Chapter 2 -
Work and Employment Options
Persons with disabilities should enjoy equality of opportunity and treatment in respect
of access to, retention of and advancement in employment which, wherever possible,
corresponds to their own choice and takes account of their individual suitability for such
employment.[113] Such employment includes
jobs in the open labour market which, again subject to individual suitability, are open to
persons without disabilities. For persons with disabilities for whom, for reasons of
choice and/or suitability, open employment may not be appropriate, alternative forms of
employment of a sheltered or supported nature are usually provided. There are numerous
variations of these options, across countries, depending on factors such as tradition and
culture, economic, social and labour market conditions, social welfare benefit systems,
availability of trained personnel, and influence of stakeholders, including disability
organizations.
This chapter gives an overview of employment for persons with disabilities under four
broad headings:
- Open/Competitive Employment, including Self-Employment[114]
- Sheltered Employment
- Supported Employment
- Social Enterprises.
The next chapter will discuss measures to facilitate entry to and retention in
employment under each approach, with particular reference to employment policy and
practice in industrialized countries.
The absence of adequate data in many countries makes generalization
difficult. From the information available, however, it is possible to draw some tentative
conclusions about the current situation. [115]
The participation rate of persons with disabilities in the open labour force tends to
be considerably lower than that of other workers.
In Australia, the participation rate for males with a disability was about 60
per cent in 1998, compared with 90 per cent for persons without a disability. The
corresponding figures for females were 46 per cent and 71 per cent, respectively. The
unemployment rate among males with a disability was 14 per cent compared with 8 per cent
for males with no disability. Corresponding rates for females were 9 per cent and 8 per
cent respectively.
In Canada, the general labour market availability of persons with disabilities
was 6.5 per cent in 2001, but they made up only 2.4 per cent of the federally regulated
workforce. Disabled persons were under-represented in every industrial sector, ranging
from a low of 1.8 per cent in transportation to 2.3 per cent in banking, 2.4 per cent in
communications and 2.9 per cent in ‘other’ sectors.[116]
In France, the unemployment rate for disabled workers in 1996 was three times
higher than that for the overall active population. Over the previous 10 years, the
overall unemployment rate increased by 23 per cent, but by 194 per cent for unemployed
persons with disabilities. Disabled workers who are unemployed tend to remain unemployed
twice as long.
In Germany in 1997, the labour market participation rate for severely disabled
persons was 37 per cent (West), compared with that for non-disabled persons of 80 per cent
for men and 63 per cent for women. The gap between the unemployment rate for persons with
disabilities and the overall unemployment rate widened between 1994 and 1997, rising from
15 per cent to 17.9 per cent (disabled persons) and from 9.6 per cent to 11.4 per cent
(overall). As in France, the duration of unemployment tends to be almost twice as long as
for workers without disability.
In Sweden, of the population between 16 and 64 years of age with a disability in
1998, 60 per cent were employed, compared with 72 per cent in the general population. The
unemployment rates were 9 per cent (disabled workers) and 5 per cent (non-disabled
workers).
In the United Kingdom, people with disabilities account for almost 20 per cent
of the working age population, but only about 12 per cent of all in employment. Disabled
people are over six times as likely to be out of work and claiming benefits as persons
without disabilities.
In general, persons with disabilities in the labour market tend to have a lower level
of education than others. They are also more likely to be in part-time jobs. Unemployment
rates vary between types of disability, being highest among those with mental illness. In
the U.K. it is estimated that 75 per cent of those of working age with mental illness are
unemployed. Based on a review of available information, reasons given for high
unemployment rates among persons with disabilities include:
- Low level of education and training
- Declining demand for unskilled labour
- Reductions in the workforce of large enterprises and the public service
- Concern about accidents and insurance costs
- Reluctance to register as having a disability
- Lack of information on work opportunities
- Lack of awareness among employers of needs and abilities of persons with disabilities
- ‘Benefits trap’
- Fear of losing welfare benefits
- Inadequate technical/personal supports
Many countries are concerned about increasing levels of unemployment among persons with
disabilities and their low rate of labour market participation, linked to concerns about
increasing social assistance costs. Details of specific measures are contained in the
following chapter, but the general thrust of new policy moves reflects a greater emphasis
on greater activation of labour market policy through:
- Measures to prevent and discourage welfare dependency
- Mainstreaming of employment and training services for persons with disabilities
- Incentives to participate in educational, training and work initiatives
- Greater involvement of employers
- Improving employment support services
- A more effective implementation of anti-discrimination legislation
- Greater enforcement of existing quota scheme provisions.
