review of specialist disability employment programmes (sayce review)
TRANSCRIPT
0800 334 5525
www.pluss.org.uk
Pluss is a Social Enterprise owned by Devon County Council, Plymouth City Council, Somerset County Council and Torbay Council.
Every year we inspire thousands of people with disabilities to achieve the career of their choice.
Our literature can be supplied on tape, in large print, on PC disk, in braille and in other languages and formats. Contact us to order your copy.
Response to the call for evidence from Pluss - February 2011
Review of Specialist Disability Employment Programmes (SAYCE review)
Pluss’ vision
Pluss’ Business Purpose
The provision of services that support the employment of people with disabilities and other disadvantages, always to include those furthest from the labour market.
About Pluss
Pluss is a Social Enterprise that supports thousands of people with disabilities and other disadvantages into employment each year. We do this through a range of specialist, local employment services and through direct employment within our commercial businesses.
We passionately believe that our services should always include those furthest from the labour market and that people should be empowered to succeed. Our highly experienced staff teams successfully support customers to find and succeed in work every day, and over the years this has given us a deep and thorough understanding of disability in the workplace.
Pluss is extremely successful at supporting people with a wide range of disabilities into work. We offer specialist employment services for people with a learning disability, mental health issues, physical disability, and long term health issues.
We also believe that people with disabilities make excellent employees and are committed to directly employing people with disabilities in our organisation; around half of our 500 strong workforce has a disability.
We are a Local Authority owned company with an annual turnover of £23 million. We currently manage, deliver and develop a range of innovative employability programmes on behalf of DWP, a number of Local Authorities, NHS, European Social Fund and Skills Funding Agency.
We also advise and support around 800 employers to recruit and retain staff with a disability, and embrace diversity in the workplace.
Our commercial enterprises offer permanent and paid trainee employment opportunities for hundreds of people with disabilities. They manufacture a range of products, and deliver community and mobility equipment services. Our commercial customers include Vi-Spring and the NHS.
People of all abilities are inspired to achieve a career
2 I
Remploy
I 3
Pluss have enjoyed good relationships with Remploy and have previously worked with them on areas of joint interest. It is, therefore, difficult for us to comment on an organisation who is both competitor and potential partner. However, there are two issues on which we would comment, firstly the Remploy factory based provision and secondly their Work Choice service provision.
It is generally believed that the Remploy factory provision is expensive and that they are finding difficulty in developing sufficient revenue from provision of goods and services. This situation is not sustainable over time.
Pluss would recommend that the factory operations within Remploy be reviewed with a view to them being managed and developed by others in the supported employment / social enterprise sector. This would allow a level of rationalisation within supported businesses in a given area. There will also be opportunities for some of these factories to integrate into the supply chains of their private and public sector partners. Potential investment in the factories could then be premised on a business case basis.
4 I
Progression from such factories has been limited and there are many barriers to such progression. Pluss would recommend that consideration be given to the introduction of an Intermediate Labour Market model (ILM) into Remploy factory operations to stimulate progression into open and ultimately unsupported employment. Introduction of an ILM model whereby an employed trainee on a time limited contract can obtain work experience, develop skills and be supported to move into work in the wider community is a useful strategy for developing the social value of such businesses with the more viable factories moving away from a more segregated environment.
At Pluss we believe our ‘Enterprise Model©2009’ may be a useful and suitable model for developing Remploy’s factory based provision.
In terms of Remploy’s Work Choice provision we would comment as follows:
Remploy’s services are concentrated, at least in the southwest, in the largest urban centres. In Devon and Cornwall, for example, Remploy are only present in Plymouth. Beyond that the nearest presence is in Bristol.
Thus, there is an expectation that people will travel significant distances in order to access a service from Remploy. To put this into perspective the distance from Exeter to Plymouth is 45 miles. Remploy do not, therefore, serve people well in rural and smaller urban environments.
Remploy
I 5
Pluss believes that a greater use of flexible job coaching provision funded by Access to Work can assist job retention and avoid the need for intervention of more expensive provision such as Work Choice.
Access to work
Sarah W Pluss - Employment Team Manager states:
“The biggest issue that we have had with Access to Work, is in
the case of those individuals who needed long term job
coaching support, in particular those who will need reminding
of routines, support in changes at work, help with multi tasking
etc. These individuals and the employers often need the
additional support of Work Choice, to advise and guide with
changes and development within roles, however as it stands at
present there is a conflict of ‘double funding’ as long term job
coaching is not feasible under Work Choice...and Access to
Work funded job coaches / buddies cannot run alongside Work
Choice as this is considered double funding. Therefore some of
our most vulnerable customers who would sustain long term
employment would benefit from both areas of provision.”
It is clear that some of our more vulnerable Work Choice clients would progress and sustain progression more readily if, as Work Choice support is removed, there is the safety net of job coaching support funded by Access to Work as and when required.
