View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Experiences of Legally Blind Individuals at Different Stages of the Employment Cycle as These Relate to Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Experiences of Legally Blind Individuals at Different Stages of the Employment Cycle as These Relate to Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act
Language: English
Authors: Marco Tarantino, Jared Reyes
Source: Journal of Disability Policy Studies. 2024 35(2):97-105.
Availability: SAGE Publications and Hammill Institute on Disabilities. 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks, CA 91320. Tel: 800-818-7243; Tel: 805-499-9774; Fax: 800-583-2665; e-mail: journals@sagepub.com; Web site: https://sagepub.com
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 9
Publication Date: 2024
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Federal Legislation, Disabilities, Blindness, Visual Impairments, Partial Vision, Equal Opportunities (Jobs), Labor Force, Employees, Job Applicants, Affirmative Action, Stakeholders, Adults, Personnel Management
Geographic Terms: Massachusetts, California, Ohio
Laws, Policies and Program Identifiers: Rehabilitation Act 1973
DOI: 10.1177/10442073231158767
ISSN: 1044-2073
1538-4802
Abstract: The most recent data on the labor force participation rate of individuals who identify as being blind or having vision loss in the United States indicate it is approximately 44%. In 2014, the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs promulgated regulations pertaining to Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 to address the continued lack of employment opportunities for individuals with disabilities. These reforms had the potential to expand individuals with disabilities' employment horizons as it was estimated that the number of employees who work directly under a federal contract number in the millions. Five years later, it is unclear how federal contractors are implementing these alterations to recruit and retain legally blind individuals. Using quantitative analysis of responses from 140 current/former legally blind employees and job applicants, this research measured the current employment outcomes of the legally blind community in relation to the Section 503 regulations update. Gaps in employment for legally blind individuals existed, especially in regards to the job classifications in which they found the most success and whether the position held was disability-oriented. These results will inform HR professionals, policymakers, and blind advocates on how to proceed in developing effective disability-conscious workplace laws and policies.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2024
Accession Number: EJ1438746
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwGZPF88z8nDjmehyHuPNiP9AAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDGmymrqntM8f0A-ZjAIBEICBm3GQzPk2rS5qiIIhB9rBu86NkD7z8EO7aMZ5VxUzPNJsjqRcKlLVenZ8_aLCoa-PE0Ifoe0sKtllyuUd9L-MArbj4ronVHBBWMjLNs_W72_c8ejWnuaTC_qJh4bFNVkGOjq4UsBt5loJltWm2Yk7pYfxjtGIrbE0Y16B_bTJYx3A9TKpPWvgv9U0wW8_XsOdxy21S5QqNHrH1IlV
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0179507852;9wi01sep.24;2024Sep10.05:39;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0179507852-1">Experiences of Legally Blind Individuals at Different Stages of the Employment Cycle as These Relate to Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act </title> <p>The most recent data on the labor force participation rate of individuals who identify as being blind or having vision loss in the United States indicate it is approximately 44%. In 2014, the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs promulgated regulations pertaining to Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 to address the continued lack of employment opportunities for individuals with disabilities. These reforms had the potential to expand individuals with disabilities' employment horizons as it was estimated that the number of employees who work directly under a federal contract number in the millions. Five years later, it is unclear how federal contractors are implementing these alterations to recruit and retain legally blind individuals. Using quantitative analysis of responses from 140 current/former legally blind employees and job applicants, this research measured the current employment outcomes of the legally blind community in relation to the Section 503 regulations update. Gaps in employment for legally blind individuals existed, especially in regards to the job classifications in which they found the most success and whether the position held was disability-oriented. These results will inform HR professionals, policymakers, and blind advocates on how to proceed in developing effective disability-conscious workplace laws and policies.</p> <p>Keywords: affirmative action; blindness; disability employment; rehabilitation act of 1973</p> <p>Disability advocates often hail the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) as the hallmark legislation for advancing the rights of individuals with disabilities in the United States ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref1">11</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref2">23</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref3">25</reflink>]). Although the ADA has made great strides in accessibility and anti-discrimination as they relate to services through Title II and III, Title I's effect on the employment outcomes of individuals with disabilities has been lukewarm ([<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref4">26</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref5">38</reflink>]). A report from the American Foundation for the Blind indicates that, in December 2013, the labor force participation rate of individuals between the ages of 16 and 64 who identify as being blind or having vision loss was 36% (American Foundation for the Blind, n.d.). At best, individuals with disabilities who are already employed now have the ability to assert their right to be treated just as their coworkers in regards to the "terms, conditions, and privileges of employment" and in requesting a reasonable accommodation (Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990). At worst, the ADA has exacerbated the lack of employment opportunities for individuals with disabilities by discouraging companies from hiring them out of fear that doing so will lead to more litigation ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref6">9</reflink>]). Federal contractors' fear may be substantiated by a study that showed that federal contractors have had a higher rate of ADA charges against them compared with non-contractors ([<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref7">50</reflink>]).</p> <p>The individualized nature of accommodations and the diverse array of individuals with disabilities that are employed within a company at any given time has made it difficult to push for broad disability employment policy reforms ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref8">30</reflink>]). A lack of systemic change is partially attributable to many ADA cases ending in settlements, preventing plaintiffs' attorneys the opportunity to create disability-minded precedent ([<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref9">29</reflink>]). Plaintiffs' attorneys are also weary of representing applicants in failure to hire cases because of the speculative nature of assessing both liability and damages for these circumstances. Meanwhile, the strength of Title I of the ADA has been eroded by courts' efforts to place barriers on disparate impact and class action lawsuits in the disability context ([<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref10">41</reflink>]). The costs associated with litigation coupled with the pay disparity between individuals with disabilities and the general population also can discourage individuals with disabilities from pursing legal action ([<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref11">42</reflink>]).