15-16 March, 2007
1,1 In March, 2006, the working group on rehabilitation, vocational training and employment, set up by the European Blind Union (EBU) discussed the practicability of supported mainstream employment for blind people with additional disabilities. Some members were sceptical about its appropriateness for ‘very slow’ workers and urged the model of the sheltered workshop, citing France as a case of good practice. Others thought that mainstreaming might be possible for at least some, if impairment-sensitive training and job experience could be provided. Noting that the programmes of supported employment had delivered jobs for only a tiny number of visually impaired people, the working group agreed that experiments should be promoted within the European Union (EU). These experiments should take account of different models of supported employment, including the establishment of ‘centres’ in an intermediate labour market, where blind workers with additional disabilities could gain job experience and training and so have a chance to progress into mainstream employment.
1,2 In this context M. Chazal, Director of Rehabilitation and Training of the Association Valentin Haouy (AVH), Paris, invited me to visit some ‘good practice’ examples of sheltered employment in France. I would like to take this opportunity of thanking him and his colleagues for making my visit both informative and pleasurable.
2,1 Before visiting the workshops, M. Chazal informed me that there are about 60'000 ‘legally blind’ people of working age in France, of whom about 7000 are in employment. Some 700 of these are employed in sheltered workshops. These workshops cater for two categories of worker. Level 1, run under a government programme known as ESAT (Enterprises or Services of Help by Work caters for workers whose productivity has been assessed at 5 to 30 percent of normal. The main aim of the activity is therapeutic rather than economic. Level 2 is called Adapted Enterprises (E.A), formerly Ateliers Protégés. The productivity of workers here has been assessed at 30-80 percent of normal and there is no therapeutic element involved. Of those employed in the mainstream, the largest groups are: telephonists about 2000; physiotherapists about 1500; Numbers in other professions/ occupations range from a few hundred each in teaching, office work, piano tuning to about 50 in the ‘higher professions’. It should be noted that people registered as ‘legally blind’ are totally blind or possess very little practicable sight. There are no comparable statistics for ‘partially sighted’ people, but France is more transparent than, say, the United Kingdom, in revealing the rate of employment for what the UK knows as the ‘registered blind’.
2,2 M. Chazal informed me that French law provides employment for disabled people on the basis of an assessment of their productive capacity. Those assessed at 100 percent are regarded as suitable for training for mainstream employment. Those assessed as having between 5 percent and 30 percent of productivity are eligible for a form of sheltered employment which is therapeutic as well as economic in aim. Those assessed between 30 and 100 percent are eligible for more productive sheltered employment.
2,3 Legally blind people unable to work are paid a state benefit of some 700 Euros per month. In addition, they receive a ‘compensation’ for the additional ‘human’ costs of disability. This amounts to some 550 Euros per month. There are also additional compensations payable on assessment, eg for the cost of keeping a guide dog or providing information technology. In the view of some authorities, there is thus a strong financial disincentive to seek employment.
3,1 M. Chazel suggested that I visit workshops run by two organisations: 1 those of Handi Aide, established at St. Just, in the department of Oise, and 2 another run by AVH at Lyons. On 15 March I visited Handi Aide along with M. Chazal and Mlle. Natalie Harar (acting as interpreter and sighted assistant). St. Just is 70 km. north of Paris, in the region of the river Somme. The name Handi Aide is said to be a play on ‘handicap’, implying support for people with very severe difficulties and very low productivity. The three workshops run by this firm are all in a very rural setting, surrounded by fields and some distance from Mondidier, the nearest large town. I will refer to them as workshops 1, 2 and 3.
3,2 workshop 1 is funded mainly from the government programme ESAT already mentioned. Some 78 workers are employed in a bright, modern factory measuring about 2'000 sq. metres. On the occasion of our visit they were making bags, metal support parts for ping-pong tables,, and elementary metal work such as stamping out small parts from sheet metal, and assembling parts for electrical transmission systems. Most of the workers were said to have ‘mental problems’. We were told that 4 or 5 are ‘legally blind’ and 12-15 are partially sighted (ambliopes). Able-bodied people are employed in support roles: technical, sales, etc. The workers in this workshop are said to be assessed as the most ‘handicapped’, productive capacity 5-30 percent. The sex balance of the work force looked about 50-50.