6 I
Pluss is certain that if we could secure Access to Work funding whilst an individual is still on Work Choice progression rates can be improved.
It should be noted that some Work Choice providers may decide not to accept customers who are further away from the labour market onto their programmes if there is a concern that contractual progression outcomes may be prejudiced. The Work Choice programme would therefore benefit from a more flexible Access to Work approach when people are still on the programme and progression is being planned.
It is well documented that there is a gap in provision for people who wish to gain paid work but are not presently able to sustain work over 16 hours per week. Such people require a stepped programme of support to enter work. In some areas this may be funded to a greater or lesser degree by local authorities or health, however, such funding is patchy and is not a legal responsibility of such bodies. As a result following the Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR) there will be pressure on this discretionary spending, we will discuss this in due course. Pluss would argue that flexible support for gaining and sustaining work could be provided by a modified Access to Work fund. If not DWP should consider varying the Work Choice contract to permit such support to be delivered. Pluss believes it is important for local government, health and DWP to agree where social care ends and employment begins.
Pluss is pleased to be involved in the development of Project Search at Derriford Hospital, Plymouth. This is an Office for Disability Issues demonstration site. People will be aware that the Project Search Model requires a Job Coach to support Interns during their rotations through various departments of the hospital. There is an expectation that each party to the project will bring their own funding to the partnership. As a Work Choice provider we have found this extremely difficult as during the first 12 months people supported on the project are interns (unpaid) and we therefore achieve no funding. We have been fortunate to secure local authority funding, however, we believe this project may have been supported by an innovative use of Access to Work funding.
Access to work
NS is a gentleman with a moderate to severe learning disability
who is in stable employment with a national supermarket chain
and is working in excess of 16 hours per week. In line with the
ambitions of the Work Choice programme we have discussed
the progression of NS from the programme. However NS, his
employer and his carers are all reluctant to agree progression.
I 7
Finally, in respect of Access to Work there is emerging evidence within Pluss that recent changes away from local support to call centre based services is presenting some concerns.
Access to work
A Pluss employee comments:
“Unfortunately we have found ourselves facing an unusual
situation with regards to ATW. In the past we have all
experienced a friendly and helpful service. Not so now it seems.
We were instructed by someone in ATW to use a list supplied to
providers to access assessments and now we are told that this is
out of date, we referred back to our local ATW adviser who
insists we already have been issued the guidance and relevant
forms to use! So, if you want a comment as of now it would be
disappointingly negative.”
8 I
Access to work
Another experienced Pluss Employment Consultant provides the following case study:
“The Access to Work process used to be fairly simple and
straightforward but has now become much more complex and
paper based with the introduction of Work Choice. The
application process has become more centralised with emphasis
being put more on evidence and form filling by the Work Choice
teams. The process is not reactive enough particularly in the cases
of people at risk of losing their job in a retention situation.
I have recently been asked by the DEA to assist with a case at a
local hospital where a customer is at risk of losing their job
through medical dismissal. The customer (MS) has been on sick
leave for 8 months with a complex hearing issue that has resulted
in depression & anxiety. A phased return was attempted in
August 2010 but didn’t work as proper consideration had not
been given to a total support package.
Pluss were called in to attend a back to work meeting with the
Head of Theatres, HR, Unison & Occupational Health to look at a
phased return to work and other support measures. MS has an
important job as an Operating Department Practioner. Once the
logistics of the return were agreed all concerned felt that a work
based assessment to assess the working environment was very
important to make sure that the environment was a safe one to
return to and in particular that the return to work didn’t fail again.
There are certain noise conditions present in an operating theatre
that need to be tested within a full working environment. The
Theatre Manager was particularly adamant that following noise
monitoring, adjustments should be made accordingly to make it
safe for MS to return to work.
I have encountered a fair amount of resistance to my request for
this work based assessment and have been asked to provide much
more evidence of Occupational Health investigations, any reports
and suggestions from a hearing specialist together with a GP
report to back up my request. I also have had to do significantly
more form filling so that I comply with procedures. This is time
consuming and the customer was due to start back to work
imminently and by using an agreed mix of special and annual
leave would mean that MS will not be financially worse off.
Previously a phone call to an Access to Work advisor detailing the
nature of the support seemed sufficient to get a basic yes or no
with a simple form to be filled in by the customer which could
follow on. It is proving difficult to access the support required
sometimes in a short time span.”
I 9
Access to work
10 I
HT’s Experience
“HT is 47 and lives in Exeter. He has a visual impairment, cerebral
palsy and has limited mobility which he uses a mobility scooter
to help overcome. He has poor reading skills, lacks confidence
and has a tendency to be indecisive about work goals.
