Six steps to significantly increase workforce productivity, cost effectiveness and well-being.
“Senior Civil Service (SCS) leaders are absolutely committed to realising the vision of a service that is truly representative of society at large, that recognises and rewards talented individuals, whoever they are, and gives everyone an equal chance to succeed. This isn’t just the right thing to do; it is vital for the effectiveness of the Civil Service – and the quality of the public services it delivers – that we make full use of the natural talent at our disposal.”
Sir Jeremy Heywood
Cabinet Secretary and Head of the Civil Service
Launch of the ‘Civil Service Talent Action Plan’
13th November 2014
Download
Download the Case study as PDF
Executive summary
Disability in the Civil Service remains something of a “Cinderella” – acknowledged, worried about, but somehow rarely the subject of sustained, joined up action to ensure consistently successful outcomes. And yet there is growing evidence from the private sector that a number of relatively simple steps can have a transformative effect.
By creating a culture of trust, by making expertise easily available and by investing modest sums, Civil Service departments can break the vicious circle which traps too many staff in a cycle of endless effort to obtain appropriate adjustments, which unsurprisingly results in many cases in stress-related illness and absence. It is straightforward: a few key decisions, sustained communications and consistent leadership at all levels.
This report has been produced by Microlink, with a view to empower every civil service employee, including disabled and potentially disabled employees, to achieve their potential in contributing to public service success.
It draws on information from civil servants, as well as from Lloyds Banking Group’s recent successful disability programme, to demonstrate the substantial and wide benefits that can come from changes to the way the civil service manages disability across its workforce.
Microlink helped Lloyds Banking Group to re-engineer their ad hoc ‘reasonable adjustment process’ to create a carefully designed ‘workplace adjustment service’. Over 3 years some 19,000 employees used the service from a total staff count of over 100,000.
The results have been significant for the group. 100% of managers and employees at Lloyds using the service would tell any organisation to do the same.
This report is based on independent research carried out for Microlink by Global Government Forum, Lloyds Banking Group data, and data published by the Civil Service itself.
Civil service data suggests the following:
Fewer than half of civil servants who say they have a disability or long term health condition currently declare this and receive help in the workplace.
Senior Civil Servants are more than three times less likely to have a disability than Executive Officers.
Of those civil servants that indicated that they have a disability 48% have asked their manager for help/assistance
When staff ask for help/assistance, on average 58% currently go on to see improvements
Supporting staff with disabilities is a high priority for the majority of departments.
However, less than a third (30%) of senior managers we spoke to would recommend their department’s disability programme.
100% of managers and employees at Lloyds using the service would tell any organisation to do the same.
28% of departments and agencies do not have a written policy on disability in the workplace.
Only 13% of departments and agencies have a central budget for adjustments.
Civil Service People survey data suggests that since 2009 there has been an increase in discrimination at work because of disability and that staff are almost three times more likely to have encountered some form of bullying, harassment or discrimination if they are disabled or suffering from a long-term limiting condition, than if they did not.
Achieving absence rates similar to the private sector “would save £40 million a year for the taxpayer.”
The cost of disability discrimination employment tribunals can be higher than £388k, and the average award in 2011 was £27k.
The average cost of a physical reasonable adjustment is just £300.
Case study data shows the following:
Lloyds Banking group achieved an 89% reduction in absence due to their process change.
85% of the employees using the service at Lloyds Banking Group reported a significant improvement in their work performance with 77% reporting a dramatic improvement.
In the case of Royal Mail Group, who implemented a similar approach in 2008, formal grievances dropped by 51% during the period of transformation.
The evidence suggests that it can be relatively easy to enable staff with disabilities to develop their potential and maximise their contributions to the workforce.
Six steps you can take to make a significant difference
Increase awareness
Provide managers at all levels with clear advice, training and management information to:
Raise awareness of disability as a business issue
Ensure understanding of the process that has been put in place to enable appropriate adjustments as quickly as possible
Reinforce the message that this will deliver value for money
Improve consistency and accountability of management
Ensure that there is a consistent, well documented and appropriate policy in place in each part of the organisation.
