disabilities eu us report en

8/6/2019 Disabilities Eu Us Report En

1/21

European Commission

Employment and Social

Affairs DG

ACCESS OF

PEOPLE WITH DISABILTIES

TO EMPLOYMENT

EU US SeminarBrussels, 17 18 November 2003


2/21

2

Access of People with Disabilities to Employment

EU-US Seminar

Brussels, 17-18 November 2003

Key Findings and Themes From the Seminar

Report prepared by:

Burt Perrin, Rapporteur

26 February 2004


3/21

i

Table of Contents

Executive Summary.......................................................................................................iii

I. Introduction............................................................................................................ 1

1.Background and Purpose of the Seminar ............................................................... 1

2.Purpose of This Report ........................................................................................... 1

II. Key Themes Arising from the Seminar ................................................................. 2

1.Context: The Nature of Barriers and the Key Role of Employment ...................... 2

2.Demographics: People with Disabilities Constitute a Sizeable, and Growing,Population ..............................................................................................................3

A. The size of the overall disability population is significant and growing .......... 3B. Access for people with disabilities benefits many others as well ..................... 3

3.There is a Strong Economic and Business Case for the Inclusion of People withDisabilities ............................................................................................................. 4

4.Equal Opportunities for People with Disabilities is a Human Rights Issue........... 4

5.How More People with Disabilities Can be Included in the Workplace................ 5

A. Initiatives by large enterprises...........................................................................5B.Need for more attention to Small and Medium Size Enterprises (SMEs) ........ 7C.Need for more attention to the retention of employees who develop

disabilities.......................................................................................................... 7D.Need for positive action for those individuals not able to move readily into

open employment .............................................................................................. 8E. Potential for the public sector, itself a major employer, to lead by example.... 9

6.A Multi-faceted Approach is Essential................................................................. 10

7.Design for All and the New Technology Major Potential to ImproveAccessibility for People with Disabilities, but Not a Panacea.............................10

8.Coordination and Partnership: Key Success Factors............................................ 11

A. Importance of cooperation among partners and stakeholders......................... 11B. Involvement of people with disabilities in the process is critical ................... 12

9.Need for Better Information about the Disability Population and for Evaluationof Strategies and Interventions............................................................................. 12

A. Conflicting definitions and poor quality data regarding the disabilitypopulation........................................................................................................ 12

B. Lack of good information about what works or not, for whom, and in whatsituations, such as the effectiveness of ALMPs .............................................. 13

III. Conclusion: Overall Observations of the Rapporteur..........................................14

Annexes:1. Programme2. List of participants3. Opening speeches4. Session 1: Presentations


4/21

ii

5. Session 2: Presentations6. Session 3: Presentations


5/21

iii

Executive Summary

A joint seminar between the EU and the US was held in Brussels in November 2003, withinthe context of the New Transatlantic Agenda and in relation to the European Year of Peoplewith Disabilities 2003. The purpose of the seminar was to explore barriers to employment that

people with disabilities are facing, policies that could address these barriers and increase theintegration of people with disabilities into the labour market, and to exchange good practicesand other ideas.

Participants at the seminar included representatives of the full range of social partners as wellas high-level officials from both the US and the EU. This setting provided a rare opportunityfor an exchange of views and experiences across sectors, with many constructiveinterventions from all sides. The text of this report summarises the key themes that emergedfrom the seminar. Papers of the main presenters are also included in the annex to the report.Following are some highlights.

Speakers and participants from all sectors emphasised the key role of employment for socialinclusion. Yet they also identified numerous barriers in society, including not just physical

barriers but also attitudinal barriers and a range of systemic factors that lead to socialexclusion and that prevent people with disabilities from taking their proper place in theemployment sector and in society. This in turn was identified as a human rights issue,including by officials in both the EU and the EU.

Demographics received particular attention at the seminar. Due to demographic changes, inparticular the aging of society, the disability population in both the EU and the US is sizableand growing. It was observed that we are not talking any more about a small minority who

require special treatment. Furthermore, a number of participants indicated how providingaccess for people with disabilities can benefit many others as well. There is also a strongeconomic and business case for including people with disabilities in society and in theworkplace. This not only benefits society, but as many of the corporate representativesemphasised, it benefits businesses themselves.

A number of ideas emerged about how more people with disabilities can be included in theworkforce. For example:

Representatives of large businesses in both the US and the EU emphasised theimportance of working simultaneously to address issues concerning

accommodation, accessibility, and attitudes. They identified many spin-off benefitsto the businesses themselves, emphasising how including workers with disabilitiesis compatible with good business objectives.

Speakers identified the need for more attention to the development of strategies tosupport the employment of people with disabilities in small businesses, given thatsome 98 percent of European businesses are SMEs (small and medium sizeenterprises), with an average of six employees each.

There is a need for more attention by all sectors to the retention of employees whobecome disabled while already employed, given that 70 percent of people with

disabilities become disabled while they are already in the workforce. It was pointed out that the public sector is itself a major employer, with the

potential for it to lead by example.


6/21

iv

There is a need for more positive action for those individuals who are not able tomove readily into open (competitive) employment.

On this last point, forceful interventions by a number of participants, including thoserepresenting disability NGOs, emphasised that a sizable proportion of people with disabilities

are not in a position to be able to enter directly into open employment, at least not withoutspecial assistance. There is a need for special supports and alternatives. Success factorsidentified in an evaluation of Active Labour Market Policies in the EU include: developing a

personalised reintegration plan, addressing the wishes and motivations of both people withdisabilities and of (future) employers in these plans, and providing for cooperation andcoordination among partners and key stakeholders.

