Search

Data Sources: Statistics New Zealand, Disability Counts, 1996-97 and 2001.

 

 

The Moving Targets Problem

 

Analysis of progress for people with disabilities in terms of employment opportunities and conditions is made difficult for two reasons. First, only a limited number of statistics are collected that allow for comparisons between the circumstances of people with disabilities and those without. Second, as shown by the dramatic shifts over a five-year period in self-reports of severity of limitation caused by disability, when studying disability, we are inevitably working with moving targets. While characteristics such as race and gender do not change over time, people can change from being able-bodied to having a disability, or from being mildly limited to being severely limited by their disability. Further, self-awareness of disability can change as a function of information acquisition. This represents another source of change in our measures. The moving targets problem is of major significance to a study of equal employment opportunities. Demographic changes and changes in perceptions of disability could serve to dramatically change the measured proportions of people with disabilities working in specific occupations or earning in specific income brackets. Ideally, employment-related changes caused by these other variables would be factored out before we would seek to assess the extent to which EEO policies have served to improve the representation of people with disabilities within particular industries, occupations, and earnings categories. In practice, we cannot disentangle the causes of observed changes. As a result, measurement of progress in the employment circumstances of people with disabilities is sometimes based on an assessment of changes in the policies and practices that affect them, rather than on measures of outcomes resulting from such institutional changes. But the linkages between policies, practices, and outcomes are often imperfect and espoused intentions of doing the right thing do not translate into positive changes. Having offered this caveat, we now provide an overview of the current status of people with disabilities in the New Zealand labour force.

 

Labour Force Participation

 

In 2001, 626,520, or 87.4%, of people with disabilities in New Zealand were of working age. However, of this group, just 273,300, or 43.6% actually participated in the full-time or part-time labour force.[v] In contrast, among people of working age who did not have disabilities, 69.8% participated.[vi]

Labour force participants include those who are ready for work but currently unemployed. In 1996-1997, the unemployment rate among people with disabilities was 7.7%, while the rate for those without disabilities was 5.9%. In 2001, the unemployment rate among people with disabilities was 9.2%; considerably higher than the rate of 5.9% for those without disabilities.[vii] Comparing the figures from 1996-1997 and 2001, we observe that across this five-year period, the unemployment rate for people with disabilities increased by 19.5%. In contrast, the unemployment rate for people without disabilities did not change, standing at 5.9% at both measurement points. This comparison of figures suggests that, in recent years it has become more difficult for those people with disabilities ready and willing to work to actually gain employment. This is troubling because it suggests deterioration in accessibility to employment for people with disabilities. Overall, in 2001, people with disabilities made up 15.1% of the New Zealand labour force and 14.6% of the employed labour force. Yet people with disabilities clearly experience more difficulty finding work than do the able-bodied. Therefore, disability represents a major impediment to labour force participation and all the forms of social inclusion that come with it.

 

Educational Attainment

People with disabilities face barriers not only with respect to gaining employment but also in obtaining the education and training that usually enhance the attractiveness of job-seekers to employers. In 2001, while 66.3% of able-bodied people had attained school or post-school qualifications, the figure for the disabled was 48.6%. Further, although 20.8% of able-bodied people had no educational qualification, the figure for the disabled was significantly higher, at 31.1%.[viii] People with disabilities tend to be educationally disadvantaged, and this can have implications for their employability. In an economy where workers are increasingly expected to bring high levels of knowledge and skills to the workplace, this significant deficit in the educational attainment of people with disabilities as a group harms their on-going employment prospects.


Occupations and Earnings

Statistics are not available concerning the dispersion of people with disabilities across industrial sectors. Occupational analysis is possible, however. Statistics from 2001 show that people with disabilities are over-represented in elementary occupations and among trade workers.[ix] These tend to be lower-paid occupations. In contrast, people with disabilities are under-represented among legislators, administrators, and managers and among professionals, the two occupational groupings with the highest average hourly earnings.[x] Perhaps the most striking fact concerning occupation is that many people with disabilities, while part of the labour force, do not fall within any of the traditional occupational groupings, such as clerks, service and sales workers, professionals, and so on. In 2001, 14.0% of workers with disabilities fell outside traditional groupings, while just 4.0% of able-bodied workers did so.[xi] One way to interpret this information is that, in many instances, the notion of what constitutes work differs between disabled and able-bodied workers. For example, sheltered workshops often provide work for people with disabilities, and this work is recognised as different from the kind of work that is undertaken elsewhere in the economy.