At present, passive measures (income transfers) consume a considerably greater
proportion of public resources than active labour market measures. While the scope for
shifting the balance may appear to be great, relatively high unemployment rates, coupled
with a general economic downturn in many countries, are making it difficult to implement
some of these measures effectively.
It is generally accepted that for some disabled persons, open employment may not for
various reasons be a practicable option. In calling for measures to promote employment
opportunities for persons with disabilities, the ILO has recommended that such measures
should include ‘appropriate government support for the establishment of various
types of sheltered employment for disabled persons for whom access to open employment
is not practicable.’[117] The UN
Standard Rules on the Equalization of Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities states
that while the aim should always be for persons with disabilities to obtain employment in
the open labour market, ‘for persons with disabilities whose needs cannot be met in
open employment, small units of sheltered or supported employment may be an
alternative.’[118]
As the above ILO recommendation implies, there are possibilities for different types of
sheltered employment. In their survey of sheltered employment in various countries, Samoy
and Waterplas found that even the concept of sheltered employment does not have the same
meaning for all people:
‘When government officials are asked to present their system of sheltered
employment to foreigners (such as the authors), they will sometimes refer exclusively to
organizations providing productive work (in industry or services) to persons with
disabilities who have an employment contract and receive a wage. Other officials from the
same state or officials from another state may want to include organizations where
productive work is certainly not the only and often not even the main aim and where
persons with disabilities have no employment contract and receive no wages but only a
bonus in addition to their disability pension. Other interested parties, such as workshop
organizations or organizations of and for people with disabilities, may share this view or
disagree.’[119]
In their report, Samoy and Waterplas adopted a broad view of sheltered workshops,
including types of organization close to occupational centres or day centres. However, a
minimum of productive activity was required for an organization to be included. For
countries where such institutions are normally not considered as sheltered work, some
information was gathered in order to make comparisons possible.
The Council of Europe also uses a broad definition of sheltered employment:
‘Sheltered employment should be open to people who, because of their disability,
are unable to obtain or keep a normal job, whether supported or not; it can cover a number
of diversified situations, amongst which are sheltered workshops and work centres.
Sheltered work should have a double purpose: to make it possible for people with
disabilities to carry out a worthwhile activity and to prepare them, as far as possible,
for work in normal employment. To this end, all ways of facilitating the passage from
supported to ordinary employment should be devised, such as: the setting up of sheltered
work sections in work centres or work centres in sheltered workshops; the setting up of
sheltered work sections or work centres within ordinary firms; individual or collective
detachment of workers in sheltered workshops or work centres to ordinary firms.’[120]
Some countries have found it useful, for planning purposes, to make distinctions
between certain forms of work and employment. In Ireland, for example, a committee set up
to advise on a strategy for employment for persons with disabilities in sheltered and
supported work and employment used the following definitions:
Work is the undertaking of organized tasks which may attract some forms of
remuneration, but which is not covered by employment protection legislation or pay-related
social insurance.
Employment is remunerated work which complies with statutory requirements in
regard to employment protection legislation, pay-related social insurance and income tax
liability.
Sheltered Work is work undertaken by persons with disabilities in workshops
specifically established for that purpose. People working in sheltered workshops retain
their social insurance benefits and usually receive a small additional weekly payment from
the work provider. Sheltered workers are not employed and are not covered by employment
protection legislation.
