APPENDIX 6
Letter to the Committee from the Employment
Disability Unit (EDP 09)
I am the Manager of the Employment Disability
Unit (EDU) which is joint funded by the three Local Authorities
in Tayside (Angus Council, Dundee City Council and Perth and Kinross
Council).
The aim of the Employment Disability Unit is
to create employment opportunities for disabled people and to
support people with disabilities into work.
The Employment Disability Unit has achieved
a fair amount of recognition where it has won national and international
awards for Supported Employment for People with Mental Illness,
Supported Employment for People with Learning Difficulties and
Good Practice in the Promotion of Equal Opportunities for Disabled
People.
The Unit was the only organisation in the UK
to pilot both the Supported Employment Development Initiative
(SEDI) and the New Deal for Disabled People (NDDP).
Over the past 10 years the Employment Disability
Unit has successfully placed almost 1,000 disabled people into
open employment. More recently the Unit has increased its Supported
Employment service and attracts more than 200 disabled people
each year who are in receipt of Incapacity Benefits and who are
interested in employment.
As Manager of this initiative I have carried
out research in Norway, Ireland, USA and Sweden. I have also delivered
keynote addresses and analysis throughout the UK and Europe.
I have been the Chairman of the Scottish Union
of Supported Employment (SUSE) since 1997. The Scottish Union
of Supported Employment is an umbrella organisation for some 95
organisations in Scotland (and England) and provides its members
with a range of support services. The Scottish Union of Supported
Employment has held Four National Conferences on Supported Employment
and last year organised the fifth European Union of Supported
Employment which was held over four days in Edinburgh. This international
event was attended by 620 delegates from 37 countries and provided
a variety of speakers and workshops related to employment issues
for disabled people.
I am also the author of "Employing People
with Disabilities" which was recently published by the Chartered
Institute of Personnel and Development.
The issues that are to be raised by the inquiry
into employment for disabled people are relevant and pertinent.
I have a wide range of experience of working with Jobcentre Plus
(and previously Employment Service), Department for Work and Pensions
(previously Department of Education and Employment) and the Scottish
Executive regarding national programmes and policies concerning
employment issues for disabled people.
I have attached[4]
three papers which underline the particular problems of why so
few disabled people enter employment:—
(a) Letter to MP's submitted 6 June 2002
outlining concerns regarding Government Programmes for disabled
people. (Annex A)
(b) Letter to M P's submitted 24 July 2002
outlining concerns regarding welfare benefit issues for disabled
people. (Annex B)
(c) Statistics for the 23 month NDDP pilot
carried out by the Employment Disability Unit. (Annex C)
Additionally, I have attached a paper[5]
providing an overview of the employment programme in Norway with
a particular emphasis on our equivalent of Supported Employment,
Workstep, Sheltered Workshops and Rehabilitation. I consider that
much of the good practice in Norway is transferable to the United
Kingdom.
I have, over the past few years, held discussions
with Ministers at both Westminster and Holyrood and I would be
only too pleased to contribute to your oral evidence sessions
regarding this very important enquiry.
I look forward to hearing from you in the near
future.
Michael J Evans
Manager, Employment Disability Unit
Chair, Scottish Union of Supported Employment
Secretary, European Union of Supported Employment
20 December 2002
Annex A
I am writing to you to express our views with
some areas of concern that have arisen for member organisations
of the Scottish Union of Supported Employment.
The Scottish Union of Supported Employment (SUSE)
is a membership organisation representing the interests of supported
employment providers and other organisations involved in social
inclusion issues. Its remit is to promote and campaign to raise
the profile of supported employment in Scotland. Our membership
is made up of organisations from the voluntary and statutory sectors,
employers and individuals.
A topic of great concern to many of our members
has been the recent tendering exercises for services funded by
the Employment Service, namely, Work Preparation, the New Deal
for Disabled people and Workstep.
Our members have raised many issues regarding
the way in which these tendering exercises were undertaken and
main areas of discontent were as follows:—
— Very short lead times to complete
tenders. Both the Workstep and Work Preparation tenders were issued
at the beginning of December. The Work Preparation tender had
to be returned by the 7 January, Workstep by 18 January. The Christmas
and New Year holiday period added to the difficulties.
— Lack of detailed feedback on why
tenders were not successful. To date most organisations have had
no feedback from the Work Preparation tender exercise.
