News / media

Enham's response to Sayce Review

27 September 2011

Enham can confidently claim to be an expert in the field of providing specialist employment support to disabled people and is pleased to use this knowledge in responding to the Liz Sayce's independent review of specialist disability employment programmes, Getting in, staying in and getting on.

Enham has a long history of providing specialist employment services to disabled people, with over 90 years of experience. Enham's practical experience includes:

• the successful running of three supported businesses employing 60 people supported by the Work Choice provision, in both Andover and Eastleigh, Hampshire
• a Residential Training provision for 26 people per year
• a Work Programme contract as a sub-contractor, with a contract to support over 500 people per year
• a specialist ESF funded service to support people with mental health conditions to enter the labour market
• an Entry2Employment service, supporting NEET young people, many of whom have some form of learning disability or behavioural problem

In addition, Enham has previously provided a range of DWP funded contracts, including Workstep and Work Preparation, as well as supporting disabled people outside the labour market to engage in work-type activities, as a stepping-stone to employment, or as a form of meaningful voluntary activity.

It is important to note, in relation to this response, much of Enham's policy and approach to service delivery is directly influenced by disabled people themselves, through its Partnership Board and Disability Forum, in addition to disabled people being employed at all levels of the organisation (including the Executive Board). Hence, the views presented in this response from Enham come not only from a provider perspective, but more importantly, from disabled people potentially directly and indirectly affected by Liz Sayce's recommendations themselves.

Remploy Supported Businesses

Enham agrees with the need to modernise Remploy factories, but also argues there is an on-going need for such enterprises, in order to provide employment opportunities to those people, who, due to a variety of reasons, do not wish, or are unable, to enter and/or sustain mainstream employment. Enham believes a clearer recognition is required that some disabled people have need of on-going support to remain in some form of paid employment and that regardless of the support given, productivity levels will remain lower than other people's.

In addition, Remploy and other supported businesses often provide informal support to individuals, which would otherwise necessitate other agencies, such as Supported Living services, to engage with the individual. Hence, the true costs of Remploy and other supported businesses often ensure a saving elsewhere; hence, the net cost to the Exchequer is reduced. This is not to argue for the continuation of the current level of Remploy subsidy, but rather, that Remploy is brought in-line with other supported businesses, with a £4800 Work Choice grant, per person.

Enham also supports the proposal to transfer the ownership and management of Remploy supported businesses from public ownership. In 2001, Enham successfully took over a failing Local Authority supported business, which is now a successful enterprise with over £1 million turnover that generates a surplus for the charity. Part of this transition phase included a time-limited subsidy, from the Local Authority, to support Enham in the TUPE transfer and modernisation process. Enham believes the charitable sector has a significant role to play in assisting Remploy supported businesses to become fit-for-purpose. However, the full risk must not be placed on the new management organisation, but must be shared with the Government, at least for a transition period. Such an approach would ensure a greater likelihood of long-term success, ensuring employment for disabled people.

The on-going value of supported businesses was illustrated when the BBC One Show featured Enham on the 5th September 2011. An interviewee who works in one of Enham's supported businesses, responding to the interviewer's question, "What do you feel that working here [Enham] has brought you?", replied, "Confidence, self-esteem, despite my disability it's given me a good life now".

Work Choice

The concept of personalisation and therefore the money following the individual, is one fully supported by Enham. Much work has been done relating to this approach in the field of social care and therefore lessons can be learnt. Enham would recommend, if DWP were to take an individualised budget approach, a pilot takes place in one Work Choice Contract Package Area (CPA), with external, independent evaluation, prior to any longer-term decision being taken.

DWP needs to be mindful of ensuring the sustainability of current supported businesses, and as an absolute minimum, providing funding to enable a smooth adjustment from block funding to individual budgets. Such funding could be, in part, to assist supported businesses to market this aspect of their 'business' to potential customers, i.e. the disabled person in receipt of the individual budget. Failure to support supported businesses to adjust to the new market could mean the closure of otherwise sustainable employment opportunities, potentially leading to long-term unemployment of those disabled people currently employed in the supported business. Enham recommends a balance between block funding (i.e. a percentage of the current £4800 per place) for supported businesses and individual budgets, which would 'follow' the individual. This would enable longer-term planning for supported businesses as well as ensuring greater client choice and control.