</p> <p>Although the ADA has received the majority of attention within the disability rights community, there is another major disability rights law that predates the ADA: The [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref12">37</reflink>] ("Rehabilitation Act"). The law was passed in the wake of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to serve as a reminder that individuals with disabilities also "have a dream." It covers disability employment in the federal government (Section 501 and Section 505) and federal contractors and subcontractors (Section 503) ([<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref13">37</reflink>]). Section 503's purpose is to increase the overall employment rate of individuals with disabilities in the United States. Section 503 differs from Title I of the ADA in that Section 503 provides positive rights to individuals with disabilities who seek to be or are currently employed by federal contractors ([<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref14">40</reflink>]). On the other hand, Title I of the ADA provides negative rights to individuals with disabilities in that it seeks to punish employer who mistreat individuals with disabilities who are employees. <emph>Id</emph>. It is estimated that the number of employees who work for the purpose of fulfilling a federal contract total 3.7 million while one in four U.S workers are employed by a federal contractor ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref15">27</reflink>]; Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs [OFCCP], 2014). Be that as it may, little attention has been paid to Section 503 and its potential for improving disability employment outcomes in the 21st century. A review of Google Scholar shows that a search for "Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act" results in 66% less articles then when searching for "Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act" (https://scholar.google.com/).</p> <p>In 2014, the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP), a sub-agency of the United States Department of Labor, enacted regulations to clarify the affirmative action language in Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act. Specifically, it requires federal contractors strive toward a 7% aspirational goal in 10 distinct job groups if the employer has 100 or more employees ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref16">3</reflink>]). If a federal contractor has <100 employees, it must strive toward having 7% of its total workforce identify as an individual with a disability. <emph>Id</emph>. It is important to note that this requirement is not a quota. <emph>Id</emph>. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has already required private-sector employers to report the job classifications of its employees. <emph>Id</emph>. The OFCCP uses these same classifications for determining whether federal contractors are taking steps to meet the 7% aspirational goal. Federal contractors can meet this requirement by providing job applicants and current employees with a "Voluntary Self-Identification of Disability Form" provided by the OFCCP. ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref17">1</reflink>]).</p> <p>Second, it requires extensive data collection from federal contractors on their outreach and recruitment efforts, including documenting which job fairs they attend to attract jobseekers and what organizations they coordinate with to create pipelines for hiring individuals with disabilities (41 CFR § 60-741.44(f), 2017). Finally, the Section 503 regulations mandate federal contractors to undergo "periodic" position description reviews to verify they are not inadvertently excluding individuals with disabilities who are otherwise qualified for a position (41 CFR § 60-741.44(b)-(c), 2017). All of the information that Section 503 regulations mandate federal contractors keep track of are to be compiled into a federal contractor's Affirmative Action Program ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref18">2</reflink>]).</p> <p>The OFCCP subjects federal contractors to different forms of audits to find out whether a federal contractor is adhering to Section 503 ([<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref19">45</reflink>]). These audits include a compliance check, compliance evaluation, Section 503 focused review, accommodations focused review, corporate management compliance evaluation and functional affirmative action program. <emph>Id</emph>. Each of these audits serves a different purpose. For example, the goal of a compliance check is to ensure that a federal contractor has an affirmative action program on file. <emph>Id</emph>. Meanwhile, the OFCCP uses a compliance review to examine the affirmative action efforts of a federal contractor's single establishment instead of the entity as a whole. <emph>Id</emph>. If the OFCCP finds that the selected federal contractor has provided deficient responses to the OFCCP's requests, then the OFCCP can take further actions including conducting a more comprehensive review of the federal contractor's affirmative action efforts. <emph>Id</emph>. In FY 2019, the OFCCP recovered approximately US$40 million against employers who failed to adhere to regulatory standards that the OFCCP enforces ([<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref20">44</reflink>]). Yet, of the 45,726 individuals who received some form of monetary relief because of the OFCCP's enforcement efforts, only one related to disability as a basis. <emph>Id</emph>.</p> <p>The discriminatory barriers that individuals with disabilities face are unique and, at times, opposed to each other (Stein & Waterstone, 2006). [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref21">21</reflink>] determined that 67% of managers could not identify how blind or visually impaired (BVI) employees are able to perform basic tasks such as accessing a computer. There is a gap between this knowledge and efforts to formulate affirmative action policies and laws that are mindful of the various individuals with disabilities, including those who are blind, entering/in the workforce ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref22">4</reflink>]). Information about the experiences of individuals who are blind or have low vision as it relates to federal contractors needs to be examined if the employment rate of individuals with severe disabilities is ever expected to improve and to ensure that Section 503 has not encountered the kinds of pitfalls that have arisen with other affirmative action regimes ([<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref23">40</reflink>]).</p> <p>It has been 8 years since the enactment of the Section 503 regulations. Since that time, research has focused on the effect the regulations have had on employers and their HR departments ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref24">10</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref25">36</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref26">48</reflink>]). Even so, as of 2016, only 16% of federal contractors have achieved the 7% aspirational goal outlined in the regulations ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref27">28</reflink>]). There has not been an extensive evaluation of Section 503 regulations' effectiveness in employing specific disability groups such as individuals who are blind or have vision loss ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref28">22</reflink>]). The financial and personnel restraints that bear on any federal agency such as the OFCCP have not allowed it to retrospectively evaluate its efforts ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref29">33</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref30">34</reflink>]). These last 7 years can provide valuable insight into that larger picture. The purpose of this research study is to highlight issues that are arising in the employment cycle for individuals who are blind or have vision loss in relation to federal contractors and provide insight to disability rights stakeholders on how the employment outcomes of individuals who are blind or have loss vision can be improved.