APPENDIX 13
Memorandum submitted by Hartlepool Welfare
to Work (EDP 19)
SUMMARY
In Hartlepool, as with many industrial areas
which has suffered a decline in traditional employment over the
last three decades high levels of Incapacity Benefit claimants
exist. Management information, which should be able to inform
practitioners and policy makers as to the extent of the problem
is insufficient and out dated. Information, which is available,
certainly confirms that a significant element of all claimants
could represent hidden unemployment and this is reinforced in
Hartlepool by the number of IB claimants accessing services provided
by Action Team for Jobs.
The level of IB claimants in the town the size
of Hartlepool presents a significant problem to Job Centre Plus
in engaging people with disabilities and health problems. With
nearly 7,000 claimants existing resources can only provide a brokerage
service for the majority which can lead to an element of cherry
picking in order to achieve outputs. With the reduction in levels
of JSA claimants more resources should be used to provide effective
assessment and evaluation of IB claimants within a real work environment.
Further lessons could be learnt from the Action Teams, Employment
Zones and ONE pilot and areas of best practice in client engagement
shared nationally, however it is too early to assess their effectiveness
since Job Centre Plus has operated for less than one year. Experience
of Job Centre Plus programmes and feedback from employers suggests
that local Managers should be given autonomy to use financial
resources more flexibly than existing programmes allow. As with
Job Centre Plus, the New Deal for Disabled People programme has
not operated for a sufficient length of time to make a valid assessment
of its effectiveness.
As with Job Centre Plus, the private sector
involvement in employment projects is dictated by outputs rather
than distance travelled by the customer. There is a danger that
the most hard-to-reach and those furthest away from the labour
market will receive insufficient support and still be socially
excluded. The experience of Hartlepool organisations is that this
approach fails to cater for the needs of individual claimants.
Some improvements in the complexities of tax
credits and benefits have been experienced. However further examination
of housing benefit eligibility and a transitional period in employment
would be welcomed.
Pre-conceived attitudes towards people with
disabilities, and a lack of awareness of disability issues has
an adverse effect on the employment opportunities available. Employers
still believe a quota system exists and whilst acknowledging the
existence of the DDA are unaware of how it should be implemented
in the workplace.
Finally, the DDA can be equally effective and
ineffective dependant upon the employment status of the individual.
For those already in work it provides adequate protection, however
for individuals who are jobless, evidence and experience of practitioners
suggests that offers of employment are avoided due to pre-conceived
attitudes.
1. INCAPACITY
BENEFITS (IB) AND
HIDDEN UNEMPLOYMENT
1.1. The lack of accurate and up-to-date
local management information poses a significant barrier to measuring
the effectiveness of existing support available to claimants wishing
to return to the labour market. The latest available data for
Hartlepool, as at August 1999 shows 6,950 residents were claiming
IB, however these figures do not provide a breakdown of length
of claim.
1.2. Analysis of claimants as at December
1998 has been undertaken by the Tees Valley Joint Strategy Unit,
which only counted those claimants receiving the long-term rate
and showed that the total of claimants receiving this rate was
68% of the total IB stock. Some of those claimants receiving the
short-term lower rate may re-commence claiming Job Seekers Allowance
(JSA) once they are fit for work. Further analysis of off-flows
from JSA in Hartlepool during the period December 2001-November
2002 identified that 5.5% (416) of claimants moved to IB. Furthermore
7.85% of Hartlepool Action Team for Jobs caseload are IB claimants
whilst 8.45% of all clients returning to employment were on IB.
1.3. More timely and up-to-date data would
allow for better local planning and enable agencies to target
support where it is needed most. However the nature of an individual's
disability or health condition will influence whether they can
work, and the type of activities they can undertake, which cannot
readily be identified by management information. Therefore undoubtedly
there is an element of hidden unemployment amongst IB claimants
but the extent of this would be difficult to measure.
2. JOB CENTRE
PLUS
2.1. Primarily brokers, DEA's cannot possibly
cater for all of the disabled people within a town the size of
Hartlepool. They also tend to cherry pick, most people with severe
moderate disabilities and or severe and enduring mental health
problems are usually deemed as unemployable. Work assessment methods
are also outdated and inappropriate, greater focus should be given
to assessment and evaluation within real working environments.
2.2. It may be too early to assess whether
Job Centre Plus are doing enough to engage with disabled people
and helping them find work. Lessons can however be learnt from
Action Teams, the ONE pilot and Employment Zones particularly
the way in which more flexible support is available to their customers.
Given that people with disabilities and health conditions face
more individual and multiple barriers to work, one approach would
be to give Job Centre Plus staff flexibility with resources in
order to address local (geographical) and/or individual (client)
need. The New Deal for Disabled People (NDDP) programme and voluntary
nature of work related activities is a step in the right direction.
Removing the pressures of benefits verses work and allowing individual's
to move at their own pace towards job readiness, however it is
still far to early to assess whether it could be delivered more
effectively. This approach could be implemented across Job Centre
Plus activities. However further financial assistance, such as
continued access to housing benefits and council tax rebates could
enhance the support already available.
2.3. Employers too would welcome more flexibility
and are continually confused by the different programmes offered
by Job Centre Plus and its contractors. The New Deal's are a prime
example of this with different eligibility criteria and component
parts to consider. Evidence also suggests that employer's knowledge
of programmes such as Work Step is limited, especially amongst
the SME community.
3. THE ROLE
OF THE
PRIVATE SECTOR
IN DELIVERING
EMPLOYMENT SERVICES
FOR PEOPLE
WITH DISABILITIES
3.1. As with Job Centre Plus, there appears
to be a cherry picking culture, to some extent this is not surprising
when funding services is based upon outputs, rather than distance
travelled. Whilst significant investments are made funding subsidies,
there is not enough focus placed upon long-term sustainable employment.
