• Home• Index and downloads• Glossary ☎ Contact us

Print this page Find Download

 

People with a disability

There is no consistent APS-wide definition of what constitutes disability for the purpose of EEO data collected by agencies. Some agencies use a specific definition, based on the impact of the disability on how the person works, for example, while others leave it to individuals to decide whether they consider that they have a disability for the purpose of EEO data. Different types of disability are also likely to have different effects on employment in different ways, for example:

• sensory, physical, psychological, and medical
• disabilities of different severity
• episodic, continuous, short-term, and degenerative disabilities
• disabilities that are acquired pre- or post-employment.

In addition to these definitional issues, it needs to be stressed that reporting of data on disability, like reporting on other EEO data, is voluntary. It is important, therefore, when considering the data relating to people with a disability, to understand that it is an approximation only of the incidence of disability, however defined, across the APS.

Over the past decade, the data shows a consistent decline in the employment of people reporting a disability as a proportion of APS employees. In absolute terms, the number of employees fell each year, before recovering slightly in 2002–03, and then declining again for the past two years. At June 2005, people with a disability represented 3.8% of ongoing APS employees, down from 3.9% last year, and from 5.4% in 1996. While the decline can be partly explained by a reduction in the number of positions at APS 1–2 levels, where people with a disability were historically over-represented, the past 10 years has seen a decline in the representation of people with a disability at all classification levels.

Figure 9.7: Proportion of ongoing staff with a disability by classification, 1996 to 2005

Source: APSED

During 2004–05, representation of people with a disability fell in all classification groups except for APS 1–2s, where representation rose from 5.6% to 6.0% (although the number of people with a disability in this classification group fell).

Employees with a disability are somewhat less likely to have graduate qualifications than other employees—at June 2005, 41.5% of employees with a disability had a bachelor’s degree or higher, compared with the APS average of 49.9%.²⁵

Agencies with relatively high proportions of people with a disability are the Commission (11.1%), EOWA (9.1%), the National Water Commission (NWC) and DHS (each 8.3%). These are small agencies, so the actual number of people with a disability they employ is relatively low. Nine agencies reported that they had no ongoing employees with a disability.²⁶ All were small agencies. Figure 9.8 shows the proportion of people reporting a disability in agencies with more than 1000 ongoing employees.

Figure 9.8: Proportion of people with a disability in agencies with more than 1000 ongoing employees, June 2005

Source: APSED

Overall engagement and separation rates for people with a disability both fell this year. However, the number of engagements and separations actually rose, but not at the same rate as overall engagements and separations, resulting in an overall decline in engagement and separation rates. Compared with 10 years earlier, both engagement and separation rates have fallen—a positive result for separation rates. These trends are shown in Table 9.12.

Table 9.12: Representation of people with a disability in engagements and separations of ongoing employees, 1995–96 to 2004–05

	1995– 96	1996– 97	1997– 98	1998– 99	1999– 00	2000– 01	2001– 02	2002– 03	2003– 04	2004– 05
Engagements No.	247	174	166	156	172	166	244	497	216	245
(% of engagements)	3.0	3.1	2.7	2.0	1.4	1.2	2.0	3.3	2.3	2.1
Separations No.	517	901	882	783	509	344	361	315	352	430
(% of separations)	5.6	5.9	5.3	5.4	4.7	4.2	4.2	4.4	4.8	4.1

Source: APSED

Challenges in relation to the employment of people with a disability

This year agencies were asked if they were facing a range of challenges regarding the employment of people with a disability. Most agencies did not report facing a challenge. Only nine agencies have been identified as having no ongoing employees with a disability.²⁷ However, many more agencies have indicated that these challenges are not applicable to them, which is a concern, in particular, those relating to the recruitment of people with a disability.

One quarter of agencies reported facing at least one challenge with regard to the employment of people with a disability (16 large agencies, 4 medium and 5 small agencies). The frequency of challenges increased with agency size, with only large agencies noting more than one challenge. The proportion of agencies facing challenges in relation to the employment of people with a disability was lower than for those facing a challenge relating to Indigenous employment.