Appoint a named business manager with the authority and accountability to ensure end-to-end service quality.
Cultural change
Change the culture to one of trust in your people. Make it clear that staff do not have to ‘prove’ they have a disability in order to qualify for a service. Nor should they have to “re-qualify” if they move job or their circumstances change
Enable self-referral to expert case advisers
Centralise budgets and processes
Centralise the entire adjustment process as far as possible.
Develop a new joined up system so that all adjustments are purchased through a central fund, positioned as a normal part of the cost of running a department/agency.
Standardise the catalogue of available adjustments and other equipment.
Purchase adjustments through a central buying entity or budget – do not require individual business units to pay through their own budgets.
Use experts
Provide a service that uses experts and not managers to diagnose what is needed and to order the adjustment, drive the process and minimise unnecessary assessments.
Make sure that the first point of contact is an expert who can provide informed and helpful advice.
Implement this together with a preapproved ‘Fast Track’ catalogue of hard adjustments (e.g. furniture, IT equipment).
Monitor and evaluate
An effective case management system is required to track cases and collate relevant data.
Publish measurements to increase visibility, awareness and accountability of the process.
Measure the current situation as your ‘start-point’ and use this to monitor progress and success.
Conclusions
We have put this data into context, and illustrated specific benefits that the Civil Service can expect from taking a similar approach.
It is counter-productive to promote disability management as being important simply to meet legal obligations. The fundamental aim of this process should be to empower your workforce to move towards a modern Civil Service, reflective of society, whereby everyone has the opportunity to excel in their chosen careers.
Introduction
Research suggests that the best performing organisations are those that invest most on promoting equality and diversity in their workforce.
With over 400,000 staff, managing disability across the UK Civil Service workforce of today is a substantial task.
In the current economic climate, the need to create efficiencies means that increasing productivity and wellbeing of such a large workforce is particularly important. Effective disability management has a significant role to play in creating such efficiencies and bringing about the Civil Service as a modern employer, in line with the Civil Service vision.
Europe’s leading provider of assistive technology and disability related management solutions to the Education, Public and Private sectors, Microlink, has produced this case study of disability management across the UK Civil Service. This report is produced with a view to empower every employee, including disabled and potentially disabled employees, to achieve their potential in contributing to public service success.
It uses data specific to the Civil Service, and data from Lloyds Banking Groups recent successful disability programme, to demonstrate the substantial and wide benefits that can come from changes to the way the civil service manages disability across its workforce
In 2011, Microlink helped Lloyds Banking Group, to re-engineer their ad hoc ‘reasonable adjustment process’ to create a carefully designed ‘workplace adjustment service’, emphasising a change of ethos to supporting employees to meet their needs and to optimise their contribution at work, rather than compliance with legislation.
Over 3 years some 19,000 employees used the service from a total staff count of over 100,000.
The results have been significant for the group:
77% of people using the service reported a dramatic improvement in performance.
62% of employees (and 63% of their managers) using the service reported a reduction in absence levels.
100% of managers and employees at Lloyds using the service would tell any company to do the same.
Whereas the Civil Service is often mistakenly likened to the private sector in many case studies, this paper seeks to use specific Civil Service data to make recommendations.
77% of people using the service reported a dramatic improvement in performance.
Through analysing the key successes seen by the Lloyds Banking Group and Microlink partnership, and data showing the current landscape of disability management across the UK Civil Service, we have provided recommendations for how the UK Civil Service can also benefit from better disability management within the context of public service, to ultimately make it easier for Civil Servants to carry out their day to day roles.
Disability in the civil service of today
The UK Civil Service has made significant progress over the last 10 years in the both the percentage of civil servants with a disability that are employed, and the percentage of disabled employees that declare their disability. This percentage has risen from 3.1% in 2001 to 8.8% in 2014. The figure is still rising.
