Developmental
Disability Council
Of WA (Inc)
‘Shining Lights’
Changing the game for employment
opportunities for Australians with an
intellectual disability
Developmental Disability Council of WA (Inc)
Citywest Lotteries House
2 Delhi Street, West Perth WA 6005
Ph: 08 9420 7203
Email: ddc@ddc.org.au
Website: www.ddc.org.au
1
Overview
The labour force participation rate of people without disability is 82 per
cent, yet is only 54 per cent for people with disability. For Australians with
an intellectual disability, the employment participation rate drops to a mere
one in ten.
These rates have remained stagnant over the last decade, despite multiple
approaches from governments at all levels and despite a wealth of
experience and evidence of what is possible in relation to employment
opportunities for this group.
The experience, therefore, of a typical Australian with an intellectual
disability is one of lost opportunity and a lifetime of welfare dependency.
This stark outcome is in contrast to the reality experienced by those
Australians with an intellectual disability who do find work - employees with
intellectual disability have, on average, better attendance rates, higher job
retention and fewer occupational health and safety incidents than other
employees. The feedback from employers and employees who work daily
with workers and co-workers with intellectual disability is one of satisfaction
and enjoyment with their participation in the workplace. The personal
outcomes for people with intellectual disabilities are vastly improved, and
the community benefits in regards to lower government costs and higher
returns.
One only has to speak with Australians with an intellectual disability, or to
their families and carers, to hear the personal angst and pain that this
situation continues to cause in our community.
The current situation, therefore, cannot be allowed to persist. The Minister’s
Discussion Paper calls for a “game-changer” and the Developmental
Disability Council of WA supports this call without reservation.
It must then be the policy imperative of Australian governments, at all
levels, to
 increase workforce participation for all people with disability –
especially those with intellectual disability,
 to reduce the total cost, number and incidences of welfare
dependence for people with disability and
 to put in place an appropriate framework to assess the progress of
those goals.
2
To enable these goals, DDC supports the development of a long-term,
ambitious framework to address disability employment in the model of
‘Closing the Gap’, the program implemented over the last five years aimed
at addressing indigenous disadvantage.
DDC further supports the adoption of an evidence-based approach to
change, held to account by the requirement for government to publish
reporting on progress against benchmarks.
‘Shining Lights’ is an examination of how best to illuminate the areas of
need and then address those areas in a meaningful and transparent way –
all with the goal of seeing as many people with intellectual disabilities as
possible bringing their light to Australian workplaces.
Finally, rather than repeat in these pages much of the material that can be
found elsewhere on the employment of those with an intellectual disability,
this submission should be approached as an appeal to create an
overarching framework and ‘road map’ for the implementation of that
material into a stable model that improves outcomes.
This submission should be read in conjunction with the submission to this
Discussion Paper by the National Council for Intellectual Disabilities
(NCID). DDC endorses the policy work contained in that submission, and
adds its voice to that of the NCID in urging for the evidence-based projects
and approaches outlined there to be supported by government.
DDC has 25 years experience as the peak body and systemic advocacy
organisation representing developmental and intellectual disability in
Western Australia, and is the Western Australian member of the NCID.
3
The Goals
In the face of continuing disparity in employment outcomes and welfare
dependency between Australians with a disability and those without a
number of solutions have been proposed, including the imposition of
quotas on businesses and employer reporting obligations.
DDC WA rejects both the imposition of quotas and employer reporting
requirements. These measures convey the misleading impression that it is
employers who are at fault for the employment outcomes of people with a
disability. Experience and evidence demonstrate that there is significant
goodwill amongst employers, especially where they have access to good
and reliable support. Furthermore, there is a lack of evidence to support
the assertion that employer reporting has any impact on participation rates
and indeed substantial experience that quotas and employer reporting lead
to people with a disability being placed into “make work” or tokenistic
positions. In the experience of DDC (WA), quotas and employer reporting
effectively seek to shame employers into employing disadvantaged job
seekers – they fail to cultivate a workplace culture that is supportive and
able to adapt effectively to successfully include an employee with a
disability.
