This study investigated the effectiveness of employment support services provided to organizations in the context of the quota policies for hiring people with disabilities (PWD). Empirical analyses using the propensity score matching method were conducted on a representative sample of organizations in South Korea that had utilized the PWD employment support services offered by the Korea Employment Agency for the Disabled. In short, the employment support services provided to organizations appeared to be effective in enhancing employment of PWD. Specifically, the organizations that received the PWD employment support services (a) had a higher probability of hiring persons with disabilities, (b) fulfilled the mandated quota for PWD better, and (c) hired more individuals with severe disabilities compared with the organizations that did not receive such services. Implications and limitations of this study and directions for future research are discussed.
AmeriM.SchurL.AdyaM.BentleyF. S.McKayP.KruseD. (2018). The disability employment puzzle: A field experiment on employer hiring behavior. ILR Review, 71, 329–364.
2.
AustinP. C. (2011). Optimal caliper widths for propensity-score matching when estimating differences in means and differences in proportions in observational studies. Pharmaceutical Statistics, 10, 150–161.
3.
BetzN. E. (2008). Advances in vocational theories. In BrownS. D.LentR. W. (Eds.), Handbook of counseling psychology (3rd ed., pp. 357-374). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
4.
CaliendoM.KopeinigS. (2008). Some practical guidance for the implementation of propensity score matching. Journal of Economic Surveys, 22, 31–72.
5.
CarterE. W.AustinD.TrainorA. A. (2012). Predictors of postschool employment outcomes for young adults with severe disabilities. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 23(1), 50–63.
6.
ChanF.StrauserD.MaherP.LeeE. J.JonesR.JohnsonE. T. (2010). Demand-side factors related to employment of people with disabilities: A survey of employers in the Midwest region of the United States. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 20, 412–419.
7.
DawnR. (2012). Challenges in the employment of persons with disabilities. Economic and Political Weekly, 47(36), 20–22.
8.
DiMaggioP. J.PowellW. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48, 147–160.
9.
Employment Development Institute of Korea Employment Agency for the Disabled. (2016, December). 2016 survey of employment status of the disabled in business. Available from http://www.edi.or.kr
10.
GerfinM.LechnerM. (2002). A microeconometric evaluation of the active labour market policy in Switzerland. The Economic Journal, 112, 854–893.
11.
GewurtzR. E.LanganS.ShandD. (2016). Hiring people with disabilities: A scoping review. Work, 54, 135–148.
12.
HabeckR.KregelJ.HeadC.YasudaS. (2007). Salient and subtle aspects of demand side approaches for employment retention: Lessons for public policymakers. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 26, 21–27.
13.
HansenB. B.BowersJ. (2008). Covariate balance in simple, stratified and clustered comparative studies. Statistical Science, 23, 219–236.
14.
HarcourtM.LamH.HarcourtS. (2005). Discriminatory practices in hiring: Institutional and rational economic perspectives. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 16, 2113–2132.
15.
HongG.RaudenbushS. W. (2005). Effects of kindergarten retention policy on children’s cognitive growth in reading and mathematics. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 27, 205–224.
16.
HughesJ. N.ChenQ.ThoemmesF.KwokO. (2010). An investigation of the relationship between retention in first grade and performance on high stakes tests in third grade. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 32, 166–182.
17.
IacusS.KingG.PorroG. (2009). CEM: Coarsened Exact Matching Software. Available from http://j.mp/2oSKW85
18.
IngeK.StrobelW.WehmanP.ToddJ.TargettP. (2000). Vocational outcomes for persons with severe physical disabilities: Design and implementation of workplace supports. Neurorehabilitation, 15, 175–187.
19.
KimW.ParkH.ShinH.KimM.JooK. (2016). Evaluation on the employment promotion projects. Seongnam-si: Korea Employment Agency for the Disabled.
20.
KulkarniM.KoteJ. (2014). Increasing employment of people with disabilities: The role and views of disability training and placement agencies. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 26, 177–193.
21.
KulkarniM.Lengnick-HallM. L. (2014). Obstacles to success in the workplace for people with disabilities: A review and research agenda. Human Resource Development Review, 13, 158–180.
22.
MontD. (2004). Disability employment policy (Social Protection Discussion Paper Series, No. SP 0413). Washington, DC: World Bank.
23.
MorganC. (2017). Reducing bias using propensity score matching. Journal of Nuclear Cardiology, 25, 404–406.
24.
PillingD. S. (2002). Early employment careers of people with disabilities in the National Child Development Study. Work, 18, 75–87.
25.
ProcknowG.RoccoT. S. (2016). The unheard, unseen, and often forgotten: An examination of disability in the human resource development literature. Human Resource Development Review, 15, 379–403.
26.
RosenbaumP. R.RubinD. B. (1985). Constructing a control group using multivariate matched sampling methods that incorporate the propensity score. The American Statistician, 39, 33–38.
27.
SchurL. (2002). The difference a job makes: The effects of employment among people with disabilities. Journal of Economic Issues, 36, 339–348.
SmeetsV. M. J.van LieropB. A. G.VanhoutvinJ. P. G.AldenkampA. P.NijhuisF. J. N. (2007). Epilepsy and employment: Literature review. Epilepsy & Behavior, 10, 354–362.
30.
StuartE. A. (2010). Matching methods for causal inference: A review and a look forward. Statistical Science: A Review Journal of the Institute of Mathematical Statistics, 25(1), 1–21.
31.
ThoemmesF. (2012). Propensity score optimized matching. In Using propensity scores in quasi-experimental designs (pp. 128–146). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
32.
ThoemmesF. J.KimE. S. (2011). A systematic review of propensity score methods in the social sciences. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 46, 90–118.
33.
ZigmondN. (2006). Twenty four months after high school: Paths taken by youth diagnosed with severe emotional and behavioral disorders. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 14, 99–107.
