Policy agenda for disability and employment

In a feature article for Indus Delta, Huw Davies of the British Association for Supported Employment (BASE) sets out a future policy agenda for disability and employment.

He writes:

Supported employment has been operating in Britain for around 30 years now, largely under the radar of Government departments. It has survived on piecemeal funding and changed thousands of lives by offering a route to open employment. There has been little coordinated investment in workforce development leading to some commentators describing the sector as under achieving do-gooders. Meanwhile the search has continued for policy solutions from abroad. While the recent focus has been on DWP funded programmes, the department has sometimes failed to appreciate that much of the service delivery is funded from outside of their department.

Despite the recent economic downturn, there remains a national aspiration for 80% of the working age population to be in employment. It is essential that a socially inclusive approach is used to achieve this. While headline employment rates for people with a disability hover just under 50%, this disguises the disparity between the experiences of different disability groups. Only 7.5% of people with significant learning disabilities are in paid work, many of them part-time, and the figure for people with severe mental health needs stands at around 3.5%. Employment rates for all people with a disability need to be substantially improved with a significant narrowing of the gap between different customer groups.

We clearly need targeted strategies if we are to get anywhere near equalising employment rates. BASE fully supports the targeted approach of the PSA16, Valuing Employment Now, and Work, Recovery and Inclusion strategies. There is a danger, however, that those people on the margins of these strategies will miss out on the individualised support they require. The composition of the PSA16 learning disability group is going to vary depending on the number of people who meet the Fair Access to Services (FACS) criteria and with most authorities now only assessing those who are in substantial or critical need, this group is likely to shrink as a result of funding cutbacks. There is likely to be a large section of disabled people who do not meet the criteria for PSA16 or individual budgets but who have extensive employment support needs. We must ensure that they are not written off and left to their own devices as this can only lead to isolation and possible exploitation.

National employment programmes should recognise the expertise of local and regional specialist providers. We believe that specialist services should be procured at a local or subregional level. There must be recognition that locally based providers have a clear role in delivering local, regional and national strategic aims. They are well placed to develop clear linkages with local services, influence local strategy and remain locally accountable for the quality of their provision.

There is little evidence that large supply chain procurement leads to better outcomes and BASE believes that greater flexibility is needed with the DWP Commissioning Strategy. The recent development of Work Choice has highlighted the potential for unintended consequences of decisions made for the best of motives. BASE does not think that the impact on customers was fully thought through and it is clear that funding per customer will be reduced. Contracts will get bigger within the same budgetary constraints and some funding will be used for management charges and profit margins instead of service delivery.

Supply chain stewardship is a critical issue for providers. Subcontracting arrangements should be fair to all parties and independent arbitration should be available if disputes cannot be resolved between contractors. Merlin is in real danger of missing the important issues by being overly complex. DWP has to adopt a hands-on approach to market stewardship if it is to maintain a diverse provider base. This means subcontractors must be able to communicate directly with DWP. DWP contract management should be proactive in supporting improved delivery. Failing providers should be identified and supported but an inability to improve should result in the loss of contract.

The search for solutions has led to a rash of pilots: Getting a Life, Right to Control, Project Search, Jobs First are just some of them. We need effective communication and partnership working at cross-Government level to ensure that initiatives are coordinated, avoid duplication and enhance transitions into employment. An ethos of co-production should include employers, customers and provider representation in policy development. Local partnership will not happen if national and regional policy is not coordinated.

Customers should have access to high quality evidence-based employment support irrespective of postcode. PSA16 has led to a changed mindset and for the first time people from education, health, social care and employment sectors are starting to have a dialogue; using the same language and talking about the same people. There is a danger that Government will tire of the initiative if instant results don’t follow but this is a long-term endeavour. Attitudes and expectations don’t change overnight and the clear cost-benefit opportunities should convince policy makers that we must persevere. Local targets should be set to improve employment rates and local strategic partnerships should be responsible for achieving them. Ringfenced funding may well be required to achieve this.

