New Deal for Disabled People: Survey of Employers

Transcription

1 Department for Work and Pensions Research Report No 301 New Deal for Disabled People: Survey of Employers Sara Dewson, Helen Ritchie and Nigel Meager A report of research carried out by the Institute for Employment Studies and the National Centre for Social Research on behalf of the Department for Work and Pensions Corporate Document Services

2 Crown Copyright Published for the Department for Work and Pensions under licence from the Controller of Her Majesty s Stationery Office by Corporate Document Services, Leeds. Application for reproduction should be made in writing to The Copyright Unit, Her Majesty s Stationery Office, St Clements House, 2-16 Colegate, Norwich NR3 1BQ. First Published ISBN Views expressed in this report are not necessarily those of the Department for Work and Pensions or any other Government Department. Printed by Corporate Document Services.

3 Contents iii Contents Acknowledgements... ix The Authors...x Abbreviations and acronyms... xi Summary Introduction: method and sample characteristics Aim and objectives of the research The research approach The sample Survey content Employers in the survey Report structure Recruitment and employment of disabled people Recruitment methods in general Attitudes and policies towards the recruitment of disabled people Policies encouraging the recruitment of disabled people Reservations about recruiting disabled people Employment of disabled people Benefits of employing disabled people Benefits of recruiting disabled people Benefits of retaining disabled employees Disadvantages of employing disabled people Support and adjustments in the workplace Incidence of making adjustments Types of adjustments made... 53

4 iv Contents 4.3 Ease of making adjustments Cost of making adjustments Experience of New Deal for Disabled People Awareness of New Deal for Disabled People Contact with Job Brokers Recruitment via a named Job Broker No recruitment via a named Job Broker Ongoing contact with the Job Broker Contact with other organisations Recruitment via other organisations No recruitment via other organisations Ongoing contact with other organisations Information, advice and support External information sought or received Type of information sought or received Other information needs Appendix A Multivariate analysis Appendix B Telephone questionnaire References List of tables Table 1.1 Comparison of size and broad sector IDBR and NDDP Survey Table 1.2 NDDP sample by industry and type of organisation Table 1.3 NDDP sample by establishment size Table 1.4 NDDP sample by establishment size and sector Table 1.5 Table 1.6 Which programmes or schemes has your establishment participated in? NDDP sample by previous participation in government employment or training programmes Table 1.7 NDDP sample by organisational structure Table 1.8 NDDP sample by recruitment difficulties Table 1.9 NDDP sample by type of organisation and presence of personnel department... 17

5 Contents v Table 1.10 NDDP sample by nature of equal opportunities policy Table 1.11 NDDP sample by coverage of written equal opportunity policy on the employment of disabled people Table 2.1 Usual recruitment methods Table 2.2 Table 2.3 Table 2.4 Table 2.5 Approach to recruitment of disabled people by organisation type Approach to recruitment of disabled people by industrial sector Approach to recruitment of disabled people by size of establishment Recruitment difficulties during previous 12 months, by organisation type Table 2.6 Methods used to attract applications from disabled people Table 2.7 Reasons for not recruiting disabled people Table 2.8 Impact of support on likelihood of employing a disabled person Table 2.9 Awareness of disabled employees Table 2.10 Awareness of disabled employees, by type of organisation Table 2.11 Awareness of disabled employees, by industry Table 2.12 Table 2.13 Table 2.14 Table 2.15 Table 2.16 Table 3.1 Awareness of disabled employees, by establishment size (number of employees) Awareness of disabled employees by experience of recruitment difficulties Awareness of disabled employees by active encouragement of job applications from disabled people Awareness of disabled employees, by usual recruitment methods Reasons reported for no employees with health conditions or disabilities Benefits of recruiting disabled employees, by type of organisation Table 3.2 Benefits of recruiting disabled employees Table 3.3 Anticipated benefits of recruiting disabled employees... 41

