Evaluating the Accessibility of American Job Centers for People with Disabilities

“The main objective of this study is to rigorously measure the accessibility of the nation’s [American Job Center] AJC system to people with disabilities and, based on this information, make recommendations for improvements, as appropriate. This study addresses the following primary research questions:

1. To what degree do AJCs provide accessible services to people with disabilities [PWDs] (overall accessibility)?
2. How does this vary by the type of accessibility (physical, programmatic, and communication)?
3. How does accessibility vary by the characteristics of AJCs (e.g., affiliate vs. comprehensive or urban vs. non-urban)?” (p.iv).

“Prior to this study, there had been no comprehensive survey of AJCs” (p.iv).

“In this study, degree of accessibility is defined as whether or not a person with a disability can meaningfully receive, participate in, and benefit from services offered by the AJC system. An AJC may meet the minimum requirements for accessibility, but a person with a disability may still face barriers in accessing services that persons without disabilities do not face. Hence, measuring accessibility of the AJC system must include whether AJCs offer information, explanation, and support, with the necessary accommodations, to enable a person with multiple barriers to employment to take advantage of the full range of services offered by the AJC–self-service, staff-assisted services, and training….[The authors’] approach to measuring AJC accessibility focuses on the three domains found in the Workforce Investment Act…/Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act… requirements and specified in the scope of work for this project:

• Physical accessibility refers to the extent to which facilities are designed, constructed, or altered so that they are accessible and usable by [PWDs].
• Communications accessibility refers to the extent to which Center staff and partner agencies are able to communicate with [PWDs] as effectively as with others.
• Programmatic accessibility refers to the extent to which [PWDs] have access to the full range of services available to all AJC customers regardless of disability” (p.iv-v).

To answer the research questions, the authors “administered [a] web-based survey to all of the estimated 2,453 comprehensive and affiliate AJCs. [The authors] conducted in-person data collection at 100 randomly selected AJCs,” (p.12) including interviews with program staff and focus groups with PWDs.

(Abstractor: Author and Website Staff)

The findings below correspond to the report’s three research questions. 1. “To what degree do AJCs provide accessible services to people with disabilities? • Almost two-thirds (63%)…were ‘not fully accessible’ to [PWDs]….[of which] only one center was rated ‘not accessible’ in all three domains. The other centers were ‘partially accessible’…. • [J]ust over a third…(37%) were…‘fully accessible’ to [PWDs] across all three domains” (p.vi-vii). 2. “How does accessibility vary by type (physical, communication, and programmatic)?” (p.vii) “Physical Accessibility • A higher portion…were ‘fully accessible’ in the physical domain than were ‘fully accessible’ in the programmatic and communication domains…. • Almost half of all AJCs (48%) were…‘exemplary’…. Communications Accessibility • AJCs were categorized as ‘fully accessible’ in about three-quarters (70%) of Centers…. • The majority of the ‘not fully accessible’ AJCs were at least ‘partially accessible,’ with…(4%)…‘not accessible.’ • A small percentage (6%)…were…‘exemplary’…. Programmatic Accessibility…. • Fewer than half (40%) of all AJCs [were] ‘fully accessible’…. • Among the AJCs that were not…‘fully accessible,’ almost all were categorized as ‘partially accessible’ (98%)…. • Only…(4%) of AJCs were…‘exemplary’ in the programmatic domain” (p.viii). 3. “How does accessibility vary by the characteristics of AJCs?... • Urban AJCs were more likely to be ‘accessible’ than non-urban AJCs…. • Comprehensive AJCs were more likely to be ‘fully accessible’ than affiliate AJCs (41% vs. 26%). • AJCs operated by for-profit firms, or mixed consortia of public and private agencies, were more likely to be ‘fully accessible’ than publicly operated AJCs (44% and 45% vs. 34%)…. • Northeastern AJCs tend to have higher programmatic accessibility scores…. • AJCs serving a larger number of customers were more likely to be fully accessible than smaller AJCs” (p.ix). “[M]any workforce system staff are eager for more information and guidance” (p.ix). Accessibility Recommendations: • Physical: most AJCs are already accessible, while others may have little control over the accessibility of the building in which they reside. • Communications: limited budgets and limited staff training are obstacles to accessibility. • Programmatic: big changes are needed. The authors provide specific recommendations related to: o Awareness and Training o Staffing o Benefits counseling o Collaboration o Outreach o Involving PWDs in AJC Accessibility (Abstractor: Author and Website Staff)

• Last Updated:
• Created:
• Resource Publication Date: 2017
• Author(s): Chamberlain, Anne; Heuser, Aaron; Kracker Selzer, Amy; Magill, Kay; Matite, Maxwell, et al.
• Organizational Author(s): IMPAQ Intl; Burton Blatt Institute, Syracuse University; Universal Designers and Consultants, Inc.
• Funding Source: U.S. Department of Labor
• Resource Availability: Publicly available
• Posted by: Damon Jones
• Posted in: Workforce System Strategies