APPENDIX 40
Memorandum submitted by Remploy (EDP 51)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1. Remploy is the major provider of the
Workstep Programme, from it's beginnings just after World War
Two Remploy has transformed itself and has become a dynamic market
focus organisation securing and maintaining sustainable employment
for approximately 15,000 people. Throughout it's long history
Remploy has welcomed the numerous positive steps made to increase
the employment opportunities for disabled people and remove many
of the barriers to work. Two out of three companies do not have
the skilled workers they need and 20% of the working age population
are disabled. Disabled people are still six times more likely
to be unemployed than non-disabled.
2. Remploy welcomes the Work and Pensions
Committee's decision to undertake a review of current disability
employment policy. We are pleased to have the opportunity to submit
written evidence to the committee and would welcome any opportunity
to expand upon this evidence directly with the committee itself.
3. Remploy's primary focus is on facilitating
an effective relationship between disabled people and the widest
possible network of employers. We use three key programmes to
bring candidates and employers together, Workstep, New Deal for
Disabled People and Work preparation via an integrated set of
processes. We also deploy a range of individually tailored support
options. Our Local Remploy Network gives us the unique and powerful
combination of a presence in the community; relevant and localised
work experience and training and development facilities.
4. Remploy has a market driven strategy
and we are focussed on quality major accounts operating within
11 market sectors. We currently work directly with over 50% of
the FTSE 100 companies. These strategic partnerships give us unique
access for creating employment opportunities as well as developing
our commercial business.
5. Remploy is the largest of the 200 providers
of Workstep with approx. 12,000 people supported per annum. Remploy
Interwork delivered 75% of Workstep programme outcomes from 55%
of the participants at a cost of £3,700 per person supported
or progressed into open employment—well below the programme
average cost of £4,750 per supported person.
6. Remploy also is one of the largest organisations
participating in New Deal for Disabled People, Work Preparation
and Adult Training programmes with approximately a further 4,000
unemployed disabled people engaged at any one time.
7. The current position is one where the
provision of services, which support an individual's transition
from benefits to social inclusive employment, is fragmented, confusing
and often ineffective. There is limited awareness amongst employers
of the services provided to support and encourage the employment
of disabled people. Where awareness does exist there is still
a limited uptake of these services. In addition employers find
the plethora of organisations they have to deal with confusing
and time consuming.
8. The policy direction is to encourage
and facilitate entry to open employment as far as possible, through
a range of schemes from encouraging the creation of work opportunities
through regeneration programmes, support to retain employment,
support for people seeking work, and progression from sheltered
to open employment. Access to these services is made via a variety
of organisations over 50% of which are specialised and offer services
to one specific group of disabled people. Recent research has
identified in excess of 6,500 services provided by 2,500+ organisations.
Much of the provision is focused on pre employment with only 12%
including a job-seeking element.
9. Key Issues which employment policy should
address:
— continued investment in employment
focused programmes for disabled people, investment which is primarily
financed via reduction in benefits expenditure;
— provide direct access to government
databanks to facilitate direct access to disabled people;
— continue to address the disincentives
to work within the benefits system;
— ensure that programmes and benefits
reflect the changing nature of the employment market and encourage
entry to employment at any level as a first step;
— expand current proven cost-efficient
and effective programmes rather than tinker with expensive small
experiments and pilots;
— greater flexibility within existing
programmes and the removal of the unnecessary bureaucracy of multiple
programmes;
— investment in retention and redeployment
as rehabilitation and return to work;
— the continued role of Jobcentre Plus
in drawing disabled people and those with health problems closer
to the employment market;
— increased collaborative working between
Jobcentre Plus and intermediary organisations;
— improved marketing and promotion
of the Disability Discrimination Act to increase employer awareness;
— rationalisation of service provision
through effective networking of large and small organisations;
— ensure that small-specialised provision
survives and leverage the resources and infrastructure of organisations
such as Remploy to ensure that such programmes are increasingly
successful; and
— retaining choice for the individual.
10. In preparing our response to the questions
below Remploy has drawn from it's own long history of delivering
Government programmes for disabled people and from our experience
and learning from partner organisations and numerous other providers
in the field. We would encourage the select committee to draw
upon this wealth of practical knowledge and experience when considering
how best to support disabled people into employment.
