International Experiences and Policy Initiatives Concerning the Employment of Persons with Disabilities

Historically, the employment of persons with disabilities was accommodated through sheltered employment projects on the assumption that persons with disabilities have special needs that necessitate particular working arrangements[1]. Following the three core instruments concerning disability, namely, the World Programme of Action concerning Disabled Persons, the Standard Rules and CRPD, several countries have reviewed their legislations or enacted new ones to integrate job seekers with disabilities into the labour market in line with their specific social, political and labour market conditions. Some countries have achieved this goal by promoting accessible design standards and working environments; amending constitutions, laws and ministerial decrees; harmonizing regulations to ensure access to transport, information and communication; and establishing tripartite processes aimed at protecting the rights of persons with disabilities at work. In most of these countries, the adoption of disability inclusive practices has been supported by enacting anti-discrimination laws and quota legislations that mandate employers to reserve a certain proportion of jobs for persons with disabilities. 

Other countries have developed and or strengthened national frameworks for the promotion, protection and monitoring of CRPD. These include developing disability strategies using a participatory approach, monitoring systems on the situation of persons with disabilities, awareness-raising strategies promoting inclusion, and establishing inter-agency bodies and councils.[2] 

Set forth below is an overview of the international policies and initiatives aimed at promoting the employment of persons with disabilities. In order to facilitate the discussion and highlight good practices, policy and other initiatives are grouped under the following headings: (a) targeted active labour market policies; (b) legislative instruments: quota systems, anti-discrimination legislation and disability insurance; (c) implementation and monitoring of Article 33 of CRPD; and (d) tripartite and consultative processes.

a. Targeted active labour market policies:

Concerned about the increasing social assistance costs, several countries, particularly the more developed, are moving away from passive contributory benefits programmes to more active labour market policies aimed at integrating workers with disabilities. While interventions vary between countries, they generally involve the provision of financial incentives to employers in order to offset the additional cost of hiring persons with disabilities, in addition to mainstreaming vocational rehabilitation and training programmes and discouraging welfare dependency.

Wage subsidies are the most common financial incentives provided to employers and are frequently time-bound, as in the case of Austria, Germany and Sweden. In Cyprus, employers are offered coverage of up to 60 per cent of an employee’s wage for a year to implement vocational rehabilitation and reasonable adjustments at the workplace.[3] In the Czech Republic, employers who hire workers with disabilities are provided with a one-time financial contribution in addition to a donation to cover extra operational costs. In Slovenia, tax incentives are offered for companies, amounting to 50-70 per cent of the salaries of the staff with disabilities.[4] Some countries encourage direct involvement of employers in training and rehabilitation through on-the-job training contracts, as in Belgium; and unpaid trial appointments, as in the Netherlands. [5]

In Luxembourg, persons with disabilities are provided with a rehabilitation and training programme, and are granted a monthly allowance until they return to work. In Finland, rehabilitation benefits are awarded only when a person’s working ability has declined by 40 per cent. In the United Kingdom, employment of persons with disabilities rose by 15 per cent during 2000-2006 as a result of the “Pathways to work” project, which helped persons with disabilities to quit receiving benefits and return to work.[6] In Greece, a proportion of jobs is reserved for persons with disabilities in certain occupations in the public sector.

A number of countries are gradually mainstreaming disability issues in the design of all policies and measures in parallel to disability-specific initiatives. Sweden, for example has been mainstreaming employment policies and training for persons with disabilities in overall labour market policy (see box 3).  Estonia and Hungary require the training of personnel, providing employment services to job-seekers with disabilities.[7]  Other countries have adopted special measures to surmount the barriers that people with disabilities face when accessing training and employment opportunities. These include improving physical accessibility of training centres and developing curricula that meet labour market demands, as in the Netherlands; and providing guidance in the transition from school to work, as in Germany. France offers a contribution to cover transportation costs to the training facility, and unemployed persons with disabilities in the United States of America can avail from the “Ticket to work” programme to get a placement service from the Employment Network.[8] Both Spain and Finland have devised laws aimed at ensuring that disability benefits do not act as disincentives for seeking employment.[9]