There was also considerable discussion about the potential of Design for All and oftechnology to level the playing field. With accessibility built in from the start, and ofteninvisibly, disability ceases to become an issue. But speakers also emphasised that whiletechnology is a crucial part of the solution to employment, it is no panacea and by itself is notenough.

Following are some other key themes that arose at the seminar:

The need for a multi-faceted approach, recognising that accessible and affordabletransport, housing, and access to education and community services and needed

personal supports are also prerequisites to employment.

The importance of involvement of people with disabilities in establishing policyand programme directions, to give them an opportunity to indicate themselves whattheir needs and requirements are.

The need for clearer definitions of disability, for better data regarding the disabilitypopulation, and for more evaluations documenting which strategies are effective ornot, for whom, and in what situations in enabling people with disabilities to beemployed.

In conclusion, the seminar identified a number of challenges, but also some ways in whichthese can be addressed. There are significant differences between the US and the EU, e.g.with different political structures and dynamics, historical traditions and social contexts.Because of this, it will be necessary to adapt rather than to transpose good practices from one

jurisdiction to another. Nevertheless, it was apparent from the seminar that there can be great

potential for both the EU and the US to learn from each others experiences on both sides ofthe Atlantic.


7/21

1

I. Introduction

1. Background and Purpose of the Seminar

Cooperation between the EU and the US has been formalised since 1995 in the NewTransatlantic Agenda and the Joint EU-US Action Plan. This arrangement has provided for arange of joint seminars and conferences in order to share experiences on a wide range ofthemes.

The theme of this years seminar: Access of People with Disabilities to Employment, wasplanned to take place in relation to the European Year of People with Disabilities 2003. Thepurpose of the seminar, intended to enhance cooperation between the EU and the US, was toexplore barriers to employment that people with disabilities are facing, policies that couldaddress these barriers and increase the integration of people with disabilities into the labourmarket, and to exchange good practices and other ideas.

The seminar had a variety of sessions, all in plenary, organised around the following topics:

Employment policies. Accessibility as a factor for employment with special emphasis on e-accessibility. Management of disability at the workplace. How to mobilise and convince the relevant actors and to disseminate good

practices.

Each session consisted of keynote addresses, brief reactions from discussants, and extensiveopen discussion among all participants. Annex 1 presents the Agenda for the Seminar, alongwith the names and affiliations of the session chairs, presenters, and discussants. Annex 2

provides a list of all participants, along with their contact details. Papers of the presenters arein Annex 3.

2. Purpose of This Report

The purpose of this report is to provide a short summary or overview of the key points andkey implications arising from the overall seminar. As such, this report does not represent thefull proceedings of the seminar, nor can it touch upon all the issues that were mentioned at theseminar. Annex 3 however provides the papers that were presented by the presenters. In most

cases, these papers provide references, including to relevant websites, where the interestedreader can turn for more information.

This paper draws upon the following sources of information:

Formal presentations by the keynote speakers. Remarks of the discussants and panel members in the final session. Contributions of the participants. Supplementary documentation provided in some cases by speakers and by other

participants.

To a large extent, many of the key points that arose from the seminar came up at more thanone session, often with the same points coming up repeatedly, in different ways, throughout


8/21

2

the entire seminar. Thus this report is organised by the overriding themes that emergedthrough the seminar, rather than by who said what at each particular session.

The limitations of this report should be noted. The themes and information presented anddiscussed are restricted to the above sources of information. In particular, what was presented

at the seminar, and what is contained in this report, of necessity cannot be expectednecessarily to represent a full picture of what is taking place in either the EU or the US. Also,while there are many possible implications arising from the seminar for both the EU and theUS, it is beyond the scope of this paper to identify specific policy and action implications.Hopefully this will be something that both sides will do as part of their follow-up, using theinformation in this report and in the annexes as applicable.

II. Key Themes Arising from the Seminar

1. Context: The Nature of Barriers and the Key Role of Employment

All speakers and other participants recognised that handicap represents barriers created bythe environment, rather than something inherent in an individual. Thus it is inappropriate torefer to individuals as handicapped. As Mme Odile Quentin, Director-General of theEmployment and Social Affairs DG in the European Commission, indicated in her openingremarks:

One is not born handicapped. One is not handicapped. One doesnot suffer from a handicap. But one is frequently confronted with

obstacles and barriers in ones daily environment, in access toeducation, to employment, to everyday shopping and use of public

facilities, to health services. It is these obstacles, these barriers, thatcreate a situation of handicap.

Participants also emphasised throughout the seminar that barriers are more than just physicalimpediments. For example, social representations and negative attitudes towards of peoplewith disabilities and their potential to work can be just as great a barrier to employment aslack of physical access to the worksite. Participants also spoke of systemic barriers, such asthose that prevent many people with disabilities from acquiring a proper education and beingable to gain critical skills, which in turn act as obstacles preventing them from being able to

participate in the workforce and in the community. It is barriers in society that lead to socialexclusion. In order for people with disabilities to be able to take their proper place in the

employment sector, it is necessary that these barriers be removed.

