Realising the value · Realising the value New thinking and methods on employing disabled people...

Realising the value

New thinking and methods on

employing disabled people

European Community

Realising the value

New thinking and

methods on employing

disabled people

Index

President’s Foreword 1Introduction 5EUROPEAN Group - IPWH 7Acknowledgement of Support from the European Commission 9

Employment of the Most Severely

Disabled People 11

Opportunities and Threats of New Business

Sectors and Methods 29

Adapting to the New Trends of

Mainstreaming and Social Inclusion 43

EUROPEAN Group - IPWH Members Contact Details 71

123

President’s Foreword

Page 1

For many years, European member stateshave taken different actions to support theemployment of people with disabilitiesthrough their own national fundedprogrammes.The European Commission’sDirective for establishing a generalframework for equal opportunities inemployment is an encouraging advance, andsupports the recommendations within thispublication.

There is increasing recognition by peoplebeyond the specialist employmentorganisations that providing appropriatesupport and removing barriers will enabledisabled people to participate and sustainemployment in the European labour

markets.This marks the beginning of a newand dynamic European agenda for allmember states, employers, people withdisabilities and our members.

This publication identifies a number ofbarriers that have to be removed, including aperception of disabled people as ananonymous homogenous group withoutability or motivation. Rejecting universalsolutions, the clear message is that disabledpeople are individuals, with the same rangeof ambitions and motivations as their fellowcitizens.

We have to establish a common language ofshared definitions relating to disability andto overcome variations in knowledge.Wemust also focus on the resources and actionsneeded to make the accommodations andprovide support for individual disabledpeople to realise their potential throughemployment.

The removal of the barriers that existthrough the ignorance, prejudice and lack ofsocial and community responsibility of thegatekeepers to employment will not happenovernight. However, the CommunityDirective provides a common framework forthe legislation of individual member statesto give guidance and minimum standards toensure equal opportunities for alldisadvantaged groups, including disabledpeople.This must work in parallel with

Foreword by the President of the

EUROPEAN Group - IPWH


Page 2

increased awareness, education and positiveaction until equality is achieved andmaintained.

Providing specially organised employmentremains a necessary, key ingredient ofpositive action, as some disabled people willnot be able to achieve the productivitylevels of their co-workers, even withavailable ‘accommodations’. The change oftechnology, the migration of sunsetindustries to low cost economies outsideEurope, the shift from manufacturing toservice industries, and the opportunitiescreated by Information CommunicationTechnology (ICT) demand that speciallyorganised employers should maximise theirbusiness operations to sustain employmentof disabled people and develop theirtransferable skills, competencies andconfidence to progress to mainstreamemployment.

Our members have a new role. Building ontheir skills and many years of experience,they are no longer just employmentproviders.We are supporting disabledpeople to prepare, access and sustainmainstream employment.We are extendingour knowledge and experience toemployers and enterprises to enabledisabled people to access and sustainmainstream employment. Considerable

changes will have to be made to adapt ourorganisations to mainstreaming.These willbe more profound in some countries than inothers.They should reflect and be reflectedin the environment in which ourorganisations operate e.g. national policies,local labour market conditions.

We are aware that every policy ororganisational change that is made in oursectors, will (and should be) weighedagainst the contribution it makes to themainstream trend.We recognise that wemust invest in new activities and policies,qualitative organisational structures,performance standards and workingmethods. It is inevitable that part or all ofour workforces, which are mainly disabledpeople, will be only temporarily involved inwhat used to be a ‘stable’ work environment.Our awareness of, and ability to cope with,these conditions will have a great effect onthe viability, positioning and size of thespecially adapted work sector as a whole.

However, mainstreaming is not a solution forall disabled people.We have to recognise thatwe must continue to provide an option ofsecure sheltered employment for those whoare unable work within the mainstream.Wemake this commitment in the interests ofdisabled people as decided and expressed bydisabled people themselves, and not tooppose progress or defend a “status quo”.

The combination of these three reportsprovide a major contribution to workingtowards the equalisation of opportunity fordisabled people and provides the agenda forthe immediate future.

Specially organisedemployment

The EUROPEAN Group - IPWH has alwaysbelieved that, whilst unemployment levelsare substantially higher for disabled peoplethan for non-disabled people, specially


Page 3

organised employment contributes to thesolution to ensure that disabled peoplebecome part of the labour market.We alsorecognise that the provision of support andfacilitating access by reducing or removingbarriers is an increasing role that speciallyorganised employers are undertaking.

Plans for 2001

The methodology used for producing thisand the previous publication ‘Europe’sUndervalued Workforce’ has provedsuccessful.The EUROPEAN Group - IPWHhas decided, within the third workprogramme co-funded with the EuropeanCommission, to operate a further three newthematic working groups to explore thefollowing issues, relevant to theemployment of disabled people:

1. The role of specially organised workplaces supporting disabled people with intellectual and mental illness impairments into the labour market.

2. The role of specially organised workplaces in the provision of Life Long Learning, including basic skills for disabled people so that they can access and participate in Information Communication Technology (ICT) employment opportunities.

3. The development of a good practice guide for employers in applying ‘reasonable adjustments/ accommodations’ to support disabled people into employment.

A new publication, including the reportsproduced by these working groups, will bepublished towards the end of the workprogramme, in Autumn 2001.

Final remarks

We very much appreciate the supportreceived by the European Commission.Wehope that this publication, from the secondwork programme, will result in directbenefits for all those who supportequalisation of opportunity for all, whilstseeking to increase and sustain theemployment of disabled people within theEuropean Community.

I really hope that this publication willstimulate your thoughts and create actionto recognise the ability of disabled peopleand to increase their employment levelswithin Europe.

Hans V. VrindPresident, the EUROPEAN Group - IPWH

Introduction

At the EU Lisbon Summit held in March 2000,European Heads of Government set a ten-yearstrategic goal for the EU to become the mostcompetitive and dynamic economy in theworld.Their vision was of an innovative andknowledge-based society, capable of sustainingeconomic growth, which in turn will supportan active welfare state within a new EuropeanSocial Model.The Social Affairs Commissionerhad been directed to produce a new SocialPolicy Agenda that will link action onemployment, social protection, socialinclusion, equal opportunities and anti-discrimination as essential prerequisites of aperforming economy.

For the first time, social inclusion is at thecentre of EU strategic planning.

It was therefore timely that, as a part of itsmain programme of activities for 1999/2000,the EUROPEAN Group - IPWH undertook aseries of studies related to the inclusion ofdisabled people in employment.The reportsincluded in this publication are the results ofthe work of three thematic Working Groupsestablished by the EUROPEAN Group - IPWHto examine the following issues:

1. The employment of the most severely disabled people within the European Union.

2. The opportunities and threats affecting the employment of disabled people arising from new business sectors and methods.

Introduction

Page 5

3. Adapting to the new trends of mainstreaming in employment and social inclusion for disabled people.

Each group held three meetings withinEurope and presented progress reports to theConference held in Brussels on 24th May2000.

Although each Working Group considered aclearly defined area of work, there is acommon theme running through all thereports.We are living in an age of near-revolutionary change: social, economic andtechnological.The challenge facing specialistsworking in the field of supportingemployment for disabled people,governments and society at large is: how tochange attitudes, structures and procedures toseize the new opportunities that exist toenable disabled people realise their fullpotential.

To allow people with disabilities to take theirrightful place as equal and active citizens ofthe New Europe, we need a new agenda.

The purpose of the reports is to set a newagenda for member organisations of theEUROPEAN Group - IPWH. However, it is feltthat findings of the expert Working Groupswill be of wider interest and benefit to otherorganisations and individuals interested indisability and employment issues.


Page 7


The IPWH (International Organisation forthe Provision of Work for People withDisabilities and who are OccupationallyHandicapped) is a world-wide organisationrepresenting the majority of organisationsproviding specially organised employmentfor disabled people.

The EUROPEAN Group - IPWH was createdin 1995 as a regional group of IPWH underthe title the European Union Group (EUG) -IPWH. It currently has 22 members from 16European countries (11 EU countries,Hungary, Iceland, Norway, Poland andSwitzerland).The name was changed in2000 to the EUROPEAN Group - IPWH to

reflect its growing membership beyond theEU member states.

EUROPEAN Group - IPWH members providemore than 450,000 jobs for disabled peoplein Europe and represent the majority ofspecially organised employment in theEuropean Union. In many cases, themembers are the umbrella or leadingorganisations for specially organisedemployment in their countries.

The EUROPEAN Group - IPWH is a foundingmember of the European Disability Forum(EDF) and associate member of CorporateSocial Responsibility (CSR) Europe.

The EUROPEAN Group - IPWHacknowledges the provision of supportgiven by the European Commission toEUROPEAN Group - IPWH as aRepresentative European Co-ordinationOrganisation active in the field of EqualOpportunities for Disabled People, for thework of the Working Groups.

Budget line B3-4111 enables the EuropeanCommission to implement measures tosupport representative Europeanorganisations actively working in the field ofequal opportunities for disabled people andare responsible for co-ordinating their ownnetwork.This budget line anticipates thenew Community strategy to fightdiscrimination, which the Commission iscommitted to pursue in the future.

The Commission recognises EUROPEANGroup - IPWH as an organisation operatingat the European level, with a structure andprogramme of activities that include morethan half the Member States of the EuropeanUnion. For that reason, the Commissionawarded funding to the EUROPEAN Group -IPWH for a second year (1999/2000) insupport for our work programme as aRepresentative European Co-ordinationOrganisation, active in the field of EqualOpportunities for Disabled People.

Financial allocation under this headingprovides for activities which are of

Community-wide interest, contributesignificantly to the further development andimplementation of the Community disabilitypolicy, and meet the principles underlyingthe Communication of the Commission of30 July 1996 (COM 406 final) on equality ofopportunity for people with disabilities.

In the first work programme (1998/1999),which successfully met the majority of theEuropean Union’s funding criteria, theEUROPEAN Group - IPWH established fourworking groups drawn from itsmembership. The results of their workappeared in a series of reports, published ina single volume under the title ‘Europe’sUndervalued Workforce’.

In evaluating the first work programme -and in particular the work of the fourworking groups - it was concluded thatparticipation, consultation and involvementof disabled people should be expanded tomeet the requirements of the EuropeanUnion’s criteria.

The challenge facing this year’s workprogramme and the three working groups isto meet all criteria within the resources,time limitation and the geographicalcoverage that the EUROPEAN Group -IPWH membership operates.

Acknowledgement of Support from the

European Commission

Acknowledgement of Support from the European Commission

1.1 Introduction 111.2 Terms of Reference 121.3 Narrative 141.4 Definitions

Employment 14Severely Disabled People 15Integration 16Social Inclusion 17Supported Employment 19Employment Targets 19Performance Levels 19Minimal Level of Performance 19Ideal Balance 20Transition 21

1.5 Summary of Conclusions 221.6 Vision 221.7 Recommendations 231.8 Manifesto 241.9 Preparing for Change 251.10 Members of the Working Group 251.11 Questionnaire 26

Contents

Employment of the Most Severely Disabled People

Page 11

1.1 Introduction

This report is the result of a studycommissioned by the EUROPEAN Group -IPWH (European Union Group-International Organisation for theProvision of Work for People withDisabilities and who are OccupationallyHandicapped) to review the employmentof people with severe disabilities withinthe European Union.

The study’s main objective was to identifydeficiencies in the provision made byEuropean countries to achieve inclusion ofseverely disabled people into society.Therefore, this report considers the levelto which disabled people are included inevery day life as well as employment.

The report does not offer universalsolutions to the problems of achievingtotal social inclusion. However, it doesattempt to present a new perspective ondisability issues, which focuses more ondisabled people than on the institutionsactive on their behalf.

Employment of the Most Severely

Disabled People11.1


Page 12

1.2 Terms of Reference

Before undertaking the study, the workinggroup spent some time reviewing theoriginal terms of reference set by theEUROPEAN Group - IPWH. Members wereanxious to extend those terms to includeextra targets, to raise debate to a higherabstract level, and to present an overviewof the field of research. In particular, theywanted to replace the term ‘Integration’with that of ‘Social Inclusion’

To obtain a total picture of Social Inclusionor Exclusion, members identified a numberof key issues and questions:

1. Hypothesis

In what circumstances can severely disabledpeople find the greatest satisfaction intheir work?

2. Working hypothesis

EUROPEAN Group - IPWH members shouldaim to create and sustain conditions thatenable severely disabled people toparticipate in society. To achieve this,members must consider all factors affectingdisabled people’s lives, including housing,complementary day care, education, extramedical care, pensions, etc. Statistics fromeach member state would be needed toproduce a total figure for the wholeEuropean Union.

3. Practice

To what level are individuals andorganisations working for the severelydisabled people committed to socialinclusion? What are they doing to achieveit? Contact with such individuals andorganisations would produce relevantinformation about their current practiceand experience.

4. The study

The following statements/questions arefundamental to the study:

What factors are needed to enable severelydisabled people to work successfully in abusiness environment?

What socio-economic factors (e.g. housing,complementary day care, education, extramedical care, pensions, etc.) are essential toachieve a rights-based approach to paidwork for severely disabled people whichwill give them a sense of happiness,fulfilment and security?

In achieving the required goals, is it betterthat participating institutions worktogether within one large care system, or isit possible for them to progress alone?

1.2


Page 13

Are there any barriers that preventinstitutions from working together?Is it possible to provide a single modelthat describes the European situation?

5. Criteria

In defining the terms of reference it wasconsidered important to meet thefollowing criteria required by theEuropean Union:

The degree to which the terms ofreference contribute to the promotion ofa rights based approach to disabilityissues.

The level of participation by disabledpeople to produce their effective andsubstantial involvement in the design andimplementation of the working groupactivities, which must themselves prove tobe beneficial to disabled people.

At the first working group meeting onMonday December 20th 1999 workinggroup members agreed to the followingdraft terms of reference:

1. Define the term ‘disabled people’ and identify the group to which the term applies.

2. Assess whether this group is increasing/declining within our organisations and nations.

3. Overview the selection criteria ofdisabled people to our organisations.

4. Identify overall strategies to ensure their integration in special employ-ment: setting specific targets for this group.

5. Establish whether there must be a minimum level of performance under which integration in special employment is not possible.

6. Consider whether there is an ideal balance between less and more severely disabled people to ensure a good economic and social performance.

7. Consider how technical aids/personal support increase performance level.

8. Consider whether transition is possible for this group of people.

9. Provide successful case studies, taking account of different impairments.

10. Establish the degree of any extra financial support required to ensure that disabled people are not excluded from special employment or access to mainstream employment.

11. Identify any special jobs or ways of organising that are more beneficial forthese people.

12. Produce conclusions and recommendations.

The Working Group submitted these termsto the EUROPEAN Group - IPWH Secretaryfor approval by the Chairman. Thatapproval was granted.


Page 14

1.3 Narrative

In a search for quantitative illustrations, theWorking Group compiled and circulated aquestionnaire to EU organisations active inthe field of disability. The Group’s intentionwas to provide a graphical representationof the numbers of disabled peopleemployed, where they work, etc. In thecovering letter we informed the addresseethat, if absolute numbers should not beavailable, estimated figures would suffice.The response to this questionnaire was verylow. After a second attempt, we onlyreceived responses from 6 countries. Weconsidered this too low a return to producescientific data and, for this reason, thefigures have not been included in thisreport. Details of the questionnaire aregiven on page 27.

The Working Group comprised 9 peoplerepresenting seven organisations from 6countries. It was felt that the depth andrange of knowledge and varied experienceheld within the Group would enable themto define a vision and a path for the future.Details of the organisations represented onthe Working Group are given on page 25.

1.4 Definitions

Before they could begin to make evengeneral statements in a report, WorkingGroup members recognised that theywould have to overcome differences ininterpretation. It was essential to find theright terminology to be able to presentconclusions that are understandablethroughout Europe. For example, a keydefinition would be that of disability itself.To what group of people does the term‘most severely disabled’ apply? How is thatterm understood in each country?

As a first step, each member identified anumber of key terms and phrases relatingto disability, and described how they were

applied in his or her country. This exercisedid not produce a set of ‘Europeanstandard definitions’ but it did highlight theinternational differences in the way peoplethink about disability issues, what termsmean in a national context, and howprofessionals working in the field applythem in their own countries. This in turn ledto discussion on the form of European‘keynotes’ relating to each term and theissues raised.

10 terms with salient points raised inthe Group’s discussion are given below.Whenever a general consensus on aworking definition was agreed, thatdefinition was used in the substance ofthis report.

1 Employment

Employment as defined in Europeandirectives is: ‘Any remunerated activitywhich is performed, either as a third party’semployee or as a self-employed person,under a contractual relationship oraccording to the labour market patterns(i.e. sector or business labour agreements),and which makes reference to workers’rights and obligations (e.g. wages, worktime, leave, holidays, etc.)’

1.3

1.4


Page 15

The Working Group recommends that thisdefinition be applied to the employment ofpeople with severe disabilities.

2 Severely disabled

Applying percentages to measure degreesof disability presents us with certainproblems. A person’s impairment may havea moderate or severe impact on his or herperformance, regardless of the severity ofthe impairment. For example, a severeimpairment such as total blindness (100%)may not result in that person’s total inabilityto be a typist. This can apply as much ineveryday social life as in the workenvironment.

Assessing a disabled person’s social andwork environments is just as important asmeasuring his or her level of performanceor the percentage of ability/disability. Today,deciding whether or not someone isseverely disabled is based upon his or herminimal level of performance. This is alsoexpressed as a percentage and is extremelydifficult to measure.