Box 3. Disability mainstreaming: the case of Sweden

In addition to fostering employment in the open or competitive labour market, active labour market policies have been implemented by promoting special forms of employment, such as sheltered workshops, jobs in social enterprises and supported employment.[10] The purpose of these schemes is to allow people with disabilities to earn a living when open employment is not practical and to prepare them as much as possible for work in ordinary settings.

Many European countries have some form of sheltered employment system. In France and Luxembourg, employment of persons with disabilities increased dramatically during 2000-2006 through the promotion of sheltered employment schemes.[11] One of the most cited examples on sheltered employment is the Remploy programme in the United Kingdom. This is a private sector programme that was supported by the Government and that succeeded in rehabilitating and securing ordinary employment for thousands of persons with disabilities.[12] Despite their success, sheltered employment practices have been accused of restricting the potential learning and skills upgrading of workers owing to their low technological advancement. Some argue that programmes are manipulated for the benefit of the employers as opposed to the workers. Another disadvantage is that they often fail to provide decent work conditions, including social protection, bargaining power and right to unionization.

Supported employment differs from one country to another. Examples abound, including support during job seeking and placement, on-the-job counselling, small business arrangements and enclaves.[13] In the Ireland and the United Kingdom, financial compensation is provided to employers in order to counterbalance the effects of decreased productivity stemming from disability, if any.  In Norway and the United States, job coaching is provided as part of supported employment. In Greece and Sweden, a person with disability and strong entrepreneurial skills can be eligible for a grant to start a business. In the United States, awards are granted to companies that provide assistive technology training; and a similar measure is adopted by the “Access to Work” scheme in the United Kingdom whereby a grant is provided to cover ICT-adapted equipment.[14]  Supported employment schemes could be successful in increasing income tax revenues and reducing expenditures on disability benefits. However, they are mainly criticized as favouring employment of the “cream” of the workers or the least severe cases of disability.[15]

Social economy enterprises and organizations are grassroots businesses, cooperatives, trust development funds, credit unions and microcredit associations that have clear social goals and are characterized by democratic, not-for-profit and inclusive operations. They provide a wide array of social goods and services, including, among others, social protection, education, health, banking, insurance, agricultural support, handicrafts and training. Countries where social enterprises integrate a high proportion of people with disabilities include Italy, Japan and Spain.[16] Social enterprises have a great potential to increase the employability of persons with disabilities. In Europe, these organizations provide 10 per cent of all jobs for workers with disabilities. However, the growth of this sector is challenged by lack of awareness of its role, insufficient support from the State and limited financial resources.[17]  Examples on good practices of social enterprises include the following:

1. The Mutualité Générale de l’Education Nationale in France, which implements a policy for the recruitment and professional development of people with disabilities;
2. Access Ability in Ireland, which provides a full package of services, including disability-related training, for recruitment personnel, advice on Government-supported grants and enhancing accessibility in the workplace as well as a work path service for career advancement;
3. The Fundación ONCE in Spain, which mainstreams equal opportunities and non-discrimination with the organization through a “Training and Employment Plan” and an “Accessibility Plan”.

b. Legislative instruments: quota systems, anti-discrimination laws and disability insurance:

i. Quota systems:

Historically, the quota policy approach dates back to the end of World War I when Austria and Germany adopted regulations aimed at promoting the reintegration of disabled war veterans. Most of the European and OECD member countries have applied quota schemes in both the public and private sectors or in either one of them, with the exception of Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Sweden and the United Kingdom.[18] Quota systems have also backed up labour market policies in many parts of Asia and the Pacific region, including China, India, Japan and Thailand; Africa, including Ethiopia and Tanzania; and Latin America, such as Brazil.