Another overriding theme highlighted at the seminar is the key role of employment for socialinclusion. Employment provides the opportunity for individuals to gain economicindependence, and to be able to live independently in the community with dignity. This pointwas emphasised by speakers and participants from all sectors, e.g. from disability NGOs suchas European Disability Forum (EDF) as well as from the corporate sector, trade unions, andgovernment. E.g. Dr Roy Grizzard, the Assistant Secretary of the Office of Disability Policy(ODEP) in the US Department of Labor, indicated that this thinking was behind the creationof ODEP as well as recent policy and legislative developments in the US. Madelyn BryantMcIntire of Microsoft observed that: Employment is the single most important element of

social inclusion.


9/21

3

Yet it appears that in both the EU and the US, the unemployment rate among peoplewith disabilities is approximately 70 percent. Despite legislative and other advances,most people with disabilities are not working.

2. Demographics: People with Disabilities Constitute a Sizeable,and Growing, Population

A. The size of the overall disability population is significant and growing

Demographics, while not formally on the agenda at the seminar, came up repeatedly duringthe course of the seminar as an important issue, representing both a challenge and also amajor opportunity to provide for inclusion of people with disabilities within the workplaceand within society generally.

Estimates of the numbers of people with disabilities vary. The most common estimatementioned by speakers, for both the US and in the EU, is about 12 percent of the overall

population. This in itself is hardly a negligible minority. And it is much higher for certainsectors of society, such as older people, including people still in the workforce.

However, as many of the speakers and participants noted, we are facing a forthcomingdemographic explosion that will significantly increase the numbers and proportion of peoplewith disabilities in society. With the baby boomers starting to get on, our society is agingrapidly. And the onset of disability is closely related to age. Indeed, as was noted during theseminar,some 70 percent of people with disabilities become disabled while they already areworking. Christian Bhler, in his presentation, indicated that the percentage of people with a

registered disability in EU countries is expected to increase from 11 percent at present to 17by 2020. McIntire indicated that mostpeople will, at some point in their lives, develop adisability. This means thateveryone is susceptible to disability.

Thus, as Dr Grizzard and a number of speakers noted, we are not talking any more about asmall minority who require special treatment. Rather, we are speaking ofa sizeable andincreasing share of the population. As some speakers observed, Europe has more of an aging

population than does the US. Thus the proportion of the population that will have a disabilitywill be even larger in Europe, and growing at a faster rate, than in the US.

B. Access for people with disabilities benefits many others as well

Moreover, it became apparent throughout the seminar that the distinction between disabledand non disabled and who can benefit from accessibility features is becoming increasingly

blurred. Indeed, many measures that can benefit people with disabilities and enable them toparticipate at work and in the community also can benefit many others as well.

For example, McIntire indicated that Microsofts research found that mostworkers (60%)who are notlabelled disabled, and who do not consider themselves as such, neverthelesscould benefit from accessibility features (and 95 percent of them are not using these). AsMme Quentin observed, removal of the same barriers that prevent people with disabilitiesfrom participating in society and in work could benefit others as well. For example, easier

physical access can not only assist wheelchair users, but also many others such as thosetemporarily incapacitated, people taking a baby about in a pushchair, older persons, peoplewith luggage or large packages, etc. John Foley indicated that Waterford Crystal found that


10/21

4

making its factories accessible improved the business operations. And as we discuss inSection 7, nearly everyone can benefit for Design for All.

Thus the removal of barriers, in one way or another, can benefit far more than just a tinysegment of the overall population.

3. There is a Strong Economic and Business Case for the Inclusionof People with Disabilities

While many people in the course of the seminar made the point, the business case foremploying people with disabilities perhaps was made most forcefully by the corporate sectorrepresentatives at the seminar. For example, Foley identified many benefits to WaterfordCrystal arising directly and indirectly from training and accommodating its workplace for itsemployees with disabilities. Jim Sinocchi made similar observations about IBMs longexperience in accommodating workers with disabilities. He emphasised that it is not good

business sense to fail to take advantage of the skills and abilities offered by individuals whohappen to have a disability.

Others observed that it represents an expensive waste of skilled and experienced staff to failto support employees who develop a disability while employed. Yet as Section 5.C discusses,there is limited attention to retention.

Dr Grizzard, as well as others, observed that the economic argument for employing peoplewith disabilities is becoming stronger. As he observed, due to the aging of the population andthe coming retirement of many of the baby boom generation: On both sides of the Atlantic,we will face a jobs and skills gap in five to seven years.

Dr Grizzard further made the case, forcefully, that there is also a strong business argument forenterprises to make their services and products accessible to all. Otherwise, they are cuttingoff themselves from a potentially huge customer base. He cited statistics indicating that in theUS, the spending power of people with disabilities is just slightly less than $1 trillion, ofwhich $220 billion is in the form of discretionary spending. As he pointed out, this representsa formidable potential market, if businesses are willing to take advantage of it, by makingtheir products and services, including their premises, accessible and usable by all, including

people with disabilities.

Gerard Quinn observed, however, that it is much harder in Europe at the moment to make the

business or economic case for accommodating people with disabilities, as the charity modelof disability is still prevalent.

4. Equal Opportunities for People with Disabilities is a HumanRights Issue

First and foremost, however, all participants from all sectors, from the EU as well as from theUS, emphasised that the inclusion of people with disabilities in society and in society, alongwith the necessary accommodations, is a matter ofright. Dr Grizzard and Susan Parker,Director of Policy and Research at ODEP, both emphasised that the Americans withDisabilities Act (ADA) is primarily a civil rights bill for people with disabilities. In essence, it

extends the same civil rights that started with other minority groups to people withdisabilities. All participants, from the EU as well as from the US, seemed to recognise andapplaud this key aspect of ADA.


