Wayne County, MI, Advocates for IDD: Workshops on Medicaid, employment, and housing

This is an announcement of events in Wayne County, Michigan, from parent/advocate Ed Diegel:

During the last several election cycles I heard only Barack Obama mention that in addition to providing Medical services to the needy, Medicaid also provides funding for the intellectually and developmentally disabled, the mentally ill and persons suffering with substance abuse. Furthermore, in my state district during the 2018 election,  the Michigan Republican Party flooded the district with fliers suggesting that extending Medicaid would only extend Medicaid fraud, inferring in effect that all Medicaid recipients are lazy and fraudulent. 

My friends, it is you and I who are responsible for allowing politicians and our friends and neighbors to harbor the idea that Medicaid is BAD. We need to do a much better job of being honest and effective and speaking out about the tremendous benefit to our individuals and communities that this program delivers. In addition there are issues being discussed in Lansing and Washington that have potentially severe impacts across the board and specifically on funding and on group home and workshop settings that need our attention.

Community Opportunity Center together with STEP and MALA is sponsoring the legislative issues and advocacy training workshop described below. Persons ready to speak up are encouraged to sign up for the workshop. Position papers of current issues, tips on effective lobbying and legislator town hall and in district coffee schedules will be provided.

Two workshop dates are available. Please see the following for detail:

++++++++++++++++++++++++

You Are Encouraged To Attend A Family Advocacy Training Session

Sponsored by: Community Opportunity Center and Services to Enhance Potential

Two Sessions Offered:

February 12, 2019 5pm-8pm

February 16, 2019 10am-2pm

Location: Community Opportunity Center
14147 Farmington Rd., Livonia, MI 48154

Educating legislators about the importance of Medicaid funding and about the needs and circumstances of our loved ones is essential if we wish to influence legislation and funding sources for their benefit. Issues related to housing and employment are under review and new legislation has been created at the federal level, which may have an impact on services our loved ones receive. For this reason, COC and STEP would like to meet with interested families and other support persons to discuss these issues and create an advocacy group, which in turn can share information with local, state, and Federal legislators regarding the impact of these legislative changes. 

If you wish to attend one of these sessions and to learn more about these issues, please contact Joyce Franks at, 734-422-1020 or jfranks@cochomes.net by Friday February 8, 2019. 

+++++++++++++++++++++++

Thanks, I hope to see you at the session. It's up to us to spread the word!!! 

Ed Diegel,

Advocates for Persons with Developmental Disabilities in Wayne County.
ddadvocates@gmail.com

Employment choice for DD includes facility-based workshops

VOR is a national organization that advocates for a full range of services, residential options, and employment opportunities for people with Intellectual and developmental disabilities. This is a position statement from the VOR Website: 

VOR's Position on Sheltered Workshops


By Harris Capps and Joan Kelley

Sheltered Workshops are private non-profit, state, or local government entities that provide employment opportunities for individuals with disabilities. Persons served in this environment may include those with developmental, physical, and/or mental impairments, ranging from mild to extreme/profoundly affected individuals. Sheltered workshops:

• Provide prevocational training, with the goal to prepare for competitive employment for available jobs in the open labor marke. 
• Emphasize support of individual needs, based on ability to choose work activities that fit with a person’s skills 
• Often include additional training in personal care, living skills and developing social skills 
• Honor the depth and scope of the DD population, recognizing that some individuals may not ever be able to be competitively employed 

After completing a rehabilitation program, many individuals are able to leave the workshop environment and enter regular employment, if there is a job available for which they qualify. Individuals unable to obtain regular employment because of the severity of their impairments or unavailability of jobs can remain in the workshop environment. Individuals performing services are paid a fraction of, or up to minimum wage, depending on their capacity to perform the services. [1]

While work is the main focus at facility based programs, sheltered workshops also provide opportunities for people with disabilities to challenge themselves, further their self-esteem and self-confidence, develop friendships and engage in their communities. Because of the supports and protections in place, those with more severe/profound impairments can find success in meaningful and productive activities which may not otherwise be possible for them in mainstream businesses. Sheltered workshops often include adult day services which include personal care, living skills, developing social skills, etc.

Often, individuals with disabilities too severe for sheltered work rely on day programs for community integration and meaningful and constructive activities during the day. These facility-based programs also provide opportunities for building self-esteem, confidence, social skills and friendships so important for both mental and physical health.

Specialized Supports

For those individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities (I/DD) who enter the competitive workforce, specialized supports are often required to ensure a successful work experience. Proponents of “supported employment” contend that as long as the appropriate supports are in place, the goal of “real” employment should be achievable for everyone with a disability. While this is a laudable goal, society must recognize the pressures that exist in business that are driven by economic issues, deadlines and competition in the market. For many with I/DD, these realities interfere with their ability to maintain competitive jobs long-term and for a full eight-hour workday.