3,3 workshop 2 is accommodated in older, rented premises, soon to be replaced by a new building, which is under construction alongside. Production here appeared to concentrate on packaging. No blind people are employed in this workshop because it is said to be unsuitable for them. We were told that blind people will be employed in the new building, but it was also said that the firm has few blind people on its waiting list. The recruitment manager was said to be giving attention to this problem. Once again, workshop 2 seemed dedicated to employment of workers with severe disabilities. In accordance with its therapeutic aims, a psychologist is employed. A swimming pool, archery, gardening, and computer training are available.
3,4 Workshop 3 offers employment to disabled people with the higher levels of productive capacity. In the packing department, most of the workers are blind and envelopes were being packed for the mail. In another packaging department the work was mechanised to some extent. We were informed that production here was arranged in two shifts, 06,00-13,00 and 13,00-18,00.
3,5 In workshop 3 there was also a wood work department. We observed mechanised sawing, producing standardised wooden parts which were then assembled into basic furniture, eg bed bases. This workshop had a factory atmosphere, mechanised, noisy and bustling, in contrast to the other workshops, which were quiet - Perhaps even somewhat subdued. there were no blind people on view in the mechanised departments.
3,6 Under the leadership of its President, M. Pierre Martin, Handi Aide has developed over the last fifteen years from a small occupational centre into a dynamic ‘not for profit’ business. M. Martin has an ambitious plan for expansion. At the town of Mondidier we were shown a newly purchased factory of some 3000 sq. metres. A plan for its development as a workshop is in draft. Meanwhile Handi Aide recruits disabled workers from every part of France, though most come from the Oise. All of them are said to need support with daily living. Some can live in the local community, but the firm provides residential accommodation on site in 70 apartments for single people. These are located in a small chateau which was the premises of the original society. Accommodation is in single bedrooms, and groups of six residents share a kitchen and dining facility. some residents are able to prepare their own meals and Bus transport is arranged for them to go shopping. The median age of residents is 35. It is the policy of the firm to recruit young people, and it claims to be doing this with some success. some of the current residents are said to have been here ‘a long time’ and it is a planning assumption that new residents will stay for up to twenty years.
3,7 Handi Aide evidently receives a great deal of government subsidy. Though the system of funding was difficult to follow in detail, the outline seems to be as follows. The construction of the workshops has been financed by bank loans, which have been amortised over 12 years. It seems that government provides for repayment. Each worker is paid according to his or her output, which in most cases is said to be very low. government augments their wages, probably to the level of the state disability pension. It also pays the full salaries of supervisory and managerial staff. In the case of disabled workers it is said that there would be no point in raising their wages, since this would only diminish their disability pension entitlement.
3,8 There is, we were told, very little progression. Eight workers were cited as employed in a mainstream factory under ‘monitoring’ by a member of Handi Aide staff. The employer pays the wages of the workers and the salary of the ‘monitor’. . Mainstream employers, it was said, prefer this arrangement to inclusion. Providing business for Handi Aide reduces their liability to levy which they have to pay under French quota legislation.
3,9 It would seem, then, that the firm has to bring in enough business to pay for a modest total of wages, cost of raw materials and no doubt other running costs. It was not clear how surplus is generated. The firm claims to have a turn over of 3 million euros per annum. Any surplus is dedicated to expansion. Allowance for expansion seems to be built into the arrangements for government's contribution to wages.
