Disability Poverty in the UK 2008

7/21/2019 Disability Poverty in the UK 2008

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/disability-poverty-in-the-uk-2008 1/74

Disability poverty in the UKGuy Parckar, Leonard Cheshire Disability, 2008

Contents

Executive Summary 3Key findings 5

Chapter 1: Introduction

Chapter 2: Context and Methodoloy !!Conte"t#ethodology $ Defining %o&erty#ethodology $ Defining disability#ethodology $ 'he additional costs of disability

Chapter !: Disability poverty in the UK !5

"inancial poverty and household income !()ackground and %ro%osed indicatorsPolicy reco**endations $ inco*e and financial %o&ertySavins 2!)ackground and %ro%osed indicatorsPolicy reco**endations $ sa&ingsEmployment rates 2+)ackground and %ro%osed indicatorsPolicy reco**endations $ e*%loy*ent rates

#ypes o$ %or& 2)ackground and %ro%osed indicatorsPolicy reco**endations $ ty%es of ork'ene$it ta&e(up 32)ackground and %ro%osed indicatorsPolicy reco**endations $ benefit take-u%)ccommodation 38)ackground and %ro%osed indicatorsPolicy reco**endations $ acco**odationEducational attainment +!)ackground and %ro%osed indicators

Policy reco**endations $ educational attain*ent*uality o$ +i$e ++)ackground and %ro%osed indicatorsPolicy reco**endations $ .uality of life)ccess to services +8)ackground and %ro%osed indicatorsPolicy reco**endations $ access to ser&ices



Chapter ,: Conclusion 55

)nnex ): -roposed disability poverty indicators 5/Current infor*ation on indicators

)nnex ' . Summary o$ /ecommendations ((

)nnex C . 'iblioraphy (



"ecuti&e 1u**ary

Introduction

Disabled %eo%le are tice as likely to li&e in %o&erty as non-disabled %eo%le ! ethile the %rofile of issues such as child %o&erty and older %eo%le4s %o&erty ha&erisen considerably in recent years, and the K has .uite rightly ado%ted astrategy that ai*s to try to end child %o&erty, little has been done to s%ecificallytackle disability %o&erty )ut the links beteen disability and %o&erty re*ain sostrong that unless s%ecific action is taken to tackle disability %o&erty, the goal ofending child %o&erty ill si*%ly not be *et $ *ore than one third of children li&ingith a disabled adult li&e in lo inco*e households Disability %o&erty is the*issing link in efforts to tackle relati&e %o&erty in the K, and e belie&e thataction *ust be taken to address it

'he %ri*ary reco**endations of this re%ort are that the go&ern*ent co**its to6

10 End disability poverty by developin and implementin a speci$icstratey $or tac&lin the issue20 Measure disability poverty as a uni3ue $orm o$ poverty throuh the useo$ a series o$ indicators0

'he fact that disabled %eo%le are so *uch *ore likely than non-disabled %eo%leto li&e in relati&e %o&erty is an issue that society *ust stri&e to challenge )utdisability %o&erty is about e&en *ore than 7ust lo inco*e Po&erty of o%%ortunityand %o&erty of e"%ectations can ste* fro* so*ething as broad as %ublicattitudes, to so*ething as s%ecific as an indi&idual4s as%irations hat is clear isthat a concerted and strategic effort fro* %olicy *akers is needed first to fully

understand, and then to challenge, disability %o&erty

'he case for addressing disability %o&erty is not only one of basic social 7ustice,there is also an econo*ic case nding disability %o&erty ould al*ost certainly*ean *ore disabled %eo%le *o&ing into the ork%lace, increasing netcontributions to the 'reasury through the ta" syste*, and reduced e"%enditureon out-of-ork benefits sing &ery broad esti*ates if a *illion disabled %eo%le*o&ed in to ork, the 'reasury could e"%ect to gain ell o&er 95 billion2 ininco*e ta" alone

'he re%ort *akes reco**endations both for indicators for *onitoring the *any

different facets of disability %o&erty, and also a series of social %olicyreco**endations to challenge it Key findings and reco**endations are belo,

1 )ased on the 4relati&e %o&erty line4 in the K, hich e.uates to li&ing in a household ith inco*e of less than (0: of

*edian national inco*e ;ecent esti*ates suggest that around 30: of disabled %eo%le li&e belo this inco*e line,co*%ared to around !(: of non-disabled %eo%le2 )ased on a calculation that *edian annual inco*e is roughly 92+,000 %er year <see 4=nnual 1ur&ey of >ours and

arnings, ?ational 1tatistics@, and that basic rate inco*e ta" at this le&el is 22:, if one *illion %eo%le ere to *o&e intoork at this a&erage le&el then the e"tra inco*e ta" recei%ts for the "che.uer ould be 95,280,000,000 %er year



ith the full list of %ro%osed indicators and current infor*ation in )nnex ), andthe full list of %olicy reco**endations in )nnex '

'he links beteen disability and %o&erty are *aintained by continuing barriers insociety, not only %hysical barriers to accessibility, but also barriers for*ed fro*

negati&e attitudes and a lack of understanding, and barriers for*ed fro* loe"%ectations about hat disabled %eo%le can achie&e

Aur ob7ecti&e is to end the link beteen disability and %o&erty e ho%e that thisre%ort ill start this debate and raise disability %o&erty on the %ublic %olicyagenda e belie&e that the go&ern*ent should *onitor disability %o&erty as adistinct for* of %o&erty, and should also ado%t the key %olicy reco**endations inthis re%ort as a first crucial ste% toards ending disability %o&erty



"ecuti&e 1u**ary

Key $indins

Income and costs

B Disabled %eo%le are around tice as likely to li&e in %o&erty 3 as non-disabled%eo%le $ ith figures suggesting that around !(: of non-disabled %eo%le li&e inrelati&e %o&erty, as o%%osed to around 30: of disabled %eo%le+B Disabled %eo%le face e"tra costs related to *anaging their i*%air*ent thata*ount, on a&erage, to a%%ro"i*ately an e"tra .uarter abo&e nor*ale"%enditure, co*%ared to non disabled %eo%le 'he e"tra costs can result, fore"a*%le, fro* %aying for ada%tations to their ho*e, social care su%%ort, *obilityaids or co**unication aidsB )ecause of the e"tra costs of disability the real %o&erty line could actually be*uch higher for disabled %eo%le $ hen the e"tra costs of disability are factored

in, ell o&er half of disabled %eo%le5 li&e on less than (0: of *edian nationalinco*e, as o%%osed to the unad7usted figure of around 30:

Key recommendations

B De&elo% an acce%ted esti*ate for the e"tra costs of disability and use it to%roduce 4disability ad7usted4 %o&erty statisticsB "tend inter uel =lloance to disabled adults under the age of (0 ligibilitycould be deter*ined through recei%t of certain %arts of Disability Li&ing =lloance<DL=@

Savins

B Disabled %eo%le face barriers to sa&ing *oney, ith nearly half <+:@ ofres%ondents to Leonard Cheshire Disability4s 4Disability ;e&ie 200/4 ( saying thatthey had no sa&ings at all 'his is in stark contrast to figures fro* a recent?ational 1a&ings and n&est*ents 41a&ings 1ur&ey4 found that !2: of thegeneral %o%ulation had no sa&ings/B 'he social care charging syste* can %ro&ide an acti&e disincenti&e to sa&ingfor *any disabled %eo%le $ a disincenti&e that can be %resent throughout theirentire li&es

3 )ased on the 4relati&e %o&erty line4 in the K, hich e.uates to li&ing in a household ith inco*e of less than (0: of

*edian national inco*e4 4#onitoring %o&erty and social e"clusion 200(4, Pal*er, #acnnes and Kenay, Eose%h ;ontree oundation and ?e

Policynstitute, 200(5 4Co*%aring inco*es hen needs differ6 .ui&alisation for the e"tra costs of disability in the K4, =shgar Faidi and 'ania

)urchardt, L1 C=1 ;e%ort (+, 20036 4Disability ;e&ie 200/4, Laidler et al, Leonard Cheshire Disability, ?o&e*ber 200/

7 ?ational 1a&ings and n&est*ents, 4uarterly sa&ings sur&ey, 1u**er 200/4



Key recommendations

B ;e&ie the i*%act of social care charging %olicy on disability %o&erty, includingreco**endations for tackling the sa&ings disincenti&eB ntroduce a 4Disability 1a&ings Gateay4, and ensure that disabled %eo%le are

fully included in any future de&elo%*ent of the 1a&ings Gateay sche*e

Disability and employment

B 'he e*%loy*ent rate a*ong disabled %eo%le re*ains far belo that of non-disabled %eo%le, ith around 50: of disabled %eo%le not in ork, co*%ared toaround 20: of non-disabled %eo%le8B Disabled %eo%le ho are in ork are at a substantially higher risk of in-ork%o&erty, on a&erage earning less than their non-disabled %eers and being *orelikely to ork in lo skill, lo %aid 7obs

Key recommendations

B nsure that e*%loyers are adhering to their legal obligations under the DD=,and e"tend the antici%atory duty to *ake reasonable ad7ust*ents to e*%loy*entB ;aise aareness of, and increase funding for, the =ccess to ork sche*eB ntroduce a syste* of 4rehabilitation lea&e4 to hel% %eo%le ho ac.uire ani*%air*ent to re*ain in e*%loy*entB 1trengthen residential care charging guidance to re*o&e any disincenti&e toork for users of residential care su%%ort

'ene$its and %el$are

B #any disabled %eo%le are tra%%ed in inesca%able %o&erty $ those furthest fro*the labour *arket ith little i**ediate chance of getting in to ork fre.uently relyon benefits that are si*%ly not sufficient to lift the* out of %o&erty 'his lea&es%eo%le ith little or no chance of esca%ing %o&erty other than through charity, orsu%%ort fro* fa*ily and friendsB Poor decision- *aking in the benefit syste* can dri&e %eo%le into %roble*debt, and %ush %eo%le into financial %o&erty

Key recommendations

B ;e&ie 4benefit %o&erty4 and ho the elfare syste* functions for long-ter*clai*ants ho are not e"%ected to return to orkB stablish a 4elfare co**ission4 to o&ersee de&elo%*ents in elfare benefit%olicy

8 ro* the Labour orce 1ur&ey, as %resented in the Disability ;ights Co**ission 4Disability )riefing #ay 200/4, D;C,

#ay 200/9 bid



B Pro&ide a 4benefit check4 for reci%ients to establish their full entitle*ents, andan acti&e ca*%aign to engage ith those ho need, but currently do not clai*,their entitle*ents

4ousin and accommodation

B 'he .uality of acco**odation for disabled %eo%le continues to be under*inedby a dearth of both affordable and accessible housing, and %roble*s stillcontinue ith effecti&ely *atching accessible acco**odation to those that needitB = .uarter of those disabled %eo%le ho re.uire ada%ted housing in ngland arecurrently li&ing in acco**odation that is unsuitable for their needs!0

Key recommendations

B nsure that the need to increase a&ailability of ada%ted and accessible social

housing is integral to all future housing %olicy de&elo%*entB stablish a duty on local authorities to create and *aintain an accessiblehousing register B "tend Part # building regulations to include all the Lifeti*e >o*e 1tandards

Education

B Disabled %eo%le still face substantial disad&antage in the education syste* $25: of disabled %eo%le ha&e no .ualifications co*%ared to !!: a*ong thehole %o%ulation!! )arriers to educational attain*ent can ha&e a direct i*%acton future life chances

B =t !( young disabled %eo%le are tice as likely not to be in any for* ofeducation, e*%loy*ent or training as their non-disabled %eers <!5: as o%%osedto /:@!2, and at the sa*e ti*e the %ercentage of 7obs re.uiring no .ualificationsis decreasing 'he nstitute for Public Policy ;esearch %redicts that by 2020al*ost half of all e*%loy*ent ill be in occu%ations re.uiring degree le&el.ualifications!3

Key recommendations

B nsure that all le&els of education $ and %articularly higher education, heredisabled %eo%le4s inclusion is notably lo $ are fully accessible to disabled%eo%leB nsure that all education %rofessionals recei&e full disability e.uality training

10 4>ousing in ngland 2005H0( $ a re%ort %rinci%ally fro* the 2005H0( 1ur&ey of nglish >ousing4, DCLG, Actober 200/

11 ro* the Labour orce 1ur&ey, as %resented in the Disability ;ights Co**ission 4Disability )riefing #ay 200/4, D;C,

#ay 200/12

4Disability, skills and ork6 raising our a*bitions4 1te%hen &ans, 1ocial #arket oundation, Eune 200/13

4Disability 20206 o%%ortunities for full and e.ual citiIenshi% of disabled %eo%le in )ritain in 20204 Pillai et al, PP;, #arch

200/



B nsure that disability e.uality issues are integrated into citiIenshi% classes as%art of the ?ational Curriculu* to change attitudes about disability

*uality o$ li$e and social exclusion

B Disabled %eo%le4s e"%eriences of cri*e ill i*%act u%on their e"%eriences ofsocial inclusion and e"clusion, ith around one in tel&e res%ondents to LeonardCheshire Disability4s 4Disability;e&ie 200/4 re%orting that they had been the &icti* of a cri*e *oti&ated bytheir i*%air*ent!+B 8: of disabled %eo%le in Leonard Cheshire4s 4Disability ;e&ie 200/4!5 feltthat there as discri*ination and %re7udice toards disabled %eo%le in the K'his is a key factor in the %o&erty of e"%ectation, and %o&erty of o%%ortunity thatdisabled %eo%le can e"%erienceB Disabled %eo%le4s access to ser&ices like sho%s, %ublic trans%ort or leisurefacilities is steadily i*%ro&ing, but there is still ides%read inaccessibility, hich

can acti&ely restrict disabled %eo%le4s o%%ortunities and is a critical factor indisabled %eo%le4s social e"clusion and %o&erty

Key recommendations

B *%ro&e *onitoring and enforce*ent of cri*e related to i*%air*ent, andensure that disabled %eo%le ha&e full access to the cri*inal 7ustice syste*B nsure that disabled %eo%le4s access to aero%lanes and ferries is i*%ro&ed bye"tendingPart 3 of the DD= to include these *ethods of trans%ortB nable tribunals to ad7udicate on Part 3 DD= cases as o%%osed to the current

syste* hich re.uires indi&idual disabled %eo%le to take %otentially lengthy ande"%ensi&e court casesB Conduct a re&ie of the effecti&eness of the DD= ith a &ie to *aking the laeasier to enforce and easier to understand

Conclusion

Leonard Cheshire Disability calls on the go&ern*ent to *ake tackling disability%o&erty one of its key %riorities 'o do so ill first re.uire a co**it*ent tounderstand and *onitor disability %o&erty and its causes, and then the strategicde&elo%*ent of social %olicy initiati&es to eradicate it

'o end disability %o&erty is not only a *eans to dri&e don %o&erty throughoutthe K, and to i*%ro&e the econo*ic health of the nation, it is also an absolutenecessity of social 7ustice and inclusion in a ci&ilised society

14 4Disability ;e&ie 200/4, Laidler et al, Leonard Cheshire Disability, ?o&e*ber 200/

15 bid



Chapter 1

ntroduction

#uch ork has been undertaken in recent years to redefine our understanding of

4%o&erty4, in both a national K conte"t, and in the conte"t of %o&erty orld ide'his ork has seen the de&elo%*ent of s%ecific go&ern*ent targets and*easures to tackle child %o&erty in the K, alongside %o%ular *ass *o&e*entsto tackle international %o&erty such as #ake Po&erty >istory

;elati&e %o&erty is no *onitored by &arious agencies across the globe, and inthe K anti%o&erty %olicies should be able to res%ond to any fluctuations in aseries of established indicators =t the heart of any successful %olicy initiati&e totackle %o&erty should be the understanding that it is essential to challenge%o&erty at its roots t is not enough si*%ly to identify that an indi&idual li&es in%o&erty6 it is necessary to understand the i*%act of that %o&erty on the indi&idual,

to challenge all the syste*ic failures that ha&e led to it $ and ulti*ately tode&elo% a %olitical and social fra*eork to hel% lift that indi&idual out of %o&erty

ithin this de&elo%ing understanding of hat %o&erty is and ho to tackle it thereha&e already been so*e *o&es to dra the link beteen disability and %o&ertyAn an international stage it is already clear that the to are often substantiallyinter-related or e"a*%le, research has suggested that globally around +3: ofdisabled %eo%le can be categorised as 4e"tre*ely %oor4!(, and it has beensuggested that 20: of the instances of disability in the orld ste* fro**alnutrition!/ t is clear that on a global scale %o&erty and disability are causallylinked

'his is e.ually true in the K 'he Eose%h ;ontree oundation <E;@ and ?ePolicy nstitute4s <?P@ ongoing *onitoring of %o&erty and social e"clusion hasidentified that disabled adults are no *ore likely to li&e in %o&erty than eitherchildren or older %eo%le 'he E;4s research has also found that disabled adultsare tice as likely to li&e in %o&erty as non-disabledadults!8 An al*ost any recognised indicator of %o&erty, disabled %eo%le arefound to be significantly o&er-re%resented

'his re%ort focuses broadly on disabled %eo%le of orking age 'here are alreadyell established %olicy %ositions in the K around *easures to tackle child

%o&erty and %ensioner %o&erty $ e belie&e that disability %o&erty is such a%ressing and critical issue that it de*ands the sa*e le&el of attention e ould

16 4act 1heet on Po&erty and Disability4, nclusion nternational, data dran fro* 4Po&erty and Disability4, =nn lan,

orld )ank, Actober !17

4A&erco*ing Abstacles to the ntegration of Disabled Peo%le4, ?1CA, D==, #arch !518

4#onitoring %o&erty and social e"clusion 200(4, Pal*er, #acnnes and Kenay, Eose%h ;ontree oundation and ?e

Policynstitute, 200(



also argue that to tackle child %o&erty and %ensioner %o&erty successfullynecessitates a far greater %olicy focus on disabled %eo%le'he confluence of households li&ing in %o&erty and fa*ilies ith at least onedisabled *e*ber is far too great to ignore =s the Disability ;ights Co**ission<D;C@ has stated, if anti%o&erty targets are to be *et across the board then it ill

be essential to focus energy on tackling disabled %eo%le4s %o&erty!

et, hilst the correlation beteen disability and %o&erty is ell established, therehas been relati&ely little %ublic %olicy ork identifying e"actly hat 4disability%o&erty4 *eans in real ter*s, and hat the root causes behind it are 'he %o&ertyindicators used in go&ern*ent docu*ents such as the De%art*ent for ork andPensions4 4A%%ortunity for =ll4 re%ort de*onstrate that *easuring %o&erty *eans*ore than 7ust *easuring inco*e ducation, e*%loy*ent, housing, assets,health ine.ualities and access to ser&ices can all be an indicator of %o&erty, asell as the le&el of an indi&idual4s inco*e n all of these areas e&idencesuggests that disabled %eo%le traditionally face disad&antage

#any disabled %eo%le also face additional costs of li&ing, for e"a*%le %aying forsocial care su%%ort or ha&ing to %ay for ta"is because %ublic trans%ort isinaccessible inancial %o&erty de&elo%s hen inco*e cannot *atch essentialoutgoingsJ accordingly, for an indi&idual ho has to s%end a greater %ro%ortion of their inco*e on the necessities of life it is clear that the %o&erty line can behigher et, des%ite the established and recognised connections that often e"istbeteen disability and %o&erty, there is little strategic %lanning s%ecifically fortackling disability %o&erty in the K

'his re%ort ai*s to establish a orking definition of disability %o&erty in the K,

along ith a set of broad indicators ith hich to *onitor ho the situation ischanging and de&elo%ing t ai*s to e"a*ine the links beteen disability and%o&erty and the causes of this connection, and to set out hy urgent action isneeded fro* across society Disability %o&erty is a uni.ue and co*%le" issue,and tackling it is both a crucial end in itself, as ell as a critical factor in reachingother key go&ern*ent targets for the ell-being of the nation

Disability %o&erty is the *issing link in the K4s otherise good record inchallenging children4s, older %eo%le4s and international %o&erty t is also a*assi&e social in7ustice hich *ust be challenged ?o is the ti*e to begin thischallenge and to end disability %o&erty

19 4Child %o&erty targets need disability at their heart4, %ress release fro* Disability ;ights Co**ission, #arch 200/



Chapter 2

Conte"t #ethodology

Context

t is of course i*%ortant to state at the outset that disability and %o&erty are notthe sa*e thing, nor does one follo as an auto*atic conse.uence of the otheret on al*ost any e"isting indicator of %o&erty it is %ossible to deter*ine that acorrelation all too co**only e"ists beteen the to

'his correlation *eans that in&estigating and challenging disability %o&ertyshould be an integral %art of any ider anti-%o&erty %olicy #eeting e"isting%o&erty targets re.uires a far greater focus on addressing disabled %eo%le4s%o&erty than has yet ha%%ened

'his re%ort ai*s to hel% reach a orking understanding of disability %o&erty, tosuggest %ossible indicators for *easuring it and to %ro%ose %olicy de&elo%*entsthat ill hel% to end it Leonard Cheshire Disability &ery *uch ho%es that this illbe 7ust an early %oint in a *uch longer dri&e to end disability %o&erty

Methodoloy . De$inin poverty

hilst there has been considerable ork in looking to define and understandboth %o&erty and disability in recent years, there are still a nu*ber of differentdefinitions of both

'he go&ern*ent currently looks at indicators of relati&e %o&erty and absolute%o&erty and also considers the ider issues of social e"clusion ;elati&e %o&ertyrefers to co*%arati&e circu*stances $ looking at those ho, in a relati&elyealthy country like the K, li&e on reduced *eans co*%ared to the a&erage ofthe %o%ulation =bsolute %o&erty is a *ore uni&ersal *easure, defined by thenited ?ations in the Co%enhagen Declaration <!5@ as 4a conditioncharacterised by se&ere de%ri&ation of basic hu*an needs4 1ocial e"clusion is abroader ter*, considering the reduction of life chances that can often ste* fro*disad&antage and de%ri&ation =ll of these different ays of considering %o&ertyin the K are &ery rele&ant for our understanding of disability %o&erty as as%ecific issue

n the K the figure used for the 4relati&e financial %o&erty line4 is usually (0: of*edian national inco*e )ut the K has also established a *uch broader set of4%o&erty indicators4 <set out in the annual 4A%%ortunity for =ll4 %a%er %roduced bythe De%art*ent for ork and Pensions@ that are regularly *onitored 1o*e ofthese indicators do link to disability, but by and large they are not broken dons%ecifically into *easures for disabled %eo%le Leonard Cheshire Disability ouldargue that *easuring %o&erty through the use of a series of indicators is a *ore



holistic a%%roach than si*%ly using the broad and blunt instru*ent of assessingagainst (0: of *edian household inco*e 1uch a *easure is crucial forin&estigating lo inco*e and financial %o&erty, but it is not the only *easure of%o&erty