To a greater or lesser extent, EU memberstates use the definition of disabilityproposed by the World Health Organisation(WHO):

Disability: Disability is understood to referto any kind of restriction or absence, due toa deficiency, of the ability to carry out anactivity in the way or within the confines ofthat which is considered to be normal for ahuman being. The concept of disabilityrefers to the permanent consequences ofpersonal illnesses and accidents.

Handicap: Handicap is understood toinclude all situations deemeddisadvantageous to an individual whichresult as a consequence of a deficiency or adisability and which limits or impedes thefulfiling of a normal role on the basis ofage, gender, and concurrent social andcultural factors. The concept of handicap

refers to the permanent consequences ofillnesses and accidents within the socialsphere.

However, the Working Group identifiedvariations in the percentage classificationsused by different European countries inestablishing disability. These range from astarting point of 50% degree of total abilityup to, logically, 100%.

For example:

COUNTRY DISABILITY Germany >50%Spain >65%France Category C or >80%The Netherlands (pending confirmation) >60% United Kingdom >70%Austria >70%

In each country the degree of disability isdetermined by a medical examination. Butthe classification of a person as seriouslydisabled can vary from one country toanother. Further variations can arise fromdiffering perceptions of total ability. Forexample it is likely that 70% in Germanydoes not mean the same as or is equal to70% in Austria.

The definition of disability is as varied aseach individual case assessed. For thisreason impairment does not automaticallymean inability. Work-related disability onlyapplies when a person’s impairmentimpedes the ability to do a certain type ofwork.

The Working Group concluded that targetgroups for the study should be thosepeople whose employment perspectives aresubstantially reduced by a physical, mental,or sensory impairment, or learningdifficulties (whether permanent ortemporary); and to those who are unable towork or have very limited employmentpotential.


Page 16

Thus, we considered those withimpairments above 50% as our targetgroup - but taking account of people’spersonal and work-related circumstances.

Bearing in mind that a level of impairmentis not the same as the level of performance(as in the example of total blindness givenabove), the Working Group tried to relatethe level of an individual’s disability to hisor her level of performance. We concludedthat the performance level has to bebetween the 5% and 15% of a notionalmaximum performance norm. Anyone whois capable of performing on a higher levelor who is not capable of performing at leastto a 5% level is excluded from the targetgroup.

After discussion all Working Groupmembers agreed that the followingsentence should be added to the definitionof severely disabled:

‘A person must be able to increase his orher capacity/level of performance when heor she receives specific training.’

It is important to be flexible whenconsidering severely disabled people withinthe context of their social environment. Forexample, in a case where a person’s abilitylevel is just 1%, we should provide thestimulation required to maximise his or herpotential, whatever that may be. Ourobjective must be to give each individualthe maximum satisfaction and sense offulfilment in whatever he or she is doing,no matter what level their ability andirrespective of any time taken.

The Working Group recognised that thesocial environment can adversely affectpeople’s impairments and be a disablingbarrier to employment. Thus, thepercentage of ability is influenced by thepersonal and social circumstances within theworking environment. Each individual mustbe viewed according to his or her uniquepersonal circumstances.

As a long-term objective - perhaps over thenext 10 to 20 years - we should aim tomatch work to people. In doing so, it isessential that we treat the individual, andnot the system, as the most importantfactor. In our view, this should apply notonly to people with disabilities but toeveryone. Experience tells us, that adaptingthe job to the person is all that is requiredto overcome serious impairment and forthat person’s productivity to reach asatisfactory level.

3 Integration

The Working Group replaced the term‘integration’ with the words ‘socialinclusion’.

To define inclusion, we had first to define‘exclusion’.

Exclusion develops from a number of‘negative’ elements in, for example,childhood, up-bringing etc. These lead to alow level of social inclusion, whichtranslates as a social impediment or socialhandicap. For example, an individual maynot be able to find regular employment oris not given the opportunity to transfer intoregular work due to some social disability.

Integration v Social Inclusion

The term ‘integration’ implies abreakthrough by people with disabilitiesinto able-bodied society, plus anassimilation and acceptance of disabledpeople by society into an established set ofnorms and codes of behaviour.

It suggests that people with disabilities haveto be accepted, or tolerated, which impliesa previous disengagement for theindividual with a disability. Integrationcontains a negative concept. It starts from aposition of ‘segregation’ and implies theindividual has ‘suffered a personal tragedy’(i.e. is a victim) that has set him or her


Page 17

apart. Whilst integration may be seen as ahumanitarian response to a real need, it ispaternalistic with the non-disabled takingresponsibility and control of the process.

For these reasons, integration should not bethe aim of supported employment. Insteadit should work for ‘Social Inclusion’. Thisenables all citizens to participate fully insociety, allowing them full self-expressionwithin a freely changing society whosefuture they can determine as equally astheir fellow citizens. Supportedemployment agencies must promote socialadjustment in all its ‘emancipating’ forms.

The issue of inclusion as opposed tointegration is not new. Steve Biko wrote insimilar terms in 1978 when commenting onthe integration of Blacks into White Society.Michael Oliver made this comparison in hisseminal book ‘Understanding Disability.’(Macmillan, 1996)

4 Social Inclusion

Our first task, then, is to combat socialexclusion and create a fully inclusive society.

Exclusion is an accumulation andcombination of several types of deprivation,which may exacerbate the individual’sprimary disability.

For example:

■ Lack of education, or exclusion from benefits of mainstream education.

■ Discrimination.■ Loss of family support.■ Bad health conditions.■ Homelessness.■ Non-participation in active society.■ Lack of job opportunities - not being

given the opportunity to enter aSupported Employment Programme.

Allan Larsson highlighted these points in areport ‘Europe: An Active Society, for all

ages, for all Europeans.’ (October 1999).

The Dutch ‘4 x 10% Model’ did not takeaccount of these factors and wasunsuccessful partly because of not doing so.

Employment

Inclusion in open employment should beviewed as a transitional process, in whichemployees progress through differingstages of Integration into SupportedEmployment.

Supported Employment

Factory or workshop based supportedemployment offers a high level of security,providing individuals with economicindependence. It brings them income, socialstatus and other employment relatedbenefits. However, the ‘high level’ ofsupport may act in part as a barrier to socialinclusion, as the supported workshop issegregated from mainstream employment.Thus, the ‘support ‘ may become part of thesegregation process.


Page 18

The supported employment programmeshould develop an ‘Inclusive Culture’through:

Progression: training and development leading to promotion within the organisation.

Transition: the development ofindividuals and ‘Open Employers’ so thata physical or mental impairment is notseen as relevant (or disabling) toemployment. (e.g. ‘Do not aim to makethe legless person normal, but create aSocial environment where to be leglessis irrelevant’ M. Oliver, 1978)

The Transition Process:

The process of Transition should be seen as afour-stage path to Social Inclusion.

■ Unemployment.■ Supported Employment.■ Supported Placement.■ Open Employment.

Progressive Contracts

A Progressive Contract is the term applied toan employment arrangement in which a‘Host Employer’ takes on greater contractualresponsibility for the client as theiremployment progresses. The role of thesupported employment agency is to provide

an appropriate and flexible level of supportappropriate to the position of the disabledemployee in this process.

Initially, the agency charges the host for thevalue of the work performed by thedisabled client. As the charge for thoseservices increases, the supportedemployment subsidy is reduced and theclient progresses to take on the terms andconditions of the host, until he or sheeventually becomes an employee of thehost’s workforce.

Training and Development for Social Inclusion

Supported employment providers shouldpromote Training and Developmentprogrammes for people whose impairmentprevents them taking an active ‘inclusiverole’ in society.

If we are to successfully achieve Inclusion,training and development within supportedemployment should concentrate more oninterpersonal and advocacy skills than thoserequired for the particular job.

A comprehensive training and developmentprogramme should cover:

■ Life and social skills: world of work; relationships.

■ Advocacy Skills: thinking skills; decision-making, empowerment - enabling the individual to take responsibility for their future career path.

■ Work related skills.

Such a programme must be continued inany progression to ‘supported placement’and should incorporate Job Coaching,further training and practical support asrequired. If this process is to be successfulwe must achieve a form of holistic support,in which all barriers are removed. Thebarriers may be personal, institutional orsocial, but none are acceptable.


Page 19

5 Supported Employment

Supported employment is an employmentinitiative (‘specially organised employment’)for people with disabilities who are unableto obtain or hold employment in the openlabour market without special support. Theaim of supported employment is tofacilitate access to the labour market fordisabled people who might otherwise beexcluded.

Supported employment can be providedthrough supported workshops/factories, co-operatives, occupational centres, supportedemployment centres, enclaves andprogression into open employment. By itsvery nature, supported employment ismeant to be time-limited. It must ensurethat those who have the ability and thedesire to make a transition to employmentwith another employer are able to do so;but it must also take account of those whomay not be able to take this option (see 8 -Minimal Level of Performance).

Employees in supported employmentreceive wages, whilst the supportedemployment provider receives governmentfunds to reimburse approved costs arisingfrom the employment of people withdisabilities.

Often the nature of the ‘supportedemployment’ is defined by the contractbetween employee and employer.Supported employment does not alwaysimply supported contracts, and sucharrangements are not always appropriate. Inan ideal situation of social inclusion,contracts for disabled employees would besimilar to those used in regularemployment.

Many different kinds of contracts arecurrently used in Social Employment. Itwould be beneficial if, in future, wedeveloped a more homogenised approachto contractual arrangements for peoplewith severe disabilities.

6 Employment Targets

Many countries operate a quota systemwhereby employers are required to employpeople with disabilities as a specifiedpercentage of their total number ofemployees. In practice, many employersprefer to pay the fine that exists for non-compliance. No EU country would acceptsuch a payment for default on health andsafety regulations. Why then is it allowedwith employment legislation?

The challenge facing us is to encourageemployers to recruit people with disabilitiesrather than pay the fine.

But managers of supported workshops alsofail to meet employment targets. Fewsupported workshops achieve theircontractual targets for transitions, achievingonly a minimal percentage of disabledemployees moving into open employment.In some cases, managers of shelteredworkshops would prefer to pay the finerather than lose their ‘best’ workers. Forthem, the cost of a transition to theiroperation is greater than any financialpenalty they might incur.

7 Performance levels

Although European countries producereliable figures on ‘performance levels’there is no single European criteria. This iswhy assessments of a percentage ofperformance level vary between countriesand why it is not of much value to recordthem in this Report.

8 Minimal level of performance

Regression and progression

Any discussion of a minimal level ofperformance must accept that individualscan regress as well as progress and that


Page 20

regression is just as important as progressionwhen planning a transition process.Regression might be caused by increaseddisability, illness or ageing. It might also bethe result of unsettling changes in theworking environment; for example, a moveto another operation within an organisation,or to other supported employment providerswith different objectives.

Clearly we must understand that a minimallevel of performance can rise or fallaccording to changes in an individual’scircumstances. Of course, regression andlower performance levels are problemscommon to the whole of society and not justdisabled people. Our task as providers is toinfluence social attitudes, and provideacceptable models of transition that providefor and support negative and positivechanges in performance. In other words, wemust operate both a ‘progressive’ and a‘regressive’ transition process.

The ‘Regressive’ transition process may wellbe:

■ Open Employment.■ Supported Placement.■ Supported Employment.■ Day Care.

For this model to be effective, members andsupported service providers will need toestablish stronger partnerships with othersupport agencies. We must create a reliablelink between day care centres, workshops,supported placement and open employmentthat will enable disabled clients to moveseamlessly in any direction.

Establishing a minimal performance level

As already seen, the Working Groupproposed that, for practical reasons, toconsider the minimum level of performanceapplicable to those in the 5 - 15% range.However, it is interesting to note thevariations between EU countries of theminimum criteria for being accepted for

work in a sheltered workshop:

Spain: A minimum impairment level of 33%.

Portugal: The minimum level is based upon mobility.

United A work capacity that can be noKingdom: less than 30% of an ordinary

workers’ average.

France: A work capacity that is no less than a third lower than the ordinary workers’ average. If they do not have this minimal level of performance but have sufficient potential, clients can work in job search centres (CAT).

Holland: A potential to work.

9 Ideal balance

Ideal balance is the criteria applied tobalancing the need of the individual againstthe economic requirements of the business. Itcan also be used as a perspective for allaspects of society. Within employment, itestablishes the foundations for inclusion ofdisabled people in the normal labour market,preferably in full time employment.

To obtain an ideal balance, each enterprisemust evaluate themselves and their operationagainst the needs of individual disabilities.Each severely disabled person must beallowed to achieve equality not only in aregular work place but also - and especially -as a citizen and a human being.

To achieve ideal balance, severely disabledpeople must have the opportunity to choosetheir way of life - or at least to participate inmaking that choice - whether it concerns ajob or any other aspect of society.

Ideal balance is closely linked with socialinclusion, and the definition proved useful forthe Working Group when creating our vision.


Page 21

10 Transition

Supported employment - facilitatingtransition

Facilitating transition to open employmentis an inherent task of supportedemployment centres (shelteredemployment); but only if transition is thechoice of the disabled person.

Centres have to operate on soundcommercial lines. They must be managed ascompetitive enterprises, but configured asflexible business organisations able tointegrate people, with and withoutdisabilities, into a sustainable process. Theyshould show themselves as cost-effectiveusers of subsidies and operate in such a waythat they do not prejudice the benefits dueto disabled beneficiaries.

Although they must be commercially viable,their social role is paramount. Their mainpurpose is to act as a means to achieve ahigher level of inclusion of those peoplewith serious or severe disabilities, whoseimpairments make it difficult for them tocompete in the open labour market. Theirprime objectives are to provideopportunities for useful and remuneratedwork and rehabilitation, and to create anddevelop opportunities for progression intothe open labour market, as far as possible.

A centre’s profitability, the percentage ofdisabled employees in the workforce, andtheir output and performance shoulddetermine financial aid, subsidies andincentives. As a general rule, financialassistance should be calculated on the basisof the company’s result, in such a way thatsalaries can be structured according to theworker’s performance and to theprofitability of the centre, and alwayswithin minimum legal limits.

To stimulate transition from supportedemployment centres to ordinary

employment, incentives should be given toorganisations taking on a disabledemployee from a supported employmentcentre and to the centre from which theworker comes. We must accept that somesupported employment centres consider theloss of trained employees as a threat totheir productivity and are reluctant tosupport the transition process.

Normalisation and mainstreamemployment

Normalisation is one of the most importantfeatures of the social integration of peoplewith disabilities. In part, it is achievedthrough access to mainstream employment.However, mainstreaming in employmentdoes not conflict with the provision ofspecific aid for specific needs. Both theNational Employment Plans and theCommission’s Directives on Employment forthe implementation of specific measureswithin the various strands of the EuropeanStrategy for Employment make this clear.

Mainstream employment does not mean wehave to apply a standard set of measuresfor everybody; but it does require us to seta standard objective, which we shouldachieve, taking whatever firm action maybe necessary.

Through training, people with disabilitiesshould be equipped with the means tobecome employable and productive andnot just with the skills of a particular job.We must help them prepare for the worldof work and remove the barriers facingthem. The methods we apply may vary, butthey will help us achieve our standardobjective of an all-inclusive society.


Page 22

1.5 Summary of Conclusions

1. The Working Group found considerable variations in governmental ‘disability’ policies and strategies, which made it extremely difficult to draw Europe-wide conclusions. These differences at a national level also caused problems in making comparisons between the work done in different countries at regional, local and organisational levels. Variations in statistical methodology, targets, performance measures and basic terminology reflected the national differences and also hampered the study. Fundamentally, these differences create barriers to co-operation, restrict access to subsidy sources and impede progress at all levels.

2. The business community does not provide enough employment opportunities for severely disabled people.

3. There is too much emphasis on severely disabled people’s disabilities. Measurement of severe disability is always related to a fixed time and place with no account taken of past or future variations. As a result, disabled people’s qualities are not always developed to a maximum potential.

4. There is a need for recognised organisations working on behalf of disabled people, including EUROPEAN Group - IPWH and its members, to take the lead in developing Social Inclusion programmes.

5. It is extremely difficult to obtain national statistics relating to disabled people and employment. Not only did this limit the work of Working Group, but impedes future development.

6. There is a lack of benchmarking criteria.

7. There is no single standard measure or definition of disability. The process of evaluating disability on the basis of a ‘percentage of performance’ presents problems.

8. The processes and contractual arrangements for supporting disabled people in employment vary considerablybetween European countries.

1.6 Vision

Over 400,000 people in the EU are severelydisabled and occupationally impaired. Manyattend a day care centre - with or without asupported labour contract - whilst othersare in supported employment, funded bythe government or by private initiative.

Our detail review of definitions highlightedmany differences between the wayscountries approach the issue of disabilityand employment.

The aim of EUROPEAN Group - IPWH is tocreate more employment opportunities forpeople with disabilities; and as employers,our members have the skills and resourcesachieve this objective. The role ofsheltered/supported employment is toprovide employment and/or support intoemployment for disabled people so that,through employment, they gain socialinclusion, which is an objective of society.

1.5

1.6


Page 23

Our vision of a Socially Inclusive Society isone where: ‘The competencies of severelydisabled people are rewarded throughworking in open employment.’

To achieve this, the following conditionsmust apply:

1. Individual impairments are not a disablement to employment.

2. Individual impairments are not a reasonfor social exclusion. Segregation through institutionalisation runs contrary to society’s wishes.