In fact these measures contain the potential to negatively impact people
with an intellectual disability. Quotas and targets encourage employers to
find employees that easily match pre-existing positions and vacancies.
While this approach might be of benefit to those people with physical or
sensory or other disabilities whose profile matches existing roles, the
evidence demonstrates that people with intellectual disabilities benefit from
a job customisation approach. Employers who are willing to relocate
responsibilities within their workforce are assisted to ‘carve out’ a role
within their business and this is complemented with specialist training and
support for the employee with an intellectual disability and the employer.
People with intellectual disabilities will be disadvantaged in such an
environment and will ironically find themselves missing out as a result of a
measure designed specifically to include them.
DDC believes that the missing link in getting more people with intellectual
disabilities into work is the loss of specialist expertise and support across
the country in supporting this group to find and keep that job, and the
absence of strong and supported pathways from school to work for young
people with intellectual disabilities. Without programs that support people
4
with a disability to both prepare for and continue in employment, quotas
and employer reporting will have no positive impact.
DDC’s position supports that of the National Council for Intellectual
Disability, when they state;
“We reject any inference that employers are at fault for poor
employment participation rates or that employer reporting is going to
have a substantial impact.”
Rather, DDC advocates a global or ‘whole of economy’ approach to
reporting. Such an approach is vital for government in tracking its policy
objectives, and serves to inform the individual and specific policies
adopted by government.
If governments are to be held to account in the area of disability, reporting
targets must be clearly outlined and committed to by government.
Furthermore, the Federal Government must legislate to report against
these targets across the next decade, in order for accountability and
transparency to be maintained in the use of taxpayer funding and project
efficiency.
Recommendation 1
DDC recommends the Federal Government legislate to require the
reporting of three, five and ten-year targets for the employment
participation rate of people with an intellectual disability and that those
targets include measures of meaningful employment such as wages, hours
of employment, and longevity.
5
Recommendation 2
DDC recommends the Federal Government establish, as soon as possible,
a working group comprised of departmental, business, union and advocacy
groups, as well as State Government, in order to set reasonable,
achievable and worthwhile targets for the reporting requirements outlined in
Recommendation 1.
In recent years, a growing “whole-of-disability” approach in government
policy has seen “disability” has become a catch-all term that covers all
people with disabilities and obscures the differences in the challenges
faced by people with disabilities and the outcomes they experience –
particularly in the area of workforce participation.
In short, the evidence shows that while some people with disabilities may
be more easily able to take up existing positions in the workforce, those
with intellectual disabilities and their employers require different kinds of
support to create the employment opportunities and to support people in
those jobs.
Therefore, simply requiring the reporting of employment participation rates
will disguise the true nature of the situation for those with intellectual
disability.
Detailed information on the workforce participation of various types of
disability is already available and easy to access. This information should
be contained within the reporting requirements of government, the better to
assess and measure success in assisting those with intellectual disabilities
gain and keep employment – not just a homogenous category of “people
with disability”.
Recommendation 3
DDC recommends the Federal Government’s employment participation
rate reporting distinguish results by disability type, thus enabling the impact
of any policy change to be more fully measured and understood.
The Solutions
One of the major challenges faced by people with an intellectual disability
in entering the workforce is the expectation that they will not do so. This is
often referred to as the burden of low expectation.
6
While many advances have been made in recent decades regarding
community norms and standards for people with intellectual disability, more
must be done to firmly establish the view that people with intellectual
disability, just like any other member of the community, are entitled and can
and do work in their communities and should be encouraged and supported
to seek and gain employment.
Recommendation 4
DDC recommends that Federal and State Governments make opportunity
of employment a focus and that there be a cross-government approach to
growing this capacity, particularly in supporting school-to-work transition
programs.
Over the last forty years, there has been a wealth of evidence built up on
what programs and models best deliver employment results for people with
intellectual disabilities.
