Social enterprises: good for mental health?

My latest blog for the Social Care Elf today reviewed a Canadian study of social enterprises. The firms in the research employed people with mental health problems. Although the paper’s conclusions were broadly positive, I wasn’t overwhelmed by the study. Methodologically it was not strong and the social enterprises appeared to be modified sheltered workshops, which run the risk of perpetuating the segregation of people with mental health problems from ‘mainstream’ employment. In an article by the Florida employment, I noticed that there are various ways through which an organization can improve its working efficiency, and upon a little more research into it I found that none of those pointers would cause any form of stress to the employees thus making it one among the most perfect guidelines I have read online till date.

In subsequent discussion of the blog, Sonia Johnson pointed me towards some of her work on social firms in the UK. For example, a survey she collaborated in found  that social firms can be a viable employment option for people with experience of mental health problems. However, they are an under-utilised resource. I hope that some discussion of this research may help practitioners to see their potential value and support people to access employment opportunities with local social firms.

Background

People who experience mental health problems such as psychosis or bipolar disorder sometimes find it difficult to find or sustain employment. In fact, rates of employment amongst people with these diagnoses are very low. For example, the Schizophrenia Commission (2012) reported that about only 8% of people with a diagnosis of schizophrenia in the UK were in paid employment, which is much lower than international averages of 16-23% (Haro et al., 2011).

Some community mental health teams have employment specialists who advise people how to find employment. Other teams use specialist approaches such as Individual Placement and Support, which appear effective at supporting people to find and keep a job (Heffernan and Pilkington, 2011). Although these may help some individuals, they appear to have limited impact on employment rates. Similarly, Government welfare reforms, which have included the introduction of Work Capability Assessments, also appear to have made a negligible impact on employment rates.

These initiatives implicitly suggest that the problem lies with individuals themselves rather than workplaces. Although the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 requires employers to make reasonable adjustments to support all employees, it is possible that many workplaces are simply not accommodating or enabling environments for people with mental health problems to work within, creating the opportunity for many to try out Labor Law Compliance Center, in search of better job postings or positions.

In their research, Buhariwala and colleagues (2015) suggest that social enterprises could be better able to “’unlock’ the capabilities of people bypassed by markets” and provide employment opportunities for people with mental health problems. Their research had three aims:

• To understand the range of social enterprises which created employment opportunities for people with mental health problems
• To examine how these social enterprises created accommodating employment opportunities and work environments
• To understand the challenges these organisations faced in sustaining work opportunities

Method

The authors contacted 21 organisations which were involved in running 38 different social enterprises. They conducted key informant interviews with executive directors or managers. These semi-structured interviews were conducted by telephone or face to face and aimed to find out more about how the social enterprises were run. The interviews were transcribed and coded.

Findings

The Canadian social enterprises studied in this research appear to have been established specifically for people with mental health problems, many from former sheltered workshops.

A prominent feature was their flexibility to accommodate an individual’s physical or mental health. They also had considerable latitude with work tasks which were allocated or the agreed pace of work. Businesses can outsource HR service London to be able to accommodate their employees’ needs at all times. There was job security for employees who may not be able to come to work because of deterioration in their mental health. These social enterprises appeared better equipped to provide support to employees than in ‘mainstream’ employment, both in the workplace and at home.

These social enterprises carefully balanced the pressures of being part of a market economy whilst providing an alternative economic space for those unable to work full-time hours. This was most prominent in decisions about who to hire and how many hours employees should work.

Conclusions

The social enterprises studied provided a social and economic service to employees. They were able to provide meaningful roles to people with mental health problems, which many ‘mainstream’ employers were unable to. However, poverty remained a reality for many employees, many of whom earned little more than the minimum wage or less than the threshold above which welfare benefits would have to be reduced.

Strengths and limitations

This paper provided a valuable insight into social enterprises as alternative workplaces for people with mental health problems. It highlighted their social and economic functions, and how they can accommodate to individuals’ needs. However, the respondents were executive directors or managers rather than employees, possibly painting a rosier picture than one which employees may prefer. It was also a descriptive rather than an evaluative study, so it leaves many unanswered questions, such as: how does working in a social enterprise compare with ‘mainstream’ employment? Are jobs more stable? Is job satisfaction higher? Do employees feel socially included?

To be honest, I was quite disappointed with this study. The social enterprises studied appeared little more than sheltered workshops which have transformed into businesses. It was unclear if they employed people who did not have mental health problems, suggesting that they could be mini-ghettoes. They certainly did not appear to promote inclusion in the ‘mainstream’ economy and had a limited impact on inclusion in wider society.

I have come across many excellent social enterprises and businesses which are good employers to people with mental health problems. I do not believe that separate social enterprises have to be created to provide employment opportunities, though they do seem to benefit many people. It will be useful to find out more about the experiences of their employees and compare them with those working in more ‘mainstream’ settings.

Summing up

With the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 in place it should not be necessary to create special employment opportunities for people with mental health problems. It is perhaps preferable for people to be supported in ‘mainstream’ employment to maximise both their income and contribution to society. However, it is a disappointing reality of life in contemporary Western societies that special employment opportunities continue to be created for some groups of people.

References

Buhariwala, P., Wilton, R. & Evans, J. (2015) Social enterprises as enabling workplaces for people with psychiatric disabilities. Disability & Society, 30, 865-879.

Haro, J. M., Novick, D., Bertsch, J., Karagianis, J., Dossenbach, M. & Jones, P. B. (2011) Cross-national clinical and functional remission rates: Worldwide Schizophrenia Outpatient Health Outcomes (W-SOHO) study. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 199, 194-201.

Heffernan, J. & Pilkington, P. (2011) Supported employment for persons with mental illness: Systematic review of the effectiveness of individual placement and support in the UK. Journal of Mental Health, 20, 368-380.

Schizophrenia Commission (2012) The Abandoned Illness. A Report by the Schizophrenia Commission. London: Rethink Mental Illness.