Institutions, including IPWH members, needto adopt Social Inclusive Policies. To do this,we must change our role from that ofEmployers to one of Enablers of Transitionfor people with severe disabilities. We mustpromote ‘best practice’ and removeemployment barriers facing people withdisabilities. Also IPWH members and otherorganisations, institutions and governmentsshould provide suitable ‘safety nets’ whichallow disabled people to return to thesheltered environment if open employmentdoes not prove to be suitable for them.

We must work together on behalf of theseverely disabled for social inclusion. Wemust aim for a society in which all membersparticipate, and which allows self-fulfilmentwithin in an environment that changesaccording to the democratic wishes of thepeople.

1.7 Recommendations1. EUROPEAN Group - IPWH members

must extend our focus beyond the workplace to the total social environment in which the severely disabled people live (i.e. work, support, housing, leisure activities, etc.). Our objective is to ensure access to all facilities of everyday life and allow individuals to develop their thinking skills.

2. We must develop a single European strategy that will enable our members to share their knowledge and experience. It should also help us expand and harmonise the following processes:

■ Diagnoses.■ Developing learning capacities.■ Testing and training.■ Adapting working environment to

enable mainstream employment.■ Homogenising statistical information

relating to disability.

3. We must devise a comprehensive policy and action plan for those people whose personal circumstances prevent their working in open employment. The paid work they do should give a meaning and content to their lives.

4. Businesses of all sizes (from large multi-nationals to small enterprises) must be encouraged to develop partnership programmes to permanently increase the opportunities for the severely disabled people within paid open employment.

5. Statistical information on employment and disability issues must be more readily available. European statistics must be more homogeneous.

6. We must devise a strategy that will help and encourage disabled people overcome their reluctance to leave a sheltered workshop and gain experienceof other work and social environments.

7. Future strategy should emphasise disabled people’s competencies rather than their impairments. Individuals, institutions, organisations and businesses engaged in employment, housing, complementary day care, education, extra medical care, pensions, etc., should be trained and encouraged to adopt this approach.

1.7


Page 24

8. The assessment of an individual’s working capacity, given at a particular time and place, should never be taken as final. Every consideration must be given to opportunities for development and change for both progression and regression. We would again emphasise that the way measures are taken shouldbe the same in every European country. This would enable us to highlight regional differences.

9. In striving to produce a trans-national model to achieve transitions to open employment, EUROPEAN Group - IPWH should continue to recognise that supported workshops and placements must always be available as a ‘safety net’ for the most severely disabled people who have low working capacity.

10. We must work to break down existing barriers between service agencies such as institutions, day centres, supported workshops, and supported employment providers, and subsidy and insurance channels.

11. We must develop programs that will encourage and support people with severe disabilities to explore, discover and develop their qualities. Our purpose is ‘to give each individual the greatest satisfaction in whatever he or she is doing, at no matter what level and in no matter what timescale.’

1.8 Manifesto

IPWH members should be seen as majorenablers for societies to achieve the goal ofSocial Inclusion for all severely disabledpeople within the next 15 or 20 years.

To achieve this, we must facilitateprogression and transition to non-supportedemployment by investing more in JobCoaching and the development of disabledpeople’s personal and advocacy skills.

However, when developing a Europeanstrategy, we must remember:

1. The target group is constantly changing in nature and numbers. The wishes and aspirations of both the mentally disabled people and those with severe physical impairment are increasing.

2. Our task is not to work FOR disabled people, but WITH them.

3. Factory or workshop based supported employment offers a high level of security. It provides an income and economic independence, social status and other employment related benefits. However, it may also act partly as a barrier to social inclusion, as the supported workplace is segregated frommainstream employment. Paradoxically, the ‘support’ may become part of the segregation.

1.8


Page 25

1.9 Preparing for Change

The Working Group proposes the followingshort-term initiatives:

1. Action should be taken by EU Member States under the co-ordination of the European Commission for each country to produce inventories of barriers existing between institutions and created by legislation and financial systems.

2. The EUROPEAN Group - IPWH should record and publish information on successful initiatives taken to place severely disabled people into mainstream employment, and disseminate it as a benchmark for other members and countries.

3. The European Commission should promote the needs of disabled people, increasing public and political understanding of their impairments, butalso creating a wider social appreciation of the value of the work they can do and the contribution they make to society.

4. The EUROPEAN Group - IPWH should publish and promote a European Code of Good Practice similar to the Code of Good Practices; Guidance for

attention of quality in Sheltered Workshops produced by GrupoGureak

5. A continuation of a dynamic on-going programme of specialist initiatives.

These initiatives must be included inprogrammes taken at individual,organisational, national and Europeanlevels.

In addition, every EU Member State shouldestablish benchmarking criteria for theemployment and development of peoplewith severe disabilities.

Consideration should be given to operatingthe following:

■ A single European Classification.■ A positive programme for transition to

open employment.■ Employment partnerships with

employers in the open labour market.■ Partnerships with all stakeholders within

the supported employmentenvironment to establish and maintain aseamless transition process.

It is also essential that the EuropeanCommission and national governmentsshould be made aware of the lack ofrelevant up-to-date statistics and theimplications for future progress towardssocial integration.

1.10 Members of the Working Group

Hans Vrind (Chair) NOSW Netherlands

Phillipe Boidin SNAPEI France

Mariano Cortes GUREAK Grupo Spain

Marlia Martins FENACERCI Portugal

Cèline Poulet SNAPEI France

Steve Scott Remploy Limited UK

Ignacio Velo Fundoso Grupo Spain

Kristjan Valdimarsson Formaour SW Iceland

Henk Weijers NOSW Netherlands

1.9

1.10


Page 26

1.11 Questionnaire

The questionnaire circulated to EUorganisations active in the field of disabilityis given below:

In its search for quantitative illustrations(the working group’s aim was to addgraphics of numbers of disabled working indifferent settings as workshop, regularemployment etc.), the working groupcirculated a questionnaire to organisationsactive in the disability field in all EuropeanUnion-countries. In the covering letter weinformed the addressee that, if absolutenumbers should not be available, estimatedfigures would suffice. The response to thisquestionnaire was very low. After a secondtry, we only received responses from 6countries. For this reason, figures are notcomplete and not included in this report.Details of the questionnaire are given onpage 27.

1.11


Page 27

EUROPEAN Group - IPWH Working Group 1

“EMPLOYMENT OF THE MOST SEVERELY DISABLED PEOPLE”QUESTIONNAIRE

Please answer the following questions (preferably in absolute numbers but if those are not available an ‘educated guess’ will do also):

Country:

Population

1. total population:

2. total population working age:

3. total population disabled:

4. total population disabled working age:

5. total population disabled working:

Employment

1. total employment disabled in regular labour

2. total employment disabled in sheltered workshop

3. total employment disabled in supported placement:

4. total employment disabled in other schemes:

Disability types

1. total psychic disabled:

2. total psychic disabled employed:

3. total psychic disabled not employed:

4. total mental disabled:

5. total mental disabled employed:

6. total mental disabled not employed:

7. total physical disabled:

8. total physical disabled employed:

9. total physical disabled not employed:

Add further comments on the report.

My comments on the report are:

Name:

Organisation:

Country:

2.1 Introduction 292.2 Fundamental Social Changes 302.3 New Technology Sectors 322.4 Other New Business Sectors 322.5 New Sector Experience

for People with Disabilities1 Austria 322 Ireland 333 Sweden 344 Germany 345 UK 366 Spain 37

2.6 Methods and Operational Structures 382.7 Threats 402.8 Conclusions and Recommendations 402.9 Research Sources 412.10 Members of the Working Group 41

Contents

Opportunities and Threats of New Business Sectors and Methods

Page 29

2.1 Introduction

In recent years, the rise of a new economyhas brought major changes to business andbusiness methods. It is now dominatingwork and the workplace. The organisationsrepresented by EUROPEAN Group - IPWHoperate their businesses along traditionallines, mainly in the secondary sector of theeconomy where most opportunities for

Opportunities and Threatsof New Business

Sectors and Methods22.1

employing people with disabilities are to befound. It is therefore important that weexamine the new economy to determinethe threats and opportunities it presents toour organisations to develop our businessesand find new ways to extend workopportunities for people with disabilities.

Between 1973 and 1997, the employmentlevel within the general Labour Market inEurope fell from 65% to 60%. However, inrecent years, the trend has been reversed;largely through growth in new economicsectors. Consequently, we have to look tothese sectors for new opportunities toprovide work. New economy sectors haveto be flexible to respond quickly to constantdemands for change. They also require anew approach to trading relationships andwork organisation.

To benefit from the opportunities of thenew economy, it is important that ourorganisations become more flexible in theways they organise work and developpartnerships with customers. They must alsoidentify new technologies and new marketsthat will extend work opportunities forseverely disabled people.


Page 30

2.2 Fundamental Social Changes

The consensus amongst leading academics isthat the future of employment depends onfive key internationally operative factors:

■ Globalisation.■ Environmentalism.■ Digitalisation.■ Individualisation.■ Politicisation.

These new developments result in a ‘socialremoval of specific places’ for work andproduction, with consequences that cannotbe envisaged today.

a) Environmentalism

The growing popular concern for theenvironment in recent years has promptednational governments to give greaterconsideration to environmental issues indeveloping their policies. As withglobalisation, it has produced contradictoryeffects.

On the one hand, massive and effectivepublicity, particularly from civic pressuregroups and environmental protectioninitiatives, seeks to discredit industries andmanufacturing processes. This underminescapital investment, destabilises capital andemployment markets and increasesunemployment. On the other hand, newjobs and professions emerge in alternativeproduction areas. Entirely new productionprocesses, product and service chains arecreated. New markets grow and new capitalis generated. Environmentalism has resultedinternationally - like globalisation - inentirely opposite ideologies: neo-liberalismwith its share holder and power ethicsagainst a ‘new social awareness’ thatexhorts companies to take greater socialresponsibility and demands greater stateregulation of market forces.

b) Digitalisation

Digitalisation and globalisation have beenmutually dependent phenomena since the1980s. People who distance themselves fromthe international language of the computerwill be excluded from the globalcommunication network, dominated by thisform of communication. Digitalisation isboth the result of the technologicalrevolution as well as the driving force for itsperpetual dynamic growth. On one sense,the space for work and life is limited to thelocation of a computer workplace. Inanother, it is unlimited through access tothe global communication network. Onlythose who can keep pace with thisdevelopment through further and advancedtraining will ultimately be able to adapt tothe changing employment market.

c) Individualisation

Over the last twenty years, socialrestructuring in industrial countries hasresulted in a flexible approach in meetingthe demands of the workforce including atransition to flexible working hours. The‘traditional CV’ - school education, craft-technical apprenticeship, study, profession -is becoming obsolete. The division ofemployment is divided into units of timeand is reflected in contracts. The world ofthe consumer is also being individualised, asretail structures adapt to the ways andtimes customers want to view, select andbuy goods. Globalisation and digitalisationenable individual and personal consumptionat any time, resulting in extremelyindividualised products and markets.

d) Politicisation

These radical changes are accompanied bysocial instability and uncertainty, andconfront national and supranational politicswith new challenges. The fact that capital isnow international, to a previously unknownextent, questions the nature of currentpolitical. National states are no longer in a

2.2


Page 31

position to control these processes alone.Their political framework is far too narrowto accommodate the rapid development ofglobally operative capital. Often super-national structures are little more than aresponse to the expansion and dynamism ofmulti-national companies, rather than apositive attempt to create new stateregulation mechanisms. For many years,social scientists and philosophers havewarned about the threat to democraticgovernment by an economic communitythat can all too easily escape its control.

e) The consequences for employment

The consequences of this majortransformation have been well documentedin numerous publications. The key issuesmay be summarised.

Job specifications and qualificationrequirements for the workforce have long-since changed. Technological innovationdemands a life-long willingness and abilityto learn on the part of the employee. This isnot offset by any guarantee ofemployment, and certainly not a ‘job forlife’. This development particularly affectsthose social groups with limited learningability and who are disadvantaged in theirsocial and communicative skills. The hurdlesfor entry into working life facing theseindividuals are no longer surmountable,whilst a state mechanism for a collectivesolution does not exist.

Since the 1980s, there has been a massivereduction in simple jobs. This is associatedwith a global decline in wage and salarylevels. This is an ongoing process, whichprimarily affects people without vocationalqualifications.

f) New definition of ‘social work’

An increasing number of supportorganisations are urging acceptance of‘fractional CVs’, which will incorporate a‘fragmentary’ building process through

further training and development.Integration into the employment market isno longer a simple matter of assimilation inthe full-time job world. Job exchanges,employee take-overs and day work projects’are presented as potential solutions.However, many organisations believe thatthe state should support such measures byproviding the necessary security. This shouldtake the form of payment of the cost ofeducation and further training, pluspayments during periods without income.

It must be noted, however, that there is adanger that the national security systemswill be undermined and entire groups of(non-working) social security recipients willpotentially slip below subsistence level. Allsupport organisations agree that a newdefinition of work in society is required andthat it should no longer be restricted topaid employment.

No qualified and differentiatedinvestigation into the effects of thesedevelopments on the disabled sector of thepopulation has yet been conducted. As aresult, there are no future-orientatedconcepts available.


Page 32

2.3 New Technology Sectors

New technology sectors have provided thedriving force European economicdevelopment. These sectors include:

■ Information technology.■ Communication technology.■ E-commerce (contact centres). ■ Automation.

Some of the defining characteristics of thesesectors are:

■ Rapid growth.■ Flexibility and change.■ The high demand for technological

skills.

2.4 Other New Business Sectors

Although new technology sectors receivesthe most publicity, there are many otherindustries within the service sector whichare expanding rapidly. These include:

■ E-business services (e.g. Call-Centres, microfilming/CD document compression).

■ Re-cycling.■ Hotel and catering.■ Social services.■ Staffing.■ Facilities Management.■ Leisure services.■ Cleaning (e.g. clothes, offices, service in

hotels etc.).■ Public services.■ Gardening.■ Fulfilment Centres (warehousing and

delivery).

2.3

2.4

2.5 New Sector Experience for People with Disabilities

2.5

Many EUROPEAN Group - IPWH memberorganisations have respondedsuccessfully to the demand of the newsectors, by changing from thetraditional customer base andreorganising the way in which they dobusiness. Some examples of theseachievements are given below.

BBRZ Sheltered Workshops

E-commerce Warehouse

The rapid growth in E-commerce and tele-shopping has provided an increasingnumber of work opportunities fordisabled people in supported employmentorganisations. BBRZ believes that by usingautomated systems, work places can beadapted to provide call-centres, mailorder, logistic and warehousing services.

This type of work requires a range ofcompetencies and abilities, which enablesthe employing organisation to mix thetarget group. Disabled people, the long-term unemployed and non-disabledpeople can contribute their abilities to acommon enterprise.

1 Austria


Page 33

New Work Group Opportunities

Response Electronic Manufacturing (REM) is aGandon enterprise based in Limerick, whichenables its disabled employees to work outsideGandon’s own factories. REM is contracted tomanage and operate printing and warehousefacilities for the supply of keyboards to a majorcomputer manufacturer.

The Taiwanese manufacturer of the keyboardssupplies the printing equipment andwarehouse. REM supplies the workforce andmanages the operation. It stores the keyboards,which are bulk-delivered from Taiwan, printsletters on the keys in over 30 differentlanguage variations, quality tests anddespatches the keyboards to the computerassembly line in the sequence and quantitiesrequired. At times, the operation runs for 24hours a day and 7 days a week to meet thecustomer’s needs.

Joint Ventures in Ireland

Gandon Enterprises is a partner in twosuccessful joint venture businesses. In each case,Gandon owns 51% of the business with theremaining 49% held by a private sector partnerwith a joint board of directors controlling theoperation.

The first, Connect Industries Limited, provides arange of logistic, assembly anddisassembly/recovery services to customers inthe technology and software industries. It hasbeen operating successfully for more than fiveyears and employs over 80 people of whom 20have a disability. The initiative began whenGandon formed a partnership with aneighbouring company, Qualtech Limited towin a major contract. Gandon supplied themanpower and premises, whilst Gandonprovided management expertise, supply chainknowledge and private sector entrepreneurialskills. Gandon retained responsibility forpersonnel to protect the interests of disabledemployees.

The original contract is no longer active; butConnect Industries Limited continues to tradesuccessfully and has expanded its operations. Inresponse to the growing demands of its multi-national customer base, the company has sincemoved from a small to a larger plant in Galway,opened a second plant in Scotland and, morerecently, a third plant in the Netherlands.

The City Recycling Company was established inearly 1999 as a pilot scheme for the collectionof glass for recycling from commercial premises(pubs, restaurants, clubs, etc.) in Galway City. Itcombined Gandon’s recycling expertise withthe experience and resources of a local wastecontractor. The business has been operatingsuccessfully for the past year, and Gandon plansto replicate it in other cities in Ireland.

Rehab Recycling Partnership (RRP) is fullyowned by Gandon and is the largest recycler ofdomestic waste in Ireland. It operates a nation-wide collection of glass, cans and textiles,which it processes with other materialspurchase from other collectors. RRP employs 50people at its three processing plants in Dublinand Cork, including 38 with disabilities. Afurther 20 people are employed in collectionservices.

