Research exploring ways to improve the Disability Confident Employer Scheme in Wales - Executive summary

Research rationale

In September 2023, the Chairs of the Disability Rights Taskforce (DRTF) Working Groups agreed to collaborate with the Disability Disparity Evidence Unit (DDEU) with the aim of co-producing Government Social Research (GSR). The DRTF had previously identified a series of recommendations, one of which related to the Disability Confident Employer Scheme.

DRTF Working Group members recommended that the Disability Confident Employer Scheme needs improvement and increased engagement with existing avenues of support and advice from disabled people with lived experience. They proposed new ideas for the scheme, which included a distinct employer’s kitemark for Wales, an enhanced scheme with a Welsh element or to seek improvements to the current UK-wide scheme. 

This research aimed to further explore the DRTF Working Group recommendation relating to the Disability Confident Employer Scheme with a range of stakeholders and use a co-production approach. 

Disability Confident Employer Scheme

The Disability Confident Employer Scheme is a UK-wide scheme and is delivered by the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP). 

The scheme aims to ‘get more disabled people into employment and reduce the employment gap between disabled people and non-disabled people’. 

The scheme has three levels which employers are encouraged to move through to the highest level to achieve a Disability Confident Leader status kitemark. 

The scheme aims state that ‘being Disability Confident is an opportunity for employers to lead the way in their community and to discover skills and talents they cannot do without’. 

Latest figures relating to disabled people in employment

For the year ending June 2024 in Wales, there were 50.9% of disabled people in employment (aged 16 to 64) compared to 81.6% of non-disabled people. The employment rate gap for disabled people in the year ending June 2024 stood at 30.7 percentage points. 

In addition to this, in 2022 to 2023, disabled people or people with a limiting long-standing illness were more than twice as likely to live in a household in material deprivation than those who are not disabled. One in four disabled people or people with a limiting long-standing illness (25%) lived in a household in material deprivation compared with 11% of people who were not disabled.                                                

For disabled people in employment, the pay difference between disabled and non-disabled people in Wales was £1.75 (12.2%) in 2023. This means that disabled people in Wales earned, on average, £1.75 less per hour than non-disabled people.

Co-production approach

This research was a prototype for coproducing GSR. It set out to test if it is possible to coproduce this type of research, how much can be co-produced and to show it could be done in the future. 

The co-production team combined lived experience of being disabled by barriers in society with expert knowledge in disability rights and social research. The team included  DRTF Working Group Chairs, Welsh Government research and policy officials and a PhD student. 

The team’s goal was to learn how to produce research together. This would improve the quality and use of evidence which informs decisions affecting disabled people. 

Methodology

Three focus groups were held in July 2024 and were comprised of employers, trade unions and representatives from Disabled People’s Organisations (DPO’s) and impairment groups (IG’s). 

A DPO is defined as ‘an organisation led, directed, and governed by disabled people, with a commitment to the social model of disability and the promotion of human rights for disabled individuals’.

An IG can broadly be defined as ‘an organisation whose purpose is to further the interests of people with a specific impairment, which is not run and governed exclusively, or at all, by disabled people’.

The focus groups were facilitated and co-analysed by the co-production team. There were 25 focus group participants in total. In addition, 5 DRTF working group chairs and a PhD student acted as facilitators and co-facilitators and some fed into focus group discussions given that they brought lived experience and expertise.

Participants were chosen to represent a range of different experiences and knowledge of the Disability Confident Employer Scheme and employment issues affecting disabled people. 

The focus groups were held virtually to ensure the research was accessible. Focus group participants were offered alternative ways to provide their views if this was required. Focus group participants were provided with a list of discussion prompts in advance. 

The data collected is presented as insights about the current scheme and an exploration of the potential for alternative models that are more bespoke to meet the needs of disabled people and organisations in Wales. 

It should be acknowledged that this research did not aim to fully evaluate the current Disability Confident Employer Scheme, rather to explore the options discussed by the DRTF working group. The sample is not fully representative of all types of employers, and it did not include the views of the UK Government department who host the current scheme. 

The focus group approach offered the opportunity for rich and diverse insights into this topic. Participants brought a wealth of lived experience of being disabled by barriers and of engaging with the current Disability Confident Employer Scheme.