Sheltered Employment is employment in an enterprise established specifically for
the employment of persons with disabilities and which is in receipt of special funding
from the State.[121]
Many countries operate some form of sheltered employment system.[122] Comparison between countries is difficult for a number
of reasons, not least because the concept of sheltered employment does not have the same
meaning to all, even within the same country. A number of general points may, however, be
made.
- The philosophy of sheltered employment has been hotly debated in some countries (e.g.
Australia, United States) in recent years, with other supported employment measures coming
more into favour. In Europe, there appears to be little consensus, with some countries
providing a significantly smaller number of sheltered employment places (per 1000
workforce) than others.
- Many sheltered workshops owe their origin to voluntary effort, often charities,
religious groups or groups of concerned parents. Gradually, they became subject to state
regulation and eligible for state subsidization.
- In general, sheltered employment was intended for persons who were unable or unlikely to
obtain or retain a job in the open labour market because of the severity of their
disability or limited working capacity. In many cases, a minimum level of disability is
specified as an entry requirement. The majority of those employed tend to have an
intellectual disability, though in some cases no distinction appears to be made between
intellectual disability and mental illness.
- In most countries, improving transition to the regular labour market is a stated policy
goal of sheltered employment. In reality, transition rates range from under 1 per cent to
about 5 per cent, with most countries near the lower end of the scale.[123] Reasons given for low transition include reluctance of
employers to recruit, reluctance on the part of workshops to release their key workers,
the low technological level of workshop activities which restricts the potential skill
levels of employees, and skills training which often does not reflect the requirements of
the labour market.
- Sheltered employment has been criticized in some countries for failing to provide proper
working conditions and employment contracts. In many cases, employees are paid less than
the minimum wage. In some cases, they receive only ‘pocket money’ in addition to
their normal disability benefit. Employment and occupational safety and health laws often
do not apply. There is generally no right to freedom of association (to unionize).
Some of the criticisms of sheltered employment in relation to low transition, lack of
employment contracts, poor pay, etc. may reflect differences - or even uncertainty - in
the philosophy underlying the concept rather than inadequacies in policy, management or
cost-benefit returns. To assess the performance of sheltered workshops using criteria such
as those mentioned is open to question when those operating the system see their
responsibility more in terms of care and social service rather than employment promotion
or economic returns.
Supported employment originated in the United States as an alternative to traditional
rehabilitation programmes for persons with severe disabilities. It is defined by law and
regulation as paid work in integrated work settings, with ongoing support services, for
persons with severe disabilities. The provision of a minimum wage was added to US federal
regulations for supported employment in 1997.[124]
There is a variety of ways in which supported employment may be provided. These include
individual placement, enclaves, mobile work crews and small business arrangements.[125] An enclave is a group of individuals,
usually three to eight, who work in a special training group within a host company. Not
all members of the group may move into the company’s regular workforce. A mobile work
crew may be a similar sized group, with one or more supervisors, which travels through a
community offering specialized contract services, such as gardening or grounds-keeping.
The small business option could be a manufacturing service or a subcontract operation,
with a small number of workers with disabilities and non-disabled workers. The business
might provide only one type of product or service.
The individual placement option would appear to be the dominant one in the United
States. In 1995, 77 per cent of supported employment participants were in individual
supported employment places, and 23 per cent in some type of group model.[126] There is no one ‘best’ model.
As some commentators have said:
‘there is a nearly infinite array of supported employment strategies and
structures, each of which combines a particular kind of work opportunity with a particular
method of ongoing support. Each has advantages and drawbacks in terms of generating real
employment outcomes while overcoming barriers to employment experienced by the individuals
with disabilities. No single alternative is ideal, and none fits all situations.
Development of supported employment programmes requires adaptation to local employment
opportunities and individual service requirements.’[127]
It was reported in 1997 that two-thirds of all supported employment participants in the
U.S were persons with intellectual disability, with the second largest group being persons
with a mental illness.[128]
The interpretation of supported employment has been found to vary from country to
country.