— Funding formulae which are so output
driven as to make it impossible for many organisations to consider
participation. The New Deal for Disabled People was an example
where even large national voluntary organisations would not risk
the financial implications of participating.
— A perceived lack of understanding
by the Employment Service of the business and finance needs of
voluntary sector organisations in particular. Last year some Disability
Services Teams in Scotland stopped referrals to Work Preparation
almost overnight. With no referrals for three to four months many
organisations suffered severe financial problems.
— The result of the recent Work Preparation
tendering exercise in, for example, South and East Scotland means
there are only two mainstream providers in that area. Of these
two providers, one only operates in the Lothians while the other
is based in Berwick, meaning some people in the Scottish Borders
will have to travel to England in order to get a service. Another
issue is that there are no specialist mental health or learning
disability providers in many parts of Scotland. Moreover the significant
reduction of Work Preparation Contract Providers has resulted
in little or no choice for service users.
Members of SUSE can give many more examples
from around Scotland regarding the adverse effect that these exercises
and decisions have had on services and service providers and we
would welcome the opportunity to discuss these issues further
with you.
There are also concerns over the use of initiating
pilot projects (ie New Deal for Disabled People—Innovative
Schemes and Supported Employment Development Initiative) and then
largely ignoring the good practise and evaluation recommendations.
SUSE member's services make a significant contribution
to the social inclusion agenda but their ability to do this is
increasingly compromised by a lack of understanding on the part
of the Employment Service, of the impact of their strategic decision
making.
I am sure you will agree that strategies which
effectively meet the needs of individuals with a disability, or
those disengaged from the employment market, must not be compromised
and I look forward to hearing from you on this matter.
6 June 2002
Annex B
I am writing to you to express our views on
some areas of concern that have arisen for member organisations
of the Scottish Union of Supported Employment.
The Scottish Union of Supported Employment (SUSE)
is a membership organisation representing the interests of supported
employment providers and their organisations involved in social
inclusion issues. Its remit is to promote and campaign to raise
the profile of supported employment in Scotland. Our membership
is made up of organisations from the voluntary and statutory sectors,
employers and individuals.
SUSE recognised a need for a working party to
be set up to research the welfare benefit issues due to increasing
concerns constantly being raised by the membership. Over the last
18 months, the working party have met on several occasions throughout
Scotland and have liased with members to identify and establish
why current welfare benefits are proving to be a barrier to employment.
We have identified that although Permitted Work
allows people to earn up to £66.00 per week, the reality
of the situation is that people who are in receipt of Income Support
lose benefits on a pound for pound basis if they receive over
£20.00 through Permitted Work. This is a common occurrence
given that people in receipt of Permitted work must receive the
National Minimum wage. It is also the case that many disabled
people are restricted to working under five hours per week, which
means they earn up to £20 per week and can continue to receive
Income Support.
At present, the fear of losing income support
and related benefits such as Housing Benefit, Prescription Charge
Exemption reduces the potential "stepping stone" to
achieving employment. A package of support to assist progress
from receiving Welfare Benefits to finding appropriate employment
is a requirement of this particular client group.
Moreover, many disabled people are wary of the
Linking Rule, as it does not guarantee an automatic return to
incapacity benefits. Where individuals decide to work 16 hours
or more there is an identified fear of losing benefit entitlement
in the long term should they become unwell. Although the two year
Linking Rule provides some protection for those on certain benefits,
the level of disability may find that some people would benefit
from this time being extended and made easier to access. Further
complications in relation to the new Transitional Housing Benefit
may also mean that any earnings could affect service user's packages
of care.
The following recommendations are the result
of consultation with members and disabled people and may help
address some of the concerns and negative implications regarding
Permitted Work, Linking Rules and encouraging disabled people
to consider employment.
— There is a need for discussion, perhaps
through a select committee, to consider and address the benefit
issues.
— Remove time limits and introduce
Guaranteed Linking Rules for people with a recognised disability
or health problem. More flexibility is needed to encourage people
to consider employment when they suffer fluctuating levels of
health.
— Lower the threshold at which Disabled
Person Tax Credit can be accessed.
— Introduce a form of Transitional
Benefit or Income Guarantee to ensure that no one finds himself
or herself financially worse off by moving in to employment.
The issues surrounding benefits are one of the
main barriers when progressing people off incapacity benefit and
into employment. The New Deal for Disabled People and other government
programmes will continue to yield low outcome figures until the
"benefit barrier" is acknowledged and addressed.
