Add Us In

Add Us In: Draft Online Consortium Stakeholder Survey

Office of Disability Employment Policy
U.S. Department of Labor

April 12, 2013

Submitted to:

Department of Labor

The Office of Disability Employment Policy (ODEP)

200 Constitution Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20210

Submitted by:

Economic Systems Inc.

3141 Fairview Park Drive, Suite 700

Falls Church, VA 22042

703.642.5225

www.econsys.com

Contents

I. Introduction 1

II. Add Us In Consortium Stakeholder Survey 2

Engagement 2

Collaboration 3

Leadership 6

Attitudes and Experiences 8

Cultural Competence 10

III. References 17

1. Introduction

We developed the following stakeholder survey instrument to be administered to all consortium participants. The survey is organized into several sections:

• Engagement

• Collaboration

• Leadership

• Attitudes and Experiences

• Cultural Competence

Below, each section is labeled. However, participants will not see the section headings when the survey is administered. Consortium membership will be pre-filled in items 8 and 9.

The survey will be administered through a Section 508 compliant online survey tool such as Survey Monkey. Respondents will receive an email containing a unique link for the survey. Occasional reminders will be sent to non-respondents with increasing frequency as the deadline for completing the survey approaches. To maximize response, we recommend an administration period of no less than three weeks.

As email addresses are compiled for respondents, the type of organizational affiliation and length of service will be collected from consortium leadership. Thus, it is not necessary to collect this data as part of the survey.

2. Add Us In Consortium Stakeholder Survey

Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey of consortium members for the Add Us In (AUI) initiative. Your feedback is important and will help the Office of Disability Employment Policy better understand the Add Us In consortium collaborative process, leadership and experiences. The items in this survey were developed to capture information that covers the full range of organizations and activities involved in Add Us In. Consequently, some items may resonate more with your experiences than others. Please click on the responses that best represent your views and perspectives. Your responses will be held confidentially and we will not produce any report that identifies you individually. Aggregate responses will be used to help ODEP improve service delivery, products and communications.

Engagement

1. How involved are you in the following Add Us In consortium activities?

	Not at all involved	A little involved	Somewhat involved	Moderately involved	Very involved
Strategizing	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝
Recruiting businesses	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝
Preparing businesses to hire and employ individuals with disabilities	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝
Recruiting individuals with disabilities	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝
Preparing individuals with disabilities for employment	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝
Matching individuals with disabilities with employer needs	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝
Building relationships among businesses and community organizations	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝
Evaluating consortium activities	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝
Sustaining consortium activities	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝
Disseminating consortium practices	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝

Collaboration¹

2. Open communication is characteristic of the consortium.

Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝

3. There is much I could learn from other consortium members.

Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝

4. Information sharing in the consortium has increased my knowledge.

Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝

5. Combining knowledge within the consortium has resulted in new ideas and solutions.

Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝

6. We often share work experiences with each other in our consortium.

Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝

7. We keep all members up to date about current consortium activities.

Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝

8. Using the scale provided below, please rate the extent to which you currently interact with each of the following consortium members. Please skip your own row.

1 - Awareness: Aware of each other, Little communication
2 - Cooperation: Provide information to each other, Little to moderate communication
3 - Coordination: Moderate communication, Some shared decision making
4 - Coalition: Share ideas, Frequent communication, Work together in decision making
5 - Collaboration: Have mutual trust, Reach consensus on all decisions, Share ideas, Very frequent communication

	1 - Awareness	2 - Cooperation	3 - Coordination	4 - Coalition	5 - Collaboration
Member 1	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝
Member 2	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝
Member 3	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝
Member 4	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝
Member 5	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝

9. How likely are you to continue working with each of the following consortium members after the grant period? Please skip your own row.

	Very Unlikely	Unlikely	Neutral	Likely	Very Likely
Member 1	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝
Member 2	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝
Member 3	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝
Member 4	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝
Member 5	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝

Leadership

10. Consortium leadership has stature in their field or area of specialization.

Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝

11. Consortium leadership creates and communicates a clear vision for the consortium.

Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝

12. Consortium leadership facilitates development of an effective strategy to achieve the vision.

Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝

13. Consortium leadership unites the consortium into an effective team.

Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝

14. Consortium leadership builds effective alliances with other organizations.

Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝

15. Consortium leadership defers to others when they have more expertise.

Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝

16. Consortium leadership inspires members to achieve consortium goals.

Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝

17. Consortium leadership recognizes the value of my time.

Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝

18. Consortium leadership facilitates a network of relationships that help achieve consortium goals.

Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝

Attitudes and Experiences

19. The consortium is committed to continuous evaluation and results driven management.

Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝

20. To what extent has participation in the consortium changed your attitudes about employment of individuals in the consortium's targeted groups?

No change in attitudes	Reinforced attitudes I already had	Changed a little	Changed a moderate amount	Changed a lot
⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝

21. To what extent has participation in the consortium increased or expanded your ________?

	No increase	Reinforced current level	Increased a little	Increased a moderate amount	Increased a lot
Level of Community Involvement	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝
Access to Leadership Opportunities	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝
Network of Collaborative Relationships	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝

22. How much has participation in the consortium has increased your organization's disability diversity experiences?

	No increase	Reinforced existing level	Slight increase	Moderate increase	Large increase
Disability recruitment	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝
Disability hiring practices	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝
Disability diversity training practices	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝
Accommodation practices	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝
Customer pool	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝
Level of community visibility	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝
Involvement with peer organizations around disability issues	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝
Policies inclusive of individuals with disabilities	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝
Marketing or outreach practices to include individuals with disabilities	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝
Communication with members or customers about disability diversity	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝
Programming for members or customers about disability diversity	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝

Cultural Competence

23. How much has your understanding increased about the issues faced by individuals with disabilities who are also ________ since you began participating in the consortium?