- In the United Kingdom, for example, it includes programmes providing financial
subsidies to employers in respect of disabled workers with reduced productivity, as well
as job coach based activity as in the U.S. Of the 5,000 or so people employed in the UK
under the latter model in 1996, 90 per cent had an intellectual disability.
- In Norway, supported employment has been provided since 1996, with job coach
support guaranteed for three years.
- In the Netherlands, the parliament in 1992 asked the government to find a
solution to wage differences between supported employment programmes and sheltered
employment. In the supported employment programmes, wages were related to productivity and
supplemented with a disability benefit of up to 85 per cent of the statutory minimum wage,
while in sheltered companies full wages were paid. In addition, the government was asked
to cover the costs of job coaches. As a first step, the supplementary benefit was raised
to a limit of the minimum wage and a subsidy was introduced towards the cost of job
coaches. Under 1996 legislation, local authorities may fund supported employment. Each job
created in this way is treated as a job in a sheltered company for the purpose of
government funding.[129]
- In New Zealand, the supported employment programme provides a wage subsidy for
two years.[130]
- In Finland, a survey of supported employment projects found that few defined
supported employment as supported, paid work in integrated settings: ‘generally, it
was understood to mean a variety of support options for employment or employment-related
activities.’[131]
A number of studies in the United States have shown that supported employment has
produced greater social and psychological benefits for workers, as compared with sheltered
placements, and to have been cost-effective for workers, taxpayers and society as a whole.[132] One U.S. review of supported employment
from its origins in the 1970s, however, quotes other studies which accuse many programmes
of ‘creaming’ i.e. taking less severely disabled persons as participants.[133] Because of the variations in definitions
of supported employment, findings from studies carried out in one country cannot be
generalized to another. The U.S. legislation under which supported employment is funded as
a rehabilitation option specified that participants should work at least 20 hours per week
on average to be eligible for funding. Many of the positive cost-benefit outcomes achieved
in the U.S. resulted from savings in the reduced use of alternative services and from tax
receipts from earned income. In the U.K. many supported employment jobs are part-time and
below 20 hours per week. Where participants opt to retain their welfare benefit and earn a
small allowable amount in addition, welfare benefit expenditures are not reduced and there
is little, if any, flow back from tax.[134]
This is not so much a feature of the supported employment concept but is rather due to the
relationship between benefit entitlement and job earnings.
The concept of supported self-employment for persons with severe disabilities has been
receiving some attention, particularly in the United States. A number of articles which
appeared in a recent special edition of the Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation,
published to introduce its readers to the concept, show how self-employment may be helpful
in promoting individual satisfaction for persons with significant disabilities, but they
are also generally forthright in acknowledging the high level of supports required at
every stage of the business start-up and operation.[135]
The Social Economy, according to the European Information Centre for the Social Economy
(ARIES), is ‘based on the values of economic activities with social goals,
sustainable development, equal opportunities, inclusion of disadvantaged people, and civil
society.’
The European Commission, which sometimes refers to the Social Economy as the Third
System, describes it as ‘the economic and social fields represented by cooperatives,
mutual companies, associations, along with all local job creation initiatives intended to
respond, through the provision of goods and services, to needs for which neither the
market nor the public sector currently appear able to make adequate provision.’
Enterprises of the Social Economy have been defined as ‘those entities that do not
belong to the public sector, are run and managed in a democratic way, whose members have
equal rights, and that adhere to a special regime of property and distribution of profits
whereby any surplus is reinvested in the growth of the entity and the improvement of
services offered to its members and society at large.’[136] A wide variety of social economy enterprises exist, all
sharing similar values. They include social firms, social businesses, social enterprises,
community enterprises, community cooperatives, development trusts, neighbourhood co-ops,
worker cooperatives, social cooperatives, credit unions, microcredit and mutual guarantee
societies.
The European Union sees the Social Economy as an important part of the European
economic model. In a visit in 2002 to the European Confederation of Workers’
Cooperatives, Social Cooperatives and Participative Enterprises (CECOP), the President of
the European Commission referred to the fact that cooperatives currently employ 2.3
million people in the EU.