Do the high numbers claiming incapacity benefit
represent hidden unemployment?
11. The key factor to consider is what constituents
hidden unemployment. If the measure is active labour market clearly
the IB claimant group should not be considered. The issue is not
that the IB claimants are hidden unemployment rather that the
incapacity barrier has to be removed in order to encourage entry
into the labour market.
What is, or should be the role of Jobcentre Plus?
12. Jobcentre Plus has a pivotal role to
play. By combining benefits advice and job seeking activity under
one roof Jobcentre Plus draws the client group closer to the labour
market but not necessarily directly into it. Jobcentre Plus plays
a fundamental role in ensuring that individuals participate in
regular reviews etc and are highly effective in doing so. In essence
Jobcentre Plus should manage the provision to fast flowing clients
and signpost those with support needs to more specialised organisations.
13. Remploy has a multidimensional relationship
with Jobcentre Plus and this helps to develop commitment to the
services provided and encourage greater collaboration between
the two organisations. However some aspects of the current arrangements
drive competitive behaviour at a local delivery level.
14. Specialist Advisors play a key role,
however it is important to play to the strengths of other organisations
and recognise and capitalise on their skills. There is a danger
that developing Jobcentre Plus specialist advisors in isolation
of the expertise that is already available via intermediary organisations
will simply replicate provision and create competition rather
than collaboration.
15. Jobcentre Plus has the opportunity to
redesign the nature of its relationships with organisations such
as Remploy from one of subcontractor to one of funded partner.
Thus utilising the network of contacts, expertise and arrangements
already in place rather than competing with or trying to replicate
them unnecessarily. This collaborative working would be further
enhanced by sharing access to the Jobcentre Plus Labour Market
System and other data sources between the support network.
Is jobcentre plus doing enough to engage people
with disabilities in finding work?
16. As numbers on incapacity benefit continue
to rise clearly more work has to be done in order to engage disabled
people and those with health problems. Jobcentre Plus staff have
and must continue to have a key role to play in this activity.
17. By providing access for Job Brokers
to the IB claimant register Jobcentre Plus could utilise the network
of providers to continually stimulate the stock of existing claimants.
18. Currently NDDP arrangements within Jobcentre
Plus prevent gateway advisors from making specific referrals to
a Job broker. This is unhelpful and places the emphasis on the
individual to identify a suitable provider before even considering
job-searching activity. Typically this client group is not empowered
and sufficiently aware of the local labour market and service
provision to make decisions regarding their capability, as a result
self-referral is not necessarily the most effective route.
19. The referral mechanism within Workstep
is a good example of where specialist advisors can refer a client
to an organisation that can best meet their needs. These organisations
mobilise all of their skills and contacts to help the individual
move into work and provide the support required to sustain it.
20. Retention activity is a key factor in
reducing the flow of new clients onto IB. Whilst rehabilitation
is identified as a gap within the programme; often it is retention
intervention, which is required. Recent research into barriers
to employment for disabled people indicates that employers of
all types find it easier to make adjustments for new recruits
with a health problem or disability than existing employees who
become disabled. Clearly this is an area that needs to be addressed.
21. Remploy's history of working alongside
employers for over 10 years has been that these adjustments are
not difficult to make and that often our advisors can help employers
find simple (low cost) solutions which avoid the situation of
an individual losing their job and becoming an IB claimant.
(a) Recent research has indicated that there
are in order of 6,700 services for disabled people provided by
approximately 2,500 projects. Self-referral was available for
less than 12% of this provision. More than half of these services
we targeted at specific disabilities. In addition access to the
broad range of programmes has a wide variety of qualifying criteria
and differing impacts upon benefits. This is confusing and off-putting
for a client group which lacks confidence and may not perceive
itself to be disabled and is concerned about coercion and loss
of benefit. Jobcentre Plus could be using pan disability organisations
such as Remploy to draw this service provision together and co-ordinate
support plans which draw on a number of organisations. In this
way the individual does not have to manage the complexity of these
relationships and instead they are managed for them by an intermediary.
In this way a continuum of support from pre to post employment
can be provided and individual needs catered for in a consistent
and coherent way.
