2020 Validation of Key Findings from the 2019 Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat Benchmarking Study of Workplace Accommodations in the Federal Public Service

Benchmarking Study result

Phase 2 of the Benchmarking Study revealed substantial concerns about stigma associated with requesting accommodations. Respondents consistently described their emotions in the period prior to submitting their accommodation request as negative. They described worries about negative perceptions among their peers, fear of damaging their relationship with their supervisor (and resulting damage to their career prospects) and concerns about their privacy and confidentiality. A substantial proportion (43%) said that, at some point in the past, they chose not to request an accommodation that would have improved their ability to carry out their job-related duties. In addition, experiences with harassment and discrimination are more widely reported by those making an accommodation request than by employees with a disability as a whole (the latter based on respondents to the 2019 PSES, most of whom have not made an accommodation request); further research is required to support a causal link.

Findings from the literature

Other research has shown that hesitation to request accommodations is linked to stigma and concerns about how their request will be received. The 2017 CSD, which was conducted among people with a disability who are working, found the most common reasons for choosing not to ask for an accommodation are discomfort about asking (42%) and a fear of negative outcomes (34%). Similarly, a 2018 survey of Ontario public service (OPS) employees found that those who did not make a request cited concerns around stigma, impact on their career progression, concern about privacy or confidentiality and uncertainty about the outcome. A study by the Business Disability Forum in the UK (2019) identified concerns over employer perceptions and the reactions of colleagues as some of the key reasons for not requesting additional or new accommodations.

The research also shows employers worry that co-workers will react negatively to workers with disabilities who receive accommodations. A study by Bonaccio et al. (2019) describes the perception among some supervisors that “employees without disabilities will resent accommodations that are provided to those who need them.” (page 149) These include worries that co-workers without disabilities will perceive accommodations as unjust or feel that work is being unfairly redistributed following accommodations. Similar observations were made by some supervisors within open-ended responses in the Benchmarking Study.

Beyond perceptions, some research has confirmed negative workplace experiences for those requesting accommodations. Research with workers who received accommodation at a German industrial workplace (Kensbock et al., 2017) found that around half of participants described some kind of negative interpersonal experience (including some who reported bullying or maltreatment). A large study of private-sector US companies (Cornell, 2014) found that a small group (10–15%) reported that their co-workers were resentful of the accommodations they had received. However, the researchers concluded that, in fact, most co-workers had positive reactions to accommodations, according to all of the groups involved. When making an accommodation request, a majority in each group (61% of employees with disabilities, 69% of co-workers, and 68% of supervisors) reported that none of their co-workers were negative or resentful, and most or all employees were positive and supportive.

In fact, the literature shows that providing workplace accommodations generally has positive outcomes. Bonaccio et al. (2019) conclude that positive co-worker reactions to accommodations are more common than negative ones (although negative reactions still exist). Moreover, supervisors report that providing accommodations improved interactions between employees with disabilities and their co-workers while increasing overall company morale:

Some researchers argue that a more accepting workplace orientation toward providing accommodations to employees, regardless of disability status, can help reduce stigma. Tompa et al. (2015) concluded in their review of the available evidence around workplace accommodations that:

Indeed, the overarching conclusion of the Cornell research is that since many employees without disabilities also receive accommodations, disability accommodations should be framed in the context of accommodations for all employees:

Thus, a positive orientation toward accommodations has positive effects both among co-workers of those who receive them and at the organizational level, while reducing stigma for those with a disability. This observation mirrors anecdotal evidence about the positive outcomes reported by many organizations that proactively provided accommodation and support to all employees, including, but not limited to, those with disabilities during the sudden, rapid transition to remote work for a large proportion of their workforce in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Finally, a more open and proactive orientation can overcome differences in outcome based on employee personality traits. A paper using data from the US Health and Retirement Study (Hill et al., 2016) focused on employees with newly identified disabilities in their fifties and identified the variables (either employee or employer-related) that increase the likelihood that an employee will request and receive an accommodation. They found that employee characteristics – most notably personality traits (for example, agreeableness and neuroticism are both strongly negatively correlated with receiving accommodation and extraversion is positively correlated with accommodation) – “largely determine which workers are accommodated following disability onset, suggesting that employees, rather than employers, bear the burden of communicating and asserting their needs.” (page 15) They conclude that, to ensure that workers whose personality makes them less likely to request an accommodation do not end up with unmet needs, organizations should actively ask their employees about accommodations and not rely on them to educate themselves about their rights and to voluntarily come forward with a request.