There are three types of quota systems governing the employment of persons with disabilities, namely: (a) non-mandatory quota without sanction; (b) mandatory quota without sanction; and (c) mandatory quota with sanction. Employers fulfil their obligations towards the quota in a variety of ways that do not necessarily involve the direct recruitment of a disabled worker, including, for example, by subcontracting with a sheltered workshop. Alternatively, the levies collected if employers violate the quota are used to promote rehabilitation and employment of severely disabled persons, subsidize the extra cost of training and assist employers in making adaptations to their workplaces. Table 5 provides examples on the different quota schemes for employing persons with disabilities in selected countries.

Sources: Compiled by ESCWA based on Mont, Daniel. 2004. Disability Employment Policy. Social Protection Discussion Paper Series, No. 0413. World Bank: Washington, DC.; the World Bank, a Note on Disability Issues in the Middle East and North Africa (June 2005); A. O’Reilly, “The Right to Decent Work of Persons with Disabilities” (International Labour Office, 2007); United Nations, Fifth quinquennial review and appraisal of the World Programme of Action concerning Disabled Persons: Report of the Secretary General. 28 July 2008 (A/63/183); European Business Association (EBA), “In focus: Employment of the disabled persons” (2008); and R. Lalive, J-P. Wuellrich and J. Zweimuller, “Do Financial Incentives for Firms Promote Employment of Disabled Workers? A Regression Discontinuity Approach”, Working Paper No. 0911 (2009).

While it is extensively used, the quota system has some weaknesses (see box 4). On one hand, enforcement is difficult. Moreover, the system does not apply to firms employing employees with fewer than the quota threshold. A study on the impact of employment quotas found that the system only boosted the employment of workers who were previously employed by the firms before the onset of disability. It also found that while the taxation accompanying the employment quota increased compliance with the quota, the hiring rate was too slow, which created about one job per 50 firms in one year.[19] With practice, many other countries have discovered that the quota-levy system is not potentially viable if it is not accompanied by a package of policy responses that encourage employers to hire disabled workers. As a result, the quota system started to lose its purpose and rendered counterproductive the imposition of compulsory employment of persons with disabilities in the absence of suitable and accessible jobs or where workers with disabilities were not properly rehabilitated and trained.

Box 4. Why the employment quota system for persons with disabilities has not achieved its objectives

ii.  Anti-discrimination laws:

Many countries have never favoured the quota system, including Australia, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa, United Kingdom, United States and the countries in the Scandinavian region. Instead, they have introduced legislation to outlaw discrimination on the grounds of illness or disability and to ensure employers take more proactive actions in employing workers with special needs. Unlike quotas, which inherently assume that persons with disabilities are not able to self-secure jobs in the open labour market, anti-discrimination laws consider that persons with disabilities are fully able to compete for jobs on the basis of their qualifications, provided the environment is receptive and prejudice-free. In some instances, when anti-discrimination laws require employers to make special arrangements in the workplace to accommodate workers with special needs, a cost-sharing incentive is paid through subsidies.

The United Nations reports that 45 countries have anti- discrimination legislations that contain either specific clauses on disability or refer to it as a possible ground for discrimination. It should be noted that anti-discrimination legislation alone may not be sufficient to address unemployment among persons with disabilities. One of the major weaknesses of these laws is that discrimination is a matter of perception. Without a clear definition of disability and obvious acts of unfairness, such as dismissal or favouritism, it is difficult to prove a case of discrimination and to qualify for protection under the legislation. Furthermore, these types of laws require a reliable juridical system that reserves the right to rule against discrimination cases, which is not always available. Set forth below are various anti- discrimination legislations that were adopted at the international level. 

