FLUJO DE TRABAJO: PREPARACIÓN

The education and preparation of adults for the open labour market is important for integration. Taylor et al. (2004) reported on the positive results of an initiative, based in Northern Ireland, which provided employment training and support for young adults with disabilities. In the two-year pilot initiative, 122 people participated and achieved 160 qualifications. Others recommended better support in skills

development and career planning for persons with blindness, starting in public schools and then supported by rehabilitation agencies and community centres (Wolffe et al., 1992).

Supported employment (SE) can also facilitate the employment of PWDs in mainstream employment (L. Van Niekerk et al., 2011). SE operates on the premise that when the right amount and type of support is given to a PWD, even those with severe disabilities can be integrated into the open labour market (L. Van Niekerk et al., 2011). From a focus group of SE programme service providers in Cape Town (SA), L. Van Niekerk et al. (2011) identified four priority areas for successful SE programmes. Firstly, job coaches should source job opportunities for PWDs at employers through education and partnerships. Secondly, the decision to disclose a disability must be discussed with the PWD and a strategy for disclosure should be identified.

Thirdly, potential employers and co-workers should be sensitised on the rights of PWDs and educated on working with a PWD. Lastly, PWDs should be assisted in all practical means available to the job coach in order to achieve and maintain employment.

Service providers from across disability types and within communities should form working partnerships in order to improve and identify specialised services to young adults with disabilities (Taylor et al., 2004). The cost-effectiveness that local, community-based interventions for PWD employment may have in comparison to national projects was also mentioned in an UK based employment initiative (Arksey, 2003).

The People into Employment (PIE) project aimed to help persons and carers of PWDs who would not normally seek out employment services and open labour market employment. Numerous public, private and community-based partners supported this initiative. The PIE served as a central information hub, where clients could readily access employment, training and advice (and even financial support). An evaluation of the efficacy of this project was undertaken one year after operations started (Arksey, 2003). Of the 94 PIE clients, 59 were supported in gaining employment, indicating a high level of targeted success. Certain “key ingredients” (Arksey, 2003, p. 289) assured the success of the PIE initiative, including customised job searches (tailored to individual needs and abilities), access to information, detailed person-job fit analyses and support during placement by dedicated staff members.

Processes and partnerships to ensure the transition from sheltered employment to open labour market employment for PWDs must also be established. Parmenter (1999) highlights the need for co-operation in planning for employment, while incorporating the needs of the consumer, community services and social support networks. He reports on an Australian commissioned initiative to help PWDs with the transition from sheltered employment to mainstream employment. This initiative includes practices such as greater co-operation between sheltered employment agencies and recruitment agencies, and increased accredited training and skills development during sheltered employment (Parmenter, 1999).

Gilbride, Coughlin, Mitus, and Scott (2007) also introduced a model, called the Consortium for Employment Success (CES), by which rehabilitation agencies can increase inter-agency co-operation in order to enhance the employment outcomes for PWDs. The model is based on the sharing of information and resources in order to combat the historically segregated functioning of these types of agencies. They also reported the previous article by Gilbride, Stensrud, Vandergoot, and Golden (as cited in Gilbride et al., 2007)

that found that employers were often frustrated when confronted by different rehabilitation agencies, each with their own procedural and service related uniqueness.

Successful collaboration between employers and rehabilitation agencies also requires pre-defined structures (Gilbride et al., 2007). The number of partners in collaboration should be specified, as well as the differentiated functions that will be performed within the collaboration (Gilbride et al., 2007). A Memorandum of Understanding, according to the proposed CES Model, can form the backbone of defining expectations and responsibilities, as well as resource commitments by each partner in the collaboration.

Gilbride et al. (2007) concluded the discussion of the proposed CES model with a summary of its benefits and challenges. The benefits should be, and are, related directly to the reasoning behind the model’s development, in that it should promote inter-agency contact and provide more employers with a central point of contact. The reluctance of agencies to share their accumulated knowledge and contacts, as well as distrust between agencies, can provide substantial challenges to a CES model.

Public-private partnerships should be tailored in accordance to each unique situation (Unger, 2007).

Unger (2007) discusses two partnerships that provide employment services (of and for PWDs) according to employer demands. Both were borne out of a need by employers either to diversify their workforce through appointing EWDs and/or to support a valued worker who acquired a disability back into employment. Unger (2007) concluded, however, that although several seemingly successful private-public partnerships yielded promising employment outcomes for both the job seeker and employer, this type of partnership is not “one size fits all” (p. 47).

State initiatives to enhance the employment outcomes of PWDs should also aim to promote inclusion.

In the USA, the “One-stop career centres” have replaced the unemployment office and aim to provide Americans with training and support to keep them employed. Previous studies (cited by Gervey, Costello, &

Ni, 2007), have found that PWDs are generally less satisfied with the services they receive from these centres in comparison to able-bodied customers. In Gloucester County, a study was undertaken in order to assess whether staff training at these “One-stop career centres” positively influenced customer satisfaction and employment outcomes of customers with disabilities (Gervey et al. 2007). Although this study provided mixed results (possibly also owing to the small sample size), it seems that staff were resistant to change and that the individualised needs of PWDs may not be met within this state-sponsored employment initiative.

A further investigation into the “One-stop career centres” and other vocational rehabilitation public service systems in the USA yielded more insight about important factors associated with service delivery (Metzel & Giordano, 2007). The location of these services is an important factor when PWDs want to access their services. The authors found that there was a mismatch between communities with great need of employment and the actual location of employment services. They question the logic behind site selection and state that “the majority of locations were chosen for reasons unrelated to the goal of making employment services accessible” (p. 94-95). The authors propose that alternative service delivery, such as online services and satellite community sites, should be considered strongly in service delivery designs.

Finally, the education of rehabilitation personnel should not only provide proper theoretical knowledge (in terms of formal education and certification), but should also include further self-study and continuing education (McFarlane, 1998). McFarlane (1998) presented a framework for the education of rehabilitation personnel. Not only should the enhanced and continual education of rehabilitation personnel be supported by educational institutions, but also by policy makers, employers and the personnel themselves.

Policy should also move forward from the theoretical to the practical through better personnel development (McFarlane, 1998).

Once PWDs are socialised in the mainstream and have proper education and career training, disability policy and recruitment practices should also enhance PWD employment.