How many civil servants declare their disabilities?
Although civil service statistics show that the civil service has made impressive progress, our research goes a step further to put this figure into context.
In a survey of 690 civil servants carried out by Civil Service Live in June 2013, 20% of civil servants indicated that they had a disability or a long term health condition (such as visual impairment, hearing loss, musculoskeletal conditions, mental health conditions, dyslexia, diabetes, cancer). At the time, civil statistics showed that 8.6% of civil servants had declared a disability. This suggests that fewer than half of civil servants with a disability or long term health condition currently declare this, which reduces the chances of receiving help with their disability in the workplace.
How many civil servants with disabilities currently ask for help?
The Civil Service Live survey suggests that of those civil servants that indicated that they have a disability 48% have asked their manager for help/assistance. This figure tallies with the difference between the percentage of declared disabled staff from civil service statistics compared to the percentage of staff who indicated that they have a disability or long term condition from our survey.
Less than half of civil servants that say they have a disability or long term health condition currently declare this.
When staff ask for help/assistance, on average 58% currently go on to see improvements. Less than a quarter of staff who ask for help do not see any improvement.
When staff ask for help/ assistance, on average 58% currently go on to see improvements.
Priorities and civil service leadership
When we spoke to senior managers from across the civil service (100 senior managers at grades 6, 7 and SCS across over 60 departments and agencies), we found that their perceptions were that supporting staff with disabilities is a high priority for the majority of departments. However, nearly a third (29%) of those senior managers that we asked either did not agree, or did not know.
Perceptions were that supporting staff with disabilities is a high priority for the majority of departments.
The majority (76%) of the senior managers that we spoke to agreed that their disability policy covers both visible and invisible disabilities; and support from their own managers at the very top is on the whole good: again, a majority (76%) of those we spoke to agreed. 64% of the senior managers we spoke to feel that their department is good at managing workplace assessments and adjustments.
However, less than a third of senior managers we spoke to (30%) would recommend their department’s disability programme.
Measurement of progress
With hundreds of individual departments, agencies and directorates making up the civil service, consistency of monitoring and evaluation of disability management is a difficult task.
At the end of 2014, we submitted Freedom of Information requests to all core civil service departments and agencies asking them to provide information on workplace assessments and workplace adjustments, as well as important metrics such as policies they have in place for disability management and records for budgets and absence due to disability.
However, less than a third of senior managers we spoke to (30%) would recommend their department’s disability programme.
Over 86% of departments and agencies provided the information that they had available in these areas. The data provides an important view of the how disability management is being measured across the civil service.
The headline findings show that measurement capabilities and processes are disparate. Only 15% of departments and agencies were able to provide data on the number of days absence across their organisation through disability related issues.
Less than a third (28%) of departments and agencies are able to record and provide numbers of workplace adjustment cases received. Only 17% were able to show even an approximate average amount of time taken to complete a workplace adjustment case.
Only 17% of senior management from across the civil service felt that their departments were able to measure the impact of disability and wellbeing.
This indicates that consistent policies and processes are not in place across the majority of departments and agencies to measure the impact of disability on productivity and wellbeing. Importantly, if they are, few senior managers appear to be aware of them.
There are, however, some core departments that are able to produce useful data for monitoring purposes. One of these is HM Revenue & Customs, who have published a comprehensive repoort on their Workforce Diversity data for 2013-14. We have shown some of these statistics below.
HM Revenue & Customs Data
In terms of disability declaration, this is higher at SCS levels, but far fewer SCS declare themselves disabled in their declarations.
On average, in 2013-14 a smaller proportion of new entrants to HMRC declared a disability than overall civil service statistics for the current workforce show.
In HMRC staff performance ratings, in 2013-14 fewer disabled staff ‘exceeded’ and more came into the ‘must improve’ category
Overall, disabled staff accounted for 10% more formal grievances than non-disabled staff.
