consolidated report on focus groups meetings and interviews

EMPLOYMENT FOR EVERYONE

2

While every precaution has been taken in the preparation of this document, the publisher and theauthor assume no responsibility for errors or omissions or for damages resulting from the use ofinformation contained in this document or from the use of programs and source code that mayaccompany it. In no event shall the publisher and the author be liable for any loss of profit or anyother commercial damage caused or alleged to have been caused directly or indirectly by thisdocument.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The authors wish to thank the European Commission forfunding this research. Appreciation also to all those whohave supported and guided this work within EFE projectteam: partners, researchers, country experts and policymakers. Special recognition should be granted to allthose who have contributed data and information to theproject, participating on the different surveys, interviewsand/or assessments. Hoping that the results of the project provide some useful information to all these contributors and participating countries.

Copyright (2014) © - EFE project

Project number: 2012-1-TR1-LEO04-35787

No part of the report may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by anymeans, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording;and may not be quoted or cited, without prior permissionin writing from the Project coordinator.

This Project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This communication reflects the views only of the author and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.

TABLE OF CONTENT

Table of content: ........................................................................................................................................................... 3

PREFACE ...................................................................................................................................................................... 4

1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................................... 5

1.1. Project rationale ........................................................................................................................................ 5

1.2 Issues addressed during the focus meetings ............................................................................................ 5

1.3. Methodology approach ............................................................................................................................. 5

1.4 Project partners ......................................................................................................................................... 6

2. ISSUES POİNTED OUT BY PARTNER’S COUNTRİES .......................................................................................... 7

2.1 TURKEY .................................................................................................................................................... 7

2.2 BULGARIA ................................................................................................................................................. 8

2.3. SLOVENIA ................................................................................................................................................ 9

2.4 ITALY ........................................................................................................................................................ 10

2.5 GREECE .................................................................................................................................................. 11

3. COMMON FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................. 13

Enclosures:................................................................................................................................................................... 14

Template for focused group meetings and interviews ................................................................................................. 14


3



4

PREFACE

Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Institute for Business Education (hereinafter CPU) is responsible for preparingconsolidate report on focus meetings held by each country partner. This document will summarize detected problems,feedback/suggestions for their elimination or mitigation by key stakeholders. The results collected in consolidated re-port will be also included in EU guide for employment of disabled people.

Activities before and during the meetings were focused on:

• Participations of key actors (VET stakeholders, representatives of NGOs, trade unions, chambers, social enterprises ...). • A discussion on the issues addressed in the EFE project providing a solid structured base of information about the situation for disabled people VET system and when entering on labour market,• Recording good practices that can be identified as potential solutions for enhancing the employability of disabled people

All partners prepared reports on organized focus meetings in their own countries. The feedbacks gained during thesemeetings are processed in this consolidated report that will serve as a reliable source for Disabled People Employ-ment Guideline, too. In first chapter different approaches are described, used by partners as well as summarised entry points for discus-sion. Consolidated report then thoroughly follow countries’ contributions so one can gain in depth understanding of whatwas going on.As the issues are more or less similar to all partners’ countries, the report will show common findings and recommen-dations for their elimination or mitigation.



1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. Project rationale

People with disabilities (PwD)represent around one-sixth of the EU's overall working-age population, but their em-ployment rate is comparatively low. Present project is oriented towards

• analysing labour market situation of people with disabilities; • investigating the strategy for fighting those disability benefit cultures and traps that discourage them from entering the labour market; • helping their integration in the labour market by discovering active labour market policies to make workplaces more accessible; • developing services for job placement, supporting structures and on-the-job training.

The project aims to explore good employment samples with capacity building for this specific vulnerable group.As a part of project results, there will be a place to show innovative employment practices, methods and a guidelinefor this disadvantaged group.The above extract from the project description is neatly sewed in the consolidate report on up to date practices beingexamined hereinafter.

1.2 Issues addressed during the focus meetings

All partners were addressing the same problems when discussing with key stakeholder in the field of employment ofPwD. Issues pointed out, as a main factor for reducing unemployability of disabled people, were

• Financial issues (lack of ressources for this target group, reallocation of resources),• Unadjusted public and companies’ infrastructure, • Rigid/rapidly changing legislation,• Accessibility to the appropriate education,• Stereotypes of employers,• Lack of individual self-esteem.

The above mentioned issues are accepted as central problemes of all involved partner’s countries.