</p> <hd id="AN0179507852-2">Method</hd> <p>Efforts were made during the survey development process to include extensive feedback from a broad range of stakeholders. We had preliminary conversations with the OFCCP about the topics of greatest interest to them in informing their programming. Both the business and the disability advocacy communities provided input, including project partner leadership and representatives from the blind and low vision rights community. An Institutional Review Board exemption for data collection by the survey instrument was granted through Wichita State University Institutional Review Board was obtained.</p> <p>Upon expressing interest, individuals were provided with screening questions to determine their eligibility to take part in the study. All participants had to (a) be considered legally blind by visual acuity (visual acuity of 20/200 or less in the better-seeing eye with best conventional correction); (b) be at least 18 years old; (c) be comfortable speaking and writing in English (to ensure that no ethical issues would arise with the data collection); and (d) have been employed at some point in the last 5 years (including positions that were part-time or seasonal and individuals who had retired). A fifth screening question was asked to determine whether the participant was currently employed in a paid position to then determine which of two surveys they would be asked to complete.</p> <p>Similar to [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref31">8</reflink>], and [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref32">39</reflink>], participants were recruited through a convenience sample of listservs from the two largest national blind organizations: National Federation of the Blind and American Council of the Blind. We also called each of the state libraries for the blind and state commissions/agencies for the blind to have information about our study distributed to their residents who are blind or have low vision through listservs and quarterly newsletters. Once those avenues for recruitment were exhausted, we circled back to participants to provide information about the study to individuals they thought would be interested in taking part. We relied on snowball sampling due to the marginalized and dispersed nature of the blind community and varied definitions of blindness used by academics, policymakers, and government agencies.</p> <p>The written survey was predominantly administered via individual emails. The survey was piloted using several survey tools, but due to accessibility issues, the investigator chose to send the surveys in the email body. A reminder was sent after a month to individuals who expressed interest and had completed some steps in the process but did not submit the survey. The inaccessibility of websites and related services is well-documented in the literature ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref33">7</reflink>]). As such, a pilot study was conducted by one of the research team members who is blind for purposes of testing the accessibility of the survey and accessing the gift cards.</p> <p>The first set of questions in the survey consisted of questions that were demographic in nature (age, race and gender, etc.). Even so, some of these questions honed in on Section 503, specifically, as they relate to their employer's name (federal contractor status), title of their position (EEO-1 job classification), and knowledge about Section 503 and the OFCCP (awareness for filing complaints). The second set of questions focused on job search strategies by the participants. The third set of questions related to the completion of job applications. Finally, the fourth set of questions asked participants to elaborate on their everyday employment experiences. Ultimately, this project was crafted with the goal of analyzing the results through quantitative research methods.</p> <p>Participants were asked the title of their position for their current or most recent employer. Responses were categorized into one of the EEO-1 Report job groups filed annually with the EEOC and OFCCP required by federal statute and regulations. To complete this task, the EEO-1 Job Classification Guide 2010 was viewed to determine which position title fit within the corresponding Job Title/Description of Standard Occupational Classification. O*Net OnLine, a website funded by the U.S. Department of Labor, was examined to determine which Job Title/Description of Standard Occupational Classification was most appropriate for each response.</p> <p>Participants were asked the name of their current or most recent employer. Each participant's employer was then examined to determine whether it was covered under the affirmative action provisions of Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act. Dun & Bradstreet, a business data and analytics website, was used to assess an employer's size. The OFCCP uses the same database when determining whether an establishment meets the threshold for the number of employees to be covered under Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref34">13</reflink>]). Generally, a search of an entity using its full name provides a number of metrics including the total employees of that establishment and connections to parent entities along with total employees in those establishments. Once it was confirmed an employer met or exceeded the minimum required number of employees, the Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS), the official government federal contractor database, was used to establish the federal contractor status of the entity. Using the advanced search tool in the FPDS, the search was tailored to results that had a "Total Base and All Options Value ($)" of "50000" to "[left blank]," to include all contracts of US$50,000 or more, and a "Date Signed" of "09/24/2013" to "[left blank]" to coincide with the date the new regulations pertaining to Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act were published and all dates thereafter. An analysis was also conducted for whether a participant was in a disability-related position and/or field. If the position and/or employer involved some aspect of providing services to individuals with disabilities, the participant was categorized accordingly.</p> <p>Disability rights advocates and policymakers have wrestled with improving the types of careers available to individuals who are blind. Yet, such gains in employment outcomes are unsatisfactory unless coupled with compensation that is equitable in comparison to peers who do not identify as being disabled. Although OFCPP collected compensation information from employers for purposes of determining disparate impact in pay practices, administrative changes had negated this effort ([<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref35">34</reflink>]).</p> <p>Individuals who are legally blind continue to face barriers throughout the employment cycle ([<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref36">39</reflink>]). However, there are discriminatory factors unique to the sourcing stage of employment that hinder the employment outcomes of individuals who are legally blind. The sourcing stage is described as the part of the hiring process when HR crafts a job advertisement and determines how to ensure it is visible to qualified applicants. To better understand the interaction between legal blindness and the application process, participants were asked when in the process (e.g., pre-application, interview, post-offer, etc.) did they disclose as an individual with a disability. Disclosure has become a major topic of research as it relates to Section 503 due to it having been illegal for employers to ask an applicant or employee to disclose if they had a disability prior to the promulgation of the new regulations ([<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref37">49</reflink>]). Answers that included such words as "generally" or "usually" for a specific stage were labeled according to that stage for purposes of this study.</p> <p>The internet has become a ubiquitous force in optimizing the hiring process since its introduction in the 1990s ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref38">24</reflink>]). Neither the Rehabilitation Act nor the ADA could predict the seismic effect such technology would have on individuals' daily lives when they were enacted. As such, participants were asked their preferred job board for searching for available positions.