Although wholly owned by Gandon, RRP relieson a complex arrangement of partnershipswhich include:

■ Local government authorities which provide many of the sites for public recycling banks and pay a fee to RRP for their recycling service. They have also helped provide sites for processing plants.

■ Repak, an organisation representing the recycling interests in the commercial and industrial sectors, which provides funds to RRP.

■ Supermarkets and other retail outlets, which provide sites for collection banks.

■ IGB, the main customer, which provides a market for glass and has assisted with the purchase of processing equipment.

■ The general public who segregate and collect recyclable materials, and bring them to the collection banks.

2 Ireland


Page 34

Samhall AB

More than 90% of Samhall’s employees haveone or more types of occupational disability.The vast majority of approximately 40% havedisabilities arising from personal impairment,multiple disabilities or medical conditions

Partnership with Partena AB

Samhall has formed a partnership withPartena AB to provide a service for thedelivery of chilled foods, Hemservice. Partenais affiliated to the French multi-nationalcompany, Sodexho Alliance. In 1997, Partenahad a turnover of 3 billion Swedish Kronenand employed approximately 8,000 people.Sodexho had a sales turnover of 29.5 billionFRF of which 90% were in catering servicesto companies, factories, hospitals andschools. 70% of their market was in Europe.Their total workforce is 152,000 employees.

51% of Hemservice will be owned byPartena, will build sales and create profit.Their target is a minimum of 5% profit onnet sales. Samhall will appoint the ManagingDirector, but will not be actively engaged inthe company. Representatives from bothpartners will form a board, with the Chairappointed by Partena. Partena will recruit asales manager whilst administration will berecruited from both Partena and Samhall.

Hemservice operates by ordering anddelivering chilled foods in about 30 out ofSweden's 288 local municipalities. Thecompany will buy the food from Samhall LGCand the distribution from Samhall regionally.Distribution will be governed by a suppliercontract.

The company will be funded by share capitalto cover the running costs for a year.

3 Sweden 4 Germany

Westeifel Werke (WEW)Sheltered Workshop

Under German legislation, workshops fordisabled people have to be non-profitmaking rehabilitation institutions forintegrating severely disabled people intonormal working life. Therefore, WesteifelWerke (WEW) operates according toeconomic principles but with social,educational, therapeutic, medical andpsychological factors as its prime concern.

Integration Company of Park andLandscape Furniture

This creates high quality park spaces andpedestrian areas, as well as landscapefurniture with more than 30 standardmodels in different variations.

Balloon Printing

With more than 15 years experience in thebusiness, WEW is recognised as one theleading balloon printers in Europe. Morethan 100 million colour-printed balloons aresupplied to advertising agencies,commercial and private companies. Theyhave the capacity to print and despatch500,000 balloons daily.

Commission Work

Work on commission accounts for about80% of WEW’s business and is built upon along-standing clientele within the region.Operational flexibility is required ascustomer orders vary. Examples of the workinclude:

■ Work on aluminium profiles.■ Fitting of draw strings.■ Finishing on plastic housings for the

electronics industry.■ Assembly work for the automobile and

high-tech industries.


Page 35

■ Packaging for drinks, entertainment andcosmetic industries.

■ Commission work for warehouse chains.

Pallet Repair

WEW operates a pallet repair section forlocal customers in the beverage industry.

International Co-operation

WEW has entered a cross-borderpartnership with Christian Health Insurance(CKK) in Belgium. It is expected that theinitiative will provide 70 workplaces fordisabled people, including German-speakersfrom Verviers (Belgium).

Sales and marketing

From an early stage, WEW recognised theimportance of a sales and marketingstrategy to achieve sales growth. Theyestablished a sales and marketingdepartment to optimise conditions to realiseenterprise targets. Sales of their own labelproducts including the park and landscapefurniture (‘Quality from Gerolstein’) andballoons (‘Balloons from Gerolstein’) havebenefited considerably. At the same time,WEW acquired co-operative partners inBelgium, France and Thuringia (Germany) towork together to develop Europeanmarkets. They found a common interest indiscussing, agreeing and executing sales andmarketing initiatives. These include:

■ Participation at trade exhibitions and fairs.

■ Advertising.■ Field services.■ Mailings.■ Telephone marketing.■ PR reports.■ Market research.■ Organising brochures.■ Development.■ Price policy.

Work Training Section

WEW is drawing up plans for a diversifiedsystem of training that will enable disabledpeople maximise their potential within theirarea of work. Courses will combine bothpractical and theoretical training.


Page 36

Remploy Limited

Remploy Limited, is a Governmentsupported organisation that exists ‘toexpand the opportunities for disabledpeople in sustainable work, both withinRemploy factories and externally.’

Remploy is the UK’s biggest employer ofdisabled people, with more than 6,000employed in the company’s 87 industrialunits and over 4,000 working with externalemployers under Remploy’s Interworkexternal employment programme.

During the first forty years after itsfoundation in 1946, Remploy relied on thedevelopment of its own manufacturingoperation to provide work for disabledpeople. In recent years, however, it hasresponded to a number of social andeconomic changes. These include:

1. Market forces.2. Globalisation.3. Demands for greater social inclusion and

equality for disabled people, reflected in the Government’s Disability Discrimination Act, 1995.

4. Government demands for a ‘best-value’ return on the supported employment ‘fee for service’, within its overall employment programme.

5. Opportunities from IT and other new systems.

Under the title Remploy 21, the companyundertook a radical reappraisal of its role forthe new Millennium. As a result, Remployhas adopted an enterprise culture basedupon dynamic partnerships with its majorstakeholders: its disabled employees,customers, trade unions, other employers,the Employment Service and Government.The company’s prime objective is commercialgrowth to increase work opportunities fordisabled people.

Remploy is divided into two independent butstrongly inter-active operations: theCommercial Business and EmploymentDevelopment.

Through its Commercial Business, Remployproduces, markets and sells a range of itsown products including furniture, knitwear,mobility and orthotic goods, book binding,protective clothing and buoyancy aids.However, its Contract Business is its maingrowth area. An intensive programme ofretraining and investment to upgrade itsmanufacturing units has enabled Remploy tobecome a prime source for contractmanufacturing. All its manufacturing unitsare fully equipped to undertake precisionassembly of electronic, mechanical andelectro-mechanical components, rangingfrom basic assembly to full quality-assuredsupply chain management, includingmaterials sourcing, packaging anddistribution. Lever Brothers, Peugeot, Esso,BT, Panasonic and Land Rover are just a fewof the major companies included inRemploy’s growing customer base.

The trend for companies to outsource ‘non-core’ business has produced opportunities inother areas. Remploy has provided teams oftrained and supervised staff to undertake a

5 UK


Page 37

Fundosa Grupo, S.A.

Joint venture Ford

Early in 1999, the Ford Motor Companyapproached Fundosa with a proposal toestablish a joint company, subcontracted byFord to provide assembly and logisticservices to the Ford factory in nearbyValencia.

On the basis of information provided byFord, a joint feasibility study wasundertaken to establish if the new companywould be financially viable.

It was decided that the joint companyshould be a special employment centreunder the Spanish model of specialemployment. Qualification would enablethe new company to obtain financialsubsidies to support the initial investmentas well as monthly benefits, whichcompensate part of the salaries and socialcharges of the disabled employees.

range of tasks ‘on site’. These include high-level electro-mechanical assembly, CCTVsecurity surveillance, and hotel housekeepingand maintenance.

Employment Development co-ordinates andpromotes the recruitment, assessment,training and progression of Remploy’sdisabled employees. It markets and sellsexpert training, advice and guidance on theemployment of disabled people to otheremployers; and also directs Remploy’sInterwork supported employmentprogramme.

Over the last five years, Remploy Interworkhas found jobs for over 5,000 disabled peoplein the private and public sectors. Interworkemployees are normally employed byRemploy, and are paid at the same rate ofpay and under the same conditions as the restof the host employer’s workforce. The hostpays Remploy the value of the work done bythe Interwork employee. Remploy providesboth employee and host employer with on-going support for as long as it is needed.

This year, the success of Interwork will bemarked by the progression of over 700disabled people from Remploy into fullemployment in the general labour market.Remploy plans to increase this substantiallyover the next three to four years so that by2004, over 5000 disabled people will besupported into the regular labour market.

By developing its Commercial Business as ahigh-quality, customer-led, ‘best value’enterprise including service sectordevelopment, and expanding its network ofInterwork employment with higher levels ofprogression, Remploy plans to significantlyincrease the number of work opportunitiesfor disabled people in the UK. The UKGovernment has endorsed the company’sRemploy 21 strategy and is encouragingRemploy to work with other organisationsand employers to promote the employmentof disabled people in the regular labourmarket.

6 Spain


Page 38

Accreditation as a specialemployment centre requires acompany to show that

disabled people comprise a minimum of70% of the total workforce. The proposedlevel for the new company was 90%.

The contributions made by each of thepartners were:

- Fundosa: its knowledge in the selection, training and recruitment of disabled workers, as well as its expertisein obtaining subsidies and the special employment centre qualification.

- Ford: its expertise in the sector and roleas main client of the new company as well as providing for additional customers. As a result, Ford benefits from excellent relations with the public authorities of the region, where the company is one of the major employers.

- Both partners: The financial means forthe initial investment, which was estimated at about 1.2 million Euros.

The initial process was completed and thenew joint company was set up in thesecond half of 2000. Ford becameshareholder through a foundation, whichhad been promoted and financed by Ford.Each partner holds 50% of the shares of thenew company.

Apart from the statutes of the newcompany, a special contract was signedbetween the two partners to establish thecommitments between the partners andbetween the partners and the newcompany.

It is foreseen that the new company willemploy more than 50 people with differenttypes of disabilities.

2.6 Methods and Operational Structures

The examples given in the previous sectionshow that, to benefit from theopportunities in the new business sectors, itis necessary to utilise new methods andoperational structures. The methods have tobe flexible to meet the demand forconstant change. Those that have beenidentified include:

Joint Venture

Joint ventures bring together the work-force potential of disabled people and theskilled resources of the commercial partners.The main advantages of this co-operationare:

■ Long term nature of the relationships.■ Risk sharing.■ Learning from the experience of

partners.■ Participation in larger scale projects,

which would not be possible within it’s own resources.

■ Improve the image of organisations employing disabled people.

However, it is very important to choose theright partner so there is not a conflict ofvisions and values.

Work Group Placements

Opportunities exist to provide teams tooperate a production line or a sectionwithin a larger plant. This can involveproviding labour with its own supervision,or taking responsibility for the totalmanagement of the line. The mainadvantages of this method are:

■ Integration of disabled persons in the mainstream environment.

■ No requirement for capital expenditure.

2.6


Page 39

■ It tends to be a long term relationship.■ Learning from the experience of the

host company.■ Can lead to transition to open

employment.■ Opportunities for host companies to

recognise the potential of the disabled work force.

Strategic Alliances

Strategic alliances enable organisations towork with others to achieve a common ormutually beneficial goal. They may involveeither a formally legal binding agreementor operate as an informal partnershiparrangement. For this method the mainadvantages are:

■ Combines and co-ordinates the efforts and resources for both partners.

■ No complex equity or financial involvement.

■ Flexible and easy to adjust to reflect changing circumstances.

■ Advantages of scale and greater influence.

Sub-contracted Manufacturing

Sub-contracting in manufacturing is themost widely used method of providingwork places for people with disabilities. It has the following advantages:

■ Low capital expenditure.■ Does not require a Research &

Development department.■ Does not require substantial technical

experience.■ Does not require sales and marketing of

products.■ Operates through simple straight

forward contracts.■ It produces ideal work for low-skilled as

well as high-skilled disabled people.

However, competition from countries withlow labour costs is making it increasinglydifficult to manage this type of business. In

a competitive global economy,organisations cannot depend on long termcommitments from customers.

Sub-contracted Services

The service sector is fast growing andprovides many opportunities for sub-contracting. The advantages of sub-contracting in this sector are:

■ Employment in an open and integrated work environment.

■ Help in developing social skills.■ Raises disability awareness amongst

service users.■ Provides good opportunities due to

labour shortages.■ Provides flexible and part time work

opportunities.■ Low capital investment.


Page 40

2.7 Threats

In a time of rapid economic and socialchange, all our businesses face new threats.It is important that we recognise them andadopt suitable strategies to deal with them.Many of the traditional sector businesses inEurope are under pressure or in decline.This has been caused by a combination ofcircumstances including:

■ Competition from countries with lower labour and production costs.

■ Rapid changes in economic cycles.■ Higher costs due to environmental and

social legislation and regulation.■ Resources being absorbed by new

economy businesses.■ Globalisation of work trade.

As most work places for people withdisabilities are in the traditional sector, theyare subject to the general economic threatslisted above. In addition, there are specificthreats directly related to the employmentof people with disabilities, which are:

■ Increasing pace of work.■ Higher skill requirements.■ Increasing rate of change.■ Need for life long learning and re-

skilling.■ Higher demand for shift work.■ Increasing stresses and pressures at work

leading to burn-out and the other health risks.

The best way for traditional businesses tocounter these threats is to participate insome of the new sector opportunities listedabove. However, these new opportunitiescan also bring their own risks and threats.

It is essential to carefully evaluate each newopportunity to identify all the risksassociated with it. These risks, which maynot be obvious to managers from atraditional business background, include:

■ Short product life cycles.■ High capital costs.■ High depreciation rates.■ Competition from new alternative

suppliers (e.g. E-businesses).■ Obsolescence of skills.■ Risk of commercial partners exploiting

the disabled workers.■ Risk of disagreement with business

partners.■ Risk of dispute with Trade Unions.■ Commercial objectives could

overshadow the personal development needs of the individuals with disabilities.

■ Intimidation and bullying of disabled workers in integrated work places.

2.8 Conclusion and Recommendations

The opportunities and threats of newbusiness sectors and methods are essentiallythe same for organisations involved withthe employment of persons with disabilitiesas they are for any commercial organisation.In a climate of rapid economic change,traditional businesses must adapt to newtechnologies and new commercialorganisations.

While these changes present significantthreats to all businesses, they also open upnew opportunities to those organisationswhich are able and willing to meet thechallenge. The single greatest threat to anyorganisation is its own inability to recogniseand respond to the need for change.

All organisations involved in the provisionof employment of people with disabilitiesshould develop a strategy which includesthe following:

■ Examination of change in the environment.

2.7

2.8


Page 41

■ Constant re-evaluation of new business opportunities.

■ Openness to rapid change of products, service and business sectors.

■ Openness to developing of new forms of relationships with commercial and other partners. These relationships may include joint ventures, strategic alliancesand other forms of co-operation.

■ Commitment to the development of new skills in management and workforce including disabled workers.

■ Opportunity to exchange information and learn from similar organisations in other countries; to participate in networks and organisation such as the EUROPEAN Group - IPWH and IPWH internationally.

2.9 Research Sources

1. ‘Employment performance in the member States, European Commission, Employment & Social affairs’, Employment rates report, completed 1998.

2 Report by Patricia Thornton in the task of ILO, International Labour Organisation, Geneva, 1998.

3. Mainstreaming Disability within the EU- Employment and Social Policy, A DG V services working paper, 5 /99.

4. Association of German Main Welfare Offices, Annual report 1997/98.

5. National and international development tendencies in the commercial employment market, Ulrich Scheibner, Bundesarbeitsgemeinschaft Werkstätten für Behinderte e. V. (BAG WfB - Federal Association of Sheltered Workshops for severely disabled People),December 1999.

6. Questionaire of EUROPEAN Group - IPWH Working Group requested to all member organisations of EUROPEAN Group - IPWH.

7. Inquiry to IVWL (Isar-Würm-Lech) -Werkstätten gemeinnützige GmbH (Sheltered Workshop) Non-Profit Ltd.

8. Website of West-Eifelwerke GmbH (Sheltered Workshop) Non-Profit Ltd.

2.9


Barbara Burkhardt BAG WfB, Germany

Wolfgang Gruber BBRZ,Austria

Declan McCabe Gandon Enterprises (REHAB), Ireland

Carina Escobar FUNDOSA Grupo, Spain

Marc Chabanel INSOS, Switzerland

Thomas Andersen SAMHALL AB, Sweden

2.10

3.1 Introduction 433.2 Defining Mainstreaming 443.3 The Importance of Mainstreaming 453.4 What Do Mainstreaming and Social

Inclusion Mean When Applied to the Employment of People with Disabilities? 46

3.5 The Role of Supported Employment Organisations Within Mainstreaming 51

3.6 How Can Our Organisations Support Mainstreaming? 52

3.7 What are the Challenges to Our Organisations of Mainstreaming? 54

3.8 Adapting to Mainstreaming 553.9 Should We Broaden the Target Group? 643.10 Conclusions and Summary 663.11 A Summary 673.12 Members of the Working Group 673.13 Definition of Terms 683.14 References 683.15 Questionnaire 69

Contents

Adapting to the New Trends of Mainstreaming and Social Inclusion

Page 43

3.1 Introduction

This report explores the theme ‘Adapting tothe new trends of mainstreaming and socialinclusion’ as applied to supportedemployment agencies.

Working Group members were required touse their longstanding experience ofcreating paid jobs for people withdisabilities and examine the ways thatmainstreaming affects EUROPEAN Group -IPWH member organisations and how theyshould respond. We found that the impactof mainstreaming varies according to thedifferent socio-economic situation in ourcountries.

Our ‘Mainstreaming Working Group’comprised nine members representingseven member countries of EU. (See page67).