Benchmarking Study result

Phase 1 of the Benchmarking Study found that almost two thirds of participating supervisors handled fewer than one accommodation request per year on average. It is difficult to estimate how representative this finding is among all Government of Canada supervisors. The actual number of accommodation requests per supervisor is likely even lower since the study excluded supervisors who had not handled any accommodation requests in the previous three years.

Phase 2 highlighted that some supervisors are challenged by having conversations with employees about workplace accommodations and by the complexity of the process, both of which are compounded by insufficient training and support. Some employees also raised concerns about their supervisor’s level of experience and knowledge and said that problems at the early stages could have been avoided if their supervisor had been more familiar with the accommodation process.

A common suggestion from the Benchmarking Study is for supervisors to be more understanding about accommodation requests to combat employees’ feeling that their request is nothing but a burden. Some even say that their supervisor’s lack of appreciation for their need for accommodation went beyond a lack of support and that their supervisor was actively attempting to impede or deny the request. When asked what could have been done to improve the decision phase of the process, a common response was to provide better training for supervisors about the duty to accommodate, the accommodation process and sensitivity to the issues.

Finally, supervisors responding to the Benchmarking Study identify funding for accommodations as a challenge for implementing approved accommodations, with a number questioning how they would pay for the accommodation, and their unpredictable nature from year to year. In instances where the cost of providing accommodation comes from team budgets, some supervisors describe the effect of providing them as a concern.

Findings from the literature

Secondary literature provides strong validation for the finding from the Benchmarking Study that supervisors/employers need more training around disability in general, and accommodations in particular, with a lack of experience, awareness and knowledge being commonly described.

A large study of accommodation requests among eight large US companies (Schur et al., 2014) noted that among supervisors, 40% report they have supervised employees with a disability, and half of these (49%) had at least one employee with a disability who had requested an accommodation. This means that only around 20% of these supervisors have experience with accommodations for employees with disabilities.

In the Canberra study of Australian Public Servants, a key issue that emerged from focus groups was “the need to increase disability awareness and understanding in the workforce generally, and for supervisors specifically. Mental Health was identified as one area in particular, where more educational work needed to be implemented. Supervisors themselves often recognized this gap in their skill-set.” (Canberra, page 15) Disability awareness training was seen as critical and education for all staff was seen as paramount to enabling cultural change and should be mandatory.

Research by Action on Hearing Loss (AHL) in the UK showed that among those with hearing loss, the most common reason for not getting support at work is that employees feel employers or colleagues do not have the knowledge to help (57%). A different 2017 AHL survey of employers also provides similar evidence: two fifths (39%) said they do not feel well-equipped to enable staff with hearing loss to stay productive in the workforce.

In research focusing primarily on labour participation in the workforce (Bonaccio, 2020; research by the Job Accommodation Network (JAN), 2019, page 146), supervisors often acknowledge lacking the necessary training at all stages of the employment relationship, and especially when it comes to accommodation processes. Training would “permit the focus to shift from legal compliance, to a focus on helping everyone learn to think more creatively and constructively about accommodations, and to see the many benefits of accommodations and inclusive workplace practices.” (page 148)

Finally, the need for additional clarity and training for supervisors on the cost-effectiveness of accommodations is clearly indicated by the research. A number of different research sources point out the cost effectiveness of accommodations (Bonaccio, 2020; JAN research, 2005 and 2019). The Cornell research indicated that most disability accommodations have zero or small monetary costs, regardless of whether employees or supervisors were asked. Accommodations are shown to reduce waste due to absenteeism, increase productivity, reduce insurance costs and compare very favourably to the cost of hiring and training replacement employees (Bonaccio, 2020; JAN research 2005 and 2019). As direct supervisors are often required to pay for accommodations using funds for their team, they may be more likely to focus on up-front costs instead of the longer-term benefits that accommodations provide at an organizational level (a centralized fund would also help with this problem as described in section C2, below).