</p> <p>The passage of the ADA is considered a watershed moment for the rights of individuals with disabilities, even among people who are apathetic toward the disability rights movement. Nevertheless, there are serious implications for the administration of justice if individuals with disabilities are unaware of the mechanisms of enforcement for Section 503 and the OFCCP, especially in light of the updated regulations. As part of a set of supplemental questions participants were asked about their knowledge of Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act using a 5-point Likert scale.</p> <hd id="AN0179507852-3">Results</hd> <p>A total of 140 individuals completed this employment survey between April 2019 and April 2020. The sample included (<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref39">58</reflink>) males (41.4%), (<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref40">76</reflink>) females (54.3%), and (<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref41">6</reflink>) individuals (4.3%) who did not specify their gender. Participant age ranged from 19 to 72 years (<emph>M</emph> = 46.5, <emph>SD</emph> = 12.8). Most participants identified as Caucasian or White (<emph>n</emph> = 94, 67.1%); 20 participants identified as African American or Black (14.3%); 6 participants identified as Hispanic or Latino (4.3%); 6 identified as Asian American (4.3%); 1 as Pacific Islander (0.7%); 5 reported other or mixed races (3.6%); and 8 did not indicate their race (5.7%).</p> <p>Each participant resided in one of 30 U.S. states. The three states where most participants resided were Massachusetts (14; 11.2%), California (13; 10.4%), and Ohio (10; 8.0%). One participant (0.7%) had some high school but no diploma; 8 (5.7%) had a high school diploma only; 24 (17.1%) had some college, including an associate's degree, but no bachelor's degree; 41 (29.3%) had a bachelor's degree; 5 (3.6%) had completed some graduate level coursework; 54 (38.6%) had a graduate's degree (e.g., PhD, JD, MS); 7 (5%) participants did not indicate their level of education.</p> <hd id="AN0179507852-4">Employment Status</hd> <p>When asked about their current work status, 104 participants (74.4%) indicated they were working full-time in a paid position while 10 participants (7.1%) noted they were working part-time in a paid position. Meanwhile, 23 participants (16.4%) were not working for pay but did so at some point in the last 5 years. Three participants (2.1%) had retired within the last 5 years. Participants who were working had held their current job for an average of 5.30 years (<emph>SD</emph> = 1.41; range = 0–30 years). See Figure 1 for breakdown of participants into EEO-1 Job Classifications. The total responses are greater than the total participants since some participants held more than one job.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 1 Legally Blind EEO-1 Job Classification Categories.</p> <hd id="AN0179507852-5">Employers</hd> <p>Based on the conditions described above, 34 participants (24.3%) worked for an employer covered under the affirmative action provisions of Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act, 98 participants (70.0%) worked for employers who were not covered, and the employer's status was unclear for 8 participants (5.7%). Based on such categorization, 73 participants (52.2%) worked in a disability-related capacity. However, 64 participants (45.7%) did not work in a disability-related capacity. Finally, it was unclear whether 3 participants (2.1%) held a position or worked for an entity that provided services to individuals with disabilities.</p> <p>Forty-eight participants (34.3%) answered they had an annual salary of between 0 and US$25,000; 34 participants (24.3%) had an annual salary of between US$25,001 and US$50,000; 18 participants (12.9%) had an annual salary between US$50,001 and US$75,000; and 21 participants (15%) had an annual salary >US$75,000. Concurrently, 19 participants (13.5%) did not respond to this question.</p> <hd id="AN0179507852-6">Disclosing Disability</hd> <p>Thirteen participants (9.3%) disclosed during the pre-application stage; 20 participants (14.3%) disclosed in the application; 18 participants (12.9%) disclosed during the pre-screening interview (e.g., phone interview, interview scheduling call, etc.); 48 participants (34.3%) disclosed during the first in-person interview; No participants disclosed during a follow-up interview; 5 participants (3.6%) disclosed post-offer; 22 participants (15.7%) disclosed at various stages depending on a number of factors including the type of employer and the stage they are at in their career. Meanwhile, 1 participant (.7%) did not disclose their disability and 13 participants (9.2%) either did not respond to the question or the question did not apply to them as they had not applied for a position in the last 5 years.</p> <p>Interestingly, 47 participants (30.5%) encountered a job advertisement requiring a vehicle or driver's license to obtain the position; 29 participants (18.8%) were unable to access the platform used to complete the job application; and 11 participants (7.1%) noted job advertisements that explicitly stated a vision requirement. Meanwhile, 45 participants (29.2%) did not specify whether they encountered exclusionary aspects of a job advertisement and 22 participants (14.4%) stated they have not encountered aspects of a job advertisement that they feel excluded them because of being legally blind.</p> <hd id="AN0179507852-7">Finding Employment</hd> <p>Participants were asked how they became aware of their current or most recent employment. Sixty-six participants (47.1%) discovered their job via word of mouth; 5 participants (3.6%) through a listserv; 25 participants (17.9%) indicated by an online job board; 11 participants (7.9%) mentioned the employer reached out to them; 10 participants (7.1%) acquired their position through vocational rehabilitation services; 1 participant (0.7%) through a job fair; 14 participants (10.0%) through other methods; and 8 participants (5.7%) did not specify how they became aware of their current or most recent employment.</p> <p>Participants were not provided with any list to make their selection. The five most mentioned job boards for searching for open positions were Indeed (54 participants; 38.6%); State/local job boards (25 participants; 17.9%); Monster.com (21 participants; 15%); Ziprecruiter (12 participants; 8.6%); and Glassdoor (11 participants; 7.9%).</p> <p>Twenty-two participants (15.7%) were not at all familiar with Section 503; 26 participants (18.6%) were slightly familiar; 20 participants (14.3%) were somewhat familiar; 17 participants (12.1%) were moderately familiar; and 11 participants (7.9%) were extremely familiar. Concurrently, 44 participants (31.4%) did not respond to this question.</p> <p>Similarly, participants were questioned regarding their knowledge of the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs using a 5-point Likert scale. See Figure 2 for breakdown of responses. Forty-two participants (30%) did not respond to this question.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 2 Survey Participant Knowledge of OFCCP Reporting Structure. Note. OFCCP = Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs.</p> <hd id="AN0179507852-8">Discussion</hd> <p>The findings have a number of implications for disability advocates, policymakers, and attorneys. First, contrary to common belief, a significant proportion of individuals who are legally blind and currently employed work in professional positions. Based on this first finding, the OFCCP and EEOC could redefine the EEO-1 job classifications to limit HR professionals' discretion in assigning the job group for each position. Positions could be classified into multiple job groups within the context of this study due to the flexible classification criteria. For example, an early childhood educator could be categorized as either Professionals (Special Education Teachers, Preschool) or Service Workers (Childcare Workers). This discrepancy can lead to misclassification error or even manipulation of job group statistics to avoid liability.