=ccordingly, Leonard Cheshire Disability has used a&ailable data, together ithdata fro* our on sur&ey of *ore than !000 disabled %eo%le 20, to *onitor the%osition of disabled %eo%le, in co*%arison to the broader %o%ulation, on a seriesof indicators 'his is intended to %roduce a broad assess*ent of the le&el of4disability %o&erty4 in the K at %resent and hel% ork toards a useable set of4disability %o&erty indicators4

Methodoloy . De$inin disability

'here are a great *any differing definitions of 4disability4 and of 4disabled %eo%le4 = si*%le .uestion such as 4ho *any disabled %eo%le are there in the K4 ill

%ro*%t a *yriad of res%onses, de%ending largely on hich definitions of disabilityare ado%ted ndeed, gi&en an increasing and elco*e shift toards a social*odel of disability, as ell as the &ast differences beteen %articular ty%es ofi*%air*ent, it is all but i*%ossible to arri&e at a uni&ersally acce%ted definition of4disabled %eo%le4 or statistical, de*ogra%hic and %olicy setting %ur%oses,hoe&er, it is i*%ortant that a general understanding on this issue is reached

ithin the K the *ost broadly used definition of disability is that set out in theDisability Discri*ination =ct <DD=@ 'he =ct defines a disabled %erson asso*eone ho has a %hysical or *ental i*%air*ent that has a substantial andlong-ter* ad&erse effect on his or her ability to carry out nor*al day-to-day

acti&itiesM Current esti*ates deter*ine that there are likely to be around !!*illion %eo%le in the K ho fall under this definition $ the go&ern*ent4s recent4*%ro&ing the Life Chances of Disabled Peo%le42! re%ort reached a figure of !!*illion disabled adults and //0,000 disabled children

hilst the DD= definition is no the *ost co**only used, it has not alays beenused in statistical analyses, hether fro* go&ern*ent sources or elsehere#uch research relies on so*e degree of self-definition, hich can so*eti*eslead to those ho ha&e an i*%air*ent hich is *ore usually considered to be a4disability4 being o&er-re%resented in sa*%lesAften, for e"a*%le, older %eo%le ho ould certainly fall ithin the DD= definitionof disability ill not self-define the*sel&es as a 4disabled %erson4 'his can *eanthat so*e statistics are orking fro* a slightly different control grou% than others,and accordingly throughout this re%ort e ha&e endea&oured to highlight thesource of statistics


21 4*%ro&ing the life chances of disabled %eo%le4, Pri*e #inister4s 1trategy nit, Cabinet Affice, 2005



'he huge &ariety of i*%air*ent ty%es and the huge &ariety of ays in hichindi&iduals ill res%ond to i*%air*ents are also added co*%lications = return toork solution for an indi&idual ith a *ental health condition, for e"a*%le, *ayell be &ery different to one for an indi&idual ith a &isual i*%air*ent 'hus itould often be useful to break don al*ost all disability statistics by i*%air*ent

ty%e, gi&en that there are likely to be ide dis%arities ithin categories $ but to doso is i*%ractical, gi&en the sheer breadth of different i*%air*ents &en iththese ca&eats, hoe&er, it is clear that using self-definition broadly ithin theDD= definition as a baseline it is %ossible to discern clear trends ithin this broadgrou% Clear and .uantifiable social, de*ogra%hic and statistical differences arediscernible in certain areas hen e co*%are this grou% ith the 4general%o%ulation4 'his *akes it clear that to *ake such co*%arisons is orthhile andthat there are underlying trends and issues that *ust be addressed by %olicy-setting ai*ed at 4disabled %eo%le4 as a de*ogra%hic grou%

or the %ur%oses of this research, therefore, hen the ter* 4disabled %eo%le4 is

used, it can generally be understood to refer to the grou% of adults co&ered bythe definition of disability ithin the DD=

Methodoloy . #he additional costs o$ disability

t is no generally acce%ted that *any disabled %eo%le ill face additional coststhat arise fro* *anaging their i*%air*ent 1uch costs can take the for* of e"trae"%enditure on general ite*s, for e"a*%le ha&ing to s%end e"tra on heating, ore"%enditure on disability related ite*s, such as *obility or sensory aids

'he i*%ortance of the additional costs of disability to the debate about disability

%o&erty should not be underesti*ated t is clear that if an indi&idual has to s%end*ore each *onth to achie&e the sa*e basic standard of li&ing, then the %o&ertyle&el for that indi&idual is different

n order, therefore, to *ake reasoned 7udg*ents about the nu*bers of disabled%eo%le li&ing belo the relati&e %o&erty line it is i*%ortant to account for the%otential e"tra costs that *any disabled %eo%le face = &ery broad e.ui&alencea%%roach has been ado%ted in this %a%er to hel% gi&e an indication of here thetrue %o&erty line lies for *any disabled %eo%le, and the *ethodology for this isset out belo

'here ha&e been a nu*ber of studies looking into the issue of the additionalcosts of li&ing ith an i*%air*ent22, all deter*ining that on a&erage disabled%eo%le do face additional costs = great difficulty i**ediately arises in this area,hoe&er, fro* the fact that such costs can &ary hugely fro* indi&idual toindi&idual and o&er ti*e 1o*e disabled %eo%le ill clearly face no greatadditional e"%enditure arising fro* the *anage*ent of their i*%air*ent, hilst

22 or a su**ary of so*e of the e"isting findings into the e"tra costs of disability see 4;e&ie of e"isting research into the

e"tra costs of disability4, #ike 'ibble, De%art*ent for ork and Pensions, 2005



others ill face hugely significant outlay 1o*e ho do face siIeable e"tra costsill find that these costs are offset by the recei%t of certain elfare benefits, or bye"isting resources or su%%ort fro* friends and fa*ily 'here is also an inherentsub7ecti&ity in such *easures $ hat one %erson *ight consider an acce%tablestandard of li&ing *ight be &ery different fro* another4s inter%retation, and so*e

%eo%le *ay already ha&e li*ited their horiIons in order to li&e ithin their *eans,e&en to the detri*ent of their health 1o*e costs can be irregular and *ight onlyi*%act once e&ery fe years, such as the cost of a ne heelchair, hilst others*ight recur regularly, such as the cost of %hysiothera%y

)ut, des%ite the *any difficulties in accurately defining the e"tra costs thatdisabled %eo%le *ay face, it is hugely i*%ortant to atte*%t to find a reasoneda&erage a*ount that can be factored into calculations Leonard CheshireDisability has reached a broad esti*ate figure for the %ur%oses of this research,but ould argue that a definiti&e, scientific atte*%t to deter*ine the e"tra costs of disability should be a %riority for go&ern*ent

'o %roduce our a%%ro"i*ate *easure Leonard Cheshire Disability has usedinfor*ation fro* a nu*ber of statistical sources, but %articularly relied u%onso*e e"isting studies, *ost notably 4Co*%aring inco*es hen needs differ6.ui&alisation for the e"tra costs of disability in the K4 <Faidi and )urchardt,2003@23 Leonard Cheshire Disability has ado%ted the a%%roach suggested in that%a%er, and, through %ersonal co**unication ith the authors, has generalised itto allo for an easily understandable and transferable *echanis* tode*onstrate the i*%act of the e"tra costs of an i*%air*ent

Faidi and )urchardt deter*ined that, in broad ter*s, it is %ossible to suggest that

as the se&erity of i*%air*ent rises so do the e"tra costs of disability 1o*enational sur&eys ha&e used the 4Affice of Po%ulation, Censuses and 1ur&eys4<APC1@ gradation syste* for *easuring the se&erity of i*%air*ents 'he syste*used a %oints scoring a%%roach to *ark the functional i*%act of i*%air*ents,and then %laced the scores ithin a scale of se&erity n their research Faidi and)urchardt deter*ined a figure for the le&el of e"tra costs that disabled %eo%lefaced on to% of nor*al e"%enditure )ased on the fact that as the se&erity ofi*%air*ent increased so did the e"tra costs it as %ossible to deter*ine that foreach %oint scored the e"tra cost of disability for a orking age adult e.uated tobeteen 3: and +5: of inco*e, %er %erson, de%ending on hether they ereli&ing on their on, or as %art of a cou%le =ccordingly an indi&idual scoring to%oints on this scale *ight e"%ect increased costs of beteen (: and :, and anindi&idual scoring three %oints on the scale beteen : and !35: increasedcosts, de%endent on household circu*stances

sing this %oints scoring syste* the *edian se&erity score for disabled %eo%le of orking age as calculated at /85 =ccordingly it is %ossible to conclude that a

23 4Co*%aring inco*es hen needs differ6 .ui&alisation for the e"tra costs of disability in the K4, =shgar Faidi and 'ania

)urchardt, L1 C=1 ;e%ort (+, 2003



*edian %ercentage for the e"tra costs faced by disabled %eo%le of orking ageould range beteen 2+: and 35: on to% of nor*al e"%enditure hilst this isnot a definiti&e *easure of additional costs, and is based on a nu*ber of broadassu*%tions, it is useful as a tool for e"a*ining the e"tent to hich e"isting%o&erty indicators underesti*ate the le&els of lo inco*e a*ong disabled

%eo%le

n short, it is %ossible to say that, on a&erage, disabled %eo%le of orking ageface additional costs on to% of nor*al e"%enditure of *ore than a .uarter abo&ee"%enditure for non-disabled %eo%le

Chapter !



Disability Po&erty in the K

'he %ri*ary reco**endations of this %a%er are that the go&ern*ent co**it to6

10 End disability poverty by developin and implementin a speci$ic

stratey $or tac&lin the issue

20 Measure disability poverty as a uni3ue $orm o$ poverty throuh the useo$ a series o$ indicators0

n order for disability %o&erty to be for*ally *onitored this re%ort sets out a seriesof %ro%osed indicators, broken don into broad %olicy areas #onitoring theseindicators o&er ti*e ill hel% i*%ro&e the understanding of disability %o&erty as as%ecific and distinct for* of 4%o&erty4, rather than disabled %eo%le only being agrou% re%resented ithin broader %o&erty statistics Leonard Cheshire Disabilitybelie&es that this *onitoring should, in turn, lead to the go&ern*ent draing u% a

clear strategy to tackle disability %o&erty in the K =s a starting %oint in this%rocess, e ha&e also therefore %roduced a series of %olicy reco**endations toacco*%any the indicators that ould ork toards ending disability %o&erty inthe K

#any of the indicators that e ha&e suggested to hel% better define disability%o&erty are based on data already collected through national sur&eys such as theLabour orce 1ur&ey or the a*ily ;esources 1ur&ey Ather data is %ut togetherfro* e"isting research Leonard Cheshire Disability4s on 4Disability ;e&ie200/42+ of disabled %eo%le has been used in so*e areas here national data isnot collected 'he 4Disability ;e&ie 200/4 co*%iled the &ies of *ore than !,000

disabled %eo%le in the K to gi&e a sna%shot of disabled %eo%le4s as%irations,social situation and &ies on key issues 'he regular research undertaken by theEose%h ;ontree oundation <E;@ and the ?e Policy nstitute <?P@in&estigating %o&erty and social e"clusion also %ro&ides a bedrock of infor*ationon disabled %eo%le4s %o&erty

'he *a7ority of indicators %ro%osed can already be *onitored through e"istingsur&eys, hilst others ould si*%ly re.uire e"isting sur&eys to include a .uestionto allo the breakdon of the data beteen disabled and non-disabled %eo%le1o*e of the %ro%osed indicators ould rely on a ide-scale sur&ey of disabled%eo%le to gather infor*ation on their current life e"%eriences 1uch a sur&ey

ould re%resent a &aluable chance to i*%ro&e the a&ailable data on disability anddisabled %eo%le4s e"%eriences, and could be carried out by the Affice forDisability ssues <AD@ 1uch an a%%roach is not unusual $ data on *any e"isting%o&erty indicators is currently tracked through large scale sur&eys, and the4sub7ecti&e ell-being .uestionnaire4 that for*s %art of the De%art*ent for ork

24 4Disability ;e&ie 200/4, Laidler et al, Leonard Cheshire Disability 200/



and Pensions 4A%%ortunity =ge425 indicators is a good e"a*%le of ho this sort ofdata *ight be collected Leonard CheshireDisability ould argue that tracking %eo%le4s e"%eriences o&er ti*e, co*binedith the collection of a base of ra data, ill %ro&e the *ost effecti&e ay to*onitor shifts and changes in disability %o&erty

=ll our %ro%osed indicators are listed in )nnex ) of this re%ort, along ith currentinfor*ation about le&els of disability %o&erty, and *ore infor*ation on ho theindicators are currently *onitored, or could be *onitored in the future

"inancial poverty and household income'ac&round and proposed indicators

'he *ost co**only acce%ted *easure of relati&e lo inco*e in the K is to beli&ing on less than (0: of *edian household inco*e 'his figure ill &aryde%ending on household circu*stances, but for the *ost recently a&ailable

figures the threshold for lo inco*e as a%%ro"i*ately6

'he Nlo inco*e lineO for a household of one adult is 95,200 %er annu*'he Nlo inco*e lineO for a household of to adults is 9,5!( %er annu*'he Nlo inco*e lineO for a household of to adults, one child is 9!3,3( %erannu*

'he 4lo inco*e line4 is (0: of *edian household inco*e2(

t is i*%ortant to note that these figures are calculated after inco*e ta", councilta" and housing costs ha&e been deducted, here housing costs include rents,

*ortgage interest, buildings insurance and ater chargesM

2/

'his *eans that thefigures re%resent the a*ount that a household has left to s%end to su%%ort itselfo&er the course of a year = household here inco*es fall belo these le&els isclassed a lo inco*e household hilst this should not be considered the only*easure of %o&erty, it is %erha%s the single strongest indicator of the *eans thatany indi&idual has to su%%ort the*sel&es

n *easuring disability %o&erty, hoe&er, this 4relati&e %o&erty line4 has oneserious fla $ it takes no account of the fact that *any disabled %eo%le ill faceadditional costs because of their i*%air*ent = degree of ork has beenundertaken to assess the le&el of the e"tra costs of disability <as *entioned in theearlier section on the *ethodology of 4additional costs of disability4@, but there arestill no uni&ersally acce%ted figures for the le&els of additional costs that disabled%eo%le face igures can, of course, &ary hugely for different indi&iduals atdifferent ti*es et to reach a genuine understanding of disability %o&erty, and

25 4A%%ortunity =ge $ #eeting the challenges of ageing in the 2!st century4 De%art*ent for ork and Pensions, 2005

26 4#onitoring %o&erty and social e"clusion 200(4, Pal*er, #acnnes and Kenay, Eose%h ;ontree oundation and ?e

Policynstitute, 200(, as shon at htt%6HH%o&ertyorgukH2+Hinde"sht*l+27

bid

http://www.poverty.org.uk/24/index.shtml?4




here it is uni.ue fro* the %o&erty e"%erienced in the rest of the %o%ulation, it isessential to atte*%t to build so*e *easure*ent of these e"tra costs into %o&ertyindicators

sing the fra*eork set out in the *ethodology %re&iously outlined, Leonard

Cheshire Disability has endea&oured to de&elo% a basic *ethod for factoringe"tra costs into so*e %o&erty indicators hilst this is not a definiti&e *ethod forincor%orating e"tra costs, it ill hel% to de*onstrate another uni.ue as%ect ofdisability %o&erty, and another reason hy it is an issue that re.uires s%ecificaction fro* go&ern*ent and other key decision-*akers

sing the loer figure of an a&erage additional e"%enditure of 2+:, the tableshoing the 4lo inco*e line4 for different households can be re-calculated tosho a figure that takes into account the fact that disabled %eo%le can faceuna&oidable e"tra e"%enditure 'his re%resents a *ore accurate ad7usted figure,shoing here the %o&erty line actually falls for disabled %eo%le 'he data is

based on an assu*%tion that there is one disabled adult in each household6

=d7usted Nlo inco*e lineO for households of containing one disabled adult for oneadults is 9(,++8 %er annu*

=d7usted Nlo inco*e lineO for households of containing one disabled adult for toadults is 9!!,800 %er annu*

=d7usted Nlo inco*e lineO for households of containing one disabled adult for toadults, one child 9!/,28! %er annu*

'his *eans that, for e"a*%le, if 95,200 %er annu* is the %oint belo hich a one%erson household is considered 4lo inco*e4, then for disabled %eo%le the

e.ui&alent %oint, taking into account an a%%ro"i*ation of the e"tra costs ofdisability, is actually 9(,++8 %er annu* n essence, Leonard Cheshire Disabilityould argue that e"isting %o&erty figures and *easures consistentlyunderesti*ate the le&els of disability %o&erty

1uch underesti*ates beco*e e&en *ore stark hen considered alongsidee"isting figures about disabled %eo%le li&ing in lo inco*e households $ figureshich do not e&en take account of any additional costs 'he folloing tableshos the %ercentage of disabled and non-disabled adults li&ing in lo inco*ehouseholds 'he figures, dran fro* the a*ily ;esources 1ur&ey, andre%roduced in the E; and ?P %o&erty re%orts, starkly illustrate the %re&alenceof lo inco*e a*ong disabled %eo%le in 2005H0(

• Percentage of disabled adults aged 25 to retire*ent li&ing in aged 25 to

retire*ent li&ing in lo inco*e households is 30:

• Percentage of non-disabled adults aged 25 to retire*ent li&ing in aged 25

to retire*ent li&ing in lo inco*e households is !(:



t is also i*%ortant to note that the 4%o&erty ga%4 beteen disabled and non-disabled %eo%le has actually been groing in recent years hilst the lo inco*erates for non-disabled %eo%le ha&e shon a steady donards trend, the ratesfor disabled %eo%le ha&e actually risen 'his 4%o&erty ga%4 is one of the starkestindicators of hy s%ecific action at go&ern*ental le&el is re.uired to tackle

disability %o&erty

=s stated %re&iously, these lo inco*e rates do not take any account of the factthat *any disabled %eo%le face e"tra costs on account of their i*%air*ent $ afact acknoledged in the De%art*ent for ork and Pensions4 *ost recent4>ouseholds )elo =&erage nco*e re%ort428 n 4Co*%aring inco*e hen needsdiffer4 <Faidi and )urchardt, 2003@ hen the additional costs of disability erefactored into a calculation of the %ercentage of disabled %eo%le li&ing belo the%o&erty line a staggering figure of (!: as reached Pro%erly *onitoringdisability %o&erty re.uires the go&ern*ent to %roduce for*al 4ad7usted4 figuresthat sho the genuine le&el of lo inco*e a*ong disabled %eo%le

=s ell as reco**ending that the go&ern*ent %roduce ad7usted figures,Leonard Cheshire Disability ould also reco**end that go&ern*ent *onitor thedirect i*%act of financial circu*stances 'his *eans asking %eo%le hether theyha&e e"%erienced %articular difficulties in certain key areas such as %aying bills,heating their ho*e or ha&ing to seek financial hel% fro* friends or fa*ily 1uch*easures offer the ad&antage of i*%licitly building in the e"tra costs of disabilityby e"a*ining the i*%act of lo inco*e, rather than si*%ly the e"tent of loinco*e 1uch data is not for*ally collected at %resent so Leonard CheshireDisability ould suggest so*e %ossible indicators in this area as follos6

B Could not afford to %ay a utility bill on ti*eJB ;egularly ent ithout *ealsJB 1ought financial hel% fro* friends or fa*ily

'hese are broad indicators of financial hardshi%, and ould %ro&ide a sense ofho disabled %eo%le4s financial ell-being is changing o&er ti*e Co*%aringres%onses for disabled and non-disabled %eo%le *ight also hel% to gi&e anindication of the i*%act of lo inco*e on different grou%s 1eeking financial hel%fro* friends or fa*ily *ay not be an o%tion for all, and so *onitoring trends inthis category *ay not be an effecti&e *easure of disability %o&erty in itself t*ight be the case that those in the greatest need are those ho are not able toseek assistance = co*%arison of data on this indicator beteen disabled andnon-disabled %eo%le ould, hoe&er, gi&e a strong indication of the e"tent tohich disabled %eo%le are forced to rely on su%%ort fro* others Collecting thisdata ould *ost easily be achie&ed through adding .uestions to the a*ily;esources 1ur&ey, or an e.ui&alent go&ern*ent sur&ey

-roposed disability poverty indicators . $inancial poverty and

28 1ee >ouseholds )elo =&erage nco*e re%ort 2005H0(, Cha%ter 5, %age 58



household income:

Leonard Cheshire Disability calls on the go&ern*ent to *onitor %rogressannually on the folloing key indicators of disability %o&erty6B Percentage of disabled %eo%le li&ing in lo inco*e households <belo (0: of

*edian household inco*e@, ith co*%arison data for the non-disabled%o%ulationJB Percentage of disabled %eo%le li&ing in lo inco*e households, ad7usted toincor%orate a&erage esti*ates of additional costs of li&ingJB Percentage of disabled %eo%le ho6-$ Could not afford to %ay a utility bill on ti*eJ-$ ;egularly ent ithout *ealsJ-$ 1ought financial hel% fro* friends or fa*ily

-olicy recommendations . income and $inancial poverty

#any of the *echanis*s that ill hel% tackle disability %o&erty are the sa*e asthose that ill hel% tackle %o&erty *ore broadly or e"a*%le, i*%ro&ing le&els ofe*%loy*ent and educational attain*ent across the K are uni&ersal targets forhel%ing to reduce relati&e %o&erty, and ould clearly also hel% to tackle disability%o&erty )ut the sheer scale of the ga% beteen disabled %eo%le and non-disabled %eo%le in ter*s of the likelihood of li&ing in financial %o&erty $ disabled%eo%le are tice as likely to li&e in lo inco*e households $ *eans that s%ecificaction to tackle disability %o&erty is des%erately needed

hilst there is already considerable e&idence to start this %rocess, there is also aclear need for e"tra infor*ation on disability %o&erty = first urgent ste% should be

for the go&ern*ent to establish a clear and functioning *echanis* for assessingthe e"tra costs that disabled %eo%le face 'his re%ort has used e"isting researchand current data to build toards an a%%ro"i*ation of the current situation, butthe go&ern*ent has the resources, and the urgent need, to reach a definiti&e*easure that can be built into its atte*%ts to tackle disability %o&ertyLeonard Cheshire Disability ould reco**end that the Affice of Disability ssues<AD@ should be charged ith researching and %roducing an acce%tedgo&ern*ent esti*ate for the e"tra costs of disability 'his in turn should be usedto de&elo% accurate *easure*ents of the true e"tent of disability %o&erty in theK by %roducing both standardised figures for the %ercentage of disabled %eo%leli&ing in lo inco*e and ad7usted figures that fully reflect the e"tra costs ofdisabilityDisability Li&ing =lloance <DL=@ is the %rinci%al benefit ai*ed at *eetingdisabled %eo%le4s e"tra costs of li&ing t is clear, hoe&er, fro* LeonardCheshire Disability4s research into debt and disabled %eo%le4s financialcircu*stances that for *any %eo%le the e"tra costs of disability are currently notfully *et by DL= DL= %ro&ides absolutely essential su%%ort for *any disabled%eo%le, but it needs to be strengthened to ensure that it is fit for %ur%ose and fully*eets the needs of all those that it is designed to su%%ort Gi&en this, Leonard



