EU US Seminar

Brussels, 17 18 November 2003

ACCESS OF PEOPLE WITH DISABILTIES TO EMPLOYMENT

European Commission Employment and Social Affairs DG

Access of People with Disabilities to Employment EU-US Seminar

Brussels, 17-18 November 2003

Key Findings and Themes From the Seminar

Report prepared by: Burt Perrin, Rapporteur

26 February 2004

Table of Contents
Executive Summary .......................................................................................................iii I. Introduction............................................................................................................ 1 1. Background and Purpose of the Seminar ............................................................... 1 2. Purpose of This Report ........................................................................................... 1 II. Key Themes Arising from the Seminar ................................................................. 2 1. Context: The Nature of Barriers and the Key Role of Employment ...................... 2 2. Demographics: People with Disabilities Constitute a Sizeable, and Growing, Population .............................................................................................................. 3 A. The size of the overall disability population is significant and growing .......... 3 B. Access for people with disabilities benefits many others as well ..................... 3 3. There is a Strong Economic and Business Case for the Inclusion of People with Disabilities ............................................................................................................. 4 4. Equal Opportunities for People with Disabilities is a Human Rights Issue........... 4 5. How More People with Disabilities Can be Included in the Workplace................ 5 A. Initiatives by large enterprises........................................................................... 5 B. Need for more attention to Small and Medium Size Enterprises (SMEs) ........ 7 C. Need for more attention to the retention of employees who develop disabilities.......................................................................................................... 7 D. Need for positive action for those individuals not able to move readily into open employment .............................................................................................. 8 E. Potential for the public sector, itself a major employer, to lead by example.... 9 6. A Multi-faceted Approach is Essential................................................................. 10 7. Design for All and the New Technology Major Potential to Improve Accessibility for People with Disabilities, but Not a Panacea............................. 10 8. Coordination and Partnership: Key Success Factors............................................ 11 A. Importance of cooperation among partners and stakeholders......................... 11 B. Involvement of people with disabilities in the process is critical ................... 12 9. Need for Better Information about the Disability Population and for Evaluation of Strategies and Interventions............................................................................. 12 A. Conflicting definitions and poor quality data regarding the disability population........................................................................................................ 12 B. Lack of good information about what works or not, for whom, and in what situations, such as the effectiveness of ALMPs .............................................. 13 III. Conclusion: Overall Observations of the Rapporteur.......................................... 14
Annexes: 1. Programme 2. List of participants 3. Opening speeches 4. Session 1: Presentations

5. Session 2: Presentations 6. Session 3: Presentations

ii

Executive Summary
A joint seminar between the EU and the US was held in Brussels in November 2003, within the context of the New Transatlantic Agenda and in relation to the European Year of People with Disabilities 2003. The purpose of the seminar was to explore barriers to employment that people with disabilities are facing, policies that could address these barriers and increase the integration of people with disabilities into the labour market, and to exchange good practices and other ideas. Participants at the seminar included representatives of the full range of social partners as well as high-level officials from both the US and the EU. This setting provided a rare opportunity for an exchange of views and experiences across sectors, with many constructive interventions from all sides. The text of this report summarises the key themes that emerged from the seminar. Papers of the main presenters are also included in the annex to the report. Following are some highlights. Speakers and participants from all sectors emphasised the key role of employment for social inclusion. Yet they also identified numerous barriers in society, including not just physical barriers but also attitudinal barriers and a range of systemic factors that lead to social exclusion and that prevent people with disabilities from taking their proper place in the employment sector and in society. This in turn was identified as a human rights issue, including by officials in both the EU and the EU. Demographics received particular attention at the seminar. Due to demographic changes, in particular the aging of society, the disability population in both the EU and the US is sizable and growing. It was observed that we are not talking any more about a small minority who require special treatment. Furthermore, a number of participants indicated how providing access for people with disabilities can benefit many others as well. There is also a strong economic and business case for including people with disabilities in society and in the workplace. This not only benefits society, but as many of the corporate representatives emphasised, it benefits businesses themselves. A number of ideas emerged about how more people with disabilities can be included in the workforce. For example:

Representatives of large businesses in both the US and the EU emphasised the importance of working simultaneously to address issues concerning accommodation, accessibility, and attitudes. They identified many spin-off benefits to the businesses themselves, emphasising how including workers with disabilities is compatible with good business objectives. Speakers identified the need for more attention to the development of strategies to support the employment of people with disabilities in small businesses, given that some 98 percent of European businesses are SMEs (small and medium size enterprises), with an average of six employees each. There is a need for more attention by all sectors to the retention of employees who become disabled while already employed, given that 70 percent of people with disabilities become disabled while they are already in the workforce. It was pointed out that the public sector is itself a major employer, with the potential for it to lead by example. iii

 There is a need for more positive action for those individuals who are not able to move readily into open (competitive) employment.
On this last point, forceful interventions by a number of participants, including those representing disability NGOs, emphasised that a sizable proportion of people with disabilities are not in a position to be able to enter directly into open employment, at least not without special assistance. There is a need for special supports and alternatives. Success factors identified in an evaluation of Active Labour Market Policies in the EU include: developing a personalised reintegration plan, addressing the wishes and motivations of both people with disabilities and of (future) employers in these plans, and providing for cooperation and coordination among partners and key stakeholders. There was also considerable discussion about the potential of Design for All and of technology to level the playing field. With accessibility built in from the start, and often invisibly, disability ceases to become an issue. But speakers also emphasised that while technology is a crucial part of the solution to employment, it is no panacea and by itself is not enough. Following are some other key themes that arose at the seminar:

The need for a multi-faceted approach, recognising that accessible and affordable transport, housing, and access to education and community services and needed personal supports are also prerequisites to employment. The importance of involvement of people with disabilities in establishing policy and programme directions, to give them an opportunity to indicate themselves what their needs and requirements are. The need for clearer definitions of disability, for better data regarding the disability population, and for more evaluations documenting which strategies are effective or not, for whom, and in what situations in enabling people with disabilities to be employed.
In conclusion, the seminar identified a number of challenges, but also some ways in which these can be addressed. There are significant differences between the US and the EU, e.g. with different political structures and dynamics, historical traditions and social contexts. Because of this, it will be necessary to adapt rather than to transpose good practices from one jurisdiction to another. Nevertheless, it was apparent from the seminar that there can be great potential for both the EU and the US to learn from each others experiences on both sides of the Atlantic.

iv

I.

Introduction

1. Background and Purpose of the Seminar

Cooperation between the EU and the US has been formalised since 1995 in the New Transatlantic Agenda and the Joint EU-US Action Plan. This arrangement has provided for a range of joint seminars and conferences in order to share experiences on a wide range of themes. The theme of this years seminar: Access of People with Disabilities to Employment, was planned to take place in relation to the European Year of People with Disabilities 2003. The purpose of the seminar, intended to enhance cooperation between the EU and the US, was to explore barriers to employment that people with disabilities are facing, policies that could address these barriers and increase the integration of people with disabilities into the labour market, and to exchange good practices and other ideas. The seminar had a variety of sessions, all in plenary, organised around the following topics:

Employment policies. Accessibility as a factor for employment with special emphasis on e-accessibility. Management of disability at the workplace. How to mobilise and convince the relevant actors and to disseminate good practices.
Each session consisted of keynote addresses, brief reactions from discussants, and extensive open discussion among all participants. Annex 1 presents the Agenda for the Seminar, along with the names and affiliations of the session chairs, presenters, and discussants. Annex 2 provides a list of all participants, along with their contact details. Papers of the presenters are in Annex 3.

2. Purpose of This Report

The purpose of this report is to provide a short summary or overview of the key points and key implications arising from the overall seminar. As such, this report does not represent the full proceedings of the seminar, nor can it touch upon all the issues that were mentioned at the seminar. Annex 3 however provides the papers that were presented by the presenters. In most cases, these papers provide references, including to relevant websites, where the interested reader can turn for more information. This paper draws upon the following sources of information:

Formal presentations by the keynote speakers. Remarks of the discussants and panel members in the final session. Contributions of the participants. Supplementary documentation provided in some cases by speakers and by other participants.
To a large extent, many of the key points that arose from the seminar came up at more than one session, often with the same points coming up repeatedly, in different ways, throughout

the entire seminar. Thus this report is organised by the overriding themes that emerged through the seminar, rather than by who said what at each particular session. The limitations of this report should be noted. The themes and information presented and discussed are restricted to the above sources of information. In particular, what was presented at the seminar, and what is contained in this report, of necessity cannot be expected necessarily to represent a full picture of what is taking place in either the EU or the US. Also, while there are many possible implications arising from the seminar for both the EU and the US, it is beyond the scope of this paper to identify specific policy and action implications. Hopefully this will be something that both sides will do as part of their follow-up, using the information in this report and in the annexes as applicable.

II. Key Themes Arising from the Seminar

1. Context: The Nature of Barriers and the Key Role of Employment
All speakers and other participants recognised that handicap represents barriers created by the environment, rather than something inherent in an individual. Thus it is inappropriate to refer to individuals as handicapped. As Mme Odile Quentin, Director-General of the Employment and Social Affairs DG in the European Commission, indicated in her opening remarks:

One is not born handicapped. One is not handicapped. One does not suffer from a handicap. But one is frequently confronted with obstacles and barriers in ones daily environment, in access to education, to employment, to everyday shopping and use of public facilities, to health services. It is these obstacles, these barriers, that create a situation of handicap.
Participants also emphasised throughout the seminar that barriers are more than just physical impediments. For example, social representations and negative attitudes towards of people with disabilities and their potential to work can be just as great a barrier to employment as lack of physical access to the worksite. Participants also spoke of systemic barriers, such as those that prevent many people with disabilities from acquiring a proper education and being able to gain critical skills, which in turn act as obstacles preventing them from being able to participate in the workforce and in the community. It is barriers in society that lead to social exclusion. In order for people with disabilities to be able to take their proper place in the employment sector, it is necessary that these barriers be removed. Another overriding theme highlighted at the seminar is the key role of employment for social inclusion. Employment provides the opportunity for individuals to gain economic independence, and to be able to live independently in the community with dignity. This point was emphasised by speakers and participants from all sectors, e.g. from disability NGOs such as European Disability Forum (EDF) as well as from the corporate sector, trade unions, and government. E.g. Dr Roy Grizzard, the Assistant Secretary of the Office of Disability Policy (ODEP) in the US Department of Labor, indicated that this thinking was behind the creation of ODEP as well as recent policy and legislative developments in the US. Madelyn Bryant McIntire of Microsoft observed that: Employment is the single most important element of social inclusion.