A disproportionate number of of disciplinary cases took place among disabled staff.
Source: HM Revenue and Customs Workforce Diversity Data for 2013-14, www.gov.uk
Policies and budgets
The FOI responses also provide important data on wider policies on disabled staff in departments and agencies across the civil service: 28% of departments and agencies do not have a written policy on disability in the workplace. 10 Having a policy in place is important not only for managers to understand processes and effectively provide assistance to their staff: it is also important for disabled staff to be able to understand and feel confident that there are processes in place that they can use to get the help that they need to carry out their roles effectively.
One other important factor in disability management, is where funding can be accessed to provide disabled staff with assistance. As part of the FOI requests, we asked if there was a central budget available for workplace adjustments in each department or agency.
13% of departments and agencies confirmed that they had a central budget for this purpose. Where no central budget is held, it was usually stated that individual business units are responsible out of their own individual budgets.
28% of departments and agencies do not have a written policy on disability in the workplace.
To be able to understand the difference in these central budgets, we asked what the budgets were for the most recent available years.
In the absence of data on the number of disabled staff requesting assistance per department in any given year, and with the absence of reliable data on staff turnover, for the purposes of illustrating the proportional differences in departments’ central budgets, we have divided the total budget for the given year by the total staff count of that year.
Of those departments that have central budgets, the range in amount budgeted for workplace adjustments per employee ranged from £5.88 to £80.50. Even when taking into account that this budget is for new cases in that year, and not one that is spent on each employee, the variation in budgets still appears to be large, suggesting that the treatment is inconsistent.
Examples of central budgets
Impact of disability on productivity in the civil service
There are many ways that disability, if not managed effectively, can impact productivity and the effectiveness of the workforce. Through analysing the civil service’s own staff survey, and by speaking to senior managers we have been able to highlight the most important current trends across the UK Civil Service.
Civil Servants with a long-term limiting illness or condition are less proud to tell others where they work.
Lower engagement levels among disabled staff
Questions asked as part of the 2013 Civil Service People survey show that overall engagement is lower for staff who identified themselves as having a long-term limiting illness of condition. The survey asks respondents whether they agree or disagree with a series of statements, broken down into themes that are designed to measure metrics such as: satisfaction with their organisation, their pay, resources, leadership and management, their team, and wellbeing.
Overall, of those with no such illness or condition 55% agree with the statements measuring employee engagement, compared to 47% of staff with an illness or condition. A percentage difference of 8%. The percentage points difference for individual statements making up this overall score provide more insight.
The statement ‘I am proud when I tell others I am part of [my organisation]’ for 12 example, shows a percentage different of 12% (79% vs 65%), with those with a long-term limiting illness or condition being on average less proud to tell others where they work.
The annual Civil Service People surveys show that since 2009 there has been an overall increase in discrimination at work because of disability of 1%.
Higher discrimination rates
The Civil Service People survey in 2009 found that civil servants with disabilities were three times more likely than others to report that they had encountered some form of bullying, harassment or discrimination. In 2011, the Civil Service Disability Task Group was established to try to understand why this was, and what possible actions could be taken to address this.
The Civil Service People surveys carried out between 2009 and 2013 show that since 2009 there has been an overall increase in discrimination at work because of disability of 1%.
The 2013 survey also shows that staff were still almost three times more likely to have encountered some form of bullying, harassment or discrimination if they were disabled or suffered from a long-term limiting condition, than if they did not.8
Higher staff absence
In a recent article written by Lin Homer, Chief Executive of HMRC and Chair of the Civil Service Board’s ‘People Board’, Homer talked about sickness absence (measured by the number of average working days lost per person) being at ‘the lowest recorded level, standing at 6.3 days in the Civil Service – down from 7.9 days in 2009′.
She goes on to point out, importantly, that that is lower than the wider public sector (7.9 days) but still higher than the private sector (5.5 days).