6 vi Contents Table 3.4 Benefits of employing a disabled person Table 3.5 Table 3.6 Whether employers perceive benefits/anticipated benefits of retaining employees who become disabled Benefits/anticipated benefits of retention of employees who become disabled Table 3.7 Disadvantages of employing disabled people Table 3.8 Table 3.9 Table 3.10 Table 3.11 Benefits versus disadvantages of employing disabled people, percentages Disadvantages to employing disabled people, by type of organisation Disadvantages of employing disabled people, by policy specifically covering the employment of disabled people Disadvantages of employing disabled people by recruitment difficulties Table 3.12 Disadvantages of employing disabled people Table 4.1 Incidence of making adjustments, by sector Table 4.2 Incidence of making adjustments, by establishment size Table 4.3 Table 4.4 Table 4.5 Table 4.6 Table 4.7 Incidence of making adjustments, by experience of recruitment difficulties Incidence of making adjustments, by policy specifically covering the employment of disabled people Adjustments made to recruit or retain disabled person by type of organisation Adjustments made to recruit or retain disabled person, by establishment site Adjustments made to recruit or retain disabled person, by establishment size Table 4.8 Ease of making adjustments, percentages Table 4.9 Financial costs of making adjustments, percentages Table 4.10 Table 4.11 External financial support/ grant received to make adjustments, by type of organisation Organisation/scheme providing financial assistance to make adjustments Table 4.12 Indirect costs of adjustments... 59

7 Contents vii Table 5.1 Awareness of NDDP by type of organisation Table 5.2 Awareness of NDDP by industry, percentages Table 5.3 Awareness of NDDP by establishment size, percentages Table 5.4 Table 6.1 Table 6.2 Table 6.3 Awareness of NDDP by previous participation in government employment or training programmes External information sought or received on recruiting disabled people, by approach to recruitment of disabled people External information sought or received on recruiting disabled people, by type of organisation External information sought or received on recruiting disabled people, by establishment size Table 6.4 Type of information, support or advice sought or received Table 6.5 Sources of information, advice and support Table 6.6 Usefulness of information/assistance received Table 6.7 Types of help and advice which employers would find of most use List of figures Figure 2.1 Awareness of disabled employees Figure 5.1 Number of people recruited via Job Broker Figure 5.2 Job to which person was recruited (via Job Brokers) Figure 5.3 Reasons for no recruitment Figure 5.4 Number of ongoing Job Broker contacts Figure 5.5 Number of people recruited via other organisations Figure 5.6 Job to which person was recruited (via other organisations) Figure 5.7 Number of ongoing contacts with other organisations Figure 6.1 Views on existing support... 79

8

9 Acknowledgements ix Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank all the employers who gave their time to answer the questions in the survey, and the representatives of Job Brokers who provided the necessary information for sampling employers. We are also grateful to our colleagues at NatCen who undertook the survey work itself (particularly Andrew Shaw and Jon Hales) as well as to other members of the research consortium, and staff in the Department for Work and Pensions (especially Martin Hill and Vicki Brown) who provided advice and support during the research.

10 x The Authors The Authors Sara Dewson is a Principal Research Fellow at the Institute for Employment Studies. Her research skills range from a thorough grounding in quantitative analysis and extensive experience of qualitative research, both of which have been utilised in her work. Sara has contributed to evaluation studies at local, national and international levels and much of her work has centred around the issue of labour market disadvantage. Helen Ritchie is a Research Officer at the Institute for Employment Studies. She specialises in evaluation research and social exclusion issues, using both qualitative and quantitative research methods. Nigel Meager is Director of the Institute for Employment Studies. His main research interests include: the evaluation of active labour market measures; the employment barriers faced by disabled people and other disadvantaged groups; the role of selfemployment in the labour market; labour market regulation; and international comparisons of labour market performance.