</p> <p>Academics and policymakers continue to debate the ethics and feasibility of implementing affirmative action measures in employment for the benefit of underrepresented individuals ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref42">16</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref43">18</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref44">20</reflink>]). At the very least, the OFCCP can undertake greater efforts to ensure individuals who are blind are able to equitably compete for positions. [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref45">51</reflink>] highlighted the importance of federal agencies creating sub-goals for hiring individuals with "targeted" disabilities such as blindness to improve their employment outcomes within the federal government. A similar approach could be implemented by the OFCCP to ensure that certain groups of individuals with disabilities are not ignored by federal contractors as part of their hiring obligations under Section 503. There is also a need for greater examination of employer's job announcements to ensure individuals who are blind are not discouraged from applying for positions due to the presence of driver's license requirements or other requirements that require vision that do not relate to job performance. This dilemma has implications for other groups of individuals with disabilities affected by such restrictions in a way that website accessibility does not ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref46">17</reflink>]). Likewise, individuals who identify as being members of ethnic or racial minorities have a greater probability of being excluded from competing for positions due to not having a driver's license ([<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref47">35</reflink>]). These facts provide a basis for mobilizing political action to effectuate change.</p> <p>An issue noticed during the data analysis phase of this research study was the inconsistent data acquired from Duns & Bradstreet. The OFCCP uses the database to search for businesses that are covered under applicable laws. Even so, errors are noticeable in the reported number of employees for some entities. For example, Envision Inc., the organization through which the research was conducted, was shown to have only two employees on Duns and Bradstreet but in reality has over 100 employees. Similarly, the database does not provide data for many establishments within corporate families. Disability rights groups and government watchdogs have advocated requiring entities to provide the OFCCP with their affirmative action plans upon being awarded a contract through a centralized portal ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref48">6</reflink>]). If the OFCCP is to be proactive in improving its administrative efficiency and the rights of marginalized groups in the United States, it is evident this protocol must be reassessed and seriously considered.</p> <p>Contrasts exist between the employment outcomes of different groups of individuals with disabilities ([<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref49">46</reflink>]). However, based on combined 2011–2015 ACS data for civilian, noninstitutionalized adults with vision loss ages 16–65, those who were currently employed were most likely to work in retail, medical, manufacturing, and entertainment (including restaurant) industries. These were also the most popular industries for employment of people without vision loss. Among people with vision loss, the most commonly reported occupations were janitor/cleaner, cashier, health assistant, and retail salesperson. The most commonly reported occupations for people without vision difficulties were manager, school teacher, cashier, and retail salesperson (U.S. Census Bureau, n.d.). Although often cited for discussing the specifics of blind employment, the trends from this study demonstrate a potential flaw in the ACS data. The self-reported nature of the question put forth in the ACS questionnaire is overbroad and does not provide a complete picture of employment for individuals who are legally blind. The data analyzed for the report was extracted from the Current Population Survey (CPS). As it relates to disability, the CPS asks, "Is anyone blind or does anyone have serious difficulty seeing even when wearing glasses?" ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref50">14</reflink>]). This conclusion is evidenced by a discrepancy between the aforementioned most commonly reported occupations and employers' obligations under the reasonable accommodations provision of the ADA.</p> <p>Based on the reported findings and prior research, individuals who are legally blind have more success acquiring employment through personal contacts as opposed to methods such as job fairs or vocational rehabilitation agencies. Be that as it may, the OFCCP continues to emphasize these practices as integral to employers' recruiting efforts. (41 CFR § 60-741.44(f), 2017). The OFCCP requires detailed accounting of statistics associated with these approaches. On one hand, the disability rights community was excited that this mandate could lead to greater collaboration between the nonprofit and business communities ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref51">19</reflink>]). On the other hand, collection and analysis of this form of data are time-consuming and resource intensive with little noticeable benefit ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref52">13</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref53">28</reflink>]). Efforts can instead be targeted toward ensuring the earliest stage in the employment process, the job announcement, does not contain language that arbitrarily excludes not just individuals who are blind, but other marginalized groups as well. The finding that individuals who are blind or have low vision have most success with acquiring employment through personal contacts points to the need to ensure individuals who are blind or have low vision have greater opportunities to be included in pre-employment social systems that allow them to establish connections with individuals who do not have disabilities.</p> <p>Applying for positions through job boards has become an integral part of the employment process ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref54">15</reflink>]). That being said, disparities continue to exist between individuals who are legally blind and the general population as it relates to the ability to use these platforms to their fullest potential ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref55">31</reflink>]). Multiple layers of inaccessibility can be built into the job application: the job board and the application itself. One solution to this ever-growing barrier is to bring to the forefront the role Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act plays in perpetuating discriminatory conduct in the employment context on the internet. Another solution is to use these job boards as a tool for more easily detecting which employers are committing affirmative action violations.</p> <p>The findings demonstrate that a greater emphasis needs to be placed on educating individuals who are blind or have low vision regarding the ability to file a complaint with the OFCCP regarding potential violations of Section 503. A key difference between Section 503 and other disability discrimination laws is the lack of a private right of action. A private right of action allows an individual the ability to sue on their own behalf which often times includes seeking an attorney to represent them in the matter. When OFCCP learns that a federal contractor has violated Section 503, or any of the other statutes it enforces, OFCCP can bring a lawsuit on behalf of the aggrieved individuals such as in <emph>OFCCP v. Oracle America</emph>. OFCCP R00192699 (January 17, 2017). An unfortunate consequence of there being no private right of action is that there is less incentive for private plaintiffs' attorneys to inform or educate potential plaintiffs on the possibility of filing a complaint with OFCCP. Nevertheless, complaints from individuals can be a useful tool for helping OFCCP determine in what industries to focus their resources. The audits the OFCCP conducts each year represent only a miniscule percentage of federal contractors. A lack of a private right of action also possibly mitigates any interest that private plaintiff's attorneys could have to advocate for improving Section 503.