Several departments have succeeded in lowering their overall absence to below that of the private sector: an impressive achievement.
But Homer points out that other departments need to be supported to do the same, with the outcome that ‘if we achieve this, it would save £40 million a year for the taxpayer.”
When asked about the impact of unplanned staff absence through longterm illness and disability to the their performance and the performance of their teams, the senior managers that we spoke to provided responses such as:
“Unplanned absence has an effect on the resilience of the team and accordingly the ability to manage the business of the team”
Senior Civil Servant, Crown Prosecution Service
“Increased work pressure on other staff at least in the short term until any staffing shortfall can be addressed which can take several months.”
Senior Civil Servant, Department for International Development
“It can add to pressure on other team members”
Senior Civil Servant, Home Office
“[There is an] inability to be properly effective.”
Senior Civil Servant, Department for Transport
“[The impact is] having to cover and finding it difficult to backfill because of the technical nature of many of our roles”
Senior Civil Servant, Public Health England
Achieving absence rates similar to the private sector “would save £40 million a year for the taxpayer.”
Whereas all departments and agencies are measuring overall absence rates, only 15% of departments and agencies that responded to our FOI requests were able to provide the number of days absence that had been recorded as due to disability related issues.
No departments or agencies were able to give robust statistics for disability related absence: only ad hoc indications from where an individual had specifically reported their absence being due to a disability.
The senior managers that we spoke to suggested to us that the impact of unplanned absence due to disability is significant. Yet, the data we have collected points to measurement and monitoring of the impact of disability as an area that can and should be improved so that civil service management are able to better understand this issue.
Reduced talent pool, and lower staff retention
With a workforce of over 400,000 the civil service has an enormous talent pool. However both our survey data, and civil service data suggests that many staff with disabilities are not reaching their full potential.
One further impact of disability in the civil service is poor staff retention. The Civil Service People survey asked respondents whether they agreed that they want to leave their organisation within the next 12 months. There was a slight difference between the two groups: those with a long-term limiting illness or condition are more likely to agree.
When asked whether they agreed with the statement: ‘I want to leave [my organisation] as soon as possible’, however, there was a 7% difference.
Staff with a long-term limiting illness or condition are more likely to want to leave their organisation as soon as possible. Without reducing this imbalance, disabled staff are less likely to be proportionately represented in talent pools for longerterm career opportunities and for senior positions.
Formal grievances
With high rates of bullying and harassment, the daily experience and effectiveness of staff suffers, as does departments’ exposure to unfavourable tribunal outcomes.
Best practice guidance on monitoring equality and diversity in employment, from the civil service website,12 states that equality and diversity monitoring can help to: ‘build reputation’ and to ‘avoid risk’ such as ‘avoiding damaging and costly employment tribunals or negative publicity’
The cost of tribunals is high, but the cost of negative feelings in the workplace is an often overlooked consequence to overall engagement, wellbeing and productivity.
Benefits of better disability management
Replicating much of the success seen by Lloyds Banking Group is possible for the organisations that make up the UK Civil Service.
The actions taken by Lloyds Banking Group in 2011 have been monitored and evaluated throughout
From this data we can show in each of the areas that are impacting productivity, wellbeing and effectiveness of the UK Civil Service, metrics for the benefits of taking six steps to better manage disability. We have put this into context, with specific benefits that the civil service could expect from taking a similar approach.
Less working days lost through absence
A sample of 90 staff were surveyed by Lloyds Banking Group before they received a workplace adjustment under the new process, and then surveyed again 12 months after the adjustment had taken place. The results show a drastic improvement in the average number of days absence after staff had been through the new process.
Overall, 62% of employees and 63% of managers using the service reported a reduction in absence levels.
Staff surveyed reported that before the adjustment, they were on average absent due to their condition for 15.6 days each in the 12 months before the adjustment. After the adjustment, this average absence had been significantly reduced to 1.7 days in the 12 months after. This equates to a very significant 89% reduction in absence. In some cases, absence was reduced from months a year, to just days.
