3.6.1 Supported employees’ concerns about work
Supported employees were asked about any doubts that they may have had (particularly if they had previous negative experiences) when they first started looking for work or, in the case of job retention situations, when they made the decision to return to their job.
Many spoke of the lack of employment opportunities available for disabled people, some suggesting that there are not enough employers willing to give disabled people a chance. While one participant suggested that the situation was better under the previous quota system, another believed that the quota system still existed. None demonstrated an awareness of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. Participants with differing impairments had doubted whether they would actually be given the chance to work because of the misconceptions that people have regarding disability and an unwillingness to look beyond the surface of the impairment or label. The problem of convincing potential employers of what they can do was also highlighted.
People with mental health conditions specifically spoke of the stigma that is attached to their conditions, while some people with learning disabilities said that there are few employers willing to give them a chance. One participant with learning disabilities said: ‘that’s discrimination, isn’t it?’.
There were fears, particularly among people with learning disabilities, about not being respected or about being picked on once they found a job. There were also concerns among people with differing impairments that employers and colleagues might be unwilling to accommodate their conditions, either through practical help or adjustments or in terms of having to take time off for medical appointments. Among people with mental health and long-term medical conditions there were concerns about how employers would respond if they needed to take time off due to illness. One participant with a mental health condition who had returned to his job after an extended period of absence said that, as his condition is both invisible and requires ongoing management, he felt that his employers thought that he was a malingerer.
Some participants whose conditions had developed while already in work expressed a fear that they would either lose their job or would not physically be able to continue with it. One described keeping her condition from her employer for three months as she thought she would not be allowed to continue with her work. Some who were in job retention situations expressed having had concerns about how their colleagues would readjust to their conditions on their return to work and did not want to be seen as a ‘burden’.
Other concerns included a fear that they would let their colleagues down and feelings among participants working in supported factories that their condition might get in the way and prevent them from keeping up with production.
Some participants with learning disabilities said that they had been unsure about whether or not they would be able to do the work, how they would cope with the people they worked with or be able to relate to their colleagues in conversation.
3.6.2 Why providers think WORKSTEP is important
Responding to a direct question about why WORKSTEP is needed, providers acknowledged all of the concerns expressed by supported employees. Greatest consensus centred on the issue of equal opportunities and the rights of disabled people to access employment. One provider suggested that the programme ensured that disabled people were not ‘left on the heap’ any longer than they need be. Frequent arguments were that in helping disabled people to access the workplace, the programme served a role in increasing social awareness and educating people about various impairments or conditions, thus helping to dispel the fear and stigma which is often attached to particular conditions, for example mental health conditions. There were suggestions that providers working with clients in supported placements provided a role model for how disabled people should be dealt with in the workplace. One supported factory manager said that inviting visitors into the factory fulfilled a social awareness role in dispelling the myths about the nature of the work undertaken in sheltered factories and gave greater value to the work being carried out by disabled employees.
The support required to achieve equality of employment for disabled people was recognised as being two-fold: to the supported employee and to the employer. The strength of the programme was described as its flexibility in that it allowed for one- to-one support tailored to meet the needs of the individual, providing them with the opportunity to learn new skills and develop in work.
It was recognised by a number of providers that, in order to place supported employees successfully and maintain their employment, as much support sometimes needed to be given to the employer. The nature of this support is varied. It includes helping employers to understand particular conditions and the limitations and abilities of the individual, making that person seem ‘less of a risk’, and providing financial support to compensate employers for the ‘lack of ability’ of a potential employee, either through training or more sustained financial input.
Unlike under the New Deal for Disabled People (NDDP), it was argued that WORKSTEP is important in that it offers long-term support. However, in contrast to the old Supported Employment Programme, some providers said that it has direction and continuity in that it is goal-orientated through the aim to evidence supported employees’ development and progression in work. One provider suggested that the Supported Employment Programme actually deskilled people and created dependency. It was argued that being targeted-driven made WORKSTEP a more accountable programme.