The Employment Equality Directive of the European Commission (Directive 2000/78/EC), which was adopted unanimously in 2000, prohibits, among others, discrimination on grounds of disability, and covers the fields of employment and occupation, vocational training, and membership of employer and employee organizations. The legislation sets out minimum requirements and calls on member countries to provide for a higher level of protection against discrimination in their national legislation. Article 5 of the Directive provides that “employers are required to take appropriate measures to enable a person with a disability to have access to, participate in, or advance in employment, or to undergo training, unless such measures would impose a disproportionate burden on the employer”. The Commission monitors the national legislations of all member countries to see if they correctly reflect the requirements of the Directive. Where these fail in that regard, the Commission launches infringement procedures against the concerned member countries.[20]

In Australia, the Commonwealth Disability Discrimination Act of 1992 prohibits discrimination and harassment against persons with disabilities in the area of employment as well as other areas. It allows for the development of action plans to identify and address barriers to the integration of persons with disabilities. The Act is promoted and monitored by the Australian Human Rights Commission. A complaint is subject to a review process and if it is not conciliated, the complainant may then take the matter to the Federal Court of Australia or the Federal Magistrates Court.[21]

In the United Kingdom, the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA), which was introduced in 1995 and extended in 2005, makes it unlawful to discriminate against persons with disabilities in all areas and requires employers and service providers to make “reasonable adjustments” for disabled people. It also allows the Government to set minimum standards such that persons with disabilities can use public transport easily. From 1 October 2010, the majority of the Equality Act 2010 will be implemented and will replace major parts of the provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act. The new Act introduces some innovative forms of protection for persons with disabilities from indirect discrimination. While it also maintains the duty to make reasonable adjustments, it identifies when and how such adjustments need to be made.[22]

In the United States, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which was enacted  in 1990 and amended in 2009, states that no entity can discriminate against a qualified individual with disability in terms of job application procedures, hiring, advancement and discharge of employees, workers’ compensation, job training and other terms, conditions and privileges of employment. ADA applies to persons who have impairments that substantially limit major life activities. The employment provisions of ADA are enforced under the Civil Rights Act of 1991. Complaints can be filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or designated human rights agencies across the country. A special tax credit is available to help smaller employers make accommodations required by ADA; and a full tax deduction, up to $15,000 per year, is also available to any business for expenses incurred in removing qualified architectural or transportation barriers.[23]

In the Republic of Korea, the Government adopted the Prohibition of Disability Discrimination Act and the Provision of Remedies on 6 March 2007 under the pressure of disability movement groups and other civil society organizations. The Act aims to enable the Government, in collaboration with the private sector and civil society, to formulate relevant policies by prohibiting disability discrimination and providing remedies for abuses of human rights, with a view to responding to changing situations of persons with disabilities.[24]

iii. Disability insurance and its relation to employment:

In addition to labour market tools and disability legislations, countries have run parallel programmes to mitigate the consequences of disability and joblessness through disability benefits, usually provided by State social protection programmes. In all OECD member countries, persons with disabilities receive direct cash benefits through universal protection schemes, contributory-based programmes or through non-contributory programmes that are sometimes means-tested and targeted to particular vulnerable groups (see table 6).[25]

Disability benefits serve as a safety net against loss of income and poverty. On the other hand, they can act as work disincentives. According to a study by OECD, many people who claim disability benefits do not work again even in countries that have focused on avoiding the inflow of beneficiaries through rehabilitation and training programmes or that have established strong economic incentives to reintegrate benefits recipients and get them off the rolls.[26] The same study found that each year only 1 per cent of those who receive disability benefits actually resume work.[27]

Source: Mont, Daniel. 2004. Disability Employment Policy. Social Protection Discussion Paper Series, No. 0413. World Bank: Washington, DC.

