Workforce Transition and Job Accessibility among Ethiopian People with Disabilities: A Cross-Sectional Survey

Study design and study participants

This cross-sectional study used a survey to investigate the employment experiences and access to workplace accommodations among university graduates with disabilities in Ethiopia. Data were collected between February and July 2021. A multi-stage cluster sampling strategy was used to recruit participants from public sector offices across three regional states (Oromia, Amhara, and the Southern Nations, Nationalities, and Peoples’ Region [SNNPR]) and the capital city administration of Addis Ababa. Sampling began at the federal ministry level and proceeded to regional bureaus, zonal, and finally district (woreda) level offices.

To be eligible, participants had to: (a) be a graduate of a recognized university or college; (b) self-identify as having a visual, auditory, and/or locomotor impairment; and (c) be employed in the public sector at the time of the study. Individuals with cognitive or psychosocial disabilities were excluded due to the methodological challenges of ensuring valid consent and accurate data collection with the available resources, though we acknowledge this as a limitation. The selected impairment categories align with the most prevalent disability types in Ethiopia, representing an estimated 83.6% of the disabled population (JICA 2002). All workers who satisfied the eligibility criteria were included in the invitation to participate.

Sample size procedures and determination

The sample size was calculated using the formula by Cochran, Mosteller and Tukey (2006) for cross-sectional studies. The calculation assumed a 95% confidence level (Z = 1.96), a 5% margin of error (d = 0.05), a conservative prevalence (p) of 50% to maximize the sample, a design effect of 2 to account for the cluster sampling, and a 5% non-response rate. This yielded a minimum a priori required sample size estimate of 807 individuals.

Data collection tools and procedures

Data were collected using a semi-structured interviewer-administered questionnaire. The instrument captured information on socio-demographic characteristics, educational history and transition to employment, current employment status and experiences, need for and receipt of workplace accommodations, and perceptions of disability-related laws and policies. Perceptions were measured through six key questions rated on a five-point Likert scale (0 = ‘I don’t know’ to 5 = ‘strongly agree’). For analysis, these responses were dichotomized into ‘good’ and ‘poor’ perception categories using a standard demarcation threshold formula to facilitate interpretation.

The data collection process was designed to be accessible and inclusive. Interviews were conducted primarily in Amharic. For participants who were deaf or hard of hearing, qualified sign language interpreters were provided. The questionnaire was translated into Amharic and then back-translated into English to ensure conceptual accuracy and consistency. It was pre-tested in a non-sample district, and necessary adjustments were made prior to full implementation. Data collectors received a comprehensive two-day training that covered the study objectives, research ethics (with emphasis on disability-competent engagement), and detailed procedures for administering the questionnaire consistently and accurately.

Statistical analysis

Data were entered via KoboToolbox, cleaned, and analyzed using Stata 14. We used descriptive statistics—frequencies, percentages, means, and standard deviations—to summarize participants’ socio-demographics, education, employment, and perceptions. For inferential analysis, we conducted chi-square tests for categorical variables and either t-tests or one-way ANOVA for continuous variables, selecting tests based on variable distribution and group comparisons. We considered results statistically significant at p < 0.05. To simplify reporting and support interdisciplinary readership, perception items measured on the five-point Likert scale were dichotomized into ‘good’ and ‘poor’ using a demarcation threshold formula: the cut-off was calculated as (maximum possible score minus minimum possible score)/2, then added to the minimum possible score. This threshold distinctly separates two outcome categories and facilitates cross-disciplinary interpretation.

Ethical approval and consent to participate

Ethical approval for this study was obtained from the University of Gondar Institutional Review Board (O/V/P/RCS/05/354/2018) and the Queen’s University General Research Ethics Board (Certificate #REH-738-18). In addition, supportive letters were obtained from the Federation of Ethiopian Associations of Persons with Disabilities (FEAPD) and the respective regional administrative offices. The principle of voluntary participation was strictly upheld. Verbal informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to enrolment. The consent process ensured that participants were fully aware of their right to withdraw from the study at any point without consequence. To protect confidentiality, all participant-identifying information was removed and replaced with coded identifiers. All electronic data were stored on a password-protected secure server.