3,10 As to residence costs, all French departments pay a housing allowance to disabled people. At St. Just each department pays this allowance for its disabled people in residence. The occupant must pay up to 70 per cent of wages to defray this allowance
4,1 On 16 March, we visited the workshop run at Lyons by AVH under the name of the Centre Odette Witkowska. It seems that, in 1961, Mme. Witkowska began a small centre in her own house, providing services to blind people. Employment was on a modest scale. In 1982 AVH took over the Centre and employment has expanded under a dynamic director, M. Michel Brals. Today it has become a modern sheltered workshop, employing 85 workers of whom about 40 are blind. Workers are employed at both levels of productivity already described. .
4,2 The Centre differs strikingly from the workshops of Handi Aide in the character of its situation. It stands in its own grounds, ten minutes drive from Lyons tgv terminal. No doubt because of its origin and present association with AVH, it seems to be organised with the needs of blind people more obviously in mind. It was observed, for example, that Handi Aide provided no ‘ergotherapist’, mobility training, braille lessons etc., which are to be found at Lyons.
4,3 In regard to industrial output, the Centre does not differ markedly from the workshops of Handi Aide. Production is organised in departments, which cater for a range of productive capacities. Thus the least productive workers, as at St. Just, perform very simple, repetitive operations such as assembly, packing, and construction. Contracts are sought, as at St. Just, from mainstream industrial and commercial firms, including the French postal service. Much of the industrial work is obtained from the truck-making sector of the automobile industry, where volumes are low enough to make this kind of out-sourcing economical. As at St. Just management devotes a great deal of effort to pursuit of such contracts. Orders come irregularly and sometimes there is no work for particular sections to do, while at other times contracts have to be delivered in a rush.
4,4 Another problem is that blind people are difficult to include in certain lines of production. Eg it was said that they could not work at sorting and packing printed texts for mailing. Nor can they operate some of the machinery. On the other hand they played a prominent part in the braille transcription department.
4,5 Contract arrangements with mainstream firms are similar to those at St. Just and employers who place orders with the Centre also reduce their liability to quota levy. Here also management understands that prices can be kept competitive because government augments very low wages.
4,6 there are broadly two kinds of work at Lyons: (i) metal work and (ii) paper work. It was said that people prefer the ‘paper’ to the ‘metal’ work because it is cleaner and nicer to touch. Management tries to explain to them that the metal workis crucial for bringing in a lot of money to sustain the business and operates a policy of rotating all teams through the departments of the workshop.
4,7 As at St. Just, progression at Lyons appeared to be minimal. It is in the mission of the organisation, but these workers are thought to be ‘too slow, too handicapped’ to work in mainstream firms. As at St. Just, a few have been placed with mainstream employers under supervision by Centre staff.
4,8 Finally, it may be noted that avh has 3 workshops: at lyons, paris and in central france. this at Lyons is said to be the most go-ahead. Applicants wait up to two years after assessment to obtain a place in the work force. The lack of places is attributed to inadequate state funding of sheltered employment.
5,1 As stated above, these visits arose from discussions in a working group appointed by EBU. The discussants had in mind the argument of the ‘mainstreaming’ movement that all disabled people can and should be supported at work in mainstream firms. EBU has argued that for many, including blind people with additional disabilities, ‘mainstreaming’ and ‘special provision’ are complementary. This is because they need impairment-sensitive training in relevant skills and it has not yet been shown that this can be practically provided for all of them in mainstream settings. It may be that ‘Centres for supported employment’ in every region would be a more practical way of delivering skills training and job experience. From such centres people would progress into mainstream employment, as is said to be the practice at ‘Blindcraft’ Glasgow. It may also be that such centres would be able to provide permanent employment for very slow workers who are unable to progress.
5,2 EBU suggested that such centres might be organised as social firms, co-operatives or reformed sheltered workshops. It was with this last model in mind that I wished to become closely acquainted with the practice in France. During the visit I took the opportunity of discussing these issues with our French colleagues.
5.3 Though not hostile to ‘progression’ in principle, they were very sceptical about its possibility for most of the disabled people they recruit. ‘They are too slow’ was the reason given for their scepticism. As shown above, a small number have progressed, but they did not think this was likely to be common.