In 2008 HT was referred by the local DEA to the Royal National
College for the Blind in Hereford where he studied BTEC Skills
for Office and IT on a year’s residential course. He was able to
secure a temporary contract at the college and worked as a
receptionist in addition to his studies.
Whilst at Hereford HT undertook intensive employment skills
training covering job applications, updating CV’s and job
interview techniques and also attended courses to improve his
numeracy & literacy skills.
HT has always been keen to find work in an administration
based role and undertook some reception training at a local
specialist college between 2002 and 2003 where he gained
some work experience as a receptionist before
undertaking some voluntary work with the
Homeless Action Group and the
RNIB Manor House in Torbay.
Residential Training Provision
I 11
Residential Training Provision
Pluss argue that Residential Training provision, whilst it has undoubtedly achieved good outcomes for some people, is an expensive provision and only available in a limited number of locations. We argue that HT’s experience highlights a number of issues with such provision.
Firstly, there is a dislocation from the local labour market. In HT’s example, he was from Exeter but was trained in Hereford. Training of this nature should be coordinated with active job searching and support during the training period, so that an individual ideally enters work at the end of their course. This is less likely when the individual is at a significant distance from their community. On return to their communities it is obvious that students will have to re establish links to provision and support in their locality in order to seek work. We note that HT, unfortunately, is still seeking work despite this investment in training.
A second issue that Pluss would point to again relates to the local labour market. Any training provided should be related to the type of employment opportunities available in the locality. Whilst administration and IT skills are generic, not all courses provided by residential training colleges will meet the need of local employers.
A final, but extremely important issue, is that for many people, especially those furthest away from the labour market, residential training would be entirely inappropriate and extremely difficult to access. For many people, Pluss argues, that a ʻPlace and Train’ model is of far more benefit. Many people especially those with moderate to severe learning disabilities may be better served by being trained in a job. Pluss would contend that people are more likely to achieve employment if they are adequately supported in their own local communities.
HT is currently undertaking a Work Prep placement with Pluss
where he is looking to consolidate the training received
whilst at RNIB Hereford and would like to use the placement
as an assessment tool to identify tasks that can be undertaken
comfortably and any relevant IT support that may be
required to make paid employment achievable under the
Work Choice programme.”
Framework procurement
With a limited number of disability specialist providers on the DWP framework there is significant risk that funding currently supporting individuals with the greatest needs such as ESF projects, Access to Work and Residential College provision will suffer from i) top slicing by prime providers ii) be utilised to supplement mainstream programmes rather than targeted to those furthest from the labour market. This could be resolved by allowing specialists to apply for inclusion on the framework.
Work Choice
Within the Work Choice programme there is provision for ‘protected funding’ for around 3,000 individuals employed within over 80 supported businesses. The protection is for £4,800 per place per annum for a 5 year period. The protection was put in place to avoid closure of businesses and loss of employment for 3,000 individuals. Further work is required to ensure that at the end of the 5 years that protection is no longer needed.
Other issues
12 I
I 13
This represents a significant disinvestment by Local Authorities. Some are clearly stating that employment is not their responsibility and is the responsibility of DWP. DWP do not consider that an individual who is not job prepared and able to work for over 16 hours is their responsibility. There is a need for Government to determine where responsibility lies and to ensure that provision is available for the most disadvantaged in the job market.
2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16
Plymouth 950,000 800,000 800,000 800,000 800,000 800,000 800,000
Devon 1,366,763 1,401,841 1,167,473 933,105 698,736 464,368 464,368
Torbay 647,374 642,694 372,694 290,701 249,705 208,709 186,347
Somerset 468,668 447,000 411,240 373,022 336,144 298,149 260,154
Total 3,432,805 3,291,535 2,751,407 2,396,827 2,084,585 1,771,226 1,710,869
Other issues
Local Authority investment in Supported Employment
Pluss delivers specialist disability employment services to four local authorities. Whilst each Authority is aware of ‘Valuing People and ʻValuing Employment Now’ there has been a significant change of strategy towards funding of employment services driven by the CSR. The following table represents funding for employment activities of the four authorities since 2009 / 10 and their planned funding profiles over the next 4 years.
Work Programme
Pluss is participating in the bidding process of the Work Programme within the sub contract sector. From our detailed financial modelling it is clear that significant numbers of individuals within the ESA ‘progress to work’ group will not be supported into employment. There is little clarity as to how these individuals will then receive enhanced support to enable them to achieve and maintain employment; it will not come from the Work Programme. There is no clear requirement in the bidding or evaluation process to provide an appropriate interface with other DWP specialist programmes such as Work Choice.
14 I
Contact:
Martin Davies, Managing Director
Email: [email protected]
Registered Address
2nd Floor, Basepoint Business Centre, Yeoford Way, Marsh Barton, Exeter, EX2 8LB
The case studies and themes included in this report are not always attributed to the individuals pictured on the same page.