Category sheltered workshops

conversion segregation segregation supported employment sheltered workshops

Attention Workshops: The ADA Integration Mandate Applies to You

daledileo 3 Comment

Employment services are included in the integration mandate of the ADA! This recent ruling in Oregon by United States Magistrate Judge Janice Stewart is a huge landmark decision. It should cheer advocates who are working to slow and eventually end the growing numbers of people with disabilities needlessly spending their days in segregated sheltered workshops.

Similar  to many states, most Oregonians with developmental disabilities in vocational services work in sheltered workshops, even though most would prefer to work in a real job. Each year, more are referred to these facilities. Sadly, this includes graduating students with disabilities – who should never need to see the inside of a workshop. This year a lawsuit spearheaded by Disability Rights Oregon was brought on behalf of 2300 individuals with disabilities in that state being needlessly kept away from real job opportunities. The suit charges that the state is violating the ADA by not providing employment services to people with disabilities in the most integrated settings appropriate. Now, the judge in the case has ruled that the plaintiffs can make such a claim under the ADA.

A legal basis for the suit was a previous Supreme Court decision known as Olmstead. Olmstead found that Title II of the ADA requires states to offer services in the most integrated setting possible, including shifting programs from segregated to integrated settings. Up to now, litigation under Olmstead has focused on supporting people in residential institutions to move to community settings. This has been followed by suits about other congregate settings such as nursing homes that claim to be community-based, but really serve as institutions, unnecessarily segregated people as well. Most recently, advocates have used Olmstead to challenge waiting lists and even state budget cuts. But this case is the first specific ruling regarding employment services and the integration mandate of the ADA.

In response to the suit, Oregon filed a Motion to Dismiss the case, saying that employment claims cannot be made under Title II of the ADA and that Olmstead does not apply to employment services. In her ruling, Judge Stewart stated “…this case does not involve ’employment,’ but instead involves the state’s provision (or failure to provide) ‘integrated employment services, including supported employment programs.'” The Judge thus affirmed that employment services is included in the integration referred to in the ADA, and gave the Plaintiffs time to file an amended complaint due to wording problems in the complaint, so further rulings are still to come on the case.

Oregon is just the tip of an iceberg. The state currently spends $30 million a year for individuals with disabilities to be in  sheltered workshops – the lion’s hare of state vocational service dollars. With few exceptions, this is also true nationally. In NY, some estimates are close to a billion dollars spent for segregated day services. Yet, a 2010 study by Oregon’s own agency notes that cumulative costs generated by sheltered employees may be as much as three times higher than the cumulative costs generated by supported employees – $19,388 versus $6,618.”

Even though every state provides supported employment, on average these services represent only one of every five people served. Vastly more money is spent on segregation than on integration. And so far, most vocational service providers have responded by circling the wagons to protect their facilities. Most states do not even have an Olmstead plan related to phasing in more integrated employment services. Very few have any practical plan to reduce the population in sheltered workshops in a thoughtful way over time. Instead, there are vague goals of improving employment outcomes and little supporting funding. It seems that state money just keeps flowing to how and where it was spent previously, so real change never comes.

So maybe the time has finally arrived for us all to recognize the injustice of this. And apparently, it has taken a lawsuit to jump-start it. I say it’s about time.

conversion segregation sheltered workshops

A Response to ACCSES: We Believe NDRN is On the Mark Regarding the Need to End Segregation and Exploitation