11/21

5

Mme Quentin pointed out that the EU similarly recognises the fundamental right of peoplewith disabilities to equality and inclusion, for example as provided in Article 13 of the EUTreaty. A number of participants, however, indicated that the situation in Europe in terms ofrights is somewhat less clear at the moment than in the US. For example, they indicated that

the protection provide by the EU Treaty is weaker than they would like. Both Quinn andFoley indicated that the human rights view of disability is newer in Europe than in the US,and as Foley put it: Public attitudes towards disability are still based on charity rather than onrights, and referred to disability as the last great civil rights struggle.

Speakers from both the US and the EU identified the twin concepts of reasonableaccommodation and undue hardship as key to ADA and essential for people with disabilities,even though some concern was expressed about how these concepts are being interpreted. AsMme Quentin put it: The absence of reasonable accommodation constitutes discrimination.

According to the participants at the seminar, rights legislation is critical. For example,

Sinocchi of IBM emphasised the importance of legislation in various countries (he referrednot only to ADA in the US, but also to various quota systems and other forms of legislation inmany EU Member States and elsewhere, e.g. Canada, South Africa, Australia), indicating thatlegislation led the way to concrete action by businesses and others.

As essential as legislation is, however, it is not sufficient. Appropriate action unfortunatelydoes not necessarily follow, due to a lack of awareness of the legislation and its implications,lack of awareness of available supports, misinformation (e.g. about the cost ofaccommodation; as Dr Grizzard stated that it is not always recognised that mostaccommodations can be done for less than $1000, with many costing nothing at all), or more

basically due to lack of interest or awareness of the potential of people with disabilities to beproductive employees. For example, Sinocchi pointed out that 77 percent of US employers donot take advantage of available tax breaks for accommodations. And Maria Flynn of ODEPindicated that in spite of ADA and the other forms of legislation identified in Parkers talk,only 25 percent of employers in the US have any employees with disabilities . The situation isunlikely to be very different in the EU.

Thus it appears that legislation needs to be complemented with supportive policies andmeasures that address the reasons for lack of action. Along these lines, Sheldon Bradshaw ofthe Civil Rights Division, US Department of Justice, indicated that whenever possible, hisdepartment attempts to avoid litigation, for example by pointing out the business case for

accommodation and helping businesses comply with the law. Dr Grizzard referred to the JobAccommodation Network (JAN) as an example of a service intended to help businesses learnwhat is required in order to make effective accommodations.

5. How More People with Disabilities Can be Included in theWorkplace

A. Initiatives by large enterprises

The seminar featured presentations by Waterford Crystal, based in Ireland, and by IBM, about

the approaches that they have being taking to facilitate the inclusion of employees withdisabilities within their own respective workforces.


12/21

6

Foley briefly described the CODE Project (Creating Options for Disabled Employees),undertaken with support from the EU HORIZON programme1, which was undertaken toassist Waterford Crystal in becoming a more inclusive organisation, where theaccommodation of differences is accepted as an operational standard. The Project involvedvarious components, including:

An extensive training programme for disabled employees and others from thecommunity, based upon the current and future needs of the business.

A disability awareness programme for 60 managers. Infrastructure improvements at Waterford Crystals two plants. Transnational partnerships with different types of organisations in different EU

countries.

A variety of other activities, e.g. joint management-employee-trade unioninvolvement, creation of an employers network (Job Net South East), and manyothers.

Foley indicated that the Project was highly successful, resulting in the creation of a moreinclusive organisation, with supportive practices and attitudes, as well as the employment ofan increased number of people with disabilities whose productivity is in line with theremainder of the workforce.

Sinocchi described the comprehensive approach used throughout IBM, emphasising the needto work simultaneously at all levels. The IBM approach involves The Three As:

Accommodation, Accessibility, and Attitudes.Some of the features of IBMs approach include:

The People with Disabilities Executive Task Force a global project. A cost recovery process for funding accommodations, so that the cost of

accommodations does not come out of a departmental budget.

Building the Pipeline: a variety of programmes for school-aged children in variouscountries.

Other activities that go beyond IBMs own workplace, e.g. working with the mediato build awareness of the potential of people with disabilities to work effectivelyand to encourage other employers to take similar approaches.

Sinocchi emphasised the need to develop disability leaders, rather than placing people withdisabilities in just any type of job. He said that 47 percent of the disabled employees at IBMwork in key jobs (e.g. software engineers).

In both these presentations, as well as through the comments of other participants, attitudinalbarriers come out as crucial. E.g. Sinocchi constantly emphasised that it is crucial that people

1 Foleys paper in Annex 3 discusses the role of EU funding programmes.


13/21

7

with disabilities be viewed for their skills rather than for their disabilities. Foley cited onesenior manager in his company who remarked that: The employment of people withdisabilities is purely psychological from a management perspective. The evidence from these

presentations, as well as from other sources, demonstrates that these attitudes can beaddressed, and successfully.

Another constant theme, as noted earlier, is that including workers with disabilities iscompatible with good business objectives. Sinocchi constantly emphasised the loss to a

business of excluding skilled workers through a failure to provide accommodations. Foleyindicated that the CODE Project, in addition to enabling employees with disabilities to

perform in line with the rest of the workforce, had many ancillary benefits, including: atraining programme available to all employees, better access for all to all areas of the factoriesthat has improved mainstream operations, and management-employee-trade union relations[that] have been improved as the joint approach and success of the project confirmed a senseof shared values.