Enham cautions DWP on any approach to funding that may disadvantage those disabled people who may either be 'furthest' from the labour market or require higher levels of support. The proposal of merging Work Choice with Access to Work, runs the risk of encouraging AtW managers to utilise the additional funding to support greater volumes of disabled people rather than those with most need. The same argument is applicable to Residential Training funding being 'spread' over greater numbers of people, leaving the most vulnerable exposed. Whilst it may be seductive to use a finite budget to support as many people as possible, this approach will inevitably leave those disabled people with the most complex and expensive support needs at risk.

Residential Training

Enham is pleased both Liz Sayce and DWP recognise the value and uniqueness of Residential Training. Enham acknowledges, on face value, the cost per job outcome for clients accessing a Residential Training provision appears high. However, the approach taken by Liz Sayce does not recognise the long-term saving to the Exchequer, of people who, had they not attended Residential Training, would have remained claiming benefits. In addition, current figures show the average cost per job outcome as being closer to £50,000 and therefore significantly lower than the figure quoted by Liz Sayce.

It is also important to recognise that standard skills-based training, as provided through a local FE College, will not meet the needs of many Residential Training clients, who, in addition to individualised learning support, require social and independent living skills development. Such development is critical in obtaining and sustaining paid employment and is often better met in a specialist environment, with peer support. Residential Training Colleges are designed to meet the needs of people with the most complex needs, be they physical, sensory, and/or, psychological, providing specialist staffing and environments not readily available in mainstream settings. That is not to argue that disabled people should not access mainstream services nor that mainstream services should not ensure they are compliant with the Equality Act. But where it is appropriate, specialist services need to remain in the armoury of provision, to ensure all needs are catered for.

Enham believes Liz Sayce's recommendation to utilise other sources of revenue including the Skills Funding Agency, Work Choice and Work Programme as misplaced, for the level of funding available from these sources is not comparable to the expenditure incurred, in order to support a Residential Training client. However, Enham does believe a greater use of outcome funding could be utilised, placing a shared risk between DWP and the provider organisation, whilst recognising the need for up-front funding due to the long-term commitment and therefore expenditure, towards the client.

Due to the complex nature of the client group and the recognition that whilst some Residential Training Colleges are pan-disability, others are specialist impairment specific colleges (i.e. sight loss) the level of outcome funding per sustained job outcome could be negotiated either in relation to each college, or in relation to the individual. Hence, if, for instance, outcome funding per sustained job outcome was set higher for people with a sight loss (as a group recognised to be disproportionately disadvantaged in the labour market), then any college working with a person with this impairment could receive a higher level of funding, recognising the additional cost of supporting this client group enter and sustain paid employment, as well as recognising the additional 'risk' taken by the college (thus reducing the likelihood of 'parking' potential clients).

As part of Enham's response to the Getting in, staying in and getting on, we asked current clients of Residential Training what they would like to say. Andy stated:

"Residential Training is about hope, and it's about people. Residential Training has given me the flexibility to cope with my injuries whereas generally this does not happen in college or work. I used to be very negative and this put a strain on my family life but through coming to Enham I have changed my attitude. There is now a chance I can get back into full time employment that I never had before and this has improved my family life as well as my own outlook. To me Residential Training should not be about figures and money but about people."

John responded by staying:

"Being residential means that I am self sufficient and not reliant on external factors to get to training. Being residential means that I can ignore external hassles and concentrate on my training, whilst still being contactable if required. I am now in a work place as opposed to being in a college classroom which is preparing me for life back in work. It's not just about money it's about the quality of training provided."

Karen added:

"Working within the work place environment gives me the confidence boost I need. Distance learning course would not be suitable as I would not get the motivation I need as well as the 1-2-1 support that Residential Training provides... Cutting this course would be a bad idea as lots of people out there like me would not achieve anything and in the long term this would cost the government more."

Additionally, Steve stated:

"Enham has one goal and that is to get us into a decent skilled job via vocational training, rather than a dead end job. It's a big shame that other people may not benefit from this in the future in the ways I have. Can you really put a price on someone's life?"

Enham believes passionately in disabled people having access to appropriate support at the appropriate time, in order to enter and sustain paid employment. Whilst we fully recognise the need for value for money services and agree with the goal of ensuring specialist employment provision is fit-for-purpose in the coming years, we also believe in the importance of ensuring a diverse range of provision is available, in recognition that each individual will have unique needs. Enham therefore requests that DWP takes a measured response to the recommendations presented in Getting in, staying in and getting on. 

< Back