Socio-demographic characteristics of the survey respondents

Participants were slightly more likely to have been raised in an urban area than in a rural region, and almost a fifth of the sample reported being raised in both rural and urban areas. The median age of participants was 33 years (standard deviation (SD) of 8.3 years), with ages ranging from 21 to 62. The largest percentage of participants were men, who represented close to 70% of the sample. Nearly 60% of participants were married, 41% lived with their spouse and children, and 18.2% lived alone. A smaller proportion of respondents (just under 40%) reported receiving personal assistance at home, and approximately 32% received government financial assistance (see Table 1).

Types and levels of disabilities

The greatest proportion (59.2%) of impairments was attributed to motor difficulty. Most respondents reported that they did not require mobility aids, with just 26% of those with a physical disability requiring the use of aids such as braces, prosthetic devices, and crutches. Visual impairments made up the next most prevalent group of participants, at 36.7%. Of these, total blindness accounted for the greatest proportion of study participants (26.9% of the total sample). A relatively small share of participants (4.1%) reported a hearing impairment, of whom 2.2% were completely deaf. Just 0.5% of respondents reported multiple impairments (see Table 2).

Most of the impairments reported were acquired after birth, with just about 11% being congenital. The most reported source of impairment (43.8%) was disease/illness or other related causes, with 33% of impairments being acquired through accidents. While most of the disease/illness sources were ‘unspecified’ diseases or illnesses, ‘other’ sources included vetch (also known as ‘Guaya’ in the local language and referring to infection by a toxic substance, at 2.7%), light reflection (2.2%), and medical error or complications (1.7%). The causes of accidental impairment most commonly occurred in the home or residential area (23.6%). War and conflict, as well as car accidents, were also reported, accounting for 4.0% and 2.8% of all impairments, respectively. Table 3 details all reported causes of impairment. In terms of social circumstances, 6.5% of the 451 who were married had a partner with a disability (see Table 3).

History and current educational status

Approximately 70.5% and 80.6% of PwD received their first and second cycle education from integrated or inclusive schools, respectively. Only 17.3% and 10.6% of participants received their first and second cycle education from full-service boarding schools or special schools/classes (10% and 6%, respectively). A small number of impairments that happened after the first and second cycle schools accounted for 2.3% and 2.9% of the overall sample (see Figure 1).

Figure 1

Over two-thirds of participants (67.7%) were first-degree holders, about one-quarter held a diploma, and only 6.9% had a master’s degree (see Figure 2).

Figure 2

Transition to employment

More than half of respondents (54%) reported significant challenges in obtaining meaningful employment. The most frequently cited barrier was discriminatory content in vacancy announcements (40%), while other factors were less commonly reported. Information gaps regarding available vacancies (15%) and limited accessibility of vacancy postings (12%) were also reported as key challenges (see Table 4).

More than half of the participants (56.1%) had been out of work for more than three months before securing their current job. About 21% had been unemployed for less than six months, while 13% had been unemployed for more than a year and a half. The mean time spent unemployed before securing the current job was 15.41 (95% CI, 13.57–17.25) months.

Although 58.5% of employees were working at the first organization in which they were hired, approximately 9% had worked at more than three organizations. Dissatisfaction with salaries and benefits (4.7%), workplace discrimination (2.0 %), and poor accommodation of disability needs (2.0%) were the most frequently reported reasons for leaving a previous job. The median work experience ranged from 5.0 to 6.5 years. Approximately 33.2% of respondents had worked for less than three years, while 24.1% had worked for more than nine years.

About half of the participants indicated that they had received sufficient support and guidance in their job search. Only 11.5% of respondents received special training related to job seeking at the end of their university education, which included various combinations of skills related to job acquisition. A majority of respondents (61.5%) indicated that they had at times felt frustrated with their job prospects. In response, 53.6% reported attempting to negotiate workplace accommodations, yet only 9.7% received assistance, and 5.1% benefited from a special program (see Table 5).