daledileo 9 Comment

Open Response Letter Regarding ACCSES Response to the National Disability Rights Network (NDRN) Report
Members of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions:
In an April 16, 2012 letter to the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, ACCSES CEO Terry Farmer writes “strong opposition to the recommendations made by the National Disability Rights Network (NDRN) in its report
[Beyond Segregated and Exploited].” 
My colleague, Laura Owens, APSE president, and I support the NDRN Report and write now to explain why the ACCSES letter in fact demonstrates why the segregation and high unemployment rate of people with disabilities has continued so long.
The NDRN Report cites the highly unnecessary segregated nature of employment services received by people with disabilities, commonly called sheltered work. The report recommends ending such services, along with the obsolete practice of paying individuals sub-minimum wage, which in some cases have been literally pennies per hour. (For example, a Wisconsin survey found workers earning as low as two cents per hour.) The NDRN Report asks for greater promotion of integrated employment and increased labor protections for workers with disabilities. We support these recommendations fully, and we are deeply disappointed that ACCSES would abandon such principles.
Clearly the ACCSES letter illustrates a disturbing gap between what most disability service providers do and providing people with disabilities what they actually want and need, not to mention contemporary research. In January, 2012, a class action lawsuit was filed challenging Oregon’s failure to provide supported employment services to more than 2,300 of its residents who are segregated in sheltered workshops. One of the plaintiffs, Paula Lane, earned about 40 cents per hour. Yet, Lane has repeatedly asked for a real community job at competitive wage. A 2007 study supports the idea that people with disabilities prefer real jobs. Researchers surveyed adults with intellectual disabilities in sheltered workshops, their respective families or caregivers, and staff members in these workshops. They found large majorities of all of these groups, including staff, felt individuals working in sheltered workshops would prefer employment in the community and could perform outside workshops if support was made available.
Despite the fact that the large majority of disability funding goes to segregated services, research has shown no support for the efficacy of those services. One 2012 study showed that individuals who participated in sheltered workshops earned significantly less, and cost nearly two and half times more per person to serve, than their non-sheltered workshop peers. A similar 2011 study found, “…while what individuals learned in sheltered workshops didn’t improve their employability, it did appear to make them more costly to train.”
So, what is the response by the organization said to represent the provider agencies who continue to provide 1960-based services in the face of conflicting evidence? It seems to be to put its collective head in the sand. Rather than acknowledge the problem and talk about ways to manage the phase-out of segregation, and means to promote evidence-based practices, they have chosen to complain that exposing shortcomings is troublesome, saying “Pitting people with disabilities against their disability service providers is a divide and conquer strategy that distorts the widely shared goal of employment for people with disabilities.”
Divide and conquer? Workers with disabilities are already impoverished with the lowest employment rate and income of any minority group in this country. What’s left to conquer? Right now most disability agencies are spending money on programs that do not produce needed outcomes. The ACCSES letter states the NDRN recommendations would “curtail, restrict, and deny employment options, choices, and opportunities.” Remarkably, the evidence shows that this is exactly what the current system has been doing for the last 30 years. Rather than continue the failed policies of the past, let’s commit to the innovative ideas proposed in the NDRN recommendations.
Dale DiLeo, Advocate, Past-President, APSE
Laura A. Owens, Ph.D., Executive Director, APSE

conversion segregation sheltered workshops

A Bellwether? Oregon Sued for Reliance on Sheltered Workshops

daledileo 4 Comment

Last month, UCP Oregon/SW Washington, with the help of Disability Rights Oregon, filed a class action lawsuit challenging Oregon’s failure to provide supported employment services to more than 2,300 of its residents who are segregated in sheltered workshops. The suit says people are “stuck in long-term, dead-end facilities that offer virtually no interaction with non-disabled peers, that do not provide any real pathway to integrated employment and that provide compensation that is well below minimum wage.” 

Readers of this blog know that being stuck in a sheltered workshop is one of the core problems I believe face individuals with developmental disabilities today. One of the plaintiffs, Paula Lane, earned about 40 cents per hour in March, 2010, working on various benchwork tasks. Lane has repeatedly asked for a real job, according to the suit. She “cannot afford to participate in …many community activities.”

This is indeed a case to keep an eye on. It’s the first statewide class action suit against segregated work facilities. Sheltered workshops are not only obsolete, their cost-effectiveness is less than supported employment, and they have been found to actually hinder realizing job outcomes for people with disabilities. The case against continuing to segregate people with disabilities needlessly in day facilities is very strong, and includes not only research outcomes, but violations of civil rights and wasteful spending of government dollars.