Nevertheless, despite some impressive work, it clearly is not easy. For example, despite therecognised accomplishments of IBM, it was acknowledged that the proportion of employeeswith disabilities in its workforce is still less than that in the overall population, and it has haddifficulty in meeting quotas in some EU countries.

B. Need for more attention to Small and Medium Size Enterprises (SMEs)

Micha van Lin, in his presentation, indicated that while the large corporations get much of theattention, in factsome 98 percent of European businesses are SMEs, with an average of sixemployees each. The profile is not likely to be all that different in the US. Nevertheless, thissector received little formal attention at this seminar, and participants felt that it largely has

been neglected in terms of encouraging and facilitating greater employment of people withdisabilities.

It is apparent that appropriate strategies to support the employment of people with disabilitieswill vary, at least to some extent, in accordance with the size of the enterprise. Strategies thatmay apply to big businesses may not work in the same way for SMEs. And the converse may

be true as well. Moreover, there is tremendous variety in the size and nature of businesses thatare classified as SMEs. For example, those with just a very few employees are likely to be ina somewhat different situation than those with dozens, or even hundreds, of employees.

Participants at the seminar suggested that this is an area requiring more attention and action.

C. Need for more attention to the retention of employees who developdisabilities

A strong consensus emerged at the seminar that there is a need for much more attention by allsectors to the retention of employees who become disabled while already employed. As DrGrizzard indicated, 70 percent of people with disabilities become disabled while they arealready in the workforce.

Yet there seems to be limited attention and support to employees and to their employers toenable a newly disabled worker to be able to continue to work. While there are notable

exceptions, it was pointed out that all too often employees who develop a disability areignored during the critical initial phase, when it has been demonstrated that immediatereintegration assistance is most likely to be effective. Help and attention may not be availableuntil after individuals already have lost their jobs, and sometimes not for some time


14/21

8

afterwards. Some government benefit and other form of assistance programmes inadvertentlymay act as disincentives, for example by providing assistance to individuals only after theyhave lost their jobs.

Increased support for the retention of newly disabled employees would appear to represent be

a win-win situation. Losing a skilled and experienced employee who could beaccommodated makes no sense to an employer from a business perspective. With anincreasingly aging workforce, a larger share of current employees can be expected to bedeveloping disabilities. These employees in particular may be difficult (or at least expensive)to replace. It can also be costly to governments, and to taxpayers, in terms of having to

provide social assistance and losing the taxes of an individual who is lost from the workforce.It can be devastating to the individual and to her/his family to lose a job and a viable means ofsupport.

Dr Grizzard mentioned JAN again as an example of a service intended to provide ideas abouthow individuals who become disabled while working can be accommodated. Beverley

Webster suggested that the EU may be behind the US in failing to recognise the need to helpwith retention.

D. Need for positive action for those individuals not able to move readilyinto open employment

Perhaps the most forceful point repeatedly emphasised by a number of participants, inparticular by those representing disability NGOs, is that a sizable proportion of people withdisabilities are not in a position to be able to enter directly into open (competitive)employment, at least not without special assistance. They agreed about the importance ofeliminating barriers to employment for qualified people, e.g. as defined in ADA, and on

emphasising a persons skills and abilities rather than their disabilities. But they emphasisedthat not everyone is in this position, e.g. that there are many people with disabilities who havefaced barriers preventing them from acquiring a proper education, social and work skills andemployment experience. As a result of these and other factors, the reality is that many peoplerequire special supports and/or alternatives to open employment, and a number of participantsfelt that this did not receive sufficient emphasis in the formal presentations at the seminar.

For example, Fred Reid of the Royal National Institute of the Blind (RNIB) emphasises thatthose distant from the labour market need special supports and alternatives in order to be ableto be employed, right up to mainstream employment. He suggested that there should be moreconsideration of the role that the third sector can play, giving the example of social

enterprises that need not be segregated and that can provide for meaningful work with realpay. Stefan Trmel, Executive Director of the European Disability Forum (EDF), agreed thatthere is a need for more education and for more investment in the workplace. But he alsostressed the need for the provision of assistance for others who may require permanentsupport, potentially throughout their lives.

Along these lines, the focus of van Lins paper was on presenting the findings of a researchstudy on the use and impact of Active Labour Market Policies (ALMPs) within the EU. Heindicated that there are two basic types of ALMPs:

Mainstream ALMPs intended for all sorts of people with a labour marketlimitation (including people with disabilities along with other groups).

Specialist ALMPs, specifically targeted at people with disabilities.


15/21

9

Each of these categories contains a variety of different programme approaches. The mix ofALMPs (within and between the two above general categories) varies considerably across theMember States within the EU. The study found that despite a priority to mainstreaming, about40 percent of all ALMPs were specialist, with at least half, and likely much more, ofexpenditures channelled into these ALMPs.

While the lack of a good database and of evaluation information limited the conclusions abouteffectiveness that could be drawn, the study nevertheless was able to identify the followingsuccess factors:

Addressing the wishes and motivations of both people with disabilities and of(future) employers prior to starting reintegration measures.

Case management with a personalised reintegration plan, rather than a one-size-fits-all approach.

The importance of cooperation and coordination involving key stakeholders.Some other key findings of the study include:

Sheltered workshops demonstrated low transfer rates to open employment, withsome built-in disincentives.

There were mixed findings on the impact of subsidised employment and vocationalrehabilitation, with the available evidence suggesting that they must be directlylinked to individual plans.