Nearly half of participants (48%) perceived no gender difference in the job search process, while slightly more than one-third (33%) believed men found jobs more easily. Similarly, 58.7% of respondents reported that people residing in urban areas had an advantage in finding employment, compared to 38.6% who saw no such difference. Approximately 60% of respondents indicated that job accessibility differs by disability type, perceiving individuals with mobility and visual impairments as having more employment opportunities than those with hearing impairments (see Figure 3).

Figure 3

The educational status of those with visual impairments was found to be higher than for the other impairment types. Out of the respondents with visual impairments, 76% held a first degree, while 63% of those with hearing and motor impairments held a first degree. Most of the diploma holders (34%) were those with hearing impairments, as compared with only 15% for those with visual impairments.

Employment experiences

Most of the study participants (59%) were working at a district level, followed by those working at regional bureaus and the Addis-Ababa city administration (33%). Those who worked at federal government offices account for only 1% of the sample. The median gross monthly salary was 6073 Birr (range of 1585–76625 Birr) (see Figure 4).

Figure 4

Leadership participation of respondents

The leadership participation of the respondents was minimal. Among the respondents, 84.2% were not currently in positions of leadership, and 74% have never held any such position. Of those who were in positions of leadership at the time of interviewing, most were in low- (8.2%) or medium-level (5.6%) leadership positions (see Figure 5).

Figure 5

Relationship between socio-demographic status and disability type

The cross-tabulation between types of impairment and gender, age, educational status, unemployment history, and leadership positions was computed. Significant relationships were observed between types of impairments and both educational status (χ² = 28.96, p = 0.00) and unemployment history (χ² = 22.94, p = 0.00). Regarding employment history, people with motor difficulties were more likely than those with other types of impairment to have prolonged periods of unemployment (i.e., over 18 months) (see Table 6).

Workplace accommodation

Most respondents identified two key accommodations needed for employment: accessible office facilities, including office space, furniture, and computers (97.1%), and modifications to the physical environment, such as roadways, offices, and toilets (93.2%). In contrast, human supports such as qualified readers/sign language interpreters and personal office assistants were the two lowest-ranked items, but were still reported as necessary by 51.4% and 59.3% of respondents, respectively.

Respondents indicated that some of these needed accommodations were provided more than others, notably improving the accessibility of office facilities (reported by 37.4%) and job restructuring (almost 36%). Modification of written documents, such as exams or training materials, was reported by 33% as having been provided, and almost 31% reported they were moved into an appropriate vacant position (see Table 7).

Several accommodations that were reported to be necessary were identified as not being provided by employers. Highest on this list was transportation and parking, identified by 85% of survey respondents. The next most unmet needs were physical modifications to the environment (inside or outside of the actual workspace) at just over 73%, acquisition of adaptive equipment and devices (70%), and use of flexible human resources policies (68%).

Impact of gender and educational status on workplace accommodation

Concerning gender and accommodations, most cross-tabulations yielded no significant difference. A significant difference was observed, however, with respect to personal assistance being available at the office (χ² = 7.67, p = 0.02), with males being more likely to receive the needed accommodation (see Table 8).

The likelihood of receiving multiple forms of workplace accommodation varied significantly by educational status. Cross-tabulations (see Table 9) indicate that, at the 0.05 significance level, higher education was associated with greater access to accommodations, including accessible office facilities, job restructuring, vacancy reassignment, modification of equipment or devices, adapted examination or training materials, qualified readers/sign language interpreters, and transportation or parking support. Across all accommodations, Master’s degree holders were most likely to benefit, while diploma holders were least likely.

Physical accessibility and personal needs

Respondents were asked to rank accessibility items by selecting, in order, their top three concerns. The three most needed special supports or equipment items that were currently not available to them in the workplace were access to toilets, modifications to physical structures in buildings (e.g., gates, doorways, ramps, elevators, stairs), office equipment (e.g., computers, braille, printers, sockets, desks), and walkways. Building physical inaccessibility appeared as the first choice of most respondents, followed by a lack of needed office equipment (see Table 10).