Table 9.15 sets out the frequency of challenges faced by agencies in relation to the employment of people with a disability.

Table 9.15: Agency challenges in relation to employment of people with a disability, 2004–05

	Number of agencies (N=82)
Challenges faced by agencies	Yes	No	Not applicable
Loss of valued employees with a disability	8	56	18
Difficulty recruiting graduates with a disability with required skills as part of a formal graduate programme	7	26	49
Difficulty recruiting people with a disability (other than for a formal graduate programme) with required skills	13	40	29
Difficulty in managing underperforming employees with a disability	9	51	22
Difficulty providing mentors with appropriate experience for employees with a disability	4	47	31
Managing the cost of providing reasonable adjustment	10	51	21
Difficulty in accessing information and/or assistance on reasonable adjustment	5	57	20
Other	3	29	50

Note: Not Applicable results in this table include those agencies that did not respond to the question about the particular challenge.

Source: Agency survey

Agencies were asked what practical initiatives could be undertaken to increase the number of people with a disability in their agency. Most agencies suggested that they should develop disability plans or build upon their existing workplace diversity programmes or disability plans. Other suggestions revolved around marketing and assistance initiatives. A number of agencies also expressed concern over the lack of an accepted definition of ‘disability’ and the need for improved systems for identifying and reporting people with a disability.

Agencies suggested that one major way to attract people with a disability was to better market and target employment opportunities available in agencies. Specific strategies identified included:

• ensuring that practices covering merit and non-discrimination are observed
• identifying or creating suitable duties and tasks
• working with organisations representing people with a disability to raise the profile of agencies and make them an employer of ‘choice’
• using the experience of existing employees to identify any barriers to employment of people with disabilities
• providing good practice examples on how reasonable adjustment works
• educating managers and employees about the benefits of recruiting people with disabilities
• providing greater support to employees with a disability through initiatives such as flexible job design.

Agencies also suggested the use of special employment measures, including internships or traineeships, special programmes and financial incentives from central agencies. One agency suggested amendments to the limitations to the length of non-ongoing employment in the Regulations to make it easier to engage non-ongoing employees with a disability. The non-ongoing provisions are being examined as part of the Commission’s review of the Act in 2005–06.

Agency support for the employment of people with a disability

The agency survey asked agencies about their strategies to recruit and retain people with a disability and the particular challenges they faced in relation to the employment of people with a disability. The employee survey asked about employees’ perceptions of whether their agency supports the employment, development and promotion of people with a disability.

Recruitment of people with a disability

The use of measures to facilitate the recruitment of people with a disability was more common than for Indigenous employees, with 80% of agencies using at least one measure (compared to 85% in 2003–04). Most agencies reported using a combination of strategies to facilitate the recruitment of people with a disability. Seventeen agencies did not have any strategies in place.

Table 9.13 sets out the number and types of strategies agencies use to facilitate the recruitment of people with a disability.

Table 9.13: Agency strategies to recruit people with a disability, 2004–05

	Number of agencies (N = 82)
Recruitment Strategy	In place	Being developed	Not in place
Special employment measures limiting employment opportunities only to persons with an intellectual disability	1	0	81
Working with organisations that specialise in placing people with a disability in employment	21	3	58
Providing opportunities for people with a disability to gain skills and experience under an agency-based employment scheme	5	3	74
Providing assistance during the application process	48	3	31
Appropriate accommodation made to any testing situation	40	0	42
Training of selection panels in appropriate interviewing methods for people with a disability	20	7	55
Providing information and/or access to advice on reasonable adjustment measures in the workplace	53	0	29
Seeking expert assessments on reasonable adjustment in relation to specific cases	38	0	44
Other	6	0	76

Note: Not in place results in this table include those agencies that did not respond to the question about the particular strategy.

Source: Agency survey

There is a relationship between agency size and the number of strategies used, with larger agencies more likely to have used multiple strategies.