During the discussion, Parker mentioned supported employment in the US for individuals

with development handicaps who can only work somewhat. Some others commented on thelow wages typically received in this arrangement.

The issue of addressing the needs of people with disabilities who are not in a position to enter

directly into open employment clearly emerged at the seminar as an area requiring moreattention and likely a greater investment of resources. Participants noted that this does notnecessarily have to represent segregated services. They identified the need both for greateraccess to (appropriate and accommodating) mainstream services (e.g. vocational trainingcentres), as well as for specialised services for those who require them, emphasising (onceagain this remark came up repeatedly throughout the seminar!) that one size does not fit all.

E. Potential for the public sector, itself a major employer, to lead byexample

Governments are exhorting private sector employers to hire and to support employees withdisabilities. But as was noted, the public sector itself is a major employer. Following theapproaches for itself that it advocates for others and acting as a model employer can have atwo-fold benefit. First, this can benefit many thousands of employees within various forms of

public sector employment. Secondly, this can enable government to lead by example, todemonstrate to other employers what it is doing itself and how. But in order to do this, itsefforts at hiring and supporting employees with disabilities must be genuine, withdemonstrated benefits. Otherwise it inadvertently could give the wrong message.

It was also noted that ADA and other US federal statues do encourage (or even require) boththe federal government, and also state and local governments, to take action in this direction.It is not clear, however, at the seminar how well this is working out in practice.


16/21

10

6. A Multi-faceted Approach is Essential

One of the themes that Dr Grizzard kept on emphasising throughout the seminar is the need toact simultaneously, on all fronts, in order to enable people with disabilities to be employedand to participate in the community. As he put it, there is little point in providing someonewith a job if there is a lack of accessible transport enabling the person to get to and fromwork, if they cannot receive necessary personal supports, and if they lack affordable andaccessible housing, access to health care, access to shops and to other services in thecommunity, and they are unable to obtain the requisite education and training in order todevelop and to update their skills. He indicated that a key feature of the recent New Freedom

Initiative (NFI) is to promote inter-departmental coordination within the US federalgovernment (similar to mainstreaming strategy in EU terminology).

Others made similar points. For example, McIntire spoke of the importance of access tolibraries, as well as to the above array of services. Many different speakers and participantsunderlined the importance of education, including both basic education as well as access to

lifelong learning. Along these lines, Dr Grizzard emphasised the importance of assisting withthe school-to-work transition, and cited the Workforce Recruitment Programme which assistsdisabled college students as an example of an initiative to help along these lines. Sinocchiunderlined the same themes, and spoke of IBMs efforts along multiple lines. One of thestrengths of ADA that was identified was its applicability across all areas of life. Participantsfrom the EU concurred with the need to take a comprehensive approach. Some people noted,however, that current EU directives provide less protection against discrimination in otherareas than for employment.

7. Design for All and the New Technology Major Potential to

Improve Accessibility for People with Disabilities, but Not aPanacea

Another major theme that came up throughout the seminar was the importance of Design forAll and the potential of technology to assist in this regard. With accessibility built in from thestart, and often invisibly, disability ceases to become an issue. It is also compatible with ahuman rights approach, where the needs of all citizens are taken into account right from the

beginning.

As some of the participants noted, making all forms of facilities accessible right from the startis considerably easier and cheaper than retrofitting, in many cases involving no added

expense. As discussed earlier, accessibility for all can also benefit many people who wouldnot be thought of as having a disability.

There was also considerable discussion about the potential of technology to level the playingfield provided that considerations of accessibility are taken into account throughout thedesign process. This represented a major theme at the seminar, with lots of discussion abouthow technology can eliminate barriers and help to level the playing field and create anaccessible work environment, often invisibly so. Bhler in his presentation spoke of theeEurope initiative, and how to move from eAccessibility to eInclusion, with action plan andtargets in a number of areas to improve the overall accessibility and usability of technology

by all. Some of the participants also noted that technology is now moving beyond what often

is currently thought of as computers or technological devices, (e.g. ranging from improvingthe usability of a range of household appliances by all people to accessible, smart houses).


17/21

11

IBMs vision for accessibility, presented by Robert Brostrom of ODEP, stressed theimportance of designing technology so that it is useable by all, so that the issues ofaccessibility and disability becomes invisible and largely irrelevant. McIntire indicated thatMicrosoft takes a similar approach. She indicated that many people are reluctant to selfidentify as having a disability (often for good reason, e.g. fear of losing their jobs), including

many employees whose functional capacities become progressively worse while employed.As a result, many people are reluctant to make use of accessibility features that could improvetheir productivity and their quality of life. She said that one thus needs to be sneaky, so that

people get the accessibility features that they need without necessarily even knowing it.

McIntire also indicated that engineers and software designers need to think about maximisinguse of their products for everyone, rather than creating them for a specific disabled

population. To help along these lines, she said that considerations about accessibility need tobe built into the core education of engineers, and of others involved in the development oftechnology.

Nevertheless, some contradictions and questions about the limits of Design for All and oftechnology came up in some of the presentations and in the discussion. For example, McIntirein her presentation indicated that: Technology can solve many problems, but it can notfundamentally change a society that lacks the support mechanisms and social acceptance thatis necessary. She added that while technology is a crucial part of the solution to employment,it by itself is not enough and is no silver bullet, indicating (once again!) that one size doesnot fit all.