Eliminating Special Minimum/Commensurate Wages

Provisions for Special Minimum Wage Certificates, under the Department of Labor, Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) of 1938, Section 14(c), help people with disabilities obtain jobs in a competitive workforce. Employers who receive a certificate from the U.S. Department of Labor’s (DOL) Wage and Hour Division (WHD) have the ability to pay special minimum wages (below the federal minimum wage) to employees who have disabilities, if the disability affects job performance. [2]

This provision of the FLSA is often inaccurately referred to as offering a “Sub-Minimum Wage” in what appears to be an intentionally derogatory manner to dampen public support for the program. There have been formal attempts to eliminate Special Minimum Wage Certificates altogether One example, H.R. 831, is a bill intended to phase out special wage certificates under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Efforts to end the provision of special minimum wage certificates could adversely affect individuals with significant and profound disabilities if they are are unable to produce goods at the same rate as less disabled or non-disabled workers. Liability issues, and the additional costs involved with providing necessary specialized supports in the work environment can also become disincentives to hire individuals with the most significant needs. Offering a special minimum wage incentivizes and enables employers to provide employment to individuals with disabilities who may not otherwise be given the opportunity to work.

Why You Should Be Concerned

Many of the taxpayer-funded government agencies and non-profit organizations that disparage Intermediate Care Facilities (ICF’s) as ”isolating” use the same criteria to stigmatize sheltered workshops. They deliberately disregard the importance of sheltered workshops and facility-based day programs to the portion of the I/DD population who depend upon them. These organizations, often taxpayer funded entities, have legislated against sheltered workshops in the same manner in which they have attacked ICF’s, despite the lack of employment opportunities for individuals with I/DD, and the fact that few employers have an incentive or the ability to hire individuals with profound disabilities. Integration into a non-disabled workplace is not the primary goal for all individuals with I/DD, and should not be given precedence over safety, productivity, or a sense of community among one’s peers.

The continued, and many believe intentional, misinterpretation of the Supreme Court’s Olmstead decision permeates numerous policies, including the Work Innovation and Opportunities Act (WIOA), which severely limits work settings and rehabilitation programs for disabled persons. Such policies negatively affect individuals with the most extreme and profound disabilities by eliminating the individual’s right to choose the work environment most appropriate to their unique needs. [3]

In its recently released 13-page Guidance document on Employment [4], the Department Of Justice (DOJ) uses the word “segregated” or “segregation” no less than 40 times when referring to sheltered workshops. At the same time, it picks and chooses selective passages from Olmstead, deliberately ignoring those passages that address the needs of those individuals with disabilities who rely upon higher levels of care. In doing so, the DOJ marginalizes our most vulnerable citizens and even puts them at risk by ignoring warnings that permeate Olmstead’s majority and concurring opinions.

DOJ’s selective interpretation of the Supreme Court Olmstead Decision amounts to an unwarranted attack on the portion of the I/DD population with the most complex need, in that it eliminates the settings that best support them. The DOJ refuses to acknowledge that individual choice is paramount in both residential and employment options, and thereby violates the civil and human rights of vulnerable citizens by refusing to meet the need for a wide range of programs to support that choice. People with significant disabilities deemed not qualified to work would be forced to stay at home, receive no wages, and be denied the tangible and intangible benefits of work.

States Must Stand Up for Their Citizens with I/DD

Families seeking answers when they find their loved one’s sheltered workshop or day program under attack are often told of recent CMS rule changes by state officials. State officials, however, often fail to take advantage of the opportunities CMS provides within the rule changes to allow states to maintain these programs with adjustments.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) makes clear in their guidance that facility based settings are not prohibitedand that states have flexibility in determining what those services look like. In fact, CMS guidance states, “The rule creates a more outcome-oriented definition of home and community-based settings, rather than one based solely on a setting’s location, geography, or physical characteristics.” [5]

CMS’ publication of “HCBS FINAL REGULATIONS 42 CFR Part 441: Questions and Answers Regarding Home and Community Based Services” [6] provides further clarification to the new rules:

Question 4, page 10: “Does the regulation prohibit facility-based or site-based settings?”

Answer: No.

“The regulation requires that all settings, including facility- or site-based settings, must demonstrate the qualities of HCB settings, ensure the individual’s experience is HCB and not institutional in nature, and does not isolate the individual from the broader community. In particular, if the setting is designed specifically for people with disabilities, and/or individuals in the setting are primarily or exclusively people with disabilities and on-site staff provides many services to them, the setting may be isolating unless the setting facilitates people going out into the broader community.”

“We note, however, that states have flexibility in determining whether or when to offer HCBS in facility-based or site-based settings, as the regulation only establishes a floor for federal participation.”

Question 5, Page 10: “Do the regulations prohibit individuals from receiving pre-vocational services in a facility-based setting such as a sheltered workshop?”

