DEPARTMENT FOR EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT:
REMPLOY LIMITED
REMPLOY IN
THE CONTEXT
OF THE
SUPPORTED EMPLOYMENT
PROGRAMME
8. In terms of value for money, the evidence shows
that Remploy compare reasonably with other providers of supported
employment[4]. In 1995-96,
the latest year for which audited accounts for local authorities
and voluntary bodies are available, Remploy provided each factory
place for £10,367 which was more than the cost to local authorities
(£10,111) but less than the cost to voluntary bodies (£10,947).
In the same year, Remploy provided each placement with a host
firm for £4,242 which was less than the cost to voluntary
bodies (£4,313) and to local authorities (£5,036).
9. Workshop and Remploy factory places, therefore,
cost more than twice as much as placements with host firms[5].
Since 1987-88, the Department's encouragement of the greater
use of placement schemes has resulted in a 29 per cent shift in
supported employment provision from workshops and Remploy factories
to placements with host firms[6].
The Department told us that ten years ago, at the time of our
predecessors' report on supported employment, 20 per cent of the
programme had been made up of placements; it was now 49 per cent.
They told us that this gave them a great deal more flexibility
as to where those placements were provided. They fully expected
that within a year the balance of the programme would be 50:50,
that is, 50 per cent placements with host firms and 50 per cent
workshop and Remploy factory places[7].
10. The Department put it to us that this was fairly
impressive progress especially as they had to take into account
the needs of individuals and also deal with local authorities
and voluntary bodies who were very committed to the workshops
which they had provided, in many cases for decades, and who saw
those workshops as playing an important part in their local communities.
The Department, therefore, considered that any further rebalancing
of the programme was going to take time and was going to have
to be handled sensitively[8].
11. The Department went on to emphasise that there
were people who needed the greater support and the more sheltered
environment provided by the factory and workshop and who were
unable to work in a placement situation. Since the Department
did not wish to be seen as pushing people from a sheltered environment
to placements for which they were not suitable, they were loath
to set targets at a national level for the rebalancing of the
programme[9]. Instead
they expected that discussion on rebalancing should take place
at a local level[10].
12. In 1990 a Departmental survey indicated that
between 130,000 and 270,000 people with severe disabilities were
employed or self-employed, including 20,000 on the supported employment
programme, and that between 60,000 and 100,000 severely disabled
people were actively seeking work. The results of this survey,
like earlier surveys, were not precise because they were based
on a small sample projected into the national population[11].
13. In the absence of reliable information about
the numbers of severely disabled people who currently require
supported employment, we asked the Department whether they were
able to say how successful the supported employment programme
had been. The Department told us that they had commissioned some
further research to check the 1990 position and that a report
was expected in 1998. They added that the provisional findings
from the research indicated that it was most likely that the demand
for supported employment was between 40,000 and 80,000 people,
which to some extent confirmed the findings of the 1990 survey[12].
14. Despite some improvements since 1987-88 the geographical
distribution of supported employment provision remains uneven
and still largely determined by the providers[13].
Therefore, we asked the Department what measures they were taking
to bring about a more even geographical spread corresponding to
the spread of the demand. The Department told us that, according
to their 1990 survey, there were some parts of the country which
were relatively over-provided or under-provided but there was
no single geographical area which was over-provided[14].
15. In the Department's view the most important thing
they could do to address uneven geographical distribution was
to re-balance the programme so that there were more people in
placements than there were in workshops and factories because
placements were a more flexible form of provision. The Department
told us that, as far as they could, they encouraged Remploy and
the other providers, local authorities and voluntary bodies, to
locate their placements and any new factory and workshop places
in areas of relative under-provision, in particular, in London,
the East and the West Midlands. However, it was more difficult
with local authorities or voluntary bodies because the Department
did not have complete control over them[15].
16. The increase in placements has occurred at the
same time as a reduction in the number of people in workshops
and Remploy factories and surplus production capacity at some
locations has inevitably resulted[16].
We asked Remploy what scope there was for co-operation with local
authorities and voluntary bodies in the same geographical location
in order to reduce surplus capacity. Remploy told us that this
was their corporate target but that the potential for co-operation
was relatively restricted because there were very few situations
where Remploy had similar trades or businesses to the local authorities
and voluntary bodies in the same location. Nevertheless, they
were currently having discussions with two voluntary bodies about
possible co-operation and Remploy expected these discussions to
be brought to a satisfactory conclusion[17].
17. We asked the Department what use they had made
of the powers granted to the Secretary of State for Education
and Employment in the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 to allow
him to contract directly with profit-making bodies for the provision
of supported employment in order to provide a wider range of job
opportunities for severely disabled people. They told us that
the Government in 1995 and the current Government had always made
it clear that, before the option was taken up, there would need
to be wide consultation. That consultation had not taken place
and therefore there had been no direct funding of supported employment
in profit-making bodies. The Department noted, however, that the
private sector was very much involved in the delivery of the supported
employment programme through the 5,000 host companies who provided
placements[18].