In a forceful intervention, Rodolfo Cattoni of the European Blind Union indicated that the reallives of most people with disabilities are not affected by all the technological advances spokenof my some of the speakers. He noted that many of the technological devices mentioned arecostly and are unaffordable for many people with disabilities. He raised concerns about thecreation of a digital divide, where poor people, including most people with disabilities,

become further distanced and disadvantaged.

Bhler, in his presentation, highlighted the need for both Solutions for All (Design for All)andIndividual Solutions (Assistive Technology), as well as for non-technical assistance.

Thus it became apparent that technology has a crucial role to play in providing foraccessibility and the inclusion of people with disabilities at the workforce. Design for All cango a long way towards making accessibility invisible. But these are not panaceas. Individual

and non-technical approaches and solutions are still very much needed.

8. Coordination and Partnership: Key Success Factors

A. Importance of cooperation among partners and stakeholders

Coordination and cooperation emerged as important factors facilitating success in enablingpeople with disabilities to be employed and to participate in society. For example, van Linindicated that one of the key indicators of success identified in his study of ALMPs in EUcountries was the presence of coordination and cooperation, including various forms of

collaboration between institutions, local stakeholder organisations and networks. Hisresearch study found that such cooperation appeared to lead to higher reintegration rates.


18/21

12

Various US presentations at the seminar spoke of the importance of partnerships between thecorporate and government. EU presentations repeatedly stressed the importance of involvingthe full range of social partners, including businesses, trade unions, and NGOs of people withdisabilities, as well as service providers and government. Along these lines, Mme Quentinmentioned the role of a European Forum of Stakeholders, involving the social partners, as part

of implementation of the Commissions Action Plan for 2010.

As well, the EU facilitates social dialogue between employers and trade unions, to help inagreeing upon common approaches. Foleys presentation specifically mentioned howcollaboration between management and union assisted with the CODE Project at WaterfordCrystal, and in particular in assisting with attitudes towards employees with disabilities. Healso spoke of the usefulness of the Transnational partnerships, involving collaboration with

partners in various sector in a variety of EU Member States:

The Transnational partnership element of the project was extremelysuccessful. Many experiences and learning outcomes were shared that

helped to enhance the quality of the training provision.

B. Involvement of people with disabilities in the process is critical

People with disabilities need to be involved directly in establishing policy and programmedirections, to give them an opportunity to indicate themselves what their needs andrequirements are. This was not a point made just by representatives of NGOs. For example,Mme Quentin indicated that: It is absolutely essential to involve people with disabilities andtheir NGOs, all the way down the road, if we want to get an effective policy geared towards

inclusion and non discrimination.

Bhler similarly indicated that:

Another vital issue in the context of the information society and policyis the participation of people with disabilities themselves in these[eAccessibility] processes. The European umbrella EDF and otherEuropean and national disability organisations need to play an important

part on all levels. They have the knowledge, understanding and authorityof disability related matters through their members. EC and MemberStates try to involve such organisations in the development.

9. Need for Better Information about the Disability Population andfor Evaluation of Strategies and Interventions

A. Conflicting definitions and poor quality data regarding the disabilitypopulation

Van Lin pointed out in his presentation that:

There is no agreement on the exact definition of the concept ofdisability. The variation in sources and definitions has led to several

estimates of the proportion of EU citizens who are disabled.

Others, from both the US and the EU, agreed. Indeed, estimates of the size of the disabilitypopulation used by speakers both from the US and the EU varied considerably, ranging from8 percent to 20 percent. Two reasons for this situation were identified at the seminar.


19/21

13

First, as suggested above by van Lin, conflicting definitions of disability abound. Without aconsistent definition of disability, it is difficult to accurately describe the disability

population. As some others suggested, some definitions have been created specifically fordetermining eligibility for various benefits. These are not always consistent with one another.

Secondly, there is a lack of the type of survey research necessary in order to be able toestablish and size and characteristics of the disability population. As a result, the specificity ofall statistics that are being used to describe characteristics of the disability population can becalled into question, and should be treated as indicative rather than as precise descriptions.

Participants at the seminar indicated that this is more than just an academic statistical matter.Information about the nature of the disability population, including information about itscharacteristics and needs, can have important implications for policy and for programming.As Jrme Vignon, Director for Social Protection and Social Integration, Employment andSocial Affairs DG in the European Commission, indicated, this information is needed in orderto better target policies.

Furthermore, some participants indicated that how disability is defined can have significantimplications for rights. E.g. they suggested that there is a danger of definitions created for the

purposes of determining eligibility for a specific benefit being applied inappropriately in othercontexts for determining other forms of rights.

More solid information about the size and nature of the disability population is also importantfor advocacy. For example, it is harder to make the case, as was summarised at the beginningof this paper, about the size of the disability population and its significance, without a much

better awareness of who we are talking about and with more consistent use of figures. Betterdocumentation of characteristics and needs of the disability population can help demonstratethe need for various forms of accessibility, ranging from access to education to access to

public buildings. And this in turn can help transform rights on paper into reality.

B. Lack of good information about what works or not, for whom, and inwhat situations, such as the effectiveness of ALMPs

Van Lin indicated in his presentation about ALMPs that:

The major finding of this study is that in most countries little or nothingis known about the employment effects of the application of the measures

reported. This is a result of the poor programme participation statistics,lack of monitoring and follow up studies, as well as general weaknessesin evaluation methods.