Answer: No

“Therefore, a state could allow pre-vocational services delivered in facility-based settings that encourage interaction with the general public...”

“We note, however, that pre-vocational services may be furnished in a variety of locations in the community and are not limited to facility-based settings, and that states have flexibility in determining whether and when to use facility-based settings.”

Question 6, Page 11: “Will CMS allow dementia-specific adult day care centers?”

“The HCBS regulations do not prohibit disability-specific settings... the setting must meet the requirements of the regulation, such as ensuring the setting chosen by the individual is integrated in and supports full access of individuals...to the greater community...”

Question 7, Page 11:“Can a day service that has both HCBS waiver participants and ICF residents provide Medicaid-covered HCBS in an ICF/IID?”

“If the state believes that the setting meets the HCB settings requirements and does not have characteristics of an institution, the state can follow the process to provide evidence and demonstrate that the setting can or will comply with the HCB setting requirements or regulations.”

VOR encourages families to point this guidance out to state officials and hold them accountable for their duty to provide safe and appropriate services for the vulnerable individuals they serve.

Conclusion

• VOR asserts that sheltered workshops and facility-based day programs are also supported employment services, allowing individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities to pursue their skills and interests in the most integrated setting possible according to their individual needs and capabilities. They provide hundreds of thousands of individuals with productive employment, responsibility, necessary structure and the opportunity to achieve and to measure their own skills and to work toward improving them.
• VOR believes in providing more, not fewer, service options to meet the wide range of intellectual and developmental disabilities. While expanding programming for individuals that can benefit from it should also be pursued, vital existing services that are clearly meeting needs should be retained.
• VOR asserts that programs and services for people with disabilities, whether residential or employment focused, must be based on individual choice, need and capabilities in order to be successful, as stated in Olmstead
• VOR supports supported employment services in community settings for individuals who are capable of working in this capacity and can benefit from these services.

There is a place for both integrated and facility-based employment services, as we as a society provide for the full continuum of care for individuals with disabilities as required by the U.S. Supreme Court Olmstead decision.


[1] Social Security, Program Operations Manual System, RS 02101.270 https://secure.ssa.gov/apps10/poms.nsf/lnx/0302101270

[2] Goodwill Industries, “Employment of People with Disabilities through FLSA Section 14 (c) http://www.goodwill.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Goodwill-14c-Fair-Wages-Position-Paper.pdf

[3] U.S. Department of Labor Wage and Hour Division Fact Sheet #39H https://www.dol.gov/whd/regs/compliance/whdfs39h.pdf

[4] DOJ Statement on Application of Integration Mandate of Title II of the ADA and Olmstead to State and Local Governments’ Employment Service System for Individuals with Disabilities https://www.ada.gov/olmstead/olmstead_guidance_employment.pdf

[5] CMS Fact Sheet: Summary of Key Provisions of 1915(c) HCBS Waivers Final Rule https://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid/hcbs/downloads/1915c-fact-sheet.pdf

[6] CMS, HCBS Final Regulations 42 CFR Part 441: Questions & Answers Regarding HCBS Settings https://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid/hcbs/downloads/q-and-a-hcb-settings.pdf

News from ACCSES on Disability Policy and Closing Sheltered Workshops

ACCSES is an organization representing providers of disability employment services. Here are excerpts from their newsletter, The Weekly Windup:

November 18, 2016

PRESIDENT-ELECT TRUMP'S POSITIONS ON DISABILITY ISSUES

In September, the presidential candidates responded to questions posed by the American Association of People with Disabilities, the National Council on Independent Living, and the REV UP Campaign, as to the candidates’ positions on issues important to many in the disability community. Although ACCSES has previously circulated the questionnaire responses, we want to provide President-Elect Trump’s responses separately as they might be of greater interest now following the election. To read his answers to the questionnaire, click here.

December 8, 2016

MAINE IS BACK IN THE HOT SEAT

Maine has continually been held up by disability advocates fighting to limit a full array of employment opportunities and housing options for people with the most significant disabilities. Just this week, another scathing article was published on the growing waiting lists in Maine and the lack of funding. All while people with disabilities are denied jobs and housing options are shrinking. Click here to read the article published in the Portland Press Herald.

[See also, "Negative effects of Maine's Conversion from Sheltered Workshops to Integrated Employment", 6/23/15]

December 16, 2016

DISABILITY ADVOCATES HIT WITH THE REALITY OF THEIR ACTIONS

Many disability advocates have pushed policy makers to close center-based employment programs and to get rid of the special minimum wage. In Massachusetts, the state, with urging from advocates, closed its sheltered workshops "with the promise of expanding more inclusive employment and meaningful day opportunities for people with I/DD." Instead, Massachusetts cut funding, and with it the prospect of hoped-for jobs. (ACCSES notes that people with disabilities who are working may not wish to be placed in "meaningful day programs," any more than any other worker wants to be laid off.) In a guest column for a Massachusetts newspaper, Gary Blumenthal acknowledges that while Massachusetts' unemployment rate may be 3.3 percent overall, the unemployment rate for people with disabilities is over 70 percent. This result comports with the risk a recent report from the Congressional Joint Economic Committee warned about if Section 14(c) were to be eliminated. Keeping workers attached to the workforce can make a substantive difference in future success. Eliminating jobs without jobs to replace them only harms the people who want to work. ACCSES continues to advocate that people with disabilities have a right to choose where they want to work; our State and Federal governments must keep a full array of options available through common sense policies that protect the right to work.

