Shigeyuki Kojima
Director of Hasshin Fukushi-kai (Social Welfare Corporation)

Introduction of the Establishment

Our establishment is located in Higashiomi City on the east side of Lake Biwa in Shiga Prefecture.  The workshop, which was opened in 1986 with five persons with disabilities, became a corporation, and now it has about 100 people working on five programs (Table 1).  I think that the founder’s concept, which is, “We can work despite our disabilities, and we can earn substantially through our ingenuity,” is still being passed on down, knowing we have a role in the community.  In recent years, we have advanced into agriculture, working also on agricultural-welfare cooperation, and promoting collaborative projects with civic activity groups as a public interest program in the community.

Table 1:  Business Type of Hasshin-fukushi-kai

Stand-alone

Revision of Subsidy

The subsidy for the Support for Continuous Employment (Type B) was revised in the points shown in Table 2.  Since only a few months have passed since the revision, the survey on the impact on the concerned establishments nationwide has not been conducted.  However, according to some establishments in the prefecture, the basic subsidy (②) in most establishments has increased somewhat due to the increase of the overall subsidy unit rate. We hear that income has drastically dropped at several establishments due to the newly introduced uniform subsidy system, the acquisition of additional subsidies (① ③) and the abolition of the subsidy for off-site employment (⑤).  In our corporation, all three Type B establishments we operate have been benefited by the revision of the basic subsidy (②) as the establishments in the categories with higher-than-average wages received bigger subsidies.  Here, I would like to share with you my opinion, not just from the perspective of managing a corporation that has received increased income, but because there are issues I would like to raise pertaining to the recent subsidy revisions.

Table 2:

FY2021 Subsidy Revision Points for the Support of Continuous Employment (Type B)

Let us look back on how the Support for Continuous Employment (Type B) came about.  When the Assistance Funding System shifted to the Services and Support for Persons with Disabilities Act in 2006, the workshops in such places as day-time vocational aid centers and unlicensed workshops were shifted to a new program category, thus the Support for Continuous Employment (Type B) was recently established, being one of the options.  During the transition, there were establishments that chose Type B for the reason that their services were:

• not applicable in the Support for Continuous Employment (Type A) wherein the establishments pay minimum wages to the service users;
• not categorized as the transition support for employment specializing in Support for Employment; or
• not a long-term care service that specializes in the support for persons with severe disabilities (the requirement for the use of the services is Disability Level 3 or higher in the Classification).

As a result, the largest number of workshops that transferred to Type B were general workshops.  In a way, they chose Type B through a process of elimination.  Type B has become the category that involves a fairly wide range of users.  From this background, these are not only the establishments aiming at providing high wages, but rather many of them pursue work styles (daytime activities) that suit each person according to the type of their disability, and, therefore, would not necessarily lead to giving them higher wages.

Under such circumstances, in FY2018, a performance-based subsidy, in which the amount of wages paid to the users is the key factor, was quickly introduced.  This sudden transition caught us off-guard.  As a result, while the establishments that paid high wages to the users were assessed with a high subsidy unit rate, the establishments that paid average monthly wages of 10,000 yen or less, which comprise 35.9% of the Type B establishments nationwide, have been forced to reduce their income significantly due to this revision.

Even after that, according to the subsidy classification before this revision, Type B establishments paying an average monthly wage of less than 20,000 yen (within the three divisions from the bottom) accounted for 77% of the total, and conversely, those in the highest subsidy division (users’ average monthly wage of 45,000 yen or more) were only 1.7% of all the establishments (Table 3).   The average monthly wage nationwide is in the 16,000 yen range, and most of the establishments have difficulty in providing higher wages to the users no matter how high the subsidy is presented.  I have to say that it is a subsidy system that does not consider reality.

Table 3: Old Subsidy System (results in March 2020)

As a result of the abolition of the off-site employment subsidy in this revision, there were some establishments whose income from this subsidy decreased (basic subsidy + income from various subsidies).  Off-site employment means that the service users work in regular companies outside of the welfare establishments for the purpose of training, with the requirement that staff members are assigned to support them while inside the company.  Additional subsidies were given to those establishments that implemented this service, according to the number of days and the number of users.  At our establishment, some users go to work outside our facility.  Even if we no longer receive any additional subsidy, we just cannot easily stop providing this off-site employment for the service users.  In the first place, it was an additional subsidy that was established with a purpose, and the abolition without any grace period felt like we were being abandoned; it gave us the impression that we were victims of the revision.  I appreciate the increase of the subsidy unit rate, but the question is where in the national budget can it be allocated, considering that while something increases, something else also decreases.  No sooner had the subsidy been changed to a performance-based subsidy encouraging high wage payment than the uniform basic subsidy was added this time.  It seems that Type B has strayed from its purpose.

“What really is Type B?” – this question begs to be answered.  A wide range of users and the subsequent inconsistent subsidy revision makes me think that the original objective of Type B is becoming unclear.  To resolve this issue and clarify its function, I believe that a review of the service categorization and the creation of a mechanism is needed so that we can put in place a stable form of support for people with disabilities.  I believe that it is time to review the service categorization itself, and not be easily overcome by the subsidy revision.

COVID-19’s Impact and Response

Due to the impact of COVID-19, the income from production activities at our establishment decreased by about 20% from the previous year.  Since most of our income is from subcontracting from companies, we are highly dependent on them as it is difficult to break through on our own.  It is tempting to lament that there is no way out, but I think that asking ourselves what we can do, not only as management but also as staff, will decide the outcome after the emergency is over.  Although the working hours are still shortened due to the decrease in orders, we could change the way we think, like this free time has its advantages.  We have set up a project team with a few young to mid-career staff to support the employment project.  Be it a new independent business, resolving issues in the community, coming up with new ideas that are not bound by preconceived notions, and putting them into shape, it will be a source of growth for young employees, whether the results are successful or not.  I am closely monitoring them.

Last year, approached by a civic activity group that engages in multi-generational exchange activities from children to the elderly, we started an exchange program together with various industries to create the foundation of an inclusive community by utilizing an old folk house owned by our establishment.  We leave this program to mid-career staff.  What are expanding are circles of people engaged in various possibilities embodying the corporate philosophy of “creating an inclusive society.”

Conclusion

During the 2008 financial crisis, the volume of job orders fell; but we also took it as an opportunity to dispatch and train all the staff members – one per week – who would not normally be able to take their hands off from work.  We always hear the adage, “Tough times bring opportunities!”  It takes a lot of courage to stop, but considering the nature of business, just like society and the economy, we must carefully discern “what must be changed and what must not be changed” as a guideline and take time to gain a foothold before making the next leap.