability
- mainstreaming policies and procedures to encourage the recruitment and retention of people with disability by integrating them into day-to-day business planning processes.
Objective 2: Flexible recruitment strategies, accessible to applicants with disability. Strategies include:
- developing closer links with organisations specialising in placing people with disability in employment
- accepting applications in different formats and giving people with disability reasonable time to lodge applications
- making reasonable adjustments to direct testing arrangements required by applicants with disability.
Objective 3: Accessible training, cadetship and mentoring opportunities for people with disability. Strategies include:
- establishing training schemes to provide work experience that will assist people with disability to compete in merit-based APS selection processes
- participating in mentoring programmes such as the Willing and Able Mentoring Programme to identify appropriate mentors for students with disability interested in a career in the APS.
Objective 4: Special employment measures to employ people with intellectual disability. Strategies include:
- incorporating strategies to employ people with intellectual disability in agencies’ workplace diversity programmes
- using organisations such as the National Disability Recruitment Coordinator and/or the Disability Employment Network to assist in the design of appropriate positions.
Objective 5: Accessible premises, workplaces and supportive work environments for people with disability. Strategies include:
- ensuring new premises and modifications to existing premises are readily accessible by people with disability
- identifying, in consultation with new employees with disability and with the assistance of organisations such as the National Disability Recruitment Coordinator and/or the Disability Employment Network, the reasonable adjustments required by new employees with disability, before they start
- incorporating in collective agreements and workplace diversity programmes flexible work practices that allow all employees, including employees with disability, to achieve an appropriate work-life balance.
Objective 6: Reduced complexity, cost and risk for managers employing people with disability. Strategies include:
- developing a source of information and expertise to assist managers and employees, or access to external sources of information and assistance
- providing training and awareness programmes for managers and other APS employees on mental illness, depression or other related disorders
- participating in networks, for example, the Australian Employers’ Network on Disability.
Objective 7: A consistent conceptual framework for recruitment and retention strategies and uniform arrangements for data collection. Strategies include:
- adopting the definition of ‘disability’ in section 4 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 for developing recruitment and retention strategies relating to the employment of people with disability
- adopting the definition of disability used by the ABS Disability, Ageing and Carers: Summary of Findings 2003 survey to collect data and statistics
- using the question identified in Chapter 6 of the report to collect data from employees and actively encouraging employees to provide this data.
Objective 8: Continuous improvement in recruiting and retaining people with disability.
- Providing information to the Commission on issues relating to disability, in response to surveys for the State of the Service report, that will enable reporting on the success of APS agencies in achieving continuous improvement in recruiting and retaining employees with disability.
Recruitment strategies
The number of agencies using measures to facilitate the recruitment of people with disability was greater than those recruiting Indigenous employees. In the last 12 months, however, the number of agencies using strategies to recruit people with disability declined. Seventy per cent of agencies used at least one or more strategies to facilitate the recruitment of people with disability (lower than 80% in 2004–05 and 85% in 2003–04). Twenty-five agencies did not have any strategies in place to recruit people with disability, an increase on the 17 reported last year.
Table 5.11 sets out the number and types of strategies agencies use to facilitate the recruitment of people with disability.
The most common measures used to recruit people with disability related to the support provided to applicants during the selection process. Almost half of agencies provided assistance to people with disability during the application process; the most frequent assistance given was the provision of guidance on how to address selection criteria, with other forms of assistance including allowing extensions of time for applications to be submitted, providing selection criteria in alternative formats, and allowing people with disability to submit applications in alternate forms. One agency allowed site visits so that any specific questions the applicant might have can be addressed and a separate email address that can trigger specific recruitment support.
