Workshops for people with disabilities (WfbM) are still one of the best-established and best-known institutions in Germany in the field of assistance for people with disabilities, especially for people with mental impairments.
The institution of the workshop is considered to be very typical for the German disability assistance, because it is a strongly established, institutionalized system, which is less common in other countries and thus exemplary for the German assistance landscape, which is still very much dominated by special institutions with a segregating, "protective" character.
However, against the background of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, this type of institution may be called into question in the medium term. The aim of this paper will therefore be to clarify what workshops actually are, how they function, how this is compatible with current concepts of inclusion of disabled people and with the UN Convention, and what problems and contradictions may arise in the near future.
Table of contents
1. Introduction
2. Participation and work in the case of disability
3. Workshops for disabled people (WfbM) at a glance
4. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities with Regard to Participation in Working Life
5. Critical reflection of workshops with regard to participation in working life in relation to the UN Convention
6. Conclusion
Bibliography
1. Introduction
Workshops for disabled people (WfbM) in Germany are still among the best-placed and best-known institutions in the field of assistance for people with disabilities and in particular for the group of people with intellectual disabilities. The institution of the workshop is considered to be very typical of the German disability aid, because it is a strongly established, institutionalized system, which is less widespread in other countries in its form and thus exemplary for the German help landscape, which is still very much dominated by special institutions with a segregating, "protective" character.
But it is precisely this position as a special institution that could become a problem for the future development of the workshop landscape, because there is a new challenge facing the disability assistance, which special institutions may question in the near future and in any case shape their future development: The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, simplified as the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, was adopted in order to improve the legal situation for people with disabilities and to prevent human rights violations from which people with disabilities are particularly at risk (cf. Rothfritz 2010). To this end, for the first time, important fundamental rights for people with disabilities will be enshrined as human rights in an unprecedented form and clarity, formulated in a way that is tailored to disability-specific problems and made mandatory for all member states of the United Nations. The right to work is also formulated and affirmed. The extent to which this will now have an impact on the individual types of institutions for assistance for the disabled is still controversial – but it is certain that the Convention will shape the future of the entire disability assistance system, especially in Germany, where, as mentioned, inpatient, institutional institutions still shape the picture and the assistance services are often criticized as rigid, inflexible and strongly segregated and in recent decades only slightly spectacular e Reforms could be carried out. The path that people, especially with intellectual impairments, take in this country is still institutionally predetermined from the outset in most cases: If you get into a special or learning support school as a child, you usually have few opportunities to leave the segregation system sooner or later – instead, the learning aid school is followed by the vocational training area, which is already in the workshop for disabled people, and then the work in the workshop itself; a change in the first labour market is hardly possible. The situation is also not much better – mentally impaired people still live predominantly with their parents, and if not there, in very classic inpatient dormitories, but only rarely independently or in outpatient assisted living facilities. In some other European countries, much more successful approaches to dissolving special institutions and integrating disabled people into institutions used jointly by people with and without disabilities can be observed; for example, the dissolution of the special education system and the integration of learning-impaired children into mainstream schools in countries such as Italy and Sweden or the integration of disabled people into residential areas in England shared by disabled and non-disabled people through the "Community Care" concept. In Germany, such reforms have hardly happened so far.
The task of help institutions for people with disabilities is to enable participation, whereby the workshops have the special task of enabling participation in working life. These considerations are therefore linked to the interest of clarifying in the context of this work: What does participation in working life mean and to what extent, in view of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, are workshops for disabled people living up to their task of enabling people with disabilities to participate in working life?
My hypothesis is that special institutions for assistance for the disabled are only insufficiently fulfilling their task of enabling participation in working life and, in view of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, are actually no longer up-to-date and will no longer have any legal validities, since the UN Convention will extend the fundamental rights of people with disabilities to the effect that special institutions are increasingly to be questioned and instead possibilities are to be questioned. employment in the primary labour market.
I will concentrate on clarifying the terms "participation" and "work" and highlight what participation means or what participation benefits are. Furthermore, I will explain what work actually is according to the sociological definition and to what extent the workshops currently really enable participation in working life. I will avoid finding a legal definition of participation on the basis of the current paragraphs, as this would be too much like a legal work, which would go beyond the scope of this work.
In the third chapter I will then briefly describe the workshops for disabled people, as they are common in Germany, by showing the historical development of the employment of disabled people and in the following chapter the current state of development of employment in workshops. Then, in the fourth chapter, I will try to present the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, showing how work is seen there and what rights people with disabilities have with regard to work under the Convention and how well this corresponds to the current work situation. I shall confine myself as far as possible to the help centres for people with mental disabilities, as these still account for the largest proportion of people employed in workshops. In 2011, for example, among the 291,711 employees in the workshops, around 77.41% were people with intellectual disabilities (see Bundesarbeitsgemeinschaft Werkstätten für behinderte Menschen e.V. 2011). In addition, this group of people is once again faced with completely different challenges than people with physical disabilities. Furthermore, in answering the research question, I will confine myself as far as possible to the aspect of participation. The following is a final, critical conclusion.
