ILO 2015 -- Decent Work Report(Third Edition)

3 Measures to facilitate work and employment

3.1 Introduction

Vocational rehabilitation is a process which enables persons with disabilities to secure, retain and advance in suitable employment and thereby further their integration or reintegration into society (ILO, 2002). That process, according to the ILO Vocational Rehabilitation (Disabled) Recommendation, 1955 (No. 99), involves the provision of certain vocational services, in particular vocational guidance, vocational training and selective placement. In 1983, the ILO, conscious that significant developments had occurred since 1955 in the understanding of rehabilitation needs, the scope and organization of rehabilitation services and the law and practice of many member States, decided that a new international standard was necessary to ensure equality of opportunity and treatment to all categories of disabled persons, in both rural and urban areas, for employment and integration into the community.

3.1.1 ILO Convention No. 159

The ILO Convention concerning Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment (Disabled Persons) (No. 159), adopted in 1983, highlights the inextricable link which exists between vocational rehabilitation and employment by calling on each member State, in accordance with national conditions, practice and possibilities, to formulate, implement and periodically review a national policy on vocational rehabilitation and employment of disabled persons. Such policy should:

• aim at ensuring that appropriate vocational rehabilitation measures are made available to all categories of disabled persons and at promoting employment opportunities for disabled persons in the open labour market (Art. 3);
• be based on the principle of equal opportunity between disabled workers and workers generally; equality of opportunity and treatment for disabled men and women workers should be respected; special positive measures aimed at effective equality of opportunity and treatment between disabled workers and other workers should not be regarded as discriminating against other workers (Art. 4); and
• involve consultation with representative organizations of employers and workers, and of and for disabled persons, with regard to implementation of the policy (Art. 5).

Convention No. 159 calls on the competent authorities to provide and evaluate vocational guidance, vocational training, placement, employment and other related services, using, wherever possible and appropriate, existing services for workers generally, with any necessary adaptations (Art 7). Measures are to be taken to promote the establishment and development of vocational rehabilitation and employment services for disabled persons in rural areas and remote communities (Art 8), and to ensure the training and availability of rehabilitation counsellors and other suitably-qualified staff responsible for the vocational guidance, vocational training, placement and employment of disabled persons (Art 9). Convention No. 159 entered into force on 20 June 1985. As of October 2015, Convention No. 159 has been ratified by 83 countries.

3.1.2 ILO Recommendation No. 168

The Recommendation accompanying Convention No. 159 - the Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment (Disabled Persons) Recommendation, 1983 (No. 168) outlines measures, which should be implemented. They include:

• measures to create job opportunities for persons with disabilities on the open labour market, including financial incentives to employers and reasonable adaptations to workplaces, equipment and jobs (Art. 11(a));
• government support for sheltered employment, and for vocational training, vocational guidance, and placement services for disabled persons run by NGOs (Art. 11(b));
• promotion of cooperatives and small-scale industry (Art. 11(f));
• elimination of physical, communication and architectural barriers(Art. 11(g));
• dissemination of information on successful instances of employment integration (Art. 11(i));
• exemption from taxes of training materials and specified assistive devices (Art. 11(j));
• flexible job arrangement (Art. 11(k));
• elimination of exploitation in training and sheltered employment(Art. 11(m)); and
• applied research to further the participation of disabled persons in ordinary working life (Art. 11(l)).

Recommendation No. 168 also calls for community participation, in particular of employers’, workers’ and disabled persons’ organizations, in the organization and operation of vocational rehabilitation services (Art. 15). Special efforts should be made to ensure that services in rural areas and remote communities are provided at the same level and on the same terms as for urban areas (Arts. 20, 21). Proper training of personnel involved in the provision of vocational rehabilitation and employment services is essential (Arts. 22-30).

Since Convention No. 159 and Recommendation No. 168 were adopted in 1983, there has been a shift in international policy terms, as reflected in the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. With the emphasis now on a rights-based understanding of disability issues and on promoting the inclusion of persons with disabilities alongside others in the open labour market and in the mainstream of society, the focus of Recommendation 168 on segregated programmes and services for persons with disabilities needs to be balanced with guidance on how programmes and services for the general population can be opened up to women and men with different types of disabilities.

3.1.3 Current practice

The following sections discuss briefly the main types of measures currently in use to assist and facilitate persons with disabilities to secure, retain and advance in suitable work and employment, under these headings:

• Employment services
• Training for employment
• Financial supports
• Technical and personal supports
• Quota systems
• Anti-discrimination legislation
• Persuasion measures
• Disability management
• Consultation mechanisms
• Information, monitoring and evaluation.

More detailed information on measures in a number of countries may be found in other reports, including ILO 2004a and 2014; EC 2000; and Wynne et al 2006.¹⁵

3.2 Employment services

In providing vocational guidance, vocational training, placement and other employment-related services to persons with disabilities, the competent authorities are exhorted to use services available to workers generally, wherever possible and appropriate, with necessary adaptations (ILO Convention No. 159, Art.7).

The Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations, in its report on Convention No. 159 and Recommendation No. 168, commented that this use of general services is increasingly found in countries where vocational rehabilitation infrastructures have already been developed (ILO, 1998). This pattern may reflect the understanding of policy makers in these countries that people with disabilities have diverse support requirements and that a range of services is required, including those which are inclusive and those specifically targeting people with disabilities facing additional disadvantages. The range and types of services vary between countries, but may include vocational guidance and counselling.

In Sweden, for example, these services are provided to most job-seekers with disabilities through the public employment services, which are responsible for disability issues within the labour market policy. Initiatives focus on guidance, investigation, rehabilitation or preparation for work. Services for persons with disabilities are provided in cooperation with the Social Insurance Office as well as municipalities and county councils, as laid down by law (UN, 2011 (a)). Support for vocational assistive devices and for personal assistance is available for employees with disabilities and for employers.

Employment services also provide information on training and employment opportunities, job search training which encompasses preparation of job applications/resumes, interview techniques, presentation skills, canvassing for jobs, and placement (Rowland & Gilliland, 1993, Wynne et al, 2006). Training in literacy and numeracy is sometimes provided, where necessary. Preferential access to specified jobs is provided in a number of countries.

For persons with disabilities returning to work after an absence, individual back-to-work action plans may be developed (Wynne et al, 2006, Blanke, 2013). Support measures may include job adaptations or job coaching, particularly in supported employment situations. Individualized support assistance in helping, for example, to deal with difficulties with co-workers, may be provided through vocational advisers or through special schemes which provide on-going assistance during the initial integration and follow-up phases, as well as crisis intervention where continuing employment may be threatened for any reason.

Early intervention such as “fresh-start” initiation programmes aimed at young workers with disabilities within six months of their being unemployed, and programmes aimed at assisting long-term unemployed disabled workers return to work, are provided in many countries, for example in Austria, Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands and Switzerland (OECD, 2010). Because of the particular difficulties faced by workers with disabilities who have been unemployed for a long time, intensified efforts are frequently made to assist them to participate in educational, retraining or other programmes as soon as possible after they become unemployed.

In Italy, the public employment services run targeted employment schemes to support people with disabilities in getting jobs in the open labour market. These schemes, delivered by special sections of the Job Centres, include individual job-coaching and vocational training (EC, 2011a). Public employment services in several other countries of Europe (for example, Ireland and Finland) are centrally involved in the operation of supported employment schemes, playing an administrative, monitoring and quality assurance role, with the job-coaching and related services provided by contracted services.

Convention No. 159 also emphasizes the importance of training for those providing employment services (Art. 9). A number of countries (Austria and Finland for example) have established specific programmes for this purpose (EC 2011a; Migliore, 1999.).

3.3 Training for employment

Education, training and life-long-learning are central pillars of the right to work. Education and training are also often the first stage at which persons with disabilities fall behind in opportunities related to access to, and advancement in, employment (OHCHR, 2012).

Fitting persons to jobs and fitting jobs to persons multi-faceted processes. The key roles played by education and training in particular continue to be highlighted by the ILO. These issues were again cogently addressed by the International Labour Conference in 2000. The Conference underlined the fact that education and training are essential for economic and employment growth and social development.

Education and training are a means to empower people, improve the quality and organization of work, enhance citizens’ productivity, raise workers’ incomes, improve enterprise competitiveness, promote job security and social equity and inclusion. Education and training are therefore a central pillar of decent work (ILO, 2000, para. 3).

The Conference emphasized that education and training must cover everyone, and must be carefully targeted at persons with special needs, including people with disabilities. In addition to education and training, vocational guidance and counselling, job placement services, recruitment and selection practices, educational and labour market information, job design, ergonomics, working conditions and rewards, attitudes and motivation, all play inter-related roles in the whole employment process and need to be considered as part of work and employment policy for persons with disabilities. (For detailed suggestions on placement strategies and practices see Heron and Murray, 2003; Murray and Heron, 2003.

The importance of addressing these issues has been recognized in the CRPD. Article 24 deals extensively with education, including an undertaking for States Parties to ensure that persons with disabilities are also able to access vocational training, adult education and lifelong learning without discrimination and on an equal basis with others, and to ensure that reasonable accommodation is provided (Art. 24(5)). Article 27 on Work and Employment also requires State Parties to enable persons with disabilities to have effective access to general technical and vocational and continuing training (Art. 27(d)).

