Smith, A. & Twomey, B.,

2002,

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

Note: a full text version of this article appears if you follow the link in the box below .

Methodology

This is the latest in a series of articles in Labour Market Trends on the labour market situation of disabled people, based on analysis by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) of the UK quarterly Labour Force Survey (LFS) covering people of working age in private households. This article relates to the autumn 2001 LFS. It describes some social and demographic characteristics of disabled people; gives an overview of relative participation of disabled people in the labour market; and describes the impact on household economic activity status of having a disabled member. The Government’s labour market policy for full employment, and strands relating to disabled people and other disadvantaged groups, are outlined very briefly.

The LFS now uses three definitions of disability: current long-term disability as defined by the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (DDA); a long-term work-limiting disability only (the DDA does not list work as a day-to-day activity); and both DDA and work-limiting disabilities. In all cases health problems or disabilities are expected to last for more than a year. The report typically collapses all three definitions but at times usefully distinguishes them. Because of a change in definition in 1997, comparisons over time are shown only from then onwards and, as data are not seasonally adjusted, results are presented for autumn quarters only

Critical Appraisal

The article does not explain that the LFS aims to interview a representative cohort in five consecutive quarters. Nor does it explain that follow-up interviews are mostly conducted by telephone and that proxy interviews are allowed. The questions are not reported verbatim.

Base numbers are not given; rather grossed up figures for the UK are presented. This makes it hard to assess the usefulness of the LFS for further sub-group analysis. The analysis is selective and there is much scope for further analysis of the data held by ONS. (For example, change in individual situations over the five quarters of the panel could be explored.)

The authors speculate on factors likely to affect disadvantage in the labour market but are not in a position to confirm their hunches because, they say, there is lack of appropriate data sources.

Key Findings

Nearly one in five (19.3%) people of working age in private households had a current long-term disability in autumn 2001 (3.7 million men and 3.4 million women). The likelihood increases with age to around one third for both men and women in the 50 to retirement age group. The proportion of people in the population reporting a disability grew from 17.8 % in autumn 1998; the authors speculate that increases in reporting levels are partly a result of higher public awareness of different types of disability.

It is interesting that 1.4 million of the 7.1 million disabled people (20%) were DDA current disabled only - that is, they were not limited in the type or amount of work they could undertake – and it is striking that this group had higher employment rates and lower unemployment rates than those not classified as disabled in the survey. It is also noteworthy that 1.3 million people had a work-limiting disability only and were not protected by the DDA.

Disability rates vary markedly across regions: the highest rate stands at one-and-a-half times the lowest. The highest rate is in the North East at 24%, followed by Wales at 23% and the North West at 22%. The South East has the lowest rate at 16%, followed by East and Greater London at 17% apiece.

Respondents are asked to identify their main health problem/disability from a list. Over one third (35%) identified musculo-skeletal problems affecting back of neck (19%), legs or feet (10%) or arms or hands (6%). The next highest groups are those reporting chest and breathing problems (14%) and mental illness (10%). The smallest groups are people with a learning difficulty (1.4%), people with difficulty in seeing (1.6%) and people with difficulty in hearing (1.6%).

Overall, 48% of disabled people are in employment, compared with 81% of non-disabled people. When we look at proportions with different main health problems or disabilities, we find that people with mental illness and learning difficulties as their main condition have by far the lowest rates at only 18% and 21% respectively. The highest employment rates are for people with skin problems and allergies (69%), difficulty in hearing (68%), diabetes (65%) and chest or breathing problems (64%).

The LFS shows that for disabled men the ILO unemployment rate is almost twice as high as for non-disabled men (9.7% compared with 5.0%). This is true for all age groups exceptt for 16-19 year-olds for whom the rate was around two-thirds higher. The gap for women is narrower (6.6% compared with 4.5% for non-disabled women).

The remainder of the UK disabled population (48%) are economically inactive (that is, not in employment or ILO unemployed). This figure compares with only 15% for people who are not disabled. Two thirds (68%) of these economically inactive disabled people stated they were not seeking or not wanting work. The rest (32%) said they would like to work but three-quarters of those were unable to start in the next two weeks, mainly due to health problems.

Households with a disabled person of working age had a workless rate of 31.1% compared with a rate of 9.7% in households where a non-disabled adult of working age was present. Moreover, all people in the household are inactive in 27% of households with a disabled adult of working age compared with 6.7% without. Future analysis may explore reasons for such a high disparity.

Social Work Practice Implications

The article provides a useful overview for the social services reader, and is particularly helpful in reporting labour market participation of people with different types of health problem or impairment.

The data presented demonstrate that being disabled is not an ‘all-or-nothing’ state.

Having a long-term disability that affects everyday activities does not necessarily limit the type or amount of work that can be done. At the same time, some people whose working capacity is limited are not limited in daily activities. This suggests a need for careful assessment of functional limitations both in daily activities and in employment, to identify clients who might need employment interventions.

A significant proportion of disabled people have musculo-skeletal problems. But also striking is the prevalence of non-visible medical conditions like chest, heart/circulatory and digestive problems and diabetes. This latter finding suggests that social services authorities’ focus on physical disabilities may need to be oriented to ensure that people with medical conditions are equally served. It is noteworthy that the people with mental health problems and learning disabilities are seriously under-represented in employment and that over four times as many disabled people have a mental illness as have a learning disability. It is important to ensure that patterns of employment-focussed services reflect these levels of need. Regional variations in employment, unemployment and inactivity rates indicate that more employment-related services may be required in the North East and Wales.

The finding that a third of inactive disabled people of working age say they would like to work exaggerates their readiness for employment. Nevertheless, it gives a strong message that people receiving benefits on grounds of incapacity for work should not be written off as unwilling and unable to work.

Full text document (PDF)