Yet it appears that in both the EU and the US, the unemployment rate among people with disabilities is approximately 70 percent. Despite legislative and other advances, most people with disabilities are not working.

2. Demographics: People with Disabilities Constitute a Sizeable, and Growing, Population

A. The size of the overall disability population is significant and growing
Demographics, while not formally on the agenda at the seminar, came up repeatedly during the course of the seminar as an important issue, representing both a challenge and also a major opportunity to provide for inclusion of people with disabilities within the workplace and within society generally. Estimates of the numbers of people with disabilities vary. The most common estimate mentioned by speakers, for both the US and in the EU, is about 12 percent of the overall population. This in itself is hardly a negligible minority. And it is much higher for certain sectors of society, such as older people, including people still in the workforce. However, as many of the speakers and participants noted, we are facing a forthcoming demographic explosion that will significantly increase the numbers and proportion of people with disabilities in society. With the baby boomers starting to get on, our society is aging rapidly. And the onset of disability is closely related to age. Indeed, as was noted during the seminar, some 70 percent of people with disabilities become disabled while they already are working. Christian Bhler, in his presentation, indicated that the percentage of people with a registered disability in EU countries is expected to increase from 11 percent at present to 17 by 2020. McIntire indicated that most people will, at some point in their lives, develop a disability. This means that everyone is susceptible to disability. Thus, as Dr Grizzard and a number of speakers noted, we are not talking any more about a small minority who require special treatment. Rather, we are speaking of a sizeable and increasing share of the population. As some speakers observed, Europe has more of an aging population than does the US. Thus the proportion of the population that will have a disability will be even larger in Europe, and growing at a faster rate, than in the US.

B. Access for people with disabilities benefits many others as well

Moreover, it became apparent throughout the seminar that the distinction between disabled and non disabled and who can benefit from accessibility features is becoming increasingly blurred. Indeed, many measures that can benefit people with disabilities and enable them to participate at work and in the community also can benefit many others as well. For example, McIntire indicated that Microsofts research found that most workers (60%) who are not labelled disabled, and who do not consider themselves as such, nevertheless could benefit from accessibility features (and 95 percent of them are not using these). As Mme Quentin observed, removal of the same barriers that prevent people with disabilities from participating in society and in work could benefit others as well. For example, easier physical access can not only assist wheelchair users, but also many others such as those temporarily incapacitated, people taking a baby about in a pushchair, older persons, people with luggage or large packages, etc. John Foley indicated that Waterford Crystal found that

making its factories accessible improved the business operations. And as we discuss in Section 7, nearly everyone can benefit for Design for All. Thus the removal of barriers, in one way or another, can benefit far more than just a tiny segment of the overall population.

3. There is a Strong Economic and Business Case for the Inclusion of People with Disabilities
While many people in the course of the seminar made the point, the business case for employing people with disabilities perhaps was made most forcefully by the corporate sector representatives at the seminar. For example, Foley identified many benefits to Waterford Crystal arising directly and indirectly from training and accommodating its workplace for its employees with disabilities. Jim Sinocchi made similar observations about IBMs long experience in accommodating workers with disabilities. He emphasised that it is not good business sense to fail to take advantage of the skills and abilities offered by individuals who happen to have a disability. Others observed that it represents an expensive waste of skilled and experienced staff to fail to support employees who develop a disability while employed. Yet as Section 5.C discusses, there is limited attention to retention. Dr Grizzard, as well as others, observed that the economic argument for employing people with disabilities is becoming stronger. As he observed, due to the aging of the population and the coming retirement of many of the baby boom generation: On both sides of the Atlantic, we will face a jobs and skills gap in five to seven years. Dr Grizzard further made the case, forcefully, that there is also a strong business argument for enterprises to make their services and products accessible to all. Otherwise, they are cutting off themselves from a potentially huge customer base. He cited statistics indicating that in the US, the spending power of people with disabilities is just slightly less than $1 trillion, of which $220 billion is in the form of discretionary spending. As he pointed out, this represents a formidable potential market, if businesses are willing to take advantage of it, by making their products and services, including their premises, accessible and usable by all, including people with disabilities. Gerard Quinn observed, however, that it is much harder in Europe at the moment to make the business or economic case for accommodating people with disabilities, as the charity model of disability is still prevalent.

4. Equal Opportunities for People with Disabilities is a Human Rights Issue

First and foremost, however, all participants from all sectors, from the EU as well as from the US, emphasised that the inclusion of people with disabilities in society and in society, along with the necessary accommodations, is a matter of right. Dr Grizzard and Susan Parker, Director of Policy and Research at ODEP, both emphasised that the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is primarily a civil rights bill for people with disabilities. In essence, it extends the same civil rights that started with other minority groups to people with disabilities. All participants, from the EU as well as from the US, seemed to recognise and applaud this key aspect of ADA.