Cheshire Disability ould reco**end a full scale re&ie of Disability Li&ing =lloance to ensure that it still *eets the %ur%oses for hich it as intended1uch a re&ie should be %redicated on clear %rinci%les that no e"isting clai*antshould be disad&antaged by any changes, and on a clear, e&idence-basedunderstanding of the e"tra costs of disability

n 2005 Leonard Cheshire Disability %roduced a re%ort entitled 4n the balance42 hich e"a*ined disabled %eo%le4s e"%eriences of debt 'he re%ort found that for*any disabled %eo%le debt %roble*s de&elo%ed not as the result of e"cessi&es%ending on lu"ury ite*s, but through the si*%le fact that essential outgoingsere not *atched by inco*e 'his left *any %eo%le facing i*%ossible choices onessential e"%enditure, ha&ing to deter*ine hether to %ay for %hysiothera%y to*anage an i*%air*ent, or heating or other utility bills 4n the balance4 *ade anu*ber of key reco**endations to hel% address una&oidable debt a*ongstdisabled %eo%le = nu*ber of these reco**endations are also rele&ant in abroader effort to hel% end disability %o&erty

Leonard Cheshire Disability ould su%%ort the e"tension of the inter uel =lloance to disabled %eo%le under the age of (0 ho recei&e *iddle or higherrate care co*%onent, or higher rate *obility co*%onent, of DL= n the course ofthe research for the 4n the balance4 re%ort Leonard Cheshire Disability s%oke to anu*ber of %eo%le ho re%orted that they faced increased heating e"%ensesrelated to their i*%air*ent $ either because they ere *ore likely to be at ho*efor longer %eriods, or because their i*%air*ent re.uired the* to *aintain aconsistent te*%erature in their ho*e 'he follo-u% sur&ey to the !0 a*ily"%enditure 1ur&ey30 also su%%orts this %oint, finding that across the boarddisabled %eo%le face higher fuel costs than their non-disabled %eers, across

different inco*e brackets and e&en different degrees of se&erity of i*%air*ent"tending the inter uel =lloance ill hel% to *eet this need $ thego&ern*ent has esti*ated that the cost of such a change ould be around 9235*illion3! Leonard Cheshire Disability ould also %ress the case for refor* of the1ocial und to ensure that it better *eets the needs of disabled %eo%le li&ing ona lo inco*e 1uch refor* should include a broadening of eligibility criteria,refor* of re%ay*ent rates and an e"%ansion of both the Co**unity Care Grantsche*e and the discretionary fund

t ill also be i*%ortant to ensure that sche*es de&ised to enhance financialca%acity and hel% de&elo% financial inclusion are ade.uately targeted andaccessible for disabled %eo%le nitiati&es such as the inancial nclusion und*ust be effecti&ely targeted to reach disabled %eo%le $ this should include the%ro&ision of free debt ad&ice through ho*e &isits, here a%%ro%riate, to ensure afully accessible ser&ice

29 4n the balance6 disabled %eo%le4s e"%eriences of debt4, Claire Kober, Leonard Cheshire Disability, 2005

30 4Disability, household inco*e and e"%enditure6 a follo u% sur&ey of disabled adults in the a*ily "%enditure 1ur&ey4,

De%art*ent of 1ocial 1ecurity, ;esearch ;e%ort ?o 2, !031

;es%onse to a Parlia*entary uestion, >ouse of Co**ons Afficial ;e%ort, !!th ?o&e*ber 200+, Colu*n //



Summary o$ recommendations:

B De&elo% an acce%ted standard calculation for the e"tra costs of disability, andsubse.uent Ndisability ad7usted4 %o&erty statisticsJB ;e&ie the effecti&eness of DL= %redicated on continuing and enhanced

su%%ort for current reci%ients, and a clear e&idence base of e"tra costs andneedsJB "tend inter uel =lloance to disabled adults under the age of (0 in recei%tof certain %arts of DL=JB ;efor* the 1ocial und to ensure that it effecti&ely su%%orts disabled %eo%leon a lo inco*eJB De&elo% financial ca%acity and ad&ice %rogra**es to ensure the accessibilityof financial ser&ices to disabled %eo%le

Savins'ac&round and proposed indicators:

ncreasingly sa&ings and assets are considered to be an i*%ortant *onitor of thefinancial ellbeing of a household =ssets %ro&ide an i*%ortant fall-back shouldhousehold inco*e dro% at any %oint, as ell as offering stable and long-ter*financial security that inco*e alone does not guarantee

'here has already been recognition of the need to encourage sa&ing and asset-building a*ong lo inco*e households through go&ern*ent initiati&es like the41a&ings Gateay4 and there is a no ell established body of e&idence that%oints to the i*%ortance of assets as a *eans to lift %eo%le out of %o&erty

1o*e infor*ation on the le&els of sa&ings in the general %o%ulation is collated by?ational 1a&ings and n&est*ents <?1@ $ the go&ern*ent agency that runs thePre*iu* )onds sche*e and other sa&ings initiati&es Data collected by ?1found that !2: of %eo%le in the K ha&e no sa&ings32, and that the a&eragea*ount held in sa&ings, e"cluding %ensions, in autu*n 200( as 9!/,0M 33'here is also infor*ation on sa&ings collected through the a*ily ;esources1ur&ey n Leonard Cheshire Disability4s 4Disability ;e&ie 200/4 3+ +: ofres%ondents said that they had no sa&ings hilst there as a general trendsuggesting that older disabled %eo%le ere *ore likely to ha&e sa&ings, it asnotable that the nu*bers of those ithout any sa&ings as consistently loacross the entire sa*%le

'o find such high nu*bers of res%ondents ith no sa&ings is dee%ly concerning'he %rinci%al reason for lo le&els of sa&ing as lo inco*e $ res%ondents tothe sur&ey re%orted annual household inco*e far belo national a&erages )utthere *ay also be other factors that s%ecifically *itigate against disabled %eo%lebuilding u% assets and sa&ings =s ell as lo inco*e and lo le&els of32

?ational 1a&ings and n&est*ents, 4uarterly sa&ings sur&ey, 1u**er 200/433

?ational 1a&ings and n&est*ents, 4uarterly sa&ings sur&ey, =utu*n 200(434

4Disability ;e&ie 200/4, Laidler et al, Leonard Cheshire Disability, ?o&e*ber 200/



e*%loy*ent hich can restrict both sa&ing and ho*e onershi%, those disabled%eo%le ho recei&e social care *ight be dissuaded fro* sa&ing by charging%olicies that can see assets taken to %ay for social care costs hate&er thereasons behind lo le&els of sa&ing, the figures re%resent an i*%ortant indicatorof disability %o&erty

f the safety net of sa&ings is not a&ailable for such large sathes of the disabled%o%ulation, then urgent action is re.uired to encourage sa&ing a*ong disabled%eo%le, and to ensure that any societal or %olicy barriers to sa&ing that e"ist arere*o&ed

nco*e is a %rinci%al indicator of both relati&e and absolute %o&erty $ it featureshigh a*ong the resources that an indi&idual has to su%%ort the*sel&es )utsa&ings also re%resent a critical %art of those resources = lack of sa&ings is astrong *easure of enduring %o&erty and, con&ersely, ha&ing a fir* base ofassets is a good indicator of relati&e financial security =ssets tend to %ro&ide a

le&el of %rotection fro* the *ost e"tre*e degrees of %o&erty and sociale"clusion 'herefore, Leonard Cheshire Disability ould reco**end that?ational 1a&ings and n&est*ents, or another a%%ro%riate agency, s%ecificallycollect data on disabled %eo%le4s sa&ings and assets, or that a%%ro%riateinfor*ation gathered through the a*ily ;esources 1ur&ey be s%ecificallyanalysed by i*%air*ent

-roposed disability poverty indicators . savins:

Leonard Cheshire Disability calls on the go&ern*ent to *onitor %rogressannually on the folloing key indicators of disability %o&erty6

B Percentage of disabled %eo%le ith sa&ingsJB Percentage of disabled %eo%le ith bank accountsJB =&erage a*ount held as sa&ings by disabled %eo%le

-olicy recommendations . savins

'he i*%ortance of the financial security that can be offered by assets has beenrecognised in go&ern*ent initiati&es on asset-based elfare, such as the Child'rust und, hich su%%ort %eo%le through the long-ter* build u% of assets, rather than through i**ediate res%onses to lo inco*e Gi&en that disabled %eo%le aretice as likely to li&e in lo inco*e households, land that so*e can face s%ecificdisincenti&es to sa&ing <outlined later in this section@, the need s%ecifically toaddress assets and sa&ings in the conte"t of disability %o&erty is clear

n the course of Leonard Cheshire Disability4s %re&ious ork on disability anddebt35 e s%oke to a nu*ber of %eo%le hose financial circu*stances hadchanged irre&ocably ith the onset of their i*%air*ent or those %eo%le forcedto lea&e ork hen they ac.uire an i*%air*ent, or their i*%air*ent orsens,

35 4n the balance6 disabled %eo%le4s e"%eriences of debt4, Claire Kober, Leonard Cheshire Disability, 2005



there is al*ost alays an acco*%anying dro% in inco*e Aften %artners are alsoforced to lea&e e*%loy*ent to beco*e carers, leading to a further dro% ininco*e #itigating against the *assi&e i*%acts of such changes re.uires aelfare benefit syste* that ill offer a suitable safety net and long-ter* su%%ort,as ell as a syste* that encourages and assists e&eryone to build a strong asset

base

Leonard Cheshire Disability ould ad&ocate the de&elo%*ent of a 4Disability1a&ings Gateay4 as an asset-based elfare initiati&e to hel% %ro&ide this alli*%ortant safety net

'he 1a&ings Gateay sche*e is an ># 'reasury initiati&e that %ro&ides, for ali*ited %eriod, *atched funding to encourage %eo%le to sa&e 'hus far thesche*e has o%erated in to %ilots, hich ha&e offered either a %ound for %oundsa&ings contribution fro* the go&ern*ent, or a *eans-tested &ariable *atchingrate 'he sche*e has been based on need, offering *atched sa&ings only for

those on lo inco*es for ho* accruing assets is *ore difficult

hether further ork is undertaken on the 1a&ings Gateay %ro7ect at a nationalle&el or not, Leonard Cheshire Disability ould *ake the case for a s%ecific4Disability 1a&ings Gateay4 1uch a sche*e ould su%%ort and encouragedisabled %eo%le on lo inco*es to sa&e, through the tangible benefit of *atchedfunding fro* the go&ern*ent ligibility for the gateay could be deter*inedthrough recei%t of Disability Li&ing =lloance, and could also, if the go&ern*entdee*ed it necessary, be *eans-tested to focus on those li&ing on the loestinco*es

=t the &ery least any further de&elo%*ent of the 1a&ings Gateay %ro7ect shouldbe undertaken ith a clear intention to *ake the %ro7ect fully accessible todisabled %eo%le 'his ould *ean orking ith local organisations of disabled%eo%le, financial ad&ice organisations and others to ensure that infor*ation andser&ices related to the 1a&ings Gateay %ro7ect are fully accessible to alldisabled %eo%le

=ny such sa&ings sche*e, hoe&er, could %otentially face difficulties ino&erco*ing the disincenti&es to sa&e that are %resent in the current social carecharging syste*

1ocial care, unlike health care through the ?ational >ealth 1er&ice, is *eans-tested 'his *eans that disabled %eo%le ho do recei&e so*e for* of assessedsocial care su%%ort fro* their local authority ill ha&e their inco*e and assetstaken into account hen ho *uch they ill ha&e to %ay toards their care isdeter*ined $ by and large, the greater their sa&ings, the *ore they ha&e to %ay'he anless ;e&ie of social care undertaken by the King4s und identified thisdisincenti&e to sa&e as one of the key %roble*s ith the current social carecharging syste*, and %ro%osed a nu*ber of different charging solutions to



re*o&e it3( )ut, hilst the %ros%ect of losing the assets accrued o&er life to %ayfor care in old age could dissuade so*e fro* sa&ing, for younger disabled adultsho recei&e social care su%%ort throughout life there is a risk that the chargingsyste* can be a %er*anent barrier to sa&ing

'ackling this disincenti&e and ensuring that disabled %eo%le ho re.uire socialcare throughout life do not face a barrier to sa&ing re.uire a holesale re-e"a*ination of the ay in hich social care is funded 'he anless ;e&ieoffered a nu*ber of alternati&e funding syste*s, including free %ersonal care forolder %eo%le, as in 1cotland, and the 4%artnershi% a%%roach offering a basic le&elof su%%ort free, ith the %ossibility of 4to%%ing u%4 care %ackages LeonardCheshire Disability ould su%%ort the e"tension of free %ersonal care for alldisabled %eo%le across the hole K as a crucial *eans of hel%ing to tackledisability %o&erty e recognise, hoe&er, that in the current funding cli*atethere see*s little %ros%ect of this ha%%ening 'his *eans that the go&ern*ent4sannounce*ent, in the Co*%rehensi&e 1%ending ;e&ie 200/, of a consultation

on the future funding structure of social care could not be *ore ti*ely 'here&ie should be %redicated on the %rinci%le that this disincenti&e to sa&e *ustbe re*o&ed, to ensure that users of social care en7oy the sa*e rights to sa&e asthe rest of the %o%ulation

Leonard Cheshire Disability also belie&es that there is a role for banks andlenders in facilitating sa&ing and asset-building a*ongst disabled %eo%le on loinco*es inancial institutions *ust *ake their facilities fully accessible, both inter*s of access to %re*ises and in ter*s of co**unication and direct interactionith custo*ers Leonard Cheshire Disability4s recent 41%ending %oer4 re%ortfound a nu*ber of obstacles that still confront disabled %eo%le trying to access

financial ser&ices, fro* inaccessible cash *achines, to a reluctance to offeralternati&e Chi% and 1ignature cards for those ho cannot use Chi% and P? 3/Clear guidance for financial institutions on orking ith disabled custo*ers andensuring the accessibility of their ser&ices should be built into the )anking Code,or %roduced by o&er-arching grou%s ithin the financial sector such as the )ritish)ankers =ssociation and the inance and Leasing =ssociation


B ntroduce a 4Disability 1a&ings Gateay4, and de&elo% a s%ecific strategy toensure that disabled %eo%le are fully included in any future de&elo%*ent of the1a&ings Gateay sche*eJB ;e&ie the i*%act of social care charging %olicy on disability %o&erty, includingreco**endations for tackling the sa&ings disincenti&eJB De&elo% guidance for financial institutions to ensure that they are fully *eetingtheir obligations under the Disability Discri*ination =ct and are *aking theirser&ices fully accessible to disabled %eo%le

36 41ecuring good care for older %eo%le4, Derek anless, King4s und, 200(

37 1%ending Poer6 disabled %eo%le4s e"%eriences of accessing and s%ending their *oney4, Lee ebster, Leonard

Cheshire Disability, 200/



Employment /ates'ac&round and proposed indicators

'he correlation beteen being out of ork and being in %o&erty is ell

established hilst the elfare benefits syste* orks to %ro&ide a safety net forthose out of ork, it does not %ro&ide a route out of %o&erty &en those benefitsintended for those ho cannot ork do not generally %ro&ide an inco*e to lift%eo%le abo&e the relati&e lo inco*e line Gi&en this, e*%loy*ent ratesre%resent an i*%ortant indicator of %o&erty

*%loy*ent rates re%resent a %articularly critical factor in understandingdisability %o&erty n their %o&erty re%ort in 200( the E; and ?P re%orted thatthe *ain reason that disabled orking-age adults are *ore likely to be in loinco*e households is because they are less likely to be in orkM 38 n otherords, the continuing disad&antage that disabled %eo%le face in the 7obs *arket

is a %rinci%al factor in the *assi&e dis%arity that sees disabled %eo%le tice aslikely to li&e in lo inco*e households as non-disabled %eo%le

'he e*%loy*ent rate a*ong disabled %eo%le currently stands at about 50:,and, hilst this has been rising sloly in recent years, it still falls far short of theo&erall e*%loy*ent rate in the K

Percentage in ork36 Long $ ter* disabled %eo%leJ 50+: ?on $ disabled%eo%leJ 802:

Challenging this huge dis%arity in le&els of e*%loy*ent, hilst also better

su%%orting those disabled %eo%le ho are not e"%ected to ork, ill be a criticalste% in ending disability %o&erty

'o hel% in&estigate the reasons behind the substantial dis%arity in e*%loy*entrates, Leonard Cheshire Disability research conducted in 1cotland looked atdiscri*ination in the recruit*ent %rocess or the 4Discri*ination doesn4t ork4 +0 re%ort Leonard Cheshire Disability researchers sub*itted to a%%lications toaround !00 7ob ad&ertise*ents at a range of large and s*all e*%loyers 'hea%%lications ere essentially identical in skills and e"%erience a%art fro* the factthat one declared an i*%air*ent at the outset, hilst the other did not 'heresults hel% highlight the ende*ic disad&antage that disabled %eo%le face in thelabour *arket, together ith the continuing %re7udice a*ongst e*%loyers, bothlarge and s*all

38 4#onitoring %o&erty and social e"clusion 200(4, Pal*er, #acnnes and Kenay, Eose%h ;ontree oundation and ?e

Policy nstitute, 200(, as shon at htt%6HH%o&ertyorgukH2+Hinde"sht*l+39

ro* the Labour orce 1ur&ey, as %resented in the Disability ;ights Co**ission 4Disability )riefing #ay 200/4, D;C,

#ay 200/40

4Discri*ination doesn4t ork4, #ac;ae and La&erty, Leonard Cheshire Disability, 200(






'he 4non-disabled a%%licant4 recei&ed tice as *any res%onse letters as the4disabled a%%licant4 .ually, hen a res%onse as recei&ed the 4non-disableda%%licant4 as tice as likely to be in&ited to inter&ie as the 4disabled a%%licant4"a*%les of the res%onses gi&en included one here the non-disabled a%%licantas in&ited to inter&ie, hilst the disabled a%%licant as ad&ised that the %ost

had been filled internally

'he continuing barriers to ork for disabled %eo%le are clearly de*onstrated bydata fro* the Labour orce 1ur&ey, as %resented by the E; and ?P, hichshos that the %ro%ortion of %eo%le ho are not in ork, but ant ork, isconsistently higher for disabled %eo%le than non- disabled %eo%le <see belo@+!6

Af those hose highest le&el of .ualification is higher education !+: areecono*ically inacti&e but ant ork <ith a ork $ li*iting disability@ and +: areecono*ically acti&e but ant ork <ithout a ork $ li*iting disability@

Af those hose highest le&el of .ualification is GC = Le&el or e.ui&alent 2!:are econo*ically inacti&e but ant ork <ith a ork $ li*iting disability@ and 5:are econo*ically acti&e but ant ork <ithout a ork $ li*iting disability@

Af those hose highest le&el of .ualification is GC1 Grades =-C or e.ui&alent25: are econo*ically inacti&e but ant ork <ith a ork $ li*iting disability@and /: are econo*ically acti&e but ant ork <ithout a ork $ li*itingdisability@

Af those ho had no .ualifications 2(: are econo*ically inacti&e but ant ork<ith a ork $ li*iting disability@ and !+: are econo*ically acti&e but ant ork

<ithout a ork $ li*iting disability@

*%loy*ent rates can also &ary drastically beteen i*%air*ent ty%es $ as setout belo, deri&ed fro* the Labour orce 1ur&ey+26

'he e*%loy*ent rate of all disabled %eo%le in Great )ritain is 50:'he e*%loy*ent rate of %eo%le ith %roble*s ith ar*s, hands <includingarthritis or rheu*atis*@ is 52:'he e*%loy*ent rate of %eo%le ith %roble*s ith legs or feet is +(:'he e*%loy*ent rate of %eo%le ith %roble*s ith back or neck is +:'he e*%loy*ent rate of %eo%le ith difficulty in seeing is +/:'he e*%loy*ent rate of %eo%le ith difficulty in hearing is (3:'he e*%loy*ent rate of %eo%le ith skin conditions or allergies is /2:'he e*%loy*ent rate of %eo%le ith chest or breathing %roble*s is (+:'he e*%loy*ent rate of %eo%le ith heart %roble*s or blood %ressure is 5:'he e*%loy*ent rate of %eo%le ith sto*ach, li&er, kidney or digestion %roble*sis (!:

41 #onitoring %o&erty and social e"clusion 200(4, Pal*er, #acnnes and Kenay, Eose%h ;ontree oundation and ?e

Policy nstitute, 200(, as shon at htt%6HH%o&ertyorgukH2+Hinde"sht*l+42

ro* the Labour orce 1ur&ey, e"tracted fro* Disability ;ights Co**ission 4Disability )riefing4, D;C, #ay 200/






'he e*%loy*ent rate of %eo%le ith diabetes is (8:'he e*%loy*ent rate of %eo%le ith *ental illness is 22:'he e*%loy*ent rate of %eo%le ith e%ile%sy is ++:'he e*%loy*ent rate of %eo%le ith learning difficulties is 23:Progressi&e illnesses not elsehere classified <eg cancer, #1@ 3/:

'he e*%loy*ent rate of %eo%le ith other %roble*s or disabilities is 5(:

;ecent ork on areas such as elfare refor* has targeted increasing thee*%loy*ent rate a*ongst disabled %eo%le f refor*s to the elfare benefitsyste* can genuinely su%%ort disabled %eo%le back into ork then they ill beelco*ed, but they *ust also focus on a%%ro%riate su%%ort for those ho cannotork and on the role of e*%loyers in tackling barriers to ork

t is i*%erati&e that the go&ern*ent, in addition to its co**it*ent to trying toincrease the e*%loy*ent rate a*ong disabled %eo%le, ensure that there is alsobetter su%%ort for those ho are not e"%ected to ork 'here is already a strong

base of statistics on disability and e*%loy*ent collected by go&ern*ent, notablythrough the Labour orce 1ur&ey, and Leonard Cheshire Disability ould e"%ectthis data collection to continue 'he s%ecific indicators for disability %o&erty thatLeonard Cheshire Disability ould suggest are listed belo

-roposed Disability -overty Indicators . employment rates:

Leonard Cheshire Disability calls on the go&ern*ent to *onitor %rogressannually on the olloing key indicators of disability %o&erty6B *%loy*ent rate a*ong disabled %eo%le, broken don by i*%air*ent grou%JB Percentages of orking age disabled %eo%le $

a@ n orkJb@ ?ot in ork, but looking for orkJc@ ?ot in ork, and not looking for ork

