Still Waiting on Disability Equity

Despite calls for more research and practice into disability equity, surprisingly little headway has been made. Dr. Robinson wrote in 2020 that due to public administration’s interdisciplinary nature, the field was ideal for the study of disability. At that time, no public administration journals had consistently published work regarding disability. By that same token, most disability studies journals did not publish many articles regarding public administration. However, if one searches disability and equity in major public administration journals today, the number of results is still disappointing.

Intuitively, several areas stand out as ripe for research in public administration. First, what has stood in the way of meaningful integration of people with disabilities into public life? In an advanced capitalist society, the answer usually lies with economic integration; therefore, areas such as administrative burden and accommodation could provide crucial insights. Additionally, it has become important to consider how programmatic outcomes and differing disability definitions could lead to disenchantment with public services, ultimately fostering populist sentiment.

The main piece of legislation in the United States regarding disability is the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). It is composed of five titles which set forth the legal requirements for certain organizations to accommodate those with disabilities and the protections that people with disabilities are entitled to. Overall, the main purpose of the ADA was economic integration – protection against discrimination and workplace accommodation. However, even with this, employment for individuals aged 16 and over remains between 20-24%, while unemployment for this group hovers around 7%. This paints a complicated picture, as unemployment appears low, but individuals enrolled in programs such as Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) are not counted as being unemployed. Adding to this is the fact that despite the significant barriers preventing enrollment in SSDI, the number of individuals receiving benefits through that program has continued to expand.

While SSDI enrollment has grown, it is one example of an area ripe for research in public administration and administrative burden. The SSDI program itself is difficult to enroll in, and the program’s reforms incentivized individuals to return to work. This incurs a steep learning curve, as individuals often need to apply or appeal several times before being accepted; psychological costs are also borne, as for many individuals, SSDI is a last resort. Thus, burgeoning areas of research, such as the construction of burden and how individuals cope with and overcome the costs associated with administrative burden, will be key to improving public programs.

An important part of improving public programs is the construction of burden premised on individual identity and ideas of deservedness. Often, one’s ability is theoretically idealized to an extent that is unrealistic and sometimes exclusionary. What results from this theoretical exercise can be seen by practical effects: one’s difficulty in being hired or an employer’s lack of disclosure and accommodation. Through research in adjacent disciplines, it has been shown that due to the perceived cost of accommodation, employers are often discouraged from hiring people with disabilities. This is notwithstanding the fact that employers can receive government aid for accommodations.

Additionally, accommodation is vastly under-researched in public administration. Again, work in other disciplines has drawn conclusions about accommodation, but often regarding private sector employment. Accommodation is premised on disclosure of an impairment. Therefore, accommodation starts with disclosure. It has been shown that individuals with more support and past positive experiences are more likely to disclose. This also means that individuals with past negative experiences adopt strategies to mask their impairment. Likewise, different disabilities will require different accommodations. How varying needs are met has attracted little to no attention in public administration. Most of this research has been conducted outside the United States. The implications for public and nonprofit employment should be explored as the legal mandate in the ADA covers public entities and those funded by public money (i.e., nonprofits).

Moreover, it is important to consider the relationship between how disability is defined and public disenchantment. While there are several definitions used by different agencies, they can be distilled down to medical criteria and self-disclosure. Those that use self-disclosure are used for public research purposes and to update population demographics, such as with the census. Medical criteria are used to prevent waste and fraud, but an important dissonance is also revealed: this standard can be incredibly restrictive. Recipients of programs that use medical criteria as a standard sometimes functionally subsist unless they return to work.

Ultimately, this shows how disenchantment can occur: a lack of accommodation in the workforce and the administrative burden of staying program compliant. A common thread, in part, seems to be an aging population working physically arduous jobs (often the only job in one’s county with a livable wage). The root of disenchantment is also the difficulty of defining what a disability is and the consequences that emerge from that view in governance. Disability equity may reveal answers to other questions that vex public administrators.