Mme Quentin pointed out that the EU similarly recognises the fundamental right of people with disabilities to equality and inclusion, for example as provided in Article 13 of the EU Treaty. A number of participants, however, indicated that the situation in Europe in terms of rights is somewhat less clear at the moment than in the US. For example, they indicated that the protection provide by the EU Treaty is weaker than they would like. Both Quinn and Foley indicated that the human rights view of disability is newer in Europe than in the US, and as Foley put it: Public attitudes towards disability are still based on charity rather than on rights, and referred to disability as the last great civil rights struggle. Speakers from both the US and the EU identified the twin concepts of reasonable accommodation and undue hardship as key to ADA and essential for people with disabilities, even though some concern was expressed about how these concepts are being interpreted. As Mme Quentin put it: The absence of reasonable accommodation constitutes discrimination. According to the participants at the seminar, rights legislation is critical. For example, Sinocchi of IBM emphasised the importance of legislation in various countries (he referred not only to ADA in the US, but also to various quota systems and other forms of legislation in many EU Member States and elsewhere, e.g. Canada, South Africa, Australia), indicating that legislation led the way to concrete action by businesses and others. As essential as legislation is, however, it is not sufficient. Appropriate action unfortunately does not necessarily follow, due to a lack of awareness of the legislation and its implications, lack of awareness of available supports, misinformation (e.g. about the cost of accommodation; as Dr Grizzard stated that it is not always recognised that most accommodations can be done for less than $1000, with many costing nothing at all), or more basically due to lack of interest or awareness of the potential of people with disabilities to be productive employees. For example, Sinocchi pointed out that 77 percent of US employers do not take advantage of available tax breaks for accommodations. And Maria Flynn of ODEP indicated that in spite of ADA and the other forms of legislation identified in Parkers talk, only 25 percent of employers in the US have any employees with disabilities. The situation is unlikely to be very different in the EU. Thus it appears that legislation needs to be complemented with supportive policies and measures that address the reasons for lack of action. Along these lines, Sheldon Bradshaw of the Civil Rights Division, US Department of Justice, indicated that whenever possible, his department attempts to avoid litigation, for example by pointing out the business case for accommodation and helping businesses comply with the law. Dr Grizzard referred to the Job Accommodation Network (JAN) as an example of a service intended to help businesses learn what is required in order to make effective accommodations.

5. How More People with Disabilities Can be Included in the Workplace

A. Initiatives by large enterprises
The seminar featured presentations by Waterford Crystal, based in Ireland, and by IBM, about the approaches that they have being taking to facilitate the inclusion of employees with disabilities within their own respective workforces.

Foley briefly described the CODE Project (Creating Options for Disabled Employees), undertaken with support from the EU HORIZON programme1, which was undertaken to assist Waterford Crystal in becoming a more inclusive organisation, where the accommodation of differences is accepted as an operational standard. The Project involved various components, including:

An extensive training programme for disabled employees and others from the community, based upon the current and future needs of the business. A disability awareness programme for 60 managers. Infrastructure improvements at Waterford Crystals two plants. Transnational partnerships with different types of organisations in different EU countries. A variety of other activities, e.g. joint management-employee-trade union involvement, creation of an employers network (Job Net South East), and many others.
Foley indicated that the Project was highly successful, resulting in the creation of a more inclusive organisation, with supportive practices and attitudes, as well as the employment of an increased number of people with disabilities whose productivity is in line with the remainder of the workforce. Sinocchi described the comprehensive approach used throughout IBM, emphasising the need to work simultaneously at all levels. The IBM approach involves The Three As:

Accommodation, Accessibility, and Attitudes.

Some of the features of IBMs approach include:

The People with Disabilities Executive Task Force a global project. A cost recovery process for funding accommodations, so that the cost of accommodations does not come out of a departmental budget. Building the Pipeline: a variety of programmes for school-aged children in various countries. Other activities that go beyond IBMs own workplace, e.g. working with the media to build awareness of the potential of people with disabilities to work effectively and to encourage other employers to take similar approaches.
Sinocchi emphasised the need to develop disability leaders, rather than placing people with disabilities in just any type of job. He said that 47 percent of the disabled employees at IBM work in key jobs (e.g. software engineers). In both these presentations, as well as through the comments of other participants, attitudinal barriers come out as crucial. E.g. Sinocchi constantly emphasised that it is crucial that people
1

Foleys paper in Annex 3 discusses the role of EU funding programmes.

with disabilities be viewed for their skills rather than for their disabilities. Foley cited one senior manager in his company who remarked that: The employment of people with disabilities is purely psychological from a management perspective. The evidence from these presentations, as well as from other sources, demonstrates that these attitudes can be addressed, and successfully. Another constant theme, as noted earlier, is that including workers with disabilities is compatible with good business objectives. Sinocchi constantly emphasised the loss to a business of excluding skilled workers through a failure to provide accommodations. Foley indicated that the CODE Project, in addition to enabling employees with disabilities to perform in line with the rest of the workforce, had many ancillary benefits, including: a training programme available to all employees, better access for all to all areas of the factories that has improved mainstream operations, and management-employee-trade union relations [that] have been improved as the joint approach and success of the project confirmed a sense of shared values. Nevertheless, despite some impressive work, it clearly is not easy. For example, despite the recognised accomplishments of IBM, it was acknowledged that the proportion of employees with disabilities in its workforce is still less than that in the overall population, and it has had difficulty in meeting quotas in some EU countries.

