Research Report No 243 Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Residential Training for Disabled People Kevin Maton and Kate Smyth with Steve Broome and Paul Field UK Research Partnership Ltd The Views expressed in this report are the authors' and do not necessarily reflect those of the Department for Education and Employment. © Crown Copyright 2000. Published with the permission of DfEE on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office. Applications for reproduction should be made in writing to The Crown Copyright Unit, Her Majesty's Stationery Office, St Clements House, 2-16 Colegate, Norwich NR3 1BQ. ISBN 1 84185 409 3 DECEMBER 2000 i 1. INTRODUCTION 1 2. METHODOLOGY 3 2.1 Work programme 3 2.2 Basis of the research 3 3. THE CONTEXT 5 3.1 Disabled people in the workforce 5 3.2 Introduction 5 3.3 National Labour Force Survey – details 6 3.4 DfEE baseline disability survey 10 3.5 Government strategy for employment and training provision for disabled people 11 3.6 The residential training programme and training providers 13 4. TRAINING PROVIDERS AND PROVISION 15 4.1 The Residential Training Providers 15 4.2 Home location of trainees 18 4.3 The process – accessing residential training providers 21 4.4 Process of accessing training provision – the impact on individuals 26 4.5 Residential Training Providers – issues affecting trainees 31 4.6 Key findings and recommendations 47 5. CLIENT GROUP 53 5.1 Introduction 53 5.2 Characteristics of the client group 53 5.3 Key findings 63 6. TRAINEE SATISFACTION 65 i 6.1 Views of current trainees of their training programme 65 6.2 View of training programmes 67 6.3 Improving employment opportunities – outcomes from current trainees 72 6.4 Benefits of residential training 74 6.5 Key findings 75 7. OUTCOMES 76 7.1 Introduction 76 7.2 Key points to note 76 7.3 Former trainees - employment and other outcomes 77 7.4 Barriers to employment 85 7.5 Effects of training 86 8. MAIN CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 89 8.1 The key questions for this research 89 8.2 Main conclusions 90 8.3 Recommendations 92 Annex 1 – Detailed methodology 96 Annex 2 – Survey data - profile of trainees 98 Annex 3 – RTP details 99 Annex 4 – RTU output information 119 ii TABLES Table 3-1 Disability rates 1998/99 7 Table 3-2 Main type of disability of disabled people covered by the DDA 8 Table 3-3 Disabled people in the labour market 9 Table 3-4 Employment rates by selected type of health problem 10 Table 4-1 Location of RTPs 16 Table 4-2 Location of training providers 17 Table 4-3 Home location of RTU funded trainees 1996-1999 19 Table 4-4 Home location of RTU funded trainees 1996-99 Northern and Southern regions compared 20 Table 4-5 Location of 1998/1999 RTU funded trainees 21 Table 4-6 Process for unemployed disabled individuals 24 Table 4-7 Source of help in getting on training programme 27 Table 4-8 Influences over decision 28 Table 5-1 Gender of RTU-funded trainees 54 Table 5-2 Gender ratios at RTPs (1/1996 – 1/1999) 55 Table 5-3 Age 56 Table 5-4 Ethnicity 57 Table 5-5 Type of disability 59 Table 5-6 Type of provider attended 60 Table 5-7 Unemployment before applying to RTU 60 Table 5-8 Last period of work before attending an RTP 61 Table 5-9 Highest qualification 63 Table 6-1 Training programme studied 65 Table 6-2 Length of time on training programme to date 65 iii Table 6-3 Qualification studied at RTP 66 Table 6-4 Reasons why residential based training necessary 67 Table 6-5 Current trainees – views on RTPs 68 Table 6-6 Overall satisfaction with training programme 69 Table 6-7 Support from the RTP 69 Table 6-8 Quality of training 71 Table 6-9 Job placement and advice 72 Table 6-10 Career prospects 73 Table 6-11 Best aspects of the training and areas for improvement (top 7 reasons given) 74 Table 7-1 Employment status during 18 month period following completion of training programme 78 Table 7-2 Employment status at September 99 78 Table 7-3 Duration of employment 79 Table 7-4 Duration of unemployment/other period out of work 79 Table 7-5 Employment status by type of disability (more than one type possible) 80 Table 7-6 Employment status by duration of previous employment prior to attending RTP 81 Table 7-7 Outcomes and duration of unemployment 82 Table 7-8 Outcome (e.g. a period of employment or further training) by qualification studied 82 Table 7-9 Outcome by age 83 Table 7-10 Job status – September 1999 by type of RTP and trainee location 84 Table 7-11 Barriers to employment 85 Table 7-12 Effects of training 86 Table 8-1 Age of trainees 98 iv Table 8-2 Funding 1998/99 120 Table 8-3 Funding 1999/2000 121 Table 8-4 Employment outcomes 124 v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS UK Research Partnership Ltd would like to thank the many training provider staff and trainees who have contributed to this report. They