Training for employment for persons with disabilities is undergoing a transition, from programmes in specialized institutions to mainstream programmes available to the general population (US HUD, 2008; UN ENABLE, 2010). For some countries, this transition is in its early stages, with training still mostly in specialized institutions (ILO, 2006). In others, the majority of adults with disabilities receive their training in mainstream programmes (e.g. the United Kingdom) (EC, 2011a). In Sweden, employment policies for persons with disabilities are part of the general labour market policies (O’Brien and Dempsey, 2004). Almost all countries, however, appear to be experiencing a variety of difficulties. This situation is sometimes aggravated by high rates of unemployment which make it particularly difficult for persons with disabilities, even after completion of training, to find suitable employment.

For those countries in the early stages of mainstreaming training for persons with disabilities, special classes, schools, and training institutions are still common (Guozhong, 2007; Edmonds, 2005). In many of these specialized programmes both public and private, curricula tend to relate to jobs traditionally thought appropriate for disabled persons rather than to jobs available in the labour market. This mismatch between training and the skill requirements of the labour market hinders job placement possibilities and may well contribute to negative perceptions by employers of the ability potential of many disabled persons.

Even where persons with disabilities are being encouraged to enter mainstream training, some countries report that relatively few are doing so (MSD, 2013; Murray, 2007; Murray, 1998; Chao, 2007). Reasons given include physical inaccessibility of training centres, distant or inconvenient location of training, courses which are not relevant, inadequate transportation, unavailability and/or cost of child care, and little flexibility in course design or delivery. Ali and colleagues (2011) also found that the lower employment rate of individuals with disabilities arises in part because they are less likely to be actively seeking employment due to pessimism about finding a suitable job.

Countries which are further along the mainstreaming path have recognized and are taking or plan to take steps to deal with such issues. In the Netherlands, physical access is being improved in vocational and adult education to improve opportunities for disabled persons to get a basic qualification, and more flexible, module-based apprentice training courses are planned (Employment-Horizon, 2007; EC, 2002; OECD, 2007). Individualized support for persons with disabilities is available in France through “fresh-start” initiatives, further development of apprenticeship training, “sandwich courses” alternating training and work in enterprises, and preparation for working life in a mainstream environment (ILO, 2003; OECD, 2007; EC, 2002; EBU, 2008; ILO, 2007c).

Courses in vocational training centres have been adapted in order to meet labour market requirements more effectively (EC, 2002; YEI, 2007; EC, 2000; Russell, 1998b). In Australia, short-term courses have been developed at the local level to meet individual needs: normally up to 12 months in duration, the courses may be extended, if necessary, for persons with disabilities (NDA, 2007; McElwaine & Ford, 1994; AAA, 2005; ILO, 2003; Powers, 2008). In Sweden, there has been increasing cooperation between schools and placement services (EC, 2002; Employment-Horizon, 2007; ILO, 2008; Thornton & Lunt, 1997).

In the United Kingdom, disabled people have priority access to mainstream programmes, and specialist teams operate in job centres to assist persons with disabilities to gain and retain employment (OECD, 2007; EC, 2002; Russell, 1998a; Perry, 2003). Special pre-training programmes have been introduced in Germany which include advice and assistance in the transition from school to working life: courses in vocational training centres have also been adapted in order to meet labour market requirements more effectively (EC, 2002; YEI, 2007; EC, 2000; Russell, 1998b).

For persons with a high level of disability, training for work continues to be provided mainly in special institutions or in sheltered or supported employment programmes, although Australia operates a programme which provides fully subsidized work experience, mainly in the private sector, for those who cannot get a place in a mainstream wage-subsidy programme (EC, 2002; Employment-Horizon, 2007; ILO, 2008).

Greater efforts are being made to get employers more directly involved in developing and providing training and employment opportunities, through financial and other incentives. Belgium has a system of employer-based on-the-job training contracts for disabled persons: the employer is not committed to hiring the trainee after the training contract, but often does (Employment for All, 2009; WHO, 2011; NC Buy, 2004; Devlieger, 2007). Advisory committees on the training and employment of disabled workers, which include representatives of employers’ and workers’ organizations as well as representatives of government and disability NGOs, play a useful role in helping to develop policy and codes of good practice, and in improving cooperation and coordination among the sectoral interests involved.

In some countries, a focus is placed on promoting labour force inclusion through self-employment (or entrepreneurship) of people with disabilities. In the United States, for instance, pilot and model self-employment and entrepreneurship programs have begun to see success;¹⁶ and in Vietnam, there is legal provision that people with disabilities who start a business have access to loans on preferable terms and to training in business management.

3.3.1 Key issues

Workers with disabilities tend to fall behind other jobseekers, particularly when overall numbers of unemployed workers rise. While ignorance and prejudice may play a part in such situations, a key factor is often their inability to compete on the basis of relevant skills and qualifications. What an employer will look for in recruiting a new employee is, first and foremost, the capacity to do the job (given reasonable accommodation, where necessary). Applicants who can demonstrate that they have the necessary competence, or have the capacity to acquire it after suitable training, have an advantage over applicants who cannot. Training, which should encompass skills, knowledge and attitudes, is very often the key to success in finding a job.

For persons with disabilities, professional training – under qualified instructors, and leading if possible to some form of recognized certification – is an essential passport to gaining employment (Work4Illinois, 2009; APSE, 2013; Economic Systems, Inc. & ICF International, 2011). This is why a national policy on vocational rehabilitation and employment of disabled persons, as called for in ILO Convention No. 159, is so essential. People with disabilities have the right to work, but they must be given the means to enable them to exercise that right. Priority in vocational training policy and provision, particularly in times of high unemployment, needs to be given to the most vulnerable if they are not to become further disadvantaged in the labour market. This has been emphasised by the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in its concluding observations on the reports of States Parties reviewed to date (Section 1.35 above) .

Many of the jobs for which disabled persons were traditionally trained do not exist any more, especially in industrialized and technology-focused countries (Blanck, 2014). The relevance of training programmes to current and likely future labour market requirements needs to be critically reviewed to ensure that all programmes are responding to such needs at all times.

Physical accessibility remains a major barrier to many disabled persons seeking work or training. This applies not just to the training or work place, but to the local built environment – including public transport, housing, shops, restaurants, places of recreation – used to a greater or lesser degree by other employees. Considerable improvement has been made in many places, but in general progress is slow, and many disabled persons remain excluded as a result. Accessibility of information is also an issue that has started to be tackled. The importance of accessibility is highlighted in the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities as a general principle and through a specific (Art. 9).

Lack of coordination between government ministries and departments continues to be an issue inhibiting the right to work of many disabled people. There are many good examples of how this has been effectively resolved where the political will existed.

Many countries have accepted the principle of “mainstreaming” in training and employment services for persons with disabilities. In some cases, however, it has not progressed much beyond the acceptance of the principle or the transfer of responsibility from one ministry to another. If disabled persons are to participate on an equitable basis with others, whatever reasonable accommodation is necessary, in terms of physical accessibility, accessibility of information, job/training design, training technology, equipment and materials, modes of instruction, and so forth, must be carried out. In addition, the staff members responsible for managing and operating the systems involved must be sufficiently trained and equipped, not only in the requisite knowledge and skills, but also in attitudes.

Mainstreaming in training programmes may have many implications, in addition to those mentioned. An important consideration, for example, will be the basis on which training outcomes are assessed. Indicators, such as placement rates, which may be used to measure the performance of training programmes for some unemployed groups of workers may not be the most appropriate for others (Chataika, 2013; Wynne et al., 2012). “Creaming” or selecting those most likely to succeed, in order to enhance placement prospects of occupational training programmes is a recognized (if not always admitted) phenomenon (see also Section 2.3.1 above and OECD, 1986).

To provide guidance on the development of disability-inclusive vocational training centres, the ILO has prepared a practical guide to planning and implementing a strategy to ensure that skills development programmes are open to trainees with disabilities. Geared primarily to administrators and instructors, the guide is also relevant to policy- and decision-makers in developing effective mandates relating to inclusion and allocating realistic budgets to make it a reality in practice (ILO, 2013).

3.4 Financial support

Financial support to employers to encourage the recruitment and retention of persons with disabilities include:

• wage subsidies;
• grants towards training costs;
• training completion bonus grants for workplace modifications/special equipment;
• grants for tutorial assistance;
• retention bonus grants to hire personal assistants for disabled workers who need them;
• grants to encourage retention of workers who acquire a disability at work;
• tax credits in respect of each new disabled worker (may be time-restricted);
• grants towards workplace adjustment costs; and
• reductions in social security charges in respect of disabled workers.

The EC Regulation on State Aid Employment (No. 2204/2002) enables Member States to create incentives for employers and sheltered workshops to recruit and retain disabled workers.

Wage subsidies to cover a shortfall in productivity are one of the most commonly-provided financial supports to employers in encouraging the employment of workers with disabilities. In some countries, such supports are time-restricted: in Sweden, four years (may be extended), but up to eight years in Germany, for example (Common Grounds, 2010; Gustafsson, Peralta & Danermark 2013; EBU, 2009). The amount of subsidy varies: in Austria it can be up to 80 per cent of the full wage in the first year of employment (Orr & Almeida, 2012; Deuchert & Kauer, 2013; Steinor & Wakolbinger, 2010), while in Germany, it can be up to 70 per cent of the wage paid to the severely disabled person for up to three years and up to eight years in the case of severely disabled persons aged 50 years and over (Bundesministerium, 2010). The wage subsidy may be combined with a grant during the initial period of adjustment.