11 Abbreviations and acronyms xi Abbreviations and acronyms CRSP DDA DfES DWP IDBR IES NatCen NDDP ONS SIC SOC Centre for Research in Social Policy Disability Discrimination Act Department for Education and Skills Department for Work and Pensions Inter-Departmental Business Register Institute for Employment Studies National Centre for Social Research New Deal for Disabled People Office for National Statistics Standard Industrial Classification Standard Occupational Classification

12

13 Summary 1 Summary 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 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). Characteristics of participating establishments 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: 39 per cent are single-site establishments (the remainder being part of larger, multi-site organisations); just under half (46 per cent) had experienced recruitment difficulties in the year prior to the survey;

14 2 Summary 61 per cent (more among the larger establishments and those in the public sector) had an in-house personnel or human resources function at the establishment; and 69 per cent had a written equal opportunities policy specifically covering the employment of disabled people. Recruitment and employment of disabled people 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).

15 Summary 3 The proportions of respondents (aware of) having disabled employees was higher in: establishments with an in-house personnel or HR function; establishments with a written policy on the employment of disabled people; establishments which proactively encourage job applications from disabled people; the public and voluntary sectors (compared with the private sector); larger establishments; establishments experiencing recruitment difficulties; establishments using formal recruitment methods (rather than word-of-mouth recruitment). Benefits of employing and retaining disabled people 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.

16 4 Summary Support and adjustments in the workplace 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: the public and voluntary sectors (compared with the private sector); larger establishments and establishments that are part of larger, multi-site organisations; establishments with equal opportunities policies specifically covering the employment of disabled people; and establishments which have recently experienced recruitment difficulties. 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. Experience of the New Deal for Disabled People 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

17 Summary 5 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

18 6 Summary proportion (78 per cent) of such recruitments were associated with ongoing postrecruitment 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. Information, advice and support 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.

19 Introduction: method and sample characteristics 7 1 Introduction: method and sample characteristics The New Deal for Disabled People (NDDP) was launched by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) as a national welfare-to-work programme in July 2001 to promote employment opportunities for people with health problems and disabilities (the national extension of NDDP followed the piloting of a personal adviser service in 12 local areas, launched in two phases over , the evaluation of which is reported in Loumidis et al. 2001). It is a voluntary programme operated through a network of Job Brokers who offer a diverse range of assistance and advice to job seekers. Organisations acting under contract to the Department as Job Brokers include voluntary and not-for-profit agencies, private companies and public sector organisations. Typically they have a prior track record of working with and providing services to disabled people, and some specialise in working with people with specific types of impairments or health problems (eg mental ill health). Job Brokers receive funding at different stages of the engagement process: when job seekers register with them to find work; when registrants start paid work; and when they sustain this employment for 26 weeks or more. A consortium of research organisations, led by the Centre for Research in Social Policy (CRSP), was commissioned by the DWP to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of NDDP. This report presents the findings of the quantitative telephone survey of employers, undertaken by the Institute for Employment Studies (IES) in association with the National Centre for Social Research (NatCen) 1. This survey complements two waves of qualitative research with employers undertaken by IES in 2002 and (the first wave of qualitative research covered a spread of employers who had recruited NDDP customers at an early stage in the implementation of the national 1 The IES team was responsible for the design of the study and research instruments, and the analysis and reporting of the date. NatCen handled sampling issues and undertook the fieldwork and data preparation for the study. 2 Aston et al. 2003, and Aston et al