At the interview stage of the selection process 42% of agencies reported that appropriate adjustments are made to any interview testing situation. The most common type of adjustment made was ensuring that testing locations are accessible to people with disability, for example suitable parking and entry and mobility within the building, allowing extra time to complete tests, and administering tests in formats other than written. Almost a third of these agencies indicated that they provided other forms of adjustment, including a sign language interpreter as required and allowing case workers or support people to attend the interview or assessment.
| Recruitment strategy | Number of agencies (N = 84) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| In place | Being developed | Not in place | |
| Special employment measures limiting employment opportunities only to persons with an intellectual disability | 0 | 2 | 82 |
| Working with organisations that specialise in placing people with a disability in employment | 19 | 1 | 64 |
| Advertising vacancies through disability employment and support services/networks | 3 | 3 | 78 |
| Providing opportunities (such as traineeships or cadetships) for people with disabilities to gain skills and experience under an agency-based employment scheme | 6 | 3 | 75 |
| Providing assistance during the application process | 40 | 1 | 43 |
| Appropriate adjustments made to any interview testing situation | 35 | 2 | 47 |
| Training of selection panels in appropriate interviewing methods for people with disability | 14 | 8 | 62 |
| Ensuring any recruitment agencies contracted by your agency encourages and support people with disability | 18 | 5 | 61 |
| Participating in mentoring programmes for students with disability interested in a career in the APS | 1 | 2 | 80 |
| Other | 2 | 1 | 49 |
Note: Agencies that did not respond to the question about the particular strategy are not included in the table. Source: Agency survey |
|||
Working with organisations that specialise in placing people with disability in employment is another option open to agencies to recruit people with disability. One in five agencies (21%) reported that they had worked with organisations in this way, including working with Advance Personnel (Canberra) Inc, Disability Works Australia, JobMatch ACT and CRS Australia.
No agencies had used the provisions under the Commissioner’s Directions for special employment measures to employ people with intellectual disabilities. Twelve per cent of agencies, however, indicated they used contractors (e.g. Koomarri Jobmatch, the Disability Employment Action Centre, Break Thru, Employment Solutions, and Direct Employment) that specifically employ people with an intellectual disability. Such contractors were predominantly used for outsourced work such as mail-outs. A small number of agencies also reported using these contractors to recruit people with an intellectual disability into their agency.
Only a minority of agencies (30%) collected data on applicants with disability, increasing to a third if those agencies that indicated that this strategy was not applicable are excluded.
Retention strategies
Measures to retain employees with disability continue to be more common than measures to recruit such employees. This year the agency survey asked agencies about a much larger selection of retention measures. Seventy-seven per cent of all agencies reported using at least one measure to retain employees with disability, a slight decrease on the 80% of agencies last year, but higher than the 69% using retention strategies for Indigenous employees.
Nineteen agencies did not have any measures in place to retain employees with disability. Fourteen of these indicated that the strategies were not applicable to them as they had no employees with disability. Table 5.12 sets out the number and types of strategies agencies use to retain employees with disability.
The most common strategies offered by agencies related to adaptive technology. The most popular types of support provided by these agencies were access to flexible working arrangements, modification to the workspace, providing parking spaces, providing Dragon (voice recognition) software and job redesign.
Most agencies allowed adaptive technology purchased for employees with disability to move with them if they transfer within the department, but only a minority considered transferring adaptive technology between agencies if employees are transferred or promoted to another agency. Funding for adaptive technology was slightly more likely to be centralised than decentralised.
Just over half of applicable agencies reported that they provide a centralised source of information and expertise to assist managers and employees with disability; this might be in the form of disability action officers, case managers or ready access to external sources of information. The remaining measures to retain employees with disability were used by a minority of applicable agencies.