Yet sheltered workshops are an entrenched part of the disability industrial complex. Over a half million people are attending them in the US, and states segregate more people every day. The real challenge should be to focus on “how” to change this system rather than “whether.”

Unfortunately, many people, families and professionals among them, believe that some people “need” to be in such a facility. I don’t agree, but I do understand where this perspective comes from. For example, one family posted in response to the lawsuit: “Yes the clients are largely segregated from non-disabled situations where they could not endure ‘normal’ work situations… clients are protected from terrible violations they might endure on the streets or at home.”

Parents will naturally protect a son or daughter’s perceived vulnerability. But we also need to understand that there is no evidence that workers with disabilities are more at risk than those in workshops, and funding facilities to provide needless “safety” comes at a cost – it has been proven to be ineffective for jobs and wages, and it is systematically preventing lots of people from living more meaningful lives. Changing a perception of the need for a segregated building (and thus “protection” from your own community!) is challenging. Workshops are not self-sustaining. They require ongoing tax dollars and the attendance of people with disabilities. Their existence requires people to be there. Money spent on facilities means less money spent on job development and job support for everyone.

Some people defend the segregated system because of the caring people who work at the facilities. For instance, this family noted: “…clients at the sheltered workshop have caring supervision and friendship of workshop staff. Our daughter views her supervisors as loved mentors.” Of course. This happens in some institutions as well. Many years ago I ran an agency with a workshop, and the staff were fabulous. That’s not the point. People are not placed in workshops to be near non-disabled staff mentors who are kind. It’s not that staff aren’t caring, it’s the environment into which we are putting both staff and people, and what we are requiring them to do, and what it actually keeps people with disabilities from achieving.

Moving people out of a system that is currently expanding will require thoughtful planning. Again, we should transition from “whether or not” and start a conversation about “how” right now. Here are six principles to start that discussion:

  1. Freeze new segregated workshop placements. We need to stop growing the problem. 
  2. Set up a “Workshop Firewall” rule to prevent re-entry into a sheltered facility once a person leaves. Too many people use the facility as a safety net, when actually it is a life trap. 
  3. Phase out, using a reasonable timeline, sub-minimum wages. Such wages are based on an outdated and inadequate idea of productivity and job customization. 
  4. Develop a capacity-building initiative in supported employment, both nationally and state-by-state. This would include better training, employment service staff professionalization, and an investment in school-to-work, career development services, and agency collaboration. 
  5. Launch marketing and education efforts to high-priority audiences such as families and employers.
  6. Set national standards requiring each state to collect and report clear service and outcome data on employment supports.   

This is just a beginning outline, but I think you see where I am going. States such as Vermont no longer fund sheltered workshops, so we know others can successfully move in this direction. So keep on eye on Oregon. A lawsuit in one state can start an avalanche across the US and Canada – and one that’s long overdue… 

employment first segregation sheltered workshops

A Candid Conversation on Disability Issues

daledileo 0 Comment

Recently, for a podcast sponsored by Griffin-Hammis Associates, Cary Griffin and I had a discussion about many facets of our service system. We talked about the resistance to change of sheltered work agencies, the needless persistence of sub-minimum wage, concerns we had about generalized employment training programs being developed for people with autism, flawed social enterprises, and other issues in the employment of people with disabilities. We also talked about what makes us optimistic and where successes with community integration were being found.

I’ve known Cary Griffin for over twenty plus years. He has been an extraordinary consultant and trainer in the disability field, and I have always considered him someone I could bounce ideas off of and get an honest answer. 

Sound interesting? Well, personally, I enjoyed it and found that it helped me clarify some things I feel strongly about. Rather than making some of the same points here, you can get the transcript of the conversation at http://trn-store.com/.
I think it’s an authentic discussion that touches on a lot of things, of which I’m sure some people will have disagreements. But certainly, the disability field is in need to air differing views of the status quo. Why? For starters, we spend an awful lot of taxpayer dollars on services for people with disabilities that, by and large, have had a history of pretty ineffectual, and sometimes alarming outcomes. And we are still labeling people, only now in new ways.