1.3. Methodology approach

Partners had organized focus meetings mainly as a group of key stakeholders and the majority of participants wererepresentatives of non-profit organizations, education sector, social sector, centers deeply involved in the field of reha-bilitaion and integration of PwD on labour market with different professional background and experiences.

Each focus group meeting was generally devided in three sections:- Introduction of the project and its objectives- Discussion on issues pointed out- Suggestions and discussion summarisation.

The report is based on the following array of focus groups in the countries included:

Table 1: Focus groups activities in partner countries

Country involved DateTurkey March 14, 2014Bulgaria March 7, 2014Slovenia October 1, 2013Italy December 13, 2013Greece May 26, 2014

Source: Internal project sources


5

Another aproach, identified as suitable as well, was merging focus groups meetings with a bigger events focused onthe same topic, while organized by other agencies (e.g. National Agency, rehabilitation centers...). A great advantageof this approach is that important key stakeholders and policy makers participated as events are usually better sup-ported by media and effects of transferring information are more direct. Information gained through this approach havesometimes even more significant value.

Project partners used interviews with distinguished persons in the area as metodology approach as well.

Template for focused group meetings and interviews was the same. Please find it enclosed.

1.4 Project partners


6



7

2. ISSUES POİNTED OUT BY PARTNER’S COUNTRİES

2.1 TURKEY

1. One of the key issues in Turkey is to develop vocational curriculum for PwD. In its absence the employment rate ofPwD decreases. Actually the curriculum for non-disabled people is used for disabled as well.

2. Another problem related with the vocational training is that PwD usually get trainings regardless of their personalchoice or ability. In a plenty of choices in training courses, the PwD get many courses but they can’t get employed inspite of the training they have got.

3. When compared with other European countries such as Italy, the situation is different if you have had a job relatedaccident and get disabled as a result of this. In most European countries there is the possibility of job shifting, whichmeans that employment agency finds a new job and the PwD continue working. However in Turkey the disabled per-son is retired and this poses troubles to them when taking place in social and vocational life.

4. Another common trend among many companies throughout the world is that the companies dismiss the PwD first atthe time of the crisis.

5. The cooperation between the NGOs of PwD and the government is not strong enough. However employment is anissue that should be dealt with the cooperation of both sides.

6. The legal regulations have recently changed rapidly in Turkey. So the PwD have lack of information related to em-ployment rights and thus possibilities as well.

7. Getting disability status is also difficult and when disabled person is able to get the status, he/she finds a suitablejob with difficulty. The “suitable” means having limited span of choices in the labor market. Neither the PwD nor theothers believe that PwD can do different things apart from the “suitable” jobs.

8. The transportation and accommodation facilities are limited for the PwD, too. They have accessibility problem.

9. The obligation to employ disabled employee is by the low mandatory only for the companies with more than 49 em-ployees. However 90 % of Turkish companies are SMEs and have less than 49 employees. For bigger companies, al-though they align with the rule, the mentality of the chief executives is more important than the law. Sometimes theyprefer paying the fine rather than employ PwD.

10. In some cases company can’t find employee with certain qualification, although it wants to hire a disabled. Thisstems from the limited training offers for PwD.


2.2 BULGARIA

1. Lack of official definition of social enterprise. There is different understanding of the concept among society, local in-stitutions and European institutions, which is an obstacle for implementation of action plans. The framework of strate-gies seems too broad, without specific action plans that can lead to real development of the social market. Ambiguousdefinition of basic terms as social enterprise and social entrepreneurship hinders the development of the social sector;

2. The development of the social economy outpaced the development of the legal framework that regulates the activi-ties of social enterprises;

3. In many cases the national and local governmental agencies are the sole provider of social services taking care fortoo many people who are underserved and whose needs are not met adequately;

4. Lack of systematic research and analysis of the market that would point out the heaviest barriers and areas for im-provement;

5. Lack of systematic information about the number and the characteristic of the social enterprises which hinders theanalysis of the market and identification of the employment opportunities;

6. The existing online information base of the Ministry of Employment and Social Policy in regards with the social en-terprises is insufficient for the needs of the employers and the public in general;

7. Lack of instruments like job fairs and organized meetings with employers for people with disabilities;

8. Lack of sufficient qualification. Social enterprise that offer services and employ people with disabilities are seen as alast resort for the employment of long-term unemployed who have no qualifications and cannot succeed on the com-petitive labor market;

9. Lack of competition in the market for social goods and services. People are not able to make an educated choicebased on quality of service, because there are no available alternatives;