(b) Combining programmes to develop the best
support package for individuals can be complicated time consuming
and riddled with administrative bureaucracy. As a result up to
50% of funding is spent on administering these programmes rather
than service delivery. Jobcentre Plus should consider how to reduce/eliminate
this bureaucracy. It may be worth considering a similar approach
to that of Action Teams, where funds are used flexibly and innovatively
to meet the needs of specific disadvantaged within the local community
which provides increased flexibility and encourages constant innovation
with minimal restraints.
Are initiatives such as Workstep successful?
22. Workstep is a hugely successful programme
and can be used innovatively to deliver high volumes of sustained
employment and progression to unsupported employment for disabled
people. Workstep provides support for those disabled people with
the greatest barriers to employment and yet it could be expanded
to encompass the needs of many people on Incapacity Benefit who
require similar levels of support as a result of prolonged health
problems and absence from work.
23. Remploy offers a pan disability approach
to delivery of Workstep and utilises it network of more specialised
partners where needed to enhance its provision. We deliver 75%
of Workstep programme progressions from 55% of participants, which
is very cost effective at £3,700 per sustained outcome—this
compares very favourably with the ongoing annual cost in incapacity
benefit which averages £9-10,000 per person per annum. Remploy
achieved 1,246 progressions to unsupported mainstream employment
in 2002 and 75% of these were sustained after six months (a retention-rate
well above the non-disabled employment norms). This makes Workstep
a highly cost efficient and expandable programme.
24. Remploy has developed a range of Employer
Focused Services using the Workstep provision, which meets a range
of business needs across Recruitment, Retention and Rehabilitation.
This enables Remploy to build unique employer relationships, which
open up existing opportunities to the client group and improve
the opportunities for retention and rehabilitation.
25. Remploy continues to respond to the
changing needs of the employment market by developing transferable
skills within its network of local Remploy's, which provide quality
products and services to 50 per cent of the FTSE 100 in 11 market
sectors. In this way we are able to demonstrate to employers large
and small how disability and health can be managed effectively
in the workplace in significant numbers.
26. Remploy leverages its community presence
via the Local Remploy sites providing an employment continuum
that is otherwise not available to those with greater support
needs within a genuinely commercial environment.
27. Workstep does carry restrictions which
if addressed would facilitate better synergy with the employment
market.
— Specifically Workstep does not make
adequate provision for self-employment although our experience
is that many people have a desire for self-employment and would
welcome support.
— Workstep limits individuals to employment
of a minimum of six months which does not reflect trends in the
marketplace, where shorter contracts are often the route into
employment and in turn prevents us from providing our employer
customers with services that meet their needs. In essence both
disabled individuals and employers are losing out as a result.
We would welcome consideration of a shorter minimum time period
of say three months.
The new Deal for Disabled people: Have the lessons
been learned from earlier pilots?
28. Some key findings from the earlier pilots
seem to have been lost in the roll out of New Deal for Disabled
People nationally eg many of the clients who moved into employment
felt the need for continued support. The Job Broker framework
is essentially to undertake the matching of individuals to jobs
and not providing ongoing support. Many organisations unfamiliar
with providing this sort of support have underestimated these
requirements and as a result have withdrawn from the contract.
This support requirement is particularly true of people with mental
health issues who require significant support on both entering
and sustaining employment, sometimes over a long period.
29. The current New Deal for Disabled People
model is built on the premise that the majority of clients are
disengaged but job ready however consistent with the pilot evaluation
this is not the case and as a result far greater input from the
Job broker is required to achieve and sustain a successful outcome.
In most instances this has not been built into the costing model
and leaves the provider with the choice of rising costs or only
working with those clients who are easier to help. Some of the
most successful Job Brokers attribute their success to being highly
selective at the point of entry/registration, which arguably means
that those who need the most support are actually least likely
to receive it. The weighting of the outcome payment-funding regime
further exacerbates this issue.
30. Lessons can also be learnt from other
pilots and programmes, for example the personal incentive element
of New Deal 50plus has been very successful in mobilising/motivating
this client group.
31. Many of the NDDP pilots decided to specialise
staff functions to focus on specific client activities such as
initial interview, job matching, and working with employers. There
is a lesson here particularly in relation to Jobcentre Plus Personal
Advisors.
32. Provider Operational Discretion: There
is no prescription as to how providers should organise their delivery,
giving healthy discretion at the local level to work in the way
that best suits local conditions and promoting innovation.