Challenges faced by PwDs in job acquisition

Job seekers with disabilities face multiple intersecting barriers, including gender, area of residence, type of disability, and educational background. Male job seekers were more likely to access jobs than their female counterparts. Given the deep-rooted stigma and the low socio-economic status of women in Ethiopia, it is not surprising that women with disabilities are further disadvantaged—a reality that is often true even for women without disabilities. The Rights of Employees with Disabilities Proclamation No. 568/2008 acknowledges the intersection of gender and disability and seeks to protect job seekers and employees with disabilities (EHR 2008). Yet, practice lags far behind the law. Although the findings do not directly show why gender influences employment outcomes, it is likely that being female, combined with certain impairments, presents intersecting barriers. Fear of gender-based violence may also discourage women from seeking employment opportunities far from home (Kaufman et al. 2019).

Our study also found that urban residents had better access to jobs than those in rural areas, likely because most accessible services are concentrated in cities. This urban bias may lead to rural-to-urban migration among PwD, thereby straining the already limited services in urban centers. However, this assumption requires further study. A Lebanese study of disability and employment revealed very low levels of persons who remained in rural areas, noting that most of those who did chose to work at home—a choice which greatly reduced earning potential (Wehbi and El-Lahib 2007). Tessier et al. (2024) studied transportation as an employment barrier for PwD living in Canada, noting that 40% of job applicants turn down offers due to a lack of transportation options to get there. Problems were noted to be even higher for aspiring workers in rural areas. It is likely that transportation barriers are even greater in low- and middle-income countries such as Ethiopia, where transportation infrastructure is less well developed. Solutions proposed by this group of researchers include training and disability awareness training for employers and transport providers alike.

Challenges associated with workplace accessibility seemed to vary depending on the type of impairment. For instance, respondents who are deaf and hard of hearing largely reported a lack of needed resources to support them in employment. The proportion of deaf and hard-of-hearing persons in this sample was very small, possibly reflecting both the lower prevalence of hearing-related disabilities, and these factors may in turn contribute to the lack of knowledge and support in the workplace (Seyoum 2017). Nonetheless, the findings suggest that little or no effort has been made to provide communication support during the job search process. By contrast, job seekers with visual impairments tended to have higher levels of education than other disability groups, perhaps reflecting a perceived need to obtain higher credentials. This likely contributes to their greater success in acquiring jobs.

Educational background also influenced employment outcomes. People with disabilities in this sample who completed high school often pursued higher education through either integrated or special schools. The higher proportion of integrated school graduates suggests that this pathway is both prevalent and effective, aligning with Ethiopia’s inclusive education agenda, which aims to prepare students with disabilities for integration into society and the labour market (Haye 2018). This is consistent with findings in other countries, where the value of higher education in relation to job acquisition and earnings has repeatedly been demonstrated (Ananian and Dellaferrera 2024; Jarząbek and Stolarska-Szeląg 2024; OECD 2022; Portillo-Navarro, Lagos-Rodríguez and Meseguer-Santamaría 2022).

More than half of respondents reported that the job search process was highly challenging, citing frustrations such as direct and indirect discrimination. This is a common finding in studies on employment and disability internationally. Employers may deliberately or inadvertently exclude job seekers with disabilities to avoid future accommodation responsibilities, and this may relate to cultural biases or perceived challenges of hiring PwD in the local economy (OECD 2022). More likely, however, these practices reflect a lack of awareness. Proclamation No. 568/2008 (EHR 2008), Article 5 explicitly prohibits discriminatory content in vacancy announcements.

While vacancy postings historically relied on physical notice boards—an inaccessible format for many with disabilities—most organizations now announce vacancies online (Dulle and Muluneh 2008). However, access to job information was reported as a concern. Many Ethiopian websites lack accessibility features (Taye et al. 2022), which remains a significant barrier, and some employers may use non-technological recruitment strategies that are inaccessible to some PwD. Further examination of discriminatory practices in hiring is warranted.

Nearly half of the respondents identified negative employer attitudes as a barrier to employment. Stigma toward PwD is well-documented globally and is likely also a factor in Ethiopia. Strategies to address this include educational interventions, stronger enforcement of legislation, and proactive, inclusive hiring by employers Kennedy et al. (2019). Anticipated stigma may discourage job seekers from disclosing their disability during applications or interviews (Santuzzi, Martinez and Keating 2022), preventing them from receiving necessary accommodations and undermining their work performance.

Encouragingly, few respondents reported that insufficient job opportunities or a lack of job-search skills were barriers, possibly reflecting the relatively high educational levels of the sample.

Implementation of workplace accommodations

Providing reasonable accommodations according to employee needs is the cornerstone of disability-related employment law and one of the government’s central obligations. Nonetheless, this study found that many public-sector employees with disabilities in Ethiopia do not receive adequate accommodations.

The most needed accommodation was an accessible physical working environment, encompassing facilities such as office furniture, printers, computers, phones, and braille devices. Surprisingly, requests for sign language interpreters and personal assistants were rare, even among employees who were deaf or hard of hearing. This may reflect differences in communication preferences (e.g., lip reading instead of sign language) or job roles that do not require interpreters. Similarly, some visually impaired participants did not request readers or assistants, highlighting that accommodation needs should never be assumed by employers. Further research is needed to determine whether some employees refrain from requesting accommodations because they believe these are unattainable or because they wish to avoid drawing attention to their disability.

Although some improvements in the availability of workplace accommodations were noted over time, progress is uneven and often anecdotal rather than supported by systematic data. For example, many participants still reported inaccessible office facilities. Access to transportation and parking also remained major challenges, directly affecting punctuality and job security. Article 8 of Proclamation No. 568/2008 states that disability cannot exempt an employee from responsibility if duties are not performed (EHR 2008). While intended to promote fairness, this provision may discourage employees from advocating for accommodations for fear of reprisal. The responsibility for accessible transportation lies largely with the government rather than employers, creating a gap in the implementation of universal design principles. Similarly, the cost of modifying physical work environments often falls solely on employers, which may limit progress without external funding support.

Assistive devices such as hearing aids, screen readers, and mobility aids were also insufficiently provided. Article 6 of Proclamation No. 568/2008 (EHR 2008) is ambiguous about whether employers must supply assistive devices as part of ‘working materials’, creating uncertainty. Without such support, employees may be excluded not only from daily work tasks but also from recruitment processes, such as pre-employment assessments.

A contradiction emerged in respondents’ perspectives in terms of the regulatory framework for accessibility. While they viewed disability-related laws and policies positively, they also reported inflexible human resource practices. This suggests a gap between policy on paper and its enforcement in practice. In effect, strong laws remain undermined by weak implementation.

Overall, employment without accessibility is meaningless. Without accessible environments, equipment, and technologies, PwD face disproportionate burdens, including the need for perseverance and negotiation with employers. This underscores the importance of government oversight, managerial training, and inclusive procurement policies to ensure equitable access to resources.

Intersectionality of disability, gender, and educational status with workplace accommodations

While overall gender differences in the provision of workplace accommodations were limited, a few disparities were observed. For example, male employees with disabilities were more likely than female employees to receive personal assistance. While the reason is unclear, it may relate to differences in self-advocacy or broader gender inequities in Ethiopia. Further research is required to unpack these findings.

Education level also influenced accommodation provision. Employees with higher education were more likely to receive accommodations, possibly because they were more aware of their rights and better equipped to negotiate for them. This aligns with the CRPD’s emphasis on awareness-raising (UN 2006). However, female employees—who generally had lower educational attainment—were less likely to receive accommodations, highlighting compounding disadvantages. Employers may also prioritize accommodations for highly educated employees because they are perceived as more valuable to the organization, thereby justifying the investment. Although this may seem pragmatic, it constitutes discrimination based on educational status.