-olicy recommendations . employment rates

'he E; and ?P studies into %o&erty in the K identified that disabled %eo%le4slo e*%loy*ent rte as the %ri*ary factor that contributed to disabled %eo%le4s%ro%ortionately loer inco*e+3 ncreasing the e*%loy*ent rate a*ong disabled%eo%le is, therefore, one of the *ost i*%ortant *easures in tackling disability%o&erty t is i*%ortant, hoe&er, to ensure that ork o%%ortunities are*eaningful, sustainable and a%%ro%riate, and that the right su%%ort is gi&en to allthose disabled %eo%le ho are not able to enter full-ti*e e*%loy*ent 1o*e ofthese issues are tackled in later sectionsJ this section ill focus s%ecifically on*easures to i*%ro&e the e*%loy*ent rate of disabled %eo%le

'he elfare ;efor* =ct 200/ is a central %art of the go&ern*ent4s dri&e toincrease the e*%loy*ent rate of disabled %eo%le n %articular the =ct ai*s to get43

4#onitoring %o&erty and social e"clusion 200(4, Pal*er, #acnnes and Kenay, Eose%h ;ontree oundation and ?e

Policy nstitute, 200(



! *illion reci%ients of nca%acity )enefit back to ork 'he =ct ill re%lacenca%acity )enefit <)@ ith a ne *%loy*ent and 1u%%ort =lloance <1=@hich ill include a higher rate to hel% su%%ort those ho cannot ork, togetherith %otential sanctions for those ho refuse to %artake in return to ork acti&ityn tande* ith this ne benefit the Pathays to ork sche*e, hich currently

o%erates only in certain %arts of the K, ill be rolled out nationide

Leonard Cheshire Disability has alays argued that if the ne benefit syste* canacti&ely su%%ort disabled %eo%le to return to a%%ro%riate ork and thus challengedisability %o&erty, hilst also better su%%orting those ho cannot ork, then it illbe broadly su%%orted e do, hoe&er, re*ain concerned about a nu*ber of%otential issues in the =ct such as the %ro%osed sanction regi*e, changes to theassess*ent for the ne 1= that *ight further tighten eligibility criteria and thetraining, su%%ort and guidance a&ailable to Eobcentre Plus staffLeonard Cheshire Disability ould like to see the 4annual re&ie4 that as agreedto in the elfare ;efor* =ct gi&en a broad re*it, fro* a %osition of

inde%endence fro* go&ern*ent, to assess the i*%act and effecti&eness of thene syste*, ith a %articular focus on disability %o&erty

'here is also little in the elfare ;efor* =ct that deals ith the role of e*%loyersin i*%ro&ing the e*%loy*ent rate of disabled %eo%le et this re*ains anabsolutely crucial area, ith negati&e e*%loyer attitudes a significant factor inli*iting disabled %eo%le4s e*%loy*ent o%%ortunities++ Leonard CheshireDisability su%%orts current go&ern*ent initiati&es to engage *ore ith e*%loyerst is i*%ortant that e*%loyers of all siIes recognise not only the %ositi&e benefitsof e*%loying disabled %eo%le, but also their legal res%onsibilities under theDisability Discri*ination =ct #uch *ore ork is, hoe&er, still needed in this

area 'o hel% %ro*ote the acti&e duty of e*%loyers to *ake reasonablead7ust*ents for disabled e*%loyees or 7ob candidates, Leonard CheshireDisability ould like to see the antici%atory duty that a%%lies to the %ro&ision ofgoods and ser&ices e"tended to e*%loy*ent 'his ould re.uire e*%loyers toantici%ate disabled %eo%le4s re.uire*ents in ad&ance and ad7ust their %racticesaccordingly, rather than si*%ly reacting to %roble*s hen they occur

#any disabled %eo%le are forced to lea&e ork hen they ac.uire an i*%air*entor find that their i*%air*ent orsens 'his can lead not only to a significantorsening in their %ersonal circu*stances, and a %ossible drift into %o&erty, butalso a significant i*%act on the state through the loss in ta" re&enue and outlayin out-of-ork benefits n *any cases, hoe&er, a %eriod of rehabilitation,offering enough ti*e for both an indi&idual and an e*%loyer to ad7ust, could%re&ent %eo%le fro* ha&ing to gi&e u% ork 'he financial benefits of this, for theindi&idual, the e*%loyer and the state, are clear Leonard Cheshire Disabilityould, therefore, ad&ocate the introduction of a syste* of 4rehabilitation lea&e4 tobetter su%%ort those ho ac.uire an i*%air*ent to stay in ork = recent Pri&ate

44 Leonard Cheshire Disability4s 4Discri*ination doesn4t ork4 re%ort found that hen to near identical a%%lications ere

sub*itted in res%onse to a 7ob ad&ert, ith one fro* a candidate declaring a disability, and one not, the non-disabledcandidate as in&ited to around tice as *any inter&ies



#e*bers )ill on this issue+5 as introduced into Parlia*ent by Eohn ;obertson#P and as ell recei&ed, although it as not ulti*ately %assed, and e ouldstrongly su%%ort *easures to introduce a syste* si*ilar to that outlined in this)ill e ould argue that the initial costs of su%%orting %eo%le to takerehabilitation lea&e ould be off-set in the long-ter* through the %otential to sa&e

costs in %aying longer-ter* out of ork benefits and *aintain ta" benefits

=s ith the need to re&ie the social care charging syste* to understand andchallenge any disincenti&e to sa&e, any barriers to ork that e"ist in the currentcharging syste* *ust also be in&estigated Currently, for e"a*%le, those holi&e in residential care, %aid for by the state, can be acti&ely dissuaded fro*orking, as any inco*e they recei&e could %otentially be taken toards %ayingfor their care, lea&ing %eo%le orse off than if they had re*ained out of ork'he De%art*ent of >ealth4s Charging for ;esidential =cco**odation Guide doessuggest a route round this issue in section 5005, here it states that a %ersonale"%enses alloance can be &aried for6

5Someone %ho does not 3uali$y as a 6less dependent6 residentsolely because he lives in reistered private or voluntary sectoraccommodation or in local authority accommodation %hereboard is provided and there$ore cannot be assessed under therules described in Section 2 but %ho nonetheless needs toretain more o$ his income in order to help him lead a moreindependent li$e $or example i$ he is %or&in07,8

'his guidance is largely discretionary for local authorities, hoe&er, and is notidely recognised Leonard Cheshire Disability calls for this guidance to be

strengthened and a clearer duty %laced on local authorities to ensure that usersof residential care do not face an added disincenti&e to ork


B ;e&ie the long-ter* effecti&eness of *easures contained in the elfare;efor* =ct 200/ in tackling disability %o&ertyJB nsure that e*%loyers are adhering to their res%onsibilities under the DD=,and e"tend the antici%atory duty to *ake reasonable ad7ust*ents toe*%loy*entJB ntroduce a syste* of 4rehabilitation lea&e4 to hel% %eo%le ho ac.uire ani*%air*ent to re*ain in e*%loy*entJB 1trengthen residential care charging guidance to re*o&e any disincenti&e toork for users of residential care su%%ort

#ypes o$ %or&'ac&round and proposed indicators:

45 or *ore infor*ation see details at6 htt%6HH%ublications%arlia*entukH%aH%abillsH200(0/He*%loy*entQretentionht*

46 4Charging for ;esidential =cco**odation Guide4, 200/ edition, %age 2!, De%art*ent of >ealth

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/pabills/200607/employment_retention.htm





'he barriers that can %re&ent disabled %eo%le fro* entering the ork%lace canalso ser&e to hold back disabled %eo%le looking for %ro*otion or ad&ance*ent inork An a&erage disabled %eo%le earn less %er hour than their non-disabled%eers, and are *ore likely to be in loer le&el and %art-ti*e %ositions 'his,

cou%led ith the additional costs of *anaging i*%air*ents that *any disabled%eo%le face, *eans that %articular attention *ust be gi&en to *onitoring the%re&alence of 4in-ork %o&erty4 a*ong disabled %eo%le

= non-disabled %erson4s inco*e fro* ork *ight *ean that their householdinco*e is abo&e the (0: of *edian inco*e threshold $ yet it is clear that ithonly a s*all ad7ust*ent for additional costs a disabled %erson ith the sa*einco*e could fall beneath this le&el 'his *eans that, ha&ing co&ered theiressential, una&oidable costs, there ould be an increased chance of a disabled%erson li&ing belo the %o&erty line des%ite being in ork ork can also be ani*%ortant factor in an indi&idual4s .uality of life, e&en lea&ing aside the financial

benefits of being in e*%loy*ent hilst recognising that for so*e disabled%eo%le ork *ay not be an a%%ro%riate or desirable outco*e, for *any %eo%le itcan %ro&ide social netorks, a strong sense of %ur%ose and engage*ent ithco**unities ork *ust not be considered the only *ark of contributing tosociety, but for *any %eo%le it does re%resent an i*%ortant &alidation and anend-result of education, skills and training )ut this %ositi&e i*%act is di*inishedby the fact that disabled %eo%le re*ain *ore likely than non-disabled %eo%le tobe in loer %aid 7obs, or to be in %art-ti*e ork

Current trends indicate that disabled %eo%le are both *ore likely to be out ofork e&en if they ha&e a high le&el of education, and also *ore likely to be in

loer %aid ork 'he Labour orce 1ur&ey collects data on both educationalattain*ent and e*%loy*ent rates for %eo%le of orking age, and the folloingdata sets out the e*%loy*ent rates for disabled and non-disabled %eo%le,according to the highest le&el of .ualification attained+/6

Af those hose highest .ualification is a degree or e.ui&alent, the e*%loy*entrate for disabled %eo%le is /5/:, and for non- disabled %eo%le is 88:

Af those hose highest .ualification is higher education, the e*%loy*ent rate for disabled %eo%le is (/2:, and for non- disabled %eo%le is 88(:

Af those hose highest .ualification is GC = Le&el or e.ui&alent, thee*%loy*ent rate for disabled %eo%le is 55:, and for non- disabled %eo%le is8!(:

47 Data dran fro* the Labour orce 1ur&ey, as %resented in the Disability ;ights Co**ission4s 4Disability )riefing4,

D;C, #ay 200/



Af those hose highest .ualification is GC1 grades =-C or e.ui&alent, thee*%loy*ent rate for disabled %eo%le is 5(:, and for non- disabled %eo%le is/8:

Af those hose highest .ualification is another .ualification, the e*%loy*ent rate

for disabled %eo%le is +8/:, and for non- disabled %eo%le is ///

Af those ho had no .ualifications, the e*%loy*ent rate for disabled %eo%le is232:, and for non- disabled %eo%le is (0!:

'he total e*%loy*ent rate for disabled %eo%le is 50+: and for non $ disabled%eo%le is 802:

;es%ondents to Leonard Cheshire Disability4s 4Disability ;e&ie 200/4 ereasked about their current ork situation Des%ite a relati&ely high le&el ofeducational attain*ent a*ong res%ondents, le&els of e*%loy*ent ere &ery lo

Af those ho ere in ork, or had been in the last !2 *onths, (!: ofres%ondents stated that they re.uired a s%ecial ad7ust*ent in order to carry outtheir %resent 7ob !0: of these res%ondents said that their e*%loyers hadrefused to su%%ly such an ad7ust*ent, and, of those, 2+: said that they had tolea&e their e*%loy*ent as a result +!: of res%ondents ho ere ine*%loy*ent stated that they had e"%erienced discri*ination or %re7udice in theork%lace

=chie&ing e.uality ithin the labour *arket re.uires ork to ensure thate*%loyers both understand and ork ithin the ter*s of the DisabilityDiscri*ination =ct and ensuring that >; and recruit*ent %ractices do not

routinely discri*inate .uality ithin the ork%lace is as i*%ortant for the long-ter* goal of i*%ro&ing disabled %eo%le4s life chances as increasing the o&eralle*%loy*ent rate a*ong disabled %eo%le

=s ith o&erall e*%loy*ent rates, *uch infor*ation on disabled %eo%le4s %ositionithin the orkforce is collected through the go&ern*ent4s Labour orce 1ur&eyLeonard Cheshire Disability ould reco**end that *onitoring of the ty%e ofork undertaken by disabled %eo%le continues along ith *onitoring of disabled%eo%leOs a&erage inco*es fro* ork

-roposed disability poverty indicators . types o$ %or&:Leonard Cheshire Disability calls on the go&ern*ent to *onitor %rogressannually on the folloing key indicators of disability %o&erty6B Percentage of disabled %eo%le in %art-ti*e ork, together ith co*%arison fornon-disabled %eo%leB =&erage gross hourly %ay for disabled %eo%le, together ith co*%arison fornon-disabled %eo%le

-olicy recommendations . types o$ %or&:



'he e"tra costs of disability and the subse.uent %otential for in-ork %o&erty*ean that it is essential to ensure that there is e.uity across the hole orld ofork, not si*%ly in initial recruit*ent 'ackling in-ork %o&erty ill re.uire actionfro* go&ern*ent both to challenge negati&e attitudes and to ensure that su%%ort

through benefits like Disability Li&ing =lloance ade.uately *eets disabled%eo%le4s needs 'here is also a crucial role for e*%loyers in i*%ro&ingrecruit*ent %ractices, building accessibility into the ork%lace and acting on their res%onsibilities under the la

'he =ccess to ork sche*e %ro&ides &ital su%%ort to disabled e*%loyees andtheir e*%loyers 'he go&ern*ent-funded sche*e can *eet the costs of theadditional su%%ort needed for eligible disabled e*%loyees to enter and re*ain ine*%loy*ent et, des%ite this, recent re%orts sho that /+: of e*%loyers ha&enot heard of the sche*e+8, and Leonard Cheshire Disability4s 4Disability ;e&ie200/4+ re%orted that al*ost half of those disabled %eo%le ho did not recei&e

=ccess to ork su%%ort hilst in ork ere *issing out because they had ne&erheard of the sche*e

'here is a clear econo*ic case for the go&ern*ent to e"tend the sche*e $ fore&ery 9! s%ent on =ccess to ork an a&erage of 9!+8 is recou%ed in ta" and ?contributions50 Leonard Cheshire Disability belie&es that the go&ern*ent should,as a %riority, de&elo% an aareness raising ca*%aign ai*ed at e*%loyers toencourage the recruit*ent of disabled %eo%le, highlight the su%%ort a&ailablethrough =ccess to ork and de*onstrate the benefits to their business thatdisabled %eo%le bring

#echanis*s for *aking =ccess to ork su%%ort *ore %ortable, so that %ackagescan be transferred fro* 7ob to 7ob, should also be in&estigated as a %riority $ itshould be %ossible, for e"a*%le, for an indi&idual in recei%t of nca%acity )enefitto be able to look for ork in the certain knoledge that an =ccess to ork%ackage ill be a&ailable for the* hen they do get into ork

olloing the introduction of the Disability .uality Duty on %ublic authorities5!, =ccess to ork su%%ort has been ithdran fro* central go&ern*entde%art*ents, ith the long-ter* %olicy ai* of ithdraing the fund entirely fro*%ublic authority e*%loyers 1erious concerns re*ain, hoe&er, about hetherthe sa*e degree of su%%ort offered through =ccess to ork ill continue to be*ade a&ailable for all disabled e*%loyees in the %ublic sector 'he Disability.uality Duty <DD@ does not co**it %ublic sector e*%loyers to %ro&iding as%ecific le&el of su%%ort for disabled e*%loyees, so relying on the DD effecti&ely

48 )arriers to *%loy*ent for Disabled Peo%le4, Goldstone, #eager, ?AP Consu*er and the nstitute for *%loy*ent

1tudies,DP re%ort ?o 5, 200249

4Disability ;e&ie 200/4, Laidler et al, Leonard Cheshire Disability, ?o&e*ber 200/50

4=ccess to ork for Disabled Peo%le4, Disability *%loy*ent Coalition, Actober 200+51

'he Disability .uality Duty as introduced through the Disability Discri*ination =ct 2005 and %laces a duty on all

%ublic authorities to %ro*ote e.uality of o%%ortunity for disabled %eo%le



to re%lace =ccess to ork su%%ort is dangerous Leonard Cheshire Disabilityould argue that it ould be far better si*%ly to e"%and the sche*e, gi&en theclear econo*ic benefits, rather than restrict the a&ailability of =ccess to ork inthe ho%e that it ill reach *ore %eo%le in the %ri&ate sector

ithin the syste* of out-of-ork benefits it ill also be i*%ortant to *onitor%ro%erly the ty%e and sustainability of ork into hich disabled %eo%le *o&ehen lea&ing benefits =t %resent the success of return to ork acti&ity in thebenefits syste* is essentially 7udged on hether an indi&idual lea&es benefitsand %rogresses into ork 'o %ro&ide a fair assess*ent of the success of a returnto ork, *onitoring should in&ol&e deter*ining the nature of the ork, and%articularly the long-ter* sustainability of the ork #o&ing a reci%ient off ) to a

7ob that they are forced to lea&e after only a short ti*e because it is ina%%ro%riateshould not be considered a successful outco*e


B ;aise aareness of, and increase funding for, the =ccess to ork sche*e, andin&estigate routes for *aking =ccess to ork su%%ort *ore 4%ortable4JB #onitor the i*%act of the ithdraal of =ccess to ork fro* centralgo&ern*ent and re&erse the ithdraal if necessaryJB nsure that the *onitoring undertaken hen %eo%le *o&e fro* benefits in toork fully ca%tures the long-ter* sustainability and .uality of e*%loy*ent, not

7ust the fact that an indi&idual has taken a 7ob

'ene$it ta&e(up'ac&round and proposed indicators:

elfare benefits re%resent both a ay to *easure and a %otential *echanis* for challenging disability %o&erty n the general %o%ulation the u%take of *eans-tested benefits such as nco*e 1u%%ort can be a &ery good indicator of le&els of%o&erty Care *ust be taken, hoe&er, hen using benefits to assess disability%o&erty, as there are a nu*ber of benefits for hich a disability is an integral.ualifying condition hich are not inco*e related 'herefore the u%take of thebenefit can re%resent an indicator of the nu*ber of disabled %eo%le *ore than as%ecific indicator of %o&ertyt is also i*%ortant to consider the o&erall le&els of 4take-u%4 of benefits =reas inhich there are large nu*bers of %eo%le eligible for benefits, but ho are notclai*ing the*, can also correlate ith areas of %articular %o&erty = deter*ineddri&e to ensure that %eo%le clai* their entitle*ents is one of the first and *ost%roducti&e *easures that should be undertaken in order to challenge disability%o&erty $ there are undoubtedly *any %eo%le ho could be su%%orted bybenefits, but ho are si*%ly not aare, or not *inded, to clai* 52

52 igures on take-u% rates are not collected for all benefits, but infor*ation on inco*e-related benefits can be found at6

htt%6HHd%go&ukHasdHirbas%

http://www.dwp.gov.uk/asd/irb.asp





t is i*%ortant also to note that di*inishing nu*bers of clai*s are not aguaranteed indicator of i*%ro&e*ents in the le&el of disability %o&erty ore"a*%le, as %art of the %ackage of changes set out in the elfare ;efor* =ct,ad7ust*ents ha&e been %ro%osed to the Personal Ca%ability =ssess*ent that isthe eligibility test for nca%acity )enefit <and, in the future, the ne *%loy*ent

and 1u%%ort =lloance@ 'hese changes could *ean that nu*bers clai*ingbenefits ill be reduced si*%ly by a tightening of eligibility criteria $ such a *o&e,far fro* indicating a decrease in disability %o&erty, could, unless considerablei*%ro&e*ents in e*%loy*ent rates are achie&ed, actually ser&e to %ush *ore%eo%le toards %o&erty t ill be critically i*%ortant, therefore, to follo thei*%act of the elfare ;efor* =ct $ if it can hel% to su%%ort *any *ore disabled%eo%le into a%%ro%riate long-ter* ork, then it ill no doubt be 7udged to ha&ehad a substantial %ositi&e i*%act on disability %o&erty

Key benefits that ill i*%act on disability %o&erty include6 nco*e 1u%%ort,nca%acity )enefit, Disability Li&ing =lloance and =ttendance =lloance 1o*e

current u%take figures are gi&en in the folloing tables

Disability Li&ing =lloance is an i*%ortant benefit for *any disabled %eo%le t isbroken don into to %arts, care co*%onent and *obility co*%onent, ith anu*ber of differing rates for each co*%onent igures on the nu*bers ofreci%ients, broken don by aard ty%e, are as follos 536

'he total caseload for higher ;ate Care Co*%onent is (30,(20, for higer rate*obility co*%onent the caseload is ++8,!+0 (30,(20, for loer rate *obilityco*%onent the caseload is !+!,+00 and for nil rate *obility co*%onent thecaseload is +!,080

'he total caseload for #iddle ;ate Care Co*%onent is 08,50, for higher rate*obility co*%onent the caseload is +!(,00, for loer rate *obility co*%onentthe caseload is 380,30 and for nil rate *obility co*%onent the caseload is!!!,!20

'he total caseload for Loer ;ate Care Co*%onent is /(,/0, for higher rate*obility co*%onent the caseload is385,530, for loer rate *obility co*%onentthe caseload is !5/,000, for nil rate *obility co*%onent the caseload is 22/,++0

'he total caseload for ?il ;ate Care Co*%onent is 53(,2!0, for higher *obilityco*%onent the caseload is +3(,/20, for loer rate *obility co*%onent thecaseload is ,+80

nca%acity benefit <including 1e&ere Disable*ent =lloance@, take-u% figures,broken don by aard ty%e and length of clai*5+6

53 ro* DP tabulation tool, figures for ?o&e*ber 200(J

htt%6HH!3!!5!522!H!00%cHdlaHcare%ayHcc*ob%ayHaQcarateQrQcare%ayQcQcc*ob%ayQno&0(ht*l

http://193.115.152.21/100pc/dla/carepay/ccmobpay/a_carate_r_carepay_c_ccmobpay_nov06.html

http://193.115.152.21/100pc/dla/carepay/ccmobpay/a_carate_r_carepay_c_ccmobpay_nov06.html



'here are !+!,000 cases lasting u% to 3 *onths'here are !!!,00 cases lasting 3 *onths u% to ( *onths'here are !+/,+0 cases lasting ( *onths u% to ! year'here are 238,80 cases lasting ! year and u% to 2 years'here are 5/+,8+0 cases lasting 2 years and u% to 5 years

