PURPOSE. The purpose of this briefing paper is to argue that special provision should be regarded, not as the opposite of mainstreaming, but its necessary complement in supporting the employment of blind and partially sighted (ps) people in the European Union (EU).
EMPLOYMENT STATUS OF BLIND AND PS PEOPLE. There is evidence that the rate of economic inactivity in most member states of the EU is higher than 40%, often much higher (EBU report, 2001).
MAINSTREAMING DISABILITY. It is an aim of the EU's Employment Strategy to reduce the rate of unemployment of disabled people significantly by 2010. The policy paper "Mainstreaming Disability in the European Employment Strategy" sets out guidelines for supporting disabled people to gain or retain mainstream employment. Inevitably it deals with the problem in very general terms. It contains no recommendations specifically relevant to blind and ps people and ignores the fact that they experience a much higher rate of economic inactivity than disabled people at large. In the United Kingdom for example, the rate of economic inactivity of disabled people is around 50%, while that of registered blind people is 66%.
NETWORK 1000. New evidence from the UK throws light on the causes and complexities of this higher rate. It is presented in a report entitled "Network 1000" by a research team at Birmingham University. This shows that:
A high rate of economic inactivity is found among all visually impaired (vi) people of working age, but is strongly associated with ageing - the highest rate, 79%, existing among those aged 50-64.
People who are registered as blind (i.e. with little or no sight) are far more likely to be economically inactive for a long time (up to ten years) than people registered as partially sighted (52% compared with 28%).
A high percentage of visually impaired people have additional disability or sickness. The highest number is in the 50-64 age group (45%), but even the age groups 18-29 reported 44% and 30-49 reported 46%.
Loss of hearing is a problem for the older age group, but even among the youngest group (18-29) 36% report hearing loss.
Most of the people who are unemployed have been so for more than ten years.
There is a very high level of resignation about being economically inactive. No fewer than 75% of the sample said they thought it unlikely or very unlikely that they would find work within a year. Other research evidence confirms that their view is realistic.
EBU's TWO-PRONGED APPROACH. Similar results could no doubt be produced in other Member States of the EU. However, the UK statistics can be used to support EBU's case for a "two-pronged" approach to increasing the participation of blind and ps people in the labour market. The two-pronged approach entails:
supporting blind and ps people who are close to the labour market (or in it at the time of sight loss) to enter or remain in mainstream employment;
supporting those who are more distant from the labour market to progress through intermediate stages to mainstream employment.
THE BLIND ELITE. Blind and ps people who possess the educational/ vocational qualifications and a strong will to succeed have shown that they can perform, with the aid of modern technology and in some cases sighted support workers, a very wide range of jobs in mainstream employment (see RNIB "Beyond the Stereotypes", 2004). They may be thought of as a blind elite, very close to the labour market when they set out to find employment. Evidence shows, however, that even these undaunted people succeed only after great persistence, which may take up to two years.
THE EXCLUDED. The blind elite are highly visible but, as Network 1000 shows, there is a hidden group, in many Member States a majority, whose high rate of economic inactivity is invisible to most of society. They are more distant from the labour market. Some are very distant from it. EBU believes that those who are less distant, e.g. younger blind people with lower levels of education or skill, can be supported into mainstream employment by appropriate mentoring, training and job introduction. The "trainee grade scheme", recently established by RNIB is instructive here. People who have been economically inactive for one or more years have been recruited to a "trainee grade" of employment within the organisation for one year. They gain experience of office work and training in appropriate skills. Their confidence grows and they acquire steady work discipline. At the end of the year they are assisted to find employment, usually outside RNIB. The success rate in the first year of the scheme was 66%.
SEAMLESS INCLUSION. This example shows the first way in which special provision is necessary to support many blind and ps people into mainstream employment. It may be thought of as the "seamless inclusion model". It is "seamless" in that the vi person goes straight into the mainstream labour market and is trained "on the job". It should be noted that the training is impairment-specific. It need not take place in a specialised NGO such as RNIB, but could be delivered to individuals in any firm. Either way, it is longer and more expensive than that required by sighted disabled people. There is evidence that Member States are therefore reluctant to provide it, preferring to concentrate on other groups who are perceived as easier to employ. If "Mainstreaming Disability" is to be effective for blind and ps people, the EU should seek to ensure that the labour activation programmes of Member States all include impairment-appropriate provision of this kind for blind and ps people.
REHABILITATION LEAVE. The demand for "disability leave" is of long standing in the UK, to give those who lose sight on the job a period for readjustment and retraining. Helping people to retain their job in this way could be even more effective for increasing the number of visually impaired people in employment than efforts to get people with sight problems of longer standing into work. This campaign has recently found considerable support, though the term "rehabilitation leave" is now preferred. The European Commission should seek to promote its introduction in all member countries.