10. Lack of sufficient programs for further qualification and programs designed for the needs of people with disabilities.The majority of the existing programs are not market oriented and cannot catch up with the dynamics of fast develop-ing markets, e.g., the IT sector;

11. In many cases the working environment is not designed for people with disabilities and they find it difficult to adaptto the working conditions. One of the reasons is outdated technology in the producer-cooperatives;

12. Lack of sufficient microfinance programs for social enterprises which put limits in the access to funding social en-trepreneurs;

13. Lack of good business models for social enterprises. The public image of the productive cooperatives that employpeople with disabilities is that they are not market driven, and therefore not competitive;

14. The compulsory clauses in the Law on Integration of People with Disabilities for hiring people with reduced work-ing capacity has negative connotations and are viewed as an obstacle for promoting the equality for the people withdisability (hired not because of their qualifications but because they are obliged to hire them in order to comply withthe regulations).

15. In most of the organizations that employ people with disabilities the activities are product-oriented not people-ori-ented, which means that they aim at production of products not development of employees’ skills. Producer coopera-tives are the larger employer of people with disabilities, however they are regarded as organizations that lack



8

competitive advantage and lag behind in innovation adoption and development. In many cases instead of the integra-tion of these people, they are marginalized, as they are not able to find a better position on the market;

16. Lack of assessment tools for social enterprises performance and social impact measurement.

2.3. SLOVENIA

1. European projects are suitable tool for development of various solutions, but one should be aware that it onlymakes sense to develop a sustainable and general solution and not of that kind that would be for single use only. Cur-rently, there is a lot of projects with good results, but there is a lack of cooperation and interaction between them. Co-operation between the projects and the mutual information between organizations working in this field should be morecomprehensive and deeper.

2. Many of PwD problems have their origins in poor awareness of the general public about the specifics of differenttarget groups. It is therefore necessary for all activities to take care how to inform the publics better - both general aswell (especially) employers. This is the only way for PwD to achieve a status in society, which will allow more inclusivetreatment of people with disabilities, as well as jobs that will not be intended for people with disabilities but normaljobs where they can work well as people with disabilities.

3. Solutions that arise in a variety of projects must be less narrowly specialized - solutions must allow people with dis-abilities to use them and live in the "normal" environment. Specialized solutions for use in specialized environments donot solve problems but create them.

4.The formal framework in Slovenia is too rigid and therefore efforts should be made to soften it. In the preparation ofsystem solutions exploitation of opportunities by offering individual solutions is to be allowed.

5. Persons with disabilities should be encouraged to bear the responsibility for themselves and do not always to relyon foreign aid.

6. Company that employs people with disabilities and tries to sell its services is facing some problems, such asstigma, lack of adequate jobs for the disabled, lower productivity of these workers, the economic downturn and highlevel of competition on the market. While there is generally accepted, that a company with a solid mission and reason-able vision is successfully going to overcome these obstacles.

Because of stigma and prejudice, sometimes companies that employ people with disabilities don’t show who are serv-ice providers and they behave like the other providers. They need to be flexible, very adaptable to the client, highly in-novative, generating new work processes.

7. Mobility projects are extremely welcomed and essential for the employment of people with disabilities where thereis still a shortage of funds. On the other hand a fact was raised, that a project should not be implemented as making ofthe final product when the funding ends. They should try to use the knowledge and skills gained in their activities andin their subsequent work.

8. The exclusion of persons with disabilities in everyday life was pointed out , leading to ignorance or embarrassmentwhen not disabled are dealing with disabled ones. We do not know how to approach to them, what to do at certainmoments. Simultaneously, disabled do not know how to behave. Institute of the Republic of Slovenia for VocationalEducation and Training (CPI) is already implementing programs of training how to work with people with disabilities.


9



2.4 ITALY

1. It is necessary to improve vulnerable group working conditions, so we need to analyze the state of the art and thepresent legislation regarding the topic in our country in order to understand which initiatives should be undertaken.

2. Focus on cooperation gives results. The inclusion of PwD and vulnerable people in our territory is managed at pub-lic level by the Municipality of Foligno and the Local Health Board. Both institutions work together in order to guide andhelp vulnerable people in their inclusion within the labor market.

3. Public services for PwD are to be heavily supported by governmental agencies in terms of money and professionalsupport. The services for job assistance and guidance are services sponsored by the Municipality. They aim to buildindividualized paths for the employment of PwD, which gradually face stages as the motivational orientation, trainingand support to work.