20 8 Introduction: method and sample characteristics extension of the programme to provide early insight into how relationships with employers were developing; the second wave of qualitative research focused specifically on employers identified by Job Brokers as having had a particularly close involvement with the programme). 1.1 Aim and objectives of the research The aim of the employer survey was to assess employers experiences of recruiting through NDDP. The objectives of the survey were to: establish the characteristics of employers who are engaged with NDDP; examine their awareness of the NDDP programme; and assess employers awareness of, and interaction with, Job Brokers and similar organisations in relation to the recruitment and retention of people with longterm health conditions and disabilities. 1.2 The research approach The survey was undertaken with a representative sample of employers who had recruited an NDDP registrant, ie someone with a long-term health problem or disability who had registered with a Job Broker for help in finding work, during the twelve months leading up to July In essence, the sample aimed to represent establishments that had engaged someone who was registered with an NDDP Job Broker at the time of recruitment. The sample reflected the fact that a Job Broker had claimed a payment for the successful placement of a registrant into work, without any requirement or indication of how far the Job Broker had been involved in the engagement, or indeed with the employer. In some cases, the Job Broker may have been very actively involved in the process, for example, they may have advised the registrant about local employers and employment opportunities or helped the recruit to contact the employer to arrange an interview. Job Brokers may also have helped the employer more directly, for example, to discuss the applicant s suitability for the post or to gain funds from Access to Work to cover the costs of adapting work premises. However, it is also possible that the recruit (or registrant) had done virtually everything mentioned above themselves, from finding the vacancy to deciding to take up the offer of a job, without further reference to a Job Broker. Qualitative and quantitative interviews previously conducted with registrants, have shown that on some occasions they did not wish the Job Broker to represent them to the employer because they did not wish to signal themselves as disabled, and they felt that Job Broker involvement would involve the employer finding out about their health condition or disability. Other registrants simply preferred to handle the process without Job Broker assistance. As a result of these sensitivities, it was important that the employer survey did not make any reference to specific recruits. The aim was to avoid any employers inferring a connection between a recent recruit and NDDP, since this could identify the recruit

21 Introduction: method and sample characteristics 9 as having a health condition or disability, when this had not been disclosed to the employer by the individual themselves. Detailed discussion in the survey of employers experiences of NDDP, and of any individuals recruited via Job Brokers, took place only when the employer was already aware of NDDP, the Job Broker and the individual(s) thereby recruited, and had signalled that fact during the interview The sample The sample frame for the survey was taken from the New Deal Evaluation Database and consisted of some 16,000 individual job starts made between July 2002 and July For each job start, the database held details of the registrant, the Job Broker and the employer s name and its address (which was usually the address of the establishment at which the recruit had been employed). In order to get a representative spread of employers and, importantly, to ensure that the survey was undertaken with the person who (potentially) had the most contact with the Job Broker during the recruitment phase, it was decided to stratify the sample by Job Brokers, and to ask them to supplement/correct the contact already held about employers on the database (the two waves of qualitative research which preceded the survey, and referred to above, had made clear the need, particularly in larger establishments, to ensure that the interview was conducted with the person most likely to have had contact with the Job Broker, and most likely to be aware of NDDP and the operation of Job Brokers). Job Brokers have, as already suggested, widely varying levels of operation. With regard to the sample for this survey, some Job Brokers had placed hundreds of registrants into jobs (reflecting the widespread scale on which the Job Broker operated) while some had placed only a small number. The sample design had to take account of the willingness and capacity of Job Brokers to provide information on a number of organisations; to have asked the largest Job Brokers to provide details for all their recruits in the sample period would have placed an undue burden on these Job Brokers. This point was resolved by sampling a variable proportion of the engagements that fell in the period July 2002 to July 2003 according to the volume of job starts for each Job Broker. Thus, Job Brokers with higher job starts were asked to provide relatively fewer employer contact details than Job Brokers with smaller engagement volumes. Differences in sampling probability were then restored in the analysis by weighting the data to be representative of the employer sample overall (note that throughout the report, survey data are reported with weighted percentages in the table, but unweighted totals in the bases of the tables). From the original sampling frame of 16,000 cases, an effective sample of 2,299 cases (or employers) was drawn to go forward into the survey, resulting in 1,428 productive interviews Survey content The survey involved a telephone interview of approximately 20 minutes duration with representatives of employing establishments. The issues discussed during the interview were:

22 10 Introduction: method and sample characteristics background information about the organisation; experience of, and attitudes towards, the recruitment and employment of disabled people and people with long-term health conditions; provision of support and adjustments to the workplace to assist in the recruitment or retention of someone with a disability or long-term health condition; the benefits of employing disabled people and those with long-term health conditions; information, advice and support received regarding employing disabled people and people with long-term health conditions; and experience of NDDP and Job Brokers. The survey was piloted in October 2003, with the main stage phase taking place between January 2004 and June A copy of the questionnaire is attached in Appendix B. 1.3 Employers in the survey Employers taking part in the survey were broadly representative of all employers recruiting NDDP registrants. An important consideration, however, is the extent to which the profile of jobs obtained by NDDP registrants is similar to, or different from, overall patterns of recruitment and employment in the wider population, and whether the overall pattern of employing establishments reflects that in the wider economy as a whole. This would indicate whether recruitment via NDDP is concentrated among certain sectors of employment and/or among establishments of a particular size. There are various ways in which this comparison could be carried out. For example, a distinction could be made between the stock of employment and the flow within a 12 month period, the latter representing those employees who have been recruited within the period. This is perhaps the proper basis for comparison with the survey, which represents a picture of recruitment activity within a period of 13 months 4. The difficulty with this is the lack of a suitable data source about 3 Because of an error in the telephone interview script, it was necessary for NatCen to undertake a supplementary recontacting exercise with a subset of the sample. This was carried out between September and December This involves the simplification that each establishment in the sample represents a single engagement. In reality, a small number of establishments occurred more than once in the sampling frame and a number of establishments reported recruiting several individuals via Job Brokers. It was not felt that the effort needed to make adjustments for these details would improve the quality of the comparison enough to be warranted.

23 Introduction: method and sample characteristics 11 recruitment 5. A more simplistic approach is simply to compare the survey with the stock of employment. This makes the assumption that the rate of recruitment is uniform across sectors of employment, varying sizes of establishment and region. While this is an oversimplification, it is arguable that it fits the situation with a survey of this sort. Table 1.1 summarises the profile of employment by establishment (or local unit ) in the UK 6, based on the Inter-Departmental Business Register (IDBR), together with a comparable breakdown for the 1,428 employers in the survey sample in order to examine both the size profile of the survey and its industry sector profile (in both cases, the table shows the percentage of establishments falling into each size/sector category). Table 1.1 Comparison of size and broad sector IDBR and NDDP Survey Employees at establishment Small Medium Large Total % Source of data < (All sizes) Employment size by broad sector (NDDP sample) Primary and utilities Manufacturing and construction Distribution, hotels, catering, transport Financial and business services Other services Total % (all sectors) Employment size by broad sector (IDBR) [weighted data] Primary and utilities 7.0 < Manufacturing and construction Distribution, hotels, catering, transport Financial and business services Other services Total %(all sectors) Source: IES/NatCen; ONS. 5 The potential sources are the 2003 Learning and Skills Council/Department for Education and Skills (DfES) Employer Skills Survey and the Office for National Statistics (ONS) Vacancy Survey. The published findings of these studies do not provide information in a suitable way to allow comparison with the survey. 6 Figures for the UK are included (rather than for Great Britain) because the published IDBR breakdown by sector includes data for Northern Ireland. The survey was conducted in England, Scotland and Wales. The source is the report UK Business Activity, Size and Location 2004, (previously report PA1003), which is available from the National Statistics website.