Benchmarking Study result

Phase 1 of the Benchmarking Study provided evidence of such perception gaps between employees and supervisors. For instance, there is a gap between what a supervisor knows about the accommodation process and what an employee perceives (for example, reasons for delayed decisions or implementation), as well as between what an employee knows and what a supervisor perceives (for example, reasons for requesting an accommodation). Gaps also exist in terms of the proportion of employees who say their request was approved (83% compared to 95% of supervisors handling such requests) and whether the accommodation is in place and working properly (45% of employees versus 62% of supervisors).

Findings from the literature

While only some of the sources examined here involve input from both supervisors and employees (and measures directly comparable to the Benchmarking Study are not readily available), evidence of a similar gap in perceptions is noted in a number of places within the literature. In cases where they are available, data from supervisors and employees were not directly linked (that is, they were not providing feedback about the exact same case) and so are similar to the Benchmarking Study in that respect.

Research using the JAN survey database of employees and employers who have used JAN services for accommodation consultation in the US (Hendricks, 2005) identified differences of this type. This research shows that employers are more likely to believe the process works and are more confident that accommodations address employee concerns. Specifically, employers were less likely (61% versus 73%) to report that barriers affecting the employees’ disability substantially limited the kind or amount of work they could do (and reported the severity of the effect of the barrier as lower on a 5-point scale than did employees themselves). After accommodation, employers were more apt than employees to report the accommodation reduced the effect of the barrier and therefore to believe the accommodation successfully addressed the barrier.

The JAN research also found that employers were more likely to report that the accommodation was approved and implemented than did employees. The research by Cornell also involved input from both groups and found supervisors were more likely to say that the request was fully granted (91% versus 73% of employees with disabilities and 79% of employees without disabilities). In addition, the Cornell study found differing reasons given for rejection: supervisors were more likely to say the requested accommodation was “not appropriate for the job or task” (52% versus 13% of employees).

Benchmarking Study result

The second phase of the Benchmarking Study specifically noted that when requests involving a health condition or disability are denied, employees do not feel a sufficient explanation was provided. Only one in five employees (19%) whose request was denied say they received enough information to explain why their request was denied.

Findings from the literature

This finding is observed consistently across studies in other jurisdictions. The OPS employee study asked employees who did not receive a required accommodation why the accommodation was not granted. The most common single response was that no reason was provided (38%) (OPS report, 2018). The Cornell research among US businesses similarly found that the most common reason given by employees for the rejection of an accommodation request was “don’t know” (26%) (page 19). Finally, research with union members who have a disability in the UK found that, while cost and impact on individual performance were mentioned as reasons why they were not granted an accommodation, the next most common response was that “no reason” was given (UNISON, 2019, page 7).

1. The role of accommodations in employee engagement

Employees with disabilities are more likely to report difficulties in their career (including instances of discrimination and harassment) and less likely to be engaged in the workplace. In turn, receiving an accommodation is linked to higher engagement and job satisfaction.

Throughout the literature, negative effects on the career prospects of people with disabilities are reported in various forms. Workers with disabilities are more likely than those without to report challenges in both getting hired and switching between jobs; sizeable proportions say they have been refused opportunities or promotions at work due to their disability. The literature also indicates that people with disabilities tend to score lower on measures of engagement and satisfaction with their workplace. People with disabilities also consistently report higher levels of harassment and discrimination at work. Where the comparison is possible, it is also noted that employees who receive accommodations tend to report higher scores on many of these same measures than those who do not (thereby suggesting that the provision of accommodation closes the gap with people without disabilities, if not eliminating it).