October is Disability Employment Awareness Month

This video is from Justin Caine of Lansing, Michigan. Justin is a man with a disability who co-founded Good Fruit Video, a video production company which specializes in telling stories of organizations, programs and events to potential customers, clients, sponsors and participants.  He was also the Vice-Chair of the Michigan Developmental Disabilities Council. His company helped produce the above video.

For more information on Justin's business and numerous other activites, see his Linkedin page. 

Does Closing Sheltered Workshops Increase Supported Employment for People with DD? Not Necessarily !

Supported employment services are defined in the federal Developmental Disabilities Act: 
  
The term 'supported employment services' means services that enable individuals with developmental disabilities to perform competitive work in integrated work settings, in the case of individuals with developmental disabilities—

- for whom competitive employment has not traditionally occurred; or
- for whom competitive employment has been interrupted or intermittent as a result of significant disabilities; and 
-who, because of the nature and severity of their disabilities, need intensive supported employment services or extended services in order to perform such work.

**************************************** 
There is a national movement to employ more people with disabilities in competitive, integrated work settings where they can work side-by-side with non-disabled employees and make the same wages for the same work. This is a reasonable goal for most people with disabilities and a welcome change from an assumption that people with disabilities are unemployable in regular work settings. At the same time, there is a push to close facility-based work programs (sheltered workshops) that serve people with more severe disabilities. These specialized settings often offer other services and social opportunities that are not available elsewhere. 

The Michigan Developmental Disabilities Council is considering supporting legislation that could eliminate the use of “subminimum wage certificates” that allow employers to pay people with disabilities less than minimum wage if the individual is not as productive as non-disabled workers doing the same job. These certificates are issued by the U.S. Department of Labor to provide incentives to employers to hire more people with disabilities. 

In Michigan, most of the subminimum wage certificates go to sheltered workshops. Without the use of these certificates, it is likely that sheltered workshops would eventually be driven out of business. There are no suggestions that I know of from advocates who want to get rid of the subminimum wage that these be replaced with other incentives or subsidies to keep facility-based programs open. The elimination of subminimum wages is essentially another way to close sheltered workshops. The only option for employment for people with DD would be supported employment in competitive, integrated work settings, a scenario that is unlikely to work for people with more severe disabilities.

Evidence from Michigan and other states where sheltered workshops have closed do not support the idea that people with DD who need and want employment will be able to find jobs when the only option is supported employment. In some cases, unemployment among people with DD has increased and the percentage of people using supported employment services has decreased after sheltered workshops have closed.

Ottawa County, Michigan, is feeling the impact of closing a sheltered workshop. Kandu, a popular nonprofit organization that trained and hired adults with disabilities, cognitive impairments or other barriers to employment, ceased operations in August of 2015. Of the 681 people with developmental disabilities served by Ottawa County Community Mental Health, 170 worked at Kandu.  96% of those employed in sheltered workshops in Michigan worked more than 14 hours per week for an average wage of $2.50 per hour. 

At meetings with the local Community Mental Health agency, it was agreed that integrated employment should be a priority, but families questioned whether this option was feasible for all, based on these factors:

• The availability and affordability of supports that enable a person to work
• Sufficient employers able and willing to create jobs and pay at least minimum wage
• The actual ability of a person to perform a job function

The community is divided between those who agree with a philosophy that presumes that everyone is employable and a concern that eliminating the subminimum wage and closing sheltered workshops will reduce the opportunities available to people with DD to be employed.

Maine

In 2008 a law went into effect to increase supported and integrated employment for people with disabilities. The law also phased out the use of sheltered workshops. The CHIMES Foundation and The George Washington University issued a report on the experience of people with significant disabilities who were employed by sheltered workshops as well as providers who formerly operated sheltered workshops in Maine. 

