Discussion paper to Disability Working Group, Satellite Group 1
DISABILITY EMPLOYMENT MODELS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR SCOTLAND
Sally Witcher, August 2005
1. Introduction
The brief for this paper was to consider models of disability employment which have been tried successfully elsewhere and the lessons to be learned for the devolved environment in Scotland. This is a far from straightforward task, not least because of the bottomless pit of information available. There are differences in philosophies, institutional arrangements, related policy areas, etc mean that comparison is not always meaningful. There is a bottomless pit of information available. As Ecotec (2000) notes, it is impossible to assess the precise impact of any one policy because they interact with each other. It is easier to assess the impact of policy 'packages'. However, these invariably contain elements which are covered by reserved powers, and most seem to focus primarily on these. Barriers to work for disabled people arise from a variety of policy areas beyond employment programmes specifically, e.g. public transport, community care, anti-discrimination legislation. Even where a particular initiative might be transferable to Scotland/ within SE powers, the wider policy context is not the same. What works in one place may not work, or be feasible, in another.
2. Similarities and differences
a) Overview
Institutional arrangements differ vastly. Even where there are country-wide and devolved structures, the way these interface can be very different. For example, Canada has a multilateral framework setting out a vision, goals and priorities for disability employment. Provinces/ territories then receive up to 50% of the funding needed to deliver services and programmes in accordance with this, which they determine (e.g. see the agreement between Canada and Alberta on http://www3.gov.ab.ca/hre/lmapd.asp).
There is a large difference in disability rates across countries that enjoy similar levels of economic and social development, partly because of the way they define and assess disability, partly due to differences in the generosity of benefits. (see OECD 2003). Yet, what all countries have in common is that disability employment policy is highly complex (Martin et al 2001). They also seem to share the fact that, while many had developed innovative measures, none have successfully cracked disability employment policy (OECD 2003, Ecotec 2000)! According to the OECD policy briefing (2003), a key reason government disability outlays remain so high is that very few people actually leave benefit programmes. The numbers were virtually nil in all countries studied, despite big efforts by some governments to rehabilitate and reintegrate disabled people, or to offer substantial monetary incentives (Australia and US). Most countries have specialist programmes, but these do not have a substantial impact on overall disability employment rates.
b) Differences in overall approaches/ philosophies
The US approach is based on individual rights whereas in Sweden the cornerstone is subsidised employment. Others emphasise quota systems. Some go for compulsion, others for persuasion. Most make use of financial incentives to employers, such as wage subsidies or grants for adaptations. According to Ecotec (2000), in some cultures SME's can play a quasi 'caring' role (Ireland, Spain, Italy), broadly because SMEs have less bureaucracy than larger companies and are more embedded in the community (see Martin et al 2001, p14 for an overview including Thornton and Lunt (1997), Ecotec (2000), Leichsenring and Strümpel (1994), Nexus (1998)).
c) Common themes and issues
The challenges are not dissimilar across the board (e.g. see papers for the Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission inquiry into disability employment due to report November 2005 http://www.hreoc.gov.au/disability_rights/employment_inquiry/index.htm ). To summarise these include:
- How to reduce the numbers claiming incapacity-type benefits
- The need for easily accessible information (disabled people and employers)
- The need for high quality data about disability employment
- The implications of IT - opportunities and challenges
- The implications of an ageing population - for various reasons disability benefit awards are often concentrated on those over 50 (oecd briefing paper), although Switzerland and the Netherlands have a high proportion of younger benefit recipients.
In terms of the direction of policy, recurring themes include:
- 'Activation' - the move away from 'passive' to 'active' employment strategies, mostly via benefit requirements (see Ecotec 2000 report, Australia and the Netherlands, among others)
- The integration of disabled workers into mainstream employment - moving away from sheltered employment and towards supported or 'open' employment.
- Structures/ Measures to promote joined-up inter-agency working, 'seamless services', including 'One-Stop-Shops'
- Individualisation - tailored packages of support
- Moves towards early intervention when a worker becomes disabled
3. What the Scottish Executive can do - and what it can't
Clearly, the SE cannot change benefit or employment policy, but areas where it could intervene include:
- Support/ Initiate services, e.g. support to voluntary sector organisations providing disability employment services, information provision, peer support (employers, service providers, disabled people)
- Developing/ Supporting the development of structures and infrastructure, e.g. organisational infrastructure, networks, umbrella groups, rural infrastructure, etc
- Developing training policy/ programmes
- Smoothing transitions, e.g from education into employment (Careers Scotland; fostering links between FE and HE with business?)