The Working Group held three meetings. InMay - June 2000, members of the groupparticipated in two major Europeanseminars on mainstreaming and socialinclusion. The first was organised byEUROPEAN Group - IPWH under the title‘Positive action for jobs for disabled people- the continuing challenge’ (Brussels25th/26th May 2000). Delegates includedEUROPEAN Group - IPWH members andrepresentatives of key players in the field of

Adapting to the New Trendsof Mainstreaming

and Social Inclusion33.1

disability: politicians, European Commission,UNICE, ETUC, EDF, organisations of peoplewith disabilities, government ministers andothers. The second seminar was a jointmeeting of EDF and EUROPEAN Group -IPWH on ‘Mainstreaming and NonDiscrimination Legislation - Strategies forachieving Paid Jobs for Disabled People’(Brussels 4th June 2000). The Workinggroup has also consulted organisations ofpeople with disabilities, trade unions andEUROPEAN Group - IPWH members.

We decided to examine ‘mainstreaming andsocial inclusion’ through a questionnairewith 7 questions (See page 69). But first wehad to establish acceptable generaldefinitions of the terms we were to use.


Page 44

3.2 Defining Mainstreaming

‘Mainstreaming’ and ‘social inclusion’ arenow fundamental concepts for theformulation and development of EU policyon disability. ‘Social inclusion’ - as theopposite of social exclusion - is generallyunderstood to be a path to fullparticipation and equal opportunities forpersons with disabilities. ‘Mainstreaming’ isless easily understood, as it is not a termused in many European languages.Generally speaking, mainstreaming is asocio-economic condition in which eachsector of society takes responsibility for, andmeets the costs of, making that sectoraccessible for those who traditionally havebeen excluded, including people withdisabilities. We found a number of EU-strategy and working papers and EuropeanDisability Forum (EDF) statements provideuseful illustrations of the term‘mainstreaming’.

In its paper, ‘Equality of Opportunity forPeople with Disabilities - A New CommunityDisability Strategy’ (1996) the EuropeanCommission summarised ‘mainstreaming’ asentailing:

‘ ... the formulation of policy to facilitatethe full participation and involvement ofpeople with disabilities in economic, socialand other processes, while respectingpersonal choice. It also means that therelevant issues should no longer beconsidered separately from the mainstreampolicy-making apparatus, but should beclearly seen as an integral element.’

‘This approach applies to - and has benefitsfor - all people with disabilities regardless ofthe kind or degree of severity of disability inquestion.’

EU Commission documents express‘Mainstreaming’ for people with disabilitiesin the following:

Mainstreaming disability issues

People with disabilities should have equalaccess to mainstream services that serve thewhole population, while ensuring thatthese services are delivered in a way whichrecognises and accommodates the specificneeds of disabled people. This approach isthe way towards the elimination ofsegregation in the labour market, betteraccess to labour market measures includingtraining, better involvement in decision-making and the strengthening of theconditions in which equal rights can beexercised.’ (Raising employment levels ofpeople with disabilities the commonchallenge, Commission Staff Working Paper22.09.1998).

EDF has applied the mainstreamingperspective on employment in thedocument EDF Core Policy Document:Proposals for action to improve theemployment of disabled people in the EU(EDF 00/01 Feb2000):

‘Ensuring that disabled people have thesame rights and opportunities as otherpeople, and that public and otherorganisations at all levels within theEuropean Union adopt an ‘inclusive’approach towards disabled people areessential elements in the overall approachto the development of citizens’ rights withinthe EU. Disabled people should beguaranteed access to ‘mainstream’ activitiesfor improving employability, and toemployment in the open labour market.Those disabled people for whom this is nota suitable approach, but who, nevertheless,want to enter or remain in the labourmarket, should be able to access provisionwhich is designed to meet their particularneeds.’

3.2


Page 45

3.3 The Importance of Mainstreaming

The Working Group believes that there aresome fundamental reasons whymainstreaming will be important in shapingfuture policy on employment for peoplewith disabilities:

1. The expectations and demands of disabled people.

2. The wish of society to include all its members. This implies recognition of theright for everyone to be included and ofthe value of the contribution that everyone can make to the social community.

3. The current low level of employment forpeople with disabilities.

In spite of many measures taken over recentyears, the disabled people remaindisadvantaged in the labour market. Thereis still a big gap between the employmentrate for people with disabilities and the restof the population. People with disabilitiesconstitute a significant and growing part ofthe EU’s population. Studies from somecountries show that as much as 10-20percent of the EU’s population,corresponding to 20-40 million peoplebetween the ages of 16 and 64, has someform of disability. The employment rateamong this group of people is 20-30percent below the rate for the rest of thepopulation. At the same time the averageage of the workforce is rising in all EUcountries.

3.3

The following examples illustrate thesituation in UK and Sweden:

In 1998, Statistics Sweden (SCB) conducted asurvey of disabled people in the Swedishlabour market.

Sweden

It showed that 17% of the Swedishpopulation in working age (16-64 years) saythat they have some kind of disability. 11%say that the disability limits their working-capacity. This corresponds to a total of583,000 people of working age.

Among this group of 583,000 withdisabilities and a limited working-capacity,62 % (361,000) are in the labour force(328,000 employed + 33,000 in the officialunemployment system) compared with 78%among non-disabled. Of the 328,000 inwork, 81,000 are employed by Samhall(27,000) or supported by wage-subsidies(54,000). That means that one in fourdisabled people in paid jobs are employedwithin the special labour market policyprogramme for people with disabilities.Every month, about 50,000 (13%) of jobseekers (in open unemployment or intemporary labour market policyprogramme) applying to the Swedishauthorities are registered as job seekerswith occupational disabilities.


Page 46

3.4 What Do Mainstreaming and Social Inclusion Mean When Applied to the Employment of People with Disabilities?

In its Core Policy Document, Proposals foraction to improve the employment ofdisabled people in the EU, EDF emphasisesthe need for a wide variety of employmentopportunities for people with disabilities:

‘Employment in inclusive employmentsituations (i.e. together with non-disabledpeople) in either the public or privatesectors should be available as the firstchoice for disabled people wheneverappropriate to their needs and aspirations.However, it is recognised that employerscannot be expected to employ disabledpeople unless their skills and other workrelated attributes bring an ‘added value’ tothe organisation. For some people,employers may also reasonably expect toreceive support e.g. to purchase aids orequipment; or, as in some models ofsupported employment, through theprovision of personal support while aperson settles into his/her new job, or ofcompensation for reduced levels ofperformance.’

‘Support must also be given fororganisations which are set up specifically toprovide ‘special employment’ for thosepeople who are unable (because of theseverity of their impairments) to find workelsewhere. Employees within suchorganisations must benefit from the sameterms and conditions as apply throughoutthe labour market.

‘Equally, a wide range of trainingopportunities and other active measuresneed to be provided in order to

3.4

A UK Labour Force Survey (LFS Summer1999) shows that people with disabilitiesaccount for nearly a fifth of the working-age population, but for only about oneeighth of all in employment. There are over6.5 million people with a long-termdisability or a health problem that has asubstantial adverse impact on their day-to-day activities or limits the work they can do.

In the UK people with disabilities are oversix times as likely as non-disabled people tobe out of work and on benefits. In all, thereare over 2.6 million people with disabilitiesout of work and on benefits, of whom overa million want to work. People withdisabilities are only half as likely as non-disabled to be in employment. There arecurrently around 3.1 million people withdisabilities in employment, whichcorresponds to 12% of all people inemployment. When employed, people withdisabilities are more likely to work part-timeor be self-employed. Approximately 22 000people with disabilities are employed insupported employment arranged byRemploy, Shaw Trust and others.

UK


Page 47

‘It means providing the same workingconditions, labour relationships and workopportunities for disabled persons as fornon-disabled persons; and giving them theright individual support to take these sameopportunities.’

A view-point from the Upper AustrianAssociation of Persons with disabilities.

“Mainstreaming is important and thegreatest challenge facing the establishedinstitutions for persons with disabilities.Much energy is spent on discussions butproduces little action or change.”

‘Our position was taken after consultationwith a working group of severely disabledyoungsters, advising our vocationalrehabilitation Foundation and the NationalDisability Board of the Finnish Ministry ofSocial Affairs and Health.

“Mainstreaming means providing necessarysupport to enable disabled people toparticipate in society, includingemployment, according to their own choiceand capacity like everyone in society.Support services are provided by themainstream structures of society. There areas few support structures as possible, andevery one respects the disabled person’shuman individuality and dignity.’

‘Adaptations will occur at different levels:

‘At national/labour market/policy level werequire repositioning of the social securitysystem (re/integration, prevention), thedivisions between public and private sectorand the allocation of labour markets, andfinancing.

‘Organisations need to develop personalproject plans based upon the potential,wishes and opinions of the disabled personinvolved. Type and level of placement(training, work experience etc.) are notautomatically defined by the interest(continuity, market position and availability

Austria

Finland

Netherlands

accommodate disabled people. Theseshould primarily be available withinmainstream services, but through specialarrangements wherever this is moreappropriate to their needs.’

Our Working Group supportsmainstreaming as an objective for theemployment of disabled people for thefollowing reasons:

■ Mainstreaming leads to full participation in the society.

■ It results in social inclusion.

■ It meets individual needs and expectations.

■ It allows for individual choice.

But mainstreaming requires supportedemployment organisation to provide a widerange of employment opportunities,training, and other measures to people withdifferent kinds and severity of disabilities.

How our organisations will respond to thisrequirement will vary according to theapproaches taken to supporting disabledpeople in employment within individual EUcountries. There may also be differences ininterpretation of the term ‘mainstreaming’.Working Group members representorganisations from seven EU membercountries. Their views given below illustratevarious opinions of the effects ofmainstreaming and the conditions requiredto make it work.


Page 48

of vacancies) of the service provider.Individual project plans therefore can haveno fixed outcome. The plans may lead towork in the regular labour market or, ifnecessary, to work under adapted and/orsheltered conditions.

‘The regular labour market will organisefacilities to overcome barriers toparticipation. These facilities will be:

1. Based on individuals’ needs and motivation.

2. Flexible so they can be removed, adapted or extended when and as long as necessary.

‘Both Dutch national organisations fordisabled people (the NederlandseGehandicaptenraad and Federation ofParents’ Associations) lobby for two mainobjectives: quality and freedom of choice.

‘It is important for people with impairmentsto achieve the fullest development, byfacilities that not only reflect the client’sneeds and wishes, but are also flexible tomeet those needs and wishes.

‘Participation and economic independencecan be realised through fairly paid work(although voluntary work should stay anoption). In institutionalised facilities,crowding out of ‘weaker performers’ mustbe prevented.

‘Support should be demand and not supplyorientated, and should optimally relate tothe wishes and potential of the peopleinvolved.’

‘Mainstreaming means that the policies ofcreating job opportunities for disabledpeople be included in, and derived from,the global and national employmentpolicies. Instead of using divergingstrategies according to the specific needs ofdifferent target groups, the convergingmeasures are taken for the total problem ofunemployment. For obvious reasons,mainstreaming favours integrated ornormalising situations, which means findingjob solutions in the open market. The samelogic applies to social inclusion - that is, allgroups disadvantaged by exclusionprocesses are put in the same problem-level.Perversely, some of the more disadvantagedgroups, such as those with a mentaldisability, have fewer opportunities to‘compete’ with other ‘unprotected’ groupsdue to lack of facilities.’

‘Good practice in the disability sectorapplies to general inclusion policies.Advances made in the fight againstdiscrimination of disabled people serve toavoid errors in integrating other groups ofpeople at risk of social exclusion.

‘In recent years, in the Basque Country,European Horizon funds have been spent inthe creation, maintenance, andconsolidation of advanced programmes fortransition to the open labour market fromsheltered employment.

‘Other organisations with target groups ofpeople at risk of social exclusion have notyet contacted us, because general publicpolicy on mainstreaming has beensomewhat backward and is only now beingbrought up-to-date.’

Portugal

Spain


Page 49

‘The employment of people with disabilitiesis crucial for their participation in society.Basic principles of equal rights, equalopportunities and full participation mustapply in employment. A labour market forall recognises both human values for theindividual and economic values for thesociety. Employment of disabled people alsocontributes to the diversity of working lifeand of society.

‘Like everyone else, people with disabilities,are individuals with different abilities,different needs and different expectations.Mainstreaming must be combined withmeasures that meet individual needs.

‘There are at least four levels ofmainstreaming in the employment area:

1. People with disabilities must have equal opportunities for employment and participation in working life. That means equal rights, non-discrimination and social inclusion.

2. People with disabilities must be includedin all mainstream employment policy programmes.

3. There is a need for different labour market, training, support and other programmes to meet the special and individual requirements of disabled people to enable them to participate equally in working life. Employers must be supported by compensation for employing people with limited working capacity. All these programmes should be part of the labour market policy.

4. Disabled employees working in supported employment should have the same rights and terms of employment asother employees.

‘The Swedish organisations of people withdisabilities as well as the Swedish tradeunions strongly support the idea of a societyand a labour market for all, which includes

people with disabilities. As yet, there is nofar-reaching discussion on mainstreaming inSweden. But among youngerrepresentatives of disabled people’sorganisations, the mainstreamingperspective and criticism against specialmeasures are growing.’

Sweden


Page 50

‘Mainstreaming could mean making servicesavailable to the ‘general population’ betterequipped to deal with all members ofsociety - including marginalised groups.

‘In theory, this should make the issuerelevant to a greater number of peoplerather than the preserve of specialistagencies and providers.

‘Social inclusion should be the end result ofthis process, with the employment ofdisabled people not regarded as special ordifferent.

‘The more society is ‘exposed’ and gainsexperience, the more able it should be tomeet different needs. Isolating orpromoting needs as ‘special’ creates barriersto learning and experience for all.

‘Whoever can work in the open labourmarket should be accommodated as apriority. Support is provided to allowdisabled people to enter and stay in openemployment. Open market strategies andprocedures must be designed to support theentry of disabled people, removing barriersthat prevent or hinder this process.”

GMB UK (the Trade Union representingemployees in supported employment)states:

‘In reality, the term mainstreaming whenapplied to the employment of disabledpeople, seems to translate as integrationinto open employment. It is a mistake touse the term in this narrow sense.Mainstreaming of disabled people inemployment should mean allowing them toplay a full and active part in society and theworld of work, be it in open or supportedemployment. Mainstreaming should beinclusive of all forms of employment andshould not seek to ‘ghettoise’ supported

employment factories which have anenduring and important role to play inproviding employment and trainingopportunities for disabled people.’

RADAR (the Disability Network ofOrganisations of People with Disabilities inUK) says:

‘RADAR advocates that the greatest numberof disabled people should have access to thewidest range of educational andemployment opportunities. It supports theGovernment’s Welfare to Work programme,believing that getting disabled people intoemployment aids inclusion and enhancesindependence by reducing dependency onincome replacement benefit. RADAR alsorecognises that for some disabled peopleemployment will never be a realistic orappropriate option. For others the amountof disability related support makes openemployment impossible.

‘RADAR believes that a range of provision isrequired to ensure that every disabledperson has the opportunity to fulfil his orher potential. This continuum of provisionwould retain specialist provision but theemphasis would be on progression, withdisabled people having access to the diverserange of activities that can lead toemployment.’

UK


Page 51

3.5

‘Yes, we do need them. The role of speciallyorganised workplaces is firstly to train,educate, motivate and encourage severelydisabled people towards the labour market.However, there certainly will be somepeople whose disability prevents theirachieving open employment. They shouldhave the opportunity to use their workingcapacity in a sheltered environment.’

‘Yes we still need them, - for as long asgroups of people need temporary orstructured support within a protected oradapted environment for them to learn orexecute a job, and that cannot be providedthe general labour market. They can be thebeginning, half-way point and/or the end ofa career path. However, the special workconditions required do not have to beorganised on the premises of theseworkplaces. The work unit can also develop,arrange and supply facilities and supportneeded to enable placement in openemployment.’

‘I don’t think so. We need to strengthensome mechanisms before and after workplacement, including resources, preparationand follow-up after placement. In someway, the special organisation of jobscontradicts the logic of mainstreaming.’

‘Currently specially organised workplacesare sheltered workshops. Mainstreamingdoes not mean treating everyone the same.It just means different treatment fordifferent situations to reach real equalopportunities’.

3.5 The Role of Supported Employment Organisations Within Mainstreaming

Our Working Group supports theEUROPEAN Group - IPWH 3-step model as acontinuum including specially organisedworkplaces. However, members of ourGroup hold different views on the futurerole of specially organised workplaces forpeople with disabilities withinmainstreaming. As two common generalstatements we would emphasise:

1. Not every disabled person with the capacity to work is able to cope with theopen labour market.

2. Some people with disabilities need special training and work experience before they can enter open employment.

From that standpoint, we think thatspecially organised workplaces play animportant role in supporting thedevelopment of mainstreaming in thelabour market. The different views of Groupmembers are shown below:

‘In a long term visionary view, it may bepossible to have no specially organisedworkplaces but many special institutions tosupport mainstreaming in the labourmarket. But in the meantime - if we see theunemployment of disabled people rising -we should accept specially organisedworkplaces as one opportunity withinworking life.’

Finland

Netherlands

Portugal

Spain

Austria


Page 52

‘People with severe disabilities will alwaysneed specially organised workplaces,because normal environments are not readyto recruit massively from that group. Ourorganisations are now fighting fortransitions from sheltered workshops toopen employment, but we are not talkingabout withdrawing sheltered workshopsfrom the market.’