Comparable improvements are possible for civil service departments.
Lloyds achieved an 89% reduction in absence after introducing the new process.
The Sainsbury Centre for Mental Health has reported that the business costs of mental health across the UK are estimated to be nearly £26 billion each year. They comprise, £8.4 billion a year in sickness absence; £15.1 billion a year in reduced productivity at work; and £2.4 billion a year spent in replacing staff who leave their jobs because of mental ill health. Proportionate similar costs will also be incurred in the public sector, unless action is taken to reduce them through better disability mananagement.
Improved engagement and relationships between staff
63% of senior civil service managers that we spoke to agreed that being able to provide cost effective, timely and appropriate assistance to staff with disabilities would mean a significant improvement in the relationship between disabled and non-disabled staff.
The Civil Service Task Group on Disability report from March 2011 agreed that: ‘Swift responses to the needs of staff also yield benefits in employee engagement and productivity.’
With a such large proportion of our time spent in the workplace, improving relationships and engagement between staff means that individual staff wellbeing will also improve proportionately.
‘Swift responses to the needs of staff also yield benefits in employee engagement and productivity.’
Microlink data from the Lloyds case study shows that there was a dramatic improvement in relationships (100% of employees agree), and also in general happiness (99% agree) after adjustments took place.
Increased productivity
Whereas 63% of senior managers agree that a reduction in staff absences in their department would have a large and significant benefit to overall productivity, less than half (46%) of respondents have seen a high rise in productivity when interventions have been made to help disabled staff.
After Lloyds changed their process for workplace adjustments, 85% of the employees using the service reported a significant improvement in their work performance with 77% reporting a dramatic improvement.
After Lloyds changed their process for workplace adjustments, 85% of the employees using the service reported a significant improvement in their work performance.
In Lloyds’ case, 62% of assisted employees using the service reported a reduction in their absence levels.
Larger talent pool
In Jeremy Heywood’s first week in his additional role as Head of the Civil Service, the government published its Talent Action Plan. This is a big step in the right direction in terms of leadership, and Heywood’s article announcing its launch shows that creating a larger talent pool that is more reflective of society is an important reason for this action plan, and is a strong benefit of better diversity management.
This is a big step in the right direction in terms of leadership.
Heywood writes: “The Civil Service needs to ensure that it is attracting and retaining the most talented individuals from all walks of life. I want to see all of our hard-working, committed and talented staff succeeding, removing any actual, perceived or unconscious barriers that currently prevent this despite all the good intentions.”
Risk reduction
Civil Service best practice guidance on monitoring equality and diversity in employment has stated that equality and diversity monitoring can help to: ‘build reputation’ and to ‘avoid risk’ such as ‘avoiding damaging and costly employment tribunals or negative publicity’.
In one of the focus groups conducted by the Civil Service Task Group on Disability, half of the attendees had been to an Employment Tribunal because of disability discrimination. Each one ‘had secured an outright win and had been awarded damages.’
In the Royal Mail Group case, formal grievances dropped by 51% during the period of transformation.
The cost of disability discrimination employment tribunals can be higher than £388k, and the average award in 2011 was £27k. This does not include legal costs, loss of time or reduction in productivity of the organisation. ‘Let alone the legacy of ill feeling.’
This compares with the average cost of a physical reasonable adjustment being just £300.
In the Royal Mail Group case, formal grievances dropped by 51% during the period of transformation.
This is clearly an area worthy of closer examination by the civil service, where closer inspection of their own specific civil service data can be taken into consideration, for calculating the scale of potential savings.
Six steps you can take to make a significant difference
Once you have the facts, these are some of the important steps that you need to implement and measure.
1. Increase awareness
A third of senior civil service managers we spoke to do not feel that they have had enough suitable training to understand how to help and assist staff with disabilities.