'here are !,500,380 cases lasting 5 years and o&er'he total nu*ber of clai* cases is 2,/!+,50

nca%acity benefit, reasons for clai*556

'here are !,!02,550 cases for *ental and beha&ioural disorders'here are !((,2+0 cases for diseases of the ner&ous syste*'here are 2!2,880 cases for diseases of the Circulatory or ;es%iratory 1yste*'here are +8/,80 cases for diseases of the #usculoskeletal syste* andConnecti&e 'issue'here are !5!,!/0 cases for in7ury, Poisoning and certain other conse.uences of

e"ternal causes'here are 5+,2!0 cases for other reasons'he total nu*ber of cases is 2,/!+,50

nco*e su%%ort take-u% figures, broken don ty%e of clai*5(6

'here are !,200,880 cases for nca%acity benefits'here are //5,(20 cases for Lone Parent su%%ort'here are 83,+/0 cases for Carer su%%ort'here are 8!,00 cases for others on inco*e related benefit'he total nu*ber of cases is 2,!+!,50

Peo%le ith a disability or long-ter* health condition *ake u% a huge %ro%ortionof those recei&ing out of ork benefits $ around three *illion out of around fi&e*illion hilst recei%t of disability benefits is not in itself an indication of %o&erty,the fact that *any of those ho rely long-ter* on benefits are disabled %eo%le,and that those benefits are not sufficient to su%%ort %eo%le out of %o&erty, doesre%resent an i*%ortant factor in the o&erall %icture of disability %o&erty

=s *entioned %re&iously in this re%ort, Leonard Cheshire Disability is concernedthat the e"tra costs of disability are si*%ly not co&ered by e"isting e"tra costbenefits such as DL= 'his *eans that disabled %eo%le can be %laced at an

54 "tracted fro* De%art*ent for ork and Pensions tabulation tool, figures for ?o&e*ber 200(6

htt%6HH!3!!5!522!H!00%cHibsdaHctdurtnHccbencodHaQcarateQrQctdurtnQcQccbencodQno&0(ht*l55

"tracted fro* the De%art*ent for ork and Pensions tabulation tool, figures for ?o&e*ber 200(6

htt%6HH!3!!5!522!H!00%cHibsdaHicdg%su**HccbencodHaQcarateQrQicdg%su**QcQccbencodQno&0(ht*l56

"tracted fro* the De%art*ent for ork and Pensions tabulation tool, figures for ?o&e*ber 200(6

htt%6HH!3!!5!522!H!00%cHisHccstatg%HctdurtnHaQcarateQrQccstatg%QcQctdurtnQno&0(ht*l

http://193.115.152.21/100pc/ibsda/ctdurtn/ccbencod/a_carate_r_ctdurtn_c_ccbencod_nov06.html

http://193.115.152.21/100pc/ibsda/icdgpsumm/ccbencod/a_carate_r_icdgpsumm_c_ccbencod_nov06.html

http://193.115.152.21/100pc/is/ccstatgp/ctdurtn/a_carate_r_ccstatgp_c_ctdurtn_nov06.html

http://193.115.152.21/100pc/ibsda/ctdurtn/ccbencod/a_carate_r_ctdurtn_c_ccbencod_nov06.html

http://193.115.152.21/100pc/ibsda/icdgpsumm/ccbencod/a_carate_r_icdgpsumm_c_ccbencod_nov06.html

http://193.115.152.21/100pc/is/ccstatgp/ctdurtn/a_carate_r_ccstatgp_c_ctdurtn_nov06.html



i**ediate financial disad&antage and is likely to set in stone the fact thatdisabled %eo%le are o&er-re%resented on al*ost any e"isting %o&erty indicator'here is a clear need for the go&ern*ent to undertake research to *ake anaccurate assess*ent of disabled %eo%le4s e"tra costs of li&ing and ensure thatDL=, or any other %otential e"tra cost benefits, ade.uately reflect these costs

#onitoring the nu*bers of reci%ients of benefits is an i*%ortant staring %oint forindicators in these areas Leonard Cheshire Disability is assu*ing that such*onitoring ill continue as no, but in order to generate a fuller %icture e alsosuggest so*e additional indicators belo

-roposed disability poverty indicators . 'ene$it ta&e(up:

Leonard Cheshire Disability calls on the go&ern*ent to *onitor %rogressannually on the folloing key indicators of disability %o&erty6B sti*ates of take-u% for disability related benefits <including Disability Li&ing

=lloance@JB Disabled %eo%le4s e"%eriences of the benefits syste*, including o&erallsatisfaction, decision *aking, benefit le&els co*%ared to outgoings, effecti&enessof return to ork su%%ort <here a%%ro%riate@, *onitored through a sub7ecti&esur&ey

-olicy recommendations . 'ene$it ta&e(up

elfare benefits should %lay a crucial role in su%%orting those on lo inco*esout of %o&erty, in *atching the e"tra costs of disability and in %ro&iding a safetynet for those hose circu*stances change

n %articular the benefits syste* needs to ork *uch better for those furthestfro* the labour *arket 'he Disability ollo % to the a*ily "%enditure1ur&ey5/ %ublished in !0 shoed that those in the highest se&erity category ofi*%air*ent ere faced ith the loest likelihood of being in e*%loy*entco*bined ith the highest e"tra costs of disability 'he elfare benefits syste**ust be calibrated %ro%erly to su%%ort this grou% $ it *ust ensure that no-one isritten off, but also ensure that those for ho* a return to ork is %articularlydifficult should not si*%ly be left to languish in %o&erty

'hose disabled %eo%le for ho* a return to ork is not considered a reasonablee"%ectation are also likely to be those ho face the greatest additional costs ofli&ing through *anaging their i*%air*ent )enefits such as Disability Li&ing

=lloance <DL=@ can hel% to co&er so*e of the e"tra costs that disabled %eo%lecan face, but Leonard Cheshire Disability4s 4n the balance458 re%ort found thatDL= all too often failed to co&er all additional costs 'his can lea&e indi&idualsith no recognisable route out of %o&erty other than through fa*ily, friends or

57 4Disability, household inco*e and e"%enditure6 a follo u% sur&ey of disabled adults in the a*ily "%enditure 1ur&ey4,

De%art*ent of 1ocial 1ecurity, ;esearch ;e%ort ?o 2, !058

4n the balance6 disabled %eo%le4s e"%eriences of debt4, Claire Kober, Leonard Cheshire Disability, 2005



charity Leonard Cheshire Disability ould argue that, if disability %o&erty is to beaddressed, then significantly *ore *ust be done for those ho cannot ork andare forced to rely on benefits t cannot be acce%table si*%ly to conde*n thisgrou% to inesca%able %o&erty

'he ne *%loy*ent and 1u%%ort =lloance <1=@ created in the elfare;efor* =ct 200/ ill ha&e a higher rate for those not e"%ected to undertakereturn to ork acti&ity $ this rate *ust be sufficient to ork in tande* ith otherbenefits such as DL= acti&ely to lift disabled %eo%le fro* %o&ertyLeonard Cheshire Disability suggests that a re&ie of ho the benefits syste*orks for those ho are not e"%ected to return to e*%loy*ent be undertaken, asat %resent there are serious concerns that *any could si*%ly be left tra%%ed ininesca%able %o&erty

'he role of *onitoring the refor* of ), and of looking at broader issues, such asthe le&el of DL=, could be effecti&ely carried out by a elfare Co**ission 'he

introduction of a elfare Co**issioner as %ro%osed by a recent ork andPensions 1elect Co**ittee re%ort,5 and Leonard Cheshire Disability ouldstrongly su%%ort such a %ro%osal = Co**ission, functioning in a si*ilar ay tothe Pensions Co**ission, ould be able to ork closely ith go&ern*ent, butalso retain a degree of inde%endence to *onitor de&elo%*ents in elfare %olicyeffecti&ely

Ane key area of benefit %ro&ision that re.uires urgent attention is the .uality ands%eed of decision *aking hilst conducting research for our 4n the balance4re%ort(0, hich looked at disability and debt, Leonard Cheshire Disability s%oke toa nu*ber of %eo%le hose debt %roble*s had begun hen there had been a

change in their benefit circu*stances Ane res%ondent4s e"%erience, fore"a*%le, as as follos6

B a decision as *ade that the indi&idual as no longer eligible for benefitsJB benefit %ay*ents ere then sto%%edJB the for*er reci%ient found that they could no longer *eet their outgoingsJB they ere forced into borroing *oney and getting into debtJB benefits ere ulti*ately re-instated on a%%eal, but the indi&idual as nofacing %roble* debt'his se.uence of e&ents outlines the *assi&e significance of the .uality ofdecision *aking in the benefits syste* =t %resent around half of a%%eals againstbenefit decisions for DL= and ) are successful $ suggesting that there areserious %roble*s ith the standard of initial decision *aking Leonard CheshireDisability ants to see a s%ecific focus on this area, including re&ies of bothtraining and %rocedures for benefit decision-*aking 'he *ethods by hiche&idence is gathered for decisions on ) <and in the future 1=@ are currentlybeing re&ieed as %art of the follo-u% to the elfare ;efor* =ct $ this is a

59 1ee 4Conclusions and reco**endations4, 4ork and Pensions $ 1e&enth ;e%ort4, ork and Pensions 1elect

Co**ittee, Euly 200/60

4n the balance6 disabled %eo%le4s e"%eriences of debt4, Claire Kober, Leonard Cheshire Disability, 2005



elco*e de&elo%*ent Leonard Cheshire Disability also suggests that the%rocess of a%%eals is re&ieed, to ensure that, hilst necessary decisions canstill be taken, there is %erha%s an e"tra o%%ortunity for clai*ants to challengedecisions, before benefits are sto%%ed

Considerable *edia attention is often gi&en to the issue of benefit fraud, throughregular %ress stories, a go&ern*ent *edia ca*%aign and regular %olicyinitiati&es hilst, of course, it is i*%ortant that fraud is tackled, figures ha&econsistently suggested that the a*ount lost in fraud is less than the a*ount thatgoes unclai*ed by those ho are entitled(! 'his could lead to an indi&idualending u% li&ing in %o&erty, or *issing out on the o%%ortunity to recei&e return toork su%%ort, si*%ly because they are unaare of, or are unilling to clai*, their entitle*ent because of the %ercei&ed stig*a and negati&e %erce%tions of thoseho clai* disability benefits =ll clai*ants should recei&e clear and conciseinfor*ation about their benefits, including an auto*atic 4benefit check4 confir*ingtheir entitle*ents across the syste*, and an acti&e *edia ca*%aign is needed to

ensure that those ho re.uire the su%%ort of benefits, but do not clai* the*, areaare of their entitle*ents


B ndertake a re&ie of 4benefit %o&erty4 and ho the syste* functions for long-ter* clai*ants ho are not e"%ected to return to orkJB stablish a 4elfare co**ission4 to o&ersee de&elo%*ents in elfare benefit%olicyJB *%ro&e decision-*aking in the benefits syste*, including a *ore for*alo%%ortunity to a%%eal before benefits are sto%%edJ

B Pro&ide a 4benefit check4 for reci%ients to establish their full entitle*ents, andan acti&e ca*%aign to engage ith those ho need, but currently do not clai*,their entitle*ents

)ccommodation'ac&round and proposed indicators:

1helter4s 4Chance of a lifeti*e4 re%ort(2, hich looked at the i*%act of %oor .ualityhousing on children, found that loer educational attain*ent, greater likelihoodof une*%loy*ent, and %o&ertyM could all result fro* lo .uality housing Disabled%eo%le can face additional barriers in finding suitable acco**odation $ not onlyis there a .uestion of affordability, but also accessibility

>o*e onershi% offers strong %rotection fro* %o&erty $ this is one reason hythe go&ern*ent is increasingly, and correctly, e"a*ining the %rinci%les of 4asset-based elfare4 hen the state can su%%ort indi&iduals to build u% assets it canoffer the* a %oerful buffer against %o&erty ?ational statistics currently esti*ate

61 1ee 4nco*e related benefits esti*ates of take-u% in 2005-0(4, DP %ress release, 1e%te*ber 200/ for *ore

infor*ation about the scale of under-clai*ing in the *eans-tested benefits syste*62

4Chance of a lifeti*e6 the i*%act of bad housing on children4s li&es4, Lisa >arker, 1helter, 1e%te*ber 200(



that around /0:(3 of the %o%ulation as a hole on their on ho*es, hilst only55:(+ of those disabled %eo%le ho re.uire ada%ted housing on theirs

Disabled %eo%le are tice as likely to li&e in social housing as non-disabled%eo%le(5 +2: of housing association households contain so*eone ith a long-

ter* health condition or i*%air*ent((

'his is not only an indicator that they are*ore likely to li&e in %o&erty, but also that %o&erty *ay be harder to esca%e thanfor those ho are able to fall back on assets, such as their on ho*e

= recent re%ort fro* the De%art*ent of Co**unities and Local Go&ern*entfound that 25:(/ of those ho need ada%ted housing in ngland are currentlyli&ing in unsuitable housing 1o*e disabled %eo%le ill re.uire no ada%tations totheir ho*e, others *ay need s*all ada%tations $ *aybe a ra*% u% to the frontdoor, others ill need significant ada%tations $ such as installing a donstairsbathroo* Li&ing in a ho*e ithout a%%ro%riate ada%tations can seriouslyda*age .uality of life, li*it o%%ortunities for social interaction and effecti&ely

*ake so*e roo*s unusable

= lack of accessible housing in a neighbourhood can also cause significant%roble*s for those ho ac.uire an i*%air*ent or hose i*%air*ent orsensithout a%%ro%riate accessible housing stock a&ailable *any disabled %eo%lecan be forced to stay in hos%ital hilst aiting for ada%tations to their ho*e to be*ade or suitable alternati&e acco**odation found t can also lead to youngdisabled %eo%le li&ing in older %eo%le4s nursing ho*es because there is noaccessible and affordable housing a&ailable nearby

or those ho cannot ork or are on lo inco*es other %roble*s can also arise

Peo%le li&ing in older %ro%erties ith single glaIing, for e"a*%le, can face%articular difficulties in the inter *onths in *aintaining a ho*e at a constantte*%erature 1o*e i*%air*ents can be aggra&ated by the cold and can be*anaged by kee%ing the ho*e at a constant te*%erature $ but in %oorlyinsulated ho*es this can %ro&e %rohibiti&ely e"%ensi&e

1ources of infor*ation on housing differ across the nations of the K, de%endingon hether housing is a de&ol&ed issue #ost of our indicators could be*onitored relati&ely easily through the 1ur&ey of nglish >ousing, and could alsotherefore be co&ered by si*ilar sur&eys in other nations nderstanding thei*%act of housing on disability %o&erty *eans e"a*ining both disabled %eo%le4sle&els of ho*e onershi% as ell as the a&ailability of %ro%erly accessiblehousing

63 htt%6HHstatisticsgo&ukHCCHnuggetas%DR!!05PosR(Col;ankR2;ankR22+


65 4Disability =genda $ creating an alternati&e future4, Disability ;ights Co**ission, 200/

66 =s re%orted in the >ousing =ssociation 4Disability .uality 1che*e and =ction Plan, 200( $ 04, >ousing =ssociation,

200(67

>ousing in ngland 2005H0( $ a re%ort %rinci%ally fro* the 2005H0( 1ur&ey of nglish >ousing4, DCLG, Actober 200/

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/CCI/nugget.asp?ID=1105&Pos=6&ColRank=2&Rank=224





-roposed disability poverty indicators . accommodation:

Leonard Cheshire Disability calls on the go&ern*ent to *onitor %rogressannually on the folloing key indicators of disability %o&erty6B Percentage of disabled %eo%le ho on their on ho*es, together ith a

co*%arison for non-disabled %eo%leJB Percentage of disabled %eo%le li&ing in social housing, together ith aco*%arison for non-disabled %eo%leJB Percentage of disabled %eo%le li&ing in acco**odation that falls belo the setstandard of decency, together ith co*%arison for non-disabled %eo%leJB ?u*ber of disabled %eo%le ho re.uire ada%ted ho*es currently li&ing inina%%ro%riate housingJB Percentage of ho*es built to Lifeti*e >o*e 1tandards each year

-olicy recommendations . accommodation

'he standard and a&ailability of acco**odation are *aterial factors in disability%o&erty 'ackling current %roble*s re.uires a coherent strategy both to increasethe stock of accessible, affordable acco**odation, and also to ensure that hataccessible housing stock is a&ailable can be *atched to those that need it

t is orth noting that for *any disabled %eo%le the difficulties in accessinga%%ro%riate acco**odation are e"actly the sa*e as for the ider %o%ulation $ itis a relati&ely s*all %ro%ortion of the !! *illion disabled %eo%le in the K thatould re.uire substantially ada%ted ho*es 'he links beteen disability and%o&erty, hoe&er, and the increased likelihood of those ith long-ter* healthconditions or i*%air*ents li&ing on loer inco*es *ean that difficulties in finding

affordable housing can be e"acerbated Leonard Cheshire Disability elco*esgo&ern*ent initiati&es on affordable housing, but ould suggest that e"traattention be %aid to the %ro&ision of good .uality accessible social housingDisabled %eo%le are tice as likely as non-disabled %eo%le to li&e in socialhousing, and %oor .uality or lo le&els of %ro&ision ill therefore ha&e adis%ro%ortionate i*%act on disability %o&erty

=cross all ty%es of housing there is a need to *ake sure not only that there isenough a&ailable stock of accessible and ada%ted ho*es, but also that ada%tedho*es can be *ade a&ailable to those that need the* =t %resent it is still far tooco**on for young disabled adults to end u% li&ing in older %eo%le4s nursingho*es, si*%ly because it is not %ossible to *atch the* ith a%%ro%riateaccessible housing 'he de&elo%*ent of a nationide syste* of accessiblehousing registers is the first and *ost ob&ious ste% to hel% i*%ro&e this situation

=ccessible housing registers ould hel% local authorities and other sociallandlords not only to *aintain clear records of the accessible and ada%ted ho*esithin their area, but also to *atch disabled %eo%le ho need ada%tedacco**odation ith the right housing 1o*e local authorities *aintainaccessible housing registers, but they are a *inority Leonard Cheshire



Disability ants to see a duty on all local authorities to de&elo% and *aintain anaccessible housing register

Leonard Cheshire Disability ould also ad&ocate the ado%tion of the Lifeti*e>o*e 1tandards ithin K building regulations 'he Lifeti*e >o*e 1tandards

are a set of building guidelines that ere de&elo%ed by the E; and hichensure not only that ne-build houses are *ore accessible, but also that they are*ore easily ada%table to future needs(8 'he accessibility of ne-build %ro%erty inthe K is currently co&ered by the Part # building regulations, and, hilst theseregulations ha&e already hel%ed to %roduce considerable strides forard inaccessibility, Leonard Cheshire Disability ould ad&ocate that they be e"%andedto *atch all the Lifeti*e >o*e 1tandards Leonard Cheshire Disability elco*esthe co**it*ent fro* the De%art*ent of Co**unities and Local Go&ern*entthat all ne social housing built ith go&ern*ent *oney ill be built to Lifeti*e>o*e 1tandards fro* 20!! onards(

'he go&ern*ent currently intends to include Lifeti*e >o*e 1tandards in its%ro%osed code for sustainable ho*es, but the ado%tion of Lifeti*e >o*e1tandards ould not be *andatory 'he go&ern*ent has said that it ould like tosee the nu*ber of %ri&ate ho*es built to Lifeti*e >o*e 1tandards increase, butit is currently unilling to regulate Leonard Cheshire Disability is concerned thatithout regulation the nu*ber of %ri&ate ho*es built to Lifeti*e >o*e1tandards ill not increase substantially and that the 3 *illion ne ho*es thatthe go&ern*ent has %ro%osed be built o&er the ne"t !0 years ill not be asaccessible and easily ada%table as should be the case

'he recent 4ra*eork for airness4/0 Green Pa%er includes a %ro%osal to e"tend

the right of disabled %eo%le to re.uest ada%tations to the 4co**on %arts4 ofrented %re*ises 'he %ro%osal ould bring this area of the la into line ithlegislation for other areas of a ho*e Leonard Cheshire Disability &ery *uchelco*es this %ro%osal, although it is orth obser&ing that it ould still be theres%onsibility of indi&idual tenants to %ay for ada%tations, and that a%%ro%riatesu%%ort needs to be a&ailable to enable the* to do so


B nsure that the need to increase a&ailability of ada%ted and accessible socialhousing is integral to housing %olicy de&elo%*entJB stablish a duty on local authorities to create and *aintain an accessiblehousing registerJ

68 #ore infor*ation on Lifeti*e >o*e 1tandards can be found through the Eose%h ;ontree oundation at

htt%6HH7rforgukHhousingandcareHlifeti*eho*esH69

4'he future of the Code for 1ustainable >o*es6 *aking a rating *andatory4, De%art*ent of Co**unities and Local

Go&ern*ent Euly 200/70

4Discri*ination La ;e&ie6 = ra*eork for airness6 Pro%osals for a 1ingle .uality )ill for Great )ritain $ =

consultation %a%er4, De%art*ent of Co**unities and Local Go&ern*ent, Eune 200/



B "tend Part # building regulations to *atch the Lifeti*e >o*e 1tandards,%articularly urgent for all ne-build social housingJB =do%t the %ro%osal in the 4ra*eork for airness4 Green Pa%er on rights forada%tations in 4co**on %arts4 of %re*ises

Educational )ttainment'ac&round and proposed indicators:

hilst, of course, the le&el of .ualifications that an indi&idual attains is far fro*the only deter*ining factor in the indi&idual4s future %ros%ects, it is clear fro*a&ailable statistics that life chances and educational attain*ent are closelylinked = London 1chool of cono*ics re%ort into the links beteen educationand social e"clusion found that educational .ualifications sho a clear andstrong relationshi% to e&ery single adult *easure of disad&antage at ages 23 and33M/! 'his is su%%orted by the .ualities ;e&ie/2, hich found that not being ine*%loy*ent, education and training for si" *onths or *ore beteen !( and !8 is

the single *ost %oerful %redictor of une*%loy*ent at age 2!, and is therefore%articularly significant in e"%laining hy so*e young %eo%le *ake lesssuccessful transitions to adult, and orking, lifeM

'he fact, therefore, that disabled %eo%le face a continuing dra*atic ga% in le&elsof educational attain*ent co*%ared to non-disabled %eo%le is critical in furtheringour understanding of disability %o&erty

'he infor*ation belo outlines le&els of educational attain*ent across theorking age %o%ulation/3

Af those hose highest .ualification is a degree or e.ui&alent !!: are disabled%eo%le and 2!: are non- disabled %eo%le

Af those hose highest .ualification is higher education /: are disabled %eo%leand 8: are non $ disabled %eo%leAf those hose highest .ualification is GC = Le&el or e.ui&alent 2!: aredisabled %eo%le and 2+: are non $ disabled %eo%le

Af those hose highest .ualification is GC1 grades =-C or e.ui&alent 2!: aredisabled %eo%le and 23: are non-disabled %eo%le

Af those hose highest .ualification is another .ualification !+: are disabled%eo%le and !2: are non-disabled %eo%le

71 4'he ;oles of 1chooling and ducational ualifications in the *ergence of =dult 1ocial "clusion4, Eohn >obcraft,