gave generously of their time and hospitality, shared their professional and personal knowledge and experiences, and provided a wealth of documentation. vi 1. INTRODUCTION In January 1999, the Department for Education and Employment (DfEE) commissioned UK Research Partnership Ltd to undertake a research project entitled ‘Evaluation of the effectiveness of residential training for disabled people’. The brief prepared by the DfEE for this research contained a number of aims and issues to be addressed: • Assess the effectiveness of the overall provision of residential training for disabled people, in terms of meeting trainees’ needs and securing and sustaining employment, and other outcomes. • Develop a profile of residential training trainees, in terms of background characteristics and their needs before entering the programme, and experiences/position after leaving the programme. • Assess whether the training needs of disabled people could be met in other, perhaps non-residential, ways. • Make recommendations for improving the effectiveness of residential training for disabled people and highlight examples of good practice. From these main aims, five key questions were identified to focus the research: • What training is being offered by the residential providers? • To whom is this training being provided? • What outcomes are being achieved from residential training provision? • How satisfied are the trainees with the training overall? • How can the effectiveness of residential training overall be improved? This Final Report is based on an analysis of survey findings, perceptions gained during interviews with a wide range of individuals and from a number of previous reports and background data. It was always envisaged that this would be a relatively smallscale review and not intended to be a comprehensive evaluation. Although this review addresses clearly identified aims, it is also exploratory and highlights some of the main issues 1 surrounding the provision of residential training for disabled people that need to be investigated further. Very importantly, the limitations of the research have meant that comparisons of outcomes for disabled people who attend residential training providers with those who, after a visit to a Disability Employment Adviser, go straight into employment or who train with a mainstream provider such as an F.E. College, have been excluded. The structure of the report is as follows: Section 2 outlines the methodology of the research, describing the work that has been undertaken in detail. Section 3 describes the context of residential training provision for disabled people, Government policy, and national statistics regarding disabled people in the workforce. The process that a disabled individual can go through to access residential training is described in Section 4. Emerging issues relating to this process are also discussed in this section. Section 5 analyses Residential Training Unit (RTU) data and provides a profile of characteristics of those accessing residential training. Information from surveys undertaken with trainees who were on residential training at the time of the survey and those former trainees who left during January-July 1998 is also analysed. Section 6 analyses information relating to the satisfaction of trainees regarding training through the Residential Training Providers. Section 7 analyses information about outcomes in relation to employment and qualifications from RTU funded training. Section 8 completes the report with our main conclusions and recommendations. Throughout this report we have highlighted in boxes the key issues and findings, good practice and concerns that we wish to draw to the attention of the reader. These all relate closely to the recommendations made at the end of the report. 2 2. METHODOLOGY 2.1 Work programme In order to answer the questions identified in Section 1, we established a work programme which incorporated the following stages: • background research and the collection of baseline information; • reviewing information from the RTU and the training providers; • visiting all the training providers and interviewing the staff and 10% of current trainees; • undertaking a survey of ex-trainees; • producing an Interim and a Final Report. The research commenced in February 1999 and was completed in February 2000. During May and June, all 14 training providers were visited. In the case of the larger training providers, these visits spanned two days. Intensive interviews were held with a cross-section of staff members, including the Principals. We interviewed 88 trainees who were currently attending a residential training programme. All of these were selected by the training providers. The sample provided a fair cross-section in terms of training programmes, age, ethnicity, nature of impairment, home location, etc.