‘Yes, we need them for the foreseeablefuture. But it is a question of how they areorganised and how they are developed.These workplaces must offer modern formsof work and really be a part of the labourmarket.’

‘Specialist organised workplaces are not anend in themselves but are possible, apreparation and stepping stone into theopen labour market. Progression andtransition from these workplaces to openlabour market are measures by which thesecan be judged and valued.

‘Different people will need to stay differentperiods of time in these workplaces, notbecause of commercial considerations, butbecause of the time it will take to achieve asuccessful progression or transition.

‘We have a long way to go before we reachthe point of not requiring speciallyorganised workplaces. Everything wedevelop and plan for future services shouldseek to diminish the need. We should becontributing to a process that willeventually result in the demise of ourorganisations - because true social inclusionhas been achieved.

‘We should consider how we provide in-going support people to make thetransition from segregated ‘supported

workshops’ to open employment.

‘Another point to consider is that movingexisting ‘supported’ employees intomainstream employment would provide uswith the opportunity to employ others whoare currently excluded from supportedemployment.

‘We could also consider using specialworkplaces to help integrate disadvantagedminorities other than the disabled groups,thereby reducing segregation andenhancing inclusion.’

Sweden

UK

3.6 How Can Our Organisations Support Mainstreaming

The Working Group identified a number ofour organisations’ strengths andopportunities for them to use their vast andvaluable range of experience to supportmainstreaming:

Strengths

■ A longstanding track record with great experience.

■ Well resourced and well-managed organisations.

■ Some organisations have a good national infrastructure with production and service units.

■ Can be highly innovative.

■ Ability to successfully manage different kinds of business, different kinds of disabilities.

■ Close relations with the rest of the labour market and other companies as business partners, sub-contractors and other partnerships.

3.6


Page 53

■ Good knowledge of the local labour market.

■ Wide range of placement and transitionopportunities.

■ Good relations with other employers, trade unions and organisations of people with disabilities.

■ Networking with training institutions, sectional organisations and industrial circles.

■ Work closely with local and/or central Governments.

■ Have skill and experience in business management and development, personnel development, training programmes, work adaptation and elimination of obstacles arising from disability.

■ Ability of meeting individual needs and provide customised services.

■ Experience of management and motivation of small work teams with a high degree of responsibility and self-determination.

■ Experience of and practise in social competence.

Opportunities

■ Mainstreaming is central to EU and, sometimes, national policy.

■ There is a shortage of labour in the labour market.

■ Mainstreaming focuses the need for realpaid jobs for people with disabilities andoffers a more integrated and individual approach to meeting needs etc.

■ We have the incentive to be more open as organisations.

■ We can market our knowledge and experiences.

■ We have the possibility of extending ourrange of services to other disadvantagedgroups.

■ We have an opportunity to unite marginalised groups and to challenge the processes and forces that create social exclusion.

■ We can develop a more active collaboration with all support systems within the labour market. It is especially important that we create a strong partnership between workshops and supported employment. Together, we can form a continuum from the ‘sheltered’ to mainstream employment.

■ Collaboration with other players to develop good quality employment and training services create new opportunities. Recent developments in the social security systems have hugely increased the ‘buying-power’ and potential for reintegration services.


Page 54

3.7 What are the Challenges to our Organisations of Mainstreaming?

The biggest challenge our organisationsface is that specially organised workplaces(whatever they are called and irrespectiveof the quality of employment they offer)are regarded by many interested parties asthe opposite to mainstreaming. But thereare other weaknesses and threats:

Weaknesses

■ The workplaces are ‘special’.

■ They serve only one target group.

■ Many people misconstrue our fight for strengthening employment for people as a fight for our organisations.

■ When disability is seen as a mainstream rather than specialist issue, the specialistorganisations’ expertise becomes less necessary.

■ Although transitions are a main part of our activities, we do not have access to all the possibilities in the mainstream labour market. Overall levels are low.

■ There is also a view that we retain the ‘best’ employees for ourselves.

■ Our organisations have been mostly ‘supply-led’ instead of ‘demand-led’.

■ Because they have to show a return on investments, our business structures can be inflexible, highly protective and conservative.

■ There is insufficient support for an employee when moving to the regular labour market.

■ The quality of workshops differs greatly (e.g. terms of employment, working conditions etc). A ‘negative’ opinion based upon the worst creates a negativeimage for all.

Threats

■ There is less emphasis, and possibly fewer resources, for specialist provisions.

■ Special needs can be undervalued, hidden and forgotten.

■ Mainstreaming can result in loss of focusand staff commitment and loss of a specialist identity.

■ Combined with government budget deficits, it can result in considerable financial cuts for specially organised workplaces without providing attractive and suitable alternatives for the most severely disabled people.

■ Some politicians consider that traditional special employment should be a kind of ‘last resort’, and offer its services only to the people who need farreaching work adaptations that cannot be provided for practical and financial reasons in the regular labour market.

■ Other vulnerable groups (elderly, immigrants, young people with social problems and lack of education etc.) could be employed to the disadvantage of disabled people. This is specially a riskfor people with severe disabilities.

3.7


Page 55

prevention and for the re-engagement oftemporarily disabled people. If the companyneglects its responsibilities, or fails tosucceed, the insurance premiums will riseaccordingly.

UKA number of initiatives have been takenrecently to support mainstreaming. Disabledpeople on benefits moving into work canreceive tax-credit and so fulfil theGovernment’s commitment to ‘make workpay’. Disabled people who move into workcan return to the same benefit position ifthe job is lost within 12 months. Significantdevelopment is announced on supportedemployment.

Ministerial statement on modernisingsupported employment (UK):

‘Supported employment has always beenabout helping disabled people to take theirplace in working life. We need to modernisethe programme to reflect the ambitions ofdisabled people; to increase the number ofdisabled people in work and to respond tothe changes in today’s labour market. Inparticular we want employers to play agreater role in offering new opportunitiesfor people with disabilities, so that they candevelop the skills and personal qualitiesvalued in mainstream employment. In doingthis we intend to safeguard the position ofpeople currently employed in supportedemployment programme, although theywill be able to take advantage of the newopportunities the programme will offer. Our new approach to eligibility will focuson people who would benefit from theunique support offered and who are:

■ Former supported employment employees who lose their jobs in mainstream employment within two years of progressing.

■ On incapacity benefit.■ People with disability on Jobseekers

Allowance for 12 months or more.

3.83.8 Adapting to Mainstreaming

The Working Group identified a number ofchanges needed at national policy level andamongst our organisations to adapt tomainstreaming.

National level

National governments must developclear policies and systems that supportthe principle of mainstreaming. Forexample:

Netherlands

In the Netherlands, the new REA-Law (July1998) complements the ShelteredEmployment Act. REA provides lump sumgrants to employers who recruit disabledpeople. During a disabled person’s first yearof employment, the employer receives anequivalent of about Euro 5450. For thesecond year it is Euro 3640 and for the thirdEuro 1820. Employers can use this money toadapt the work place, provide necessarysupport or subsidise wages.

Linked to REA, the so-called ‘Pemba’instrument encourages employers toemploy or retain workers with a labourimpairment. Pemba is an acronym of‘Differentiation of Premium and MarketPerformance in the Disability insurance’.Introduced in 1998, it appeals to employers’sense of economic and social responsibilitytowards disabled people. Premiums forsickness benefits insurance contain onefixed (about 7%) and one variable,differentiated component. The variable partis calculated according to the individualemployee’s performance and the recordedloss to the firm arising from the risk. As anincentive, the employer receives a discounton the insurance premium compared to theaverage in his business sector. He is alsoassessed for investments in safety and


Page 56

‘...Remploy now has the opportunity tobecome a showpiece for the modernsupported employment, reaching newstandards in developing individuals andtheir subsequent progression to mainstreamwork.’

Finland

As a part of Government plans to developand broaden the model of supportedemployment, the Finnish National ActionPlan in 1995: guidelines of employmentpolicy based on the EU principles introducedthe concept of ‘job coaches’. National jobcoaching quality criteria have been drawnup, and a manual of total qualityimprovement will be completed in autumn2000. Completion of the proposed trainingprogramme will give 18 credit units towardsa qualification.

Since 1st August 1999, people on disabilitybenefit have been able to suspendpayments for 6 - 24 months, if they findsuitable employment. (This applies todisabled people on full disability pensionwhose pension has been awarded forreasons other than 100% visual or mobilityimpairment.) For this period, their regularearnings will be supplemented by a cashbenefit equal to the special disabilityallowance. If they become unemployed,they can reapply for the return of theirdisability benefit. The aim is to improve thelevel of earnings of the group of disabledpeople defined above, whereas beforethere has been a statutory limit to theearnings allowed before the risk of loss ofbenefits.

Sweden

On 1 August 2000, a new activity guaranteewas introduced for people aged 20 andabove who are, or are in danger ofbecoming, registered as long-termunemployed. It is expected to have major

significance for the different disadvantagedgroups on the labour market, and shouldmean that few persons need to beunemployed for more than two years. Theguarantee is to be based on individualaction plans.

The Ministry of Industry, Employment andCommunications has initiated a specialdiversity project to survey and describe howconsiderations of gender, age, class, ethnicorigin, sexual orientation and disabilityaffect an individual’s opportunities inworking life.

Spain

As a way towards mainstreaming,ONCE/Fundosa uses funding from thenational lottery to buy private businesses toemploy people with disabilities.

The Spanish National Plan on employmentincludes supported employment as amainstream concept.


Page 57

Quotas

In some countries, including Germany,France and Austria, quota-legislation is usedas a way for mainstreaming into the regularlabour market. However, opinions differ asto how far quotas are effective.

National Action Plans

Existing National Action Plans onemployment include many differentmeasures to improve employability andemployment among vulnerable groups inthe labour market.


In its programme Paid jobs for people withdisabilities (1999), EUROPEAN Group - IPWHrecommended a three-step model tostrengthen opportunities for disabledpeople to enter the labour market. Theymay be summarised as follows:

1. Work in the regular labour market on equal terms with others.

2. Economic incentives and support for employers of people with disabilities.

3. Organisations that provide specially organised workplaces for people with disabilities.

EUROPEAN Group - IPWH stresses theimportance of integrating disability-relatedissues in all four pillars of EU guidelines forthe national employment action plans. Atthe same time, EUROPEAN Group - IPWHwould emphasise that this form ofmainstreaming must not obscure the needfor - or result in a weakening of - specialmeasures - for people with disabilities.

Our Working Group thinks that the three-step model can be developed to describe acontinuum of employment for people withdisabilities (see annex 3). Movement alongthe continuum should take place in eitherdirection according to individual need.

Organisational level

Our member organisations have manyopportunities to develop activities that cansupport the mainstreaming idea. Forexample:

A) RELATION WITH EMPLOYERSWe must develop close and integratedpartnerships with other employers in allsectors for staffing, supported placements,group placements etc. We can offer them arange of possibilities including business-models as joint ventures, subcontractingarrangements, partnership to transitions,placements and different support-modelsfor individual employees. We can share ourexperience, knowledge and expertise withthem, perhaps developing and marketingan educational and consultative role as abusiness opportunity for ourselves.

Sweden

Samhall Resurs AB

Samhall is a group of companies, employinga total of 27,000 disabled people indifferent production and service units.

Samhall Resurs AB is an independent self-financed company within the SamhallGroup that develops and sells work-oriented rehabilitation and personneldevelopment services. Its target groupsinclude people on long-term sick leave,young people, immigrants seeking entry tothe labour market, and employees whoneed support in facing restructuring andlong-term unemployment. Its customers areemployers and social insurance offices.During 1999, about 1350 persons completedvarious programmes within Samhall Resurs.Samhall Resurs also conducts socio-economicand business economic analyses.


Page 58

B) INVOLVEMENT OF STAKEHOLDERSOur organisations depend on manyimportant and different stakeholders. Inadapting to mainstreaming, we mustmaintain and develop close ties withorganisations of people with disabilities,trade unions, politicians, employmentservices, vocational rehabilitation agencies,employers’ federations, governments,municipalities, and other organisations inthe field of disability and employment.

Austria

BBRZ

BBRZ is an integration project for youngpeople with disabilities, which combinesnatural support with supportedemployment. At the beginning of a child’slast year at school, a supporting circle isformed. It consists of the young disabledperson, her/his parents or guardian, theintegration teacher, relatives, family friends,and a BBRZ-GW vocational trainer. Thiscircle profiles the talents, strengths andlimitations of the disabled child, whilst itsparticipants use their social contacts to findindividuals and organisations that are ableto assist in the child’s progression.

During their final school year, disabledchildren receive in-depth vocationalawareness through work-experience days inseveral companies (accompanied by avocational trainer) and vocational relatedlessons at school. On leaving school, theyreceive a three months work assessment ina commercial company. When anassessment is successful, they then enterlong-term employment with support fromour organisations. A young person shouldbe completely included in the enterprise’sworking process and workforce, with oneworkplace volunteer acting as his/her carer.

The vocational trainer continues to providethe young disabled person with coachingand work assessments in their subsequent

employment. The detail and time-scale ofthis support are tailored to her/hisrequirements.

BBRZ proposed that regional governmentsshould take responsibility for this scheme.Government officials have agreed inprinciple, although they cannot guaranteefinancing. It is expected that a pilot projectwill start the middle of next year.

Specifically, we have to involve and workclosely with the organisations of peoplewith disabilities so that we can meet theexpectations and demands of disabledpeople themselves. We must alsodisseminate information and influenceattitudes by describing what speciallyorganised work is and can offer. To thatend, it is important that we influenceparents’ associations so that they see ourworkplaces as a step to employment in theopen labour market.

Spain

Lantegi Batuak

Lantegi Batuak is a German company basedin Spain and employing 290 people in themanufacture of cutting tube tools. It hasreached an agreement with our GUREAKGroup to provide in-house operationalenclaves in their factories for people withlearning difficulties.

Collaboration between the employer,represented by the general manager, thetrade unions with representation in theSocial Committee of the company, and ourorganisation, acting to promote the processof supported integration have made thisscheme successful. Together, we haveplotted the paths for transition fromregional sheltered workshops tomainstream employment in the factories.

Once the trade unions understood andagreed to the scheme they disseminated its


Page 59

benefits to other trade unions who havepersuaded other companies in the region torepeat it.

In addition, employing people with mentaldisabilities outside sheltered workshops hasincreased our knowledge of their workingcapacities/capabilities.

C) TRAINING AND PREPARATION -IMPROVING EMPLOYABILITYWe have to take a more positive approachon transitions, and at the same time showthat we can offer real job-opportunities forpeople with severe disabilities, includingthose who previously have been excludedfrom the labour market. For some people,working in our organisations need only be ashort-term measure. For others, it willrepresent a major personal development.

We must be better at meeting individualneeds; but we have to focus on improvingemployability for all. Our workplaces areone step in the continuum of developmentand career building for the individual. Thestep can be short or long. But groups withdifferent individual goals have to beaccommodated within all theproduction/service-units to avoidcategorisation and segregation ofemployees. Workplaces must be arranged tomeet the requirements of individualdisability and combine vocational trainingwith personal development.

Austria

BBRZ

Our organisations have introduced asystematic personal development procedurefor our disabled employees. It includes anannual meeting between the disabledemployee, his/her social worker and linemanager, which clarifies medical ortherapeutic needs and defines the nextsteps for the individual’s development.

These steps combine measures to increasesocial skills such as self-responsibility orindependence with vocational trainingprogrammes. The meeting also assesseswhether the employee wants to transfer toa commercial enterprise and, if so, whethersuch a transition is possible.

After a further year, the employee’sprogress is reviewed and new steps agreed.

D) REAL WORKING ENVIRONMENTS -REAL JOBSWe have to offer real paid jobs based onprofessional business development. Theworking conditions (wages etc.) must havethe same standards as for all otheremployees. Working environments must beadapted for individual needs, but they haveto be real. The use of new technologyincluding IT has to be increased. Otherkinds of support related to living, leisuretime etc. should be organised and offeredby other providers.


Page 60

Austria

BBRZ

In March 2000, our organisations rented abuffet in a public office building in Linz-Urfahr. It is run by one outside specialist andthree disabled employees. The location ofthe buffet in a public office buildingenhances the integrative nature of thisproject. Three disabled people have gainedemployment and are being educated in thecatering business. In addition to thepractical training they are given two hours aweek theoretical vocational lessons.

F) SAFETY NETAny transition/progression process mustprovide safety. Employees have the right tofeel secure and know they can return tosheltered employment (for example withina period of 12 months). This encourages anemployee to try a transition. ‘You canalways come back and you can try again asmany times as you like.’

G) SUPPORTING EMPLOYEE INTRANSITIONS

UK

Remploy SupportedEmployment DevelopmentInitiative

The Remploy Supported EmploymentDevelopment Initiative is a submittedproposal with a projected start date of 1June 2000 and lasting 2 years. It requires a£2m budget to develop, monitor andevaluate specified elements of SupportedEmployment (SEP) development withemphasis towards people progression.

Specifications

The project will examine and assess

■ Person and job profiling to support

UK

Remploy Interwork

Remploy has 87 factories, located aroundEngland, Scotland and Wales. These employan average of 6,500 disabled people in afull-time manufacturing environments.

Remploy Interwork supports an average of3,900 disabled people in work outside theRemploy factory environment inmanufacturing, retail, and services. Thenumber of disabled people who haveprogressed this year from supported tounsupported employment is over 500.