The most common strategies used to facilitate the employment of people with a disability regardless of agency size continue to be ‘providing assistance during the application process’, ‘appropriate accommodation made to any testing situation’, ‘providing information and/or access to advice on reasonable adjustment measures in the workplace’ and ‘seeking expert assessments on reasonable adjustment in relation to specific cases’.

This year, agencies were asked whether 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. While 11% of agencies used such contractors, their use was greatest in large agencies with nearly one in five large agencies reporting usage.

Some of the practical measures undertaken by agencies this year to assist people with a disability have been:

• providing reasonable adjustment training for managers
• participation in mentoring programmes or networks
• deafness awareness training and general awareness of disability training for employees
• facilitating placements for people referred by CRS
• developing better recruitment strategies
• developing and implementing disability strategies, either as a management strategy or as part of a wider diversity programme.

Retention of people with a disability

The 2005 agency survey expanded the response options relating to retention strategies, giving agencies a choice between ‘no measures’ and ‘not applicable—no people with a disability in the agency’. Seventeen agencies (21%) indicated that retention strategies were not applicable (16 small agencies and one medium agency), although three of these small agencies reported use of some measures which would be available to all employees such as access to flexible working arrangements. An additional two medium agencies had no measures in place. Overall, 80% of agencies report that they had at least one measure to retain people with a disability (a fall of 11 percentage points since 2003–04). More agencies had retention strategies in place for people with a disability than for Indigenous employees (67%).

Table 9.14 sets out the frequency of strategies used by agencies to retain people with a disability.

Table 9.14: Agency strategies to retain people with a disability, 2004–05

	Number of agencies (N = 82)
Retention Strategy	In place	Being developed	Not in place	Not applicable (no people with a disability)
Encourage participation in a network for people with a disability	14	3	48	17
Disability awareness training programme for employees generally	13	8	45	16
Access to adaptive technology or other practical support such as signers or parking spaces	58	0	8	16
Access to contact officers who assist with issues such as discrimination	63	0	4	15
Access to part-time or other flexible working arrangements	65	0	2	15
Access to skills development	63	0	4	15
Provide targeted leadership development opportunities	4	3	59	16
Other retention strategies	11	0	37	34

Note: Not applicable results in this table include those agencies that did not respond to the question in relation to the particular strategy.

Source: Agency survey

Compared to 2003–04, there has been a general fall in the number of agencies reporting use of these measures—the only exception being a slight increase (two agencies) in ‘encouraging participation in networks’. ‘Flexible working arrangements’ (94%), ‘access to skills development’ (94%) and ‘access to contact officers’ (94%) remain the most commonly used strategies. These proportions exclude those agencies that indicated these retention strategies were not applicable to them, as they have no Indigenous employees.

Fifty-eight agencies indicated that they had strategies in place around adaptive technology and other practical support for people with a disability, for example, physical access. However, people with a disability still report the lack of workplace adjustment as a factor in preventing them from applying for certain jobs. MAC found that environmental factors had played a part in limiting career choices in the APS for people with physical disabilities. In many cases the reason cited for why they had not sought job opportunities was access—that is, they had been unable to enter and/or exit the workplace. As required under legislation which has been in place for some time, agencies need to be more focused on how they can make workplace adjustments to meet issues of access and adjustment for potential and existing employees.

Employee perceptions

The 2005 employee survey asked respondents to indicate their level of agreement with the statement, ‘my agency actively supports the employment, development and promotion of people with a disability’. Fifty-seven per cent of all respondents agreed with the statement. This result was much lower than for similar questions in relation to women and people from all cultural backgrounds, but similar to the level of agreement about agency support for Indigenous employees.

The proportion of employees that agreed with this statement in large agencies ranged widely (from 24% to 75%), with the highest agreement rates at ATO, BoM, CRS, Centrelink, Defence and DFAT.