B. Need for more attention to Small and Medium Size Enterprises (SMEs)
Micha van Lin, in his presentation, indicated that while the large corporations get much of the attention, in fact some 98 percent of European businesses are SMEs, with an average of six employees each. The profile is not likely to be all that different in the US. Nevertheless, this sector received little formal attention at this seminar, and participants felt that it largely has been neglected in terms of encouraging and facilitating greater employment of people with disabilities. It is apparent that appropriate strategies to support the employment of people with disabilities will vary, at least to some extent, in accordance with the size of the enterprise. Strategies that may apply to big businesses may not work in the same way for SMEs. And the converse may be true as well. Moreover, there is tremendous variety in the size and nature of businesses that are classified as SMEs. For example, those with just a very few employees are likely to be in a somewhat different situation than those with dozens, or even hundreds, of employees. Participants at the seminar suggested that this is an area requiring more attention and action.

C. Need for more attention to the retention of employees who develop disabilities
A strong consensus emerged at the seminar that there is a need for much more attention by all sectors to the retention of employees who become disabled while already employed. As Dr Grizzard indicated, 70 percent of people with disabilities become disabled while they are already in the workforce. Yet there seems to be limited attention and support to employees and to their employers to enable a newly disabled worker to be able to continue to work. While there are notable exceptions, it was pointed out that all too often employees who develop a disability are ignored during the critical initial phase, when it has been demonstrated that immediate reintegration assistance is most likely to be effective. Help and attention may not be available until after individuals already have lost their jobs, and sometimes not for some time

afterwards. Some government benefit and other form of assistance programmes inadvertently may act as disincentives, for example by providing assistance to individuals only after they have lost their jobs. Increased support for the retention of newly disabled employees would appear to represent be a win-win situation. Losing a skilled and experienced employee who could be accommodated makes no sense to an employer from a business perspective. With an increasingly aging workforce, a larger share of current employees can be expected to be developing disabilities. These employees in particular may be difficult (or at least expensive) to replace. It can also be costly to governments, and to taxpayers, in terms of having to provide social assistance and losing the taxes of an individual who is lost from the workforce. It can be devastating to the individual and to her/his family to lose a job and a viable means of support. Dr Grizzard mentioned JAN again as an example of a service intended to provide ideas about how individuals who become disabled while working can be accommodated. Beverley Webster suggested that the EU may be behind the US in failing to recognise the need to help with retention.

D. Need for positive action for those individuals not able to move readily into open employment
Perhaps the most forceful point repeatedly emphasised by a number of participants, in particular by those representing disability NGOs, is that a sizable proportion of people with disabilities are not in a position to be able to enter directly into open (competitive) employment, at least not without special assistance. They agreed about the importance of eliminating barriers to employment for qualified people, e.g. as defined in ADA, and on emphasising a persons skills and abilities rather than their disabilities. But they emphasised that not everyone is in this position, e.g. that there are many people with disabilities who have faced barriers preventing them from acquiring a proper education, social and work skills and employment experience. As a result of these and other factors, the reality is that many people require special supports and/or alternatives to open employment, and a number of participants felt that this did not receive sufficient emphasis in the formal presentations at the seminar. For example, Fred Reid of the Royal National Institute of the Blind (RNIB) emphasises that those distant from the labour market need special supports and alternatives in order to be able to be employed, right up to mainstream employment. He suggested that there should be more consideration of the role that the third sector can play, giving the example of social enterprises that need not be segregated and that can provide for meaningful work with real pay. Stefan Trmel, Executive Director of the European Disability Forum (EDF), agreed that there is a need for more education and for more investment in the workplace. But he also stressed the need for the provision of assistance for others who may require permanent support, potentially throughout their lives. Along these lines, the focus of van Lins paper was on presenting the findings of a research study on the use and impact of Active Labour Market Policies (ALMPs) within the EU. He indicated that there are two basic types of ALMPs:

Mainstream ALMPs intended for all sorts of people with a labour market limitation (including people with disabilities along with other groups). Specialist ALMPs, specifically targeted at people with disabilities. 8

Each of these categories contains a variety of different programme approaches. The mix of ALMPs (within and between the two above general categories) varies considerably across the Member States within the EU. The study found that despite a priority to mainstreaming, about 40 percent of all ALMPs were specialist, with at least half, and likely much more, of expenditures channelled into these ALMPs. While the lack of a good database and of evaluation information limited the conclusions about effectiveness that could be drawn, the study nevertheless was able to identify the following success factors:

Addressing the wishes and motivations of both people with disabilities and of (future) employers prior to starting reintegration measures. Case management with a personalised reintegration plan, rather than a one-sizefits-all approach. The importance of cooperation and coordination involving key stakeholders.
Some other key findings of the study include:

Sheltered workshops demonstrated low transfer rates to open employment, with some built-in disincentives. There were mixed findings on the impact of subsidised employment and vocational rehabilitation, with the available evidence suggesting that they must be directly linked to individual plans.
During the discussion, Parker mentioned supported employment in the US for individuals with development handicaps who can only work somewhat. Some others commented on the low wages typically received in this arrangement. The issue of addressing the needs of people with disabilities who are not in a position to enter directly into open employment clearly emerged at the seminar as an area requiring more attention and likely a greater investment of resources. Participants noted that this does not necessarily have to represent segregated services. They identified the need both for greater access to (appropriate and accommodating) mainstream services (e.g. vocational training centres), as well as for specialised services for those who require them, emphasising (once again this remark came up repeatedly throughout the seminar!) that one size does not fit all.

