Pathways to Work: Helping people into
employment
Response by the Royal National Institute for Deaf
People
February 2003
RNID, 19-23 Featherstone Street, London EC1Y 8SL, Tel 020 7296 8000, Text
020 7296 8001, Fax 020 2296 8199, www.rnid.org.uk
1
Executive summary

Given the evidence from the ONE pilots it is questionable whether an
intensification of the work-focused interview regime would significantly
improve the employment outcomes for sick and disabled people.

DWP should allocate sufficient personal advisers resources to make voluntary
follow-up interviews work, rather than to force claimants to attend these
interviews.

Personal adviser services for deaf claimants should be either contracted out to
specialist agencies such as RNID, or else there should be deaf specialists within
the new personal adviser teams.

RNID would like assurances that claimants in exempt categories will be offered
the same level of service - i.e. ongoing support from personal advisers - on a
voluntary basis.

The Government should review the accessibility of all pan-disability
employment programmes and ensure that they are fully accessible to deaf and
hard of hearing people.

RNID does not have a view on whether to rename incapacity benefit but we
would like to see some sort of protection for incapacity claimants who are
taking steps towards employment from the risk of their incapacity status being
reviewed.

The Government should consult with disability groups in developing a
communications strategy to encourage IB existing recipients to contact the
personal adviser service.

RNID welcomes the proposed return to work credit and would strongly
recommend that the credit should be fully disregarded for all income-related
benefits and tax credits.

The Government should experiment with financial incentives such as tax or
national insurance breaks to encourage employers to hire disabled people.

The Government should do more to actively promote awareness of the Access to
Work scheme amongst employers, particularly small and medium-sized
employers.

The Access to Work scheme should be extended to cover voluntary work and
work experience placements.

Claimants who are appealing against an incapacity for work decision should not
be required to claim JSA but should be able to retain their incapacity benefit in
full until their appeal is decided.

