Arksey, H., Thornton, P. & Williams, J.,

2002,

Reviewed by Patricia Thornton,
Social Policy Research Unit,
University of York

Please note, a full text version of this document appears in the box below

Methodology

The Department for Work and Pensions commissioned the Social Policy Research Unit at the University of York to quantify and classify employment-focussed services for disabled people in Great Britain. Data collection took place between February and July 2001. The researchers sought out projects providing services that focussed on preparing for employment, assisting with take-up of employment opportunities, sustaining employment obtained or on retention of people who become ill or impaired. Direct provision by the Employment Service, residential services, services providing only advocacy or information and support groups were excluded.

A proforma, shown in the report, was designed to collect standardised information about projects and their services. The information comprised: scheme name and contact details; scheme description; client group(s); eligibility criteria; referral routes; annual targets; funding arrangements; area covered; and start and end dates. The standardised data for each project ‘live’ at July 2000 were entered into a Microsoft Access database. SPSS was used to produce frequencies and cross-tabulations.

The database can be obtained from the Department for Work and Pensions as a CD ROM. It permits customised searches and is intended as a resource for service agencies and disabled people themselves.

The main sources of information were directories and almost all English local authority Welfare to Work Joint Investment Plans for Disabled People (JIPs). Requests for information were made to Government Offices for the Regions in England, Regional Development Agencies and equivalent bodies in Scotland and Wales. Managers of government-funded employment programmes, national voluntary organisations and leading charitable funders were contacted. Local organisations were identified through Internet searches. The proforma was circulated to projects identified by the researchers. It was included in some umbrella organisations’ newsletters and some circulated the request to members.

Critical Appraisal

The report gives full details of data-gathering methods employed and categorises the main sources of information. It comments on possible gaps in regional coverage including possible under-reporting of services in Scotland and Wales, as JIPs cover England only, despite extra effort to identify services outside England. The responses from Government Offices for the Regions and Single Regeneration Budget managers in the Regional Development Agencies were variable. Some funding organisations approached held databases not designed to be searched on the variables sought. Although the report does not claim to give full coverage of employment-focussed services, the multiplicity of methods employed suggests that few services slipped through the net. One possible gap is in coverage of private sector provision.

Drawing on multiple sources of information (applying to 20% of projects) helped to increase confidence in the accuracy of the data. Nevertheless, there are gaps in the information available about services. Information from JIPs was especially variable in quality. Data on the number of people served is very limited.

The authors recommend caution in interpreting the classification of service type. Some classifications were entered directly from directories. But the proformas allowed respondents to use their own terminology to describe the support offered and their conceptualisations of provision were then classified according to the researchers’ system.

Key Findings

A total of 2437 projects were identified. Fewer than one in ten provided generic services open to both disabled and non-disabled people, indicating a low level of ‘mainstreaming’. Just 17% of projects for which information was available were open to disabled people irrespective of type of impairment. More than half of projects were aimed at one disabled group only; four in ten catered for people with learning difficulties and a similar proportion people with mental health problems. Overall, the mostly commonly targeted groups were people with learning difficulties and mental health difficulties. The number of projects serving people with learning disabilities is disproportionate to the incidence of this group in the general population (although it was not possible to collate the numbers served). Very few projects aimed only at people with physical impairments but this group is comparatively well served by the Employment Service (whose direct services were excluded from the study).

In total, 6731 services were on offer. Very few services for job retention were found. Most services focussed on pre-employment stages. JIPs tended to report educational and training programmes, biasing the picture. Vocational training was provided by over four in ten projects. Work placement and supported employment were each recorded for about one in four. A quarter of services focussed on employment in ‘special settings’, that is forms of employment specifically for disabled people.

Over two-thirds of projects provided more than one service and a third of projects provided four or more. It was not possible to tell how far these projects offered disabled people a choice of options.

Data on referral routes was incomplete but referral by a professional to access services was required in at least three in ten projects and self-referral was an option in just over one in ten services.

Information on funding sources was available for half of the projects identified. The largest source, in over three in ten instances, was a social services authority. The Department for Education and Employment or the Employment Service was the second largest source. Just under half of projects had more than one funding source, suggesting that a significant number of projects are investing time and effort chasing funding as well as reporting to different funders.

Social Work Practice Implications

As social services practitioners increasingly need to advise clients on employment opportunities, the CD ROM Directory available from this research is a useful resource.

The information from the English Welfare to Work for Disabled People JIPs was an important source for the research and English social service authorities should ensure that the information collected is widely publicised and up-dated.

Social service authority providers of employment services for disabled people should scrutinise the findings and consider the balance of their service provision. Services to sustain or retain employment are under-represented, and services for groups other than those with mental health problems or learning difficulties are also under-represented. Authorities might consider options for more integrated service provision rather than focussing on specific impairment groups. Opening up access through self-referral also might be considered.

Click here for full text