4. The access to the services is for people residing in the municipality, belonging to disadvantaged groups of the pop-ulation, who have difficulty accessing independently in the labor market or to maintain a stable employment status(former drug addicts, people with mental health problems , people with disabilities, ex-prisoners, etc.) pretty demand-ing. Starting from this premise we have asked participants detailed questions about functioning of the system.

How is the process to enter the labor market for people with disabilities managed at territorial level?• SAL: Municipality service• Social operators• Social enterprises

Who is in charge of tutoring during the process? • Social operators

How the preparation of the key figures is evaluated? • No certification yet from the Regional Authority

6. Further discussion pointed out problems such as competences of the operators, fragmented interventions and lackof long term and integrated projects. Some possible orinetations in coping with the above mentioned issues are:

• Long term solutions - Integrated project between all the different public and private services• Adaptability to social changes - Services need to be adjusted to social and economic downturn• Intervention of the Regional Authority - The Region shell recognize and evaluate the operator professional

status


10

2.5 GREECE

1. The exclusion of the PwD from the job market, particularly in the last years, has achieved explosive dimensions. Ac-cording to estimates of Manpower Employment Organization (OAED) this percentage rised up to 80%, while in thecountries of European Union, oscillates, on average, around 50%. Report of the greek ombudsman (June 2008) describes, with clarity, the situation, that prevails in the sector of employ-ment as for the application of the law of Ν. 2643/1998 and the administrative processes, in general. It is pointed outthat a large number of PwD do not have sufficient briefing on the supporting documents, that are required for their jobengagement, what results in the rejection of applications, due to the lack of the essential supporting documents.Particularly, the enterprises of private sector deny systematically to engage individuals with disabilities in places ofwork. The social biases, but also unsufficient professional training, constitute basic reasons of refusal for engage-ments of workers with disabilities.

2. Nowadays especially, the integration in the job market is not easy, taken into consideration the major problem ofoverall unemployment and a market that permanently becomes more competitive with requirements for workforce hav-ing more specialised qualifications.The situation becomes even more difficult for this vulnerable group of people since category of disabled is not homog-enous. Their experiences in the employment vary, mainly due to a wide scale of different skills, possibilities, but alsoneeds. Their disability reason is diversified and every category should be examined specifically.Apart from the unacceptable discriminations, that people with disabilities face in a lot of cases due to disability rea-sons, there is also evidence of discrimination apart from them, basing on other characteristics like the sex, the age,etc.

3. Main reasons for the unemployment of disabled are:• The social bias, with the social racism, that, as mentality, continues constituting structural characteristic ofgreek society.• The lack of completed central planning from the side of State, that would combine needs of individuals withdisabilities with the education, the professional training and the professional orientation.• The changes, that take place in the labor market, in the new technologies and in the economic environmentin general, without the individuals with disabilities being supported with the creation of necessary supporting structures.• The administrative bureaucracy concerning the operation of mechanism of obligatory placements in placesof work (i.e. Law Ν.2643/98 for proclamations of places).• The lack of infrastructures to be accessed by PwD, as other accessible buildings, transports etc, so individuals with disabilities are not facilitated to participate in the social life.

To increase employment of PwD and to reduce their unemployment rate, the following is essential:• the anthropocentric approach towards applications of unemployed PwD and highly individualised approach• making the list of needs of unemployed PwD and enterprises as well• improve the efficiency of labour market in matching needs of both parties

4. In this direction all the efforts are to be put together along with the accompanying supporting services where spe-cial advisers like Social specialists, Sociologists, Psychologists, apply the individualised approach so that the diagno-sis of the needs is determined, as for the:

• particular needs of one person for social and psychological support and intensification, particular needs intraining, basing on the level of individual knowledge and previous professional experience,


11



• degree of readiness that one person has in order to be included in programs of employment or self-employment

• 6. The rights of vulnerable groups, with regard to the employment and the work should be treated along the following conclusions:

• Central planning, from the State, for the employment of PwD, that will aim at the study of labour market andthe possibilities of re-establishment of disabled in professions that they can effectively practise, with the establishment of registration of disability level and creation of parallel bases of data. The regional dimension of problem was also pointed out, which should be apprised taken into consideration of particularities of each region.

• There is the need for the concretisation of programs for the improvement of conditions of existence, education and employment of individuals that are often victims of discriminations. This programs are supposed to have a single planning and co-ordination, while simultaneously all the general programs (in the sector of economic growth, employment , urban growth etc) should be examined as well, in the light of repercussions that they will have in the corruptible teams. It is also important this representatives of teams particiapte in the planning and the concretisation of programs in question.