In the Netherlands, subsidies are available to employers to encourage the recruitment of job-seekers with disabilities. These cover the cost of supports to the inclusion of workers with disabilities, including workplace adjustments or accommodations, additional vocational or professional training, and job coaching for employees with intellectual disabilities. Employers may offer ‘trial appointments’ for up to three months, during which the person with a disability continues to receive unemployment benefit and no wages are paid. Wage dispensation may also be granted for between 6 months and five years, for an employee whose performance is lower due to his or her disability (Schoonheim & Smits, 2007).

In Sweden, employers are protected by law against excessive sick leave costs of an employee with an illness which is likely to lead to a large amount of sick leave (Scheil-Adlung & Sandner, 2010; Whitehead, 2010).

Financial supports of various kinds may also be available to persons with disabilities. Grants are offered to disabled persons who wish to set up their own business or to establish a cooperative. Such measures are particularly important in countries, such as Greece, where self-employment is high and a high proportion of all enterprises are small (SSA, 2008; EBU, 2010). In the United States, tax credits and deductions are available to many workers with disabilities, and families including an individual with a disability, who require use of personal assistance services to perform the daily needs necessary for the individual or family member to go to work (Mendelsohn, Myhill & Morris, 2012). In France, an employment bonus may be paid to an unemployed disabled person who gets a job (Bargain et al., 2006; OECD, 2003).

Many countries focus on promoting the access of persons with disabilities to credit to enable them to set up small enterprises. In Vietnam, for example, the Law on People with Disabilities of 2010 provides an entitlement to business development loans at preferential rates, along with relevant training. In India, a government anti-poverty programme that aims to enhance the economic livelihood of the poorest women in rural areas, targets persons with disabilities. The approach taken is to mobilize disabled people into self-help groups, provide training on business development and saving, followed by access to micro-credit. A similar programme targeting women in Nicaragua, also includes disabled people (Mont, 2014).

Financial assistance may also be provided towards public transport costs if participating in training programmes. Under a pilot scheme in the Netherlands, persons with a disability may receive a personal budget in the form of vouchers or tickets to enable them to purchase placement or other job integration services of their choice (Decruynaere, 2010; Bosselaar & Prins, 2007; NDA, 2011). A similar “Ticket to Work” programme operates in the United States (SSA, 2013). Furthermore in Italy, social cooperatives with a workforce in which persons with disabilities make up at least 30 per cent may be exempted from social insurance contributions (EBU, 2007; Desfetanis, 2012). Financial assistance may also be available to third-party agencies to assist disabled persons in preparing and training for employment. In the United States, for example, grants may be available to States to establish programmes of technology- related training, access and assistance, and awards can be made to private agencies which deliver assistive technology training and services at the local level (Blanck, 2014; US DOL, 2001a; 2001b).

A key concern of many disabled persons is that their eligibility for disability benefits or pensions may be adversely affected if they find a job and that they may lose these allowances. A number of countries have taken steps to ensure that such concerns do not act as a disincentive to persons with disabilities in seeking employment. In Spain, for example, eligibility to access former disability benefits if laid off is assured by regulation (OECD, 2005; Marie & Castello, 2012; Silva & Castello, 2013). To encourage those on long-term disability benefit in Finland to return to work, individuals may suspend their benefit for up to two years during which they may enter training or employment without losing their entitlement (Kivistö et al., 2007; Wynne et al., 2006). In many countries, such as the United States, persons with disabilities are allowed to earn up to a certain level in pay without affecting their disability insurance or social security benefits (Blanck et al., 2014).

According to the OECD (2006), “too many workers leave the labour market permanently due to health problems and too few people with a disabling condition are working. This is a social as well as economic tragedy that is common to virtually all OECD countries.” The OECD report suggests that work needs to be put at the heart of sickness and disability benefit policy. The objective of policy should be to ensure that persons with disabilities have the opportunity to play as full a role in society, and particularly in the labour market, as they are able to. The report notes:

Policy discussions frequently focus on how to reduce the number of people on benefit. But the trouble with approaching . . . policy from this angle alone is that it misses the point of view of people with disabilities themselves. Current policies often serve such people badly: they are trapped at the margins of society, excluded from work or marginalized into special employment categories (op.cit, p. 13).

3.5 Technical and personal supports

Reasonable accommodation in the form of technical and personal supports plays a key role in enabling people with disabilities to exercise the rights to which they are entitled. Other non-financial supports in relation to work and employment include assistance in arranging for a special driving licence or vehicle modifications; job coaches to help facilitate the transition to employment; post-placement support; personal assistants (to assist, if needed, in relation to personal hygiene or transport, for example); provision of readers for workers with a visual impairment, particularly during the initial stage of training and/ or employment; provision of signers/sign language interpreters during interviews or in the workplace; advocacy services; grants for or direct provision of personal aids (for example, computer-based aids, clothing, textbooks); technology and technical aids and devices. Many countries provide for such supports as part of their overall employment policy for persons with disabilities.

3.6 Quota systems

By the end of 1923, Austria, France, Germany, Italy and Poland had adopted a quota system under which employers were obliged to employ disabled war veterans. Many other European countries adopted a quota system approach after the Second World War, largely because of high unemployment levels among people with disabilities and the general failure of a voluntary approach (compare Logue & Blanck, 2010). All systems were eventually extended to cover disabled civilians. Quota systems have also been introduced in several countries of Asia and the Pacific (China, India, Japan, Mongolia, the Philippines, Sri Lanka and Thailand); Africa (including Ethiopia, Mauritius and Tanzania); in the Arab States (for example, Kuwait); and in Latin America (for example, Brazil). While all quota systems call for employers to employ a set minimum percentage of disabled workers, there are variations between systems, particularly in relation to the obligatory or non-obligatory requirement, the size and type of enterprise affected and the nature and effectiveness of sanction in cases where an employer fails to meet the requirement.

Waddington (1996) has divided European quota systems into three basic models:

• Legislative recommendation with no sanction: Employers are not obliged to employ a set percentage of workers with disabilities, but it is recommended that they do so. Such a system has operated in the Netherlands since 1986. Under the 1947 Employment of the Disabled Act, public and private employers with more than 20 employees were expected to employ a set quota of disabled workers. People with disabilities could choose to register. The 1986 Handicapped Workers Employment Act removed the registration requirement, extended coverage to all those receiving disability benefits or an invalidity pension, and introduced a quota target of between 3 and 5 per cent, to be achieved over three years. The quota was voluntary and there were no sanctions for failing to meet it. By 1989, only 2.2 per cent of workers with a contract of more than 15 days were disabled and by 1992 this figure was just 2 per cent. The Government concluded that a compulsory policy across all sectors was not practicable. Employers are, nevertheless, required to continue to keep a record of disabled employees.
• Legislative obligation without effective sanction: An example of this quota system was that adopted by the United Kingdom after the Second World War. The Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944 has been described as “the foundation stone of disabled workers’ rights in the United Kingdom” (Doyle, 1996). These rights to mainstream employment were to be achieved through the Quota Scheme, which required private employers with 20 or more employees to have at least 3 per cent of their workforce made up of registered people with disabilities, and through the Reserved Occupations Scheme, under which two occupations – passenger electric lift attendant and car park attendant – were designated as reserved to persons with disabilities. It was not an offence for an employer to be below the quota, but it was an offence to recruit a non-registered person when below the quota or where doing so would bring the employer below the quota, without an exemption permit. An employer who committed such an offence was subject to a fine or a term of imprisonment of not more than three months. The quota was abolished in 1996, when the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 came into force. There appears to be general agreement that the quota failed to promote the employment of people with disabilities, that it was inadequately monitored and enforced (there were only ten prosecutions for failure to comply, even though in 1993, for example, less than 20 per cent of employers met their quota obligation), and that it allowed large numbers of exemptions and exceptions (Doyle, 1996; Waddington, 1996; Hyde, 2000)
• Legislative obligations with sanction: According to Waddington, the levy-grant system is “the form of quota which has attracted most interest from those countries which have sought to introduce or modify a quota system in the 1980s and 90s. It involves setting a quota and requiring that all covered employers who do not meet their obligation pay a fine or levy which usually goes into a fund to support the employment of disabled people.” (Waddington, 1996, p.68)

The German quota system, established in 1974 by the Severely Handicapped Persons Act, has often served as a model for other countries. In a reform of the legislation in 2001 (Rehabilitation, 2001), the quota of 6 per cent for all public and private employers with at least 16 employees was reduced to 5 per cent, applicable to employers of 20 employees or more (EIRO 2001). All public and private employers with at least 20 employees must “ensure that at least five per cent of their workforce is made up of severely disabled people” (Bundesministerium, 2010). Workers with disabilities, whom the Federal Employment Office considers difficult to employ, may be counted as occupying two or three quota places (Waddington, 1996, p. 68). This also may apply to persons with disabilities who are receiving training within the firm.

The Federal Employment Office monitors compliance with the scheme. Compensatory levies are be imposed if the quota requirement is not met. In 2007, the employment rate of persons with severe disabilities amounted to 4.2 per cent

Of the 145,700 employers subject to the employment obligation in 2012, 26 per cent employed no workers with severe disabilities, down from around 44 per cent in 2002. Consequently, the Federal Employment Office collected 500 million Euros that year in levies for non-compliance, reflecting the tendency of employers to prefer to pay the levy rather than hire, particularly during difficult economic periods. This fund is used exclusively to facilitate the employment of persons with severe disabilities, for example through grants and wage subsidies for employers who fulfill their quota obligation

A similar quota system operates in France. Under 1987 legislation, every public and private employer employing 20 or more persons is required to employ a quota of 6 per cent of persons with disabilities covered by the law (AGIFEC, 2012). The 6 per cent obligation was introduced on a gradual basis, beginning with 3 per cent in 1988, rising to 6 per cent in 1991. Certain categories of disabled workers are counted as one-anda- half, two, or two-and-a-half individuals. Enterprises may fulfil their employment obligation by:

• employing beneficiaries under the law;
• accepting trainees with disabilities;
• filling up to 50 per cent of the obligation by outsourcing work to sheltered employment sector;
• reaching company- or industry-wide negotiated agreements to promote recruitment, training, integration and retention of disabled persons;
• paying a contribution to the Management Agency of the Disabled Persons’ Integration in Employment Fund, (known as “AGEFIPH”), with an additional amount payable by employers who have not taken any positive action in the previous four years.¹⁷

In 2013, AGEFIPH reported that 42 per cent of employers fulfilled or exceeded their quota obligation, 49 per cent partially fulfilled the obligation and 9 per cent of employers opted to engage in an agreement promoting employment of persons with disabilities (AGEFIPH, 2013).