Benchmarking Study result

The Benchmarking Study found that many respondents have negative perceptions of their career prospects in the Government of Canada: four in ten (41%) view their prospects with the Government of Canada over the next five years as negative. One reason given for their pessimism is that their condition or disability requires an accommodation for the interview itself and many supervisors do not want to take on a team member who requires an accommodation. Many also said that they had opted out of a staffing process because of workplace barriers related to their disability (49%) or had been denied a promotional opportunity at a position they were qualified for because of their disability or condition (41%).

Reported experiences of harassment (29%) and discrimination (23%) were common among Government of Canada employees with a disability who participated in the PSES; these reported levels are even higher among Benchmarking Study respondents, all of whom had made an accommodation request for a health condition or disability in the previous three years (38% report experiencing harassment and 35% discrimination). Moreover, more than eight in ten who said they experienced discrimination linked it to their health condition or disability, and seven in ten said the same about their experience with harassment. Overall, the evidence suggests a link may exist between requesting an accommodation and being subjected to harassment or discrimination.

Findings from the literature

The literature demonstrates that difficulties in advancing their career are common among those with a disability:

• One in five (19%) employees with disabilities in the PSES say that accessibility or accommodation issues have adversely affected their career in the past 12 months
• CSD results show that four in ten (39%) employed people with disabilities said it would be difficult to change jobs or to advance in their present job as a result of their disability and one quarter (23%) identified discrimination and stigma as the reason
• In research for Employment and Social Development Canada (Quorus, 2019), about one third of those with a disability said they always, often or sometimes face a barrier finding meaningful work (36%), moving up in an organization (34%) or being hired (32%)
• Among Australian public servants, almost half (48%) of people with a disability were dissatisfied with opportunities for career progression (significantly higher than the dissatisfaction level of people without disability (41%)) (University of Canberra, 2016)
• Research by UNISON in the UK found that three in ten (31%) workers with disabilities felt they had been unfairly treated because of their disability-related sickness record; a similar proportion (32%) said they did not have equal access to promotion

Instances of harassment and discrimination are commonly reported by people with disabilities across studies. The Canberra University study of Australian public servants found that 30% of employees with a disability reported experiences with workplace harassment and bullying, twice the rate of those without a disability (15%); these proportions are very similar to those reported in the PSES (29% of people with a disability and 12% of those without).

The PSES study shows that employees with disabilities not only face greater discrimination and harassment but also have lower levels of workplace-related satisfaction on multiple measures (including satisfaction with their department, being treated with respect, respecting individual differences and supporting a diverse workplace). The OPS and British Columbia (BC) public employee surveys found that employees with disabilities are less engaged across many characteristics. Among BC employees, the overall engagement score for people with disabilities was 58 (out of 100), compared to 66 for those without disabilities. This gap in engagement held true across age groups, locations, job classifications and gender.

In an examination of 2006 Participation and Activity Limitation Survey (PALS) data from Statistics Canada, Breward (2016) observed that past experiences with discrimination were associated with higher rates of accommodation requests. This echoes the higher rates of discrimination and harassment among those requesting an accommodation in the Benchmarking Study than among PSES participants with a disability as a whole (who haven’t necessarily made an accommodation request). This suggests a connection between requesting an accommodation and experiences of harassment and discrimination, although causality is unclear.

The reviewed literature points to many instances of positive outcomes for both employees and the organization as a whole when accommodations are provided. Among those who received an accommodation in the PSES data, 80% strongly or somewhat agreed that they are satisfied with the measures. The Cornell research shows that individuals whose accommodation requests were fully granted had better attitudes on important workplace measures: they hold significantly more positive views about their organization and about the level of support received. An analysis of accommodation requests among those with sensory disabilities in the US found that requests for and uses of workplace accommodations were associated with higher levels of job satisfaction and job performance (Dong and Guerette, 2013).

