Summary:

This document is a review of California State Government's efforts to increase the employment and equitable treatment of persons with disabilities [PWDs].  It has been prepared by the Association of California State Employees with Disabilities [ACSED] [formerly DISS] and it shows the need for attention and progress in numerous areas. These include the significant under attainment of disability employment goals, inequitable treatment of PWDs, incomplete compliance with statutory requirements and under usage of effective hiring practices intended to facilitate progress. These issues stem primarily from a lack of management support, insufficient resources, and low priorities.

Included is a set of action recommendations intended to address the areas of concern noted above and to enhance State Government's disability employment program.

ACSED is committed to increasing the awareness of the issues identified in this review and the proposed recommendations, and to working cooperatively with all appropriate agencies and departments, especially the State Personnel Board [SPB] and the Department of Rehabilitation [DOR], and other organizations to improve the employment, retention, and promotion of qualified employees with disabilities in California State Government.

Introduction:

As part of its overall Affirmative Action/Equal Employment Opportunity [AA/EEO] effort, California State Government has had a disability employment program, administered by the State Personnel Board [SPB], since the late 1970s.  While always lacking sufficient resources to be highly effective, this program, with the assistance of other organizations such as ACSED [then known as Disabled in State Service (DISS)], has made modest progress promoting employment opportunities and fair treatment for persons with disabilities in State Government.  When the State rescinded its AA effort, as a result of the passage of Proposition 209 of 1996 and the loss of an ensuing lawsuit to maintain an AA program, resources and support for the disability employment program also diminished even though PWDs were not covered by the Proposition.  In the following years, many Departments fell further behind in meeting the hiring goals for PWDs.  Eventually, this led to the issuance of the Governor's Executive Order [EO] S-4-05 in 2005, as a way to restimulate interest and support for the employment of PWDs in State Government. 

The EO, issued by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger on June 22, 2005 states, "State Government has an opportunity and a responsibility to lead by example, ensuring individuals with disabilities have an open door to the many opportunities in public service." The Order, which assigned SPB and DOR the lead roles in assisting departments, also indicates, "All state agencies, departments and commissions shall utilize best efforts with respect to recruitment, hiring, advancement, and other terms, conditions, and privileges of employment..."

In 2007, a partnership of State agencies, led by the Department of Rehabilitation, and including ACSED, conducted the "Creating Inclusion - The State as a Model Employer Career Symposium."  In an October 17, 2007 letter to the Symposium attendees, the Governor said, "The time has come - and is far past - for California to generate more opportunities and a more inclusive environment for all people.  This is why I signed an Executive Order in June of 2005, directing California agencies to utilize their vast resources to increase job opportunities for those with disabilities."

It is two-and-a-half years since the Governor issued the EO and it is important that we review the current status of disability employment in State government.  Such a review is necessary to determine where we are and what is needed to create and sustain a successful disability employment program, one that will establish California State Government as a model employer.

This paper has been prepared by The Association of California State Employees With Disabilities [ACSED], Les Treece-Sinclair, MPA, President. In undertaking this review, the assistance of SPB staff is acknowledged.  Without their help, this document would not be possible. Any errors in accuracy or interpretation, however, are solely the responsibility of the author.

ASCED [formerly Disabled In State Service (DISS)] is an independent nonprofit public benefit 501[c][3] California corporation. It was formed over 25 years ago and it is directed by PWDs. Its mission is to ensure action on disability issues in State government and a key goal is to expand employment, promotional and appointed opportunities for persons with disabilities in State government.  Over the years ACSED, amongst many things, successfully promoted the State legislation that created Disability Advisory Committees [DACs] in departments; persuaded the State Personnel Board [SPB] to adopt the 11.4 disability parity rate in 1996; and is currently working with the Public Employees Retirement System [PERS] to address aspects of their Long Term Care [LTC] Program that exclude some State employees with disabilities.

Review:

Following are key points in our review of the current effort [see Attachment I for more details].

Despite the efforts of the SPB, support of the annual Disability Employment Awareness Month [October] observances and proclamations, intent of the California Workforce Inclusion Act [AB 925 of 2002], the spirit and intent of the Americans With Disabilities Act [ADA], California State Government achieved only 68 percent of the disability employment goal in effect from 1996 to 2004 and, so far, only 52 percent of the employment goal in effect from 2004 to the present.

Fifteen of 17 departments that employ nearly two-thirds of all State employees have achieved only 30 to 60 percent of the disability parity rate.

PWDs are employed in all 14 of the State's occupational groups, but are also below parity [16.6 percent] in all of them [and above 9.0 percent in just five of them]. Departments are not required to achieve parity across all occupational groups.

For the four fiscal years, FY2003 through FY2006, PWDs received fewer than their fair share of promotions compared to their proportion of the state work force. And this trend continues for the time period July 1 - Sept. 30, 2007.

State departments are making only minimal use of the Limited Examination and Appointment Process [LEAP], an alternative exam process, as a tool to hire PWDs.

PWDs are often the recipients of a disproportionate share of adverse actions. ACSED is concerned that this may be due to manager's lack of knowledge of the reasonable accommodation process and the lengthy and cumbersome process for securing adaptive equipment and support service assistants.  In addition, PWDs may not know their rights to reasonable accommodations or effective practices for negotiating such accommodations. Conversely PWDs have filed more discrimination complaints against departments than their proportion of the state work force.

Despite being required by State law and a Governor's EO, numerous departments still do not have Disability Advisory Committees [DACs]. And there is great variance in the utilization, management support and access, membership, etc. of DACs from department to department.