2. Participation and work in the case of disability
In this chapter, I will define the concept of participation in the context of assistance for people with disabilities and then the concept of work from a sociological point of view, highlighting above all what work means for people with disabilities and how participation in working life is defined and realized.
I will limit myself to the sociological definition of work, since work can be viewed from numerous different angles and accordingly defined differently – be it legal, pedagogical or sociological. I will confine myself to the sociological definition, as it expresses what work means for society as well as for the individual. From this I will then deduce to what extent the participation in working life that is carried out in the workshops is satisfactory from a sociological point of view.
Participation, integration and inclusion
The term participation is used in the field of social work in a wide variety of contexts, whether as an overarching goal or as a concrete assistance. But as simple and plausible as the term may seem at first glance, it is then difficult to define more precisely what is actually meant by it. Because in fact it is a rather abstract and general term. Originally, the term was actually rather philosophical as practically shaped (cf. Pöld-Krämer 2007), only in the course of time was it then formulated more concretely.
First of all, if you try to define what participation actually means, this is already a highly demanding task. Participation comes from participating and participating in something. From a purely legal point of view, participation has always meant participation in society; before the law, all members of a society are partners (cf. Welti 2005). In addition, it is rare or never before that the term "integration" or "inclusion" are not also associated with the concept of participation. Inclusion is the more modern of the two terms, which is used more frequently nowadays, while the concept of integration is considered obsolete. In the following, I will therefore try to define these two terms briefly. Here, too, different ways of definition can be used, whether from a pedagogical or sociological point of view, and I will confine myself to the sociological definition, since the pedagogical definition is more related to the concrete pedagogical work, while the sociological view is related to the theoretical concepts for implementation.
Integration means according to the sociological definition that a minority or marginal group should be adapted to the norms and ways of life of the majority society (cf. Fachlexikon der sozialen Arbeit 2007). This view already shows why the term can be regarded as outdated today, since it is more a form of adaptation and subjugation, and it is also implied that the group of the minority within the majority society remains as a separate group, but no real exchange and no mixing takes place. However, since today's aim is to promote diversity and diversity, pedagogical and sociological concepts for dealing with minorities today focus more on dialogue and diversity. With regard to working with disabled people, this means, on the one hand, that cooperation and coexistence between people with and without disabilities should be promoted, and, on the other hand, that people with disabilities should not only be members of the non-disabled majority society, but should also be included and promoted in a way that is tailored to their needs. However, since this means more than integration, the concept and model of integration is increasingly being replaced by that of inclusion.
Inclusion on the other hand, much more than integration, it means inclusion and belonging, which is already expressed in the word derived from the Latin "inclusio" ("inclusion"). In an inclusive society, all people, regardless of external characteristics such as gender, ethnicity, physical condition and intelligence, are accepted as equal members and are promoted in their diversity (cf. Niehoff 2007). Even the systems theorist Luhmann replaced integration with inclusion in his theories of society and described inclusion as the specific relationship between man and society (cf. Wansing 2005). In inclusive (as opposed to integrative) groups, a distinction is no longer made between different individual groups, but only a homogeneous group is seen, which perceives its members in their diversity and thereby accepts and promotes them as equal members of society. In addition, in addition to the institutional, the emotional and social level of living together is increasingly perceived (cf. Hinz, without year). The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities also takes up the concept of inclusion, as will be explained later, and promotes the rights of people with disabilities under the model of inclusion instead of integration.
Of course, the inclusion concept may seem like a very euphemistic ideal, which is why it can be imagined more as a vision and mission statement. With regard to working with disabled people, this means that special institutions must at least be called into question under the model of inclusion and therefore the future of disability assistance should instead take place in inclusive institutions, in order to allow the entire biography of disabled people to take place in joint institutions with people without disabilities, from inclusive kindergartens and schools to generic workplaces and common living facilities. In reality, however, this is contrasted with the still dominant, established system of special inpatient facilities; in addition, the number of employees in the workshops has been increasing for years, which is why it can be assumed that the workshop system will rather differentiate even further in the coming years. In the past three years alone, the number of employees has risen from 277,201 in 2009 to 284,884 in 2010 and 291,711 in 2011 (see Bundesarbeitsgemeinschaft Werkstätten für behinderte Menschen e.V. 2011).
