AfSE draft response to the Supported Employment Programme

(13 Oct 1999)

QUESTION 1

Do you broadly agree with the proposed aims statement?
Please offer any alternative suggestions you may have.

An alternative to the aim published in the consultation document should be;

‘The aim of the Supported Employment Programme is to provide support so that people with a disability who face substantial barriers to employment as a result of their disability can work in their chosen career and, wherever possible progress into open employment as the requirement for support reduces’

QUESTION 2

Do you think that the programme title should change and, if so, have you any suggestions?

We have no difficulty with the term Supported Employment however the word ‘programme’ ought to be dropped. But to qualify for description as Supported Employment it must fit the following principles;

  • Each individual, whether or not they have a disability, is the best person to decide upon career preferences, as long as the information needed to take decisions is provided in a comprehensive and accessible format.
  • Onejob may not be enough to launch a person's career, many people, whether or not they have a disability, need to experience a range of jobs before deciding upon working in a particular field.
  • Everybody, whether or not they have a disability, needs support at work. Support is provided both formally, such as by manager's supervision, payment, training and from colleagues with specialist expertise and informally by the opportunity to share problems and difficulties with colleagues, family and friends.

and;

  • Payment to contractors made for both the vocational profiling and job matching process will allow the job seeker to explore a range of options and make an informed choice of job, which can then be found and tailored to their individual needs. By consulting the job seeker at this early stage they are much more likely to be committed to their job and will therefore thrive in that situation.
  • With a contract linked to the individual, when that individual is ready to change jobs, or seek promotion with their current employer the contract could be used to provide the increased support needed by the individual at the time they need it, negotiating with employers and learning necessary skills for the new job, rather than at the whim of the contractor for whom career development may not be a priority.
  • The existing arrangements create, to a greater or lesser extent, an artificial barrier between the individual on SPS and their colleagues, with different contractual arrangements and a different format for supervision. These changes would generate a system that encouraged the movement of people from SPS, into the general workforce thus promoting their full integration and, linking them to the supports available to all their colleagues, both formal and informal.

QUESTION 3

What factors should be taken into account by a simpler, more consistent mechanism for determining entry to the programme? How could these be identified and assessed?

Everyone is entitled to receive information on Supported Employment and to receive initial referral if they so choose.

There can be no mechanism for determining entry to the support system other than individual need, which can only be understood after the person becomes involved in the supported employment process.

QUESTION 4

What are the barriers to achieving progression? How can they be overcome?

Barriers and their solutions include;

  1. Progression is held back by the diversion of money designated for that purpose in SPS being diverted into the workshop arm of the SEP. Therefore the SPS and workshop elements of the contract need to be disconnected. Each should have a budget that stands independently from theother.
  2. Progression is most likely to be achieved if the Supported Employment process includes a number of key stages. There should be a stated amount of money for each step of the supported employment process. Funding should be included for the core activities of profiling, job finding, task analysis, job training and for wage subsidy.
  3. Progression is held back by the practice of spreading existing resources as thinly as possible by maximising the number of people on SPS. The contract should stipulate that the contractor must properly resource his supported employment programme. Helping clients over and above the contracted number should be an option only when SEPACS is satisfied that the contractor is already using their surpluses to bring about progression to open employment.
  4. The fear of lack of future support acts as a disincentive for people to try open employment, it must be made absolutely clear that there are no barriers to an individual accessing the SEP during, or after, open employment is achieved.
  5. Unclear data gathering prevents the supervisory bodies being able to effectively monitor the movement of individuals towards open employment. Therefore the contract should stipulate that all monitoring meeting information should be set out in an easily understandable form and should be readily available to SEPACS. This should include the date of the meeting, the number of hours worked, the hourly pay and the productivity rate.
  6. Progression is hampered by a lack of data regarding the effectiveness of a range of training and support strategies. Therefore the contract should state that trainers will take data when training the worker and this should be kept and available to SEPACS so productivity rates can be accurately set and verified.
  7. Progression cannot be measured unless there is a clarity regarding what will be expected of a worker in open employment. The contract should state that the agreement between contractor and employer should not only include what is in the guidance hand book now, but include an agreed full production rate for the job, quality standards and the expected rate of fading of support, both in terms of training support and wage subsidy.
  8. Progression is hampered by employers not being required to take on full responsibility for employing SPS employees at an early stage. The legal employer of the supported worker should be the community based employer and not the contractor.
  9. Unscrupulous employers might misrepresent the effectiveness of an SPS employee in order to extend the period for which a subsidy is paid. Monitoring meetings should be supplemented by the contractor having the right to place a job trainer on site to take data to verify the productivity rate.
  10. Employers committed to inclusive, open employment might be hampered in achieving this as a result of their training and HR departments lacking specialist training techniques. Monitoring meetings should be used as an opportunity for the contractor to offer training consultancy where the employer has taken on the responsibility of training the worker.
  11. Variable performance by contractors cannot be explained solely by client group or geographical factors. Therefore SEPACS should use data to adopt a bench marking principle, using data from high performing contractors to help evaluate the performance of all contractors.
  12. Dependence upon long term wage subsidy provides a disincentive both for employers and contractors to explore training and support strategies that allow employees to progress towards open employment. The wage subsidy should be used only in exceptional circumstances and the money now being used for this purpose should be used to fund other forms of support. We know that there are people waiting to get jobs who will need long term job support, or perhaps continuing financial support to the employer, so the wage subsidy option should be kept. However, supporting data should be required to prove its necessity.
  13. Insecure funding arrangements prevent contractors investing in training in key skill areas. Core funding should be provided to agencies against contractual targets.
  14. The costs related to supporting different groups of people into employment vary. Average costs should be determined for specific client groups and funding supplied to agencies in line with average costs.
  15. Government must address it’s own recruitment practices, as a significant user of SPS at present, but rarely taking responsibility for providing open employment.