Austria’s quota system obliges companies with more than 25 employees to employ one person with a disability for every 25 jobholders. If a company circumvents this rule, it pays a compensation tax to the Federal Office of Social Affairs every month for every job not held by a disabled person. These funds are reserved for services to “supported employees” (persons who have a disability level of at least 50 per cent) or employers who engage supported employees (NDA, 2008; Greve, 2009).

Systematic measures to promote the employment of persons with disabilities in Japan were introduced after the Second World War, following the enactment in 1947 of the Employment Security Law (Hasegawa, 2010; Nakagawa & Blanck, 2010; Thornton, 1998). In 1960, a quota system was introduced, but with no obligatory provisions. Lack of compliance, particularly by larger organizations, led to the introduction in 1976 of an obligatory quota system, as well as a levy and grant system, applying to employers with 300 or more employees that fall short of their quota. The law has been amended several times (1998, 2005 & 2008) to be more inclusive of people with severe disabilities, and raising the quota to the present rates of 2.0 per cent for private enterprises and 2.3 per cent for national and local governments. Double counting in respect of workers with severe disabilities is allowed. Amendments have imposed levies on a wider range of employers, including those with 60 or more employees, and since 2008 including part-time workers and parttime workers with disabilities in calculating employment obligations and rates (Nakagawa & Blanck, 2010, p 180). Levies thus collected are paid as grants to enterprises which hire disabled workers in excess of their quota and to subsidize new or modified facilities for workers with disabilities and the appointment of attendants to support their employment (Sakuraba R., 2014). The rate of employment for people with disabilities has steadily increased from 1.09 per cent in 1976 to 1.83 per cent in 2013. The majority of those employed (81 per cent) had physical disabilities (Hasegawa, 2010).

In Ecuador, a quota scheme for employment of persons with disabilities covers both public and private employers with at least 25 employees. From 2010 onwards, people with disabilities should make up four per cent of the total number of employees. The law also includes provisions on a penalty levy for failing to observe the quota (ILO, 2014a).

In Peru, a law adopted in 2007 specified that at least 3 per cent of the total workforce of public bodies must comprise workers with disabilities. A levy is imposed where this obligation is not met (UN 2010). In 2013, the employment quota was increased to 5 per cent for the public sector and extended to private companies with more than 50 employees which have to meet a target of 3 per cent.

Romania operates a quota-levy system for organizations with more than 100 employees (Reid & Simkiss, 2009; Onu, 2003). The levy applies where an employer does not employ at least 4 per cent of persons with disabilities.

A quota of 5 per cent applies in Hungary, but the majority of employers opt to pay the “rehabilitation contribution” instead (Greve, 2009; Konczei, 2009).

In Mauritius, organizations with 35 or more employees are required to set aside at least 3 per cent of positions for persons with disabilities. (UN, 2002; ILO, 2004a). Employers who fail to do so must pay a financial contribution into a designated fund or may be liable to imprisonment.

Other countries with quota systems include the Czech Republic (Sinecka, 2007), Lithuania (EC, 2011a), Poland (EC 2011a; ILO, 2014a), Slovakia (IDA, 2010), Thailand (Zero Project, 2013; ILO 2014a) and the Russian Federation (ILO, 2004b).

3.6.1 Comment

Discussing the assumptions underlying quota systems in Europe, Waddington (1996) says that such systems are based on the belief that, without some form of legislative intervention, people with disabilities would not make up even the specified percentage of the workforce:

Quotas are based on two related assumptions: (i) that employers will not hire large numbers of disabled people unless they are required to do so, and (ii) that most disabled people are unable to compete for jobs with their non-disabled counterparts on an equal basis, and win them on their merits. In short, the assumption that disabled workers are less valuable and less productive, and that, if such workers are to be integrated in the open labour market, employers need to be obliged to hire them, and sometimes even financially compensated for doing so. Numerous employers have taken their cue from the legislation, and accept these assumptions. This is reflected in the fact that many employers resist the idea of, and obligations under, quota systems, and frequently “buy” themselves out of their obligation where this is an option, preferring to employ a largely non-disabled workforce. The history of the European quota systems amply demonstrates that an employment system which is based on the idea that the protected group of workers are inferior cannot achieve permanent and significant success, since employers will attempt to evade their obligations to employ such workers (p. 71).

A study for the European Commission (EC, 2000), which looked at employment policies for disabled persons in eighteen industrialized countries, found no examples where quota systems achieved their targets. Acknowledging the arguments that quota systems produce resources from levies or fines which can be used to support other employment development measures, and that in some cases a sufficient number of disabled people may not be available to enable employers to meet their quotas, the study concluded: “ . . . it is clearly the case that in most countries the tide is swinging away from quotas – either for their abandonment altogether (as in the United Kingdom), or for other measures (active employment support for individuals and/or stronger anti-discrimination laws) to be given higher profile and greater force” (p. 207).

Some European countries, such as Denmark (Bengtsson, 2009), Finland (Teittinen, 2009)and Sweden (Danermark, 2009), as well as others including Australia (ACCI, 2013), Canada and South Africa have not introduced quota systems into employment schemes designed to facilitate the employment of persons with disabilities and decided instead to strengthen the voluntary approach by employers. While the United States generally avoided quotas in the past, the U.S. Department of Labor finalized new regulations in 2013 which recommend that federal contractors attain a 7 per cent hiring quota (Department of Labor, 2013).

3.7 Anti-discrimination legislation

Perhaps the greatest shift in the area of employment for people with disabilities has been this move to anti-discrimination legislation. More and more countries have, with increased lobbying by people with disabilities and their representative organizations and the entry into force of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, been taking the route of anti-discrimination legislation, based in many cases on the experience in the United States dating from civil rights legislation in the 1960s (Degener and Quinn, 2000; Blanck, 2014). Like quota systems and other government-sponsored schemes, anti-discrimination legislation assumes that specific measures are needed to promote the employment of disabled people. Unlike quotas, however, such legislation says that people with disabilities are able to compete for jobs on their merits, provided the environment in which they do so does not discriminate against them because of their disability and that they are provided reasonable accommodations as needed (ILO, 2014a; Blanck et al., 2014). While this may be the case, some countries, such as France and Germany, have both types of laws, with beneficiaries under the quota defined as those facing greater difficulties in securing jobs.

Anti-discrimination legislation is not new. Laws to promote equal employment opportunities and equal pay for women have been around in Europe for decades, with similar legislation to protect the rights of people on racial, ethnic and religious grounds in many countries (EC, 2010b). One of the reasons why it took so long to extend anti-discrimination legislation to disabled people may have been the lack of effective collective advocacy to promote that cause.

It was reported in 2000 that more than 40 out of 189 UN Member States had adopted some kind of anti-discrimination legislation in respect of persons with disabilities (Degener and Quinn, 2000). It would be difficult to compare those domestic laws given the different legal systems and the different historical, social, economic and political backgrounds of the countries concerned; however, it can be noted that an increasing number of countries enacted such legislation during the 1990s, and that this trend has accelerated in recent years. Much of the impetus for developments within Europe are the result of the adoption in 2000 of the Employment Equality Directive 2000/78 (see 1.29), which establishes a general framework for the application of the principle of equal treatment in the context of employment (European Union, 2000) and prohibits discrimination on the grounds of disability in the context of employment, occupation and vocational training. The provision of reasonable accommodation under the Directive requires an individual analysis that takes account of the situation of the individual and the employment or training at issue (Waddington, 2008). With the entry into force and widespread ratification of the CRPD, many more countries around the world are introducing similar laws.

The following country examples, which are by no means exhaustive, are presented to illustrate the variety of approaches to this matter (for further discussion, see ILO, 2014a).

3.7.1 Australia

Australia has both national and state legislation to address discrimination against persons with disabilities (Harris, 1919; AHRC, 2007). The Commonwealth Disability Discrimination Act, 1992 overrides state legislation and prohibits discrimination on the ground of disability in work and employment as well as other areas, including education. The Act is administered by a Disability Discrimination Commissioner within the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, which investigates complaints of discrimination. The 1992 Act allows for the development by organizations of action plans which identify barriers for persons with disabilities within the organization and set out policies and programmes, with time frames, for addressing them. The benefits of developing a Disability Action Plan are threefold: it demonstrates a commitment to anti-discrimination principles, it can be given to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission to be taken into account if a complaint is made against the organization, and it provides a tool for change.

3.7.2 Austria

The Federal Disability Equality Act, which came into force in January 2006, provides for disability equality and anti-discrimination in all areas of life (KDRD, 2013).