E. Potential for the public sector, itself a major employer, to lead by example
Governments are exhorting private sector employers to hire and to support employees with disabilities. But as was noted, the public sector itself is a major employer. Following the approaches for itself that it advocates for others and acting as a model employer can have a two-fold benefit. First, this can benefit many thousands of employees within various forms of public sector employment. Secondly, this can enable government to lead by example, to demonstrate to other employers what it is doing itself and how. But in order to do this, its efforts at hiring and supporting employees with disabilities must be genuine, with demonstrated benefits. Otherwise it inadvertently could give the wrong message. It was also noted that ADA and other US federal statues do encourage (or even require) both the federal government, and also state and local governments, to take action in this direction. It is not clear, however, at the seminar how well this is working out in practice.

6. A Multi-faceted Approach is Essential

One of the themes that Dr Grizzard kept on emphasising throughout the seminar is the need to act simultaneously, on all fronts, in order to enable people with disabilities to be employed and to participate in the community. As he put it, there is little point in providing someone with a job if there is a lack of accessible transport enabling the person to get to and from work, if they cannot receive necessary personal supports, and if they lack affordable and accessible housing, access to health care, access to shops and to other services in the community, and they are unable to obtain the requisite education and training in order to develop and to update their skills. He indicated that a key feature of the recent New Freedom Initiative (NFI) is to promote inter-departmental coordination within the US federal government (similar to mainstreaming strategy in EU terminology). Others made similar points. For example, McIntire spoke of the importance of access to libraries, as well as to the above array of services. Many different speakers and participants underlined the importance of education, including both basic education as well as access to lifelong learning. Along these lines, Dr Grizzard emphasised the importance of assisting with the school-to-work transition, and cited the Workforce Recruitment Programme which assists disabled college students as an example of an initiative to help along these lines. Sinocchi underlined the same themes, and spoke of IBMs efforts along multiple lines. One of the strengths of ADA that was identified was its applicability across all areas of life. Participants from the EU concurred with the need to take a comprehensive approach. Some people noted, however, that current EU directives provide less protection against discrimination in other areas than for employment.

7. Design for All and the New Technology Major Potential to Improve Accessibility for People with Disabilities, but Not a Panacea
Another major theme that came up throughout the seminar was the importance of Design for All and the potential of technology to assist in this regard. With accessibility built in from the start, and often invisibly, disability ceases to become an issue. It is also compatible with a human rights approach, where the needs of all citizens are taken into account right from the beginning. As some of the participants noted, making all forms of facilities accessible right from the start is considerably easier and cheaper than retrofitting, in many cases involving no added expense. As discussed earlier, accessibility for all can also benefit many people who would not be thought of as having a disability. There was also considerable discussion about the potential of technology to level the playing field provided that considerations of accessibility are taken into account throughout the design process. This represented a major theme at the seminar, with lots of discussion about how technology can eliminate barriers and help to level the playing field and create an accessible work environment, often invisibly so. Bhler in his presentation spoke of the eEurope initiative, and how to move from eAccessibility to eInclusion, with action plan and targets in a number of areas to improve the overall accessibility and usability of technology by all. Some of the participants also noted that technology is now moving beyond what often is currently thought of as computers or technological devices, (e.g. ranging from improving the usability of a range of household appliances by all people to accessible, smart houses).

10

IBMs vision for accessibility, presented by Robert Brostrom of ODEP, stressed the importance of designing technology so that it is useable by all, so that the issues of accessibility and disability becomes invisible and largely irrelevant. McIntire indicated that Microsoft takes a similar approach. She indicated that many people are reluctant to self identify as having a disability (often for good reason, e.g. fear of losing their jobs), including many employees whose functional capacities become progressively worse while employed. As a result, many people are reluctant to make use of accessibility features that could improve their productivity and their quality of life. She said that one thus needs to be sneaky, so that people get the accessibility features that they need without necessarily even knowing it. McIntire also indicated that engineers and software designers need to think about maximising use of their products for everyone, rather than creating them for a specific disabled population. To help along these lines, she said that considerations about accessibility need to be built into the core education of engineers, and of others involved in the development of technology. Nevertheless, some contradictions and questions about the limits of Design for All and of technology came up in some of the presentations and in the discussion. For example, McIntire in her presentation indicated that: Technology can solve many problems, but it can not fundamentally change a society that lacks the support mechanisms and social acceptance that is necessary. She added that while technology is a crucial part of the solution to employment, it by itself is not enough and is no silver bullet, indicating (once again!) that one size does not fit all. In a forceful intervention, Rodolfo Cattoni of the European Blind Union indicated that the real lives of most people with disabilities are not affected by all the technological advances spoken of my some of the speakers. He noted that many of the technological devices mentioned are costly and are unaffordable for many people with disabilities. He raised concerns about the creation of a digital divide, where poor people, including most people with disabilities, become further distanced and disadvantaged. Bhler, in his presentation, highlighted the need for both Solutions for All (Design for All) and Individual Solutions (Assistive Technology), as well as for non-technical assistance. Thus it became apparent that technology has a crucial role to play in providing for accessibility and the inclusion of people with disabilities at the workforce. Design for All can go a long way towards making accessibility invisible. But these are not panaceas. Individual and non-technical approaches and solutions are still very much needed.

