User:Optakeover (sandbox)/Test

CA1 – Written Assignment: Analysis of Presentation of Social Problem in Media Item James Weng Yan Chan MD9119 Community in Context PACE Academy, Singapore Polytechnic

Abstract The author’s chosen media item focused on the social problem of unemployment of people with disability in Singapore. It framed the problem by examining the systemic factors at the organisational and macrosystemic-levels of analysis, while shifting focus away from individual-level factors, with quotes from interviewees on their experiences with difficulties finding employment as people with disabilities. Despite other research studies in academia preferring the focus on individual factors in examining unemployment of people with disabilities, the author concludes the problem is best framed as a systemic problem per the article, referring to studies of the local context as well as reference to identifying factors of homelessness in the United States. Keywords: people with disabilities, unemployment, organisational, macrosystemic, Singapore

The Author’s Chosen Media Item for Analysis For this essay the author shall analyse, and refer to, an article published by The Straits Times, “Just 5 in 100 people here with disabilities have jobs” (Tai, 2019) in February 2019. You may refer to the Appendix for the full media item published. Analysis of the Media Item Overview The article (Tai, 2019) comments on the social issue of unemployment of people with disabilities in Singapore, reporting only 4.9% (4.88% according to the graph in the article), or 5 in 100 people with disabilities of between ages 20 – 64 (highlighted as the age group of working adults in Singapore) who are employed (Tai, 2019), which severely pales in comparison to other countries listed. While the article focused heavily on the issues that people with disabilities face in particular, the reality in society at large is this problem also affects people with disabilities’ families (especially if they are sole breadwinners of their households) and businesses and companies. In summary, the article framed the problem by focusing on structural, organisational and governmental-level factors that result in the social issue mentioned, rather than on individual level issues.

Persons with a disability experience substantially more barriers to employment than their counterparts without a disability. According to the 2008 American Community Survey, only 39% of all non-institutionalized men and women with a disability age 21-64 are working in the United States. Regardless of disability type or education level, the rate of employment for this age cohort varies by race, with 41% of all European Americans and 31% of all black/African Americans employed (Erickson, Lee, & von Schrader, 2010). The overall unemployment rate for persons with a disability was 14.8% in 2010 (BLS, 2011). As with individuals without a disability, unemployment rates in 2010 were highest for African Americans (22%), followed by Hispanics, (18.4%), European Americans (13.6%) and Asians (12.0%). A number of studies have addressed the socio-demographics of the barriers to employment success from a public policy perspective or the perspective of the service provider (Bellini, 2003; Garcia & Harris; 2001; Kim, 2007; Lin, Dobbins, & Farh, 1992; Mau & Kopischke, 2001; Moore, 2002; Pager & Western, Rehabilitation Research, Policy, and Education, Volume 25(3&4), pp. 127–134, 2011 2009; Roos, 2009; Rosenthal, 2004; Wagle, 2011). Their results support The Bureau of Labor Statistics (2010) conclusion that the labor market participation of African Americans and Hispanics is affected by many factors including employment in occupations with higher levels of unemployment, lower average levels of educational attainment, residing in urban areas with limited employment opportunities, and discrimination. The need for rehabilitation counselors and other service providers to develop cultural competencies to recognize the potential for confirmatory bias, and to implement individualized service plans rather than “one size fits all” plans have been among the primary recommendations to improve service delivery (Bellini, 2003; Danziger & Seefeldt, 2002; Moore, 2002; Roos, 2009; Rosenthal, 2004; Wagle, 2011).

“HR staff would know how to discriminate, without being exposed, during the hiring process by exploiting loopholes in the TAFEP guidelines: “We can explain 101 things as to why we cannot hire you... I’ll just say you don’t fit the culture, [and] you can’t fine me.”” (p.8) Therefore, the CRPD Parallel Report and the article itself (Tai, 2019) exemplify the Community Psychology core values (Kloos, et al., 2012) of Social Justice, Sense of Community and Empowerment and Citizen Participation by recognising marginalisation and structural issues faced by a community and aiming to seek those voices on such issues. These points underscore the importance of defining the problem in the article with focus on structural factors at the organisational and macrosystemic levels. Conclusion My analysis indicates the problem was well-defined by the article (Tai, 2019), focusing on structural, organisational-level and macrosystemic-level factors. Therefore I support the framing and definition of the problem in the article, despite the sentiment of individual-level focus in other areas of academia.

In this first report by the Disabled People’s Association (DPA) Parallel Report Working Group, we believe that while the various articles of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) play an important role in the lives of people with disabilities, employment is particularly critical in increasing the independence of people with disabilities. In this way employment is a gateway to accessing other important resources such as healthcare, transport, housing and engagement in social and recreational activities. Beyond that, the independence that employment affords many persons with disabilities can help to overturn assumptions about those with disabilities being dependent on their families, caregivers or the state. In a recent article by the Straits Times, a popular national newspaper in Singapore, the estimated employment rate of people with disabilities was at 4.9%. Given Singapore’s international standing as a fairly industrialised city state, this low rate of employment does not seem reasonable. In comparison, the labour force participation rate stood at 67.7%1 in 2018. The employment rate of persons with disabilities is especially disheartening given the healthy number of subsidies and incentives that the Government offers employers. While low employment rates tend to hinge on attitudes of employers who may have made assumptions about what a person with a disability can and cannot do, other systemic barriers also make it difficult for people with disabilities to find and maintain stable employment. In DPA’s study on “Discrimination in The Workplace” (2018), it was shown how some people with disabilities had experiences where they were directly told that they would not be employed due to their disability. This report aims to look at the systemic challenges that may contribute to the low employment rate of persons with disabilities in relation to the various articles of the Convention. The report offers some solutions that could be adopted by the Singapore Government because this is an issue that should involve disability voices. Background The Singapore Government has developed the Enabling Masterplans (5-year roadmaps) that include a CRPD Implementation plan, and recommendations that act as suggestions to the various Government ministries to adopt and implement.