institute for employment studies
Dewson S, Ritchie H, Meager N
Research Report DWPRR 301, Department for Work and Pensions, November 2005
a study commissioned by the Department for Work and Pensions
This report presents the main findings from a representative national survey of nearly 1,500 employers who had recruited individuals registered under the New Deal for Disabled People (NDDP) during the period July 2002 to July 2003. It aimed to provide a quantitative assessment of the nature and scale of employer involvement with the programme, as a complement to two waves of qualitative research with employers (undertaken in 2002 and 2003).
Establishments recruiting NDDP customers are not a representative cross-section of employing establishments nationally. In particular, they are much more likely to be medium-sized or large establishments (with 50 or more employees) than is the case among employing establishments as a whole. In addition, it seems that establishments recruiting NDDP customers are heavily skewed towards the public administration and other services sectors (with a high proportion of public sector and voluntary sector establishments), while the primary and manufacturing sectors are heavily under-represented in the sample as, to some extent, is the private sector more generally. It is known from previous research that larger establishments and those in the voluntary and public sector are more likely to employ disabled people anyway. Hence this finding reinforces those from the earlier qualitative work which suggested that Job Brokers were not significantly broadening the recruitment terrain for NDDP customers (in the sense of accessing, in large numbers, employers who had not traditionally recruited disabled people). It was also notable that over one-third of the sample had participated in previous New Deals or other government training or employment programmes.
Other key characteristics of establishments which recruit NDDP participants are as follows:
General recruitment methods in the sampled establishments included a mix of formal and informal methods, dominated by the use of the jobcentre/careers office, newspaper advertising and the word-of-mouth and speculative applications.
Just over one-third of establishments (36 per cent) reported a specific approach to actively encourage the employment of disabled people (a much larger proportion than typically found in employer surveys), and such approaches were more common in the sample among public/voluntary sector employers, larger establishments and those which were part of larger organisations, and those with written equal opportunities policies covering disabled people’s employment. Such an approach did not, however, appear to be a response to labour market pressures (indeed establishments with recruitment difficulties were less likely to have a proactive approach to encouraging the recruitment of disabled people). Encouragement of the recruitment of disabled people, when it occurred, took place through a variety of means, the most common being: a specific welcome for disabled applicants in job advertisements; the use of the ‘two-ticks’ disability symbol in job advertisements; and specific requests to the jobcentre or careers office.
Only three per cent of establishments said that they would not generally recruit disabled people, and such reservations generally reflected a view that disabled people would not be able to do some aspect of the job in question, or health and safety concerns, and respondents generally said that these reservations would be unlikely to be overcome by financial or other support to encourage the recruitment of disabled people.
Although the entire sample had recruited at least one client registered under NDDP, only 66 per cent were aware of having any disabled employees. When a prompted question was asked using a broad definition of disability related to that in the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA), however, this proportion rose to 74 per cent. These proportions are, nevertheless, considerably higher than those reported in previous employer surveys of the general employer population, and it should also be stressed that a) not all of the eligible population for NDDP would be ‘disabled’ using these definitions; and b) there is no reason why the employer should necessarily be aware of an NDDP client’s disability status, or indeed that they are an NDDP client (the nature of the programme is such that there is no expectation that an employer recruiting an NDDP client would know their status as a client of the programme).
The proportions of respondents (aware of) having disabled employees was higher in:
Among those establishments that were aware of having employed disabled people, 42 per cent felt that there were advantages to doing so. This compared with only 24 per cent of those who were not aware of having employed disabled people. The causality could, however, go in either direction: employers (aware of) having disabled employees may be more likely to perceive the benefits in so doing; equally, employers who start with a more positive attitude to the benefits of disabled employees may be more likely to go on to recruit disabled people (and/or to be aware of doing so). Perception of benefits was higher: among the public and voluntary sector (compared with the private sector); among those experiencing recruitment difficulties; and among those with a written equal opportunities policy covering disabled people. The most common benefits anticipated related to: improved image of the organisation to customers; improved staff relations and morale; and improved staff retention rates.
Larger proportions of employers saw benefits in retaining existing disabled employees who became disabled – 57 per cent of establishments currently aware of having disabled employees saw such advantages, as did 45 per cent of establishments that were not aware of having employed any disabled people.
A third of employers (irrespective of whether they were already aware of having disabled employees) also saw disadvantages to the employment of disabled people.There was little variation in this proportion by type of establishment, or by whether they had written equal opportunities policies covering the employment of disabled people. Perceptions of disadvantages were dominated by considerations of absence/sickness rates among disabled employees; and concerns regarding lower productivity levels.
Nearly three-fifths of establishments (59 per cent) had made adjustments (eg to the workplace or to working patterns or arrangements) in order to retain an employee who became disabled; while 44 per cent had made similar adjustments to facilitate the recruitment of a disabled person.
Statistical analysis showed that the probability of an establishment making adjustments to recruit or retain a disabled employee was higher in:
Where adjustments have been made for disabled recruits/employees, the commonest form of adjustment (reported by 52 per cent of those making such adjustments) related to the provision of flexible working patterns or working hours. This was followed by the provision of equipment or adapted equipment for a disabled person (33 per cent of those making adjustments).
Most of those making adjustments (72 per cent) had found them easy to make and, for most types of adjustments, the majority of establishments reported that there had been no direct financial costs in doing so (the exceptions were those cases where employers had made physical modifications to the workplace, or had provided special equipment for the disabled employee).