</p> <hd id="AN0179507852-9">Limitations</hd> <p>Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act was the foundation for differentiating between the experiences of the participants who took part in this study. Even so, examining the employment experiences of individuals who are legally blind solely through a federal statute glosses over the nuances that exist from state to state and each state's affirmative action and anti-discrimination laws. This caveat is especially important as some state governments have begun to initiate programs to attempt to account for the lack of traction within the federal government to improve the labor force participation rate of individuals who are legally blind.</p> <p>The participants from this study were drawn from a convenience sample that consisted of U.S. blindness consumer organizations, state commissions for the blind, and non-profits focused on providing services to blind and low vision individuals. Although the participants were overwhelmingly well-educated compared with the general U.S. population, the exclusionary question of having been employed within the last 5 years could indicate a significant employment gap between legally blind individuals who are college educated versus those who are not. The nature of the reasonable accommodations provision of the ADA gives credence to this idea since most manual labor positions would not be subject to the provision. Nonetheless, the sample consisted of only 140 legally blind participants. More extensive examination will need to be conducted to confirm any conclusions drawn from this research.</p> <hd id="AN0179507852-10">Future Research</hd> <p>Although this research focused on the employment experiences of individuals who are legally blind, there is a need to understand how Section 503 affects other groups of individuals with disabilities. The ability to compare the experiences of these groups with one another could play an indispensable role in ascertaining policies and practices that are mindful of the unique obstacles that individuals with different disabilities face and how to ensure positive outcomes where they are most affected.</p> <p>The requirement that employees maintain a valid driver's license continues to be a hurdle for applicants to overcome. Arguably no marginalized group is more affected by this prerequisite than individuals who are legally blind. The technological feasibility and increased safety of driverless vehicles could solve transportation limitations for individuals who are legally blind ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref56">12</reflink>]). Nevertheless, there should be no expectation that driver's license requirements will disappear from future job announcements as a result of such developments. This issue creates an intersectional dilemma as other marginalized groups also are blocked from employment opportunities. Although statistics are available concerning cases brought before the EEOC and other state agencies pertaining to failure to hire, the extent of the driver's license obstacle is unclear ([<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref57">47</reflink>]). It would be valuable for researchers to analyze the discrepancies that exist for driver's license requirements in relation to entity size, federal contractor status, geographic region, etc.</p> <p>We would like to thank Dr. Rakesh Babu (Envision Research Institute) for his wit and insight during the formulation stage of the research project and testing gift card accessibility. We would also like to thank Professor Michael Ashley Stein (Harvard Project on Disability) and Dr. Ron Schuchard (Envision Research Institute) for the numerous hours they spent providing feedback and their commitment to mentoring the next generation of disability rights advocates.</p> <ref id="AN0179507852-11"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref17" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> 41 CFR § 60.741.42. (2017).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref18" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> 41 CFR § 60-741.44. (2017).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref16" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> 41 CFR § 60-741.45. (2017).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref22" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Ameri M., Schur L., Adya M., Bentley F. S., McKay P., Kruse D. (2018). The disability employment puzzle: A field experiment on employer hiring behavior. ILR Review, 71(2), 329–364. https://doi.org/10.1177/0019793917717474</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> American Foundation for the Blind. (n.d.). Key employment statistics for people who are blind or visually impaired. https://<ulink href="http://www.afb.org/research-and-initiatives/statistics/archived-statistics/key-employment-statistics">www.afb.org/research-and-initiatives/statistics/archived-statistics/key-employment-statistics</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref41" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> AUCD Comment on Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking regarding Affirmative Action and Nondiscrimination Obligations of Contractors and Subcontractors; Evaluation of Affirmative Action Provisions Under Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act, as Amended, RIN number 1250-AA02, 76 Fed. Reg. 77056. (2011, proposed December 9). (to be codified at 41 C.F.R. pt. 60-741).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref33" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Babu R., Singh R., Ganesh J. (2010). Understanding blind users' Web accessibility and usability problems. AIS Transactions on Human-Computer Interaction, 2(3), 73–94. https://aisel.aisnet.org/thci/vol2/iss3/1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref31" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Bell E. C., Mino N. M. (2013). Blind and visually impaired adult rehabilitation and employment survey: Final results. Journal of Blindness Innovation & Research, 3(1), 1–35. https://doi.org/10.5241/2F1-35</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref6" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Bell E. C., Silverman A. M. (2018). Rehabilitation and employment outcomes for adults who are blind or visually impaired: An updated report. Journal of Blindness Innovation & Research, 8(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.5241/8-148</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bezyak J., Moser E., Iwanaga K., Wu J. R., Chen X., Chan F. (2020). Disability inclusion strategies: An exploratory study. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 53(2), 183–188.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Blanck P. (2019). Why America is better off because of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Touro Law Review, 35, 605–618.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Brewer R. N., Kameswaran V. (2018, October). Understanding the power of control in autonomous vehicles for people with vision impairment. In Proceedings of the 20th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (pp. 185–197). https://doi.org/10.1145/3234695.3236347</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Brown Barnes C. (2016). Equal employment opportunity: Strengthening oversight could improve federal contractor nondiscrimination compliance. United States Government Accountability Office GAO-16-750.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2015). Labor force statistics from the current population survey: Frequently asked questions about disability data. https://<ulink href="http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsdisability%5ffaq.htm">www.bls.gov/cps/cpsdisability%5ffaq.htm</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Carnevale A. P., Jayasundera T., Repnikov D. (2014). Understanding online job ads data [Technical Report (April)]. Center on Education and the Workforce, Georgetown University.