There are also too many large segregated units and work sites
set up for people with disabilities which does not support a culture
of integrated and inclusive employment.
4. ARE DISABLED
PEOPLE'S
NEEDS CATERED
FOR?
4.1. No not at all, there is sufficient
evidence that an unofficial disability/mental health line exists,
which deems the person unemployable. The setting up of Health
and Social Services organisations such as Employment Link throughout
the country is evidence of this. More could be learned from such
organisations.
5. THE TAX
CREDIT AND
BENEFIT SYSTEM
5.1. Although it has improved significantly
over the last few years, with the introduction of New Deal 50+
Employment Credits for example, further policy work could be done
around access to housing benefits, and additional support for
people who live in care establishments. A great many people who
would like to work are still being prevented from doing so.
6. HOW DOES
DISCRIMINATION HINDER
THE EMPLOYMENT
OF PEOPLE
WITH DISABILITIES?
6.1. A great deal has to done around public
awareness. Discrimination emanates from basic problems such as
a lack of awareness of how to communicate with someone with a
disability and also the perception that they will not somehow
"fit in" with the other employees for whatever reason.
People are still deemed as the disabled person who works for £20.
Local authorities/Civil Service and other large organisations
should be taking more of a lead in employing people with more
severe disabilities and mental health problems in open employment.
6.2. The general perception amongst employers
and employees appears to be that disability means wheelchair user
or someone who has hearing or sight difficulties. A further misconception
is that a disabled person is going to be absent from work on a
regular basis and therefore not as reliable as someone who is
not disabled.
6.3. Employers are very often unaware of
the services of Job Centre Plus when recruiting someone who has
a disability.
6.4. Many SMEs recruit by word of mouth
employing the "friend of a friend" or an employee's
relative etc and do not use more formal channels, such as advertising
in a newspaper or using the services of the Employment Service.
This in turn is likely to hinder the employment of people with
disabilities.
6.5. In Hartlepool research has acknowledged
that SME's have little or no knowledge of legislation such as
the Disability Discrimination Act. As a result and in partnership
with ACAS, Hartlepool Economic Forum, Hartlepool Borough Council
and Business Link Tees Valley, business support is being made
available to SME's in the town, which will improve knowledge of
legislation and what actions employers must take to comply as
a minimum.
7. WHAT EFFECT
DOES THE
DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION
ACT (DDA) HAVE?
7.1. Primarily negative it often frightens
employers from employing people with a disability or health condition.
Although it is more effective whilst a person is in employment
the figures show that not many people are, and the DDA may be
a factor in this.
7.2. When delivering training courses on
employment legislation many employers still think there is a quota
system in place for the employment of registered disabled people.
Many also think—particularly those in engineering, construction
and manufacturing—that it does not apply to their organisation
because of the type of work they undertake.
7.3. Many SME's have perhaps heard of the
Disability Discrimination Act and hence believe there is a quota
system, but they are unaware of its content and how it potentially
affects their organisation. A commonly held view is that it only
affects larger organisations or it does not apply to their organisation
because of the nature of the work.
7.4. A comment was once made: "allowing
wheelchairs on a building site is ridiculous. How would they get
up the scaffolding?"
7.5. Similarly the Managing Director of
a manufacturing company employing approximately 50 said: "The
Disability Discrimination Act may be law outside my factory, but
it's certainly not inside. I'm not having wheelchairs blocking
gangways. They're a fire risk".
7.6. For some organisations, the Disability
Discrimination Act would appear to have little affect until it
is too late, ie after the discrimination has occurred.
7.7. For example, in reviewing employment
practices many employers do not ask at the recruitment stage whether
or not someone has a disability and whether any reasonable adjustments
need to be made for the individual to attend the interview, do
the job, undergo training etc. Even if they did ask few would
know what to do next.
7.8. In visiting SMEs, more companies are
asking employees to complete a medical questionnaire. This is
unrelated to the Disability Discrimination Act and in the majority
of cases is prompted by their insurers. This is often completed
during induction however, ie after the offer of employment has
been made and accepted and the individual has commenced work.
Often these are very basic. Furthermore, in some instances the
employer is reviewing the questionnaire.
7.9. The difficulty arises when someone
answers "yes" to a question relating to his or her health.
Many employers are unaware of the implications that:
7.9.1. the person may not be fit enough to
do the job or undertaking the job could aggravate a condition;
7.9.2. the employer may be making an assessment
without any medical advice; and
7.9.3. the problem could be classed as a
disability.
7.10. There is also the situation when the
employee denies having any medical problems for fear of not getting
or losing the job. In one company, the employee had an accident
and made a claim against the employer. It then came to light that
the individual had long-term problems, which had not been disclosed
on appointment, because the individual believed he would never
have been offered the position.
7.11. The other side of the problem is the
individual who becomes disabled during the course of their employment.
Many employers have someone who is long-term sick who has exhausted
all their sick pay. The majority of SMEs appear to be unaware
that:
7.11.1. the individual is still employed;
7.11.2. they cannot simply terminate the
employment; and
7.11.3. the Disability Discrimination Act
could apply.
7.12. The requirement to make "reasonable
adjustments" is often viewed as potentially expensive for
employers as the general perception is that this involves installing
ramps and widening doors for wheelchairs.
7.13. The problem remains that many organisations
are unaware of the implications of the Disability Discrimination
Act and many individuals (both employers and employees) have a
very narrow view of the meaning of disability.
Paul Johnson
Employment Development Officer
Economic Development
Hartlepool Borough Council
6 January 2003
| 