How might NDDP be made more effective?
33. Remploy argues that by widening the
eligibility criteria for programmes such as Workstep and increasing
the flexibility that an organisation such as Remploy can continually
grow and innovate and that success can be generated with reduced
administration and less confusion to the service user.
34. Review the funding model to enable providers
to deliver the service required. In particular there has to be
a more equitable sharing of risk and reward. The current funding
structure is markedly different from all other employment and
learning programmes in the UK and is in itself a major barrier
to success. The per capita amount and the phasing of payments
need to be revised. It is to be expected that outcome payments
will be a part of the process but there needs to be a fairer balance
between the front end and back end weighting of these. In the
early stages their needs to be a much greater proportion of guaranteed
funding to reflect the real, additional costs in setting up and
stimulating demand.
35. To provide direct access to client group
in any new programme contractors must be able to manage more directly
the contact with potential clients. This could be done through
direct access to the benefit claimant database; we understand
that the Welfare Reform Act makes provision for supply of such
data to third parties. There is precedent for such access in the
Private Sector Led ONE pilots and Employment Zones where private
sector staff had access to Benefits Agency and Employment Service
benefits and employment systems and client data.
36. Provide a better referral mechanism
for those who are not comfortable with self-referral empowerment.
37. There is scope to simplify the evidence
requirements of outcomes. It would be a major step forward to
use the national insurance system as a tracking mechanism to identify
an individual's progress. This provides more robust evidence of
outcomes; it simplifies programme delivery significantly and reduces
the bureaucratic element of the programme dramatically. In the
short term simplifying the evidence required would be very helpful.
38. Changes to benefits system to cover
points 45-49
The role of the Private Sector in delivering Employment
Services for people with Disabilities and Health Problems?
39. The private sector has a part to play
in providing access to the employment market. The private sector
does not have the expertise for disability provision however they
do have a far greater commercial focus. Private sector should
be integrated within provision and there are a number of large
organisations such as Remploy who could draw these organisations
into the network. Providing programmes is not necessarily commercially
attractive on it's own however this sector does have a requirement
to meet it's employer customers needs in relation to diversity
and does not have the capability to manage this effectively or
exclusively and therefore some way of marrying their expertise
to that of disability employment specialists needs to be found.
Are the Needs of Particular Groups of people with
Disabilities and Health Problems adequately catered for?
40. 6,700 service and 2,500 projects 50%
of which focus on a single disability suggest that there is no
shortage of provision. The issue is about connecting the disability
related support with the employment-focused programmes. Less than
25% of this provision provides support once in employment.
41. Often services are provided by small
organisations that do not have the resources or skills to add
the employment component. Remploy suggests that connecting them
to organisations, which do would be beneficial and more cost effective.
Should Employment Projects be more Inclusive and
Adapt to Individuals Needs rather than be aimed at people with
Specific Disabilities?
42. Individual focus enables providers to
provide the minimum of support required for the individual to
achieve an outcome by tailoring provision to their specific circumstances.
43. Removing the bureaucracy of multiple
programmes and expanding existing programmes in such a way that
they empower advisors (either in JC+ or other organisations) to
be innovative in removing the incapacity barrier.
44. Focusing on the disability rather than
the Job is counter productive and reinforces barriers rather than
removing them. And encourages a label/single option mentality
which is often neither empowering nor encouraging.
The Tax Credit and Benefit System is it too Complex
for the Circumstances faced by people with Disabilities; should
it be reformed to reduce Financial Disincentives to find work?
45. Remploy welcomes the introduction of
the working tax credit as a step towards simplification, this
and the 52-Week Linking Rule have helped to bridge some of the
financial barriers to individuals entering employment. However,
we believe that further reform is required.
46. The current tax credit mechanism does
not make provision for employment of less than 16 hours. This
type of employment is a critical stepping stone for many people
and steps should be taken to encourage individuals to take this
opportunity.
47. There is an increasing demand for part
time workers from employers and the restrictions on minimum hours
is a disincentive for many people who would benefit from returning
to work on reduced hours with a view to building up the working
week to the point where benefits are no longer required.
48. Some consideration has to be given to
the links with other benefits in particular housing benefit, which
is a consistent barrier.
49. Consideration also has to be given to
the impact on a household rather than an individual of returning
to work.
