New Mechanisms and Possibilities in Employment Support — Insights from Implementing the Model Project —

Toshiyuki Mori
Advisor, Social Welfare Corporation Funabushi

In Gifu Prefecture, the Model Project was implemented as a prefecture-wide initiative. The prefecture consists of five welfare regions—Gifu, Seino, Chuno, Tono, and Hida—each of which has one Disability Employment and Daily Life Support Center (hereafter referred to as “Nakapotsu”). The Gifu region alone has had two centers since 2016.When launching the model project, discussions were held at the Nakapotsu Liaison Council, where it was decided that six centers would implement the Model Project: three in the Gifu region, two in Chuno, and one in Hida.

Nakapotsu centers are expected to play a central role in local disability employment support. Implementing the Model Project not only provided an opportunity to fulfill that role but also allowed each Nakapotsu to collaborate with related municipalities and organizations to consider how this new scheme should be introduced in their community and to determine whether their operating body could serve as a service provider of the Employment Choice Support under the new framework.

As part of the Model Project, each participating center handled approximately two cases, for a total of eleven cases across all settings. Because this was a model initiative, the project was able to cover relatively diverse cases and obtain smooth cooperation from related stakeholders.

In reviewing the Project, many comments were shared. Participants noted that taking part in the Model Project helped them form a concrete image of what the Employment Choice Support Scheme entails. Various opinions were also expressed, some of which may serve as valuable reference points for implementing similar initiatives in the future. Below are several of those key comments:

• It is important for the Employment Choice Support Scheme to operate from a neutral position within the community. Therefore, it may not be suitable to use the same designation framework as general disability welfare service providers. It might be better to create a mechanism, such as through the community-based council for independent living support, to ensure and review this neutrality.
• To respect and sustain the individual’s motivation to work, the municipal service authorization for the Employment Choice Support must be decided within a short period of time. However, would this be feasible in each municipality?
• The role of the consultation support specialist is vital throughout the entire process—from intake to service completion—and close coordination is essential. Considering how busy these specialists already are, is it realistic to expect them to sustain such collaboration?
• Cases involving special needs schools will likely account for a certain proportion of the target population, but will coordination with schools proceed smoothly? (For example, avoiding seasonal concentration of cases, ensuring cooperation in assessment, etc.)
• During the Model Project, multi-agency case conferences were held relatively smoothly thanks to the cooperative framework, but will the same level of collaboration be achievable in regular operations?
• Given that the service authorization period is as short as one month, is it possible to coordinate schedules for case conferences involving all stakeholders within that time frame? The use of online tools will likely be essential.
• Is it sufficient to rely solely on the assessment sheet developed by the Japan Organization for Employment of the Elderly, Persons with Disabilities, and Job Seekers (JEED)? Wouldn’t it be necessary to have assessment tools tailored to different types of disabilities? It may also be desirable to have a standardized tool shared among service providers within each community.