Enabling disadvantaged and excluded people to participate was and is one of the main concerns of social work. Based on studies and theories of social inequality, according to which there are always social differences and inequalities in a society, which particularly affect marginalized groups, it is the task to restore and ensure the participation of people who have been 118th from society for whatever reason (cf. Wansing 2005). Nevertheless, there is no uniform definition of participation in social work. What is meant by the term and how it is implemented depends first of all on which area of social work you are in. Thus, the concept of participation is applied not only in the field of disability assistance, but also, for example, in the area of poor care (cf. Pöld-Krämer 2007). In principle, participation benefits are necessary where groups of people are threatened with social exclusion and thus exclusion due to specific risk factors. Since disability is one of the main risk factors of social exclusion (cf. Wansing 2005), particularly sensitive and sophisticated concepts are required here in order to enable and ensure participation. The assistance provided by the disability assistance is therefore aimed at compensating for the disability-specific, reduced opportunities for participation and thus enabling participation. Disability is therefore also defined in the Social Act as a restriction of opportunities for participation (§ 2 SGB IX), which are to be compensated by rehabilitation and participation benefits of the social system.
The benefits for pa rticipation can be divided into different categories:
- One is the very practical problem, which is why the practical participation are summarized, such as the unattainability of places that can only be reached via a staircase for people who are dependent on the wheelchair, or the question of whether there are always enough disabled parking spaces or barrier-free escape routes. In these cases, the opportunities for participation can be improved through accessibility, which contributes to the fact that not only a staircase, but also an elevator is available for people with disabilities. But accessibility is not only related to spatial-physical problems, but also to cognitive problems. For example, there is the problem that many people with intellectual impairments cannot or hardly can read and are therefore dependent on a reader or are mentally unable to understand difficult texts and therefore need simple explanations. For this purpose, there is accessibility in written form, which means that for mentally disabled people or illiterate texts are made understandable by pictures or there is also a simplified text.
- In addition, however, there are other forms of participation that are already much more complex, namely the facilitation of social participation.
This includes all assistance services that go beyond purely physical accessibility and are intended to promote the social inclusion of disabled people in society. What is meant by this and how exactly this is to be done is difficult to define. The wish is to enable disabled people to participate in society, but what exactly is social participation? According to today's inclusion theories, the coexistence of all members of society should be promoted as far as possible. Can special facilities such as dormitories and workshops, which still largely distinguish people with disabilities from society, make social participation possible at all? These questions are controversially discussed in the disability aid today.
This social participation can then be divided again into further sub-aspects, which can be divided into two main categories:
- Participation in community life and
- Participation in working life.
Participation in community life is understood to mean all assistance that promotes the inclusion of disabled people outside the work area, such as educational, leisure, etc. The two terms merge to a certain extent, because work is regarded as an "essential aspect for social participation" (Kühn/Rüter 2008: 13). Work also shapes and promotes leisure time and access to adult education and social interaction (cf. Fischer/Heger/Laubenstein 2011). Participation in working life is therefore also an important contribution to social participation; those who cannot participate in working life are threatened with social exclusion (cf. ibid.).
Historical views on the participation of disabled people
Since disability is seen legally and sociologically as a restriction of opportunities for social participation, it is the task of disability assistance to enable participation in society. This also gives social work with disabled people a clear goal: While in other areas of social work there is often uncertainty about the exact goal of the work, the enabling of social participation to compensate for the disability-related limitations of participation opportunities is clearly defined as a goal. The views on how this should be done and what exactly is meant by assistance and participation have changed several times over the course of time. In the following, I will briefly describe the different meanings of participation in the context of disability assistance. The aim is not so much to show the historical development, but only to show how the different views on participation have changed over time.