The following quote summarizes the findings from the Cornell research about the positive views of the benefits of accommodation, but results such as this are common in the literature:

Making accommodations widely available to employees and potential employees can help close the “employment gap.” The 2012 CSD indicates that unemployed people with disabilities are more likely than their employed counterparts to say they would require work accommodations (59% versus 42%) (Till et al., 2015). This means that with appropriate accommodation, the employment gap would narrow and shows that a lack of accommodations is a driver of that gap (Prince, 2016).

Finally, a review of existing literature on the subject of labour force participation among those with disabilities (Bonaccio, 2020) highlights challenges that people with disabilities have with the job interview process, including a common inability to get accommodations in the process for those who need them and evidence that “interviewers negatively react to job candidates’ disabilities in an interview context” (page 146). The UNISON research details experiences among employees, especially neuro-diverse respondents, who have lacked accommodations in the interview process. These findings echo the observation from some employees in the Benchmarking Study about difficulties getting accommodations necessary for a job interview and the impression that requesting such accommodations makes getting the position less likely.

Benchmarking Study result

In the Benchmarking Study, most employees whose accommodation outcome was known say their request was approved (86% in Phase 1 and 90% in Phase 2). Since the research focused on those who had already made a request, it is unknown what proportion of employees with disabilities may benefit from an accommodation but have not asked.

Four in ten (40%) who made an accommodation request related to a health condition or disability in Phase 2 of said that they have taken extended sick leave due to a lack of appropriate accommodation that subsequently aggravated their condition. Among employees whose accommodation request was rejected, leaving their position or taking early retirement or extended sick leave were some commonly mentioned options when asked what they planned to do next.

Findings from the literature

Various sources provide information about the proportion of met and unmet need among employees in various groups. The PSES results reveal that four in five (81%) employees who requested an accommodation in the last two years said that measures were taken to accommodate them (resulting in 19% with unmet need). In the OPS, a total of 42% of employees with disabilities say they require an accommodation for their disability to perform their job (36% requested one and 6% did not). Among those who requested an accommodation, 80% say they have been provided with what they need to perform their job (indicating the remaining 20% have not).

A Canadian Council on Rehabilitation and Work study of Canadians who have chronic health problems found that, among those with permanent employment who say they require an accommodation, 31% received everything that they asked for, 33% received some of what they asked for, 26% needed accommodation but did not ask their employer, and 10% asked but did not receive the accommodation. The Welsh TUC research, conducted primarily with public sector employees, showed that a significant minority of 14% of respondents with disabilities said that “their employers did not put in place reasonable adjustments at all. In some cases, requests were either refused, ignored completely or wholly inappropriate ‘adjustments’ were offered instead.” (page 41). The CSD data show that, among Canadian employees with a disability who required a workplace accommodation, two in five had only some (19%) or none (21%) of their needs met. Of those with at least one unmet need for workplace accommodations, 25% said they did make a request for them to their employer or supervisor. However, 40% were refused their request (Morris, 2019).

As the workforce ages, more people will require accommodation and there is evidence that unmet accommodation needs result in people with disabilities voluntarily leaving the workforce. Banks et al. (2013) observed that the incidence of disabilities related to agility, pain and sight in the Canadian labour market falls after 60 years of age despite increasing prevalence in the population, likely reflecting voluntary retirement choices among those employees. The UNISON research describes how a “worrying number of respondents reported that they had had to leave their job or were fired as a result of not being able to carry out their role as reasonable adjustments had not been provided. Whether this was due to resignation, dismissal, redundancy or being pressured into taking medical health retirement, respondents felt that they had been forced into this position due to a failure to provide reasonable adjustments.” (page 10)

Early retirement due to lack of accommodation is a concern for the federal public service as their workforce ages. The Benchmarking Study showed that early retirement is a common consideration among those whose accommodation request is denied. Research by Action on Hearing Loss (Hidden Disadvantage, 2013) shows that, among respondents with hearing-related disabilities who were retired, a quarter (26%) said that they retired earlier than they wanted to and that it was directly related to their hearing loss.