The Government and the Disability Employment Advisory Committee (DEAC)
should consider the case for legislation to underpin job retention policies.
2
1
Introduction: the employment situation of deaf and hard of hearing people
1.1
RNID welcomes the opportunity to respond to Pathways to Work. There are an
estimated 9 million deaf and hard of hearing people in the UK. There are 3.5
million deaf and hard of hearing people of working age (16-65) in the UK, of
whom 160,000 are severely or profoundly deaf. Research evidence shows that deaf
and hard of hearing people are at a substantial disadvantage in the labour market:
- The unemployment rate amongst severely and profoundly deaf respondents to an
RNID employment survey was 20%, four times higher than the national
unemployment rate (5%).1
- The unemployment rate was higher amongst respondents with additional
disabilities (32%) and those aged under 25 (34%).
- 57% of respondents who were unemployed and seeking work had been out of
work for over a year. Forty-two per cent had been out of work for 2 years or
more and 20% had been unemployed for 5 years or more.
- According to the Labour Force Survey the employment rate amongst people
with hearing impairments is 68%, significantly lower than the employment rate
for non-disabled (81%).2
2
The obstacles to work
2.1
We welcome the analysis in Pathways to Work of why the incapacity benefit
caseload increased during the 1980s. The paper quite correctly identifies a number
of inter-related factors and acknowledges that structural changes to the labour
market were a significant cause. We also agree that people on incapacity benefits
face a range of obstacles returning to work. However, despite the recognition that
‘Many people with health problems and disabilities still face discrimination’, we
are disappointed that the proposals in Pathways at Work are predominantly supplyside policies (i.e. mandatory work-focused interviews and work incentives). We
would like to see stronger proposals to encourage or incentivise employers to hire
or retain disabled people.
3
A new work-focused interview regime
3.1
The Government proposes to pilot a new intensive work-focused interview regime
in the early part of an incapacity claim. However, the evidence from the ONE pilots
shows that work focused interviews, whether voluntary or compulsory, have not
1
Bradshaw W, (2002) The employment situation and experiences of deaf and hard of hearing people,
RNID
2
Smith A, and Twomey B, Labour market experiences of people with disabilities, Labour Market Trends,
August 2002
3
increased the probability of sick and disabled people finding work.3 We would
therefore question whether an intensification of the work-focused interview
regime would significantly improve the employment outcomes for sick and
disabled people.
3.2
In his foreword to the green paper Andrew Smith says that the proposals are not
‘about pressuring sick people back to work against their will’. Whilst we welcome
this assurance we are nonetheless concerned that more pressure is being applied to
sick and disabled people. When work-focused interviews were first proposed in
1998 the Government said that sick and disabled people would not be required ‘to
undertake any particular subsequent course of action, such as signing up to an
action plan, undertaking training or looking for work’.4 Now it is proposed to make
action plans compulsory and intensify the frequency of interviews. What if the
proposed pilots do not deliver improved employment outcomes? Will incapacity
claimants be compelled to undertake training or look for work? RNID is concerned
at the creeping compulsion that is developing within the incapacity benefits system.
3.3
Moving the interview away from the initial point of claim. We agree with the
proposal to move the initial interview away from the point of claim to 8 weeks into
the claim. This would remove unnecessary interviews for people who are suffering
from short-term sickness.
3.4
Increasing the frequency of personal adviser support. It is proposed to have a
series of 4-5 further mandatory interviews in the early stage of the claim. Whilst we
recognise that personal advisers are unlikely to achieve very much through a single
interview, this proposal would be unnecessary if claimants were voluntarily opting
for caseloading i.e. a series of regular follow-up interviews with the personal
adviser. In effect what is being proposed is a form of mandatory caseloading. Why
was there a low take-up of voluntary caseloading in the ONE pilots? Evaluation
evidence from ONE shows that only around one third of sick and disabled people
had any ongoing contact with the personal adviser.5 However this was not due to
reluctance on the part of claimants to attend further meetings. Evaluation evidence
found that claimants were ‘generally unaware that they could instigate contact’.6
The Work and Pensions Committee noted that the reason voluntary caseloading
failed was ‘principally because of time constraints’.7 The Committee
acknowledged that personal advisers in Jobcentre Plus pathfinder offices have been
allocated more time for caseloading interviews. RNID believes that it is
preferable for the DWP to allocate sufficient personal advisers resources to
3
Kirby S and Riley R, The employment effects of full participation in ONE, Part Three of DWP Research
Report No. 183, Final Effects of ONE, (2003). See also Kirby S and Riley R, The employment effects of
ONE: Interim findings from the full participation phase, (2001) DWP In-house report 88
4
A New Contract for Welfare: Support for Disabled People (1998) Department of Social Security, Cm
4103
5 Osgood J et al, One Evaluation: Summary of Service Delivery findings (2003), DWP In-house report No.