In recent years, the growing bill of disability pensions has attracted a heightened concern, mainly in Europe and the United States. In OECD member countries, government spending on sickness and disability was double that on unemployment, accounting for 2.4 per cent of GDP. In Norway, Poland and Switzerland, the share of disability expenditure was between 3 and 5 per cent of GDP.[28] Between 2005 and 2006, $3.4 billion was spent on disability benefits in Canada;[29] while the United States reported a figure of $109 billion in 2009.[30]

As a result of increasing spending on disability assistance, some governments, including in the United Kingdom, have taken actions aimed at reforming their systems and at cutting down benefits rates. This included the introduction of periodic medical assessments to examine what people could do as opposed to what they could not, and to encourage them to seek employment. Other measures involved means-testing as a method of targeting benefits and reducing fraud. Such interventions were deemed controversial by rights groups acting for persons with disabilities, given their contention that the cutbacks would only serve to push recipients deeper into poverty.

Conversely, some countries adopted more proactive measures in order to reduce reliance on disability benefits, while at the same time promoting participation in the labour market. This was achieved by allowing beneficiaries to suspend their benefits for a specific period and reinstate them without a new application, if they were unable to return to work. This was the case in Belgium, Netherlands, Norway and Sweden. Similarly, the United States implements policies aimed at allowing a gradual transition to work while providing a safety net in case a job proves untenable. In addition, the Social Security Work incentive programme allows persons with disabilities to exclude certain expenses from their income in order to maintain their social security eligibility. For example, where individuals earn $450 and yet spend $50 on items and services needed for a given work, including, for example, job coaching, attendant care services, transportation costs and adaptive equipments, among others, then Social Security sets earnings at $400.[31]

c. Implementation and monitoring of Article 33 of CRPD: 

Article 33 of CRPD requires States Parties to designate one or more focal points within the government for matters relating to the implementation of the Convention, including Article 27 on Work and Employment; and to establish a coordination mechanism to facilitate related actions in different sectors and at various levels. It also urges States Parties to strengthen or establish a framework to promote, protect and monitor the implementation of the Convention, taking into account the principles relating to the status and functioning of national institutions for the protection and promotion of human rights. 

In 2009, a study by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (UNHCR) on the structure and role of national mechanisms for the implementation and monitoring of CRPD found that while a number of countries had designated focal points for disability, very few had situated them at the core of government.[32] Moreover, several countries had established coordination mechanisms on disability issues, which included representatives from various ministries and organizations of persons with disabilities, in addition to other civil society organizations, the private sector and trade unions. The work of these bodies often focuses on policy development, promotion of dialogue on disability and awareness-raising. It was noted, however, that the effectiveness of such coordination mechanisms is challenged by the lack of clear mandates, insufficient resources and the limited involvement of persons with disabilities. In terms of monitoring frameworks, the study showed that all States Parties have assigned this role to a single-entity framework, such as legislative committees, national human rights institutions, organizations of persons with disabilities, parliamentary ombudsmen, national disability councils and government agencies delivering disability-related services. Some examples are provided in table 7.

Sources: Compiled by ESCWA based on United Nations Human Rights Council, “Thematic study by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the structure and role of national mechanisms for the implementation and monitoring of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities” (A/HRC/13/29); and various national disability laws in ESCWA member countries.

d. Tripartite and consultative processes:

Paragraph 32 of ILO Recommendation No. 168 states that “employers’ and workers’ organizations, together with disabled persons and their organizations, should be able to contribute to the formulation of policies concerning the organization and development of vocational rehabilitation services”.[33] In its report of 1998 on vocational training and rehabilitation, the ILO Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations noted that consultations were being held with representatives of the abovementioned three categories of organizations in an increasing number of countries, namely, Austria, Czech Republic, France, Mauritius, Sweden and United Kingdom. In other countries, two of these organizations were represented, such as in Chile, Cyprus, Finland, Germany, Philippines and Tunisia; and only one of the abovementioned three categories of organizations in such cases as Argentina and Costa Rica. In the latter case, it is the representative organization for disabled persons that takes part. Moreover, some governments have set up permanent bodies to hold consultations with the representative organizations of employers and workers, including Australia and Burkina Faso.[34]