Dong and Guerette (2013) found that older workers (aged 45+) were less likely than younger workers to request and to receive accommodations. While no such differences among age groups were observed during the Benchmarking Study in terms of approval of their request, it is possible that unmet need is higher among older employees who may simply see any barriers related to their disability as a typical part of aging:

Proper accommodation appears to minimize early retirement. A paper using longitudinal data from the US Health and Retirement Study (Hill et al., 2016) and focused on employees with newly identified disabilities in their fifties revealed that workers who are accommodated by their employers are 40% more likely to still be working in the survey wave immediately following disability onset than those who were not. The authors concluded that ensuring accommodations for older workers are proactively offered and implemented is a successful approach to limiting the number of those who choose early retirement.

Benchmarking Study result

Both employees and supervisors from the Benchmarking Study see the existing accommodation request system as cumbersome, time consuming and complex. Supervisors raised specific concerns about the procurement system and a lack of support and input from functional experts. Employees raised concerns about the length of time to receive a decision, a lack of clarity about how to initiate the process, the need for support from an advocate to help navigate the process and act on their behalf, the need to request the same accommodation numerous times and a lack of follow-up during and after implementation.

Findings from the literature

The large Canadian studies described in this review (PSES and CSD) dealt with accommodations but did not dig deeply into the process involved.

While there is limited research about the specifics of the process in the Canadian context, research from UK and Australian sources has explored more aspects of the process and provided numerous insights that corroborate the results of the Benchmarking Study.

The study of Australian public servants by the University of Canberra identified the process to receive a “reasonable adjustment” to be a barrier to workplace participation for people with a disability. The main issues are the time taken to make accommodations and knowing who to go to for help (page 52), both of which are mentioned in the Benchmarking Study. Some people reported that they had to wait from four to 12 weeks for specialized equipment to arrive and be installed, and that the process required for getting an accommodation is seen as a “hard fight,” as well as being alienating and stressful.

A study of employees from the Welsh TUC found that, while 76% of public sector employees say that their workplace has in place “reasonable adjustments,” the process for requesting such accommodations has a number of problems:

• Delays: Some respondents noted that although their employer did carry out accommodations, they were not carried out promptly. Some workers with disabilities described waiting months, and even years, for accommodations they needed.
• Poor management or implementation: Responses showed that some requests for accommodations were poorly managed or monitored. This not only affected people’s ability to do their job but, in some cases, caused their health to deteriorate.

The UNISON study in the UK of union members who have disabilities showed that, even after accommodations were agreed to, respondents often spent significant time waiting for implementation. Only 27% waited less than a month and 38% waited for at least six months (including 23% who waited more than a year). The delays in implementation led to physical, emotional and financial difficulties. Many who did not receive accommodation were forced to take sick leave and others left their job or retired early. The study specifically recommends statutory timescales within which an employer would need to respond to a request for accommodation, as well as providing written reasoning when a request is rejected.

The University of Canberra research also points out that employees suggest including an independent intermediary (who is not part of Human Resources) with specific expertise in non-medical models of disability and reasonable accommodations. This person could act as an independent third-party supporting supervisors and people with disabilities in developing plans for providing reasonable accommodations.