The key findings in the report, "Transitions: A Case Study of the Conversion from Sheltered Workshops to Integrated Employment in Maine", included:

• People who had been employed in sheltered workshops have seen their hours worked per week decline.  2/3rds of those previously employed are no longer employed and those who are working earn less per week because of the reduction in the number of hours worked. 
• In 2008, the year Maine Public Law Chapter 101 went into effect, 39.5% of people with disabilities were employed.  That number dropped to 34.1% by 2012.
• Sheltered workshops in Maine were employing 558 people with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (IDD) in 2001.  There were no people employed in sheltered workshops in 2010.  The number of people with IDD who were served in integrated employment in Maine also declined during the years from 2001 to 2014.
• Employment data for people with intellectual disabilities in Maine show an average of only 12 hours worked per week in 2011, the lowest in the nation.
• After the passage of the law, non-work placements increased dramatically from 550 to 3,178.
• Level of disability was one characteristic commonly cited as a factor impeding placements for some people who are no longer employed.

Washington State

The Center for Health Care Strategies September 2012 Report (on page 17) includes experiences with “Employment First” in  Washington State. This was part of an effort to “...focus all publicly-funded resources for persons with I/DD to finding and keeping paid employment in the real world as opposed to sheltered workshops or recreational activities like bowling or excursions to the mall. Although the state continues to fund support staff for sheltered workshops, it is phasing them out in favor of finding their clients jobs in places like Fred Meyer, Starbucks, and PETCO.”

According to the report: 

• In 2008 Washington spent roughly $50 million on employment-related services for people with developmental disabilities. Some 3,700 beneficiaries currently hold paying jobs, but most of these individuals are relatively high-functioning; among those with more severe disorders, only 17 percent have found work (30percent in Seattle).[emphasis added] In part, this can be attributed to the  recessionary job market when prospective employers can typically select from a surfeit of applicants, many of whom are overqualified for the position.
• At the same time, many families of adult children with I/DD are asking whether the state is going too far in believing that people who have difficulty communicating or using the bathroom will be able to find and keep a job. After repeated objections, the state softened its position somewhat and allows beneficiaries who have made no progress in finding employment after one year to be eligible for publicly-funded recreational activities instead.

Vermont
 
The disability news website Disability Scoop featured a somewhat misleading article on closing sheltered workshops in Vermont, “A Bet On Inclusion Pays Off” by Chris Serres of  the Star Tribune [Minnesota] on 12/16/15.

According to the article:
 
"In 2002, Vermont became the first state to stop funding sheltered workshops. The state also ended the practice, still common in other states, of using Medicaid to subsidize group homes for people with disabilities.

"Instead, the state sends money directly to clients with disabilities for services of their choosing, such as job coaching and transportation.

"Today, Vermont leads the nation in almost every measure of workplace inclusion. Vermonters with intellectual disabilities are twice as likely to find jobs in the community as their counterparts in other states. Nearly 40 percent work in the community alongside people without disabilities, compared with 13 percent in Minnesota, for example.
…

"The 'Vermont model' of supported employment has thrived. Within three years, 80 percent of the employees at the state’s last sheltered workshop had found paying jobs. It has the highest rate of community job placements for clients with developmental disabilities; in 2013, its rate was nearly six times the national average."

To be fair, the article also catalogs abuses in Vermont's sheltered workshop programs. It exposes a dark side of the provision of services to vulnerable people with disabilities when providers and state and local agencies are not held accountable for abuses that occur under their supervision.

A quick look at Vermont’s record on supported employment as reported in the "UCP [United Cerebral Palsy] Case for Inclusion 2015" tells a different story. The percentage of people with Intellectual and developmental disabilities (ID/DD) in supported employment has decreased since Vermont closed its sheltered workshops:

A graph tracking supported employment shows these figures:

2004   43%
2006   48%
2009   38%
2011   35%

**********************************

Conclusion:

Efforts to increase competitive employment for people with DD in integrated settings should not be expected to offset the need for specialized employment services based on the severity and nature of an individual's disability. "Robbing Peter to pay Paul" (or in this case, closing sheltered workshops to fund more supported employment),  is never a good policy decision when it comes to people with needs as diverse as those with developmental disabilities.

Michigan: My Job, My Choice

From the ACCSES Weekly Windup for October 14, 2015:

At MARO, we believe in establishing raised expectations - that all working-age citizens with disabilities in Michigan can have access to competitive, integrated employment.  MARO has also recognized the trend in current public policy emphasizing competitive integrated employment - jobs in the community, at or above minimum wage, and interacting with others without disabilities - as the priority outcome for all job seekers.  But it is further recognized that a comprehensive array of employment services should be a part of a menu of options, and people with disabilities in Michigan should be able to access these options based on each individual's desires, needs, goals, and informed choice.  That's why MARO members provide a full spectrum of employment options for people with disabilities in Michigan - based on respect for the individual's choice.

MARO is a Michigan organization for providers of rehabilitation services.

Oregon: Settlement of lawsuit will cut sheltered workshop placements

Update:

Oregon : Fairness Hearing scheduled on settlement agreement in Sheltered Workshop case

****************************
This is from Disability Scoop, September 9, 2015:

"Settlement Calls for Cuts to Sheltered Workshops" by Shaun Heasley

Over 1,000 people with developmental disabilities will be able to leave sheltered workshops for competitive employment under a proposed settlement in a first-of-its-kind class-action lawsuit.