The APS result compares unfavourably with those reported recently by the Victorian Government. The Victorian Government’s People Matter Survey 2004²⁸ in relation to employee perceptions of disability issues in employment found that 73% of employees agreed that ‘disability is not a barrier to success in my workgroup’. This was 14 percentage points lower than for a similar statement in relation to gender, and another about cultural background. This mirrors the APS experience that agencies are seen to be more supportive of the employment of women and people from NESB1 than people with a disability.²⁹

Only 47% of people with a disability agreed that their agency actively supports the employment, development and promotion of people with a disability, significantly lower than the 57% of people who did not have a disability.

The following represents a sample of the comments employees made about their agency’s support for people with a disability.

This year the survey also asked whether employees thought that their agency needed to do more or less to support people with disabilities. Fifty-one per cent of people with disabilities felt that their agency needed to do more to support them, compared with 31% of people without a disability.

Job satisfaction and other employee indicators—people with a disability

Based on the job satisfaction index,³⁰ people with a disability reported lower levels of overall job satisfaction than people without a disability; 65% were, on average, satisfied with the factors they nominated as important, compared to 71% of people without a disability (although this difference is not statistically significant). This was in contrast to last year’s result, when people with a disability had significantly lower levels of overall job satisfaction compared to people without a disability.³¹ Over time there has been an upwards trend in levels of overall job satisfaction for people with a disability, rising from 50% in 2002–03 to 65% in 2004–05.

Table 9.16 shows that for 2004–05 four of the top five job satisfaction factors were common to both people with a disability and people without a disability. ‘Duties/ expectations made clear’ was included only in the top five factors for people with a disability, whilst ‘salary’ was included only in the top five factors for people without a disability.

While ‘salary’ was not among the top five most important job satisfaction factors for people with a disability, it was ranked just outside the factors included in Table 9.16.

Table 9.16: Most important job satisfaction factors, by disability status, 2004–05

People with a disability				People without a disability
Rank	Factor	% rating in top 5	% satisfied	Rank	Factor	% rating in top 5	% satisfied
1	Good working relationships	61	73	1	Good working relationships	51	85
2	Good manager	47	57	2	Salary	47	50
=3	Regular feedback/ recognition for effort	46	39	=3	Regular feedback/ recognition for effort	45	48
=3	Duties/ expectations made clear	46	69	=3	Flexible working arrangements	45	83
5	Flexible working arrangements	44	83	5	Good manager	44	66

Note: The ‘per cent satisfied’ includes only those respondents who selected the factor and then rated their satisfaction.

Source: Employee survey

Table 9.16 also shows the proportion of each group satisfied with the factors they had identified as important. The majority of people with a disability were satisfied with four (out of five) of their most important job satisfaction factors, while a majority of people without a disability were also satisfied with four (out of five) of their most important factors.

In addition to the different views held by people with, and people without, a disability highlighted above, other noteworthy differences included:

• People with a disability were less likely to agree that their workplace culture supports people to achieve a good work-life balance (57% compared to 68% of people without a disability).
• People with a disability were more likely to disagree that recruitment and promotion decisions in their organisation were fair (42% compared to 30% of people without a disability).

---

25 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 of their highest educational qualification.

26 This data is not directly comparable with that published in last year’s State of the Service report.

27 This data is not directly comparable with that published in last year’s State of the Service report.

28 See <http://www.ope.vic.gov.au>. Caution should be exercised in comparing the results because of the differences in wording of the questions, and differences in methodologies between the two surveys.

29 For the purposes of the employee survey, a disability was defined as any physical, intellectual or psychological restriction or lack of ability (resulting from an impairment) to perform an activity in the manner or within the range considered normal. Impairment can include people suffering from ongoing illness or injury.

30 Background information on the job satisfaction and other employee indicator questions in the employee survey is found above at the section ‘Job satisfaction and other employee indicators—women’.

31 The difference between the 2004–05 and the 2003–04 results for people with a disability was not statistically significant at the 95% Confidence Interval (see Appendix 2 for more information on confidence intervals).

go to top of the page