3.7.3 Brazil

The Federal Constitution of Brazil of 1988 explicitly prohibits discrimination of any kind concerning the recruitment of or salaries paid to persons with disabilities (Art. 7). Law No. 7.853/89 concerning the Rights of Persons with Disabilities guarantees to persons with disabilities the full exercise of their basic rights, including the right to work. This law makes it a punishable offence to discriminate against a person on the ground of disability in employment or work (Kirakosyan, 2013).

3.7.4 Canada

Anti-discrimination measures in Canada take different forms. Section 15(1) of the 1982 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees every individual “the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination” and covers discrimination based on mental or physical disability. The Canadian Human Rights Act, 1985 prohibits certain discriminatory practices, and disability is included among the prohibited grounds (Section 3(1)). Both the Charter (Section 15(2)) and the Act (Section 16(1)) allow for (but do not require) affirmative action to reduce disadvantages. While the Act did not originally require an employer to make “reasonable accommodation” to enable a disabled person to meet job requirements, amendments in 1998 added a duty to accommodate. The Legal and Legislative Affairs Division of Parliament explains: “Accommodation challenges employers, service providers, and other duty holders to go beyond treating all people the same and to recognize that people may in fact need to be treated differently in order to achieve true equality in a meaningful way” (Barnett, Nicol & Walker, 2012, p. 11).

The Employment Equity Act, 1995, Section 10(1), also requires active measures to deal with disadvantage, including making reasonable accommodation. Persons with disabilities are among those covered by the Act.

3.7.5 Costa Rica

In Costa Rica, Law No. 760 concerning Equality of Opportunity for Persons with Disabilities prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in the following cases relating to employment and work: the use of recruitment procedures which have not been adapted to reflect the needs of disabled jobseekers; the specification of requirements additional to those generally applied, in relation to the recruitment of persons with disabilities; and the failure to employ a person on the ground of disability (Art. 24; see Rivera, 1996).

3.7.6 Ethiopia

The Right to Employment of Persons with Disability Proclamation (Proclamation No.568/2008) aims to promote equal employment opportunities for persons with disabilities and prohibits discrimination on the ground of disability in recruitment, promotion, placement, transfer or any other employment conditions (Art. 5). Employers are required to provide reasonable accommodation where needed, and the denial of such accommodation is deemed to be discrimination. Specific provisions are made to promote opportunities for women with disabilities (Art. 6(1)(b)). Article 7 provides for grievance procedures to be initiated without a burden of proof for the complainant:

Any person with disability who alleges that discrimination on the ground of his disability existed with respect to recruitment, promotion, placement, transfer or other conditions of employment may institute a suit to the competent court on the issue without the requirement of the burden of proof.

3.7.7 Germany

The Ninth Book of the Social Code, 2001, prohibits discrimination against persons with severe disabilities in employment (Section 81 (2)). The Act on Equal Opportunities for Disabled Persons, 2002, aims at eradicating and preventing discrimination faced by persons with disabilities and grants them equal rights to participate in social and working life. This Act applies to federal agencies and state agencies that implement federal law. Private sector businesses are not directly covered, although they may enter into partnership agreements with disability organizations to promote accessibility and other positive measures (Degener, 2004).

3.7.8 Mauritius

The Training and Employment of Disabled Persons Act, 1996 of Mauritius contains an anti-discrimination provision which makes it an offence for an employer to discriminate against any disabled person in relation to advertisement of and recruitment for employment, and the determination or allocation of wages, salaries, pensions and other matters relating to employment. Any employer who discriminates against a disabled person shall be liable to compensatory payment or to imprisonment. Under this Act, no disabled person shall be employed on work which, with regard to the nature of the disability, is not suitable.

3.7.9 Philippines

The Philippines’ Magna Carta – Disabled Persons 1992, section 32, prohibits discrimination against persons with disabilities in employment:

No entity, whether public or private, shall discriminate against a qualified disabled person by reason of disability in regard to job application procedures, the hiring, promotion, or discharge of employees, employee compensation, job training, and other terms, conditions, and privileges of employment.

The Magna Carta lists in detail acts of discrimination covered by this prohibition:

(a) limiting segregating or classifying a disabled job applicant in such a manner that adversely affects his [or her] work opportunities;

(b) using qualification standards, employment tests or other selection criteria that screen out or tend to screen out a disabled person unless such standards, tests or other selection criteria are shown to be job-related for the position in question and are consistent with business necessity;

(c) utilizing standards, criteria, or methods of administration that:
– have the effect of discrimination on the basis of disability; or
– perpetuate the discrimination of others who are subject to common administrative control;

(d) providing less compensation, such as salary, wage or other forms of remuneration and fringe benefits, to a qualified disabled employee, by reason of his [or her] disability, than the amount to which a non-disabled person performing the same work is entitled;

(e) favouring a non-disabled employee over a qualified disabled employee with respect to promotion, training opportunities, study and scholarship grants, solely on account of the latter’s disability;

(f) reassigning or transferring a disabled employee to a job or position he [or she] cannot perform by reason of his [or her] disability;

(g) dismissing or terminating the services of a disabled employee by reason of his [or her] disability unless the employer can prove that he [or she] impairs the satisfactory performance of the work involved to the prejudice of the business entity: provided, however, that the employer first sought to provide reasonable accommodation for disabled persons;

(h) failing to select or administer in the most effective manner employment tests which accurately reflect the skills, aptitude or other factor of the disabled applicant or employee that such test purports to measure, rather than the impaired sensory, manual or speaking skills of such applicant or employee, if any; and

(i) excluding disabled persons from membership in labour unions or similar organizations.

3.7.10 South Africa

The South African Constitution contains a Bill of Rights, which “enshrines the rights of all people in our country and affirms the democratic values of human dignity, equality and freedom” (Act No. 108 of 1996, Ch. 2, clause 7). Clause 9 – Equality, which forms part of the chapter on the Bill of Rights, states that equality includes the full and equal enjoyment of all rights and freedoms, and that no person may be discriminated against directly or indirectly on the ground of disability or on any of the other grounds specified. Clause 9 also states that national legislation must be enacted to prevent or prohibit unfair discrimination.

The Employment Equity Act (No. 55) was passed in 1998 to promote the constitutional right of equality, eliminate unfair discrimination in employment, ensure the implementation of employment equity to redress the effects of discrimination and to give effect to South Africa’s obligations as a member of the ILO (Preamble). The Act requires all employers to eliminate unfair discrimination, direct or indirect, in any employment policy or practice, on the basis of disability or other specified grounds (Ch. 2, section 6). It is not unfair discrimination if an employer takes affirmative action measures consistent with the purpose of the Act, or distinguishes, excludes or prefers any person on the basis of an inherent requirement of the job (Ch. 2, section 6(2)). The Employment Equity Act defines affirmative action measures as “measures designed to ensure that suitably qualified people from designated groups ¹⁸ have equal employment opportunities and are equitably represented in all occupational categories and levels in the workforce of a designated employer” (Ch. 3, section 15). Affirmative action measures must include:

• measures to identify and eliminate employment barriers which adversely affect people from designated groups;
• measures to enhance diversity in the workplace based on equal dignity and respect; and
• making reasonable accommodation for people from designated groups to ensure that they enjoy equal opportunities and are equitably represented in an employer’s workforce in all occupational categories and levels. This may include preferential treatment and numerical goals, but excludes quotas.

The Act defines “reasonable accommodation” as “any modification or adjustment to a job or to the working environment that will enable a person from a designated group to have access to or participate or advance in employment” (Ch. 1, section 1).

Employers are required to prepare and implement an “employment equity plan” setting out objectives, specific numerical goals to achieve equitable representation of suitably qualified people from designated groups within each occupational category and level, timetables, strategies to achieve their goals, and procedures for monitoring and evaluating the implementation of the plan (Ch. 3, section 20).

Unfair discrimination in employment on disability grounds is further prohibited under the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act, 2000 (No. 4). The Act makes it clear that disability discrimination includes failing to take reasonable steps to accommodate the needs of a person with disabilities, and failing to identify or eliminate obstacles that unjustly limit or restrict persons with disabilities from enjoying equal opportunities (Ch. 2, section 9).

3.7.11 United Kingdom

Under the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act, 1944, the rights of disabled people to mainstream employment were to be achieved through a quota system, which required private employers with 20 or more employees to have at least 3 per cent of their workforce made up of registered persons with disabilities, and through the Reserved Occupations Scheme, under which the two occupations of electric lift attendant and car park attendant were reserved for disabled people. The quota system was abolished in 1996 (for further details see 3.6) when the Disability Discrimination Act, 1995 came into force.

The 1995 Act contained provisions making it unlawful to discriminate against a disabled person in relation to employment, the provision of goods, facilities and services and other issues. It also contained provisions relating to education and accessibility of transport. The Special Educational Needs and Disability Act, 2001 extended the 1995 Act so as to make it unlawful to discriminate against disabled pupils and students seeking access to education in schools and colleges.

The Disability Discrimination Act, 1995 (Amendment) Regulations, 2003 which came into force on 1 October 2004 served to implement the disability aspects of the European Community Employment Directive 2000/78/EC (see 1.29). The Regulations also made significant changes to the 1995 Act, including ending the exemption of small employers from the scope of the Act and bringing within its ambit a number of excluded occupations such as police, firefighters and prison officers.

The Disability Discrimination Act, 2005 extended and amended the 1995 Act, reinforcing and refining the anti-discrimination law, including in relation to public authorities, transport and general qualifications bodies. The Equality Act, 2010 has repealed and replaced the Disability Discrimination Act, 1995 but the same provisions have been retained.