Managers at all levels need to be provided with clear advice to help in supporting colleagues who require adjustments.
This includes:
Training, where needed, on the process change and awareness training of both visible and invisible disabilities
Accessible information for managers to be able to effectively promote their disability awareness.
A pre-approved list of ‘soft or nonphysical adjustments’ for managers specifying what the organisation regards as reasonable when employees ask for adjustments (for example, this might include: flexitime, lower targets, flexibility of sickness absence policies, parking).
Providing managers with relevant information to demonstrate value for money.
2. Improve consistency and accountability of management
28% of departments and agencies do not currently have a specific disability policy in place.
Steps you should take are to:
Ensure that there is a consistent, well documented and appropriate policy in place in each organisation.
Make someone accountable in each organisation.
This person should be a named business manager, and should be responsible for the quality of the service from end to end. They should also be responsible for continuous improvement.
They should carry the authority to ensure that everyone improves their performance as needed, to clear set standards.
3. Cultural change
Culture change takes time: however there are actions that can be taken to improve the culture of trust and declaration of disability across your workforce. It is important to get these actions right:
Instil a culture of trust in your workforce and do not require colleagues to ‘prove’ they have a disability in order to qualify for a service which makes it easier to do their job. A clear and well communicated policy document, and effective management engagement is again important
Also remove the culture or perceived culture to re-justify and re-prove disability among staff through effective policies and communication of these policies
Enable self-referral to expert case advisers, such as Microlink with line managers copied in to any referral requests.
4. Centralise budgets and processes
Where they are not already in place:
Centralise the entire adjustment process as far as possible.
Develop a new system so that all adjustments are purchased through a central fund, positioned as a normal part of the cost of running a department/ agency alongside buildings, desks, computers etc. Individual line managers should no longer be accountable in budgetary terms for any items.
Join up this approach across organisations to increase consistency: this will also offer opportunities to achieve economies of scale.
Standardise the catalogue of available adjustments and other equipment and reduce costs for any hard adjustments.
Purchase adjustments through a central buying entity or budget.
Lloyds Banking Group emphasise that centralised funding was the biggest critical success factor for them, as it removes disincentives on the person’s line manager and their department budget to approve or decline the request. The costs are allocated back to the business at divisional level and do not directly impact the line manager’s cost centre.
5. Use experts
It is important to minimise the time it takes to take staff through this process:
Minimise unnecessary assessments, such as referrals to occupational health: this can minimise delays and additional costs.
Provide a service that uses experts and not line managers to diagnose what is needed and to order the adjustment and drive the process.
Make sure that the first point of contact is an expert who can provide triage. This removes the need for unnecessary frontend assessments and referrals to formal and costly assessments.
Implement this together with a preapproved ‘Fast Track’ catalogue of hard adjustments (e.g. furniture, IT equipment). This means that experts such as Microlink can negotiate economies of scale on the organisation’s behalf.
6. Monitor and evaluate
Whereas 38% of senior civil service managers that we spoke to agree that they have a suitable system for monitoring costs and progress of workplace assessments and adjustments, only 17% agree that they are able to measure the impact of disability to productivity and wellbeing. Measurement and evaluation is essential.
An effective case management system is required to track cases and collate relevant data.
Publishing measurements will also increase visibility, awareness and accountability of the process.
It is crucial to measure the current situation as your ‘start-point’ and to use this to monitor progress and success, so that you can understand the return on investment you are receiving, and to be able to better understand your workforce.
Conclusions
This report has highlighted areas of concern, and areas that require improvement and attention across the UK Civil Service. Civil Service leaders are already taking this issue seriously, and progress is being made in several areas.
The key learning point here, is that delivering an effective workplace adjustments service must be both positioned as a business priority for the UK Civil Service as a whole, and also at a department and agency level.