From the beginning of history until about the Second World War, there were no serious concepts for the participation of people with intellectual disabilities. Over the centuries, they in their families and from the Middle Ages more and more often in breeding or workhouses and later in nursing homes. At that time, the social inclusion of these people was far from being possible, they only had their family association as a social environment. If at all, it was only from the Renaissance and the associated humanistic thinking that there were first considerations that disabled people must also be respected in their dignity and that assistance must be offered to this group of people, which led to the first inpatient auxiliary and care facilities in the 17th century (cf. Scheibner 2000). However, there were no concepts for social participation or even gainful employment, instead people with intellectual disabilities continued to be singled out, and the assistance was limited to care services. In the Third Reich, it was finally ensured that people with disabilities were removed from society through mass forced sterilization and finally the systematic murder within the framework of the euthanasia program. Therefore, the development of serious concepts for the participation and participation of disabled people does not begin until after the Second World War. A first concrete concept for the equal treatment and integration of people with disabilities was the principle of normalization, which was developed as early as 1959 by the Danish lawyer Niels Erik Bank-Mikkelsen and was spread in Denmark and Sweden, later also in the USA. In Germany, this concept did not cause a gradual rethinking until the 1980s (cf. Schlummer/Schütte 2006). It was specially tailored to people with intellectual disabilities and, as the name suggests, called for a "normalisation" of the living situation of mentally disabled people by enabling them to live as 'normal' a life as possible, which included a normal daily routine, change of season, annual rhythm, etc. Contrary to what is often critically noted, the idea of the principle of normalization was not an adaptation to a certain social "mainstream" perceived as "normal", but merely an approximation of living conditions and conditions. According to the principle of normalization, participation should therefore be realized through the "normalization" or approximation of living conditions, whereby the normalization explicitly referred to living conditions and not to persons (cf. e.g. Wansing 2005, Schlummer/ Schütte 2006). Even if the principle of normalization was undoubtedly a very correct and important approach and its thoughts are still discussed today, it is still considered rather outdated today, since on the one hand the concept of the "uniform" way of life in the course of increasing individualization of living conditions is considered less and less up-to-date and it is increasingly difficult to define what a "normal" daily routine or "normal" living conditions are for a person. On the other hand, the term also has a stigmatizing and discriminatory effect, as it implies that the normal living conditions of disabled people are not considered "normal", which is increasingly difficult to reconcile with today's idea of inclusion, in which all members of society are treated equally. That is why, nowadays, instead of normalisation, the term 'equality' is increasingly being used. Equality is increasingly becoming a defining concept in disability policy and shows the paradigm shift away from the deficit-oriented perspective aimed at differences between groups of people towards the recognition of all members of a society as equal partners. In addition to equal opportunities, equality also aims at eliminating differences and thus also at eliminating discrimination and unequal treatment (cf. Baer 2007). This is accompanied by the paradigm shift from integration to inclusion, which recognises equality and is aimed at eliminating differences and disadvantages.
In 2001, a new, since then valid definition of disability and participation was published by the World Health Organization (WHO), which redefined the concept of disability and contributed to a "change in understanding" (Wansing 2005: 79). In 2001, the WHO published the "International Classification of Function, Disability and Health" (ICF), which is the successor to the "International Classification of Impairments, Disabilities and Handicaps" (ICIDH), published in 1980, and completely redefines the concept of disability compared to its predecessor. What is particularly new is that, in contrast to the previous concept, there is for the first time an overall concept that transcends all types of disability in order to classify disabilities and make them objectifiable. In this context, the view of disability has also changed – while in the ICIDH there was still a much more deficit-oriented view of disability, the perspective has now changed, and the resource orientation is the focus, which is already expressed in the name. With the ICF, disability is no longer defined as the attribution of specific deficits, but as the interplay of individual possibilities and context factors taking into account interactions and environmental influences. The central elements are functionality, disability and health. Specifically, the dimensions of body structures (anatomical parts of the body), body functions, activity and participation are divided and the so-called environmental factors, i.e. the entire environment of the disabled person, are also taken into account. Disability is now described as an interplay of negative contextual factors (cf. e.g. Schlummer/Schütte 2006, Wansing 2005). Participation is of great importance. Participation is now defined in the ICF as "involvement in a life situation" As a result, disability is constructed as a deficit of participation (cf. Welti 2005). Disability is therefore an impairment of the possibilities of participation in society. The aim of social legislation is therefore to enable people with disabilities to participate equally in life in society, which is already anchored in §1 of SGB IX (cf. Welti 2005). The institutions for assistance for the disabled are therefore institutions whose mission is to enable people with disabilities to participate. Overall, disability is no longer regarded as a base load of a person, but as an attribution process. It is no longer a passive state, but an active process – one is not, but becomes rather hindered. This also serves to strengthen the rights of people with disabilities – the new definition is intended to focus more strongly on the disability-related disadvantages of the people affected and thus prevent human rights violations (cf. Rothfritz 2010). In the course of this, the principle of providing assistance to disabled people has also been changing paradigm since then: Instead of mere "promotion" in the form of deficit-oriented assistance, the guiding principle of the self-determination of the clients is increasingly in the foreground, which has the consequence that the decision-making and co-determination rights as well as the selection possibilities of the clients are strengthened. The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities also promotes this approach and focuses on the individual promotion and respect of disabled people. However, the extent to which this can really be implemented and implemented in reality will be shown in the further course of the work.
However, the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities does not contain a specific definition of disability. In her view of disability, however, she is closely based on the social model of disability according to the ICF and sees disability as a dynamic process and no longer as a deficit-oriented, medically defined state (cf. Demke 2011).
The function and meaning of work
In the following, I will briefly define what work means in the context of disability and opportunities for participation. I will confine myself to the sociological view, as it describes the importance of work for man as an individual, but also for society as a whole. On this basis, I will then explain to what extent employment in special institutions really corresponds to the actual importance of work.
[...]
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X.