18. An objective of the supported employment programme
is to encourage provision of an effective means of progression
for people with severe disabilities from a supportive to a more
open working environment. But only limited numbers of people
leave the supported employment programme for open employment,
for example, 310 in 1995-96. Currently the Employment Service
are piloting new ways to encourage and manage progressions. Although
the Employment Service require Remploy to achieve a target number
of progressions each year, contracts with local authorities and
voluntary bodies do not include similar targets[19].
19. We, therefore, asked Remploy what they were doing
to stimulate an increase in the number of people who progress
to open employment. Remploy told us that there was a natural
reluctance on the part of their factory managers to lose those
people who might be their best workers. However, in Remploy's
experience, the people who transferred from their factories into
the Interwork scheme or to jobs outside were not necessarily the
most skilled; they were more likely to be the people who wanted
to go. Remploy said that they encouraged factory managers to
increase progressions by setting them targets for achieving as
many progressions as possible[20].
Conclusions
20. We note that, in terms of the value for money
with which they provide supported employment places, Remploy compare
reasonably with local authorities and voluntary bodies. However,
places in local authority and voluntary body workshops and Remploy
factories, which offer a more supportive environment, cost more
than twice as much as supported placements with host firms.
21. Whilst, therefore, we welcome the fact that over
the past ten years there has been a 29 per cent shift in supported
employment provision from local authority and voluntary body workshop
and Remploy factory places to the more cost-effective supported
placements with host firms, we recognise that further rebalancing
of the programme will take time and will need to be handled sensitively.
Nonetheless, we are concerned that no long term target has been
set for the rebalancing of the programme towards supported placements
with host firms. We note that the Department are reluctant to
set targets at a national level because they do not wish to be
seen as forcing disabled people from the more sheltered environment
of workshops and factories to placements for which they might
not be suitable. Instead, the Department expect that discussion
on rebalancing should take place at a local level. Without attempting
to prejudice the outcome, we recommend that the Department review
their existing provision of workshop and factory places in order
to assess by 31 December 1999 future requirements for that
more sheltered environment with a view to establishing the appropriate
balance of provision between workshop/factory places and placements
with firms for the year 2000 onwards. The results of this assessment
would then inform any discussion on rebalancing taking place at
a local level with individual providers.
22. We note the interim results of the research which
the Department recently commissioned into local demand for and
supply of supported employment and into the added value of workshop
and factory places compared with placements. We look forward
to hearing the final results when they are published in 1998 and
trust that these results will make a substantial contribution
to our suggested review of the future requirement for workshop
and factory places.
23. We note that, despite some improvements over
the past ten years, the geographical distribution of supported
employment provision remains uneven and still largely determined
by the providers. We are concerned that, particularly in areas
of relative under-provision, severely disabled people are consequently
being denied the opportunity to work. We are concerned that the
decrease in the number of people in workshops and Remploy factories
has resulted in surplus production capacity at some locations.
Against this background, we urge the Department, when determining
their future strategy, to consider how optimum use can be made
of any surplus production capacity while securing a more even
geographical distribution of provision corresponding to the spread
of the demand.
24. We note that the Disability Discrimination Act
1995 allowed the Secretary of State for Education and Employment
to contract directly with profit-making bodies as well as local
authorities and voluntary bodies for the provision of supported
employment but that, before using this power, the Department will
have wide consultation with relevant organisations. We are concerned
that no such consultation has yet taken place. We encourage the
Department to proceed with the consultation process as a matter
of urgency with a view to providing a wider range of job opportunities
for severely disabled people and reducing the geographical unevenness
of the current provision.
25. We note that one of the objectives of the supported
employment programme is to encourage provision of an effective
means of progression for people with severe disabilities from
a supportive to a more open working environment. Against that
background, we are concerned that only limited numbers of disabled
people leave the supported employment programme for open employment.
We also note that the Employment Service are piloting new ways
to encourage and manage progressions from supported to open employment.
Once these pilot schemes have been evaluated, we look to the
Department and the Employment Service to introduce measures to
stimulate an increase in the number of people who progress to
open employment. We would like to see these measures in place
by 1999-2000 so that by the end of that year a significantly increased
number of people will have moved into open employment. Finally,
we note that the Employment Service have set targets for Remploy
as regards the number of progressions into a more open working
environment. We recommend that the Employment Service should
set similar targets for local authority and voluntary body providers
when they contract with them in future.
4 C&AG's
Report, para 5a) Back
5 Evidence,
p1, para 4-5 Back
6 Evidence,
p2, para 6 Back
7 Q3 Back
8 Q12 Back
9 Q11 Back
10 Q81 Back
11 C&AG's
Report, 2.23 Back
12 Q2 Back
13 C&AG's
Report, para 5e) Back
14 Q2 Back
15 Q3 Back
16 C&AG's
Report, para 5d) Back
17 Q42 Back
18 Q12 Back
19 C&AG's
Report, Figure 3; and Appendix 1, paras 10-12 Back
20 Q26 Back
| 