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ciocchetti C. A., Holcomb J. (2009). The frontier of affirmative action: Employment preferences & diversity in the private workplace. University of Pennsylvania Journal of Business Law, 12, 283.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Francis L. P. (2017). Disability and automation: The promise of cars that automate driving functions. Journal of Health Care Law & Policy, 20, 229.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gupta A., Priyadarshi P. (2020). When affirmative action is not enough: Challenges in career development of persons with disability. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion, 39(6), 617–639. https://doi.org/10.1108/EDI-05-2019-0146</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harris C., Switzer E., Gower W. S. (2017). The Diversity Partners Project: Multi-systemic knowledge translation and business engagement strategies to improve employment of people with disabilities. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 46(3), 273–285. https://doi.org/10.3233/JVR-170862</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harrison D. A., Kravitz D. A., Mayer D. M., Leslie L. M., Lev-Arey D. (2006). Understanding attitudes toward affirmative action programs in employment: Summary and meta-analysis of 35 years of research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(5), 1013–1036. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.5.1013</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Heath D., Babu R. (2017). Theorizing managerial perceptions, enabling IT, and the social inclusion of workers with disabilities. Information and Organization, 27(4), 211–225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infoandorg.2017.09.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Heymann J., Stein M. A., Moreno G., de Elvira Moreno M. R. (Eds.). (2014). Disability and equity at work. Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hums M. A., Schmidt S. H., Novak A., Wolff E. A. (2016). Universal design: Moving the Americans with disabilities act from access to inclusion. Journal of Legal Aspects of Sport, 26, 36–51. https://doi.org/10.1123/jlas.2015-0011</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Joyce S. P. (2016). The internet revolution: Digital disruption in recruiting and job search. Career Planning and Adult Development Journal, 32(2), 14–20.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Karger H., Rose S. R. (2010). Revisiting the Americans with Disabilities Act after two decades. Journal of Social Work in Disability & Rehabilitation, 9(2–3), 73–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/1536710X.2010.493468</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kim S., Rhee S. (2018). Measuring the effects of employment protection policies: Theory and evidence from the Americans with Disabilities Act. Labour Economics, 54, 116–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.labeco.2018.08.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Light P. (2017). The true size of government: Tracking Washington's blended workforce, 1984-2015 (p. 3). The Volcker Alliance.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Menendez J. (2018). The disclosure dilemma: When and why job applicants differ in disclosing their disability status [Doctoral dissertation, Colorado State University, Libraries].</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Moss K., Burris S., Ullman M., Johnson M. (2001). Unfunded mandate: An empirical study of the implementation of the Americans with Disabilities Act by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. University of Kansas Law Review, 50, 1–110.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mudrick N. R. (1997). Employment discrimination laws for disability: Utilization and outcome. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 549(1), 53–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716297549001005</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Novak J. (2017). Making the cut when applying for jobs online. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 46(3), 293–299. https://doi.org/10.3233/jvr-170864</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP). (2014). Federal Contract Compliance Manual (p. 1). <ulink href="http://dol.gov/ofccp/regs/compliance/fccm/FCCM-fimal%5f508c.pdf">http://dol.gov/ofccp/regs/compliance/fccm/FCCM-fimal%5f508c.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP). (2018a). Directive 2018-05. https://<ulink href="http://www.dol.gov/agencies/ofccp/directives/2018-05">www.dol.gov/agencies/ofccp/directives/2018-05</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP). (2018b). FY 2019 congressional budget justification. https://<ulink href="http://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/legacy-files/budget/2019/CBJ-2019-V2-10.pdf">www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/legacy-files/budget/2019/CBJ-2019-V2-10.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Perez V. M. (2015). Americans with photo ID: A breakdown of demographic characteristics. Project Vote.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Phillips K. G., Houtenville A. J., O'Neill J., Katz E. (2019). The effectiveness of employer practices to recruit, hire, and retain employees with disabilities: Supervisor perspectives. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 51(3), 339–353. https://doi.org/10.3233/JVR-191050</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rehabilitation Act of1973, Pub. L. No. 93-112, 87 Stat. 355, codified as amended at 29 U.S.C. §§701-797.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schall C. M. (1998). The Americans with Disabilities Act—Are we keeping our promise? An analysis of the effect of the ADA on the employment of persons with disabilities. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 10(3), 191–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1052-2263(98)00024-5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Silverman A., Mendez M. A., Bell E. (2019). Understanding the employment experiences of Americans who are legally blind. Journal of Rehabilitation, 85(1), 44–52.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stein M. A., Stein P. J. (2006). Beyond disability civil rights. Hastings IJ, 58, 1203–1240.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stein M. A., Waterstone M. E. (2006). Disability, disparate impact, and class actions. Duke Law Journal, 56, 861–922. https://doi.org/10.2307/40040561</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Taylor D. M. (2018, November). Americans with disabilities: 2014 Household Economic Studies. United State Census Bureau. https://<ulink href="http://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2018/demo/p70-152.pdf">www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2018/demo/p70-152.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> U.S. Census Bureau. (n.d.). Workers with a disability by detailed occupation. https://<ulink href="http://www.census.gov/data/tables/2017/demo/disability/acs-17.html">www.census.gov/data/tables/2017/demo/disability/acs-17.html</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> U.S. Department of Labor/Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs. (2019). Monetary relief obtained. https://<ulink href="http://www.dol.gov/agencies/ofccp/about/data/accomplishments">www.dol.gov/agencies/ofccp/about/data/accomplishments</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> U.S.Department of Labor/Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs. (n.d.). Frequently asked questions. https://<ulink href="http://www.dol.gov/agencies/ofccp/faqs">www.dol.gov/agencies/ofccp/faqs</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (2016). Annual report on the federal work force. fiscal year 2016. EEOC.gov. https://<ulink href="http://www.eeoc.gov/federal-sector/reports/annual-report-federal-workforce-fiscal-year-2016">www.eeoc.gov/federal-sector/reports/annual-report-federal-workforce-fiscal-year-2016</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (2019). Statutes by issue (charges filed with EEOC) FY 2010 through FY 2019. EEOC.gov. https://<ulink href="http://www.eeoc.gov/statistics/statutes-issue-charges-filed-eeoc-fy-2010-fy-2019">www.eeoc.gov/statistics/statutes-issue-charges-filed-eeoc-fy-2010-fy-2019</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> von Schrader S., Bruyère S. M. (2018). Survey report: What works? How federal contractors are implementing Section 503. Yang-Tan Institute on Employment and Disability.