Pathways to Work

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,

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.

1Introduction: the employment situation of deaf and hard of hearing people

1.1RNID 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]

2The obstacles to work

2.1We 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 supply-side 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.

3A new work-focused interview regime

3.1The 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 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.

3.2In 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.

3.3Moving 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.

3.4Increasing 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 make voluntary follow-up interviews work, rather than to force claimants to attend these interviews.

3.5Mandatory 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.

3.6Co-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.

3.7Creating 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]

3.8However, 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 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.

3.9Exemptions. 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 work-focused 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.

4Improving referrals to disability employment programmes

4.1In 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.

5Work-focused rehabilitation programmes

5.1RNID welcomes the proposal to establish voluntary rehabilitation programmes for people with back pain, non-severe mental health problems and cardio-vascular 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.

5.2We 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]

6A new name for incapacity benefit

6.1We 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.

6.2A 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.

7Existing IB recipients

7.1We 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.

8Clearer incentives to try work

8.1We 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.