An in-depth case study of the Lloyds Banking Group in the UK provided specific information and recommendations about the processes for accommodating employees that have been successfully introduced in that organization. It explains and demonstrates success for each of the process-related changes made during their transition to a new accommodations system, including:

• Clarification to ensure that supervisors knew their expectations and role in the process in terms of approving and implementing accommodations
• Assuring appropriate involvement from Human Resources and Occupational Health to ensure they are only engaged when absolutely necessary
• Creating a single point of entry that includes qualified third-party experts, minimizes or eliminates the need for assessments and speeds up the process. A single third-party case manager was assigned for each case

Benchmarking Study result

Both employees and supervisors within the Benchmarking Study suggested such a centralized and specialized approach to accommodation requests led by neutral, functional experts. Responses to open-ended questions showed both groups feel that this approach would relieve the burden (time and resources) placed on supervisors to handle requests, address employee concerns about management reprisals and privacy, overcome the lack of training and expertise among supervisors, and address concerns about the role of Labour Relations (who tend to be the most common departmental lead for the accommodation process, but who are perceived to not be impartial because they primarily represent management’s interest). Increased accountability for supervisors in their handling of accommodations request was also a common suggestion. In addition, supervisors raised concerns about the funding of accommodations as, in many cases, the funds must come from team budgets. Supervisors recognized that centralized funding could alleviate pressure on their budgets and remove a potential barrier to approving accommodations. Having the accommodation process reside with a direct supervisor can create the possibility the supervisor will take some kind of punitive action against the employee that could damage their career prospects, such as labelling them a “trouble employee” or providing a bad reference.

Findings from the literature

The University of Canberra research examined the importance of direct supervisors in supporting employees with a disability. Supervisors are described as “important support mechanisms” by 74% of respondents with disabilities and most did feel supported by supervisors (65%). However, the proportion who did not feel supported by supervisors is higher among people with disabilities (30%) than those without (20%):

In the research done in Wales by the TUC, a concept that emerges when thinking about disability and accommodations is the “line manager lottery” meaning the likelihood of receiving adequate support depends on the attitude of their particular manager (page 30). The importance of a supportive manager was singled out and “could not be underestimated” when considering the accommodation process (page 43). The research by a consortium led by Cornell University among private-sector US companies also notes the centrality of the role supervisors play, stating that “unit supervisors exert substantial influence over the accommodation requests of employees with disabilities.” So, while the research suggests most employees with disabilities feel appropriately supported, it is in situations where they do not feel supported that the centrality of the role played by a direct supervisor becomes an issue.

Research demonstrates that accountability within the accommodations process is an important way to blunt the effects of the “line manager lottery.” As explained in the TUC research:

The in-depth case study of Lloyds (UK) workplace accommodation practices describes successful centralization of their accommodations process, including naming a manager responsible for managing the accommodation process from end to end (who reported directly to the Director of Operations).

The Lloyds case study also highlights the positive role played by providing a centralized fund to pay for accommodations. Lloyds shifted to using such a fund and found it relieved individual supervisors of the burden of paying for accommodations from their team’s budget; allowed for a clearer view of the costs of accommodations across the organization; and, allowed for the development of a standardized catalogue of accommodations and equipment, which improved procurement processes and reduced costs. An in-depth review of accommodations policies and practices by Emile Tompa et al. explored existing evidence about a range of practices around workplace accommodations, including the use of a centralized fund within organizations. The research they reviewed concluded that “less than 2% of organizations studied that implemented this practice reported it as not effective. Over half of organizations reported that the practice is very effective.” (page 100)

The centralized Lloyds system described above resulted in a number of tangible positive outcomes.

Cost savings

The new system resulted in savings on assessment and service costs per case of 34% in nominal terms. The average overall case cost fell by 53%. The proportion of cases requiring formal assessments was reduced from 80% to 43% of all cases. The first three months using their new system generated cost savings of more than £125,000 (roughly $228,000 Canadian dollars in 2014 dollars).

Productivity gains

Average case duration decreased from 90 days to 14 days. Using a streamlined catalogue of equipment reduced the costs of individual items. A large majority (85%) of the employees using the service reported a significant improvement in their work performance, with 77% reporting a dramatic improvement. Almost two thirds of employees (62%) and supervisors (63%) using the service reported a reduction in absence levels.

Improved satisfaction

Practically all Lloyds supervisors say that the new system is a vast improvement and that other organizations should use it.