Among those making adjustments, 40 per cent had received external financial assistance in doing so (this proportion was much higher among public sector establishments). Access to Work and other jobcentre Plus-provided services were the most common sources of such assistance.
Although all establishments had recruited at least one NDDP client, just under half (49 per cent) reported being aware of NDDP prior to participating in the survey. This proportion was 61 per cent in the public and voluntary sectors, compared with only 44 per cent in the private sector. Larger establishments were also much more likely to be aware of the programme, as were those who had previously participated in other government employment or training programmes.
Twenty-five per cent of establishments reported having had one or more contacts with an NDDP Job Broker in the year prior to the survey. Taking all separate reported contacts between NDDP Job Brokers and establishments (as some establishments had contacts with several Job Brokers), some 31 per cent of these contacts were reported as having led to a recruitment (and half of these cases involved the recruitment of two or more staff).
The commonest jobs into which NDDP clients had been (knowingly) recruited were routine, unskilled occupations, followed by administrative and secretarial occupations and sales and customer service occupations (this occupational pattern is broadly consistent with that recorded in the separate survey of NDDP registrants, which was conducted as part of the evaluation).
Two-thirds (67 per cent) of known NDDP recruits were still in employment at the time of the survey, and of the third (32 per cent) who had left their jobs, the main reasons given were that they had resigned voluntarily or left to take up another job. Employers were, for the most part, when aware of recruitment via a named Job Broker satisfied with that recruitment; 81 per cent reported that they were very or fairly satisfied with their recruit, and in only seven per cent of these recruitments had the employer been dissatisfied.
In cases where there had been known contact with a Job Broker, but no recruitment, the commonest reason given (36 per cent of these cases) was that the employer had no vacancies; only small minorities of this group (less than ten per cent) said that the lack of recruitment reflected lack of confidence in the Job Broker, or the submission of unsuitable candidates by the Job Broker.
In two-thirds of cases (66 per cent) of successful (known) recruitment via a Job Broker, employers reported some after-care or post-recruitment follow-up activity on the part of the Job Broker, although such activity represents only a small part of the employer sample (and it is also possible that the NDDP clients known to employers may have had more severe or visible impairments, with a greater need for after-care activity, so this percentage may not be typical among all recruits). Such activity focused on issues such as: checking on the progress of the recruit; providing ongoing support to employer and employee; discussing further potential recruits; and to help and improve any poor performance on the part of the employee.
Overall, it seems that although only a minority were aware of contact with and recruitment via a Job Broker, where this happened, most employers found the experience to be a positive one, have felt satisfied with the recruits and retained them in employment, and where an ongoing relationship is established with the Broker, it is, for the most part a beneficial one.
Around one in five (18 per cent) of establishments had had one or more contacts with some other (non-Job Broker) organisation, in connection with the recruitment of people with a disability or health condition, in the year prior to the survey. Some 45 per cent of these contacts had led to a recruitment (a higher proportion than was found for Job Broker recruitments), into a similar range of jobs (again dominated by routine, unskilled occupations). As with recruits via Job Brokers, around two-thirds of such recruits remained in their jobs at the time of the survey. A somewhat higher proportion (78 per cent) of such recruitments were associated with ongoing post-recruitment contact with the intermediary organisations, than was the case with Job Brokers. As with Job Brokers, however, it seemed that the majority of these ‘aftercare’ contacts led to successful ongoing relationships between the intermediary organisations and the employer.
Just over one-third (37 per cent) of establishments in the survey had sought and/or received external support or advice about employing disabled people; this proportion was higher among public sector and larger establishments. The main types of advice sought and/or received related to: making adjustments in order to recruit a disabled person; the establishments obligations under the DDA; and providing support or making adjustments to retain a disabled member of staff.
The commonest source of such support or advice was from organisations which were NDDP Job Brokers (although this advice/support may not have been provided in their role as Job Brokers), followed by Jobcentre Plus.
The majority of those making use of such advice and support found it very useful (65 per cent) or quite useful (29 per cent).
Establishments that were not aware of NDDP (half of the sample) were asked about their support needs. Three-quarters of this group (75 per cent) said they would find it useful to have support and advice from an organisation specialising in working with disabled people (on topics such as their obligations under the DDA, and making adjustments for disabled employees). Further questioning suggested that this group was not overwhelmingly satisfied with the quality or range of advice and support available to them with regard to the recruitment and employment of disabled people.
Overall, it appeared, that although the awareness of NDDP and Job Brokers among the sample was much lower than might be expected (given that all had recruited at least one NDDP client), the group was generally favourably disposed towards the employment of disabled people, and a considerable proportion would welcome contact, support and advice from organisations such as Job Brokers (indeed, a minority were already receiving it from non-Job Broker organisations). This suggests some potential, unmet demand for this type of service among this group of employers.
New Deal for Disabled People: Survey of Employers, Dewson S, Ritchie H, Meager N. Research Report DWPRR 301, Department for Work and Pensions, 2005.
ISBN: 978-1-84123-921-7. [PDF price: £free]
2005 © institute for employment studies
Source URL: http://www.employment-studies.co.uk/summary/summary.php?id=dwp301&style=print
IES registered office: First Floor North, Sovereign House, Church Street, Brighton BN1 1UJ, UK
Registered in England no. 931547. IES is a charitable company limited by guarantee. Registered charity no. 258390
UK VAT registered, no. GB 449 5535 16