108
6 Osgood J, et al (2003) ibid
7
Work and Pensions Committee, ‘One’ pilots: Lessons for Jobcentre Plus, First Report of Session 200102, March 2002, HC 426
4
make voluntary follow-up interviews work, rather than to force claimants to
attend these interviews.
3.5
Mandatory action plans. The Government proposes to pilot the mandatory
completion of action plans. Until now it has not been compulsory for incapacity
claimants to draw up an action plan. While we agree that drawing up a return to
work plan could be helpful to claimants, we do not see the necessity of compelling
claimants to complete action plans. If voluntary caseloading was working properly
then there would be no need to compel claimants to draw up action plans.
3.6
Co-ordinating the work-focused interview and personal capability assessment
more closely. It is proposed that there should be early identification of exempt
groups, quicker personal capability assessments (PCA) and early capability reports.
The initial evaluation report on the use of capability reports was not particular
conclusive about their effectiveness. Among the problems identified in the
evaluation report were ‘tensions between the compulsory nature of the PCA and the
voluntary status of job-search and work for people in Incapacity Benefit’.8 We
would be keen to hear how the Government intends to rectify problems such if the
capability reports are to continue in use. We are yet to be convinced of the value
and usefulness of capability reports in helping sick and disabled people move into
work.
3.7
Creating new teams of specialist advisers. RNID broadly welcomes the proposal
to create dedicated teams of personal advisers specialising in incapacity. When the
ONE pilots were first established we had reservations about the ability of generalist
personal advisers to understand the needs of disabled people in general and deaf
and hard of hearing people in particular. As an illustration of the problem, 61% of
respondents to an RNID employment survey said that they were unable to
communicate with job centre or careers service staff.9 The Work and Pensions
Committee report on the ONE pilots suggested that our fears were justified. The
Committee found that personal advisers had been 'reluctant to broach the subject of
work' with incapacity benefit claimants 'because they felt they lacked the skills and
expertise to have a work-related discussion with these clients'.10
3.8
However, whilst a pan-disability approach may be perfectly suitable for most
disabled clients, we still have reservations about whether these advisers would
understand the very specific communication problems of deaf and hard of hearing
people. If personal advisers do not understand the communication requirements of
deaf people they will not be able to identify the specific barriers to work or advise
how they can be overcome. One in four deaf respondents (24%) to RNID's
employment survey reported that the service provided by disability employment
advisers and other Jobcentre staff was not helpful. The RNID set up its own
Employment, Learning and Skills Service (ELSS) precisely because mainstream
8
Legard R, Lewis J, Hiscock J, and Scott J, Evaluation of the Capability Report: Identifying the workrelated capabilities of incapacity benefit claimants (2002), DWP Research Report No. 162.
9 Bradshaw W, (2002) The employment situation and experiences of deaf and hard of hearing people,
RNID
10 Work and Pensions Committee, 'One' Pilots: Lessons for Jobcentre Plus, March 2002, First Report of
Session 2001-02
5
employment programmes, including disability services, were failing deaf people.
All our advisers are BSL users who are able to communicate with profoundly deaf
clients. It is our long-term objective to ensure that mainstream employment services
become deaf-friendly. However, in the medium term we recognise that interpreter
shortages and lack of deaf awareness amongst providers of employment
programmes necessitates deaf-specific employment services. We would therefore
recommend that personal adviser services to deaf claimants are either
contracted out to specialist agencies such as RNID, or else there should be deaf
specialists within the new personal adviser teams.
3.9
Exemptions. It is proposed that people with the most severe disabilities be
exempted from ongoing mandatory interviews. Should claimants currently exempt
from the personal capability assessment (PCA) also be exempt from the new workfocused interview regime? This is a difficult issue given our reservations about the
extension of mandatory interviews. The fact that certain groups of claimants are
exempt from the PCA does not mean that they are, by implication, unemployable.
Whilst exemptions could usefully spare those who are too sick or disabled to work
from the unnecessary stress of having to attend an interview, we would not want to
see people with severe disabilities written off as unemployable and consequently
denied access to the personal adviser service. Most of the PCA exempt groups
would be too ill or disabled to work but some, such as registered blind people and
paraplegics, could work given the right support. We would like to see assurances
that claimants in exempt categories will be offered the same level of service i.e. ongoing support from personal advisers - on a voluntary basis.
4
Improving referrals to disability employment programmes
4.1 In principle we support the proposal to improve referral to disability employment
programmes. However, our experience is that pan-disability programmes are not
necessarily accessible to deaf people. Twenty-nine per cent of deaf respondents to