8. Coordination and Partnership: Key Success Factors

A. Importance of cooperation among partners and stakeholders
Coordination and cooperation emerged as important factors facilitating success in enabling people with disabilities to be employed and to participate in society. For example, van Lin indicated that one of the key indicators of success identified in his study of ALMPs in EU countries was the presence of coordination and cooperation, including various forms of collaboration between institutions, local stakeholder organisations and networks. His research study found that such cooperation appeared to lead to higher reintegration rates.

11

Various US presentations at the seminar spoke of the importance of partnerships between the corporate and government. EU presentations repeatedly stressed the importance of involving the full range of social partners, including businesses, trade unions, and NGOs of people with disabilities, as well as service providers and government. Along these lines, Mme Quentin mentioned the role of a European Forum of Stakeholders, involving the social partners, as part of implementation of the Commissions Action Plan for 2010. As well, the EU facilitates social dialogue between employers and trade unions, to help in agreeing upon common approaches. Foleys presentation specifically mentioned how collaboration between management and union assisted with the CODE Project at Waterford Crystal, and in particular in assisting with attitudes towards employees with disabilities. He also spoke of the usefulness of the Transnational partnerships, involving collaboration with partners in various sector in a variety of EU Member States:

The Transnational partnership element of the project was extremely successful. Many experiences and learning outcomes were shared that helped to enhance the quality of the training provision. B. Involvement of people with disabilities in the process is critical
People with disabilities need to be involved directly in establishing policy and programme directions, to give them an opportunity to indicate themselves what their needs and requirements are. This was not a point made just by representatives of NGOs. For example, Mme Quentin indicated that: It is absolutely essential to involve people with disabilities and their NGOs, all the way down the road, if we want to get an effective policy geared towards inclusion and non discrimination. Bhler similarly indicated that:

Another vital issue in the context of the information society and policy is the participation of people with disabilities themselves in these [eAccessibility] processes. The European umbrella EDF and other European and national disability organisations need to play an important part on all levels. They have the knowledge, understanding and authority of disability related matters through their members. EC and Member States try to involve such organisations in the development.

9. Need for Better Information about the Disability Population and for Evaluation of Strategies and Interventions
A. Conflicting definitions and poor quality data regarding the disability population
Van Lin pointed out in his presentation that:

There is no agreement on the exact definition of the concept of disability. The variation in sources and definitions has led to several estimates of the proportion of EU citizens who are disabled.
Others, from both the US and the EU, agreed. Indeed, estimates of the size of the disability population used by speakers both from the US and the EU varied considerably, ranging from 8 percent to 20 percent. Two reasons for this situation were identified at the seminar.

12

First, as suggested above by van Lin, conflicting definitions of disability abound. Without a consistent definition of disability, it is difficult to accurately describe the disability population. As some others suggested, some definitions have been created specifically for determining eligibility for various benefits. These are not always consistent with one another. Secondly, there is a lack of the type of survey research necessary in order to be able to establish and size and characteristics of the disability population. As a result, the specificity of all statistics that are being used to describe characteristics of the disability population can be called into question, and should be treated as indicative rather than as precise descriptions. Participants at the seminar indicated that this is more than just an academic statistical matter. Information about the nature of the disability population, including information about its characteristics and needs, can have important implications for policy and for programming. As Jrme Vignon, Director for Social Protection and Social Integration, Employment and Social Affairs DG in the European Commission, indicated, this information is needed in order to better target policies. Furthermore, some participants indicated that how disability is defined can have significant implications for rights. E.g. they suggested that there is a danger of definitions created for the purposes of determining eligibility for a specific benefit being applied inappropriately in other contexts for determining other forms of rights. More solid information about the size and nature of the disability population is also important for advocacy. For example, it is harder to make the case, as was summarised at the beginning of this paper, about the size of the disability population and its significance, without a much better awareness of who we are talking about and with more consistent use of figures. Better documentation of characteristics and needs of the disability population can help demonstrate the need for various forms of accessibility, ranging from access to education to access to public buildings. And this in turn can help transform rights on paper into reality.

B. Lack of good information about what works or not, for whom, and in what situations, such as the effectiveness of ALMPs
Van Lin indicated in his presentation about ALMPs that:

The major finding of this study is that in most countries little or nothing is known about the employment effects of the application of the measures reported. This is a result of the poor programme participation statistics, lack of monitoring and follow up studies, as well as general weaknesses in evaluation methods.
This point was echoed by other participants, from both sides of the Atlantic. There is a lack of evaluation of the effectiveness of policies and of programmatic approaches. As a result, there is limited knowledge about which strategies work or not, for whom, and in what situations. Without knowing what works for whom and under what circumstances, policy is made in a vacuum. There is a need to document good practices. For example, participants emphasised the need for much better information about what works in order to be able to target the most effective mainstream and specialised active labour market programmes, and to avoid carrying on with activities known not to be effective in addressing the employment needs of people with disabilities.