C=1 Pa%er +3, L1, Dece*ber 200072

4airness and freedo*6 the final re%ort of the .ualities ;e&ie4, Cabinet Affice, 200/73

Data fro* the Labour orce 1ur&ey, e"tracted fro* Disability ;ights Co**ission 4Disability )riefing #ay 200/4, D;C,

#ay 200/



Af those ho ha&e no .ualification 25: are disabled %eo%le and !!: are non-disabled %eo%le

=t !( young disabled %eo%le are tice as likely not to be in any for* ofeducation, e*%loy*ent or training as their non-disabled %eers <!5: as o%%osed

to /:@/+

hilst the ga% in educational attain*ent for disabled %eo%le continues,the %ercentage of 7obs re.uiring no .ualification is decreasing, and the nu*ber of 7obs re.uiring degree le&el education <or e.ui&alent@ is increasing 'he nstitutefor Public Policy ;esearch has %redicted that by 2020 al*ost half of alle*%loy*ent ill be in occu%ations re.uiring this higher le&el of educationalattain*ent/5

'here are *any issues that *ight hel% e"%lain the skills ga% that e"ists fordisabled %eo%le 'hese can range fro* %hysical barriers in educationalestablish*ents to lo e"%ectations or negati&e attitudes about disabled %eo%le4sabilities

;es%ondents to Leonard Cheshire Disability4s 4Disability ;e&ie 200/4 ereasked a nu*ber of .uestions about their e"%eriences of education, including bothin a 4s%ecial school4 en&iron*ent, and in *ainstrea* schooling Af all thoseres%ondents ho had ac.uired their i*%air*ent before school6B +8: stated that as a conse.uence of their disability it had taken the* longerthan their non-disabled %eers to reach their %resent le&el of attain*entJB 38: indicated that as a result of their disability their teachers had loere"%ectations of the*JB 5!: found that their choice of sub7ects and or courses as restricted becauseof their i*%air*entJ

B 53: said that they had e"%erienced discri*ination or %re7udice in theeducation syste*

Challenging the ine.uities that still e"ist ithin the education syste* ill becrucial to *aking a lasting difference to disability %o&erty hilst disabled %eo%lecontinue to face negati&e e"%ectations and barriers to engage*ent in theeducation syste*, the cycle of disability %o&erty ill %ro&e difficult to break

1o*e figures on educational attain*ent for the orking age %o%ulation arecollected through the Labour orce 1ur&ey and this data could be used to*onitor %rogress on disability %o&erty Leonard Cheshire Disability ould alsosuggest that so*e ork be undertaken to e"a*ine the i*%act of education onfuture life chances for disabled %eo%le, %articularly in the ork%lace

-roposed disability poverty indicators . educational attainment:

74 4Disability, skills and ork6 raising our a*bitions4 1te%hen &ans, 1ocial #arket oundation, Eune 200/

75 4Disability 20206 o%%ortunities for full and e.ual citiIenshi% of disabled %eo%le in )ritain in 20204 Pillai et al, PP;, #arch

200/



Leonard Cheshire Disability calls on the go&ern*ent to *onitor %rogressannually on the folloing key indicators of disability %o&erty6B Le&el of educational attain*ent a*ong disabled %eo%le, together ithco*%arison for non-disabled %eo%leJB Percentage of disabled %eo%le ith no .ualifications, together ith co*%arison

for non-disabled %eo%le

-olicy recommendations . educational attainment

= fair and accessible education syste* is one of the first ste%s toards a fair andinclusi&e society, yet for *any disabled %eo%le barriers and obstacles in theeducation syste* can lead to long-ter* restrictions on their life choices andchances ducation is a tool hich can and *ust be used to hel% break the cycleof %o&erty

;ecent figures ha&e shon that ha&ing a degree ill add an a&erage of 9!(0,000

earnings o&er a %erson4s orking life

/(

)ut, ith young disabled %eo%le aged !(to 2+ currently tice as likely as their non-disabled %eers to be 4not in education,e*%loy*ent or training4//, it is clear that continuing barriers in the educationsyste* are a key factor in %ushing disabled %eo%le toards %o&erty #ore *ustbe done firstly to ensure that the attain*ent ga% is reduced, and also that thoseho find that for*al education hasn4t orked for the* are able to access othero%%ortunities for training or e"%erience

=s a starting %oint Leonard Cheshire Disability ould suggest that all staffin&ol&ed in the deli&ery of education %rogra**es should be ell &ersed in the%rinci%les of disability e.uality, and that disability e.uality issues should beincluded in the de&elo%*ent of all education %olicy and %ractice at both local and

national le&els

Disabled %eo%le in school are less likely to take %art in ork %lace*ents or orke"%erience %rogra**es/8 ith uni&ersities increasingly using such sche*es as%art of ad*ission %olicies, there can be a long-ter* i*%act ste**ing fro* this'he barriers hich can %re&ent disabled %eo%le fro* undertaking suche"%erience *ust be addressed

t is also critical that careers ad&ice ser&ices offer ade.uate su%%ort to disabled%u%ils = lack of knoledge or training in disability for career ad&isers can be asignificant factor in li*iting the chances and choices for disabled %eo%le to gainuseful ork e"%erience #onitoring the effecti&eness of the ser&ice offered bycareer ad&isers to disabled %eo%le *ight hel% to ensure that the ser&ice de&elo%sand i*%ro&es o&er ti*e

76 4'he econo*ic benefits of a degree4, ni&ersities K, ebruary 200/

77 4Disability, skills and ork6 raising our a*bitions4 1te%hen &ans, 1ocial #arket oundation, Eune 200/

78 ritten anser in the 1cottish Parlia*ent, !2th ebruary 200/, .uestion nu*ber 12-3!(+5



Leonard Cheshire Disability belie&es that disability e.uality issues should for*%art of ?ational Curriculu* citiIenshi% classes CitiIenshi% classes areco*%ulsory at secondary school le&el, and ensuring that all children at this le&elrecei&e an education that addresses disability e.uality ould go so*e ay toaddressing a continuing lack of understanding around disability in the K today


B nsure that all le&els of education $ and %articularly higher education, heredisabled %eo%le4s inclusion is notably lo $ are fully accessible to disabled%eo%leJB nsure that all education %rofessionals recei&e full disability e.uality trainingJB nsure that disability e.uality issues are integrated into citiIenshi% classes as%art of the ?ational Curriculu*

*uality o$ +i$e

'ac&round and proposed indicators:

hilst financial %o&erty is, of course, a crucial as%ect of disability %o&erty, it isclear that *oney is not the only indicator of an indi&idual4s .uality of life "isting%o&erty indicators, such as those used in the De%art*ent for ork and Pensions44A%%ortunity for all4/ re%orts, look, for e"a*%le, at fear of cri*e a*ong older%eo%le as a relati&e indicator of %o&erty ear of cri*e is, of course, not in itselfan indicator of a lack of financial ell being, but %o&erty is not si*%ly aboutfinances, it is about .uality of life, %ersonal circu*stances and life chances

'here are nu*erous co*%onents that contribute to an indi&idual4s .uality of life

=ccording to a re%ort by 'he cono*ist

80

, all of the folloing indicators arerele&ant to o&erall life satisfaction6

B #aterial ell beingJB >ealthJB a*ily relationsJB 1ocial and co**unity acti&itiesJB Eob security

#any of these are co&ered in %re&ious indicators and so this section focuses onengage*ent in ci&ic and social life as ell as the barriers to inclusion that canste* fro* negati&e attitudes and lo e"%ectations

Leonard Cheshire Disability4s 4Disability ;e&ie 200/48! asked a nu*ber of.uestions ai*ed at gathering e&idence about %eo%le4s life e"%eriences and &ieson .uality of life 'he folloing infor*ation sets out the res%ondents4 general &ieof their .uality of life679 1ee for e"a*%le, 4A%%ortunity for all6 indicators u%date 200/4, DP, Actober 200/

80 econo*istco*H*ediaH%dfH=L'QAQL%df


http://www.economist.com/media/pdf/QUALITY_OF_LIFE.pdf





!/: of res%ondents ere &ery satisfied ith life+2: of res%ondents ere .uite satisfied ith life!8: of res%ondents ere neither satisfied nor dissatisfied !8:!5: of res%ondents ere .uite dissatisfied

/: of res%ondents ere &ery dissatisfied2: of res%ondents did not kno

1i*ilar .uestions ere asked in a recent De%art*ent for the n&iron*ent, oodand ;ural =ffairs sur&ey82 hich looked at broad issues of satisfaction ith life nthis sur&ey, hich looked at the hole %o%ulation rather than any %articulargrou%, around three-.uarters </3:@ of res%ondents rated their o&erall lifesatisfaction at / or *ore out of !0 'his co*%ares to only 5: of res%ondents inLeonard Cheshire Disability4s 4Disability ;e&ie 200/4 ho stated that they ereeither N&ery satisfiedO or NsatisfiedO ith their o&erall .uality of life

'he &ast *a7ority </8:@ of res%ondents in Disability ;e&ie 200/ said that theyfelt their i*%air*ent, or barriers resulting fro* their i*%air*ent, had li*ited theirlife o%%ortunities n %ractice this *eans that the &ast *a7ority of disabled %eo%lestill feel that there are barriers to inclusion ithin society hilst such barriersre*ain it is likely that disabled %eo%le4s %o&erty of o%%ortunity ill ne&er beco*%letely o&erco*e

;es%ondents to Leonard Cheshire Disability4s sur&ey ere also asked aboutcri*e and fear of cri*e !: of res%ondents stated that they had been a &icti*of cri*e during the last tel&e *onths hilst these figures are si*ilar to o&erallnational figures, it is orth noting that 8: of res%ondents re%orted that they had

been a &icti* of cri*e *oti&ated by their disability or i*%air*ent 'his figureindicates that cri*e *oti&ated by i*%air*ent can be a significant %roble* andcould add significantly to o&erall e"%eriences of social e"clusion

= re%ort %roduced by the Disability ;ights Co**ission found that disabled%eo%le of all ages find o%%ortunities to %artici%ate constrained by fear or reality of harass*ent and the failure of cri*inal 7ustice agencies to offer fair redress 'hisincludes bullying of disabled children and abuse of disabled adults in theco**unity and ithin ser&ices that are *eant to su%%ort the*M83

nderstanding the disabling i*%act of negati&e %reconce%tions and attitudesabout disabled %eo%le, and a*ong disabled %eo%le the*sel&es, is crucial toassessing the e"tent of disability %o&erty

82 41ur&ey of )eha&iours and =ttitudes4, D;=, 200/ htt%6HHdefrago&ukHnesH200/H0/0/2/bht*

83 4Disability =genda $ creating an alternati&e future4, Disability ;ights Co**ission 200/

http://www.defra.gov.uk/news/2007/070727b.htm

http://www.defra.gov.uk/news/2007/070727b.htm



'he *ost recent )ritish 1ocial =ttitudes ;e%ort <)1=;@ <;igg, 200/@8+ foundcontinuing negati&e res%onses toards disability #ost %eo%le </5:@ felt thatthere as %re7udice against disabled %eo%le in )ritain today $ but only 25:thought that there is a lot of %re7udice n Leonard Cheshire Disability4s sur&ey ofdisabled %eo%le the figures ere higher on both counts, ith 8/: feeling that

there as %re7udice against disabled %eo%le and 3: belie&ing that there as alot of %re7udice

?egati&e attitudes or lo e"%ectations ill re%resent a huge barrier to reducingine.ualities in any field, including the labour *arket and education #onitoringsociety4s attitudes ill hel% gi&e a clear steer as to the *o&e toards greatere.uality, and the end of disability %o&erty

1uccessfully *onitoring social e"clusion and .uality of life can be difficult, andcan rely on sub7ecti&e 7udge*ents t is i*%erati&e that such *onitoring isundertaken, hoe&er, if a full understanding of disability %o&erty is to be reached

igures in *any of these areas are not %resently a&ailable, and to geta%%ro%riate data ould re.uire either the addition of 4disability4 .uestions toe"isting studies, or for ne research to be co**issioned 'his is one as%ect ofdisability %o&erty here Leonard Cheshire Disability ould reco**end the useof a broad sub7ecti&e sur&ey of disabled %eo%le 'here are, hoe&er, so*e areashere figures could %erha%s be *ore easily deter*ined and that ould still gi&ea broad understanding of disabled %eo%le4s social e"clusion6 for e"a*%le,*onitoring the nu*bers of disabled %eo%le in %ublic a%%oint*ents

-roposed disability poverty indicators . 3uality o$ li$e:

Leonard Cheshire Disability calls on the go&ern*ent to *onitor %rogressannually on the folloing key indicators of disability %o&erty6B Percentage of a%%ointed %ublic offices held by disabled %eo%leJB Disabled %eo%le4s e"%erience of cri*e and fear of cri*e, including the nu*bersof disabled %eo%le ho ha&e e"%erienced cri*e *oti&ated by an i*%air*entJB 1ociety4s res%onses to disability $ *onitoring social attitudes and %re7udiceyear on year, including disabled and non-disabled %eo%le4s %erce%tions ofdisability discri*ination and %re7udice

-olicy recommendations . 3uality o$ li$e

hat constitutes a good 4.uality of life4 is a broad and co*%le" notion and ill&ary considerably fro* %erson to %erson )ut to fully understand %o&erty *orebroadly, and disability %o&erty in %articular, it is essential to de&elo% so*e clearer understanding of 4.uality of life4 and *easures that *ight hel% to enhance it

84 4Disabling attitudes Public %ers%ecti&es on disabled %eo%le4 by Eohn ;igg, in

4)ritish 1ocial =ttitudes6 the 23rd ;e%ort $ Pers%ecti&es on a changing society4, %ublished by 1age for ?atCen, 200/



Leonard Cheshire Disability has focused on so*e areas, such as ci&ic andco**unity engage*ent, the res%onses of society to disability and disabled%eo%le4s on e"%ectations )ringing about change in such areas can be a longand arduous %rocess $ but, hilst society4s attitudes can seldo* be changed bya single action, it is %ossible to hel% set the tone and the backdro% against hich

attitudes are for*ed

'he i*%le*entation of the Disability Discri*ination =cts <DD=s@ !5 and 2005%ro&ided disabled %eo%le ith %rotection fro* discri*ination, but by doing sothey also began to gradually alter society4s res%onses to disability )y %lacingduties and res%onsibilities on the %ublic sector, on e*%loyers, on trans%ort%ro&iders, on %ro&iders of goods and ser&ices, the =cts ha&e re.uired all thesegrou%s to gi&e greater consideration to disabled %eo%le as consu*ers, and thusbegun to challenge %erce%tions of disability

'he Disability .uality Duty <DD@, introduced as %art of the DD= 2005, is one

area here the i*%act is 7ust beginning to be felt 'he DD a%%lies to %ublicauthorities and re.uires the* to engage ith disabled %eo%le, to consider thei*%act of their %olicies on disabled %eo%le and to %ro*ote e.uality and goodrelations ithin all their ork t also re.uires the authorities to %roduce aDisability .uality 1che*e in consultation ith disabled %eo%le, hich outlinesthis ork and other future actions, and hich can be scrutinised by the %ublic'he DD re%resents an i*%ortant ste% toards the *ainstrea*ing of disabilityinto %olicy-*aking, and the i*%act that it *ight ha&e in changing and de&elo%ingsociety4s attitudes in future years could be si*ilar to the i*%act that as%ects ofthe DD= !5 are ha&ing today

'he 4ra*eork for airness4 Green Pa%er that folloed the Discri*ination La;e&ie *ade a nu*ber of %ro%osals for the future of the DD that cause seriousconcern hilst su%%orti&e of the idea of the de&elo%*ent of a 41ingle .uality1che*e4 that brings together e"isting duties on disability, race, gender and otherareas, Leonard Cheshire Disability ould be dee%ly concerned at anyde&elo%*ent that ser&ed to di*inish the effecti&eness of the DD as it currentlystands 'he DD has only been fully in %lace since Dece*ber 200( and so hasonly had a li*ited chance to e*bed Gi&en that initial signs are %ositi&e85, eould be reluctant to see changes to the sche*e at such an early stage in itsde&elo%*ent 'he DD re%resents an i*%ortant tool in changing attitudes and in%ro*oting best %ractice $ Leonard Cheshire Disability ould argue that the neN1ingle .uality DutyO should *aintain all the duties and res%onsibilities that arecurrently %art of the DD, including the need to %ublish an .uality 1che*e

Political re%resentation is also an area considered as %art of the 4ra*eork forairness4 %a%er, as ell as in the Green Pa%er on constitutional refor*, 4'heGo&ernance of )ritain48( Leonard Cheshire Disability ould reco**end that

85 or so*e *ore infor*ation about the Disability .uality Duty and e"a*%les of best %ractice see6 4Case study e"a*%les

of Disability .uality Duty best %ractice4, ;=D=; and D;C, =%ril 200/86

4'he Go&ernance of )ritain4, #inistry of Eustice, Euly 200/



ork undertaken on *aking Parlia*ent *ore re%resentati&e should include aclear focus on disability, and that any efforts to i*%ro&e le&els of &oting and thefor*at of elections also include ork to build accessibility for all disabled %eo%leinto the electoral %rocess at all le&els, fro* &oting to being elected

=n i*%ortant %art of engage*ent ith local co**unities can be through&olunteering and the &oluntary sector Soluntary ork can offer those not ine*%loy*ent a &ital route back into ork by %ro&iding e"%erience and buildingconfidence, as ell as offering those for ho* it is not reasonable to e"%ect areturn to full-ti*e, %aid ork an o%%ortunity for further co**unity engage*entSolunteering is not, hoe&er, effecti&ely co&ered under the DD= LeonardCheshire Disability ould like to see the e*%loy*ent %ro&isions of the DD=e"tended to &olunteering, to ensure that disabled %eo%le are not unreasonablydisad&antaged hen looking to &olunteer e ould also su%%ort the introductionof an 4=ccess to Solunteering4 fund orking in a si*ilar ay to the =ccess toork sche*e, an 4=ccess to Solunteering4 fund ould %ro&ide su%%ort fro*

central go&ern*ent for those disabled %eo%le ho ould re.uire additionalsu%%ort to &olunteer 'his ould hel% enhance the &olunteering o%%ortunitiesa&ailable to disabled %eo%le and, gi&en the %ositi&e links that can e"ist beteentrying out ork on a &oluntary basis and entering %er*anent ork, ould alsoork toards the go&ern*ent4s e*%loy*ent targets

Summary o$ recommendations:B nsure that the duties under the Disability .uality Duty are fully *aintainedunder any future 1ingle .uality Duty, including the duty to %ublish an .uality1che*eJB nclude disability in the ork to *ake Parlia*ent and %olitics *ore

re%resentati&e, and ensure that i*%ro&ing access for disabled %eo%le is built intoany refor*s to the electoral syste*JB *%ro&e *onitoring and enforce*ent of cri*e related to i*%air*ent, andensure that disabled %eo%le ha&e full access to the cri*inal 7ustice syste*JB "tend co&erage of e*%loy*ent %ro&isions of the DD= to &olunteeringJB ntroduce an 4=ccess to Solunteering4 fund to su%%ort those ho need %articular su%%ort in &olunteering roles

)ccess to services'ac&round and proposed indicators

Leonard Cheshire Disability belie&es that %o&erty of o%%ortunity is one of the*ost significant as%ects of disability %o&erty naccessibility in the %ro&ision ofgoods and ser&ices can deny disabled %eo%le the o%%ortunities to engage in thee&eryday acti&ities en7oyed by their non-disabled %eers, hich in turn can lead tosocial e"clusion and disability %o&erty

'he Disability Discri*ination =ct <DD=@ re.uires all %ro&iders of goods andser&ices to *ake all %ossible reasonable ad7ust*ents to ensure that their



ser&ices are fully accessible to all disabled %eo%le et se&eral years on fro* theintroduction of the =ct, and the subse.uent e"tensions of co&erage to s*allerbusinesses, our society re*ains far fro* fully accessible

Partici%ants in Leonard Cheshire Disability4s 4Disability ;e&ie 200/4 ere asked

about their e"%eriences of accessing goods and ser&ices 'hose ho said thatthey had e"%erienced difficulties in accessing goods and ser&ices listed thefolloing issues6

B (5: had %roble*s accessing %re*isesJB 8: had been asked to lea&e %re*isesJB (+: had e"%erienced difficulties getting around inside the %re*isesJB 5/: had difficulties because of a lack of facilities for disabled custo*ersJB !3: had been refused entry to %re*isesJB 25: had e"%erienced staff ho ere reluctant or refused to ser&e the*JB 2: had co**unication %roble*s

et des%ite continuing %roble*s, it is clear that the DD= is *aking a differencehen asked hether or not they thought there had been an i*%ro&e*ent in the%ro&ision of goods and ser&ices to disabled %eo%le, (2: of res%ondents toLeonard Cheshire Disability4s sur&ey said that there had been a littlei*%ro&e*entJ 23: felt that there had been a big i*%ro&e*entJ !3: felt thatthere had been no i*%ro&e*entJ and only 2: felt that things had got orse

'he use of the internet has long been identified as an alternati&e for usingser&ices that *ight otherise not be easily accessible hilst si*%ly %ro&idingser&ices online is not a substitute for %ro%erly accessible ser&ices in the

co**unity, the %otential to %ay bills, sho% and access key infor*ation about%ublic ser&ices online certainly *akes the internet an i*%ortant tool for *anydisabled %eo%le Af those res%ondents to Leonard Cheshire Disability4s sur&eyho had access to the internet6

B nearly a third <2:@ said that it has had a huge i*%act on their .uality of lifeJB *ore than a third <35:@ said that it has had a lot of i*%actJB 23: said that it has had so*e i*%actJ andB only !3: said that it had had only a &ery little i*%act u%on their .uality of life

Pre&ious studies ha&e identified, hoe&er, that disabled %eo%le are actually lesslikely to ha&e access to co*%uters and the internet than non-disabled %eo%le =re%ort %ublished by the E; in 200+8/ deter*ined that to thirds of res%ondentsould like to use the internet *ore, citing the cost of going online as the %ri*arybarrier

Ane of the *ost significant obstacles to accessing ser&ices and engaging insociety is inaccessible trans%ort ;es%ondents to the 4Disability ;e&ie 200/4

87 4Does the internet o%en u% o%%ortunities for disabled %eo%le4, Pilling, )arrett and loyd, E;, 200+



ere asked if there ere any ty%es of trans%ort that they had been unable to useduring the %re&ious tel&e *onths because of barriers linked to their i*%air*ent,ith ell o&er half <58:@ stating that they had faced difficulties in accessingtrans%ort

;es%ondents ere also asked about %articular %roble*s that they hade"%erienced hen tra&elling by %ublic trans%ort $ and ga&e the folloingres%onses6