E) JOB TASTERJob tasters - such as work experience or jobintroduction in the regular labour market -can be used to stimulate and motivateemployees in specially organised workplacesto consider the transition option.


Page 61

progression.■ Flexibility in workplace support.■ Support after entering open

employment.

Partners

UK Employment Service, MENCAP, RNIB,Stockport LA, WISE Group, Action for Blind,Camden Society, Manpower, St Loyes Collegeand others.

Project aim

To promote a culture of progression withinthe workplace, including into openemployment.

Features

■ Partnership.■ Extensive range of support options

tailored to the individual’s needs.■ Testing supported employment

qualifications for special employment providers and employees.

■ Out of working hours support.■ Employer support to maximise

sustainability.

Outcome volumes

■ 104 progressions from supported employment factories to external supported placements including Remploy schemes.

■ 40 progressions from unemployment to employment.

■ 43 progressions from supported placements (including Remploy) to open employment.

Systems have to be created to give theemployee the support and encouragement tobe able to stay at her/his new workplace.These can include financial incentives. Modelswith job-coaches, case-managers or personaladvisers can be developed to give eachindividual the appropriate support. A follow-up procedure can be introduced to gatherinformation on the transition and how thesupport models can be further developed.

Finland

Pekka, has been working as a shop assistantin Helsinki since 1995. He is 38 years old andhas a mental disability. He had previouslyworked in a sheltered workshop but themonotonous tasks did not give him worksatisfaction. The decisive step towards theopen labour market came with hisinvolvement in a supported employmentproject, which included the services of a jobcoach. She recommended him to a shopmanager, who was ready to employ him onthe basis of a tailored job description,employment contract, normal wage andcontinuous support by the job coach.

Pekka is now, to use his own words, veryhappy with his life and job. Without a job,he would spend all his time wandering thestreets. It is also important for him to earnmoney to pursue hobbies and leisureactivities.


Page 62

Spain

Lantegi Batuak

Cromoduro is an important company withinthe automation sector, employing 350people. We began by integrating threepeople with mental disability intoCromoduro’s plastic transformation factory.Before they started working in 1999, wereached an agreement with trade unionrepresentatives from the factory committee,explaining the objectives of the transitionprocess. In the second year of contract, thetrade unions took the initiative byproposing that the company provide newopportunities for disabled people in thefuture. We acted as intermediary betweenthe company, the trade unions and peoplewith disabilities, and promoted theagreement that was finally reached.

This example is really useful for us, becauseit involved the participation of all playerswithin the process. Cromoduro is animportant company in our community andtheir example has produced a multiplicationeffect.

H) TRANSITION INCENTIVES FORORGANISATIONSThe whole organisations must adopt aculture of transition. Procedures fortransitions have to be established andfollowed. The costs have to be identifiedand budgeted for. Output funding might bea possibility for financing transitions.

Austria

BBRZ

Rehabilitation and work preparationactivities in the workplace are run inCupertino between BBRZ-GW (Centre forVocational Education and Rehabilitationproviding specially organised workplaces)and Caritas (an employment agency for

disadvantaged persons run by the CatholicChurch).

Caritas was created to increase transition ofpersons with disabilities from ourorganisations into the regular labourmarket. Caritas contacts commercialenterprises, seeking potential workplaces.They also recruit disabled people who wantto change from specially organisedworkplaces or vocational training intoregular labour market.

After one or two weeks at BBRZ-GW tofinalise practical arrangements such ashealth and social insurance, the disabledperson works in a commercial enterprise,receiving a wage from that host employer.He or she can then either remain inemployment with the enterprise or returnto our organisations.

I) RETENTION SERVICESIn mainstreaming, the question of retention(i.e. the chances for a disabled employee toremain employed in the regular labourmarket) becomes increasingly important.This presents our organisations with anopportunity to offer retention services toboth employers and employees.

UK

Personal Adviser Service -Shaw Trust

In April 1999, Shaw Trust was successful insecuring the lead role in two of the UK’s 12Personal Adviser (PA) service pilots.

Shaw Trust’s PA pilots are now running inNewham (East London) and Gateshead(South Tyneside) as a part of theGovernment’s New Deal for DisabledPeople, which aims to assist disabled peopleinto work and help employers retain valuedemployees who become ill or disabled atwork.


Page 63

J) INDIVIDUAL CHOICEWhen considering individual needs anddemands we must also take account ofindividual choice. As we move towardsmainstreaming, we will find that areemployees who have been employed formany years in our organisations and who donot want to leave a good working situation.This matter has to be managed carefully.

Netherlands

Based on an estimate of supportrequirements (maximum 15% of workingtime), Elly was assessed as a candidate for thenew Supported Employment Program offeredby the Sheltered Employment Act (WsW). Shechose to participate in the programme ratherthan take an internal or external placementarranged by the sheltered workshop.

Last autumn, she began as an assistantreceptionist in an old people’s home, whereshe was contracted for 24 hours regularworking per week. During the introductoryperiod, Elly worked alongside a job coach,until she felt secure enough and knew whatto do. The job coach will continue to supporther at any time she needs help. Because ofher chronic back injury, she uses an adaptedchair and is allowed to make walking roundsthrough the buildings for small delivery jobs.An arrangement with her superior allows Ellyto work at her own pace. The institutionreceives a wage subsidy for the lowerperformance. All these facilities (job coachhours, work adaptations, wage subsidy) arefinanced from the Wsw-budget. After twoyears, Elly will be re-assessed to see if she isstill within the WsW target group and needsthis facility.

To promote this supported placementoption, the national government has set anannual target to all sheltered employmentorganisations. In 1999 and 2000, for everyfour vacancies that are filled, one has to be asupported employment placement, outsidesheltered employment.

Finland

Four years ago, Eija, a mental health traineeof over 40 years, was referred by heremployment agency to a shelteredworkshop in South West Finland. She hadtried to do practical training in the openlabour market but had difficulty inunderstanding her tasks. She decided to tryagain and was admitted to a supportproject for mental health trainees, financedby the Finnish Social Insurance Institution,which includes job coaching. The projectaims to build self-confidence and improvesocial skills. She met with a setback inrehabilitation but did not give up. Inautumn 1999, she took the opportunityopened to her and got a regular job aspacker in a bakery.

Eija’s own actions played an important rolein her employment process: she was alwaysready to meet new challenges. In heropinion, employment was comparable to aLotto win. Her economic situation improvedsignificantly, but the job also broughtbenefits for her social and family life.


Page 64

3.9 3.9 Should we Broadenthe Target Group?

Many of us associate mainstreaming inemployment solely with measures to adaptthe labour market and make it moreaccessible to people with disabilities. Thelogical outcome of mainstreaming is thatthere will be no need for special measuresor activities reserved for people withdisabilities. We should then ask: should weopen our organisations to broaden thetarget group? There are some examples oforganisations (e.g. Gandon Enterprises inIreland) which have chosen a kind of fifty-fifty work employment, with disabled andnon-disabled working side by side. Is thismainstreaming or a way to mainstreaming?

Our Working Group members havedifferent opinions on this matter. Some sayno, some say yes and some say perhaps.

Austria

‘In my experience, having a heterogeneousgroup of employees (disabled persons;former jobless people; non disabledpersons) within specially organisedworkplaces gives greater opportunitiesbecause it enables these different groups tocombine their different strengths together.The threat is that a broader target groupbrings a range of different individualproblems, which cannot be managed. Wewould have to adapt our support fordifferent target groups.’

Finland

‘There is an increasing need to broaden thetarget group. This could be regarded as oneway of mainstreaming. As a benefit: maybeit would help us to get total funding forbroader service packs. As a threat: theremight be a risk of losing the special skills wehave to promote disabled persons to thelabour market.

‘We should only adapt to other groupsmarginally so that disability issues will stillbe our main focus. There certainly are manysimilar methods to supporting these groups.Maybe the difference is only found in theintensity of the individual support andtraining required.’

Netherlands

‘We need to broaden our target group. Thebenefits for the organisation are:

■ Securing continuity of our business when a smaller and also weaker, less productive target group will be referred.

■ Prevention of under-utilisation of the facilities.

■ Expertise needed for integration of disabled people is similar to that neededto support other groups.


Page 65

The benefits for the individual are:

■ More integration possibilities, less stigmatisation.

■ Increasing numbers of flexible (temporary) placement opportunities combined with adapted training.

Threats for the organisation are:

■ Possible evaporation of specialist knowledge of certain disabilities.

■ We become less recognisable to job seekers, social security organisations etc.

■ It needs organisational changes and changes in work process, external relations, financial sources etc.

Threats for the individual are:

■ Crowding out of the less productive members of the target group.

■ Co-existence in the workplace with people on different service conditions (career perspectives, wages etc.)’

Portugal

‘The main benefits, although relative, wouldbe the optimisation of resources andincreasing the number of beneficiaries ofthe services. From the beneficiaries’ point ofview, it is obvious that the more seriouslydisadvantaged groups will be prejudiced inthe end, because of a more competitiveenvironment and a fall in the level ofsupport specific to their requirements’

Spain

‘The next European initiative EQUAL, istrying to promote the association ofdifferent organisations to include actionsfor all groups at risk of social exclusion. Thisshould involve local governments, tradeunions, employers’ associations, non-profitorganisations, etc.

‘There may be economic benefits in openingour organisations to other groups, but theyare not guaranteed at this moment.

‘At present, we are not ready to includepeople from these groups, because they arenot defined and there is not sufficientlegislation - at least in the Basque Countryand Spain - to include them in ourstructures. Apart from this, ourorganisations are not ready, because this isnot our current mission.’

Sweden

‘This is a very important but difficult andsensitive question to answer. As Samhall is agovernment owned company, our missionto employ people with disabilities is givenby the government through parliament.This means that it is, in the end, a questionof political priorities. But there are somebenefits and threats.

‘Benefits are: greater inclusion,mainstreaming and diversity. Our specialworkplaces cease to be so ‘special’. Weachieve integration instead of segregation.Our knowledge and experiences can beused for those other vulnerable groups onthe labour market. Employees withdifferent abilities can support each other.We could build small work teams aroundemployees with different abilities. It wouldbe easier to replace employees who moveon to other employers.

‘Threats are: a risk of segregation withinour organisations with A, B, C teams etc.Production may depend more on employeeswith a high working capacity and theemployees with disabilities, especially withsevere disabilities, will be marginalised. Theowners/government/contributors will regardthe organisation as a ‘normal’ economicenterprise and will expect economicalprofit. This again may lead to a productionthat is more adapted to other groups thanto employees with severe disabilities.


Page 66

3.10 Conclusions and Summary

The Working Group made the followingconclusions on adapting to the new trendsof mainstreaming and social inclusion:

■ We generally welcome the EU decisions to develop a mainstreaming and social inclusion policy.

■ We also welcome the fact that different EU member states are now devising a wide range of initiatives, appropriate to their national circumstances, in support of EU policy.

■ We strongly welcome the diversity of initiatives, and suggest that these should be carefully monitored and evaluated.

■ The trend of mainstreaming will presentour organisations with many challenges,which have to be managed successfully.

■ All our organisations see real opportunities for them to contribute to mainstreaming.

■ The great range and depth of experiences in training and employing people with disabilities will mean that our organisations will be key players in making the mainstreaming policy work.

■ People with disabilities must be fully involved in the development of our activities and any new services.

■ An outstanding question is: how much personal choice will disabled people be allowed to exercise in the mainstream labour market?

3.10 ‘I really cannot see that Samhall needs to bespecially adapted to other groups. As longas we are organised to meet differentindividual needs etc., that is not a problem.Some of the needs of different groups aresimilar (or, at least, comparable). Forexample, you need training in social skills atin work whether your problem in thelabour market stems from disability, age,social problems, etc.’

UK

Remploy

‘Integration of other disadvantaged groupsinto organisations like Remploy couldincrease diversity, improve inclusion andcreate social awareness.

‘The potential benefits would involvestrengthening our forces to combatinequality and resulting exclusion.Currently, organisations tend to focus onthe issues specific to their target group,whereas the barriers created by society arebroadly similar. This may help to focusefforts on challenging the barriers ratherthan seeing the ‘problem’ resting with theclient group. It would also enable us to gaingreater insight and experience. We wouldneed to adapt and improve our knowledgeof others disadvantaged groups concerned.

‘Remploy has a history and commitment towork with disabled people. Includingpeople from other groups would require achange of brief from Government, which isto provide supported employment fordisabled people.

‘Our identity with and Mission for theemployment of disabled people haveexisted for 50 years. Many people workingin our organisation do so because they arestrongly committed to the principle ofenabling disabled people.’


Page 67

3.11 A Summary

Considerable changes will have to be madeto adapt our organisations tomainstreaming. These will be moreprofound in some countries than in others.They should reflect and be reflected in theenvironment in which our organisationsoperate, e.g. national policies, local labourmarket conditions. Adaptations will have to

take account of several importantconditions that are linked with themainstream idea.

Inevitably, some will have to make choicesas to whether or not they enter the ‘newera’ of mainstreaming and social inclusion.

Group members are aware that every policyor organisational change that is made intheir sector, will (and should be) weighedagainst the contribution it makes to themainstream trend. There is a risk that thevalue and the meaning of special organisedworkplaces will diminish if they stick to atraditional role. They must invest in a newmission and policy, qualitative organisationforms, performance standards and workingmethods. It is inevitable that part or all ofthe workforces will be only temporarilyinvolved in what used to be a ‘stable’ workenvironment.

Our awareness of, and ability to cope with,these conditions will, in the near future,have a great effect on the viability,positioning and size of the speciallyadapted work sector as a whole.

3.11


Tim Papé (Chair from 3/00) Shaw Trust UK

Gerhard Larsson

(Chair 12/99 to 03/00) EUROPEAN Group - IPWH

Leif Alm (Secretrary) Samhall Sweden

Iolanda Brito FENACERCI Portugal

Txema Franco Lantegi Batuak Spain

Heleen Heinsbroek NOSW Netherlands

Christoph Jungwirth BBRZ Austria

Stuart Knowles Remploy UK

Marjatta Varanka FPED Finland

3.12


Page 68

3.13 Definition of Terms

The group agreed that the goal of speciallyorganised employment providers should be:

To enable those people with disabilities whoare able to achieve a greater financialindependence and an increased level ofsocial integration to do so.

This goal must be achieved with the co-operation and active participation ofdisabled people.

The consensus around this goal enabled tofocus on the primary purpose for disabledworkers to achieve progression within andtransition from specially organisedemployment.

The group then defined a continuum ofemployment for disabled people:

■ Individuals should enter and leave this continuum at a point appropriate to their needs.

■ Movement along the continuum should take place in either direction, according to individual need.

Progression can mean either movementwithin specially organised employment,towards regular employment, or movementfrom specially organised employment toregular employment.

Transition is progression from speciallyorganised employment into regularemployment. The EUROPEAN Group - IPWHhas identified a 3 Step Model to strengthenopportunities for persons with disabilities toenter the labour market.

Transition has been defined as movementfrom stage 2 to stage 1, movement fromstage 3 to 2, and movement from stage 3 tostage 1, although this definition does varyfrom one country to another.

The 3 Step Model

1. Work in the regular labour market on equal terms with others.

2. Support for employers3. Specially organised workplaces

(Gerhard Larsson, Chairman EUROPEAN Group - IPWH - EUROPEAN Group - IPWH Newsletter, March 1999)

3.14 References

8. Equality of Opportunity for People with Disabilities - A New Community Disability Strategy 1996.

9. Raising employment levels of people with disabilities the common challenge; Commission Staff Working Paper 22.09.1998.

10. Europe’s undervalued workforce- EUROPEAN Group - IPWH programme 1999.

11. Towards a barrier free Europe for people with disabilities - communicationform the commission to the council, the European parliament, the economic andsocial committee and the committee of the regions; European Commission, 12.5.2000.

5. Proposal for a council directive establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, Commission of the European Communities, 25.11.1999.

Communication from the Commission to themember states establishing the guidelinesfor the Community Initiative EQUALconcerning transnational co-operation topromote new means of combating all formsof discrimination and inequalities inconnection with the labour market (Brussels14.04.2000).

3.13

3.14


Page 69

EUROPEAN Group - IPWH Working Group 3

“ADAPTING TO THE NEW TRENDS OF MAINSTREAMING AND SOCIAL INCLUSION”QUESTIONNAIRE

1. What does mainstreaming and social inclusion mean when applied to the employment

of disabled people?

2. Taking into account mainstreaming, do we need specially organised workplaces?

3. What are our strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats as results of European

“mainstreaming”employment and support funding policies?

4. How do our organisations need to adapt to the mainstreaming?

5. What are the implications of non-discrimination legislation for our organisations?

6. Do we need to broaden our target group and include other groups in risk of social

exclusion? What are the benefits and the threats of such an approach?

7. Do our organisations need to adapt in order to include people coming from these

groups?

3.15

Members Contact Details

Page 71


AustriaBerufliches Bildungs-undRehabilitationszentrum Linz (BBRZ)

BBRZ works with the employment services,social insurance agencies and the AustrianProvincial Governments to offer vocationalrehabilitation for people with disabilities.Training programmes are geared to thelabour market and last for a maximum of 2years.Training is tailor-made for technicaland commercial vocations, often enablingclients to achieve relevant qualifications.BBRZ runs Rehab College, providesplacement support and offers specialistservices such as medical, psychological,social work, rehabilitation technology,accommodation, client service andcounselling. It is contracted to the UpperAustrian Provincial Government to operatesheltered workshops, providing a wide rangeof trades to manufacture products for theindustrial, trade and agricultural sectors.