RNID's employment survey who had undertaken a Government employment or
training scheme said that it had helped very little and they would not recommend it.
Providers often do not understand how to accommodate deaf people. For example,
RNID's casework service recently dealt with the case of a deaf person who was
referred by Jobcentre Plus onto a forklift truck-driving course. However, the
training provider refused to admit the deaf person onto the course on health and
safety grounds because they could not hear shouted instructions. RNID’s
employment advisers report that NDDP job brokers are surprised to learn that they
have to pay for interpreter costs when working with deaf clients. The Government
needs to review the accessibility of all pan-disability employment programmes
and ensure that they are fully accessible to deaf and hard of hearing people.
5
Work-focused rehabilitation programmes
5.1 RNID welcomes the proposal to establish voluntary rehabilitation programmes for
people with back pain, non-severe mental health problems and cardio-vascular
6
conditions to ensure early return to work. Vocational rehabilitation has been badly
neglected in Britain for years and we will be interested to see how effectively these
programmes will perform.
5.2 We would like to see a similar joined-up approach applied to people with acquired
hearing loss. Around two-thirds of the 3.5 million deaf and hard of hearing adults
of working age in the UK are aged 50-65. Many of these older workers will lose
their hearing gradually and eventually be forced into early retirement. Early
diagnosis and fitting of hearing aids could substantially prolong the working lives
of people with progressive hearing loss. The Government has taken the first step in
announcing that digital hearing aids will be available on the NHS throughout the
country. The next challenge is to reduce unacceptably long audiology waiting
times. A 2001 RNID report found that the average waiting time for a hearing test in
England was 13.5 weeks.11 One in eight audiology departments reported waiting
times of 6 months or longer. An earlier RNID survey had found that the average
waiting time for a hearing aid to be fitted in England was around 20 weeks, but in
some areas it could take as long as 19 months.12
6
A new name for incapacity benefit
6.1 We would agree with the Government that the name 'incapacity benefit' is negative
and misleading. But is it true to say that the 'name has re-inforced a view amongst
many claimants (and their family and friends) that they are, in fact, incapable of
working'. No evidence is provided to substantiate this assertion. We are not
convinced that the name of the benefit itself discourages people from looking for
work. In our experience sick and disabled people are far more likely to become
discouraged after an unsuccessfully looking for work and having been repeatedly
being turned down for jobs. Therefore we do not have a view on whether there
should be a new name for incapacity benefit.
6.2 A far greater concern for us, regardless of the name of the benefit, is the fear of
triggering an incapacity review by undertaking training, work-experience or other
jobseeking activities. RNID employment advisers tell us that deaf and hard of
hearing clients are reluctant to undertake training or work-experience because they
are worried about losing their incapacity benefit. RNID would like to see some
sort of protection for incapacity claimants who are taking steps towards
employment. This could work in tandem with the new permitted work rules. For
example, a claimant undertaking permitted work, voluntary work or training could
be protected from an incapacity benefit review for a limited period (e.g. 52 weeks),
unless there was strong and compelling evidence of fraud.
11
12
Audiology in Crisis: Still waiting to hear (2001) RNID
Waiting to hear? (1999), RNID
7
7
Existing IB recipients
7.1 We welcome the assurance that 'existing claimants will, from the outset, be able to
access the new work-focused rehabilitation programmes' as well as the new
financial incentives. It is not clear whether existing claimants will be able to
receive ongoing support from the new specialist personal adviser teams. The
Government says it will 'analyse further the evidence we have from the New Deal
for Disabled People and other work to establish which existing claimants are most
likely able to benefit'. We would like to see the full Choices package offered to all
existing recipients, not just to those subject to the work-focused interview
requirement. In light of the low take-up of the NDDP personal adviser pilots we
would recommend consultation with disability groups and other relevant
stakeholders in the design of a communications strategy that will encourage
existing recipients to contact the personal adviser service.
8
Clearer incentives to try work
8.1 We welcome the proposal to extend the £300 Adviser Discretion Fund to incapacity
benefit claimants in the pilot areas. We also welcome the proposed £40 a-week
return to work credit for people moving off IB into full-time work. The credit
should make it easier for sick and disabled people to plan their return to work. We
look forward to seeing how these two new work incentives will work in practice.
The green paper does not clarify whether the return to work credit will be
disregarded for the purposes of housing benefit, council tax benefit, and tax credits.
We would strongly recommend that the return to work credit should be fully
disregarded for all income-related benefits and tax credits.
8.2 One of the problems identified in the evaluation of previous work incentives
schemes was that take-up was limited by poor awareness of these concessions.13 As