How does Discrimination hinder the Employment
of people with Disabilities?
50. Potential employers are afraid to ask
the obvious questions and in the same way that advisors within
the One pilots found this to be a difficult area to discuss, employers
are no different. The key is for the employer to do so constructively
and in a non-threatening way. Often what happens is that this
disability or health issue is ignored or avoided at interview,
which means that the employer has no idea of or initial understanding
of how best to integrate the individual. Additionally, the disabled
applicant can feel dissatisfied with their application experience,
which reinforces perceptions about inequality in the job market.
However once an employer is aware of the adjustment required there
evidence to suggest that this is easily accommodated and that
this is easy to do. Therefore increased support for employers
in this aspect is critical.
WHAT AFFECT
DOES DISABILITY
DISCRIMINATION ACT
HAVE?
51. Of employers who have heard of the DDA
47% think their organisation is covered, 9% believe they are exempt
the remainder don't know. In fact, of those who are exempt only
one in five are aware and of those who are covered only half correctly
identify themselves as such. Larger organisations are more likely
than smaller organisations to know whether they are covered on
not. The same research has indicated that employers are in favour
of the provisions within the DDA. Three in four are strongly or
broadly in favour with only 2% actively against the provision.
52. Remploy believes that the DDA is a useful
piece of legislation and one, which employers can sign up to.
We have produced brochures that explain the DDA to employers in
practical terms and are a major advocate of this legislation.
Were the issues around awareness and understanding addressed this
legislation would be even more effective.
What Experience do other Countries have in Tackling
the growth in the Numbers Claiming Incapacity Related Benefits?
53. Our experience from our involvement
in a number of pan European projects and our memberships of many
international disability fora is that Remploy leads the way in
assisting those with the greatest barriers to employment securing
longer fully integrated employment. As a result many of our directors
are sought after speakers at many international events and we
ourselves are hosting an International Conference on employment
opportunities to liberate disenfranchised disabled people in partnership
with Rehabilitation International on 24 and 25 April at Stratford
upon Avon this year. We sought to learn from other European nations
how best they tackle the employment issues and often find an over
reliance on care and educations programmes and that our colleagues
find it difficult to make a business case for widening opportunities.
54. Very few countries have employer organisations
specialising on disability issues such as the UK's Employer's
Forum on Disability, which has significantly impacted on employer
attitudes toward disabled people at work through the establishment
of a peer group and the demonstration of best practice amongst
members of the Forum. Remploy works closely with many members
of the Forum to achieve greater inclusion of disabled people in
the labour market. Many countries could learn from this example.
Remploy believes that many employers need the examples set by
specialist employers such as Remploy to be able to envisage the
real issues affecting disabled people at work and believes that,
as the largest employer of disabled people in the UK, Remploy
has a major role to play in this respect. There does not yet seem
to be a recognition in other countries of the value of this approach.
Remploy believes that this is because many specialist employers
have not yet embraced the concept of progression.
55. There is some anecdotal evidence that
some countries are beginning to recognise the issue of choice
for disabled people. Individuals who are prepared for work with
increased training and development opportunities are more likely
to be able to choose for themselves where they want to work and
what they want to do. Sadly this is not the norm. Most countries
have fairly well prescribed and inflexible systems for disabled
people to enter the labour market. Often these systems are based
on government and providers perceptions of what disabled people
need and not on the view of disabled people themselves.
56. Many countries have systems that encourage
training and development but do not link that activity directly
to the needs of employers or the employment market. Some countries
have systems that directly link employment-seeking activities
to employers and the employment market. Few have systems and processes
that combine both these areas. It seems quite common that education
systems and processes have traditionally failed a large number
of disabled people and as a result the need for training and development
is greater in this sector of the population. The DRC provided
information in 2002 that disabled people in the UK are twice as
likely as non-disabled people to have a qualification—this
must be a significant barrier to employment for many disabled
people.
57. There are examples of best practice
in some countries which the UK could learn from but few countries
seem to have a co-ordinated, integrated and synergous approach
to ensuring that the significant talent and capabilities of disabled
people are fully utilised as an inclusive and not separate labour
market. This should be a key aim of any new or revised policies
for increased employment of disabled people.
Shiona White
PR Manager
7 February 2003
| 