Af res%ondents ho had e"%erienced trans%ort inaccessibility6

35: had difficulty getting to the station or sto%!/: had %roble*s accessing infor*ation about ti*etables and routes etc+8: had %roble*s getting on and off trans%ort22: had %roble*s hearing announce*ents!3: had %roble*s identifying the right busHtrainHtra* or ferry

32: found the staff insufficiently hel%ful or su%%orti&e30: did not ha&e enough s%ace to sit or stand!0: had %roble*s seeing tra&el infor*ation++: ere unable to stand in a *o&ing &ehicle3(: ere unable to ait for long at the station or sto%!8: had other %roble*s ith trans%ort accessibility

Po&erty of o%%ortunity is ine"tricably linked ith inaccessible %ublic trans%ort4#ind the ga%488, a Leonard Cheshire Disability re%ort in 2003, e"a*ined thesocial i*%act of inaccessible trans%ort #any res%ondents to the sur&ey re%ortedthat their ability to *eet ith friends and fa*ily, or to en7oy an acti&e social life

as curtailed by inaccessible trans%ort $ leading ine&itably to a greater degree of social e"clusion

Disabled %eo%le looking for ork also re%orted that %roble*s ith trans%ortreduced their access to the ork%lace $ 23: of res%ondents ho ere lookingfor ork said that they had had to turn don a 7ob offer due to inaccessibletrans%ort, and a further +8: stated that their choice of 7obs as restricted due toinaccessible trans%ort ;es%ondents to the sur&ey also re%orted ha&ing to *issor cancel health a%%oint*ents, or being unable to attend other i*%ortant e&ents

$ all clear e"a*%les of an inaccessible en&iron*ent being a critical factor indisabled %eo%le4s %o&erty of o%%ortunity

t is clear that access to goods, sho%s, trans%ort and other ser&ices is a criticalfactor in social engage*ent )ut the e&idence also shos that it can ha&e a*aterial i*%act on both a disabled %erson4s .uality of life and, ith %ooraccessibility restricting the a&ailability of e*%loy*ent and other ser&ices, onfinancial ell-being #onitoring de&elo%*ents in the accessibility of ser&ices, and

88 4#ind the ga%4, Ca*%ion, Greenhalgh and Knight, Leonard Cheshire Disability, 2003



disabled %eo%le4s e"%erience of the barriers that they still face ill therefore be acrucial %art of understanding disability %o&erty

=s ith *onitoring .uality of life and other as%ects of social e"clusion, there is aco*%arati&e %aucity of infor*ation on the accessibility of goods and ser&ices in

society 'here are &ery fe nationally recognised statistics as to the nu*ber ofco**ercial %re*ises that are fully accessible, or the ay in hich ser&ice%ro&iders are ad7usting their %olicies and %ractices to ensure that they areaccessible to disabled %eo%le t should be %ossible to deter*ine ho *anycases are being brought under Part 3 of the DD=, hich deals ith goods andser&ices, but a reduction in the nu*ber of cases is si*%ly not the sa*e as ani*%ro&e*ent in accessibility 'he nu*ber of cases at %resent is restricted by theco*%le"ities of bringing a case, and the fact that so *any cases are settledoutside of court Leonard Cheshire Disability has long called for the %rocess to be*ade easier, both for indi&idual disabled %eo%le, and for ser&ice %ro&iders#onitoring the nu*ber of Part 3 cases ould not, therefore, be an effecti&e

*easure of i*%ro&ing accessibility

Leonard Cheshire Disability ould reco**end that issues of accessibility could%erha%s be best addressed through a sub7ecti&e sur&ey of disabled %eo%le,looking at the barriers that they face and their e"%eriences of inaccessibleser&ices Ather o%tions *ight also include *ore for*al auditing of %ublicbuildings in order to fully deter*ine their accessibility

#onitoring %rogress toards accessible trans%ort ill also be i*%ortant, as this isone area here consistent %rogress is already being *ade 'he De%art*ent for'rans%ort %ro&ides so*e infor*ation on the accessibility of %ublic trans%ort that

*ight %ro&ide so*e useful bench*arks for future %rogress, although it ill bee.ually i*%ortant to *onitor disabled %eo%le4s e"%eriences o&er ti*e

-roposed disability poverty indicators . access to services:

Leonard Cheshire Disability calls on the go&ern*ent to *onitor %rogressannually on the folloing key indicators of disability %o&erty6B Percentage of disabled %eo%le ho e"%erience difficulties in accessing goodsand ser&ices $ *onitored through a re%resentati&e sur&ey disabled %eo%leJB Percentage of6

$ trains fully co*%liant ith ;ail Sehicle =ccess ;egulations <;S=;@ $ buses fully co*%liant ith Public 1er&ice Sehicle =ccess ;egulations <P1S=;@ $ train stations that are 4ste%-free4JB Disabled %eo%le4s onershi% of consu*er durables, including access to theinternet

-olicy recommendations . access to services



'he need to *ake reasonable ad7ust*ents to ensure e.ual access to goods andser&ices is %erha%s the *ost idely recognised and understood %art of the DD=et, se&eral years on fro* the introduction of Part 3 of DD=, and the e"tension of the %ro&isions to s*all businesses, there are still huge ga%s in the accessibility of ser&ices u% and don the K

'hat is not to say that Part 3 of the DD= has *ade no difference to theaccessibility of the K, it undoubtedly has )ut the instant and dra*atic i*%act of initiati&es like the ban on s*oking in confined %ublic s%aces is in *arked contrastto the years of slo change since Part 3 ca*e into effect Ane of the key reasonsfor this is the sheer difficulty of actually bringing a case under Part3 ith the s*oking ban, on the other hand, Local =uthority enforce*ent officersere a%%ointed and gi&en %oers to issue on the s%ot fines 'his direct a%%roachto enforce*ent contrasts starkly ith the enforce*ent *echanis*s for disabilityaccess legislation

t is rare to see *ore than a handful of Part 3 cases *aking it to court each year,des%ite the fact that res%ondents to Leonard Cheshire Disability4s 4Disability;e&ie 200/48 re%orted *any continuing obstacles and barriers to accessingser&ices Currently an indi&idual needs to take a ser&ice %ro&ider to court in order to try to force action under Part 3 of the DD= e %eo%le are %re%ared to take acase as far as court, gi&en the cost, ti*e i*%lications and co*%le"ity of doing sohen cases do %rogress they can often be settled out of court, *eaning arelati&e lack of case la and clear guidance for ser&ice %ro&iders as to theirdefiniti&e legal res%onsibilities

Leonard Cheshire Disability has long su%%orted the de&elo%*ent of a tribunal

syste* to hel% gi&e disabled %eo%le a greater chance to enforce their rights, togi&e ser&ice %ro&iders clearer guidance on their res%onsibilities, as ell as aroute around costly legal action, and to %ro&ide a *ore effecti&e *echanis* forresol&ing dis%utes in a *anner *ore ti*ely and con&enient for all %arties

=lloing tribunals, %erha%s ith s%ecific training, or ith the addition of e"tra%ersonnel to tribunal %anels, to take Part 3 cases ould be a .uick ay ofde&elo%ing this ca%acity Leonard Cheshire Disability ould also like to seeconsideration gi&en to a %otential role for an =ccess A*buds*an in this area tohel% *ediate and gi&e clear guidance

=ccess to trans%ort, des%ite definite i*%ro&e*ents in so*e areas of %ro&ision,re*ains one of the *ost significant barriers to %artici%ation that *any disabled%eo%le face 'he fact that 23: of those res%ondents to Leonard CheshireDisability4s 4#ind the ga%40 sur&ey ho ere looking for ork stated that they hadhad to turn don a 7ob because of inaccessible trans%ort is testa*ent to this =naccessible and integrated trans%ort netork is essential to tackling disability


90 4#ind the ga%4, Ca*%ion, Greenhalgh and Knight, Leonard Cheshire Disability, 2003



%o&erty, as it ill facilitate i*%ro&e*ents not only in the e*%loy*ent rate, butalso in co**unity engage*ent and .uality of life for disabled %eo%le

=t %resent trans%ort is co&ered under both Part 3 of the DD=, hich co&ersreasonable ad7ust*ents and access to goods and ser&ices, and Part 5, hich

sets accessibility guidelines for trans%ort &ehicles Part 3 of the DD= does not,hoe&er, co&er access to aero%lanes and shi%%ing, although it is easily %ossibleto bring these areas under the re*it of the =ct 'his *eans that, des%itecontinuing e&idence of disabled %eo%le facing additional barriers and obstacles toaccessing these ser&ices, they are left ith li*ited or no legal %rotection fro*discri*ination hilst there is recent uro%ean legislation on the accessibility ofair tra&el,! hich, e ho%e ill ha&e a %ositi&e i*%act on the accessibility of thea&iation industry, Leonard Cheshire Disability belie&es that the dri&e for e.ualityof o%%ortunity to access i*%ortant trans%ort ser&ices necessitates the e"tensionof Part 3 of the DD= to a&iation and shi%%ing

ithout *ore ork in this area, %articularly to *ake it easier for disabled %eo%leto enforce their rights, inaccessibility in the K ill continue to be a substantialcontributing factor to the social e"clusion and the %o&erty of o%%ortunity thatdisabled %eo%le can e"%erience


B nable tribunals to ad7udicate on Part 3 DD= casesJB n&estigate a role for an o*buds*an to hel% set o&erall duties on i*%ro&ingaccess to goods and ser&icesJB "tend Part 3 of the DD= to access to aero%lanes, ferries and shi%%ingJ

B Conduct a re&ie of the effecti&eness of the DD= ith a &ie to *aking the laeasier to enforce and easier to understand

Chapter ,

Conclusion

n his s%eech acce%ting the leadershi% of the Labour Party, ;t >on Gordon)ron #P s%oke about ongoing ork to end child %o&erty, referring to *easures

to address this %o&erty of inco*e and to address also the %o&erty ofas%irationsM 'hese are to issues that a%%ly e&ery bit as %oerfully to disability%o&erty

91 4uro%ean ;egulation concerning the rights of disabled %ersons and %ersons ith reduced *obility hen tra&elling by

air4 $ for *ore infor*ation about Leonard Cheshire Disability4s %osition on access to air tra&el see 4?o )oarding6 disabled%eo%le4s e"%eriences of air tra&el4, =nnette Laidler, Leonard Cheshire Disability, 200/



t is clear that disability %o&erty is not si*%ly about disabled %eo%le4s inco*ePo&erty can ste* fro* a *ultitude of different as%ects of social e"clusion, fro*so*ething as tangible as the le&el of inco*e, to so*ething as difficult to defineas an indi&idual4s as%irations hat is clear is that a concerted and strategiceffort fro* %olicy *akers is needed first to understand and then to challenge

disability %o&erty

'he case for addressing disability %o&erty is not only one of basic social 7ustice,there is also an econo*ic case nding disability %o&erty ould al*ost certainly*ean *ore disabled %eo%le *o&ing into the ork%lace, as ell as an increase inskill le&els across the K $ and, as the success of sche*es like =ccess to orkhas de*onstrated, an initial in&est*ent in this area can actually %roduce long-ter* sa&ings Leonard Cheshire Disability ould also argue that ending child%o&erty ill re*ain an i*%ossibility hilst ine.ualities and barriers ithin societylead to social e"clusion a*ongst disabled %eo%le $ tackling %o&erty in the Ko&erall re.uires a concerted effort to tackle disability %o&erty A&er one third of

children li&ing ith a disabled adult li&e in lo inco*e households

n a fully e.ual and inclusi&e society there need be no relationshi% beteendisability and %o&erty, but the stark truth of the continuing correlation beteen theto stands as one of the *ost significant issues facing our *odern society 'hereare still *any barriers in society that *aintain the links beteen disability and%o&erty6 not only barriers to accessibility, but also barriers for*ed fro* negati&eattitudes, and barriers for*ed fro* lo as%irations of disabled %eo%lethe*sel&es Des%ite the i*%ro&e*ents that ha&e undoubtedly ste**ed fro* theDisability Discri*ination =cts, and the steady but slo increase in thee*%loy*ent rates a*ong disabled %eo%le, it is clear that there is still a long ay

to go before those barriers are co*%letely re*o&ed

Leonard Cheshire Disability calls on the go&ern*ent to *ake tackling disability%o&erty one of its key %riorities 'o do so ill first re.uire a co**it*ent tounderstand and *onitor disability %o&erty and its causes, and then the strategicde&elo%*ent of social %olicy initiati&es to eradicate it

'o end disability %o&erty is not only a *eans to dri&e don %o&erty throughoutthe K, and to i*%ro&e the econo*ic health of the nation, it is also an absolutenecessity of social 7ustice and inclusion



)nnex )

Pro%osed disability %o&erty indicators

Income and $inancial poverty Indicators

! Percentage of disabled %eo%le li&ing in a lo-inco*e household <belo (0: of *edian household inco*e@, ith co*%arison data for the non-disabled%o%ulation $ Data is collected on this indicator



2 Percentage of disabled %eo%le li&ing in lo inco*e households, ad7usted toincor%orate a&erage esti*ates of disabled %eo%le4s additional costs of li&ing $Data is not collected on this indicator

3 Percentage of disabled %eo%le ho6

- Could not afford to %ay a utility bill on ti*eJ- ;egularly ent ithout *ealsJ- 1ought financial hel% fro* friends or fa*ilyData is not collected on this indicator

Savins and assets Indicators

+ Percentages of disabled %eo%le ith sa&ings Data is collected on thisindicator

5 Percentages of disabled %eo%le ith bank accounts - Data is not collected on

this indicator

( =&erage a*ount held in sa&ings by disabled %eo%le - Data is not collected onthis indicator

Employment rates Indicators

/ *%loy*ent rate a*ong disabled %eo%le, broken don by i*%air*ent grou% -Data is collected on this indicator

8 Percentages of orking age disabled %eo%le

•

in ork• not in ork but seeking ork

• not in ork and not seeking ork

Data is collected on this indicator

#ype o$ %or& Indicators

Percentage of disabled %eo%le in %art-ti*e ork - Data is collected on thisindicator

!0 =&erage gross hourly %ay for disabled %eo%le, together ith co*%arison for

non-disabled %eers - Data is collected on this indicator

'ene$it ta&e up Indicators !! sti*ates of take-u% for disability related benefits <including Disability Li&ing

=lloance@ - Data is not collected on this indicator



!2 Disabled %eo%le4s e"%eriences of the benefits syste*, including o&erallsatisfaction, decision *aking, benefit le&els co*%ared to outgoings, effecti&enessof return to ork su%%ort <here a%%ro%riate@ Data is not collected on thisindicator

)ccommodation Indicators

!3 Percentage of disabled %eo%le ho on their on ho*es, together ithco*%arison for non disabled %eo%le - Data is collected on this indicator

!+ Percentage of disabled %eo%le li&ing in social housing, together ithco*%arison for non disabled %eo%le - Data is collected on this indicator

!5 Percentage of disabled %eo%le li&ing in housing that falls belo the setstandard of decency, together ith co*%arison for non-disabled %eo%le - Data iscollected on this indicator

!( ?u*ber of disabled %eo%le ho re.uire ada%ted ho*es currently li&ing inina%%ro%riate housing - Data is collected on this indicator

!/ Percentage of ho*es built to Lifeti*e >o*e 1tandards each year - Data isnot collected on this indicator

Educational attainment Indicators

!8 Le&el of educational attain*ent a*ong disabled %eo%le, together ithco*%arison for non disabled %eo%le - Data is collected on this indicator

! Percentage of disabled %eo%le ith no .ualifications, together ithco*%arison for non disabled %eo%le - Data is collected on this indicator

*uality o$ li$e Indicators

20 Percentage of a%%ointed %ublic offices held by disabled %eo%le - Data iscollected on this indicator

2! Disabled %eo%le4s e"%erience of cri*e and fear of cri*e, including thenu*bers of disabled %eo%le ho ha&e e"%erienced cri*e *oti&ated by ani*%air*ent - Data is not collected on this indicator

22 1ociety4s res%onses to disability $ *onitoring social attitudes and %re7udiceyear on year, including disabled and non-disabled %eo%le4s %erce%tions ofdisability discri*ination and %re7udice - Data is not collected on this indicator

)ccess to services Indicators



23 Percentage of disabled %eo%le ho e"%erience difficulties in accessing goodsand ser&ices - Data is not collected on this indicator

2+ Percentage of $ $ trains fully co*%liant ith ;ail Sehicle =ccess ;egulations <;S=;@J

$ buses fully co*%liant ith Public 1er&ice Sehicle =ccess ;egulations <P1S=;@J $ train stations that are 4ste%-free4Data is collected on this indicator

25 Disabled %eo%le4s onershi% of consu*er durables, including access tointernet - Data is not collected on this indicator

Current in$ormation:

10 -ercentae o$ disabled people livin in a lo% income household 9belo%8; o$ median household income< %ith comparison data $or the non(

disabled populationigures are collected as %art of the De%art*ent for ork and Pensions4>ouseholds )elo

=&erage nco*e sur&eys, and also co*%iled in the E; and ?P %o&erty re%ortsCurrent figures are6

n 200+H05 3!: of disabled adults aged 25 to retire*ent ere li&ing in a loinco*e householdJ co*%ared to !5: for non-disabled adults aged 25 toretire*ent

20-ercentae o$ disabled people livin in lo% income households ad=usted

to incorporate estimates o$ disabled people>s additional costs o$ livin'he go&ern*ent does not, as yet, use a definition of the additional costs ofdisability that is needed in order to reach an ad7usted figure Leonard CheshireDisability ould argue that %roducing an acce%ted standard *echanis* forassessing disabled %eo%le4s e"tra costs of li&ing is a critically i*%ortant %iece ofork that should be undertaken i**ediately = re&ised figure as generated as%art of the research into inco*e e.ui&alisation undertaken by =shgar Faidi and'ania )urchardt in 4Co*%aring inco*es hen needs differ4 <2003@ 'he figure%roduced there, factoring in disabled %eo%le4s e"tra costs of li&ing, as anad7usted %o&erty rate for disabled %eo%le of (!:

!0-ercentae o$ disabled people %ho:( Could not a$$ord to pay a utility bill on time( /eularly %ent %ithout meals( Souht $inancial help $rom $riends or $amilynfor*ation on these areas is not currently collected in the K ;esearch usingsi*ilar indicators has been undertaken in =ustralia as indicators of financial



hardshi% and stress in the =ustralian >ousehold "%enditure sur&ey2 #onitoringthis area ould re.uire these .uestions to be added into an e"isting sur&ey,%erha%s the a*ily ;esources 1ur&ey

,0-ercentae o$ disabled people %ith savins

igures for the general %o%ulation are collected by ?ational 1a&ings andn&est*ents, and infor*ation is also collated as %art of the >ouseholds )elo =&erage nco*e re%ort 'o *onitor this area the go&ern*ent ould need toensure that .uestions to identify disabled %eo%le ere asked either through?ational 1a&ings and n&est*ents4 .uarterly sa&ings su**aries, or through the>ouseholds )elo =&erage nco*e re%ort or a*ily ;esources 1ur&ey 'hisould allo figures to be cross-referenced Leonard Cheshire Disability4s4Disability ;e&ie 200/4 found that nearly half of res%ondents <+:@ stated thatthey had no sa&ings, hereas the *ost recent ?ational 1a&ings and n&est*ents41a&ings 1ur&ey4 found that !2: of the %o%ulation had no sa&ings

?0-ercentae o$ disabled people %ith no ban& accounts =s ith the %re&ious indicator, in order to *onitor this area, the go&ern*entould need to ensure that breakdons based on disability ere a&ailable ine"isting sur&eys that collect this data 'he >ouseholds )elo =&erage nco*ere%ort collates infor*ation on access to bank accounts, but a s%ecific nationalfigure for disabled %eo%le does not a%%ear to be readily a&ailable ithin there%ort

80)verae amount held in savins by disabled people =s ith the indicators abo&e, *onitoring this ould re.uire the go&ern*ent toensure that infor*ation already collected could be broken don to disabled and

non-disabled %eo%le nfor*ation on this area is collected by ?ational 1a&ingsand n&est*ents, and is also collated in the >ousehold )elo =&erage nco*ere%orts, but again figures for disabled %eo%le s%ecifically do not currently a%%earto be %resented in the re%ort

@0Employment rate amon disabled people bro&en do%n by impairmentroup'his infor*ation is collected as %art of the Labour orce 1ur&ey, and figures ereregularly u%dated through the Disability ;ights Co**ission4s 4Disability)riefings4 'he 4Disability )riefing4 for #ay 200/ %roduced the folloing figures6

'he e*%loy*ent rate of all disabled %eo%le in Great )ritain is 50:'he e*%loy*ent rate of %eo%le ith %roble*s ith ar*s, hands <includingarthritis or rheu*atis*@ is 52:'he e*%loy*ent rate of %eo%le ith %roble*s ith legs or feet is +(:'he e*%loy*ent rate of %eo%le ith %roble*s ith back or neck is +:'he e*%loy*ent rate of %eo%le ith difficulty in seeing is +/:'he e*%loy*ent rate of %eo%le ith difficulty in hearing is (3:92

1ee Disability, Po&erty and Li&ing 1tandards6 ;e&ieing =ustralian &idence and PoliciesM, 1aunders, 1ocial Policy

;esearch Centre, 2005



'he e*%loy*ent rate of %eo%le ith skin conditions or allergies is /2:'he e*%loy*ent rate of %eo%le ith chest or breathing %roble*s is (+:'he e*%loy*ent rate of %eo%le ith heart %roble*s or blood %ressure is 5:'he e*%loy*ent rate of %eo%le ith sto*ach, li&er, kidney or digestion %roble*sis (!:

'he e*%loy*ent rate of %eo%le ith diabetes is (8:'he e*%loy*ent rate of %eo%le ith *ental illness is 22:'he e*%loy*ent rate of %eo%le ith e%ile%sy is ++:'he e*%loy*ent rate of %eo%le ith learning difficulties is 23:Progressi&e illnesses not elsehere classified <eg cancer, #1@ 3/:'he e*%loy*ent rate of %eo%le ith other %roble*s or disabilities is 5(:

A0-ercentaes o$ %or&in ae disabled people (a0 In %or&b0 Bot in %or& but loo&in $or %or&c0 Bot in %or& and not loo&in $or %or&

nfor*ation is collected through the Labour orce 1ur&ey, ith recent analysisa&ailable through the Disability ;ights Co**ission 4Disability )riefing4 <#ay200/@ hilst infor*ation is not collected in e"actly the for*at %ro%osed in ourindicator, the folloing infor*ation is useful6

50+: of long-ter* disabled %eo%le are in orkJ 802: of non-disabled %eo%leare in ork++/: of long-ter* disabled %eo%le are econo*ically inacti&eJ !5(: of non-disabled %eo%le are econo*ically inacti&e305: of long-ter* disabled %eo%le are econo*ically inacti&e ho ould like toorkJ 2+(: of non-disabled %eo%le are econo*ically inacti&e ho ould like to

ork

0-ercentae o$ disabled people in part(time %or&nfor*ation is collected through the Labour orce 1ur&ey, ith recent figuresanalysed and collated in the Disability ;ights Co**ission 4Disability )riefing4<#ay 200/@ ;ecent figures are6

