The disability community recently hit upon an issue of real disagreement: Remploy’s plans to close or merge around half its 83 factories, in order to invest more in supporting disabled people in open employment, less in sheltered factory work. When six voluntary organisations (RADAR, Mind, Mencap, Scope, RNID and Leonard Cheshire) wrote collectively to the Guardian supporting the broad direction of Remploy’s proposals – ‘it’s a matter of human rights’ – a seventh accused them of being used as the Government’s publicity machine (1) . And when some disabled leaders spoke in favour of public money going on modernised services that would enable the largest numbers of disabled people to work in our current economy (not just outdated manufacturing), other disabled people – including those working in Remploy factories – spoke powerfully against the ‘government sponsored closure programme’ (2) .
This is not the place to discuss the detail of Remploy’s plans, which will rightly be the subject of consultation with all who work in Remploy factories and other key stakeholders. But the debate does raise some fundamental questions:
1. On what criteria should it be decided how to spend public money allocated for support for disabled people in employment? A sensible answer is to take account of a) disabled people’s views and preferences b) evidence of effectiveness ie which approaches to support in employment work best and c) cost effectiveness and targeting – ie how can the available resources be used to support the largest number of disabled people to work, including those with greatest support needs?
2. On disabled people’s views and preferences we need to consider the views of everyone with an impairment or health condition who requires support to work. Those currently in sheltered workplaces, those out of work for lack of support and those at risk of losing their jobs after developing an impairment. Research and consultation tell us that disabled people typically want all the employment opportunities that everyone wants – choice of work in any sector, with a good chance of advancement. Sometimes individuals’ choices cause controversy – as when a woman with mental health problems was supported to work as a pole dancer – but the principle is clear. Opportunities in a range of sectors and levels. Some people would choose a sheltered workplace – sometimes for fear of discrimination in mainstream employment – but it is not the main aspiration. Sheltered workplaces have not generally offered alternative job opportunities or career progression: they are still largely run by non-disabled people.
3. On ‘what works’, individual placement and support has been proven to be effective in the US and Europe (including Britain) for people with long term, significant mental health problems . People who would have been written off engage successfully in mainstream employment if they are motivated, choose their line of work and have flexible support available when and how they need it. Job brokers have been shown to be effective in supporting people with learning disabilities in open employment. The people supported to work in this way are no less impaired than many people currently in sheltered employment. There is no definitive case that the people working in sheltered environments need to be there because of the impact of their impairment or the barriers they are likely to face.
4. On targeting, the public money available to Remploy (half a billion over 5 years) should be spent on the most effective support for employment for the individuals with the greatest support needs. Remploy has said that for the current subsidy of £20,000 (on average) per person working in a Remploy factory they could support 4 disabled people in open employment. As British manufacturing has declined, the subsidy per individual in non-economic factories has risen. The resources could go further by supporting people in economically viable occupations. Similarly health and social services’ vocational resources should be spent on the most effective ways of supporting people to work – like individual placement and support.
The message, using the criteria above, would seem to be that Government funding should be focused increasingly on supporting disabled people to work in any sector (from pole dancing to politics), at any level. However, there are some extremely important caveats:
1. The rights of people working in sheltered workplaces must be protected – with no compulsory redundancies.
2. The fear of discrimination in mainstream employment is very real – and so is the discrimination. Government needs to invest not only in supporting individual disabled people, but also in supporting employers in building good practice and stripping away discrimination. Otherwise the promise of real jobs might not materialise
3. We need to be creative about methods of supporting people to work who find regular employment challenging – from social enterprises to self employment (and more).
We might find that if flexible support for open employment was more widespread, low expectations would be swept away, aspirations would rise and the need for sheltered employment would decline. But that requires substantially increased support and a concerted attack on discrimination. RADAR looks forward to the debate. We support the broad direction of greater investment in supported open employment – as long as there are no compulsory redundancies and the rights and interests of workers are protected. If not, we will be the first to speak out. Watch this space.
Notes
1. See the Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk - letters page 19th May onwards
2. See GMB website: http://www.gmbremployworkers.info/