This point was echoed by other participants, from both sides of the Atlantic. There is a lack ofevaluation of the effectiveness of policies and of programmatic approaches. As a result, thereis limited knowledge about which strategies work or not, for whom, and in what situations.Without knowing what works for whom and under what circumstances, policy is made in avacuum. There is a need to document good practices. For example, participants emphasisedthe need for much better information about what works in order to be able to target the mosteffective mainstream and specialised active labour market programmes, and to avoid carrying

on with activities known not to be effective in addressing the employment needs of peoplewith disabilities.


20/21

14

The need for better evaluation was made at least as forcefully by NGO representatives as bythose from government. For example, Fred Reid indicated that this point is mentioned in arecent publication of the RNIB (Creating an Employment Continuum: Creating Jobs by

Promoting Social Enterprise).

It was noted that both the US and the EU make provision for at least some research. E.g. DrGrizzard indicated in his presentation that ODEP is a research and development agency, andthat its mandate provides for funding various experimental programmes intended to eliminateemployment barriers. The European Social Fund, as well as other EU programmes, can fundsimilar initiatives in the EU.

But this clearly is not enough. Participants at the seminar noted the need for a majorevaluation component to be built into programmes, and for more attention to assessing how

well policies work in practice and under what circumstances.

III. Conclusion: Overall Observations of the Rapporteur

I was struck by the good, positive, constructive ambiance at this seminar. Speakers from boththe EU and the US were open in discussing strengths and challenges in current approachesand in engaging in dialogue about what else could be done to provide for fuller employmentof people with disabilities. The exchange of ideas and practices also indicated a strong interestin learning, demonstrating the value of this seminar and how both the US and the EU can gainfrom an exchange of experiences.

In my view, a major feature of the seminar was its format that provided for a high level of

audience participation. Participants included representatives of the full range of socialpartners, as well as high-level officials from both the US and the EU. This setting provided arare opportunity for an exchange of views and experiences across sectors, with manyconstructive interventions from all sides. In some cases, the discussion periods provided anopportunity for participants to put on the floor important considerations that they felt were notsufficiently emphasised in the formal presentations.

There are significant differences between the US and the EU, e.g. with different politicalstructures and dynamics, historical traditions and social contexts. Yet overall, this seminarindicated that there is far more in common between the two jurisdictions than is different withrespect to people with disabilities, their situation and their needs and with respect to

potential solutions.

For example, available data suggest that on the whole, there really is not much differencebetween the EU and the US in terms of the status of people with disabilities or theirparticipation in the labour market. The overall nature and range of interventions and solutionsbeing used are largely similar. Both jurisdictions face similar challenges, both currently andanticipated for the future.

There appears to be strengths and weaknesses of the approaches that have been used on bothsides of the Atlantic. It was evident from the seminar that there is something that each sidecan learn from the experiences of the other. Nevertheless, because of the different contexts, it

will be necessary to adapt rather than to transpose good practices from one jurisdiction toanother. At a minimum, information sharing, such as took place at this seminar, can provide


21/21

new ideas and serve as an opportunity to think about what is working well or not, and areasfor improvement.

Each jurisdiction seems to have its own particular strengths. It would be hard to say, at leaston the basis of what came out of the seminar, that one is superior overall. For example, the

civil rights approach to disability in the US, mandating access as a matter of right andincluding the principle of reasonable accommodation in legislation, is much admired in theEU as well as in the US and in other jurisdictions. It also seems that the US may have gonefurther than at least some parts of Europe in making public facilities accessible, and alsoforbidding discrimination by government contractors and other private as well as publicentities. Still, as we heard at the seminar, it is not always completely clear how these andother policies play out in practice.

One of the strengths within the EU appears to be the involvement of the full range of civilsociety and social partners, as well as the development of a mainstreaming strategy that

provides for an integrated perspective. In particular, it is recognised that people with

disabilities and their organisations need to be involved in the development of policy anddetermining how this should be implemented. Perhaps a fuller range of alternatives isavailable across EU Member States for those people who are not in a position to go directly, ifat all, into open (competitive) employment. The more extensive social structures within theEU may provide other benefits for people with disabilities and their families.

Some of the Europeans noted that speakers from the US, while acknowledging that problemsremain, are justifiably proud of their accomplishments and are not hesitant to talk about theirsuccesses. These suggested that perhaps one of the things that Europeans might take from theseminar is similarly not to be afraid to celebrate and to be proud of their own achievements.

And the same might apply with respect to people with disabilities in general. As manyspeakers at the seminar emphasised, one needs to focus on abilities rather than on limitationsand to eliminate barriers, so that allpeople, who happen to have a disability at the moment ornot, can take their place in employment and in society and in the process gaining selfincreased self confidence along with an improved quality of life.

But as was apparent at the seminar, there are no simplistic solutions. One must takesimultaneous action on multiple fronts, recognising for example that barriers to employmentarise in other seemingly unrelated areas, such as transport, housing, and education.Technology holds great promise of increasingly breaking down barriers and providing for

invisible accessibility. Yet it became clear this is not enough.

The elimination of some relatively easy-to-remove barriers, such as physical access toworksites, will be sufficient to enable some people to be able to be gainfully employed.Others will require the elimination of more complex barriers, such as attitudinal barriers andlack of education and skills resulting from lack of the ability to be accommodated ineducational programmes. But in many other cases, a range of positive actions will be requiredin order to enable many people with disabilities to be able to join the workforce.

It is critical to recognise that people with disabilities constitutes a disparate lot. One sizedoes not fit all, and a variety of different solutions will be required to provide for full access

to employment. This seminar provided a good opportunity for a Trans-Atlantic exchange ofexperiences and ideas along these lines.

disabilities eu us report en

Documents