Disability and Labour Force Attachment:Assessing and Responding to the Needs of

Saskatchewan Social Assistance Clients

Employment and Income Assistance Division

Saskatchewan Community Resources and Employment

Welfare to Work: The Next Generation

St. John’s, Newfoundland

November 16-18, 2003

Overview

• Report key findings from 2001 surveys of social assistance clients and employers

• Describe emerging disability income security policy framework

• Introduce new service responses to disability in Saskatchewan

2001 Disability Research

• Survey of social assistance clients– Determine prevalence and characteristics of

disability in SA population– Telephone interviews with 1,764 SA clients – PALS limitation-based disability definition

• Survey of Saskatchewan employers– Determine employer needs & perceptions with

respect to hiring people with disabilities– Mail survey of 298 employers

Survey of SA clients -Prevalence much higher than previously assumed

Figure 1Clients with Disabilities as Proportion of SAP Two-Year Caseload

Physical disabilities only 29%

Mentaldisabilities only

2%

Both physical and mental 19%

Clients without disabilities50%

Survey of SA clients - Physical health limitations most prevalent

Figure 3Prevalence of Specific Disabilities, Saskatchewan Residents and

Social Assistance Clients, 2001

20%

16%

12%

58%60%

76%

19%

10%

4%

17%

23%26%

20%

59%

53%

76%

14%

21%

5%

29%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Hearin

g

Seeing

Speec

h

Mob

ility

Agility

Pain

Lear

ning

Mem

ory

Develo

pmen

tal

Psych

ologic

al

As

% o

f p

erso

ns

wit

h a

ny

dis

abili

ty

Sask residents 15-64 yrs with disabilities SA clients with disabilities

Survey of SA clients - Multiple conditions are common . . .

Figure 4 Number of Disabilities Affecting SAP Two-Year Caseload with Disabilities

18%

22% 22%

15%

10%

6%

4%

2%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

One Two Three Four Five Six Seven Eight or more

As

% o

f cl

ien

ts w

ith

dis

abili

ties

Survey of SA clients - . . . and certain disabilities cluster together

Figure 5 Most Common Combinations of Disabilities

Affecting SAP Two-Year Caseload with Disabilities

12%

13%

21%

36%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%

Emotional/psychological/psychiatricand confusion/memory disabilities

combined

Mobility, flexibility, pain and visiondisabilities combined

Pain andemotional/psychological/psychiatric

disabilities combined

Mobility, flexibility and paindisabilities combined

As % of clients with disabilities

Survey of SA clients - Loss of SA income & health benefits are key barriers

Figure 9Barriers to Employment for

SAP Two-Year Caseload With and Without Disabilities

2%

4%

5%

15%

12%

28%

16%

6%

19%

29%

30%

30%

5%

7%

16%

21%

23%

28%

34%

35%

36%

36%

40%

44%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%

Caseworker discouraged me from working

Family/friends have discouraged me from working

I worry about being isolated by others

Information about jobs is not accessible

I have been the victim of discrimination

Family responsibilities prevent me

Would lose health coverage

Would lose some or all SA income

Will not have support for phys. condition on the job

I lack accessible transportation

There are no jobs available

I feel my training is not adequate

As % of clients in group

Without disabilities (N=31,031) With disabilities (N=31,624))

Survey of SA clients - Modified hours or duties most needed accommodations

Figure 10 Workplace Accommodations Required by SAP Two-Year Caseload with

Disabilities

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

28%

34%

38%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%

Handrails, ramps

Appropriate parking

Modified workstation

Accessible elevator

Accessible washrooms

Accessible transportation

Modified or different duties

Modified hours or days or reducedwork hours

As % of clients with disabilities

Survey of employers - Few have experience hiring people with disabilities

Figure 11Employers Hiring Persons With Disabilities During Previous Two Years

Hired PWD20%

Have not hired PWD80%

Survey of employers - Feel that some disabilities easier to accommodate

Figure 12Employers Having Jobs that Could be Done by Someone with a Disability by

Disability Type

6%

6%

20%

23%

31%

34%

40%

44%

61%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Blind or Visually Impaired

Limited/No Use Arms/Hands

Mental Health

Intellectual

Learning

Limited Use/No Use of Legs

Deaf or Hard of Hearing

Mobility/Agility (full usearms/hands)

Speech

Survey of employers - Willing to provide most needed accommodations

Figure 13Employer Willingness to Provide Accommodations

Without and With Financial Incentives

34%

36%

44%

29%

40%

56%

67%

69%

9%

13%

17%

20%

33%

47%

53%

68%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Human supports

Communication services

Technical aides

Change job location

Retrain/reassign employees

Redesign of job

Physical accommodations

Flexible hours/days

% Very or Somewhat Likely to Make Accommodation

Without $ support

With $ support

Survey of employers - Recognize social benefits . . .

– “It is important for our company to have a workforce that reflects society.” (65% agree)

– “Universal access in the workplace would benefit everyone.” (57% agree)

– “Persons with disabilities have potential that is not being used by our company.” (50% agree)

Survey of employers - . . . but have productivity and cost concerns

– “Persons with disabilities are more limited in the kinds of jobs they can do.” (83% agree)

– “Persons with disabilities would be more challenging to supervise.” (60% agree)

– “Persons with disabilities won’t be able to keep up with co-workers.” (50% agree)

– “It would be expensive for our company to hire more people with disabilities.” (43% agree)

Emerging income security policy framework for people with disabilities

• Based on citizenship ideal– Views disability as natural and normative state.

– Support and accommodation is right of citizenship not privilege bestowed by better off.

– Goal must be to foster full participation in education, employment, and community life.

– Mutual obligation: People with disabilities have obligation to contribute to economic and social life within limits of abilities.

Emerging income security policy framework for people with disabilities

• Key principles:– Focus on ability

• Abandon categorical, all-or-nothing benefits in favour of graduated approaches.

• New benefits to be administered on the basis of functional impact of disability.

– Promote self-direction and management• Flexible supports to meet individual needs.

• PWD to become active participants rather than passive participants.

Emerging income security policy framework for people with disabilities

• Key principles (continued):– Separate disability supports from welfare

• Avoid steep welfare tax back rates.

• Support people with disabilities along a continuum of labour force involvement.

• Introduce opportunities for greater tailoring of benefits.

– Encourage mainstream delivery• Reduce marginalization by buttressing mainstream

programs.

Emerging income security policy framework for people with disabilities

• Progress to date:– Developing functional impact assessments

• High priority, still in process.• Literature review commissioned.• Current focus is on health and housing impacts.

– Extended health benefits• Beginning July 2003, sup. health coverage automatically

extended to PWD leaving SA for employment.• SA-level coverage for individual, spouse and dependents.

Emerging income security policy framework for people with disabilities

• Progress to date (continued):– Disability employment supports

• Introduced in 2002, significantly expanded in 2003.

• Based on caseworker assessment of need (no medical reports, no self-declarations).

• Support available for as long as required (no time limit).

• Decisions regarding eligible support are wide-open (with exception of significant workplace retrofitting).

Emerging income security policy framework for people with disabilities

– Disability employment supports (continued)• Includes:

– Work site accommodations

– Job redesign/Job carving assistance

– Productivity supports

– Job maintenance support

– Job mentoring

– Job coaching

– Work assessments

For more information

• Detailed reports from 2001 disability research available on department website - www.dcre.gov.sk.ca/publications/majordocuments.html

• Or contact Doug Scott

– Ph: 306-787-0626

– E-mail: dscott@dcre.gov.sk.ca

• Questions?