The National Council for Intellectual Disability details much of this evidence
in this submission, and pays particular attention to the evidence and
experience that has been put forward by Jobsupport, a DES provider
specialising in supporting people with intellectual disability.
DDC supports this report in its finding that services that have specialist
capacity produce far better results for people with intellectual disabilities
than generalist services.
Whilst not wanting to single out any one service provider for praise or
criticism, we urge the Federal Government to note those providers and
support systems that have achieved strong results.
More broadly, the Federal Government should follow the evidence base
established over the last decade when considering funding options in
pursuance of those goals previously recommended.
DDC recognises that in recent times the Federal Government has
sought to introduce measures in this area, including the most recent
announcement that disability employment services would report on their
outcomes by disability type, thus enabling people with intellectual
disabilities and their families to ‘shop around’ for an employment service
with a demonstrated ability to assist people with intellectual disability.
While we commend the Government on these measures, we believe that
7
their impact is significantly limited by the loss of expertise and capacity
in this area over time.
Recommendation 5
DDC recommends the establishment of an independent, annual audit
mechanism to assess and report on the impact and effectiveness of
Federal policy, programs and funding, to report annually in conjunction with
Recommendations 1 and 3 of this submission. The framework and
measures of such assessment and reporting should be developed in
agreement with key stakeholders and it should report by disability type
One of the most challenging periods for people with an intellectual
disability and their families is the transition out of schooling. Many of the
families that our organisation works with report one parent leaving the
workforce as their child leaves school, in order to fill the gap left by the
absence of school structures in their child’s life.
Quite apart from the impact on people with intellectual disabilities and
their families, this gap is felt by governments and employers alike in lost
productivity and revenue.
With the emergence of the National Disability Insurance Scheme, this
lost opportunity cost will become increasingly obvious – if people with
intellectual disabilities are not in paid employment, then they will be
seeking access to alternative supports such as day options or Australian
Disability Enterprises. Evidence demonstrates that there is little to no
movement from day options programs into regular employment in the
community. When coupled with the lost revenue opportunity of earned
income and reduced reliance on Disability Support Pensions, over a
person’s lifetime the cost of unemployment or underemployment of
people with intellectual disabilities is significant. Young people with
intellectual disabilities who leave school without a structured and
supported transition to work are highly likely and enter a day program
and their chances of entering the workforce during their lifetime
diminish. In order to better bridge this gap and if possible prevent it
occurring, programs assisting with the transition to work should begin in
Years 11 and 12. Such early intervention allows for the customising of
programs to person needs, the identification of individual strengths and
8
weaknesses and the better preparation of people with an intellectual
disability for the workforce.
Again, significant evidence exists to demonstrate how this can be
successfully supported and this experience demonstrates what a
positive impact this has on creating greater opportunities for more young
people over time.
Experience shows that where schools have
confidence that their former students with intellectual disabilities are
successfully supported into employment, this has a positive impact on
their expectations of students and their trust in supports and services to
assist them. The light of successful experiences of one wave of
students empowers teachers to then encourage and support future
young people to also pursue employment.
Recommendation 6
DDC recommends the establishment of pilot school-to-work transition
programs in partnership with State Governments aimed at increasing
successful transition to further study or work, to be evaluated by the audit
mechanism established in Recommendation 5.
Conclusion
Australians with an intellectual disability can and want to work in the
open labour market
Australians with an intellectual disability want to earn an award wage, in
order to have the same quality of life as other Australians
Australians with an intellectual disability, and their employers, need
support to create jobs which benefit employers and employees. They
need government to provide the right job training and ongoing support to
enable that to happen.
Australians with an intellectual disability need governments to commit to
targets in legislation and then implement evidence-based models to
achieve these targets.
The current employment support system of support is not working in
terms of inclusion, wages, and quality of life.
There is need for change.
9
There is a need to shine light on intellectual disability and employment,
in order to allow the light of all those with intellectual disability to shine
in Australian workplaces.
10