The supported employment model has a relevance to all economically disadvantaged groups. BASE believes in the “place and train” or “individual placement and support” approach to supporting disabled jobseekers. This requires the minimum levels of prevocational support needed to achieve sustainable employment. BASE does not recognise “job readiness” as a helpful concept, particularly for people with significant learning disabilities, and yet much of the traditional pathway to work is built around this notion. Local authorities should consider the merits of commissioning “place and train” supported employment services as an alternative to further education where appropriate. Education providers have a clear role to play in accrediting skills development once a person is employed but most are not best placed to deliver direct employment support in isolation from other partners.

We would encourage the joint commissioning and co-location of services. Investment must be commensurate with achieving the objectives of higher employment rates and further work is needed to fully understand the costs of providing individualised employment support. Funding should be transferred from day services to employment support and mental health services must recognise the therapeutic value of work and invest accordingly.

Employers are key customers of supported employment services and should be encouraged to contribute to the planning, delivery and evaluation of provision. We often fail to fully appreciate their perspective and business priorities. There are ways of streamlining employer engagement and we must avoid the trap of trying to engage within individual policy silos but engage instead on the broader issue of diversity management.

There is a clear business case for employing a diverse workforce and BASE favours a human resources approach based on diversity management rather than equal opportunities. Diversity management should be an integral part of human resources qualifications and the Investors in People Framework. Reasonable adjustments to the recruitment process should include working interviews where jobseekers can practically demonstrate their competence as an alternative to formal interviews.

Employment support should aim to maximise the confidence and capability of employers so that they are able to develop their own management practices and processes to recruit and retain a diverse workforce. Employers are often not clear where to seek advice and Business Link has a role in coordinating the availability of information.

Companies should be supported in making reasonable adjustments to the workplace and job duties. They should be compensated for any long-term staff absence that results from a disability condition.

The public sector is an employer too and should be encouraged through its equality duties to do far more to employ workers with a disability. This will require greater flexibility in recruitment practice but the sector can also use social clauses to influence the involvement of supply chains in creating training and employment opportunities. There are also opportunities for ethical procurement and reserved contracts under Article 19.

The journey to employment starts with education and there ought to be far higher expectations of achieving employment outcomes for disabled school leavers. Work needs to be undertaken to raise the aspirations of individuals with a disability, their family/carers and supporting professionals. A greater awareness of employment issues by education professionals would help with this aim.

Work experience placements should be compulsory for all school pupils in years 10-11 and resources should address the difficulties posed by the requirements for transport and workplace support. Young people should have the opportunity to be supported in Saturday and holiday jobs, a natural move towards independence for most of us. All disabled learners from the age of 14 to 25 years should have access to advice and guidance services to support their pathway to employment. Transition plans need to be person-centred, formalised, implemented and audited.

Vocational courses in further education should be required to contain significant elements of workplace learning – delivered in partnership between education and supported employment providers – and this learning should inform curriculum development. It can’t be right that education providers are penalised financially because learners achieve job outcomes and leave education.

Though there is little apparent demand for individual budgets around employment support, BASE supports the personalisation agenda and we would urge a more ambitious approach that includes all relevant public funding streams such as education and Jobcentre Plus. Individuals and their carers may require support in managing the personalisation process. This may include support around recruiting support, and managing payroll and legislative requirements.

The use of individual budgets will raise concerns about the quality of support. A nationally recognised qualification framework is essential to reflect the wide range of skills utilised within the supported employment industry. These qualifications should be available from a range of providers at a realistic cost and accredited training in supported employment techniques should be available to the workforce within the social care, health and education sectors.

All providers of specialist employment support should be subject to inspection using a common set of standards founded on evidence-based practice. Quality inspections should be proportionate and fit for purpose. Best practice should be identified and widely disseminated. Providers should adopt quality assurance processes that are designed to enable benchmarking across the sector.

There is much to do but it is starting to feel like there’s a clearer idea of the direction of travel. Perhaps we should be more confident in our ability to deliver good quality specialist employment support within Britain. Many other European countries envy our anti-discrimination legislation and the general attitude of employers. Maybe it’s time to build on what we’ve already got, to support improved and more cost-effective practice, instead of continually trying to reinvent the system.