13

The need for better evaluation was made at least as forcefully by NGO representatives as by those from government. For example, Fred Reid indicated that this point is mentioned in a recent publication of the RNIB (Creating an Employment Continuum: Creating Jobs by Promoting Social Enterprise). It was noted that both the US and the EU make provision for at least some research. E.g. Dr Grizzard indicated in his presentation that ODEP is a research and development agency, and that its mandate provides for funding various experimental programmes intended to eliminate employment barriers. The European Social Fund, as well as other EU programmes, can fund similar initiatives in the EU. But this clearly is not enough. Participants at the seminar noted the need for a major evaluation component to be built into programmes, and for more attention to assessing how well policies work in practice and under what circumstances.

III.

Conclusion: Overall Observations of the Rapporteur

I was struck by the good, positive, constructive ambiance at this seminar. Speakers from both the EU and the US were open in discussing strengths and challenges in current approaches and in engaging in dialogue about what else could be done to provide for fuller employment of people with disabilities. The exchange of ideas and practices also indicated a strong interest in learning, demonstrating the value of this seminar and how both the US and the EU can gain from an exchange of experiences. In my view, a major feature of the seminar was its format that provided for a high level of audience participation. Participants included representatives of the full range of social partners, as well as high-level officials from both the US and the EU. This setting provided a rare opportunity for an exchange of views and experiences across sectors, with many constructive interventions from all sides. In some cases, the discussion periods provided an opportunity for participants to put on the floor important considerations that they felt were not sufficiently emphasised in the formal presentations. There are significant differences between the US and the EU, e.g. with different political structures and dynamics, historical traditions and social contexts. Yet overall, this seminar indicated that there is far more in common between the two jurisdictions than is different with respect to people with disabilities, their situation and their needs and with respect to potential solutions. For example, available data suggest that on the whole, there really is not much difference between the EU and the US in terms of the status of people with disabilities or their participation in the labour market. The overall nature and range of interventions and solutions being used are largely similar. Both jurisdictions face similar challenges, both currently and anticipated for the future. There appears to be strengths and weaknesses of the approaches that have been used on both sides of the Atlantic. It was evident from the seminar that there is something that each side can learn from the experiences of the other. Nevertheless, because of the different contexts, it will be necessary to adapt rather than to transpose good practices from one jurisdiction to another. At a minimum, information sharing, such as took place at this seminar, can provide

14

new ideas and serve as an opportunity to think about what is working well or not, and areas for improvement. Each jurisdiction seems to have its own particular strengths. It would be hard to say, at least on the basis of what came out of the seminar, that one is superior overall. For example, the civil rights approach to disability in the US, mandating access as a matter of right and including the principle of reasonable accommodation in legislation, is much admired in the EU as well as in the US and in other jurisdictions. It also seems that the US may have gone further than at least some parts of Europe in making public facilities accessible, and also forbidding discrimination by government contractors and other private as well as public entities. Still, as we heard at the seminar, it is not always completely clear how these and other policies play out in practice. One of the strengths within the EU appears to be the involvement of the full range of civil society and social partners, as well as the development of a mainstreaming strategy that provides for an integrated perspective. In particular, it is recognised that people with disabilities and their organisations need to be involved in the development of policy and determining how this should be implemented. Perhaps a fuller range of alternatives is available across EU Member States for those people who are not in a position to go directly, if at all, into open (competitive) employment. The more extensive social structures within the EU may provide other benefits for people with disabilities and their families. Some of the Europeans noted that speakers from the US, while acknowledging that problems remain, are justifiably proud of their accomplishments and are not hesitant to talk about their successes. These suggested that perhaps one of the things that Europeans might take from the seminar is similarly not to be afraid to celebrate and to be proud of their own achievements. And the same might apply with respect to people with disabilities in general. As many speakers at the seminar emphasised, one needs to focus on abilities rather than on limitations and to eliminate barriers, so that all people, who happen to have a disability at the moment or not, can take their place in employment and in society and in the process gaining self increased self confidence along with an improved quality of life. But as was apparent at the seminar, there are no simplistic solutions. One must take simultaneous action on multiple fronts, recognising for example that barriers to employment arise in other seemingly unrelated areas, such as transport, housing, and education. Technology holds great promise of increasingly breaking down barriers and providing for invisible accessibility. Yet it became clear this is not enough. The elimination of some relatively easy-to-remove barriers, such as physical access to worksites, will be sufficient to enable some people to be able to be gainfully employed. Others will require the elimination of more complex barriers, such as attitudinal barriers and lack of education and skills resulting from lack of the ability to be accommodated in educational programmes. But in many other cases, a range of positive actions will be required in order to enable many people with disabilities to be able to join the workforce. It is critical to recognise that people with disabilities constitutes a disparate lot. One size does not fit all, and a variety of different solutions will be required to provide for full access to employment. This seminar provided a good opportunity for a Trans-Atlantic exchange of experiences and ideas along these lines.

15