The U.S. Department of Justice said Tuesday that the state of Oregon has agreed to cut the number of adults working in sheltered workshops by nearly 400 and reduce hours worked in such settings by almost a third in the next two years.

Meanwhile, the state will provide 1,115 adults with developmental disabilities who are currently employed in sheltered workshops as well as 4,900 individuals with disabilities ages 14 to 24 with supported employment services so that they can obtain competitive employment over the next seven years.

The settlement comes in a 2012 case brought against top Oregon officials by residents with developmental disabilities and their advocates who alleged that the state violated the Americans with Disabilities Act by failing to provide supported employment services.
....
In 2013, the Justice Department intervened in the case, now known as Lane v. Brown, and helped to broker the settlement agreement reached this week.

Read more… 

===========================

There is more to this story... 
(from the VOR Weekly News Update, 9/18/15)
 
Most of the news articles describing the settlement of LANE, et al. v. BROWN, et al., [United States District Court Case No. 3:12-cv-00138-ST] refer to sheltered workshops or center-based work programs for people with disabilities only in pejorative terms. According to most of the media coverage, the existence of sheltered workshops force disabled people into menial, below minimum wage, jobs and isolate them from the rest of society.

For people who cannot work successfully in  integrated work settings, workshops provide jobs without the pressure of competing at the same level as those without disabilities. Individuals are paid based on how productive they are and usually receive other government benefits to supplement their incomes. These work centers often provide other services and socialization for people who would otherwise not have appropriate activities available to them. They also allow family caregivers to hold down jobs and otherwise live a more normal life outside of their care giving responsibilities.

For more on the unintended consequences of limiting access to these services, see The DD News Blog, including videos of interviews with people who work in sheltered workshops and their families.

The Disability Scoop article notes that a Justice Department fact sheet on the settlement says that the goal is not to shutter sheltered workshop placements, but to ensure that “those who want to work in integrated settings have a realistic opportunity to do so.”  The proposed settlement, however, has very clear guidelines setting arbitrary goals of reducing the number of people employed in sheltered workshops.

An article from Oregonlive.com, states that The United Cerebral Palsy Association of Oregon and Southwest Washington, along with eight individuals, sued the Governor of Oregon and top Department of Human Resources managers with the aim of putting an end to sheltered workshops.

In addition, there are no guarantees that people trained for supported employment in integrated settings will actually find or hold jobs, or that the state will allocate sufficient funding for these services.

The proposed settlement must be approved by U.S. District Court Magistrate Judge Janice M. Stewart:

"After notice to all class members, the Court will conduct a fairness hearing pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(f) to decide whether the Agreement is a fair, adequate and reasonable resolution of the claims of the plaintiff class..."

We assume that information about when the fairness hearing will be held will be announced later. This is likely to be the only opportunity that individuals and their families who need and value sheltered workshop services will have to express their opinions about the details of the proposed settlement and how they will be personally affected. Without the representation of people who need sheltered workshop services in the negotiating process in class action lawsuits, there is no assurance that their individual rights to appropriate services will be protected. Their rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act as interpreted by the US Supreme Court Olmstead decision to “integration appropriate to the needs of the individual” and choice are also in jeopardy. [See “The Olmstead Decision has been Misinterpreted” from VOR.]

===========================

More links to information at Disability Rights Oregon
U.S. Department of Justice Fact Sheet 
The Settlement Agreement

No Joke : Job Consultant concedes that the comatose are not good candidates for integrated employment!

Eight thousand people with disabilities currently work in sheltered workshops in New York, but that will change if the state and advocates for integrated competitive employment for all have their way. North Country Public Radio featured a story (3/30/15) by David Sommerstein, in Watertown, New York, asking the question, “Can every person with a disability hold a regular job?”

One of the people interviewed was Michael Callahan, who argues that community employment is “achievable for almost everyone…”. He goes on to say, “So bring me a person who’s in a coma and let’s agree right now until they get out of the coma we won’t try to get them a job," But anyone short of comatose is a likely candidate for a minimum wage job in the community. Did I mention that Michael Callahan makes his living as president of a consulting firm (Marc Gold & Associates) that, among other things, finds integrated employment for people with disabilities?

The NCPR story includes interviews with people who welcome the closure of sheltered workshops and others, including people who work in these specialized work centers,  who say they fill a vital need in their communities. 

This is very personal for me, because my two sons, who are not comatose, are nevertheless profoundly limited by their multiple disabilities. Their needs are great: along with 24/7 care, they need activities and social relationships with with people who accept and respect them for who they are.  But that does not include working at a job that pays minimum wage. I always wonder about people who say they could place anyone not in a coma successfully in a job with the proper supports. With unlimited funding and effort, supporting my sons in employment is still unimaginable.  What are they doing this for? To make a point? To prove that their ideology that says everyone can be employed in the community is true?