Statistics are not available on the hourly earnings of those people with disabilities who participate in the labour force.[xii] However, two different sources of information provide strong indicators that, on average, the hourly earnings of workers with disabilities are less than those of able-bodied workers. First, as noted earlier, people with disabilities tend to be clustered in occupations that command lower-than-average hourly earnings. Second, a comparison of the annual personal incomes of disabled and able-bodied people show a tendency for people with disabilities to have less personal income.[xiii] In 2001, 48.9% of people with disabilities and 34.8% of able-bodied people reported personal income in the last 12 months of $15,000 or less. At that time, 33.5% of people with disabilities and 41.6% of able-bodied people reported income of between $15,000 and $50,000. Just 5.4% of people with disabilities reported incomes over $50,000, compared with 11.5% of able-bodied people.[xiv] These differences remain the same whether we disaggregate by age, sex, and ethnic group, indicating that people with disabilities tend to be disproportionately clustered among those reporting relatively low levels of personal income. Figures for 1996-1997 reveal the same basic pattern.[xv] Note, however, that information aggregated in this way does not allow for accurate tracking of changes over time in the earnings of people with disabilities relative to those of able-bodied people. Therefore, we currently lack the means to appropriately assess changes in the hourly earnings of people with disabilities relative to able-bodied people in New Zealand. This lack of data creates a major gap for those seeking to track progress in the attainment of equal employment opportunities.

 

Discrimination Complaints

According to the Human Rights Act 1993, employers cannot discriminate against people with disabilities in job advertisements, the job application process, or on the job. People with disabilities who believe they have been discriminated against by an employer, either at the pre-employment stage or while in employment, may make complaints to the Human Rights Commission. Those who are employed are also covered against discrimination by the Employment Relations Act 2000.[xvi] Human Rights Commission figures show that over the four-year period from July 1999 to June 2003, the number of pre-employment and employment complaints relating to discrimination on the basis of disability rose each year. During this period, 212 complaints were received. In the July 2002 – June 2003 year, 67 complaints were filed, an increase of 59.5% on the number of complaints received in the July 1999 – June 2000 year.

The Disabled Persons’ Employment Promotion Act 1960 gave sheltered workshops a blanket exemption from paying minimum wages and holiday pay to the people with disabilities working in them. However, the Government is set to repeal the Act because its provisions are deemed discriminatory towards people with disabilities. Existing providers of sheltered employment will be allowed several years to work through the changes. There are 262 sheltered workshops in New Zealand and they provide employment for 3,500 people with disabilities. Typically, these people receive invalids’ benefits and payments from the sheltered workshops represent top-ups to those benefits. At present, some sheltered workshops pay as little as $5.00 per week, and the national average payment per week is approximately $17.00 (Dearnaley 2003).

The Public Service

The New Zealand public service has developed a good reputation as an inclusive employer. A recent survey of university students and graduates with significant disabilities indicates that this reputation also exists among people with disabilities. Conducted in 2001, the survey asked twenty-six respondents about their perceptions of the public service as an employment option. Respondents said they believed that disability-related needs would be better met in the public service than in the private sector. The public service was also perceived as an environment offering greater job stability and security for people with disabilities.[xvii] However, results presented in the Career Progression and Development Survey, 2000 indicate some dissatisfaction among people with disabilities in the public service. Among other things, people with disabilities who responded to this survey were more likely than their able-bodied counterparts to express concerns that the selection process for promotions would not be fair, that they lacked support from their managers in seeking more senior jobs, and that they missed out on opportunities to work on high-profile projects.[xviii]

The Government’s EEO Policy to 2010, published in 1997, called for departments to set their own numerical employment targets for the employment of EEO groups, including people with disabilities. Under this policy, departments have been required to state both a target number for 2010 and a milestone number for 2005. The policy was designed to allow for flexibility so that EEO implementation could be appropriate for each department. With this policy, responsibility for EEO leadership was shifted from the State Services Commission to chief executives.

Beyond developing policies designed to improve its performance as an employer of people with disabilities, the Government has recently taken steps to develop four community-based demonstration projects. These will run until June 2004. Data collected from the evaluation of the projects is expected to provide insights into how public policy interventions might serve to assist people with disabilities to obtain and retain employment (Minister for Disability Issues 2002, p.13). Such efforts indicate how governments can offer broader leadership in generating employment opportunities for people with disabilities. The government’s EEO policies and its commitment to the New Zealand Disability Strategy offer positive signs for people with disabilities. But the news is not all good.