| Retention strategy | Number of agencies (N = 84) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| In place | Being developed | Not in place | Not applicable (no people with disability) | |
| Special employment measures | 13 | 4 | 50 | 17 |
| A disability action plan | 25 | 10 | 31 | 15 |
| A centralised source of information and expertise (such as disability action officers, case managers or ready access to external sources of information) to assist managers and employees with disability | 39 | 3 | 26 | 15 |
| Access to adaptive technology or other practical support | 57 | 0 | 10 | 17 |
| Centralised funding for adaptive technology or other forms of practical support | 32 | 2 | 31 | 18 |
| Decentralised funding for adaptive technology or other forms of practical support | 27 | 0 | 36 | 20 |
| Access to Workplace Modification Schemes | 21 | 2 | 42 | 18 |
| Adaptive technology provided to employees is transferred with them when they move within agencies | 48 | 1 | 13 | 21 |
| Adaptive technology provided to employees is transferred with them when they move between agencies | 21 | 2 | 36 | 24 |
| Disability awareness training programme for employees generally | 15 | 9 | 42 | 17 |
| Encourage participation in a network for people with a disability | 14 | 6 | 45 | 18 |
| Operate an agency network for people with disability | 4 | 4 | 57 | 18 |
| Identify mentor for employees with disability | 10 | 4 | 51 | 18 |
| Appoint an advocate for people with disability | 11 | 1 | 53 | 18 |
| Other retention strategies | 4 | 1 | 41 | 15 |
Note: Agencies that did not respond to the question about the particular strategy are not included in the table. Source: Agency survey |
||||
The MAC report emphasised the importance of agencies facilitating workplace adjustments for people with disability. Employee survey results reinforce this finding. Almost half, 47%, of employees with an on-going disability required workplace adjustments in the workplace. The most common types of adjustments were adjustments to people’s workspace, including workstation modifications, specialised equipment, such as Teletypewriters (TTY) for those with speech or hearing impairments, voice recognition software and screen reading software and changes to work practices, including management of schedules and reduced hours and ready access to appropriate parking and bathroom facilities.
Employee perceptions of agency support
Most employees appear to regard their agency as supportive of people with disability, with results generallybeing similar to perceptions of support for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employees, but lower than for women.
Sixty-one per cent of employees agreed that their agency actively encourages the recruitment and employment of people with disability.The level of agreement in large agencies ranged from 36% to 76%. Of the large agencies, those with agreement rates significantly above the APS average were ATO, Centrelink, DEST, and FaCSIA.
Employees with disability were less likely to agree that their agency actively encourages the recruitmentand employment of people with disability (54%), compared with people not in this group (61%).
Over half of employees (55%) agreed that their agency encouraged the retention of employees with disability. The level of agreement in large agencies ranged from 33% to 68%. Of the large agencies, those with agreement rates significantly above the APS average were ABS, Centrelink, CRS Australia, DEST and Medicare Australia.
There was no difference between views of employees with disability and employees not in this group in relation to the encouragement of the retention of employees with disability.
Sixty-one per cent of employees agreed that having a disability was not a barrier to success in their workplace. The level of agreement in large agencies ranged from 37% to 76%.The majority of large agencies’ agreement rates were similar to the APS average.
There was no difference between views of employees with disability and employees not in this group as to whether a disability was a barrier to success.
Employee engagement and job satisfaction
As reported in Chapter 3, people with disability reported similar job satisfaction ratings to other employees (70% compared to 73%), and generally job satisfaction for this group appears to have improved over the last four years.
Nevertheless, people with disability had lower satisfaction ratings against all employee engagement factors (see Figure 5.9).20 The largest differences were for the factors relating to governance, work-life balance and learning and development, merit, and diversity. Despite some improvements, continuing lower rates of satisfaction on a range of survey questions over a number of State of the Service reports reinforce the importance of agencies taking action against all of the eight objectives identified by MAC and outlined above.
Figure 5.9: Employee satisfaction with factors identified through factor analysis—people with disability and people without disability, 2005–06
Source: Employee survey
- The method used to calculate the proportion of employees with graduate or tertiary qualifications includes those with qualifications at bachelor degree and above. It excludes from the denominator those for whom no data was provided by agencies, and those who chose not to provide details for their highest educational qualification.
- For further information on factor analysis see Appendix 4.