I have a question for Mike Callahan and this is not a joke, either. By his way of thinking, how can he justify dismissing the employability of a person in a coma? We know that some people in comas are aware of their surroundings and eventually recover. Is it fair to exclude the comatose from the opportunity to work in supported employment in the community?

The NCPR story is worth listening to, but the report begins with a misleading statement about the basis for closing sheltered workshops. This is a common blunder that reporters make when they do not check out source materials and instead rely on what they are told.

The NCPR report begins with  this statement: “The United States Supreme Court ruled that keeping people with disabilities in separate work settings constitutes discrimination more than 15 years ago..." This is not true. Every reporter who wants to talk about the 1999 Supreme Court Olmstead decision should be required to read it. The court in Olmstead did not mention sheltered workshops. The case is about two women in Georgia who were at one time institutionalized, but wanted to receive services in a community setting. They were deemed capable of this by the professionals who treated them and community-based services were adequate to their needs. The court determined that unjustified isolation is discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). But the court also recognized "...that nothing in the ADA or its implementing regulations condones termination of institutional settings for persons unable to handle or benefit from community settings...Nor is there any federal requirement that community based treatment be imposed on patients who do not desire it." The ADA requires that programs are provided in the most integrated setting appropriate to the needs of the individual.

I wouldn’t have to worry that the services and programs that my sons need might be eliminated by overzealous disability advocates, if we had  proper enforcement of the Olmstead decision. Unfortunately, Olmstead is being used for purposes never intended by the Supreme Court, as a tool to help states close programs, eliminate residential options, and relieve the states of responsibility for people with more severe disabilities under the guise of preventing discrimination.

[This post was tweaked and updated later in the day, 4/1/15...JB]

2015 VOR Annual Conference Featured Speakers: Terry Farmer and Lois Sheaffer

VOR is a national organization that supports individuals with intellectual disabilities (IDD) and their families by advocating for a full range of residential and service options to meet their diverse needs. VOR will be holding its Annual Conference on Sunday, June 7, 2015 in Washington, D.C. See you there!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
(from the VOR Weekly Update)

Terry R. Farmer

Terry R. Farmer, the CEO of ACCSESS, a national organization representing “more than 1,200 disability service providers across the country as the Voice of Disability Service Providers,” will be a featured speaker at VOR’s Annual Conference on Sunday, June 7, 2015 in Washington, D.C.

Terry will speak on “National Disability Policy – Initiatives Impacting Employment Options for Individuals with Significant Disabilities.”

Emerging public policy is affecting the delivery of services and supports currently available to individuals with significant disabilities.  Federal and state programs and community providers are transforming their systems and operations in response to new laws, regulations and administrative actions.  Conference participants will learn how these forces are affecting employment programs for individuals with significant disabilities, and discuss strategies for engaging policy makers in a rapidly changing environment.

About Terry: Throughout his career, Terry has been affiliated with several state and national professional and trade organizations and has been recognized for his academic work and service to the field. His work experience includes direct service provision, behavior analysis (State of Florida Certified), program administration, policy analysis and executive level leadership in the fields of disabilities and human services.  He has administered programs of long-term services and supports, diagnosis and evaluation, community placement of people with severe developmental disabilities and mental illness, and issue advocacy. From 1991-2008, Terry served as the President/CEO of the Florida Association of Rehabilitation Facilities. In 2009, he co-founded Combat Injuries Project, Inc. with a group of veterans, professionals and business executives to serve veterans, especially those with service-connected disabilities, and their families.  He was appointed ACCSES CEO in April, 2011. 

------------------------------------------------------------------
Lois Sheaffer

Lois Sheaffer will be presenting “Everyone Needs a little REST!” at VOR’s 2015 Annual Conference on Sunday, June 7, 2015 in Washington, D.C.
 
Ms. Sheaffer is the Founder, National Director and Master Trainer of Respite Education & Support Tools (REST). She also serves as the Director of Government Relations and Community Support for Marklund, a Medicaid Intermediate Care Facility for Individuals with Intellectual Disabilities (ICF/IID) in Illinois.
 
REST is a nationally-recognized train-the-trainer program that equips volunteers with the skills needed to support caregivers in their community through respite.
 
Ms. Sheaffer, a Certified Therapeutic Recreation Specialist, began her career in respite working with individuals who have special needs. As the coordinator of an in-home community respite program she hired, trained, and matched workers with families. She later became active in the Illinois Respite Coalition and served as President of the Coalition for five years. She continues to stay well connected with ARCH [Access to Respite Care and Help] and the National Respite Coalition.
 
Most recently, using the national respite guidelines, she developed REST, a respite training program for volunteers. 