- Promoting joined-up working, e.g. strengthening links between health, community care services to employment goals and institutions (e.g. Jobcentre Plus)
- Promoting good practice, e.g. Public Sector Duty, encourage Corporate Social Responsibility reporting
- Initiate data collection or collate data centrally
- Related policy areas, e.g on equipment ( NHS/ local authority-funded), personal assistance (e.g. direct payments), concessionary fares (local authority schemes)
- Run campaigns, e.g. awareness, promotion of technology
4. Models
The sorts of action the SE could take in the above areas would be worth discussing. Often there are no obviously applicable/ easily accessible models identifiable from abroad. However, in the short time available in which to produce this report, the following models may stimulate some ideas.
a) A.C.E - Australia
The Association for Competitive Employment (ACE) is a national network of 180 Disability Employment Services (mostly community-based, some private sector). Disability Employment Services provide a range of services to jobseekers with disabilities to prepare them to return to work, e.g. vocational guidance and support, support in managing disability-related issues before and after starting work, on-the-job support to assist in settling into a new job, off-site support for those who do not disclose their disability. They also provide services to employers, e.g. recruitment and selection assistance, on-the-job training with new employees, follow-up and back-up support, re-training of employees should they move from one duty to another or if a new skill is required, advice and training to co-workers about issues related to employing people with disabilities. ACE represents the interests of members at a national level, identifies opportunities to get a better deal for people with disabilities participating in the workforce and educates the public about issues of disability employment. (see http://www.acenational.org.au/public/faq.shtml )
The nearest equivalent here is probably The Scottish Union of Supported Employment, or perhaps the newly formed trade association for employment-related service-providers (see www.ersa.org.uk ).
b) U.S.A.
(most of the following taken from http://www.onestops.info/ )
Standards:
The National Center on Workforce and Disability/ Adult has checklists on standards for the accessibility of employment services. The checklist is divided into five major sections, one for each essential item: agency culture, consumer directedness, quality personnel, access to resources, and coordinated services.
Employment networks:
Employment networks are responsible for coordination and delivery of employment services, vocational rehabilitation services, and other support services. Employment networks may include qualified state agencies (including State VR agencies, Medicaid agencies, and agencies serving persons with learning difficulties, developmental disabilities, and mental illness), local agencies, public schools, public and private colleges and universities, and private entities (including community rehabilitation providers, employers, and nontraditional providers). An employment network can be a single entity or an association of entities. The employment network can provide services directly or through contract or other arrangement with other entities.
Local Workforce Investment Boards
The Workforce Investment Act (WIA) was enacted in 1998 to unify a fragmented employment and training system into a more comprehensive workforce investment system that better serves job seekers (enhances self-sufficiency) and employers. It was recently amended by the Job Training Improvement Act (2005).
Section 117(b) of WIA specifies that each local workforce investment area must establish a local workforce investment board (LWIB). They must include representatives of business and others. LWIBs develop and submit to the Governor a two-year local plan, in partnership with the appropriate chief elected official. The contents of the local plan is amended to include a description of the one-stop delivery system, including a description of how the LWIB will ensure the continuo us improvement of eligible providers of services through the system and ensure that such providers meets the employment needs of local employers and participants.
The 'One-Stop' System
The One-Stop system operates through a network of centers in each state. They provide a variety of services to assist individuals to meet their employment and training needs, while also assisting local employers to meet their needs for qualified personnel. Each state is required to have at least one comprehensive center that is physically located in each local service delivery area.
c) GLADNET
The Global Applied Disability Research and Information Network on Employment and Training ( http://www.gladnet.org ) - is a membership organisation, connected to the ILO (International Labour Organisation). Among other things, it operates a comprehensive web-based resource on employment and disability called 'InfoBase' and hosts conferences around the world.
d) Lessons from ESF training review
The review (Taylor and o'Connor 2005) suggests the sorts of features a successful training model might have:
- Beneficiaries preferred community settings as less intimidating
- Group dynamics and atmosphere were important to course completion
- Flexibility is important, both in terms of rules of attendance and pace of delivery to suit individual needs
- Personal development plans which identified individual needs were valued
- Help with finding work/ onward progression after the course was also important. The usual onward path was to more training and/ or voluntary work before moving into employment
e) Sweden
The Swedish National Council of Adult Education states that, during 2003, 27 folk high schools arranged 'adjustment courses' (social and practical skills training for disabled adults) as part of rehabilitation for groups with disabilities, or 'activation courses', in cooperation with 12 disability organisations. (From National Action Plan 2004)
f) Austria
Under the technology campaign ( Technologieoffensive), disabled people's access to information and communication technologies will be improved and upgraded. The social partners took another initiative by launching an Internet portal www.arbeitundbehinderung.at to reduce the existing information deficit and facilitate access to support programmes. (From National Action Plan 2004)References and sources of further information
Ecotec Research and Consulting Ltd. (2000), Benchmarking Employment Policies for People with Disabilities, a study prepared for the European Commission Directorate-General for Employment and Social Affairs Unit EMPL/E/4
European Union of Supported Employment see http://www.euse.org/HistorySE.asp . The Scottish Union of Supported Employment is a member.
Leichsenring, K. & Strümpel, C. (eds.) (1994), Mandatory Employment or Equal
Opportunities? Employment Policies for People with Disabilities in the UN-European Region, report of International Expert Meeting, Vienna 1-2 December
Martin, T. & Associates (2001) Sheltered Employment: a Review of the Literature see http://www.tma.ie/Publications/review_2001.pdf
OECD (2003) Policy Brief: Disability Programmes in Need of Reform see http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/62/20/31826833.pdf
National Action Plans - for information on EU countries performance on employment see reports (particularly guideline 7) on http://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/employment_strategy/national_en.htm
Taylor, J. & O'Connor. W. (2005) European Social Fund: A profile of 'inactive' beneficiaries DWP (see http://www.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd5/rrs2005.asp#inactive )
Thornton, P. & Lunt, N. (1997), Employment Policies for Disabled People in Eighteen Countries: A Review [supported by EC HELIOS II and the Vocational Rehabilitation Branch of the International Labour Office]