While the number of departments required to submit disability employment goals to the SPB declined from 2004 [63] to 2006 [49], the number of departments that did not even submit their required goals to SPB nearly doubled in those two years [from 15 to 26]. Also more departments had a lower disability representation rate in 2006 than in 2005, while fewer departments had a higher disability rate in 2006 than in 2005.

In addition, several other serious issues impact the state's goal of being a model employer:

o  The number of PWDs receiving Upward Mobility Appointments is low.

o  PWDs are treated differently in some fringe benefits, e.g., Long Term Care.

o  The implementation of a work plan to address EO S-4-05, developed by DOR and SPB, has been limited by the required use of existing resources. 

o  The recent changes to the Government Code covering the State's AA/EEO program are not yet fully implemented.

In summary, the above review underscores the need for attention, support and improvements in California State government's disability employment program.

Recommendations:

Following is a set of recommendations, which we believe, would do much to enhance the State government's disability employment program.

1]  The State Personnel Board and the Department of Rehabilitation are partners in the implementation of EO S-4-05.  We recommend that they expand this partnership to include a Task Force with representatives from, but not limited to, ACSED, State Disability Advisory Council, the Governor's Committee for the Employment of People With Disabilities.  Such a Task Force would help bring more attention to the need and would leverage more resources, which are already scarce, to address the full implementation of the EO, the issues identified here, and the overall enhancement of State Government's disability employment program.

2]  Undertake a review of EO S-4-05 and the Government Code provisions on disability employment, especially Sections 19230 to 19237 and 19790 to 19798, and related legislation such as the California Workforce Inclusion Act [AB 925 of 2002], to determine if there is a complete and coordinated program for the employment of PWDs.  Where appropriate, we recommend SPB, DOR, or other partners such as ACSED develop needed policy recommendations, including possible legislative proposals for future consideration.

3]  Create a visible sense of commitment and value to the disability employment program.  Encourage the Governor to become more involved in this effort, for its own inherent worth and to help to ensure pools of qualified new state employees.  We recommend the Governor express support for his EO at cabinet meetings, direct Agency Secretaries to do the same with their Department Directors, create a poster with him on it supporting disability employment and PWDs as valued members of the State Government work force, etc.

4]  Establish accountability for the disability employment program.  Agency Secretaries should be held accountable by the Governor's Office for making substantial progress on disability employment.  Department Directors should be held accountable by Agency Secretaries.  And Directors should hold their staffs accountable for results.

5]  Create a comprehensive working definition of what constitutes a "model" disability employment program.  We recommend that it should be more than just the attainment of the disability parity rate, it should include other elements such as occupational group parity, promotion rate equity, ongoing outreach to organizations and service systems where qualified applicants with disabilities may be found [such as DOR, college and universities, etc], regular exam usage, LEAP usage, DACs, Upward Mobility, adverse action and discrimination complaints levels and issues, fringe benefit equity, work culture and PWDs, etc.

6]  Evaluate all aspects of Disability Advisory Committees [DACs]. Begin by reviewing all State departments to determine exactly which don't have DACs, and request that the Governor require Agency Secretaries to ensure DACs in  departments under their supervision that do not have them. Review all DACs to determine all aspects [including size, meeting frequency, management access, staff support, type of activities undertaken, how much time members given, etc]. Use this information to develop an enhanced DAC guidance. Review legal requirements for DACs to determine adequacy and completeness, develop proposals where needed. Consider expanding DAC responsibilities by adding duties as employee networks.

7] Undertake a thorough review of the Limited Exam and Appointment Process [LEAP] to assess its effectiveness and to determine what alternatives might be available [see item 8c] and what improvements are needed.  Some items to consider are making more LEAP exams available online, referring LEAP candidates to departments on same name lists as regular exam candidates [LEAP names to not be identified as LEAP], increasing the number of LEAP classes, conducting LEAP training for departments, helping departments to identify LEAP placements that may not be successful and to take corrective action.

8] In addition, we recommend the following actions be prioritized and implemented:

a]  Develop materials to help promote State Government as a good employer of individuals who have disabilities. Expand recruitment of PWDs.

b] Identify, compile and share best disability employment practices of California State agencies.

c]  Review Federal Civil Service and other state's disability exam and placement programs that could be of effective use in California.

d]  Actively encourage the use of student assistant positions and expand intern work experiences across State departments for PWDs.

e]  Enhance resources available to SPB for disability employment responsibilities, including monitoring, enforcement, and timely generation of disability/disability useful IT/DP reports. 

f]  As more PWDs enter State service via regular exams than LEAP, develop and implement an increased effort to enhance PWD participation in regular exams.

g]  Require disability parity in occupational groups.

h]  Collect current/ongoing data on disability adverse actions.  Determine why adverse actions are so high against PWDs and develop corrective actions.

i]  Determine why PWDs file so many discrimination complaints and develop corrective steps.

j]  Provide guidance and establish expectation that departments will review work culture and promote improved integration of PWDs.  This should include mentoring.

k]  Review State fringe benefits to determine if PWDs are excluded or treated differently.  Address findings.

l]  Review employment related items such as reasonable accommodation; interpreter and service assistant availability; other communication issues;  alternative formats; emergency evacuation, and address any inadequate findings.  

m]  Establish monitoring process such that departments that may have lower level of PWDs this year than last can be identified as soon as possible and remedial steps taken. Also, take steps to ensure that departments that need to submit disability employment goals do so on a timely basis.

(See Attachment I:  The Numbers Behind The Review )

(See Update 1: PWDs In State Government )