THE EMPLOYMENT CONTINUUM. What of those who are far more distant from the labour market by reason of additional impairments, long-term unemployment, ageing or low motivation? For them participation in the labour market by the method of "seamless inclusion" would be like climbing Mount Everest. They need much more time to gain motivation and relevant skills through mentoring, skill training and work experience. This is very difficult to provide in mainstream firms because such complex disabilities are of low incidence, making it impractical to provide qualified mentors and job coaches to support workers individually.
The EU-sponsored report "The Employment Continuum", therefore, set out the case for government intervention to build up an intermediate labour market or "employment continuum". It recommended that the EU should promote this as best practice in Member States. It would entail the creation of centres of supported employment on the regional/local level. Such centres might be social firms, co-operatives or reformed sheltered factories. They should trade in the market place for profit on revenue account and employ non-disabled as well as disabled people (though the latter should not be less than 50% of the workforce). Government should assist them with finance to acquire plant and working capital.
The report presented case studies of such practice in Sweden, the Republic of Ireland and the UK. The case of the Blindcraft factory in Glasgow, Scotland, is instructive. The factory employs some 200 workers. Half of them are disabled and half are able-bodied. About 20% of the disabled workers are blind or ps.
Blindcraft produces windows and furniture for social housing in Glasgow and a range of other industrial processes are undertaken. It receives subsidy from Central Government for the provision of plant, but trades at or near profitability on its revenue account. It achieves the 10 per cent progression into mainstream employment required by current UK policy, partly by providing on-site assistance to improve numeracy, literacy and other relevant skills.
Such centres need not be confined to industrial production. Relevant here is the social firm "Concept", recently set up by RNIB, which operates a conference catering facility in Birmingham. It has begun by employing 6 staff, 5 of whom are visually impaired. These work at tasks ranging from administration to food preparation and presentation. The aim is that the workers should progress to mainstream firms. To this end Concept is developing links with mainstream training providers such as the College of Food and Tourism, which some of the Concept trainees are already attending. It is the intention of RNIB that Concept should develop into a commercially sustainable, stand-alone firm by 2009.
MAINSTREAMING AND THE EMPLOYMENT CONTINUUM. These two examples show the second way in which special provision can go further and support the mainstreaming of the most severely disabled people without involving either isolation from non-disabled people or inappropriately heavy subsidy. They represent what may be called the "progressionist model" of inclusion, which is complementary to support in the mainstream.
For many blind and ps people, the progressionist model has proven advantages over the "seamless inclusion" model (often known as the "rights based model"). Under this second model all forms of provision in special firms are rejected and a disabled person is held to have the right to inclusion at all times. The removal of all discriminatory barriers and the provision of on-site support such as mentoring and training is held to be sufficient to make this possible.
Proponents of the "seamless inclusion model" admit, however, that they often encounter intractable problems in making it practicable. This is especially the case for low-incidence disabilities such as blindness, especially when it is combined with learning difficulties or additional physical impairments. Supporters of the model in the USA, for example, confess to a major problem of supplying enough professional trainers and mentors to undertake occupational analyses, job introduction and on-site mentoring and training (see proceedings of the conference of the European Union of Supported Employment, 2005).
One advantage of a "centre for supported employment" is that such resources can be concentrated in one place, which acts like the "base camp" on the route up Mount Everest, employing those who find it difficult to progress and supporting those who can go forward. Experience in Norway shows that relatively high rates of progression can be achieved. The Norwegian rate of progression is 35 per cent compared to the UK target of 10 per cent (see "Work with Support", a report of the Norway Labour Board).
CONCLUSION. EBU welcomes the policy direction laid out in "Mainstreaming Disability". In every country the blind elite has shown what visually impaired people can achieve in mainstream employment, given appropriate support such as training in the use of assistive technologies. EBU believes that many blind people who are more distant from the labour market could join the blind elite in mainstream employment if labour activation programmes made appropriate provision for mentoring, training and job introduction. The European Commission should work to ensure that all Member States make this impairment-appropriate provision for blind and ps people as integral components of labour activation programmes targeted at disabled people generally.
This is one of the ways in which special provision works as the necessary complement of a mainstreaming policy. The other is the provision of an employment continuum. Evidence shows that many blind and ps people are very distant from the labour market by reason of additional disability, ageing and/or low motivation stemming from long-term inactivity. We cannot envisage rapid inclusion of such people into the labour market by the method of seamless inclusion. They can only progress towards it if there is an employment continuum through which they can gain work experience, appropriate skills and self-esteem over a longer period of time. The EU should use its power of commenting on National Action Plans to promote in every Member State a network of centres for supported employment, provided by government, local authorities, employers and NGO's. This progressionist model would be the most effective way to support the most severely disabled people towards employment in the mainstream labour market.
Dr Fred Reid
January, 2007