24 12 Introduction: method and sample characteristics Looking firstly at a broad sector, it can be seen that compared with the overall population of establishments, establishments recruiting NDDP customers are dramatically over-represented in the other services sector, which in this case includes the public administration, education and health sector (which accounts for most of the difference), as well as social and other services, which include much of the voluntary sector. The NDDP sample is under-represented in all other sectors, with the difference particularly marked in the primary and manufacturing (production) sectors. There is an even more marked difference by establishment size. According to the IDBR, 96.5 per cent of establishments in the UK have fewer than 50 employees, however, in the NDDP survey sample, the corresponding figure is 55.4 per cent. Most of this difference is accounted for by extremely small establishments in the NDDP sample (66 employers had fewer than five employees), but even if these very small establishments are excluded from both sets of data, the IDBR indicates that 89 per cent of establishments have 5-49 employees, while the survey indicates 60 per cent. It appears that, even when controlling for very small establishments, employers who recruit NDDP registrants are much more likely to be relatively large establishments compared with the general population. In summary, it is possible to see that NDDP employers (ie those recruiting NDDP registrants) are more heavily skewed towards larger establishments and establishments in the public and non-profit sectors. Tables 1.2, 1.3 and 1.4 provide a more detailed picture of the establishments included in the employer survey. Table 1.2 NDDP sample by industry and type of organisation Private Public Non-profit Total % % % % Primary and utilities Manufacturing and construction Distribution, hotels, catering, transport Financial and business services Public administration, education, health and social work Other services Unweighted total N = ,420 (69%) (19%) (12%) Source: IES/NatCen 2004.

25 Introduction: method and sample characteristics 13 Table 1.3 NDDP sample by establishment size Number of employees % ,000 4, , Don t know 1 Unweighted total N = 1,428 Source: IES/NatCen An obvious question is why such a skew exists; a plausible answer is that a wealth of previous research about employers attitudes and behaviours towards the employment of disabled people shows that larger establishments, and establishments in the public and voluntary/non-profit sectors are precisely those establishments which have the highest likelihood of employing disabled people (in the absence of any intervention through state-funded measures or programmes such as NDDP). To take just one recent example of such research, the DWP-commissioned study of employers and service providers responses to the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) (Roberts et al. 2004) undertook multivariate logistic regression analysis of an establishment-based survey dataset, looking at the factors which were independently associated with an establishment ever having employed a disabled person. The analysis showed that two of the key factors which were significantly and positively associated with whether an establishment had (or had previously had) disabled employees were workplace size (defined by the number of employees) and whether the establishment was in the public or voluntary sectors (the other important factors were whether the establishment operated a policy giving rights to disabled employees, and whether the establishment was aware of the employment provisions of the DDA). In this light, it is unsurprising that Job Brokers and the NDDP customers with whom they are working might disproportionately orient their job-search activities towards larger establishments, and perhaps also towards establishments in the voluntary sectors. These establishments are known to be more likely to be favourably disposed towards the employment of disabled people. It does suggest, however, that Job Brokers are not apparently breaking the mould when it comes to the pattern of employment of disabled people implicit in the notion of a Job Broker is that their activity will involve not just work preparation and support with the disabled customer or client, but also work with employers to match job needs to the skills and competences of potential disabled recruits, and to provide any necessary postplacement support to employers who recruit from NDDP. This question of the extent to which Job Brokers are indeed proactively working with employers is considered in

26 14 Introduction: method and sample characteristics more detail later in this report (see Section 5.2). Associated with this broking role, working with employers, it might also be anticipated that Job Brokers would engage in a role of marketing to employers, particularly employers who have not previously recruited people with disabilities or health difficulties, to explain the benefits of doing so, the range of support that is available, and the extent to which employers can, thereby, access a wider range of skills and competencies. The indirect evidence presented in this chapter regarding the sectoral and particularly the size distribution of establishments recruiting from NDDP, does not suggest that the operations of Job Brokers are significantly opening up employment opportunities in those parts of the employer community which do not normally knowingly recruit disabled people. One concluding remark from the first wave of qualitative research with NDDP employers was: The combination of employers who were already quite well-disposed to hiring disabled customers, of customers who often do not appear to have been profoundly disabled, and of Job Brokers frequently pursuing publiclyadvertised vacancies, may well indicate a fairly high level of deadweight; ie of customers who were quite likely to have found work anyway. This, too, is a consideration which needs to be pursued by future elements of the evaluation research. (Aston et al. 2003, p.66) The size and sectoral distribution of employing establishments in the present survey provide further support for at least part of this earlier conclusion it seems likely that placement patterns of NDDP customers are indeed heavily oriented towards the types of employers known to be well-disposed to hiring disabled customers. This picture is further reinforced by the data in Table 1.6, which show the responses to a question about whether the establishment had been involved in any other government employment or training programmes to help disadvantaged jobseekers gain work experience and find and keep work. It can be seen that over one-third (35 per cent) of the establishments had participated in one or more such programmes in the past. Table 1.4 NDDP sample by establishment size and sector Private Public Non-profit Unweighted % % % N = ,000-4, , Don t know 0 1 Total unweighted N = ,428 Source: IES/NatCen 2004.