5,4 Advocates of supported mainstream employment have offered many reasons why this view is held so tenaciously by those who run sheltered workshops. The protection they offer from the insecurities of the mainstream labour market encourages the more disabled workers to cling to it. Again, abler workers are not encouraged to progress because the workshop management regards them as key to boosting the workshop's's production and so diminishing dependence on subsidy.
5,5 I encountered no direct evidence of such attitudes at St. Just or Lyons, but it would be naive to think that they could not exist. In the case of St. JUST,, its very rural setting must, in itself, act as a barrier to progression. At Lyons it was obvious that the two blind finger proof readers were key to braille production and, at both firms, one sensed that the ‘faster’ workers were key to the mechanised production which attracted lucrative contracts from mainstream firms. The very irregularity of orders, requiring contracts to be carried out ‘in a rush’ is likely to reinforce such attitudes.
5,6 It also seemed clear that the very committed and dynamic chiefs of these firms looked for their success to the French system of sheltered employment, which is generous with subsidy and penalises, through the sanction of the quota levy, mainstream employers who do not recruit disabled workers or contract out to sheltered workshops. As is widely acknowledged, the system is powerfully entrenched in French culture. M. Chazal, at least, is confident it is not under threat from any foreseeable change of government. On the other hand, it is obviously not producing a dynamic expansion of sheltered employment in France, as far as blind people are concerned. With only 700 employed in the sector and only 7000 out of 60'000 ‘legally blind’ employed in the mainstream, France has a long way to go in reducing the rate of economic inactivity.
5,7 However, this can be shown to be true of practically every member-state in the European Union. Neither sheltered employment nor reserved occupations nor supported employment in mainstream, has made significant in-roads into rates of economic inactivity that range upwards from 40 percent.
5,8 In Britain, the Royal National Institute of Blind People (RNIB) has persuasively argued that this is because employers and employment services fail to provide adequate resources for impairment-specific training of blind people who are disadvantaged by additional impairments, long-term unemployment, advancing age or low skills. The centres at St. Just and at Lyons have shown that they can take such blind people and turn them into productive workers. Each admit that blind people present special difficulties in relation to certain lines of production, eg sorting and packing printed text, but each acknowledges the need to make special provision for blind people. This is the positive effect produced by these two firms.
5,9 Are they, on the other hand, reinforcing the ‘ghetto’ effect of traditional sheltered workshops. There was a lot of evidence to suggest that they were, especially at St. Just, with its rural setting and 70-apartment residential bloc. Neither firm seemed to have gone out of its way to recruit able-bodied people to work alongside disabled on the basis of equal value, a major principle advocated by social firms in the UK. On the other hand, each could argue that it had taken some countervailing measures to mitigate this effect, such as the arrangement for progression (albeit very limited) seeking an urban location for the new workshop at Mondidier, and the fact that employees at Lyons live out. M. Chazal is of opinion that these ‘inclusive’ practises could be extended.
5,10 My own general conclusion is that EBU would be very unwise to turn its back on the French system on the grounds of ‘mainstreaming’ ideology. Advocates of supported employment in the mainstream have achieved very little for blind people. Until they can point to blind workers with additional/complex needs working in the mainstream, they are in no position to be dismissive of a system which actually provides employment for such people. In so providing, these workshops positively demonstrate that it is not unwillingness to work that keeps the economically inactive at home. Nor is it the unfavourable ratio of wages to benefits. The workers at St. Just and Lyons appear to value employment for its non-economic benefits and this may be not unrelated to the level of ‘protection’ which France offers them. On the other hand, sheltered employment can be made more inclusive. One way to demonstrate this is to move closer to mainstream supported employment by bringing able-bodied workers into the firm and making every opportunity for disabled workers to progress out of it. This is why Ebu is insisting that special provision is complementary to mainstreaming. That is the challenge for every member state of the EU to confront in relation to blind people with additional difficulties.
Dr. Fred Reid, 25 March 2007.