Despite the legal mandates of the ADA, people with disabilities continue to be underrepresented in the workforce. While there does exist an established body of research devoted to the hiring of individuals with disabilities, information on retaining individuals with disabilities in the workplace has not been reflected as often in the critical discourse devoted to disability and employment practices. This article analyzes data from an ongoing study conducted by the Job Accommodation Network (JAN), a service of ODEP (Department of Labor 1004062R), showing that employers benefited from hiring, retaining, and accommodating individuals with disabilities. Benefits derived by employers include the ability to retain quality employees, increased company profitability, and an avoidance of costs associated with hiring and training a new employee. In addition to these benefits, providing accommodations in order to retain employees is shown to improve organizational culture and climate, as well as fostering a sense among all employees that employers recognize both the value of the individual worker as a human being, and the inherent social benefits of creating and sustaining an inclusive workplace.

Research suggests that culture is one of the variables that significantly affects the construction and meaning of any social phenomenon. However, few studies have been devoted to homelessness—a particularly powerful social phenomenon—among ethnic groups. The rather limited data and literature about homelessness and ethnicity suggest marked differences between Puerto Rican homeless people and those from other ethnic groups, but specific analysis of the relevance of culture on homelessness within the Puerto Rican context has received minimal attention. The authors use existing data about homeless single adults who use shelter in Puerto Rico’s capital city, San Juan, and in the capital city of Columbus, Ohio, to explore and compare the incidences, causes, and demographic characteristics of homeless people in the two cities. Cultural issues that potentially underlie definitions, attitudes, and responses toward social phenomena are discussed. These cultural domains are offered to explain the differences between the two groups.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract