« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
CHAPTER THREE: BROADER STAKEHOLDER
PERSPECTIVES
INTRODUCTION
3.1 It was clear from the short-life working group's
report on employment,
'Working for a change?' (2003), that achieving
employment for this disadvantaged group is not just about
closing day centres or changing expectations. In its
discussion, the working group acknowledged the interplay of
systemic issues, negative attitudes, limited knowledge and
information, the lack of mainstreaming and leadership, all
of which serve to compound the difficulties faced by
individuals and their families and the innovative services
which exist.
3.2 In this chapter, we discuss these issues from the
perspectives of 10 key stakeholders chosen in collaboration
with the Research Advisory Group. Five were central
government departments, although one was at arm's length,
and 5 were umbrella organisations within the statutory or
voluntary sectors. They included representatives of Careers
Scotland, Scottish Enterprise, the Association of Directors
of Social Work, the Health Service,
ENABLE, the Disability Rights
Commission, the Scottish Union of Supported Employment,
Jobcentre Plus, The National Autistic Society and the
Department of Transport, Enterprise and Lifelong
Learning.
IMPACT OF 'THE SAME AS YOU?'
3.3 A common view across all key stakeholders was that
in relation to people with learning disabilities and/or
ASD, employment was not yet sufficiently
high on the policy agenda, despite the current climate
being especially conducive to change. This was borne out by
the limited engagement with the employment agenda as
identified in
The same as you? Only 2 interviewees identified
this document as having had a significant impact on their
organisations, and both were social work related
organisations. The impact had been to give a higher profile
and priority to modernising day services and to developing
'supported employment' options. However, as one commented,
while "employment has taken off in some areas, it's not yet
on the corporate agenda"
3.4 A central government agency stated it had
facilitated the creation of more effective links with wider
structures in order to expand the 'employability' agenda.
Half had no or little awareness of
The same as you? with a minority stating that the
Beattie report had had greater influence on their
organisation. These were mostly, but not exclusively,
broader employment agencies. This could be viewed as
disappointing given these organisations are best placed to
take forward the mainstreaming of 'supported
employment'.
SYSTEMS EFFECTIVE IN PROMOTING
EMPLOYMENT
3.5 The most commonly cited method for effectively
promoting employment was the 'supported employment' model.
A general view was that the technical know-how, such as
vocational profiling, job matching, Training in Systematic
Instruction (
TSI) and job coaching etc. existed and
its success demonstrated. However, it was also argued that
'supported employment' was not available to most people
with learning disabilities and/or
ASD:
"The best that is held up…has only 100 people in
jobs - that's peanuts. Compare that to the numbers in
day centres. It's self evident that we're
failing."
3.6 The importance of dedicated and "well-defined
services" focusing purely on employment, and which included
in-built sustainability through a support package for both
employers and employees, was emphasised. Further,
"intensive work on benefits" and providing support to find
and stay in work had demonstrated that 'supported
employment' works when implemented properly.
3.7 Alongside this, one voluntary agency noted that the
spread of person-centred planning approaches generally had
strengthened the 'supported employment' agenda.
Interestingly this individual focus was echoed in the
comments of the central government agencies, all of which
identified the extension of their remit to people dependent
on a range of benefits and the creation of personal
advisers and key workers within their systems, to support
this endeavour.
3.8 Two interviewees referred to the mainstreaming of
funding as being helpful, although added that this needed
to be based on an understanding of the principles of
'supported employment'. Strikingly, there was only one
mention of the Disability Discrimination Act as an aid to
promoting employment. This was in relation to people with
ASD for whom 'reasonable adjustments'
beyond physical arrangements to include aspects of
advertising and interviewing together with harassment, was
deemed relevant.
3.9 In respect of employment practices being helpful,
there were 2 distinctive views expressed. One was that
'equal ops' was "all well and good" as a backdrop but in
day-to-day matters it was a "red herring". The other view
expressed was that a good 'supported employment' service
would overcome any misunderstandings and resistance by
working closely with employers. Also the point was made
that opportunities were missed by failure to make the
'business case' for employing people with disabilities.
PERCEIVED BARRIERS TO EMPLOYMENT
3.10 A predominant theme to emerge unprompted from
voluntary and local statutory organisations, was a
perceived lack of leadership and absence of a consistent
framework from which to commission quality 'supported
employment' services and against which to audit
performance. As a result, there was felt to be unhelpful
"variability" in the field and "no rhyme nor reason often
as to what projects survive and which ones don't".
Consequently, while some "good services" had not survived,
some "bad services" continued to operate.
3.11 Asking specifically about the barriers identified
by the short-life working group (Scottish Executive, 2003),
interviewees expanded on the following: disincentives in
the social security system; low expectations and negative
attitudes; a lack of awareness; and poor employment
practices.
Disincentives in the social security
system
3.12 Interviewees perceived the loss of welfare
benefits, direct or indirect, as a result of paid
employment as a barrier. What was interesting though was a
perceptible shift in thinking from identifying what is
often referred to as 'the benefits trap' as THE main
barrier to focusing on inadequacies in the knowledge and
expertise of employment specialists as the main problem.
While it was acknowledged that the benefits system was
"complex", it was also felt there was "conflicting
information" about this as a main barrier and that there
were "ways around the difficulties" although "it requires
knowledge".
3.13 Interviewees stressed the importance of 'supported
employment' services having access to specialist benefits
advice workers. A minority were unconvinced that welfare
rights officers had sufficient specialist expertise. When
benefits issues were not tackled properly or employment
workers operated in ignorance, the outcomes from 'supported
employment' fell short and, in some cases, were
"undesirable" for instance as one interviewee
commented:
"It's not for the fainthearted, but there's lots of
services ignore it and then they end up with guys
getting jobs at 4 hours a week so they dinnae have to
deal with the benefit problem…That's basically what
people are saying- that it's too complicated for me-
let's no get into that minefield- let's call it
permitted work or what another local authority has
done, which is to demean work right down to therapeutic
activity. It's not even called work anymore"
3.14 There were different views as to what constitutes
progress with tackling the benefits agenda. Unlike
'supported employment' services, which were primarily
focused on ensuring people received the 'going rate for the
job', central government agencies commented on improvements
introduced in therapeutic/permitted earnings and safety net
arrangements.
Low expectations and attitudes
3.15 Most identified low expectations and negative
attitudes as major barriers in getting people into work.
Attitudinal barriers across all sectors- employers,
families, professionals and people with learning
disabilities and/or
ASD themselves, were described, though
with varying emphases. Most interviewees did not locate the
problem with people with learning disabilities and/or
ASD but with the attitudes of
others:
"There are major attitudinal barriers. Not so much
people with learning disabilities but we have care
managers, day services staff whose attitudes are
barriers. Supported employment isn't embedded in
SVQ training and so they don't have
the awareness of employment they should have."
3.16 Also, as the above person went on to say, serious
attention has to be paid to staff as they influenced
families' attitudes. One respondent commented that the only
way forward was to tackle this culture at an early stage
through working closely with school leavers so that they
did not "get into the benefits trap in the first
place."
3.17 Comments in respect of individuals with
ASD, and more specifically about people
with Aspergers Syndrome were interesting on two counts.
First, it was suggested that people with Aspergers Syndrome
encountered difficulties as a result of applying for jobs
for which they were unsuited due to their social disability
rather than any lack of technical skill or qualifications.
Second, as their disability was largely "hidden", employer
attitudes and discrimination was an on-going problem. It
was suggested that this was perhaps because Aspergers
Syndrome was less visible as a disability than, for
example, Downs Syndrome.
Lack of awareness & employment practices
3.18 More than half the interviewees identified a lack
of awareness and employment practices as barriers. There
was a view, chiefly expressed by voluntary organisations,
that local authorities were not doing enough to promote
employment within their own ambit and that central bodies
were achieving less than they would like to think. However,
establishing the infrastructures at a local level was
slower. In common with the voluntary agencies that wanted
clarity and standards in relation to 'supported
employment', central agencies commented that lack of a
definition of 'employability' and understanding of its
uneven development in some, were problematic.
3.19 Predictably comments on employment practices tended
to focus on human resource policies with organisations
referring to equal opportunities documents and some
additional arrangements such as the appointment of a
'diversity manager'. The question of flexibility in
employment was raised as a particular issue for people with
ASD. It was said that 'reasonable
adjustment' was often less about physical arrangements and
more about support in knowing how to socialise and whom to
ask if there was a problem. People with
ASD would tend to leave a job rather
than deal with such situations, which pointed to the need
for regular reviews and flexibility in employment
practices.
ACHIEVING CHANGE
3.20 The 3 most important priorities for achieving
change identified by the interviewees were having central
leadership; changing expectations and attitudes; and
mainstreaming employment.
Leadership & coordination
3.21 Most interviewees were looking to the Scottish
Executive to provide consistent strategic direction, which
included establishing a formally recognised framework for
'supported employment' along American lines, as well as
systems for monitoring and training. Most, though not all,
thought there should be one governmental department in
charge and that the department selected should have an
employment brief to avoid the risk that such initiatives
might not be seen as work. One person captured the spirit
of the responses as follows:
"Supported employment has so far been a grassroots
development. Now it's older, it needs the structure to
grow properly".
3.22 Within the broad agreement that improved
co-ordination of employment services was a priority in
reducing barriers to employment, two approaches emerged.
One could be described as the reduction of duplication and
the creation of one-stop shops as both assistance to
employers and those seeking work. At a simple level, mutual
access to vacancy lists and structurally, the merging of
the Benefits Agency and Employment Services into Jobcentre
Plus was seen as helpful. Nonetheless, we were told that
despite the aspirations of newly created government
agencies around 'employability', they were not properly
geared up to dealing with people with disability.
3.23 The second approach favoured was a partnership
approach through the creation of a forum with dedicated
monies from a range of sources to develop and implement an
equal access strategy which 'connects' economic
development, training agencies and 'supported employment'.
The Glasgow Employment Forum was an exemplar of this
approach, which we were told, had generated much political
interest.
3.24 We did however receive a specific suggestion in
relation to
ASD that one-stop shops and generic
initiatives were not necessarily the way forward in so far
as generic disability advisers rarely had the expertise or
sufficient time to deal adequately with people with
ASD.
Changing expectations and attitudes
3.25 Changing expectations particularly those of
professionals, families and agencies was seen as a priority
task and likened to the 'culture shift' required to achieve
the closure of the learning disability hospitals, and
create a normative expectation that people should live and
work in the community:
"It's partly about chipping away at these attitudes
but also using a sledgehammer! It's not acceptable to
me that Social Work for instance who's responsible for
support arrangements, does not include employment when
putting together person-centred plans".
3.26 There were comments about the importance of
changing attitudes and expectations of carers generally in
relation to people with learning disabilities and/or
ASD, as difficulties that arose in
relation to benefits often had implications for the whole
family finances and not just those of the person with a
disability.
Mainstreaming
3.27 There was widespread support for mainstreaming in
the sense of locating 'supported employment' within the
world of work where its primary profile would be business
rather than welfare focused. However, the view that
specialist agencies should complement mainstream
organisations rather than be replaced by them was
overwhelming. This opinion was particularly strongly felt
in relation to
ASD where specialist resources were seen
as critical to achieving improvement.
3.28 The introduction of person-centred approaches was
seen as key in developing mainstream responses. This
approach was beginning to show through the whole system
whether it was the introduction of personal advisers and
key workers in employment agencies, or person-centred
planning and the use of direct payments in human service
settings.
3.29 Interviewees across the sample identified the need
to mainstream funding for 'supported employment' and for
improved co-ordination of employment services. There was an
acceptance that ensuring employment opportunities for
people with disabilities was part of wider agendas. Indeed
specialist agencies suggested the concept of 'readiness'
had been successfully challenged but people were 'stuck' in
the system.
Other priorities for achieving change
3.30 Several other priorities were identified. These
included carrying out diversity audits, promoting success
stories, tackling the disincentives inherent in the social
security and other related systems, and increasing the
resources available for 'supported employment'. Matters
associated with 'reasonable adjustments' and work place
culture were given particular emphasis in relation to
ASD where, for instance, people with
Aspergers Syndrome might communicate well in writing but
not face-to-face.