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> von Schrader S., Malzer V., Bruyère S. (2014). Perspectives on disability disclosure: The importance of employer practices and workplace climate. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 26(4), 237–255. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10672-013-9227-9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> von Schrader S., Nazarov Z. E. (2015). Employer characteristics associated with discrimination charges under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 26(3), 153–163. https://doi.org/10.1177/1044207314533385</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Weber M. (2015). Numerical goals for employment of people with disabilities by federal agencies and contractors. Saint Louis University Journal of Health Law & Policy, 9, 35.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0179507852-12"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibtext> The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> This project was funded by the National Industries for the Blind.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Marco Tarantino and Jared Reyes</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib76" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref57"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1438746
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Experiences of Legally Blind Individuals at Different Stages of the Employment Cycle as These Relate to Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Marco+Tarantino%22">Marco Tarantino</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Jared+Reyes%22">Jared Reyes</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Journal+of+Disability+Policy+Studies%22"><i>Journal of Disability Policy Studies</i></searchLink>. 2024 35(2):97-105.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: SAGE Publications and Hammill Institute on Disabilities. 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks, CA 91320. Tel: 800-818-7243; Tel: 805-499-9774; Fax: 800-583-2665; e-mail: journals@sagepub.com; Web site: https://sagepub.com
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 9
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Federal+Legislation%22">Federal Legislation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Disabilities%22">Disabilities</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Blindness%22">Blindness</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Visual+Impairments%22">Visual Impairments</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Partial+Vision%22">Partial Vision</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Equal+Opportunities+%28Jobs%29%22">Equal Opportunities (Jobs)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Labor+Force%22">Labor Force</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Employees%22">Employees</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Job+Applicants%22">Job Applicants</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Affirmative+Action%22">Affirmative Action</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Stakeholders%22">Stakeholders</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Adults%22">Adults</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Personnel+Management%22">Personnel Management</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Massachusetts%22">Massachusetts</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22California%22">California</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Ohio%22">Ohio</searchLink>
– Name: SubjectThesaurus
  Label: Laws, Policies and Program Identifiers
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SU" term="%22Rehabilitation+Act+1973%22">Rehabilitation Act 1973</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1177/10442073231158767
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1044-2073<br />1538-4802
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: The most recent data on the labor force participation rate of individuals who identify as being blind or having vision loss in the United States indicate it is approximately 44%. In 2014, the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs promulgated regulations pertaining to Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 to address the continued lack of employment opportunities for individuals with disabilities. These reforms had the potential to expand individuals with disabilities' employment horizons as it was estimated that the number of employees who work directly under a federal contract number in the millions. Five years later, it is unclear how federal contractors are implementing these alterations to recruit and retain legally blind individuals. Using quantitative analysis of responses from 140 current/former legally blind employees and job applicants, this research measured the current employment outcomes of the legally blind community in relation to the Section 503 regulations update. Gaps in employment for legally blind individuals existed, especially in regards to the job classifications in which they found the most success and whether the position held was disability-oriented. These results will inform HR professionals, policymakers, and blind advocates on how to proceed in developing effective disability-conscious workplace laws and policies.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1438746
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1438746
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1177/10442073231158767
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 9
        StartPage: 97
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Federal Legislation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Disabilities
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Blindness
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Visual Impairments
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Partial Vision
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Equal Opportunities (Jobs)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Labor Force
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Employees
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Job Applicants
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Affirmative Action
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Stakeholders
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Adults
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Personnel Management
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Massachusetts
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: California
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Ohio
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Rehabilitation Act 1973
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Experiences of Legally Blind Individuals at Different Stages of the Employment Cycle as These Relate to Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Marco Tarantino
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Jared Reyes
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 09
              Type: published
              Y: 2024
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1044-2073
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1538-4802
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 35
            – Type: issue
              Value: 2
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Journal of Disability Policy Studies
              Type: main
ResultId 1