QUESTION 5

How should progressionbe measured? Should stages towards progression also be recognised?

Stages towards progression should be measured in thefollowing way;

  1. The contract should stipulate that all monitoring meeting information should be set out in an easily understandable form and should be readily available to SEPACS. This should include the date of the meeting, the number of hours worked, the hourly pay and the productivity rate.
  2. The contract should stipulate that a vocational profile, a jobfinding action plan, a task analysis, training data and ongoing action plans, should be completed and should be readily available to SEPACS.
  3. The contract should state that trainers will take data when training the worker and this should be kept and available to SEPACS. Data gathered would include the individual;
    • Undertaking more tasks,
    • working using own initiative,
    • recieving pay increases,
    • achieving promotion,
    • having a reduction in funding,
    • having their host becoming legal employer,
    • having an agreed timetable for open employment.

QUESTION 6

How can we achieve a balance between setting targets for progressions and ensuring that the programme does not become skewed as a result?

If the definition of progression in this consultation document is accepted then there will be a risk of skewing because it focuses on broad and general targets for numbers of people. If however progression is defined as a continuous process as described in the answer to question 5, and if supported employment is defined as having an individual focus there is no risk of skewing because targets are set individually against individual action plans.

QUESTION 7

What would be the benefits of a limited service after progression to open employment? Might employers fund it?

A follow up service would prevent the re admittance of people onto the programme by identifying and resolving difficulties before they become significant. It would furthermore provide an incentive for employers to move from a supported situation to open employment if they could be sure that the individuals circumstances would be monitored. Employers should not fund this aspect of the service, it should be funded through core funding or possibly Access to Work, again with reference to the individual action plan.

QUESTION 8

How can we encourage more employers providing supported jobs to become the supported employee’s legal employer?

By making it a contractual requirement.

QUESTION 9

What can programme contractors do to encourage and support existing employees to progress?

As described in Question 5 and in addition by funding training of SPS employees and by ensuring that monitoring meetings do not focus exclusively on work skills but also address issues of workplace culture.

QUESTION 10

What should be the role of supported factories and supported businesses in the future Supported Employment Programme?

The SPS and workshop elements of the contract need to be disconnected. Each should have a budget that stands independently from the other. Real costs and the impact of under funding the community element to the benefit of workshops is then clear.

In addition workshops should be transformed into viable businesses independent of the SEP other than their entitlement to support for employees with a disability such as are available to all employers. Enforced segregation in whatever form is unacceptable.

The Employment Service should invest in ‘change management’ consultants whenever this is necessary to stimulate this transformation.

QUESTION 11

How can supported factories and supported businesses help employees progress to open employment?

Workshops transformed into viable business become open employers, see Q10.

QUESTION 12

How can supported factories and businesses ensure supported employees gain the occupational skills needed in open employment? Should factories gear their skills development to local job opportunities?

People working in a workshop gain little more than the experience of working in a workshop, the best place to learn occupational skills is ‘on the job’, in employment. Segregated settings do not allow the individual to learn and experience the nuances of workplace culture, social inclusion, integration etc...

QUESTION 13

Should contractors have to ensure adequate job and person profiling for new supported employees? How can overlap with existing pre-employment support be avoided?

Yes, this is a fundamental part of practice in competent SE agencies. Any resources currently being directed at pre employment training should be re directed into SE and when and if necessary JIS and other mainstream options could be used with appropriate support.

QUESTION 14

What support would be most useful in assisting the individual’s development and progression, as an alternative to the traditional wage contribution?

Which individual? Refer to the action plan and choose from arange of options as appropriate, options might include;

  • natural support training
  • individual training
  • job coaches

In addtition the following general approaches are likely to be useful in many instances;

Concentrating on performance and the making of specific action plans and training programmes. Finding ways of increasing skills and performance is preferable to a social work approach of "what problems have you got?"

