Respondents already established in the job rated the possibility of a number of employment outcomes if their equipment had not been available through Access to Work at the time they applied. All respondents in work at the time of the interview were asked about the same outcomes in the current situation. In most instances eighteen months or more had elapsed since they applied.
Taking More Sick Leave
A substantial minority (around four in ten) of people established in the job totally disagreed that they would have taken more sick leave had Aids and Equipment not been available when they applied (Figure 5.2). Several respondents wanted to point out that having an impairment did not mean they were ill. This group was mainly using communication aids and accessible computer equipment designed for people with visual impairments or dyslexia. But many disabled people believed that
struggling to cope without the support could lead to stress and time off work. Amongst those agreeing that they were more than likely to have taken more sick leave at the time they applied were people who had experienced pain and fatigue at their workstation before they got their support from Access to Work. Ergonomic chairs, speech recognition systems and voice amplifiers in particular proved in retrospect to relieve the pain, and Aids and Equipment were also felt to prevent increased sick leave by some people who needed mobility aids.
The pattern of scores relating to the current situation shows more agreement that more sick leave would be taken in the absence of Aids and Equipment (Figure 5.3). The results are not strictly comparable with those in Figure 5.2, relating to the time of application, as the people who took up a job are now included. If we look at the differences in individuals’ scores a more useful picture emerges. Of the 57 instances
Figure 5.2
Likelihood at application of taking more sick leave
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
where both scores were given, the ‘now’ score was substantially higher in 16 cases, lower in eight and the same (within ten points) in 33 cases. People explained that they were taking less sick leave since they got the support because using it had decreased pain, stress and fatigue or prevented a condition from deteriorating. Morale also had improved.
Employers were not asked about specific elements of support. Rather, they were asked to comment on what would have happened in the absence of Access to Work overall. Not all employers of Aids and Equipment users were in a position to offer an opinion but the great majority of those who did comment agreed that more sick leave was a possibility if Access to Work were not now available (Figure 5.4).
Figure 5.3
Likelihood of taking more sick leave now
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Aids and Equipment users in work (66)
Figure 5.4
Likelihood of taking more sick leave now
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Performance at Work
An important outcome of Aids and Equipment, from the point of view of both users and employers, was improved work performance. When asked what difference Aids and Equipment made to them, two in three Aids and Equipment users volunteered that their performance and the quality of their work had improved. Asked to rate agreement that performance at work would be affected without the support, half of the employers of people receiving only Aids and Equipment scored 90 to 100 on the agreement scale and only one in ten scored ten or less. Most employers agreed that the performance of other staff would also be negatively affected if their employee did not have Aids and Equipment.
Giving up Working Altogether
Giving up working altogether at the time they applied would not have been conceivable for the large majority of Aids and Equipment users (Figure 5.5). It is noteworthy, however, that around one in ten felt they would definitely or almost definitely have given up work without the support.
Employers of Aids and Equipment users were generally more pessimistic than their employees about the possibility of them staying in the job without the Access to Work package, and in some cases thought it considerably likely that the employee would have had to leave, although the user was completely or almost certain that they would not. The small number of employers who were more optimistic often referred to the organisation’s equal opportunities policies and responsibilities (though rarely to the Disability Discrimination Act) or to a sense of responsibility towards the
employee, and some volunteered that they would have paid for what was needed. Redeployment in the organisation would have been considered if possible.
Figure 5.5
Likelihood at application of giving up working altogether
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
People’s dependence on their equipment to stay in the job is evident. Ten out of 65 agreed completely that they would lose their job without it and another eight thought it more than half way likely (Figure 5.6). Given what we found about people’s
willingness to work against the odds, this is a striking finding. Of those disagreeing that they would have to leave if the equipment were not now available, many believed that their employer would find some solution such as a change of tasks if they were unable to supply the equipment needed.
Where interviewed, employers, considering the Access to Work package as a whole, overall gave less pessimistic scores for the likelihood of the employee having to leave the job and nearly half disagreed completely (Figure 5.7). Usually the Access to Work user was considered to be a valued employee and employers would have taken steps to retain them, and equal opportunities polices were commonly referred to. Employers were not always certain that the organisation would supply everything that was needed and sometimes spoke of looking for solutions such as
redeployment. It appears that once employers had seen the benefits of Access to Work support they were more inclined to consider finding solutions to keep the person in their employment, compared with at the time of application.
Figure 5.6
Likelihood of losing the job now
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Carrying on Without the Support
Well over half of Aids and Equipment users agreed that they were more than half way likely to have carried on without the equipment at the time they applied, and nearly three in ten agreed completely (Figure 5.8). In the current situation, however, the number saying they would definitely not carry on was larger than the number saying that they would certainly carry on in the absence of the support (Figure 5.9). Several respondents commented that having used the equipment they now realised the benefits it brought them in terms of reduced pain, more efficient working and more equal participation. Experience of these benefits meant it could be hard to contemplate working life without the support.
Amongst those saying they would have carried on without Aids and Equipment were some who definitely needed the equipment and would have bought it themselves or had it provided by the employer if Access to Work were not available now. We should also remember that strong attachment to work and the need to earn may have
swayed some people towards saying they would have carried on without Aids and Equipment.
It was unusual for respondents to say that the equipment was completely
unnecessary. A few users valued the extra comfort or convenience but believed the help a ‘luxury’ rather than an essential item. Occasionally an item had been provided as a safeguard against recurrence of a condition that had improved through
treatment. Smaller items provided in a package of desk station equipment were sometimes not used, because they took up space or did not help much. It seems that items in their support packages that they had not expected to get when they applied were more dispensable to users. Some surprise was expressed at the extent of the recommendations following assessment, when users had in mind a particular item or type of support. In a few instances users said that more expensive items were not
Figure 5.7
Likelihood of having to leave the job now
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
used because they had not been installed properly, because further training was needed or because they were not central to their current work.
Employers of Aids and Equipment users were more optimistic than users about the likelihood of carrying on without Access to Work. Around one in three employers of people receiving only Aids and Equipment were 90 to 100 per cent certain that their employee would carry on now without that support, though a similar proportion rated their agreement at ten or less. Employers thought people might carry on without their Aids and Equipment because they were determined individuals committed to their job who didn’t give up easily or because the employing organisation would provide the support.
Figure 5.8
Likelihood at application of carrying on without the equipment
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Aids and Equipment users in work at time of application (71)
Figure 5.9
Likelihood of carrying on without the equipment now
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100