3.7.12 United States

In the United States, the system of rehabilitation in the 1950s and 1960s still had a strong medical component. A medical diagnosis underlay eligibility for the programme and effectively determined the course of rehabilitation for the programme’s target populations (Menz, 1997). However, the cause or origin of disability (for example, war injuries) became less of concern under the evolving programme and the range of eligible “groups” expanded during the 1960s and 1970s (Logue & Blanck, 2010; Myhill & Blanck, 2009).

The passage of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 brought the first sweeping federal anti-discrimination legislation in the United States. Sections 503 and 504 of the 1973 Act prohibited employment discrimination by public employers and firms contracting with the federal government (Blanck et al., 2014). The 1986 amendments to the Rehabilitation Act identified independent living as a distinct service option for people without immediate vocational goals, and supported employment as a distinct programme and outcome for the most severely disabled individuals, in part, requiring a formal individualized plan based on assessed needs and individual preferences (Cornell ILR School, 1986).

Public activism and organized advocacy continued, culminating in the adoption of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in 1990. This extended the anti-discrimination principle to all private employers with fifteen or more workers. It also prohibited discrimination on the ground of disability in housing, public accommodation, education, transport, communication, recreation, institutionalization, health services, voting and access to public services (Blanck, Goldstein & Myhill, 2013).

In order to benefit from the employment protection provided by the ADA, the individual must be qualified for the job in question. This means they must be able to perform the “essential functions of the job”, following the making of “reasonable accommodation”, if necessary (42 U.S.C. section 12111(8)). A “reasonable accommodation” being any modification or adjustment that is effective in allowing an individual with a disability to perform the “essential functions” of the job or to have equal access to the facilities, information and programmes of the employer/employment environment (section 12111(9)). Employers are obliged to make such accommodations unless it would cause them “undue hardship” (section 12111(10)).

3.7.13 Viet Nam

The Law on Persons with Disabilities of 2010 (Nr. 51/2010/QH12) forbids stigmatization of persons with disabilities and discrimination against them (Art 14). It requires that reasonable accommodation be ensured in education, vocational training and places of employment (Arts 30(1), 32(3) and 33(3)), and that vocational orientation and counselling be provided by employment services (Art. 33(5)). The State undertakes to ensure that rights of persons with disabilities in relation to job placement and job retention are respected (Art. 33(1). Provision is made for preferential policies in the case of enterprises in which over 30 per cent of the workforce are persons with disabilities, including financial support in providing reasonable accommodation, tax exemptions, access to loans at preferential rates, and rental of land under preferential conditions (Art 34). People with disabilities who are self-employed are entitled to loans at preferential rates for business development and to training in business management, technology transfer and marketing (Art. 33(6)).

3.7.14 Zambia

The People with Disabilities Act No. 6 of 2012 in Zambia provides for the continuation of the Zambia Agency for Persons with Disabilities (ZAPD) and the National Trust Fund for Persons with Disabilities, and the domestication of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.. It lays out the functions of the Minister responsible for formulating disability – currently the Minister of Community Development, Mother and Child Health.

The law contains a general prohibition of discrimination on the ground of disability, and defines denial of reasonable accommodation as a form of discrimination. In relation to employment, the law provides that, in consultation with the Minister for Labour, safeguards will be prescribed to promote the right to employment of persons with disabilities, without discrimination, in all forms of employment, and that regulations be issued and measures taken to ensure the implementation of the requirements of Article 27 of the CRPD on Work and Employment (Art. 35). Enterprises employing persons with disabilities are entitled to tax rebates (Art. 37(1)), and provision is made for special incentives for persons with disabilities engaged in business (Art. 37(2)). Where discrimination is alleged, ZAPD may request the Attorney General to take appropriate legal action (Art. 64(1)).

3.7.15 Key issues

There are reports that anti-discrimination legislation which became effective in certain industrialized countries some years ago has not been particularly effective in improving the employment situation of persons with disabilities (see for example, OECD, 2010). A comprehensive study to examine the implementation, enforcement and effectiveness of anti-discrimination legislation in relation to employment in different countries would be useful.

3.8 Persuasion measures

As an addition or alternative to obligatory measures based on legislation or quota systems, non-obligatory measures based on persuasion and self-regulation are found in many countries, with the express purpose of promoting employment for persons with disabilities.

3.8.1 Information and awareness-raising campaigns

Information and awareness-raising campaigns, often organized by government agencies and sometimes by employer groups, may involve public seminars, publications, features in newspapers, local and national radio and television, websites, and so forth (for example, raising awareness of anti-discrimination laws and employment practices EC, 2010a; EU, 2010).

Employer-led initiatives, such as the U.S. Business Leadership Network, “a national non-profit that helps business drive performance by leveraging disability inclusion in the workplace, supply chain, and marketplace” aim to increase interest in creating job opportunities for people with disabilities, and emphasize that profitability and social responsibility are compatible (USBLN, n.d.1). The ILO Global Business and Disability Network (GBDN) is an employer-led initiative that aims to promote the awareness of business about the positive relationship between the inclusion of people with disabilities and business success (see http://www.businessanddisability.org/). The GBDN is a network of multinational companies, national employers’ organizations, business networks and disabled people’s organizations working in collaboration to promote disability inclusion in the workplace. Through events organized in different parts of the world and through publications, the GBDN actively promotes the business case for employing persons with disabilities.

3.8.2 Awards

Awards to employers for efforts to improve employment opportunities are intended to recognize good employment policy and practice and to encourage other employers to do likewise. For example, in Australia the Disability Enterprises Excellence Awards 2013 acknowledged “organisations that provide best practice and innovative training opportunities, achieve strong wage outcomes, provide safe working conditions, social inclusion and participation for the employees and quality of service to people with disability” (Australian Department of Social Services, 2013). Awards may be made by a government agency or by employer networks/ associations.

3.8.3 Other measures

Corporate membership in business networks provide businesses with branding and national recognition of their commitment to equal opportunity and treatment for workers with disabilities and disability-owned businesses, as well as good practice resources and preferred access to contractors and employment talent (see, e.g., USBLN, n.d.2). Codes of good practice for employers have been developed in Belgium and the United Kingdom (EC, 2011b). Disability equality awareness training for employers and their employees is used in some countries, usually provided by non-governmental disability organizations (see, for example, Disability Wales, http://www.disabilitywales.org/training-consultancy/disability-equality-training.)

It is difficult to assess the usefulness of persuasion measures in influencing attitudes or behaviour. The EU survey of employment policies for people with disabilities concluded that disability organizations tend to believe that competing interests will almost always undermine their effectiveness (EC, 2011b).

3.8.4 Key issues

While attitudes expressed in employer surveys may not always be reflected in employer behaviour, persuasion measures should at least help to heighten awareness. Like voluntary quota schemes, however, persuasion measures are no substitute for legislation and other obligatory measures in promoting equality of opportunity and treatment for workers with disabilities.

3.9 Disability management

The practice of disability management has developed since the 1990s as a means of supporting those who acquire a disability during their working lives to get back to gainful employment and to facilitate job seekers with disabilities in accessing and maintaining decent jobs (Harder and Geisen, 2012). Understood differently in different countries, a coherent approach has not yet emerged, with some jurisdictions focusing on job retention and return to work, others using different term such as ‘absence management’ and ‘injury management’, and others also including recruitment in the approach taken (McAnaney, 2012). It has become widespread in different forms, in areas such as workers’ compensation in North America and Northern Europe, though other regions of the world have been slower to adopt it.

However it is understood, in the workplace, disability management is a proactive process, often integrated into human resource development practices, that promotes strategies that include a range of prevention, rehabilitation and safe return-to-work interventions to address workplace injury and disability, as well as the recruitment and promotion of persons with disabilities. These strategies are undertaken in a coordinated effort by workers’ representatives and management, who assume joint responsibility for addressing disability-related issues in the workplace.

The ILO Code of Practice on Managing Disability in the Workplace adopted in November 2001 defines disability management as a means of facilitating the recruitment, advancement, job retention and return to work of persons with disabilities. The Code was drawn up to guide employers, in all sectors and sizes of enterprise, to adopt a positive strategy in managing disability-related issues in the workplace. While primarily addressed to employers, the Code notes that “governments play an essential role in creating a supportive legislative and social policy framework and providing incentives to promote employment opportunities for people with disabilities. Moreover, the participation and initiative of people with disabilities is important for the Code to be achievable.” (ILO, 2002,vi). The role of workers’ organizations is also emphasized. The contents of the Code of Practice are based on the principles underpinning international instruments and initiatives designed to promote the safe and healthy employment of all workers. The Code is not a legally binding document and is not intended to supersede or replace national legislation. It is intended to be read in the context of national conditions and to be applied in accordance with national law and practice (ILO, 2002).

Senior representatives of business, government, and other groups formed the International Disability Management Standards Council (IDMSC) in 2003. These representatives are from Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, Germany, Hong Kong, China, Iceland, Ireland, Malaysia, New Zealand, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom. The goals of the IDMSC are to foster global research, education, and awareness in disability management. Additionally the Council is working to build consensus on best practices and prevention initiatives in disability management to improve reintegration for workers and reduce socio-economic costs of disability (IDMSC, 2014).

3.9.1 Job retention

The ILO Code of Practice includes recommended practice in relation to workers who acquire a disability while in employment, covering aspects such as policy, early intervention, assessment and rehabilitation. Prevention, early intervention and retention are issues receiving increasing attention in many countries (Thornton, 1998; OECD, 2010; Geisen and Harder, 2012). Such measures are supported in many cases by the insurance industry on the basis that job retention is generally likely to be a less costly outcome than if the employee leaves work. Corporate culture and job accommodation studies have found cost savings and increased loyalty among employees with and without disabilities where inclusive workforce practices are implemented (Schur et al., 2013; Samant et al., 2009).