The public service has espoused a commitment to creating equal employment opportunities for people with disabilities. For the reality to match the rhetoric, several improvements are needed. We begin by noting the state of the disability data. Good and consistent data collection and analysis are required to accurately track progress in EEO. At present, it is impossible to produce a definitive series of figures showing changes over time in the number of people with disabilities employed in the public service. Figures for 1988 and 1991 show that across those three years, the percentage of people with disabilities employed in the public service declined from 20.8% to 14.1%.[xix] Figures for 1991 through to 1995 show minor changes in the range from 14.1% to 15.6%, with the figure for 1995 standing at 14.8%.[xx] Reported figures for 1998 through to 2001 are said to be not compatible with earlier figures (see footnote 10, State Services Commission 2002: 15). Nonetheless, they show a decline in representation of people with disabilities from 10.6% in 1998 to 8.1% in 2001.[xxi] However, a revised figure for 2001, puts the representation of people with disabilities at 18.5%.[xxii] From the Disability Counts survey work we know that in 2001 people with disabilities made up 14.6% of New Zealand’s employed labour force. Depending on the figures used, people with disabilities made up either 8.0% or 18.5% of staff in the public service at that time. Since these two figures stand on either side of the percentage of people with disabilities in the employed labour force, one could be used to tell a positive story about progress of people with disabilities, while the other could be used to tell a negative story. The State Services Commission (2003:42) argues that data collected in the public service in the past has not been compatible with data collected for the whole labour force by Statistics New Zealand. The Commission argues that a better figure for 2001 was 18.5% (State Services Commission 2003: 42). We understand that disability data collection is currently under review at the Commission.

The State Services Commission reported in 2002 that “people with disabilities have been leaving the public service in higher numbers than they have been appointed” (39). Information offered by the Commission shows that cessations outpaced appointments for every year from 1993 through to 2001.[xxiii] One explanation for this pattern is the relationship between disability and age. In general, within a cohort of people, we would expect the number who have disabilities to increase over time. Nonetheless, these figures, matched with those showing patterns of decline in the percentage of people with disabilities working in the public service suggest that inadequate efforts have been made in recent years to promote the employment of people with disabilities into the public service.

Good and consistent measures across time of the proportion of people with disabilities in senior management, and, indeed, within specific pay bands is also lacking. However, what information we have suggests that people with disabilities are under-represented among public service managers, and that they tend to be over-represented within lower salary bands.[xxiv]

In 2002, the State Services Commission (2002c) produced a practical guide for procedures in government agencies called: Moving Forward: EEO for People with Disabilities in the Public Service. In that document, it was acknowledged that “[p]rogress with EEO Disability has been slower than with some other areas of EEO” (2002: 3). The devolution of responsibility for implementation of EEO strategy to the department level, encapsulated in EEO Policy to 2010, has resulted in little change with respect to creating employment opportunities for people with disabilities. Evidence to support this view is presented in the SSC’s EEO Progress in the Public Service 2003 Report. In that year, of the 40 participating departments, 10 had not set a 2010 target figure for the overall representation of people with disabilities as a percentage of staff. In addition, 10 had not set a 2005 milestone. Of the remaining departments, 11 reported making little progress towards achieving their goals for 2010, and 7 reported having made no progress. Therefore, out of 40 departments, 28 – that is 70.0% – reported having done little or nothing to attain targeted improvements in the employment of people with disabilities, despite other initiatives. For example, the State Services Commission has sought to assist the employment of people with disabilities through its Mainstream Supported Employment Programme, the annual disability mentoring day, and efforts to liaise with university careers counsellors to secure work experience for tertiary students with disabilities.

 

Summary

Major gaps exist in our knowledge about the position of people with disabilities in the New Zealand labour force. Greater attention needs to be paid to collecting reliable annual data on the recruitment, retention, pay rates, and seniority of people with disabilities. With the available statistics we assess that there has been little progress, if not regress, in the employment position of people with disabilities. In 2003 significantly more people with disabilities were unemployed, and complained about discrimination than in the middle 1990s. In the core public service most departments have not made progress in employing people with disabilities, in identifying the barriers to their equal employment opportunities, or in retaining existing employees with disabilities. Indeed, the number of people with disabilities working in the core public service has declined in recent years. Given this report on progress or the lack of it for people with disabilities, we consider people with disabilities to be one of the most disadvantaged groups in the current New Zealand labour force.

 

---