Contact:Walter Brunner, Co-ordinatorGrillparzerstrasse 50, Postfach 343,A-4021 Linz

Tel: +43 732 6922-5220Fax: +43 732 6922 5215E-mail: [email protected] site: www.bbrz.at

BelgiumVlaamse Federatie van BeschutteWerkplaatsen (VLAB)

VLAB aims to represent the interests ofFlemish sheltered workshops and co-ordinate their activities and development.VLAB works to achieve these objectives by:promoting the development and exchangeof knowledge and information on shelteredemployment; co-ordinating joint activitiesorganised by the Flemish shelteredworkshops; organising surveys andpublishing the results, as well as bygathering and spreading information;defending the interests of shelteredworkshops where the problems arecommon to all; acting as a consultativeorganisation for others active in thefield of sheltered employment.

Contact:Alfons Weltens, DirectorTorsinplein 12, 3300 Tienen

Tel: +32 16 82 76 40Fax: +32 16 82 76 39E-mail: [email protected]


Page 72

Finland

Foundation Promoting Employment forPeople with Disabilities (FPED)

FPED was established in 1993 as a co-operative and represents 24 bodies,including the major national disabilityorganisations. It aims to promote theemployment of the disabled people bydeveloping programmes within the publicand private sectors that address individualrehabilitation and social needs.TheFoundation achieves this by developingemployment models including shelteredworkshops, arranging expert informationservices and influencing the labour market.FINSE (the Finnish Network of SupportedEmployment) was formed by FPED in 1995to promote training and awareness forsupported employment, and has 130members. SOFI (the Finnish Network ofSocial Firms), established in 1998 has 100members.

Contact: Marjatta Varanka, Managing DirectorP.O. Box 40, 00621 Helsinki,

Tel. +358 9 7527 5505Fax +358 9 7527 5521Email: [email protected]: www.fped.fi

France

GIRPEH Ile de France

GIRPEH was established in 1977 by a groupof leading employers to promote themainstream employment of disabled people.Its mission is ‘To assist employers inmanaging the integration of their disabledemployees; to promote the professionalintegration of disabled people and todevelop close links between the shelteredemployment sector and the other non-sheltered sectors.’ GIRPEH represents 50large enterprises, professional organisations

and agencies concerned with services todisabled people.Through a programme ofidentification, selection and training, it helpsdisabled people to find suitable jobs. It alsoorganises and conducts research throughworking groups and makes proposals toauthorities.

Contact: Myriam Meyer, Déléguée Générale175 Boulevard Malesherbes, 75017 Paris

Tel: +33 1 56 33 18 00Fax: +33 148 88 98 48E-mail: [email protected]

France

SNAPEI

SNAPEI was created as a representativeunion of Union Nationale des Associationsdes Parents d'Enfants Inadaptés, which is afederation, representing 330 associations ofparents of people with mental disabilities.Each association may manage severalinstitutions, from special education centresto workshops or housing facilities. SNAPEInegotiates with employees’ unions forwages, application of labour laws,regulations, etc. It represents memberinstitutions in liaison with related groups(e.g. the visually impaired, GIHP), andprovides them with technical assistance andguidance on legal and regulatory matters. Italso runs a seminar programme forinstitutions managers and employees,conducts research and publishesdocumentation on mental disability.

Contact: Philippe Boidin,Vice President7-9 Rue de la Boétie, 75008 Paris

Tel : +33 1 43 12 19 19Fax : +33 1 43 12 52 95Email: [email protected]


Page 73

Germany

BundesarbeitsgemeinschaftWerkstätten für Behinderte (BAG WfB)

BAG was established in 1975 as a voluntarynon-profit association of organisationsproviding workshops for severely disabledpeople. Its members operate 600 main and720 branch workshops, employing 195,000disabled people. BAG’s main objectives areto promote the interests of shelteredworkshops at national, European andinternational levels; further the efficiency ofsheltered workshops in providingemployment, training and personaldevelopment for severely disabled people;influence the political and law makingprocesses; organise national events; facilitatethe exchange of information andexperience; undertake a range ofconsultancy assignments and provide publicrelations service for membership.

Contact: Ralf Hagemeier, DirectorSonnemannstrasse 5,60314 Frankfurt am Main

Tel: +49 69 94 33 94-17Fax: +49 69 94 33 94 25E-mail: cz@bagwfb-deWebsite: bagwfb.de

Iceland

The Icelandic Union of SpecialEmployment and Training (SVV)

SVV is a national co-ordinating federation of20 members comprising independentorganisations, training institutes andsheltered workshops providing work fordisabled people.

The workshops are owned either by thestate, regional governments or byindependent organisations for disabledpeople. Some workshops connected to the

hospital system are not members of SVV.Theaim is to stimulate co-operation betweenmembers, represent their views, promoteeducation, and act as a channel forinformation. SVV’s 20 workshops receive agovernment subsidy and provide work forover 600 people with a range of disabilities.Specialist workshops provide employmentfor blind people.

Contact: Kristján Valdimarsson,Örvi, Kársnesbraut 110, 200 Kópavogur

Tel:+354 554 3277Fax: +354 554 3295E-mail: [email protected]

Ireland

THE REHAB GROUP

The Rehab Group is an independentorganisation, delivering training,employment, social care and commercialservices to promote equality.With more than100 locations throughout Ireland and theUK, it trains over 24,000 people andemploys 1,800 of whom 20% are peoplewith disabilities. Its National Training &Development Institute provides training andjob placements for 2,500 people in Ireland.231 disabled people are employed withinthe 9 commercial companies comprising thesubsidiary, Gandon Enterprises. RehabCareprovides a range of community social careservices for 1,500 disabled people and theircarers. UK Rehab's Training & BusinessGroup provides training for 14,000 longterm unemployed, whilst Rehab Scotlandhas pioneered vocational training after braininjury.

Contact: Frank Flannery, Cheif ExecutiveRoslyn Park, Sandymount, Dublin 4

Tel: +353 1 205 7234Fax: +353 1 1 205 7215E-mail: [email protected]: www.rehab.ie


Page 74

Netherlands

Nationaal Overlegorgaan SocialeWerkvoorziening (NOSW)

NOSW is the umbrella organisation forsheltered employment in the Netherlands. Itincludes 97 companies employingapproximately 90,000 disabled people, ofwhom 12% are in external placements. 53%work in manufacturing, 33% inenvironmental services and construction,and 14% in printing and administrativeservices. Dutch sheltered employmentorganisations are professionally organisedand are mainly sub-contractors working injoint ventures with mainstream companies,but also produce and sell their ownproducts.At local level, they work closelywith day care centres and other enterprisesfor the integration of disabled people.

Contact: Hans Vrind,Vice PresidentPO Box 8151, 3503 RD Utrecht

Tel: +31 30 29 06 800Fax: +31 30 29 06 899E-mail: [email protected]

Norway

ArbeidsMarkesBedriftenes Landsforeing(AMB)

AMB is an association of 93 labour marketcompanies (semi-sheltered workshops),employing over 5,250 vocationally disabledpeople, and offering vocational rehabilitationthrough guidance, job-training and skill-upgrading programmes.The goods andservices produced compete in the openmarket and range from engineering tochildcare. Employment contracts are timelimited, as the objective is to help disabledpeople achieve work in the open labourmarket.AMB companies are joint stockenterprises with local governmentauthorities the majority shareholders.AMB

represents members in agreeing serviceterms and conditions with trade unions, andcollaborating with central government onvocational rehabilitation issues.

Contact: Johan Leikvoll, Managing DirectorStorgata 11 P.O.box 8836, N-0028 Oslo

Tel: +47 2310 3850Fax: +47 2310 3860Email: [email protected]

Norway

ArbeidsSamVirkenes Landsforening(ASVL)

ASVL is a nationwide organisationrepresenting 163 companies providing workopportunities for approximately 4,000occupationally disabled people. Localauthorities, mainly at municipal level, are themajor company shareholders. Besidesoperating sheltered working units, thecompanies provide services for supportemployment and training. ASVL negotiatespay scales and service conditions with theUnions representing the companies’employees. It also lobbies to improve therights and status of the companies and thedisabled people ASVL works for. Thecompanies receive a government subsidy,but earn approximately 40% of their incomefrom the competitive commercial sale ofgoods and services in the open market.

Contact:Tore Skedsmo, Managing DirectorKronprinsens Gata 17, N-0251, Oslo

Tel: + 47 22 01 24 10Fax: +47 22 10 24 11E-mail: [email protected]: [email protected]


Page 75

Poland

Central Institute for Labour Protection(CIOP)

Contact: Dr Bozena Kurkus-Rozowska16 Ul. Czerniokowska, 00-701,Warsaw

Tel: + 48 22 623 3279Fax: +48 22 623 3695E-mail: [email protected]

Poland

Polish Organisation of DisabledPeople’s Employers (POPON)

Contact: Narcyz Janas, ChairmanUl. Glaczynskiego 4, 00-362 Warsaw

Tel: + 48 22 8263496Fax: +48 22 8272804E-mail: [email protected]

Portugal

FENACERCI

Founded in 1985, Fenacerci is a federationrepresenting almost 50 co-operativesengaged in the education and rehabilitationof approximately 7,000 people with learningdifficulties or multiple disability. It works topromote the rights of citizens with learningdifficulties, ensure they receive appropriatecare with legislative and financial supportfrom government and other organisations,and to change attitudes to enable theirintegration into work. It offers a range ofsupport and information services, conductsresearch, training and seminar programmes,and liaises with interested organisations,nationally and internationally. It has recentlycreated specialist departments for Self-Advocacy, Early Intervention and Education,Training and Employment, OccupationalCentres and Residences.

Contact: Rogerio CaçaoR.Augusto Macedo, n∫2A, 1600-794 Lisbon

Tel: +351 21 711 2580Fax: +351 21 711 2581Email: [email protected]: fenacerci.pt

Rumania

Speranta

Contact: Maria StanescuG Topârceanu Street, no 14-16, Medias,

Tel: +40 60 842 162E-mail: [email protected]

Spain

FUNDOSA GRUPO SA

Fundosa Grupo is the holding company thatthe ONCE Foundation created in 1989 withthe mission of training and creatingemployment for people with disabilities,while generating its own resources.Fundosa Grupo is composed of subsidiariesand joint ventures, operating in a wide rangeof business sectors throughout Spain.Thegroup as a whole employs 11,873 people, ofwhom 70% are disabled. In 2000 FundosaGrupo generated sales of more than 136million Euros.

Contact:Antonio Millán, Director GeneralSebastián Herrera, 15-2a planta, 28012,Madrid

Tel: +34 91 506 89 98 Fax: +34 91 539 15 98E-mail: [email protected]


Page 76

Spain

GUREAK / EHLABE

Gureak is part of Ehlable,The Association ofSheltered Workshops in the Basque Country,which exists to promote jobs and trainingfor people with mental disabilities. Since1975 Gureak has worked to sociallyintegrate disabled people through jobplacement.The Group employs 2,500people in over 21 modern, technicallyadvanced work centres. 1,500 work in theIndustrial Division which is divided into 3companies undertaking mainly sub-contractwork; Gureak Protected Workshops doingelectronic assembly, packaging and filling;Nassermo, engaged in industrial contracting;Goiplasatik dedicated to plastic injectionmoulding. The Services Division employs1,000 disabled workers and operates 8businesses in the Services Sector.

Contact: Inaki Alkorta, General ManagerIllarra Bidea, 4, 20018 Donostia,San Sebastian

Tel: +34 943 3104440Fax: +34 943 3120363EMail: [email protected] site: www.grupogureak.com

Sweden

SAMHALL AB

Samhall is a state owned company thatexists to create meaningful and developingemployment for people with occupationaldisabilities, wherever the need exists. Itconsists of a parent company and 4subsidiaries, whilst its business operationsare divided into 5 business areas.Togetherthey are Sweden’s largest sub-contractors forgoods and services. Samhall has about30,000 employees of whom 27,000 havesome form of occupational disability. It alsosupports approximately 800 disabled people

in work placements throughout Sweden.

Contact: Göran Sunnarsson, PresidentKvällsvägen 1, PO Box 44146 21 Tullinge

Tel: +46 8 607 10 32Fax” +46 8 607 43 12Email: [email protected]: www.samhall.se

Switzerland

Institutions Sociales Suisses pourpersonnes handicapées (INSOS )

INSOS is the nation-wide association ofinstitutions for people with disabilities. Itsmembership of approximately 450 mainlycomprises private organisations andfoundations from over 850 locationsthroughout Switzerland.They provide justunder 30,000 adult persons with assistedresidential accommodation, training, andwork places in sheltered and supervisedenvironments. INSOS supports thedevelopment of higher quality and efficientfulfilment of the aims of its members, withthe needs, freedom of choice and basicrights of disabled people given the highestpriority.The association is financed bymembership contributions, governmentauthorities and, in the case of specialprojects, sponsorship.

Contact: Simon Bridger, DirectorBürglistrasse 11, 8002 Zurich

Tel: +41 1 202 7035,Fax: +41 1 202 2377,Email: [email protected]


Page 77

UK

REMPLOY LIMITED

Founded in 1946, Remploy exists to expandthe opportunities for disabled people insustainable work, both within Remployfactories and externally. Remploy employsmore than 6,000 disabled people in its 87industrial units and over 4,000 working withexternal employers under Remploy’sInterwork supported employmentprogramme. Its Commercial Businessproduces a wide range of high qualityproducts and has an expanding contractmanufacturing business. In 2000, salestotalled £165.6 million.The EmploymentDevelopment operation directs theInterwork programme, co-ordinates therecruitment and progression of disabledemployees, and offers advisory services toother employers.

Contact: Ray Fletcher, Personnel Director415 Edgware Road, London NW2 6LR

Tel: +44 181 235 0535Fax: +44 181 235 0537Email: [email protected]: www.remploy.co.uk

UK

SHAW TRUST

Shaw Trust is a national charity that providesroutes to work for people who aredisadvantaged in the workplace due todisability, ill-health or other socialcircumstances. Each year, Shaw Trustsupports over 10,000 people across England,Scotland and Wales through job preparation,job finding, job support, job retention andjob creation.To achieve this, the Trustprovides rehabilitation, training, worktasters, employment support and occupationfor disabled people. It supports and advisesemployers in the employment of people

with a disability; works with Social Services,Health Services,Training and EnterpriseCouncils, government departments andvoluntary sector partners to help disabledpeople find employment.

Contact: Ian Charlesworth,Managing Director.Shaw House, Epsom Square,White HorseBusiness Park,Trowbridge,Wiltshire,BA14 0XJ

Tel: +44 1225 716350Fax: +44 1225 716334Email: [email protected]: www.shaw-trust.org.uk

UK

Ulster Supported Employment (USEL)

USEL was formed in 1962 to provideemployment under sheltered conditions fordisabled people.Today, USEL employsapproximately 65 disabled people in itsmanufacturing operation. In 1980, USELpioneered a successful SupportedEmployment Programme in NorthernIreland, which now supports over 600placements. It is a not for profitorganisation, has charity status and, as a NonDepartmental Public Body, is fully funded byGovernment.

Contact: Michael Wylie, Chief Executive88 - 136 Lawnbrook Avenue, Belfast,BT13 2QD

Tel: +44 1232 322 881Fax: +44 1232 331 038E Mail: [email protected]: www.usel.co.uk


Page 78

Chairman (until May 2000)

Gerhard LarssonGovernorCounty Administrative Board of VästnorrlandSE-871 86 HärnösandSWEDENTel: +46 611 34 93 51Fax: +46 611 34 93 73

President (June 2000 onwards)

Hans V.VrindVice PresidentNOSWPO Box 81513503 RD UtrechtNETHERLANDSTel: +31 30 29 06 800Fax: +31 30 29 06 899Email: [email protected]

Secretary

Alain RiallandRemploy Limited415 Edgware RoadLondon, NW2 6LRUNITED KINGDOMTel: +44 208 304 5029Fax: +44 870 054 8822Email: [email protected] [email protected]

Assistant Secretary (Until September 2000)

Carina EscobarFundosa GrupoRue de la Concorde 53 (2.5)1060 BrusselsBELGIUMTel: +32 2 513 3936Fax: +32 2 503 3959Email: [email protected]

Secretariat

European Liaison OfficeThe EUROPEAN Group - IPWHBoulevard Louis Schmidt, 119 Bte.21040, BrusselsBELGIUMTel: +32 2 743 82 01Fax: +32 2 736 82 51Email: [email protected]

Contact details ofEUROPEAN Group - IPWH

Printed by Remploy Limited, the UK’s largest employer of severely disabled people

The IPWH website includes information about the EUROPEAN Group - IPWH.

You can download this publication by clicking on:

www.ipwh.org

European Community

With support from the European Community - Actions in favour of Equality of

Opportunity for People with Disabilities. The information contained in this

publication does not necessarily reflect the position or opinion of the European Commission.

© EUROPEAN Group - IPWH 2000

European Liaison OfficeThe EUROPEAN Group - IPWH

Boulevard Louis Schmidt, 119 Bte.21040, Brussels, Belgium

Tel: +32 2 743 82 01 Fax: +32 2 736 82 51Email: [email protected]

Realising the value · Realising the value New thinking and methods on employing disabled people...

Documents

Transcript of Realising the value · Realising the value New thinking and methods on employing disabled people...