Context

Focus group discussions considered the broader context in which the current scheme operates as well as some of the employment barriers for disabled people. Participants reflected that disabled people are more likely to be in low paid, insecure employment that does not always accommodate flexible working. 

It was considered that some disabled people are further disadvantaged by the sector or contract they are employed under. Freelancers and disabled people on a zero-hour contract cannot always access trade union membership. 

Participants shared reflections that some people do not wish to identify as disabled due to stereotypes and potential negative preconceptions from others. Participants reflected that some disabled people and employers may not be fully aware of their rights and responsibilities under The Equality Act (2010). This lack of understanding particularly around reasonable adjustments was considered to present a challenge for employers to fully understand their workforce and make these available if required. 

Safe working environments where disabled people feel able to self-identify was considered to be essential. It was reflected that there were proposals for a requirement for disability pay gap reporting, which was seen as a positive step forward. However, it was noted that this would only be aimed at large scale employers and would rely on self-reporting which may be problematic.

Participant views about the current scheme 

There are three levels within the existing scheme that employers can achieve. Many participants agreed that the Level 3 leader status was valuable because achieving it required external assessment by another organisation that had already gained Level 3 status within the scheme. 

Many participants raised problems experienced with the current scheme, particularly at the lower levels which is discussed below. 

The concept of an interview guarantee for disabled candidates when applying for jobs was seen as an advantage. Although some participants had experience of this not being honoured. 

Participants reflected that displaying the Disability Confident scheme logo on job adverts could be advantageous to disabled people if it indicated certain minimum employment expectations would be met. However, whilst there was some confidence amongst participants that Level 3 employers might meet this expectation, there was less confidence in the lower-level employers. 

Participants across the three focus groups reflected that the lower levels (levels 1 and 2) of the current Disability Confident Employer Scheme were not considered challenging enough and represent a minimum standard. The lower levels were seen to not provide enough support and guidance for employers. It was thought that this leads to some employers not fully understanding what it is they have signed up to deliver. Participants felt there was a lack of understanding amongst employers of the barriers that disabled people face in the workplace and of the scheme itself. 

Research participants reflected this ‘minimum standard’ potentially gives a false sense of security to employers and disabled people seeking employment. 

DPO representatives reflected that some employers do not always have a clear understanding of the barriers faced by disabled people in the labour market and may think recruitment practices are fully accessible, however this is not always the case. 

The lower levels of the scheme were not considered robust enough as employers are required to self-assess at these levels and there is no external monitoring, evaluation or accreditation.

The current scheme was described by many participants as ‘a tick box exercise’, ‘not fit for purpose’ and compared unfavourably with other employer schemes. Other comparable schemes for people with different protected characteristics for example LGBTQ+ specific schemes were viewed as more effective, challenging and robust. It was also reflected that people with lived experience were typically involved in the establishment, management and evaluation of these schemes. 

It was reflected that there is a lack of emphasis on engaging with people with lived experience to seek feedback regarding how well the scheme was currently working for them. This was seen as essential as disabled people are the assumed beneficiaries.

Employers that participated in the research highlighted their desire for continuous learning and improvement. Some employers reflected the current scheme guidance focused on actions they had already taken. 

Participants reflected that funding and support given to employers was sometimes variable. Some employers provided examples of good support from the DWP in some geographic areas, whilst others reported they found support more difficult to access. 

Some participants highlighted ‘horrid’ experiences in employment that disabled people had faced historically. The lack of follow up for employers who are part of the scheme means that some are not currently held accountable which can lead to repeat bad experiences for disabled people in the workforce. 