The social economy has developed in different ways in EU member States, largely because
of different regulatory frameworks. In Italy, for example, a new regulation on
social cooperatives has led to a major expansion of the sector during the past ten years,
and assisted the reorientation of the cooperative sector from a direct focus on delivering
benefit for members to providing wider benefits to the local community.[137]
In the United States, the not-for-profit sector dates mainly from the 1960s.
Such enterprises benefit from a range of tax exemptions. U.S. government departments are
required to procure goods and services from not-for-profit organizations employing persons
with disabilities, subject to their being competitive on price and quality.
A recent review of employment policies for persons with disabilities in 18
industrialized countries found little evidence of enterprise strategies directly targeted
at disabled individuals.[138] While a
number of countries offered start-up grants to persons with disabilities proposing to
become self-employed or to start up a new business, few mentioned social enterprises as
specific strategies to create additional employment opportunities for persons with
disabilities.
In Japan, social firms/enterprises have provided work opportunities for severely
disabled individuals since 1981.
In Italy, the growth of work integration cooperatives started in 1974 when
workers with mental illness rebelled against working without pay, and set up a cooperative
to do the same work under contract.[139]
The movement advanced with the closure of psychiatric institutions in the late 1970s. Law
381 of 1991 introduced a new model of employment for persons with disabilities based on
social cooperation. Social cooperatives, which engage in a variety of commercial,
manufacturing, farming and service activities, employed over 17,000 disabled workers in
1997.
In Spain, ONCE (The Spanish Organization of Blind Persons) established a
foundation (Fundacion ONCE) in 1988, involving representation of different groups of
persons with disabilities. The primary goal of the Foundation is to provide employment for
disabled people. In 1989, the Foundation set up FUNDOSA GRUPO as a holding or parent
company of more than 60 enterprises, which in 1997 employed almost 6000 workers, of whom
72 per cent were disabled. The enterprises operate in diverse sectors, including laundry,
retail sales in hospitals and community centres, telephone marketing, food production and
data processing.[140]
In the United Kingdom, there has been increasing interest in social cooperatives
with between 40 and 50 such enterprises providing work for persons with disabilities in
1995.[141]
The figures quoted may well considerably understate the number of disabled persons
currently working in social enterprises of various kinds. A Spanish report in 1998, for
example, estimated that there were almost one thousand social cooperatives in Spain.
Of the total, approximately 200 were in Cataluna. A 1995 study of social cooperatives in
Cataluna found that 45 per cent were oriented to the integration of people with
intellectual disabilities.[142]
According to a recent UK government report, there is no precise estimate of the number
of social enterprises in the U.K. A tentative estimate of the relative size of the social
enterprise sector in 2000 suggested that the social economy accounted for almost 7.3 per
cent of all employment in the U.K.: between 10 per cent and 20 per cent of this may be
accounted for by social enterprise. There is no indication of the number of persons with
disabilities employed in the sector.
One of the fundamental characteristics of social enterprises is that they are created
to respond, by providing goods and services, to needs for which neither the private
business sector nor the public sector are able or willing to make provision. The future
growth potential of the social enterprise sector would, therefore, appear to offer
significant possibilities for new employment opportunities for persons with disabilities,
provided any barriers to growth are removed or reduced. These barriers have been
identified, in the U.K., as
- poor understanding of the capacities and value of social enterprise
- limited information on the social, environmental and financial impact of social
enterprise
- insufficient specialist support and advice from government and business
- difficulty in accessing finance
- insufficient account of the particular characteristics of social enterprises by
financial, legal and regulatory frameworks, or in procurement activities
- inadequate training of social enterprise managers in business, financial and personnel
management.
The U.K. government has developed a strategy aimed at overcoming these barriers and
allowing social enterprises to deliver significantly more public services.
[113] ILO Vocational Rehabilitation and
Employment (Disabled Persons) Recommendation No. 168, 1983
[114] Self-employment is not dealt with
as a separate category here, as it can exist under all categories.