the potential beneficiaries of these incentives will include existing IB recipients
who will not be required to take part in work-focused interviews, the success of
these incentives depends on the development of an effective communications
strategy. The experience of the NDDP personal adviser pilots suggests that sending
letters to claimants is insufficient. RNID would be happy to advise Jobcentre Plus
on how best to promote these new work incentives to deaf and hard of hearing
people.
9
What is missing from the Choices package?
9.1 One of the big gaps in Pathways to Work is the absence of any proposals to
incentivise employers to recruit disabled people. Work incentives for disabled
claimants will necessarily have a limited impact as long as employers are reluctant
to hire disabled workers. Deaf and hard of hearing people encounter widespread
discrimination in the labour market. Seventy per cent of deaf respondents to
13
Corden A, and Sainsbury R (2001), Incapacity Benefits and Work Incentives, DSS Research Report No.
141
8
RNID's employment survey said that they have been prevented from getting a job
due to their deafness.14 The RNID casework service was established in September
2000 in order to support deaf people who have suffered discrimination. In the
period from April 2001 to December 2002 the service handled 721 complaints of
employment discrimination. In the year 2002 alone there were 206 employment
complaint to the service.
9.2 Whilst we acknowledge that the Government has made considerable progress in
strengthening the Disability Discrimination Act, we believe that there should be
carrots as well as sticks for employers. We recommend that the Government
should also experiment with financial incentives such as tax or national
insurance breaks to encourage employers to hire disabled people.
9.3 The Access to Work (AtW) scheme plays a vital role in enabling deaf and hard of
hearing people move into work. We acknowledge the fact that the number of AtW
beneficiaries has more than doubled since 1997. Yet, too many employers are still
unaware of the scheme. RNID research found that 57% of companies and half of
those employing deaf or hard of hearing people had not heard about the AtW
scheme.15 We recommend that the Government does more to actively promote
awareness of the AtW scheme amongst employers, particularly small and
medium-sized employers.
9.4 One of the gaps in the Access to Work scheme is that it does not cover voluntary
work or work experience placements which are an important gateway to
employment for disabled people. For deaf people who need sign language
interpreters or other forms of communication support, the absence of AtW funding
for work placements constitutes a substantial barrier to work. RNID has obtained
money from the European Social Fund (ESF) to pay for communication support for
deaf people on work placements. Without this funding employers would be
unwilling to take on deaf people in work placements. We recommend that the
Access to Work scheme should be extended to cover voluntary work and work
experience placements.
10
People moving from incapacity benefits onto jobseeker’s allowance
10.1 We welcome the fact that people who move off incapacity benefit onto jobseeker’s
allowance (JSA) will be immediately able to access a DEA or personal adviser and
will not have to wait 18 months to access JSA New Deal programmes. However,
we have reservations about imposing a JSA regime on people who are appealing
against an incapacity for work decision given the fact that over 40% of these
decisions are overturned at appeal.16 This change could lead to the absurd situation
where claimants may be shuffled from IB onto JSA and required to fulfil the JSA
labour market conditions, only to return to IB following a successful appeal. The
14
Bradshaw (2002), op cit
Bradshaw, W, (2002) The experiences of employers: Research into deafness and employment, RNID
16 Appeals Service, Report by the President of Report by the President of Appeal Tribunals on the
Standards of Decision-making by the Secretary of State 2001-2002
15
9
Government could still rectify the iniquitous situation where claimants are
forced to subsist on reduced-rate income support by simply allowing claimants
to retain their incapacity benefit in full until their appeal is decided.
11
The role of other stakeholders
11.1 We agree that there needs to be a cultural shift towards improving occupational
health provision, and developing rehabilitation and job retention policies. Apart
from those who qualified for incapacity benefit (IB) through the new noncontributory route, most IB claimants were once in work. Investment in an
effective job retention strategy will reduce the long-term economic and social costs
of allowing people with long-term health problems and disabilities to drop out of
the labour market.
11.2 We agree that employers, insurers, and general practitioners are key stakeholders in
occupation health and rehabilitation. However Government also has an important
role to play in developing an effective job retention strategy. Persuasion policies
designed to encourage employers to improve the management of sickness and
disability at work are only one part of the equation. The high numbers of
employment complaints under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 indicate that
persuasion alone is not sufficient. There is a strong case for legislation to give
employees a statutory right to disability leave and job protection during a period of
rehabilitation. We recommend that the Government and the Disability
Employment Advisory Committee (DEAC) considers the case for legislation to
underpin job retention policies.
10