22: of long-ter* disabled %eo%le are orking %art-ti*eJ 232: of non-disabled%eo%le are orking %art-ti*e

10 )verae ross hourly pay $rom %or& $or disabled people toether %ithcomparison $or non(disabled peers'his infor*ation is also a&ailable through the Labour orce 1ur&ey, and thefigures, as %roduced in the D;C4s 4Disability )riefing4 <#ay 200/@, are as follos6

=&erage gross hourly age for long-ter* disabled %eo%le is 9!028J and for non-disabled %eo%le it is 9!!30



110 Estimates o$ ta&e(up $or disability related bene$its 9includin Disability+ivin )llo%ance<igures are currently collected on the take-u% of inco*e-related benefits such asnco*e 1u%%ort and >ousing )enefit )ut figures are not currently collected for*ost disability benefits, such as Disability Li&ing =lloance <DL=@, here those

benefits are aarded on the basis of a co*%le" set of eligibility criteria 'heDe%art*ent for ork and Pensions has, hoe&er, %roduced a feasibility study toe"a*ine the %ossibility of collecting data3 on the take-u% of DL=, and LeonardCheshire Disability ould strongly su%%ort *easures to %ro%erly assess the le&elof take-u% of DL= and other disability benefits

120 Disabled people>s experiences o$ the bene$its system includin overallsatis$action decision ma&in bene$it levels compared to outoinse$$ectiveness o$ return to %or& support 9%here appropriate<1tudies into the .uality of decision-*aking in the benefits syste* are carried outby the =%%eals 1er&ice,+ but Leonard Cheshire Disability4s %ro%osal is for a *ore

sub7ecti&e study analysing clai*ants4 e"%eriences of the benefits syste*,including looking at the effecti&eness of benefits in co&ering outgoings related toi*%air*ents

1!0 -ercentae o$ disabled people %ho o%n their o%n home toether %ithcomparison $or non(disabled people'he results of the 1ur&ey of nglish >ousing are collected in the 4>ousing inngland4 re%ort, %ublished annually by the De%art*ent of Co**unities and LocalGo&ern*ent <DCLG@ 'he *ost recent re%ort, for 2005-0(, %ublished in 200/5,contains infor*ation about disabled %eo%le ho re.uire ada%ted housing 'hesur&ey co&ers ngland only, and the figures refer s%ecifically to those that re.uire

ada%ted housing, rather than all disabled %eo%le 'he re%ort found that 55: ofthis grou% oned their on ho*es

1,0 -ercentae o$ disabled people livin in social housin toether %ithcomparison $or non(disabled people'he DCLG re%ort 4>ousing in ngland 2005H0( $ a re%ort %rinci%ally fro* the2005H0( 1ur&ey of nglish >ousing4 <Actober 200/@ found that, of those disabled%eo%le in ngland ho re.uired s%ecially ada%ted acco**odation, +!: ere4social renters4

1?0 -ercentae o$ disabled people livin in housin that $alls belo% the setstandard o$ decency toether %ith comparison $or non(disabled people

93 'he take-u% rate of Disability Li&ing =lloance and =ttendance =lloance6 easibility studyM, Diana Kas%aro&a, =lan

#arsh and Da&id ilkinson, DP, 200/94

or e"a*%le see 4President4s re%ort4, 2005-200(, =%%eals 1er&ice, 200(J

htt%6HHa%%ealsser&icego&ukH%ublicationsH%dfHre%ortsQandQbusinessQ%lanH%residentsQre%ortQ050(%df




'he DCLG re%ort 4'he nglish >ouse Condition 1ur&ey 20056 =nnual ;e%ort4<Eune 200/@ contains details on standards of housing in ngland 'he re%ortfound that the likelihood of disabled %eo%le in ngland li&ing in 4non-decentho*es4 as 28(:, as o%%osed to 2(/: for all households

180 Bumber o$ disabled people %ho re3uire adapted homes currently livinin inappropriate housin'he DCLG re%ort 4>ousing in ngland 2005H0( $ a re%ort %rinci%ally fro* the2005H0( 1ur&ey of nglish >ousing4 <Actober 200/@ re%orted that 25: <of ano&erall figure of 3/!,000@ of disabled %eo%le re.uiring ada%ted housing erecurrently li&ing in housing that as unsuitable

1@0 -ercentae o$ homes built to +i$etime 4ome Standards each year 'here is currently little *onitoring of the use of Lifeti*e >o*e 1tandards hilstso*e ho*es are built to the standards already, there are fe for*al *echanis*sto *onitor the o&erall le&els 1ur&eys such as the 1ur&ey of nglish housing

could be ada%ted to *onitor this infor*ation n future the nely %ro%osed4>o*es and Co**unities =gency4( *ight also ha&e a role in *onitoring the useof the 1tandards

1A0 +evel o$ educational attainment amon disabled people toether %ithcomparison $or non(disabled peopleigures on educational attain*ent a*ong the orking age %o%ulation arecollected through the Labour orce 1ur&ey Current figures are collated in theDisability ;ights Co**ission4s4Disability )riefing4 <#ay 200/@ and ha&e been refor*atted belo6

Af those hose highest .ualification as a degree or e.ui&alent !!: aredisabled %eo%leJ 2!: are non-disabled %eo%le

Af those hose highest .ualification as higher education .ualification /: aredisabled %eo%leJ 8: are non-disabled %eo%le

Af those hose highest .ualification as GC = Le&el or e.ui&alent 2!: aredisabled %eo%leJ 2+: are non-disabled %eo%le

Af those hose highest .ualification as GC1 grades =-C or e.ui&alent 2!:are disabled %eo%leJ 23: are non-disabled %eo%le

Af those hose highest .ualification as another .ualification !+: are disabled%eo%leJ !2: are non-disabled %eo%le

10 -ercentae o$ disabled people %ith no 3uali$ications toether %ithcomparison $or non(disabled people

96 'he ne agency as %ro%osed as %art of the >ousing and ;egeneration )ill announced in the 200/ ueen4s 1%eech



Current figures fro* the Labour orce 1ur&ey, collated in the Disability ;ightsCo**ission4s 4Disability )riefing4 <#ay 200/@, for disabled %eo%le of orking ageare as follos6

Percentage of disabled %eo%le ith no .ualifications is 25:J for non-disabled

%eo%le it is !!:

20 -ercentae o$ appointed public o$$ices held by disabled people'he Co**issioner for Public =%%oint*ents %roduces an annual re%ort hich listsinfor*ation about the nu*ber of disabled %eo%le in %ublic a%%oint*ents 'hedata fro* the *ost recent re%ort/ found that (!: of %ublic a%%oint*ents ereheld by disabled %eo%le

210 Disabled people>s experience o$ crime and $ear o$ crime includin thenumbers o$ disabled people %ho have experienced crime motivated by animpairment

#any national figures on cri*e are currently collected through the )ritish Cri*e1ur&ey, but at %resent data s%ecifically on disabled %eo%le4s e"%eriences of cri*eand on instances of cri*e *oti&ated by i*%air*ent are difficult to find 8: ofres%ondents to Leonard Cheshire

Disability4s 4Disability ;e&ie 200/4 re%orted that they had been the &icti* of acri*e related to their i*%air*ent

220 Society>s responses to disability . monitorin social attitudes andpre=udice year on year includin disabled and non(disabled people>sperceptions o$ disability discrimination and pre=udice

Longitudinal data *onitoring this infor*ation o&er ti*e is not readily a&ailable,but a series of .uestions about disability ere asked as %art of the )ritish 1ocial =ttitudes 1ur&ey conducted by the ?ational Centre for 1ocial ;esearch, hichas released in Eanuary 200/8

indings fro* the sur&ey included that /5: of %eo%le felt that there as so*e%re7udice toards disabled %eo%le in the K today, and that 25: of %eo%le feltthat there as a lot of %re7udice Leonard Cheshire Disability4s 4Disability ;e&ie200/4 asked disabled %eo%le about heir feelings about discri*ination and%re7udice 'he sur&ey found that 8: of res%ondents felt that there as so*e%re7udice toards disabled %eo%le, and +!: felt that there as a lot of %re7udiceLeonard Cheshire Disability ould suggest that such infor*ation is routinelycollected, %erha%s through the Affice for Disability ssues

2!0 -ercentae o$ disabled people %ho experience di$$iculties in accessinoods and services

97 4'he Co**issioner for Public =%%oint*ents, !2th =nnual ;e%ort 200(H0/4, ACP=, 200/

98 ro* 4Disabling attitudes Public %ers%ecti&es on disabled %eo%le4 by Eohn ;igg, in 4)ritish 1ocial =ttitudes6 the 23rd

;e%ort $ Pers%ecti&es on a changing society4, %ublished by 1age for ?atCen, 200/



uestions regarding the ease of access to goods and ser&ices for older %eo%leare collated as %art of the De%art*ent for ork and Pensions4 4A%%ortunity =ge4re%ort Leonard Cheshire Disability ould suggest that a si*ilar a%%roach beado%ted for *easuring disabled %eo%le4s access to goods and ser&ices =t%resent, hoe&er, national figures about disabled %eo%le4s access to goods and

ser&ices are not easily a&ailable Aur 4Disability ;e&ie 200/4 asked aboute"%eriences of accessing goods and ser&ices ith 2+: of res%ondents sayingthat they had difficulty this area

2,0 -ercentae o$:( trains $ully compliant %ith /ail ehicle )ccess /eulations 9/)/<( buses $ully compliant %ith -ublic Service ehicle )ccess /eulations9-S)/<( train stations that are >step($ree>Data on the le&el of accessibility of %ublic trans%ort is generally *aintainedthrough the De%art*ent for 'rans%ort, although infor*ation %resented is not

alays e"act ;ecent esti*ates ha&e suggested that around +0: of trains in theK are fully co*%liant ith ;ail Sehicle =ccessibility ;egulations, that about 50:of buses are co*%liant ith Public 1er&ice Sehicle =ccessibility ;egulations andthat about 50: of the K4s train stations are 4ste%-free4

2?0 Disabled people>s o%nership o$ consumer durables includin access tointernetAnershi% of consu*er durables is *onitored through the General >ousehold1ur&ey, but statistics on this area relating s%ecifically to disabled %eo%le are noteasily a&ailable Leonard Cheshire Disability ould therefore suggest ensuringthat the ca%acity to break don data by disability is incor%orated into this sur&ey

)nnex '

1u**ary of ;eco**endations

#he overnment should commit to:

10 End disability poverty by developin and implementin a speci$icstratey $or tac&lin the issue



20 Measure disability poverty as a uni3ue $orm o$ poverty throuh the useo$ a series o$ indicators0

Leonard Cheshire Disability also belie&es that the go&ern*ent should ado%t thefolloing reco**endations to hel% to challenge disability %o&erty in the K6

Income and $inancial poverty

B De&elo% an acce%ted standard calculation for the e"tra costs of disability, andsubse.uent 4disability ad7usted4 %o&erty statisticsB ;e&ie the effecti&eness of DL=, %redicated on continuing and enhancedsu%%ort for current reci%ients, and a clear e&idence base of e"tra costs andneedsB "tend inter uel =lloance to disabled adults under the age of (0 in recei%tof certain %arts of DL=B ;efor* the 1ocial und to ensure that it effecti&ely su%%orts disabled %eo%le

on a lo inco*eB De&elo% financial ca%acity and ad&ice %rogra**es to ensure the accessibilityof financial ser&ices to disabled %eo%le

Savins

B ntroduce a 4Disability 1a&ings Gateay4, and de&elo% a s%ecific strategy toensure that disabled %eo%le are fully included in any future de&elo%*ent of the1a&ings Gateay sche*eB ;e&ie the i*%act of social care charging %olicy on disability %o&erty, includingreco**endations for tackling the sa&ings disincenti&e

B De&elo% guidance for financial institutions to ensure that they are fully *eetingtheir obligations under the Disability Discri*ination =ct and are *aking theirser&ices fully accessible to disabled %eo%le

Employment rates

B ;e&ie the long-ter* effecti&eness of *easures in the elfare ;efor* =ct200/ in tackling disability %o&ertyB nsure that e*%loyers are adhering to their res%onsibilities under the DD=,and e"tend the antici%atory duty to *ake reasonable ad7ust*ents to e*%loy*entB ntroduce a syste* of 4rehabilitation lea&e4 to hel% %eo%le ho ac.uire ani*%air*ent to re*ain in e*%loy*entB 1trengthen residential care charging guidance to re*o&e any disincenti&e toork for users of residential care su%%ort

#ypes o$ %or&

B ;aise aareness of, and increase funding for, the =ccess to ork sche*e, andin&estigate routes for *aking =ccess to ork su%%ort *ore 4%ortable4



B #onitor the i*%act of the ithdraal of =ccess to ork fro* centralgo&ern*ent and re&erse the ithdraal if necessaryB nsure that the *onitoring undertaken hen %eo%le *o&e fro* benefits in toork fully ca%tures the long-ter* sustainability and .uality of e*%loy*ent, not

7ust the fact that an indi&idual has taken a 7ob

'ene$it ta&e(up

B ndertake a re&ie of 4benefit %o&erty4 and ho the syste* functions for long-ter* clai*ants ho are not e"%ected to return to orkB stablish a 4elfare co**ission4 to o&ersee de&elo%*ents in elfare benefit%olicyB *%ro&e decision-*aking in the benefits syste*, including a *ore for*alo%%ortunity to a%%eal before benefits are sto%%edB Pro&ide a 4benefit check4 for reci%ients to establish their full entitle*ents, andan acti&e ca*%aign to engage ith those ho need, but currently do not clai*,

their entitle*ents)ccommodationB nsure that the need to increase a&ailability of social housing is integral tohousing %olicy de&elo%*entB stablish a duty on local authorities to create and *aintain an accessiblehousing register B "tend Part # building regulations to *atch the Lifeti*e >o*e 1tandards,%articularly urgent for all ne-build social housingB =do%t the %ro%osal in the 4ra*eork for fairness4 Green Pa%er on rights forada%tations in 4co**on %arts4 of %re*ises

Educational attainment

B nsure that all le&els of education - and %articularly higher education, heredisabled %eo%le4s inclusion is notably lo - are fully accessible to disabled %eo%leB nsure that all education %rofessionals recei&e full disability e.uality trainingB nsure that disability e.uality issues are integrated into citiIenshi% classes as%art of the?ational Curriculu*

*uality o$ li$e

B nsure that the duties under the Disability .uality Duty are fully *aintainedunder any future single e.uality duty, including the duty to %ublish an .uality1che*eB nclude disability in the ork to *ake Parlia*ent and %olitics *orere%resentati&e, and ensure that i*%ro&ing access for disabled %eo%le is built in toany refor*s to the electoral syste*B *%ro&e *onitoring and enforce*ent of cri*e related to i*%air*ent, andensure that disabled %eo%le ha&e full access to the cri*inal 7ustice syste*



B "tend co&erage of e*%loy*ent %ro&isions of the DD= to &olunteeringB ntroduce an 4=ccess to Solunteering4 fund to su%%ort those ho need %articular su%%ort in &olunteering roles

)ccess to services

B nable tribunals to ad7udicate on Part 3 DD= casesB n&estigate a role for an o*buds*an to hel% set o&erall duties on i*%ro&ingaccess to goods and ser&icesB "tend Part 3 of the DD= to access to aero%lanes, ferries and shi%%ingB Conduct a re&ie of the effecti&eness of the DD= ith a &ie to *aking the laeasier to enforce and easier to understand

)nnex C

)ibliogra%hy and references

>"act Sheet on -overty and Disability nclusion nternational, data dran fro*4Po&erty and Disability4, =nn lan, orld )ank, Actober !

>vercomin bstacles to the Interation o$ Disabled -eople> , ?1CA,Disability =areness in =ction, #arch !5



>Monitorin poverty and social exclusion 28>, Pal*er, #acnnes andKenay, Eose%h ;ontree oundation and ?e Policy nstitute, 200(

>Child poverty tarets need disability at their heart> %ress release fro*

Disability ;ights Co**ission, #arch 200/

>Comparin incomes %hen needs di$$er: E3uivalisation $or the extra costso$ disability in the UK>, =shgar Faidi and 'ania )urchardt, C=1 ;e%ort (+,L1, 2003

>Disability household income and expenditure: a $ollo% up survey o$disabled adults in the "amily Expenditure Survey>, De%art*ent of 1ocial1ecurity ;esearch ;e%ort ?o 2, D11, !0

>Disability /evie% 2@> Laidler et al, Leonard Cheshire Disability, ?o&e*ber

200/

>Improvin the li$e chances o$ disabled people>, Pri*e #inister4s 1trategynit, Cabinet Affice, 2005

>pportunity )e . Meetin the challenes o$ aein in the 21st century> ,De%art*ent for ork and Pensions, 2005

>Monitorin poverty and social exclusion 28> Pal*er, #acnnes andKenay, Eose%h ;ontree oundation and ?e Policy nstitute, 200(

>*uarterly savins survey Summer 2@>?ational 1a&ings and n&est*ents,?1, 200/

>*uarterly savins survey )utumn 28> ?ational 1a&ings and n&est*ents,?1, 200(

>Disability 'rie$in May 2@>, D;C, #ay 200/

>Discrimination doesn>t %or&>, #ac;ae and La&erty, Leonard CheshireDisability, 200(

>Chance o$ a li$etime: the impact o$ bad housin on children>s lives> Lisa>arker, 1helter, 1e%te*ber 200(

>Disability E3uality Scheme and )ction -lan 28 . > 'he >ousing =ssociation, >ousing =ssociation, 200(

>Disability )enda . creatin an alternative $uture>, Disability ;ightsCo**ission, D;C, 200/



>4ousin in Enland 2?F8 . a report principally $rom the 2?F8 Surveyo$ Enlish 4ousin> De%art*ent of Co**unities and Local Go&ern*ent,Actober 200/

>#he /oles o$ Schoolin and Educational *uali$ications in the Emerenceo$ )dult Social Exclusion>, Eohn >obcraft, C=1 Pa%er +3, L1, Dece*ber2000

>"airness and $reedom: the $inal report o$ the E3ualities /evie%> , CabinetAffice, 200/

>Disability s&ills and %or&: raisin our ambitions> 1te%hen &ans, 1ocial#arket oundation, Eune 200/

>Disability 22: opportunities $or $ull and e3ual citiGenship o$ disabled

people in 'ritain in 22> Pillai et al, PP;, #arch 200/

>#he Economist intellience unit>s 3uality o$ li$e index 28>, 'he cono*ist,200( <as shon at econo*istco*H*ediaH%dfH=L'QAQL%df @

>Disability )enda . creatin an alternative $uture>, Disability ;ightsCo**ission, 200/

>Disablin attitudesH -ublic perspectives on disabled people> by Eohn ;igg,in 4'ritish Social )ttitudes: the 2!rd /eport . -erspectives on a chaninsociety4, %ublished by 1age for ?atCen, 200/

>Does the internet open up opportunities $or disabled peopleH> Pilling,)arrett and loyd, E;, 200+

>Mind the ap> Ca*%ion, Greenhalgh and Knight, Leonard Cheshire Disability,2003

>In the balance: disabled people>s experiences o$ debt> Claire Kober,Leonard Cheshire Disability, 2005

>Securin ood care $or older people> Derek anless, King4s und, 200(>Spendin -o%er: disabled people>s experiences o$ accessin andspendin their money> Lee ebster, Leonard Cheshire Disability, 200/

>Charin $or residential accommodation uide4, 200/ edition, %age 2!,De%art*ent of >ealth, 200/





>'arriers to Employment $or Disabled -eople> Goldstone, #eager, ?APConsu*er and the nstitute for *%loy*ent 1tudies, DP re%ort ?o 5, DP,2002

>)ccess to or& $or Disabled -eople> Disability *%loy*ent Coalition,

Actober 200+

>)n introduction to li$etime homes> Eose%h ;ontree oundationJhtt%6HH7rforgukHhousingandcareHlifeti*eho*esH

>Discrimination +a% /evie%: ) "rame%or& $or "airness: -roposals $or aSinle E3uality 'ill $or Jreat 'ritain . ) consultation paper> De%art*ent ofCo**unities and Local Go&ern*ent, Eune 200/

>#he economic bene$its o$ a deree> ni&ersities K, ebruary 200/

>#he Jovernance o$ 'ritain> #inistry of Eustice, Euly 200/

>Disability -overty and +ivin Standards: /evie%in )ustralian Evidenceand -olicies> 1aunders, 1ocial Policy ;esearch Centre, 2005

>#he ta&e(up rate o$ Disability +ivin )llo%ance and )ttendance )llo%ance:"easibility study> Diana Kas%aro&a, =lan #arsh and Da&id ilkinson, DP,200/

>-resident>s report 2?(28> =%%eals 1er&ice, 200(

>#he Commissioner $or -ublic )ppointments 12th )nnual /eport 28F@>ACP=, 200/

>Disabled people in 'ritain: endurin economic exclusion> 'ania )urchardt,C=1, L1, 2000

>'ein and becomin: social exclusion and the onset o$ disability> 'ania)urchardt, C=1, L1, 2003

>Disabled people>s costs o$ livin: >More than you %ould thin&> 1*ith et al,E;, 200+

>/evie% o$ existin research on the extra costs o$ disability> #ike 'ibble,DP, 2005

>pportunity $or all: indicators update 2@> DP, Actober 200/>Case study examples o$ Disability E3uality Duty best practice> ;=D=; andD;C, =%ril 200/

http://www.jrf.org.uk/housingandcare/lifetimehomes/

http://www.jrf.org.uk/housingandcare/lifetimehomes/



>Bo% 'oardin: disabled people>s experiences o$ air travel> =nnette Laidler,Leonard Cheshire Disability, 200/

)bout +eonard Cheshire Disability

+eonard Cheshire Disability supports over 21 disabled people in theUK and %or&s in ?2 countries0 e campain $or chane and provideinnovative services that ive disabled people the opportunity to live li$etheir %ay0



#han&s are due to the many people %ho assisted in the production o$ thisreport or %hose %or& has provided data and in$ormation $or it includinthe %hole +eonard Cheshire Disability -olicy and Campains #eam #ania'urchardt Stephen Elsden Sue Jrant Caroline Jreenhalh and #revorat&ins0 #his report is available in alternative $ormats such as 'raille

audio and lare(print0 -lease contact us to re3uest a copy in an alternative$ormat0

+eonard Cheshire Disability30 #illbankLondon 1!P +D'el6 020 /802 8200*ail6 researchTLCDisabilityorg%%%0+CDisability0or0

Documents

Disability Poverty in the UK 2008