[115] For more detailed discussion, see
European Commission, Benchmarking employment policies for people with disabilities, 2000.
This report covers Australia, Japan and the United States in addition to the 15 EU member
States.
[116] National Institute of Disability
Management and Research, Annual Report 2001, p. 4
[117] Vocational Rehabilitation and
Employment (Disabled Persons) Recommendation (No. 168), 1983 (emphasis added)
[118] Rule 7 (7)
[119] Samoy, E. and Waterplas, L.
Sheltered Employment in five member states of the Council of Europe: Austria, Finland,
Norway, Sweden and Switzerland. Council of Europe, 1997, p. 6
[120] Council of Europe, A coherent
policy for the rehabilitation of people with disabilities, 1992
[121] Employment Challenges for the
Millennium. Report of the NACTE Steering Group on Sheltered and Supported Work and
Employment, NRB, 1997
[122] For a detailed discussion see
Samoy, E. and Waterplas, L., Sheltered Employment in the European Community, Commission of
the European Union, Brussels, 1992; Samoy, E. and Waterplas, L., Sheltered Employment in
five member states of the Council of Europe: Austria, Finland, Norway, Sweden and
Switzerland. Council of Europe, 1997; Thornton P., and Lunt, N., Employment Policies for
Disabled People in Eighteen Countries: A Review, Social Policy Research Unit, University
of York, 1997.
[123] See, for example, Thornton and
Lunt, op. cit.; Samoy and Waterplas, op. cit.; Council of Europe, Note by the Netherlands:
Sheltered Employment for Handicapped People – Trends and Issues in the Netherlands,
12 Jan. 1993.
[124] Wehman, P., Revell, G. and Kregel,
J. Supported Employment: a decade of rapid growth and impact, in Wehman, P., Kregel, J.
and West, M. (Eds) Supported Employment Research: expanding competitive employment
opportunities for persons with significant disabilities. Rehabilitation Research and
Training Centre on Supported Employment, Virginia Commonwealth University, 1997
[125] Moon, M. and Griffin, S. Supported
Employment Service Delivery Models in Wehman, P., and Moon, M. (Eds) Vocational
Rehabilitation and Supported Employment. Paul H. Brooks Publishing Company: Baltimore MD,
1988
[126] Wehman et al, 1997, op. cit.
[127] Bellamy, G. T., Rhodes, L.E. and
Albin, J. M. Supported employment. In Kieran, W.E and Stark, J.A. (Eds) Pathways to
Employment for Adults with Developmental Disabilities (pp. 129-138), Baltimore: Brooks,
1986
[128] Wehman et al, 1997
[129] Krug, R. Sheltered Employment in
the Netherlands – Recent Developments. Paper presented at conference on Disability
and Employment, Dublin, 14 Oct. 1996
[130] Saloviita, Timo, Supported
Employment as a Paradigm Shift and a Cause of Legitimation Crisis, Disability &
Society, Vol. 15, No. 1, 2000, pp. 87-98
[131] idem: p. 91
[132] Saloviita, op. cit.
[133] Barbour, Wayne C. Supported
Employment: the coming of full circle. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 13 (1999),
pp. 176-174
[134] Beyer, Goodere L. and Kilsby, M.
The Costs and Benefits of Supported Employment Agencies. Research Studies No. 37.
Department for Education and Employment, UK. 1996.
[135] Journal of Vocational
Rehabilitation, 17 (2002)
[136] Quoted in Viorreta, C. The Social
Enterprise in Spain. Paper presented at Transnational Meeting in Cagliari, 29 Sep. 1998
[137] U.K. Department of Trade and
Industry, Social Enterprise: a strategy for success, July 2002
[138] European Commission, Benchmarking
employment policies for people with disabilities, 2000
[139] quoted in Thornton, P. and Lunt,
N. Employment Policies for Disabled People in Eighteen countries. Social Policy Research
Unit, University of York, 1997
[140] idem: pp. 237-8
[141] idem: p. 270
[142] quoted in Viorreta, op. cit.
Return to top |