The Scottish Union of Supported Employment strives
to effect change, which will enhance the employment opportunities
for service users and we look forward to an early response and
an opportunity to further discuss these concerns.
24 July 2002
Annex C
New Deal For Disabled People—Innovative
Schemes
Final Report No 23—June 2001
This pilot has now come to an end after a 23
month period. The original completion date was 31 July 2000 however
the project was granted two further extensions to 30 June 2001.
The following tables reflect the actual achievements
against our target figures.
| Target | Actual
|
| No of Clients | 192 | 421
|
No of Work Experience Placements |
115 | 158 |
No of Open Employment Outcomes | 77
| 98 |
No of Voluntary/Therapeutic Outcomes |
38 | 73 |
No of Supported Employment Outcomes |
— | 16 |
In addition to this a further 47 Clients have progressed
onto training or further education.
A final summary of the range of disabilities and referral
sources included in the project are as follows:
Disability:
| Key: | |
| | | |
| | No of Clients
| % | Physical Disability Breakdown:
| % |
| PHY | Physical Disability |
191 | 46 | Limb Damage
| 13 |
LD | Learning Disability
| 61 | 15 | Spinal Damage
| 17 |
MEN | Mental Disability
| 97 | 23 | Glandular
| 1 |
SEN | Sensory Disability
| 31 | 7 | Viral
| 4 |
ADD | Addiction |
4 | 1 | Respiratory Disease
| 10 |
LDF | Learning Difficulty
| 37 | 8 | Heart Condition
| 6 |
| | 421
| | Digestive System | 3
|
| |
| | Diabetes | 4
|
| |
| | Epilepsy | 7
|
| |
| | Arthritis | 4
|
| |
| | Brain Injury | 10
|
| |
| | Lymphatic System | 1
|
| |
| | Neurological | 20
|
Referral Sources:
| Source | Number of Referrals
|
| Employment Service | 143 |
34% |
Medical/N H S Establishments |
90 | 21% |
Self (includes former Clients) |
73 | 17% |
Social Work Departments | 50
| 12% |
Colleges | 27 |
6% |
Careers Service | 15
| 4% |
Adverts/Mailshots | 14
| 3% |
Training Providers | 8
| 2% |
Benefits Agency | 0
| 0% |
| 421 | |
The clients who accessed the project were in receipt of the
following benefits:
| Benefit | Number of clients
|
| Incapacity Benefit | 105 |
25% |
Severe Disability Allowance Plus Income Support
| 71 | 17% |
Income Support | 66
| 16% |
Job Seekers Allowance | 174
| 41% |
Statutory Sick Pay | 5
| 1% |
| Total | 421 |
|
Employment Outcomes/Benefits
| Benefit | Number of clients
|
| Total Clients |
Open Employment |
| Incapacity Benefit | 105 |
11 |
Severe Disability Allowance Plus Income Support
| 71 | 6 |
Income Support | 66
| 7 |
Job Seekers Allowance | 174
| 73 |
Statutory Sick Pay | 5
| 1 |
| Total | 421 | 98
|
Employment Outcomes:
A total of 187 moved into some form of employment. The following
reflects more accurately the type of outcome achieved.
| Outcome | Number of clients
|
| Open Employment | 91 | 48%
|
Open with Tapered Wage Subsidy |
7 | 3% |
Workstep/Supported Employment Programme
| 16 | 9% |
Therapeutic | 41
| 22% |
Voluntary | 32 |
17% |
| Total | 187 |
|
Geographical Breakdown:
| Number of clients
|
| Dundee | 200 | 47%
|
Perth | 137 |
33% |
Angus | 84
| 20% |
Overall, the project has performed extremely well and has
exceeded all its targets. Surprisingly, given that this was a
Department of Social Security Scheme, there were no referrals
from the Department of Social Security. Moreover, despite this
project delivering beyond its expectations there have been no
visits or meetings with the policy makers of either the Department
of Social Security, Department for Education and Employment, Benefits
Agency or Employment Service. This is a concern as this pilot
was intended to shape future Government policy.
Overall, what the project has shown is that, given the necessary
support, encouragement and advice, unemployed people with health
problems and disabilities can secure appropriate employment. The
one factor, however, that this approach is reliant on is individuals
being willing to change from often being solely reliant on benefits
to an attitude where they want to work. Not only for the financial
incentive but also the other intrinsic values and benefits relating
to work.
4
Printed as Annexes A-C. Back
5
Not printed. Back
| 