• Passing a law exclusively for the employment of PwD. Evaluation of their formal and essential qualificationsand transparency in the system of engagements. Increase protection against the redundancies.

• Aid of state control mechanisms that should function effectively and independently.

• Sufficient professional education and training, that would correspond to the needs of economy and labourmarket, with the establishment of professional orientation.

• Appointment of disabled as professionals, with the parallel creation of all the necessary supporting and technological infrastructures, so that they can equivalently include themselves in the job market.


12

3. COMMON FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

1. One of the key issues in some countries is to develop vocational curriculum for PwD. In its absence the employ-ment rate of disabled decreases. Actually the curriculum for people without disability is used for PwD as well.

2. Another problem related to the vocational training is that PwD usually get trainings regardless of their personalchoice or ability. In a plenty of choices among training courses, PwD get many courses, presumably not appropriateones, as they can’t get employment in spite of the training they have got. Education system in countries should offermore suitable training programmes for PwD associated with labour market needs.

3. There is no possibility of job shifting (e.g. in case someone had an accident on the job and he/she became dis-abled). In some countries the PwD are simply retired and this poses troubles to them when taking place in social andvocational life.

4. The cooperation between the NGOs and the local/national governments should be strengthened. The governmentshould not only get advice and recommendations from the NGOs, but also should work together and get service fromthe NGOs. The employment campaigns should be put into practice.

5. Each disabled in each country should get a career advice from relevant institutions according to his/her needs, ca-pabilities and desire. It is very difficult to get the status of PwD and even when person is able to get the status ofPwD, he/she has difficulty with finding a suitable job. The “suitable” regretfully means having limited span of choiceson the labour market.

6. Each country should meet the need for information mechanism for the PwD establishing direct links to the compa-nies, the government offices and the NGOs as well as to PwD. Rapidly changed or evolved legislation and after-effectof this actions cause lack of information related to employment rights and thus possibilities as well. There is a need oftighter monitor and control of companies dealing with PwD and getting state aid for this purpose.

7. Employment Agencies, Ministries, Development agencies should support the social entrepreneurship projects morespecifically, solely for social companies. Nowadays In case that all companies compete for funds under the same con-ditions, better chances to win the bid have those who do not employ PwD. That is also a reason why reallocation ofthe funds should be separated for social companies and other companies.

8. Employment Agency of each country should enhance cooperation/sharing information with the NGOs, social com-panies and in general with labor market to easier track the opportunities concerning PwD. There is a proposal to es-tablish special rehabilitation and employment agency for PwD.

9. Proper set up of public transportation and accessibility as well as companies’ infrastructure and educational facilitiescould substantially increase employability of PwD. The state policies should be rearranged to solve this problem. If thelogistic problem of PwD s are solved they can be eager to be employed and their employment rate will increase.

10. There are many issues that refer to national legislation. The project in question is offering a lot of information frompartners countries how they are dealing with particular issues. This could be added value of the EFE project by hav-ing insights into partners countries state of the art regarding PwD.


13




Enclosure:

Template for focused group meetings and interviews

2012-1-TR1-LEO04-35787

LEONARDO DA VINCI PARTNERSHIP PROJECT “EMPLOYEMENT FOR EVERYONE”

THE FORM FOR FOCUS GROUP MEETING/INTERVIEWS WITH KEY STAKEHOLDERS

PARTNER NAME:

CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION OF PARTICIPANTS AND PARTICIPANT INSTITUTION

Institution/Organization NameLegal StatusPhone NumberWebsite of the Institution/OrganizationInterviewee(s) nameInterviewee’s e-mailNumber of the staff

CHAPTER II. NEW SUGGESTIONS TO ENHANCE EMPLOYMENT RATE IN EUROPE FOR DISABLED PEOPLE

SUGGESTION ITitleThe Problem(s)General Aim(s) Target Group(s)General DescriptionExpected Result(s)/Output(s)

SUGGESTION IITitleThe Problem(s)General Aim(s) Target Group(s)General DescriptionExpected Result(s)/Output(s)

SUGGESTION IIITitleThe Problem(s)General Aim(s) Target Group(s)General DescriptionExpected Result(s)/Output(s)

14

consolidated report on focus groups meetings and interviews

Documents

project partners

project coordinator

project rationale

partners countres

use of programs

european commission

useful information

use ofinformation