In addition, Ms. Sheaffer, has worked in a variety of settings, including geriatrics, skilled care, and pediatric residential facilities for children and adults with Developmental Disabilities. Lois is a registered lobbyist and currently serves as the Director of Government Relations and Community Support for Marklund.
 
Please plan to attend VOR's Annual Conference and hear Ms. Sheaffer's presentation. Won't you join us? Registration is now open.
 
For complete conference details and a registration form, visit VOR’s Events link on our website.

H.R. 831 : Protecting disabled workers or eliminating options for DD?

H.R. 831 is a bill in the U.S. Congress that would phase out special wage certificates under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 under which individuals with disabilities may be employed at subminimum wage rates.

Workers with disabilities who are able to engage in competitive employment, with or without supports, should not be exploited in workplaces that profit off their labor but pay the workers sub minimum wages. The special wage certificates that are now issued, however, allow people with more severe cognitive and other disabilities to work at their own pace in skill development centers (sheltered workshops, usually in community settings) and receive pay adjusted to their abilities and how fast they work. To eliminate the special certificates would apparently, in effect, also eliminate this important option for people who can and want to work but would otherwise be unlikely to obtain employment in regular competitive workplaces. In the opinion of many who benefit from these programs, too little consideration has been given to what will happen to these people other than many more of them sitting at home with nothing to do.

This is an Action Alert from ACCSES, a national provider organization for employment programs for people with disabilities that opposes the bill:

Action Alert
NFB Push on H.R. 831

Next week, the National Federation of the Blind will be coordinating several action days to rally support for H.R. 831.

• Tuesday, May 6 – Twitter Tuesday
• Wednesday, May 7 – Call Wednesday
• Thursday, May 8 – Email Thursday

We strongly encourage you to get the word out to your parents and allies regarding these action dates. Organizations like the NFB do not speak for all people with disabilities. Let your representatives know that skill development centers are needed and wanted and that you do not support H.R. 831.

We also want to alert you to a free webinar featuring New York Times columnist Dan Barry that will be taking place on Tuesday, May 6^th. This webinar is hosted by the National Center on Disability and Journalism and will cover Barry’s recent New York Times piece, “The Boys’ in the Bunkhouse.” Barry will be discussing how he developed the story and will be offering “advice for others covering disability issues or people with disabilities.” While Mr. Barry produced an outstanding article, we are deeply troubled by the media’s negative focus on skill development centers and want to ensure that journalists in attendance know that the full story is not being told. The types of abuse that occurred at Henry’s Turkey Farm and in Rhode Island is already illegal and should be investigated and the organizations and individuals responsible should be punished, but that if legislation like H.R. 831 is passed, they will be telling an equally troubling story about jobs, paychecks, and social networks for people with the most severe disabilities disappearing.

Michigan Employment First Policy: One size fits all?

The Michigan Developmental Disabilities Council approved a policy called "Employment First in Michigan" in August of 2013 which was then submitted to the Michigan Department of Community Health (MDCH) for consideration as state policy. [As a new member of the DD Council, I did not attend any Council meetings until September 2013 and did not vote on the policy.] The vote by the DD Council was not unanimous.

A meeting was held on November 20, 2013 with representatives of the Michigan Department of Community Health (MDCH) to discuss the proposed policy where many good suggestions were made to make the language consistent with the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Supreme Court Olmstead decision interpreting the ADA, and to honor the right to choice and self-determination.

The proposed policy, however, was not changed to reflect any of the comments from the November meeting. Bob Brown, a parent of an adult with developmental disabilities and a member of the DD Council wrote to James Haveman, the Director of MDCH, voicing his concern that if changes were not made, the document would lead "…to an outcome that restricts and diminishes an individual's choices rather than expanding them." Bob is most concerned that the policy as currently worded will be used to eliminate the choice, based on individual need and preferences, for programs where people like his daughter receive community-employment through a center-based program that also offers skill-building services for people with cognitive disabilities. 

I would further emphasize the broad spectrum of people with disabilities, many of whom can work successfully in integrated employment settings and others who, like my sons, are unlikely to achieve anywhere near this level of accomplishment without a miraculous recovery of functioning or some other unlikely medical breakthrough. High expectations and lofty goals for achievement can be inspiring for some, but demoralizing and damaging for others, taking the focus off appropriate services that help individuals achieve realistic goals and assure safety, good health, appropriate care, and well-being.

You can see Bob Brown's comments here. His recommendations include changes that are consistent with federal law regarding employment for people with disabilities. A Word version of the proposed policy, without comments, can be found here.

If you wish to support Bob's comments (or not) on the Employment First Policy or add comments of your own, address them to:

Mr. James Haveman, Director
Michigan Department of Community Health
Capitol View Building
201Townsend Street
Lansing, Michigan 48913
 
You can e-mail comments to Nancy Grijalva at  grijalvan@michigan.gov or Sharon Danielis at  danielis@michigan.gov in Mr. Haveman's office.