To date, a limited number of countries have actively promoted disability management as a strategy in national policies concerning vocational rehabilitation and employment of disabled persons, to promote job retention along with recruitment. Examples cited below from Australia, Canada and the United States illustrate the diversity in approaches adopted.

3.9.2 Disability management in Australia

In Australia, disability management concepts and principles are embedded in government policies. The Commonwealth Government funds a Disability Employment Service (DES) that includes an employee assistance fund to support employers to access workplace modifications and intermittent post-placement support, and recognizes the importance of early intervention by increasing opportunities for services to work directly with schools, hospitals and community organizations. Implemented in 2010 in place of the previous approach, greater emphasis is now placed in employer and workplace engagement, reflecting the principles of disability management. The Commonwealth Rehabilitation Services (CRS) Australia provides services in the framework of insurer-funded workers’ compensation, employer-funded injury prevention and the government funded DES.

The DES has two streams - a Disability Management Service and an Employment Support Service - both of which support persons with disabilities to find and maintain sustainable employment. The focus of the Disability Management Service is on workers with disabilities who are not expected to need long-term or regular support in the workplace while the Employment Support Service provides assistance to those with a permanent disability who need regular, long-term on-going support to gain and keep their jobs (Angleton, 2012).

The approach to disability management taken by CRS Australia involves engaging employers in return to work practices and a range of employer- focused and workplace-based activities aimed at securing employment, in line with the principles of the ILO Code of Practice on Managing Disability in the Workplace (Angleton, op cit).

3.9.3 Disability management in Canada

A Code of Practice for Disability Management was launched in Canada in 2000. Endorsed and funded in part by the Federal Government’s Labour- Management Partnership Programme, and produced by the National Institute of Disability Management and Research (NIDMAR, 2000), the Code provides practical guidelines, key criteria and outcome measures for implementing disability management practices (Williams et al, 2005). Many organizations and their networks, including employers’ and workers’ organizations and organizations of persons with disabilities, are helping to facilitate the employment, retention and return-to-work opportunities for disabled persons. Measures include policy statements and provision of advisory and supportive services.

As an education, training and research organization, NIDMAR facilitated the development of Occupational Standards in Disability Management (NIDMAR, 1999) which have been endorsed for adoption by a cross section of Canada’s largest employers, unions and workers’ compensation boards. It has contributed to the development of professional disability management expertise through the development and delivery of certified on-line training courses on relevant topics. Most recently, it was central in achieving the support of several levels of government for the adoption of legislation establishing the Pacific Coast University for Workplace Health Sciences which opened in 2014. This university aims to be a leading global educational and research centre, using an interdisciplinary approach to issues associated with the lifelong workplace health cycle – health and safety, return to work and disability management and rehabilitation, linked to the ILO Occupational Safety and Health Convention, 1981 (No. 155); the ILO Code of Practice on Managing Disability in the Workplace and the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (NIDMAR, 2009).

3.9.4 Disability management in Germany

Germany adopted the programme produced by Canada’s NIDMAR in 2002 and has been assertive in the implementation of disability management policies. In three years, 350 individuals became Certified Disability Management Professionals and Ford of Germany received the International Disability Management Standards Council's Certified Award, which means that it passed its Consenus Based Disability Management Audit with a score above 80 per cent (Hunt, 2009, p. 14).

3.9.5 Disability management in the United States

With few exceptions, there are generally no federal or state programmes for short-term or long-term disability measures for non-occupational illness or injuries in the United States. This role is usually filled by employer, union and/or employee funded programmes. The costs of shortterm and long-term payments, as well as workers’ compensation payment for work injuries, are ultimately borne by employers through increased insurance premiums. Employers thus have an incentive to reduce these costs (Holland, 2011). This has led to the introduction of what is termed disability management, encompassing a variety of activities designed to prevent disabilities from occurring and/or to minimize their impact on workers and employers. The activities include:

• safety programmes;
• employee health and assistance programmes; and
• return-to-work programmes.

3.9.6 Key issues

With the more widespread adoption of disability management as an approach to promoting recruitment, job retention and return to work of persons with disabilities, there has been a spread of research on the effectiveness of different approaches and the identification of issues that need to be addressed. While these issues vary according to the context, the main issues to be dealt with in general are the need to enhance the quality of disability management services through education and training; the need for greater linkages between government services, in particular occupational safety and health and rehabilitation services; building the awareness of employers about good practice in disability management; and changing expectations of government and the wider community about the role of employers in promoting workplace health and well-being (McAnaney, 2012; Angleton, 2012).

3.10 Consultation mechanisms

ILO Convention No. 159 requires that representative organizations of employers and workers, as well as those of and for disabled persons, are to be consulted on the implementation of national policy on vocational rehabilitation and employment. Recommendation No. 168 states that these organizations should also be able to contribute to the formulation of policies on the organization and development of vocational rehabilitation services, and makes a number of recommendations about the form their participation might take.

Based on its survey of national legislation and the information provided by governments, the ILO’s Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations found that consultations, of different forms, are held in an increasing number of countries (ILO, 1998). In some countries (for example, Austria, Czech Republic, France, Mauritius, Sweden, United Kingdom) permanent councils or committees have been set up involving organizations of persons with disabilities and are consulted on the implementation of national policy. In other countries, all three representative groups are on various bodies responsible for drafting or implementing policies, measures and programmes (for example, Chile, Cyprus, Finland, Germany, the Philippines, Tunisia).

Some governments report that permanent bodies have been established to hold consultations with employers’ and workers’ representatives (Australia, Burkina Faso, Greece, Lithuania, for example). In the United States, the National Council on Disability (NCD) – an independent federal agency – is empowered to report to and advise Congress and the President on national disability law and policy (NCD, n.d.).

In other countries (for example, Argentina, Costa Rica, Ethiopia, Iceland, Suriname, Thailand, Zambia) only organizations of and for persons with disabilities appear to be consulted. This is in line with the general obligation on States Parties to the CRPD to closely consult with and actively involve persons with disabilities through their representative organizations, in the development and implementation of legislation and policies to implement the CRPD, and in other decision-making processes concerning issues relating to persons with disabilities (Art. 4).

3.10.1 Key issues

Vocational rehabilitation and employment for persons with disabilities form an essential component of national employment policy. Government consultations on this issue would undoubtedly benefit from the participation of employers’ and workers’ organizations, as well as from the involvement of representatives of and for disabled persons. The CRPD recognizes the importance of consultation between States Parties and representative organizations of and for persons with disabilities on disability- related issues, including work and employment (Art. 4(3)), but makes no direct reference to including employers’ or workers’ organizations in such consultations. The ILO has consistently called for all three types of representative bodies to be consulted by governments in relation to the implementation of national policies on vocational rehabilitation and employment for persons with disabilities (ILO Convention No. 159, Art. 5).

3.11 Statistics on the employment of persons with disabilities

3.11.1 Variety of definitions

The ILO Code of Practice on Managing Disability in the Workplace (ILO, 2002) defines a disabled person as “(a)n individual whose prospects of securing, returning to, retaining and advancing in suitable employment are substantially reduced as a result of a duly recognized physical, sensory, intellectual or mental impairment.” This is a slightly amplified version of the definition used in ILO Convention No. 159. The CRPD understands ‘persons with disabilities’ as including ‘those who have long-term physical, mental, intellectual or sensory impairments which in interaction with various barriers may hinder their full and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others’.

In considering disability legislation and policies at national, regional or international levels, however, one finds no such agreement. There are wide divergences in how disability is defined, not only between countries (see, for example, OECD, 2000, pp. 194-201), but also between ministries and programmes within countries (for example, in Australia and Canada). This has implications for the statistical information gathered.

3.11.2 Lack of comparable data

There is no consistent series of internationally comparable, reliable and valid data on people with disabilities. This is partly because of the plethora of definitions used, but also because of deficiencies in the data collection methods employed. Thus, estimates of the numbers of persons in the working-age population who are or might be classified as having disabilities vary between countries, not only according to differences as to what constitutes a disability, but also because of the variety of approaches used to gather and compile such data. These are not the only reasons why cross-national comparisons are difficult. As the European Commission study of employment policies for people with disabilities points out, no two countries operate substantially similar systems, and there are major differences in almost all the main factors which impact on the structure and delivery of disability and employment policy (EC, 2000).

Comparisons between countries can be informative and useful, provided the bases for comparison are valid. What are more important in the first instance, however, are the relevance, nature, quality, reliability and accuracy of information which informs the development of policy and programmes in each country. Survey findings indicate that, with a few notable exceptions (Australia, Canada, Sweden, United Kingdom, United States, for example), the data required for policy and programme development, planning, monitoring and evaluation are inadequate, and seriously so in some cases (ILO, 2004b).

Most of the countries concerned acknowledge the information gaps, recognizing that inadequacies in data make effective policy formulation and planning difficult, and weaken the case for resource allocation. Many have plans to improve their statistical information on the employment of persons with disabilities. In Malta, for instance, a national census was carried out by the National Statistics Office in 2005 and disclosed that the employment rate of disabled people was considerably lower than that of non-disabled people: 14.6 per cent (3,295) of people with disabilities were employed compared with 48 per cent (150,188) of the non-disabled population (European Foundation Centre, 2009).