ENCOURAGING COLLABORATION AT STRATEGIC
LEVEL
3.31 Suggestions about achieving collaboration at a
strategic level across traditional boundaries such as
across Careers, Employment, Equality, Benefits, Disability
and Health fell into two broad camps. First, collaboration
at a strategic level required leadership and guidance from
the top. Second, it required coordination and
partnership.
Leadership & guidance from the top
3.32 Almost half the interviewees mentioned a need for
leadership and for "practical and pragmatic" guidance from
the top. Some talked about the need for a shared vision in
which the Scottish Executive would take a lead to ensure
that the social justice and employability agendas were
articulated within departments and on the ground. Alongside
this, and related to it, was the view that there had been
recent significant policy changes such as the New Futures
Fund, which signified that "the timing is right" to develop
a national framework that cuts across disadvantaged groups
and different departments so that "everyone buys into
it."
Coordination & partnership
3.33 The second set of ideas focused on co-ordination
and partnership as a way to achieve 'joined-up working'.
Some government organisations mentioned a pervasive
cultural change that was taking place nationally within the
Civil Service, which supported strategic working across
departments: Departments were said to be "encouraged to
work that way". Working in isolation was now considered
"wrong" and because of the target groups, agencies were
increasingly required to "work with an appropriate range of
partners to achieve targeted services."
3.34 The requirement for a lead agency to promote and
coordinate employment initiatives was identified by the
short life working group in
Working for a change?. While over half
interviewees supported the idea of a lead agency, there was
less support for the idea that this should be the
Department of Transport, Enterprise and Lifelong Learning (
TELL). Many thought Social Justice or
Equalities Unit better placed to do this. One considered it
necessary to create a new agency without any "vested
interest".
3.35 Two respondents suggested the Glasgow Equal Access
strategy provided a good model of partnership working, but
required co-ordination by an organisation that was not a
service provider. Although not a new idea in principle, it
has been described in some detail elsewhere as
'collaborative advantage' (Huxham 1996), it appeared new in
the 'supported employment' field.
CHAPTER THREE: SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS
- Despite publication of The same as you? and Working
for a change?, key stakeholders believed that
employment was still "not yet on the corporate
agenda"
- The 'supported employment' model was considered the
most effective way of promoting employment with all
disadvantaged groups
- Promoting employment required dedicated and well
defined 'supported employment' services including
support for employee and employer
- The emergence of person-centred approaches;
mainstreaming of funding; and to a lesser extent, the
Disability Discrimination Act and equal opportunity
policies had helped promote employment
- Making the business case for employing people with
learning disabilities and/or ASD was felt to be more
significant than organisations' equal opportunities
policies
- A main barrier to employment was felt to be the
lack of leadership and not having a consistent
framework to commission 'supported employment' and
audit performance
- Low expectations and negative attitudes, lack of
awareness, poor employment practices, and disincentives
in the benefits system were also identified as
barriers
- There was conflicting information about the
'benefits trap' and a growing opinion that with
knowledge and expertise this barrier could be
overcome
- The importance of leadership and a strategic push
from the centre was critical: This included developing
a national framework for 'supported employment',
setting standards, monitoring and promoting training to
meet them
- It was felt that local authorities and central
government could do more to promote employment within
their own organisations
- The 3 priorities for achieving change were 1)
central leadership and coordination; 2) changing
expectations and attitudes; and 3) mainstreaming
employment
- Other suggestions included carrying out diversity
audits; promoting success stories; tackling benefits
issues; and increasing resources for 'supported
employment'
- Changing expectations (of professionals, families
and agencies) was likened to the culture shift required
to achieve closure of long stay hospitals
- As far as lead agency, not all agreed with the
short life working group's suggestion that this should
be the Department of Transport, Enterprise and Lifelong
Learning. Several preferred to locate it within social
justice or equalities agendas
- There were differences of opinion about the
benefits of supporting mainstream agencies to get
better at catering for everyone's needs or whether both
generalist and specialist agencies should co-exist and
complement each other
- There was a more insistent anxiety that generic
services would have insufficient expertise and time to
provide a successful service to people with ASD.
« Previous | Contents | Next »