Stakeholder suggestions on how to improve the current scheme

Focus group participants shared suggestions on how to improve the current scheme which included: 

• increasing resource such as staff, funding and capacity amongst stakeholders to address the problems identified by the research and ensuring improvements were sustained and meaningful
• one example proposed was DPO's could be provided with additional resources to work more directly with employers to provide advice and guidance
• robust and regular monitoring of progress against agreed and measurable benchmarks across all levels to increase confidence and to demonstrate improved outcomes for disabled people in the workforce
• independent evaluation at all levels where people with lived experience could potentially play a role, given they are the assumed beneficiaries of the scheme
• it was suggested that DPO’s could potentially form an advisory board with Welsh Government and build on the work of the Disability Champions to undertake evaluation activity
• increased opportunities for shared learning amongst stakeholders
• increased engagement at a regional level between DPOs, third sector organisations, employers and trade unions

One of the fundamental principles of any improvement identified was engaging with disabled people with lived experience. Employers need to understand fully what the barriers are for disabled people, and what good practice looks like. It was deemed to be necessary for the current scheme to set higher aspirations for change across all levels. 

Trade Union representatives reflected they would like greater involvement in a future scheme. Their network of workplace union representatives was considered a potential source of support and education for both employers and disabled people.

Current legislation was seen as a structural obstacle. It was reflected by trade union participants that legislation often focuses more on individual disability discrimination cases as opposed to addressing barriers across sectors. Participants shared ambitions for stakeholders to be working together more in the future to collectively identify solutions. Participants across the focus groups reflected there was a need for a stronger reporting procedure to ensure employer accountability and integrity. 

Participants reflected on the role of the DWP, given that the current scheme ownership resides with them. It was deemed that trust and relationships would need to improve to allow for collaboration to make improvements. However, participants raised that if effective collaboration between the DWP and stakeholders is not possible, alternative hosting arrangements for the scheme could be a better option. 

It was suggested that Welsh Government could potentially play more of an active role in either a future scheme or a revised scheme. This potentially would enable local networks of stakeholders to work collaboratively. This led to further debate regarding the potential advantages and challenges of a bespoke Welsh employer scheme as discussed below. 

Potential advantages and challenges of a Welsh scheme or a devolved element within a national scheme 

Evidence from the research suggests mixed support for a new Welsh scheme or a devolved element within a UK-wide scheme. This could form part of any devolved responsibilities to ensure the scheme takes account of regional needs and allows for greater community involvement. Consideration was given to both potential advantages and challenges associated with this. 

One potential advantage of devolving some or all of the Disability Confident scheme to Wales, raised by focus group participants, included establishing a specific forum of leaders in Wales. It was deemed that this forum could have the benefit of raising aspiration and provide leaders with a local network to challenge each other and share good practice.  It was suggested that this could include working collaboratively with DPOs, IGs and trade unions.

There was recognition that a Welsh dimension to an employer’s scheme could better integrate Welsh speakers and promote the use of the Welsh language. A scheme that took account of a Welsh specific dimension could potentially better understand the regional patterns of employment as well as economic barriers faced by disabled people. 

Some participants highlighted concern that few employers in Wales had achieved Level 3 leader status to date. Localised support was therefore seen as a potential way to increase the numbers of employers in Wales in both the private and public sector achieving leader status. 

Some disabled people and DPOs felt that levels of trust with Welsh Government were higher than that with the UK Government. It was also considered that having a bespoke Welsh element could provide a new opportunity for a ‘cultural shift’. It was reflected by one participant that this would offer the opportunity to reform from the ground up and work co-productively with disabled people. 

It was suggested this could incorporate a complete re-brand of the scheme that was not aligned to the DWP to ensure greater confidence and trust in the scheme. 

It was suggested that a bespoke Welsh element could potentially align to the public procurement process in Wales which might be used as leverage to engage more employers. For example, a minimum quality standard could be set to ensure any employers bidding for public sector contracts would have to demonstrate in practice. 

The potential challenges that were highlighted included practical issues such as funding and capacity. Participants raised that greater investment would be needed in Wales to enhance stakeholder capacity particularly for DPO’s and IGs. 

It was also suggested that having a bespoke Welsh scheme sitting alongside a UK national employer scheme might cause some confusion, particularly for employers that operate across the UK. 

Some participants questioned how feasible this was to deliver in real terms. Some participants felt that efforts could be better spent trying to improve or build upon the existing scheme as opposed to potentially diverting resources away from it. 

Overall, participants felt there were clear opportunities and potential advantages of a bespoke Welsh scheme, and alternatively there was also strong support for increasing available resources and making improvements to the current scheme as opposed to developing something new.