27 Introduction: method and sample characteristics 15 Table 1.5 Which programmes or schemes has your establishment participated in? Type of programme No. % New Deal for Young People New Deal 25 plus New Deal for Disabled People New Deal 50 plus Access to Work New Deal for Lone Parents 43 8 Job Introduction Scheme 39 8 Work-based learning for young people 39 7 Work-based learning for adults 35 7 Do not know 34 9 Modern Apprenticeships 33 6 Employer Training Pilots 21 5 Employment Zones 5 1 Other programme Unweighted total N = 491 Note: Multiple response question, totals may sum to more than 100 per cent. Source: IES/NatCen Table 1.6 NDDP sample by previous participation in government employment or training programmes % Yes 35 No 56 Don t know/not answered 9 Unweighted total N = 1,428 Source: IES/NatCen Table 1.5 shows the employment and training programmes in which employers had participated. Approximately one-quarter of establishments saying they had taken part in another government programme reported that this had been the New deal for Young People while one-fifth stated that they had participated in the New Deal for the 25 plus age group. Fourteen per cent of employers with experience of other government programmes stated they had taken part in NDDP. Nearly two in five of the establishments (39 per cent) were single site organisations, and the remainder were part of larger, multi-site organisations (Table 1.7). The incidence of single-site organisations in the public and voluntary sectors was similar

28 16 Introduction: method and sample characteristics (40 and 41 per cent), but private establishments were rather more likely to be part of larger organisations (only 31 per cent were single-site). As would be expected, the larger the establishment, the more likely it is to be part of a multi-site organisation: 53 per cent of the smallest establishments (with fewer than 50 employees) are part of larger organisations, compared with 75 per cent of the largest establishments (with 1,000 or more employees). Table 1.7 NDDP sample by organisational structure Single-site 39 Part of a larger multi-site organisation 61 % Unweighted total N = 1,428 Source: IES/NatCen Around just under half of the sample (46 per cent) had experienced recruitment difficulties in the year prior to the survey, while a slightly larger proportion (49 per cent) had not (Table 1.8). Further analysis showed that recruitment difficulties were most common in the public sector (56 per cent of public sector establishments reported such difficulties) and least common in the voluntary sector (37 per cent of non-profit establishments had experienced hard-to-fill vacancies in the previous year), with the private sector establishments lying between these two extremes (46 per cent with recruitment difficulties). Table 1.8 NDDP sample by recruitment difficulties Hard-to-fill vacancies in last year? % Yes 46 No 49 No, because no vacancies 4 Don t know 1 Unweighted total N = 1,428 Source: IES/NatCen Overall, some 61 per cent of establishments in the sample reported having a specific personnel or human resources manager or department at the establishment and, as Table 1.9 shows, this proportion was much higher than in the public sector (at 84 per cent) than in the private or non-profit sectors (56 and 54 per cent respectively). This partly reflects the greater size of the public sector establishments compared with those in the private and voluntary sectors, and further analysis shows that, in the sample as a whole, the proportion having an in-house personnel function at the establishment itself increases strongly with establishment size, from 46 per cent at