Data from departments shows that it is often left to HR, diversity or occupational health teams to manage this process. Appointing business owners for this process is an important step to drawing in ICT, facilities, learning and development, procurement, finance and strategic operational leadership partners from within and across the departments and agencies that make up today’s civil service.
It is counterproductive to promote disability management as being important simply to meet legal obligations.
The fundamental aim of this process should be just as the current leadership of the civil service is trying to move towards: a modern civil service, reflective of society whereby:
“Everyone should have the opportunity to excel in their chosen careers.”
About Us
Microlink
Microlink plc. is Europe’s leading provider of assistive technology and disability related management solutions to the Education, Public and Private sectors.
Microlink was established in 1992, by owners Nasser and Vee. The company began as a result of the experiences both Nasser and Vee had working with their disabilities in a time where learning difficulties were not always understood, and products and services not easily available. The past 20 years have seen their efforts develop to make Microlink the pioneer in the Assistive Technology world.
Microlink are a proud co-founder of BATA (British Assistive Technology Association). Microlink has been instrumental in the creation and development of assistive technology in the education sector, and we have continued this leading role for 20 years. In that time we have supported over 180,000 students connect with their true potential and achieve more.
Global Government Forum
An impartial source of government news, events and research from around the world.
Our events and digital services bring the most senior public officials from departments and ministries around the world together with academics, economists and private sector practitioners to discuss governments’ domestic and global challenges and the strategic solutions for the future. We support government leaders and professionals from the global community to address the real issues of today and shape the public services of the future.
Lloyds Banking Group
A leading UK based financial services group providing a wide range of services, mostly in the UK, to individual and business customers.
Their main business activities are retail and commercial banking, general insurance, and life, pensions and investments. They provide their services under a number of well recognised brands such as Lloyds Bank, Halifax, Bank of Scotland, and Scottish Widows and through a range of distribution channels including the latest branch network in the UK.
Data and sources
Research for this report was carried out between October 2014 and January 2015 by government specialists Global Government Forum
The research was comprised of four elements:
Freedom of Information (FOI) requests to all major government departments, nonministerial departments and executive agencies; 80 organisations were sent FOI requests including 7 questions, of which returns were received from over 86%. Copies of the request letter are available upon request.
An online questionnaire fielded to civil service managers: A detailed online questionnaire fielded to senior civil service managers (grades 6/7 and SCS): we received a total of100 responses from across 61 major government departments and agencies, and agencies. Copies of the survey questionnaire are available upon request.
Analysis of a survey of 690 civil servants carried out for Microlink by Civil Service Live: this is a survey of the civil service carried out for Microlink as part of the Civil Service Live registration questionnaire. It included one question with 3 short statements that respondents could state the extent to which they agreed or disagreed. The survey was completed by 690 civil servants in 2013 20 and included comprehensive demographic data on each respondent.
Analysis of key relevant elements from the Civil Service’s own Civil Service People Survey: The fieldwork for the survey ran from 1st-31st October 2013 and 270,793 civil servants participated in the survey. Specific crosstabs used are for the demographics of: “No long-term limiting illness or condition (n=227,203)” vs “Long-term limiting illness or condition (n=20,700)”. Surveys from previous years were also used for comparison.
Data from the Lloyds Banking Group and Microlink case study was produced and analysed by Lloyds Banking Group, Microlink and the Business Disability Forum and synthesised by Global Government Forum for this report.
Accessibility Statement
Global Government Forum and Microlink plc are committed to ensuring that all their information, products and services are as accessible as possible to everyone, including disabled people.
If you wish to discuss anything in regards to accessibility or if you require alternative formats please contact Nasser Siabi (see details below).
Contacts
Dr Nasser Siabi OBE
CEO
Microlink plc
Tel:+44 (0) 238024 0316
Mobile: +44 (0) 78 7060 3128
Fax: +44 (0) 23 8024 0310
Email: nasser@microlinkpc.com
Twitter: @microlinkpc
Website: www.microlinkpc.com