A training consultancy approach is often preffered as people begin to realise that progress is now on the agenda. For some clients this approach has made a great difference to their working life and they become more skilful and useful to the employer.

Giving people the option to stay in the monitoring meeting when productivity rate is being discussed. This gives them an active part in the discussions and helps them get a clearer picture. With the action plan approach workers say they can see what they have to do to improve.

QUESTION 15

How might action plans be used to review an employee’s progress towards open employment? Would a standard format and review process help? Should there be minimum quality standards for action planning?

There should be minimum quality standards however a uniform format is not important, it is the process that is essential. The imposition of a standard SEP format might risk stigmatising the SPS employee if they are seen to have either a different or additional review document compared to their colleagues.

QUESTION 16

What broad areas should the quality standards cover? Are there existing standards which could provide a foundation for programme quality?

Quality outcomes for the individual specific to them, with quality of life indicators, though SE agency may need to liaise with other organisations to ensure that these are being met. One possible existing model is SEQA.

QUESTION 17

How might quality standards for the programme help supported employees progress to open employment? Should the achievement of quality standards become a contract target?

Quality indicators identify key achievement areas for contractors to support in each individual circumstance. Quality of support should be an obligation of the contractor. Quality measures should not only be linked to achievement of open employment but should also be linked to individual’s progress.

QUESTION 18

Is self-assessment by contractors a reliable and practicable way to assess quality standards achieved? Should contractors seek and evaluate customer feedback from employees and employers?

Self assessment is not sufficient, a system of peer assessment and monitoring would be a useful method of ensuring best practice. The requirement of seeking feedback from employees and employers should be a contractual requirement.

QUESTION 19

Would it benefit supported employees and employers to include private sector contractors? Would private sector contractors offer more cost-effective delivery or different opportunities of progression for supported employees?

If an organisation can embrace the same practices and principles, meet the same quality standards as any other supported employment agency and make a profit, then we should study their methods and learn from them.

We do not support the notion of profit making supported workshops. If you do not choose to follow our suggestion and maintain the existing network of workshops such a workshop, aiming to make a profit, would have a strong incentive to prevent their most productive workers from leaving for open employment.

QUESTION 20

How could a private sector contractor ensure supported employees had access to appropriate disability expertise and support with practical or personal arrangements that affected them at work?

Private organisations, as with voluntary sector or public sector bodies, wishing to be considered as supported employment service providers would need to demonstrate their expertise and skills base before being awarded a contract.

Employers wishing to take on responsibility for supporting their own employees, as and when they recruit (or wish to retain) individuals in need of support, should have the option of sub contracting with supported employment agencies if necessary.

QUESTION 21

What kinds of private sector organisation would be interested in these contracts?

Rather than speculating on the nature of private sector organisations interested in these contracts we suggest that the Employment Service should only be interested in organisations, of whatever constitutional make up, that are committed to the AfSE principles of supported employment and can demonstrate this in their practice.

QUESTION 22

Should the programme encourage contractors to negotiate time-limited support with employers? How can we ensure flexibility for longer-term support if people need it?

Yes, with proper monitoring and review.

Global contracts should be scrapped and contracts offered for each individual. We know that there are people waiting to get jobs who will need long term job support, or perhaps continuing financial support to the employer, so the wage subsidy option should be kept. However, supporting data should be required to prove its necessity, this protects people with either degenerative conditions or who have a long term need for support.

QUESTION 23

Have you any suggestions for a simpler funding approach for the programme that relates funding more closely to delivery of programme processes and outcomes?

Global contracts should be scrapped and contracts offered for each individual. These should have a stated amount of money for each step of the supported employment process. Funding should be included for the core activities of profiling, job finding, task analysis, job training and for wages ubsidy.

Core funding of agencies should be an option.

QUESTION 24

How might allowing generation and reinvestment of profits benefit the programme? What difference would this make to supported factories and supported businesses in particular?

Allowing SPS contractors to generate and reinvest profits would make available additional resources that could be used to develop other areas of practice for example by developing services in areas that are currently under resourced.

Allowing workshops to become free standing profit making businesses, divorced from the SEP, would cause the development of a range of businesses with a proactive attitude to the employment of people with a disability.

QUESTION 25

Is there any reason why we should not replace the present allocation system for capital support with a small flat rate premium on factory and supported business places?

This becomes irrelevant if workshops become free standing businesses.

QUESTION 26

We welcome feedback on how our present role might be developed within existing resources in order to implement and support improvements to the programme most effectively.

SEPACS should cease using contractors with high administration costs.

SEPACS should use contractors that are committed to the AfSE principles of supported employment and can demonstrate this in their practice.

SEPACS should use contractors that are well managed and demonstrate a clear vision based on AfSE principles, give proper professional training, support to their workforce and keep adequate records of all aspects of their activities.

SEPACS should use data to adopt a bench marking principle, using data from high performing contractors to help evaluate the performance of all contractors.