	No increase in understanding	Reinforced what I already understand	Increased understanding a little	Increased understanding a moderate amount	Increased understanding a large amount
LGBT	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝
Veterans	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝
Women	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝
Racial or ethnic minorities	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝
Non-English speaking or English as a second language	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝
Former felons	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝

24. The consortium appeals to a cross-section of audiences (disability status, ethnicity, age, religion, language, socio-economic standing, sexual orientation).

Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝

25. How much has your understanding increased of how different types of disabilities can be accommodated in the workplace since you began participating the consortium?

	No increase in understanding	Reinforced what I already understand	Increased understanding a little	Increased understanding a moderate amount	Increased understanding a large amount
Physical Disability	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝
Sensory Disability	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝
Learning Disability	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝
Intellectual Disability	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝
Mental Health Disability	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝
Other	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝

26. Please rate your level of understanding of barriers to employment for individuals with disabilities targeted by your consortium.

	No understanding	Slight understanding	Somewhat of an understanding	Moderate understanding	Large amount of understanding
Before the consortium was formed	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝
Currently	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝

27. Please rate how much of a barrier to employment each of the following issues is for individuals served by your consortium.

	Not a barrier	Slight barrier	Somewhat of a barrier	Moderate barrier	Large barrier	Don't know
Limited prior work experience	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝
Limited transportation	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝
Limited soft skills	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝
Limited education	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝
Limited self confidence	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝
Fear of loss of benefits due to earnings	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝
Lack of family support for employment	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝
Disability related employment restrictions	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝
Prior incarceration	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝
Prior homelessness	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝
Prior substance abuse issues	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝
Prior discrimination	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝
Language barriers	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝

28. Please rate your understanding of potential issues faced by businesses targeted by your consortium when considering employing individuals with disabilities.

	No understanding of issues	Slight understanding of issues	Somewhat of an understanding of issues	Moderate understanding of issues	Large amount of understanding of issues
Before the consortium was formed	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝
Currently	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝

29. Please rate how much of a perceived barrier to disability diversity each of the following issues is to the businesses served by your consortium.

	Not a barrier	Slight barrier	Somewhat of a barrier	Moderate barrier	Large barrier	Don't know
General uncertainty	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝
Economic downturn	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝
Perceived to be time consuming	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝
Unfamiliarity about how to recruit or hire individuals with disabilities	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝
Perceived limited ability of individuals with disabilities to perform work	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝
Lack of qualified applicants	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝
Lack of knowledge or information about accommodating individuals with disabilities	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝
Fear of cost of accommodating of employees with disabilities	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝
Fear of cost of training of employees with disabilities	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝
Fear of cost of workers compensation	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝
Fear of cost of health insurance	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝
Fear of lower level of productivity of employees with disabilities	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝
Fear of absenteeism among employees with disabilities	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝
Fear of disciplinary action for employees with disabilities	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝
Fear of acceptance by other employees	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝
Fear of acceptance by customers	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝
Fear of potential legal issues	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝
Fear of increased government involvement or scrutiny	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝

30. Please rate your understanding of motives or incentives for businesses to employ individuals your consortium is serving.

	No understanding of incentives	Slight understanding of incentives	Somewhat understanding of incentives	Moderate understanding of incentives	Large amount of understanding of incentives
Before the consortium was formed	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝
Currently	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝

31. Please rate how much each of the following acts as an incentive for disability employment to the businesses served by your consortium.

	Not an incentive	Slight incentive	Somewhat of an incentive	Moderate incentive	Large incentive	Don’t know
Increased employee loyalty	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝
Increased customer loyalty	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝
Improved brand image with public	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝
Increased employee creativity	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝
Tax incentives	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝
Paid three-month employment trials	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝
Paid interns	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝
Altruism or sympathy	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝
Fairness or equal opportunity	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝
Reduced federal disability payments	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝
Increased business credibility	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝
Increased business stature	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝
Improved business efficiency or productivity	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝
Expanded customer base	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝	⃝

Thank you for completing the Add Us In survey!

3. References

Domzal, C., Houtenville, A., and Sharma, R. (2008). Survey of Employer Perspectives on the Employment of People with Disabilities: Technical Report. (Prepared under contract to the Office of Disability and Employment Policy, U.S. Department of Labor). McLean, VA: CESSI.

Frey, B. B., Lohmeier, J. H., Lee, S. W., & Tollefson, N. (2006). Measuring collaboration among grant partners. American Journal of Evaluation, 27, 383-392.

Sveiby, K.E. and Simons, R. (2002), Collaborative climate and effectiveness of knowledge work, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 6 No. 5, pp. 420-33.

1 Questions 2 – 8 are adapted from the Collaborative Climate instrument developed by Sveiby and Simmons, 2002. Questions 9 and 10 are based on the collaboration instrument from Frey, Lohmeier, and Tollefson, 2006.