In 1999, the UN General Assembly urged Governments to cooperate with the Statistics Division, Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the UN Secretariat in the continued development of global statistics and indicators on disability (UN, 1999). At the UN International Seminar on Measurement of Disability in 2001, it was accepted that statistical and methodological work was required at an international level to facil tate the comparison of data on disability cross-nationally. Consequently , the UN Statistical Division authorized the formation of the Washington Group to address some of the issues identified and to develop a set of general disability measures suitable for use in censuses, sample-based national surveys or other statistical formats by using the World Health Organization (WHO) International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) (UN Statistics Division, 2013; ILO, 2004a).

In parallel with these activities, the ILO launched a project to analyse the existing national statistics on the employment situation of persons with disabilities.¹⁹ The resulting compendium describes the methodologies in use in 95 countries in 2002 (ILO, 2003). At that time, countries mainly relied on population censuses and household surveys to compile these statistics, which means that information is generally collected at 5- or 10-yearly intervals, or for one point in time only. According to the country replies, these sources provide detailed data on employment status and generally take into account the relevant international standards dealing with employment and unemployment statistics. These censuses and household surveys were reported to usually use definitions of disability that come from national legislation or that have been developed by national statistical offices, ministries and/or non-governmental organizations concerned with disability; less than 50 per cent of the countries were using the relevant international standards dealing with statistics on disability (ILO, 2003, p1). To complement this compendium, the ILO prepared guidelines on improving statistical information on the employment of disabled persons (ILO, 2007). Building on knowledge in the fields of labour and disability statistics, these guidelines are intended to support the development of a comprehensive, internationally comparable description of the employment situation of persons with disabilities in countries around the world. The ILO survey of national methodologies was repeated in 2014-2015 and the information will be made available on-line.

The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities recognizes the importance of such information and its proper management. Article 31 requires States Parties to collect appropriate information, including statistical and research data, to enable them to formulate and implement policies to give effect to the Convention. It specifies that “the process of collecting and maintaining this information shall comply with legally established safeguards, including legislation on data collection, to ensure confidentiality and respect for the privacy of persons with disabilities; and comply with internationally accepted norms to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms and ethical principles in the collection and use of statistics” (Art. 31(1)). The information collected shall be used to help assess the implementation of States Parties’ obligations under the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and to identify and address the barriers faced by persons with disabilities in exercising their rights. States Parties have responsibility for the dissemination of these statistics and ensuring their accessibility to persons with disabilities (Art. 31(2) and (3)).

3.12 Monitoring

The ILO Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations (CEACR) is one of two supervisory bodies with responsibility for the regular supervision of the observance by member States of their standards-related obligations.²⁰ Members of the CEACR, appointed by the ILO Governing Body for a renewable period of three years, are appointed in a personal capacity among impartial persons of technical competence and independent standing, drawn from all parts of the world. The CEACR reviews the periodic reports of member States on the measures which they have taken to give effect in law and practice to the provisions of Conventions which they have ratified.

All core UN human rights conventions provide for the establishment of a treaty monitoring body to monitor implementation by States Parties of treaty obligations. There are limitations to the process: while States are required to comply with the conventions they have ratified, monitoring bodies are mandated to make recommendations and may undertake follow-up measures to assess compliance, but they have no formal enforcement powers (Stein and Lord, 2008). The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) provides for implementation and monitoring mechanisms at national and international levels (Arts 34-39). Internationally, the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities is responsible for regular monitoring, as noted in Section 1.35.3 above. At the national level, States Parties are required to designate one or more focal points within government for matters relating to the implementation of the CRPD, and to give due consideration to the establishment or designation of a coordination mechanism within government to facilitate related action in different sectors and at different levels. In addition, States Parties must put in place a framework to promote, protect and monitor implementation. Persons with disabilities and their representative organizations should be involved and participate fully in the monitoring process through one or more independent mechanisms whose role is to promote, protect and monitor the CRPD (Art. 33).

3.12.1 Monitoring implementation: Country-level examples

States Parties to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities have adopted a range of different approaches to monitoring its implementation, as illustrated by the following examples which are drawn from the reports submitted to the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

In Austria, the Independent Monitoring Committee for the Implementation of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (IMC) was established on 8 August, 2008 under Section 13 of the Federal Disability Act. The IMC comprises representatives of organizations of people with disabilities, a human rights non-governmental organization, a developmental cooperation organization, and an academic institution. The IMC handles complaints, has an unlimited right to inspect the files of all State authorities, and has the authority to submit reports on Austrian implementation to the UN Committee of Rights of Persons with Disabilities (OHCHR, n.d.).

In Denmark, the Danish Institute for Human Rights (DIHR) was designated to serve as an independent monitor of the implementation of the CRPD by Parliamentary Decision in December 2010. The DIHR has its own funding fixed in the Danish Finance Act and it raises awareness, provides advice, and handles complaints regarding violations of the CRPD. Exceptionally, two other bodies have also been designated as part of the monitoring framework. The DIHR works in cooperation with the Danish Disability Council and the Danish Parliamentary Ombudsman to protect the rights of persons with disabilities and monitor the implementation of the CRPD. The Danish Disability Council consists of seventeen members from organizations of persons with disabilities, the Danish Building Research Institute, the Danish Housing Association, the Danish Confederation of Trade Unions, the Confederation of Danish Employers, the Confederation of Danish Industry and Trade, academic institutions, and the Ministry of Social Affairs. (OHCHR, n.d.).

In Germany, the German Institute for Human Rights (GIHR) was designated in December 2008 as the independent mechanism to monitor the implementation of the CRPD. The GIHR consists of representatives of diverse civil society organizations, academics, and, without voting rights, representatives of ministries. Funded by the Federal Ministry of Justice, the Foreign Ministry and the Federal Ministry of Economic Cooperation and Development, the GIHR reviews legislative and administrative rules and raises awareness of the CRPD, though it does not deal with violations of the rights of persons with disabilities (OHCHR, n.d).

In Latvia, the Ombudsman was designated in 2010 as the independent mechanism to monitor implementation. The Omdudsman’s office handles complaints of discrimination against persons with disabilities and may represent complainants before the administrative courts. The Office also raises awareness of the rights of persons with disabilities and may submit reports on certain matters to Government and Parliament (OHCHR, n.d).

In Mexico, the National Human Rights Commission and the 32 Public Bodies for the Defence and Protection of Human Rights of the states form the framework to promote, protect and monitor implementation of the CRPD (Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities – Mexico report, 2013a).

In New Zealand, the Human Rights Commission and the Office of the Ombudsman are responsible for providing independent oversight of the ongoing application of the CRPD. The Government also funds the Convention Coalition, a group of disabled people’s non-governmental organizations, to monitor its implementation (Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities – New Zealand report, 2013b).

In Slovenia, monitoring is carried out by the Council for Persons with Disabilities, established by the Act on Equal Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities, Art. 28 (OHCHR, n.d).

In Spain, the Committee of Representatives of People with Disabilities (CERMI), the umbrella organization for organizations of persons with disabilities is the designated monitoring mechanism (OHCHR, n.d).

In Thailand, the National Office for Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities (NEP), as the national disability focal point, is responsible for promoting and monitoring implementation of CRPD, along with the Office of the National Human Rights Commission, that serves as an independent monitoring agency.

In the United Kingdom, four independent mechanisms have been designated to promote, protect and monitor the implementation of the CRPD: the Equality and Human Rights Commission, the Scottish Human Rights Commission, the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, and Equality Commission for Northern Ireland (OHCHR, n.d).

In its observations on State Party reports reviewed to date, which represent a small minority of all States that have ratified the CRPD, the Committee has expressed concern that some countries have not yet designated institutions to monitor CRPD compliance which meet the requirement to establish an independent monitoring body in line with the Paris Principles relating to the status of national institutions for the promotion and protection of human rights. Concerns have also been expressed about the lack of systematic participation of persons with disabilities and their representative organizations in the monitoring process in some cases and about the need to allocate adequate resources to the designated monitoring agency in others. States Parties have been encouraged to address these issues.

3.13 Evaluation

Poor data render effective programme monitoring and evaluation virtually impossible (OECD, 1986). This assumes particular importance when increasing social security costs give rise to concern. This concern goes back several decades. For example, in her 1998 report on job retention and return to work strategies, Thornton states, referring to ‘emerging issues’ that:

Principles of social solidarity are eroding fast in the Netherlands, with decreasing public and political will to support the massive costs of the disability system . . . A response to the rising costs of sickness and disability benefits in the Netherlands and in Sweden has been to shift responsibilities from the state to the enterprise . . . both for payment of sickness benefit and for early intervention to reduce sickness absence (p. 13).

The General Accounting Office in the United States has criticized the fact that the effectiveness of a large range of employment-related programmes for people with disabilities has been subject to little or no evaluation (Thornton and Lunt, 1997, p. 276). The place of social security benefits in facilitating return to work has also received special attention in the United States:

Social Security Disability Insurance and Supplementary Security Income programs should not be viewed as exclusive and permanent sources of income to the person with disabilities. They should, in every case possible, be used as stepping stones to improving a person’s economic condition. (Social Security Administration, 1994, quoted in Thornton and Lunt, 1997, p. 277).

The general need for valid and reliable evaluation data is reinforced by the growing and competing demands on public expenditures (OECD, 2004, 2010). Competition for resources exists not only within the overall context of national economic policies, but also between disability policies (prevention versus rehabilitation versus equal opportunity, for example) and within the disability employment area itself. For instance, should available resources be allocated to train all those who have a disability, be concentrated on skill training for those most likely to get jobs, or be devoted to those most in need? Answers to questions such as these require further analysis.