As always, we invite respectful comments – I look forward to reading your reactions.

Have a wonderful holiday season, everyone, and, (wherever you do it!) thanks for all that you do.

conversion segregation segregation supported employment sheltered workshops

The 80-20 Rule and A Call to Freeze Referrals to Sheltered Work

daledileo 4 Comment

The Pareto Principle is a well known economic theory that can be applied to a lot of situations. It goes something like this: about 80% of effectiveness is driven by just 20% of our activity. This distribution has also been found to relate to how a small number of people control 80% of the wealth. Or in business, how 80% of your income comes from just 20% of your customers. (Interestingly, some theories also note how 80% of your life’s problems comes from just 20% of those people you know…)
Whatever the actual percentages per situation, the 80-20 rule is fascinating in what it implies – that often we are involved with things that seem related to our goals, but are really not very significant to achieving them, and in fact can become distractions. We thus confuse being busy with accomplishment. But the Pareto Principle says that unless you are getting the right things done, your ‘busyness’ is just an illusion of progress. It’s the difference between a shotgun that scatters its impact with laser surgery that focuses it where it needs to be.
Let’s apply this to the continuing problem of segregation of people with disabilities. If we consider how little progress we have made with employment rates of people with disabilities, and how few segregated facilities have closed, one should wonder why this is. After all, we have had multi-million dollar system change grants, along with multitudes of conferences, research studies, and training over the years. We have definitely been busy. We’ve had lots of meetings, white papers, and hand-wringing on employment rates.
One problem as I see it is that within all these initiatives, we have not focused on the few that might matter at a systems level. For example, we invest money and time and then teach and promote a myriad of new and creative employment strategies that are applied for far too few people. It’s great to know creative ways to find a vocation; we do need this kind of information. But it’s now been over 30 years since the dawn of supported employment; I think we have enough of what we need by now to get going. Sure, things will progress and we will learn better ways of doing things. But this is like ignoring a burning building to repair the front steps. It’s long past time to prioritize!
I would propose that if you want people to eventually be employed and not spend their days in a segregated facility, you need a basic and realistic policy starting place. That is, you have to stop letting people now entering the adult service system to even gain entry into sheltered workshop services. Simply stop the workshop referrals now, and you at least “freeze” the magnitude of a problem that every day grows larger. 
This is of course just a simplistic step, and no real comprehensive solution, but it is the initial necessary baseline for change. It will take years to completely phase out workshops, and there will be real political and social battles along the way. Like deinstitutionalization, people will complain about losing a service option, albeit one shown ineffective and potentially exploitive. But at least the problem won’t get worse than it already is and thus more difficult. And we won’t be unnecessarily sentencing young people to lifelong segregation needlessly while we spend precious resources on facilities and their related expenses.
Are there other steps within the Pareto Principle that apply? I think there are at least two more as starters. One would be an extension of the non-admission policy toward people who leave the workshop for employment. In other words, if they lose their job, they cannot return to the workshop. And still another would be the phasing out of sub-minimum wage. I will blog further about these in my coming posts and talk more about how to phase out facilities. 
Taken together, we might find that prioritizing our strategies for change might make more sense than continuing a shotgun approach of just promoting everything that seems a bit better than a workshop, then hoping for the best. I’m afraid the evidence has come in on that approach, and it hasn’t worked. 
conversion segregation sheltered workshops

Discarding An Old Narrative: Shine a Light on Indignity

daledileo 3 Comment

Some 30 years ago, some new and innovative approaches were developed to help people with disabilities lead better lives. They involved ideas such as normalization, social inclusion, individualized planning, and supported employment and supported living. These concepts were all based on focusing on the individual and not the disability, and each brought new ways of providing support. As the techniques evolved, they got more efficient, and researchers started to document their effectiveness. Their results showed that the outcomes they produced were much better for people – more wages, good jobs, nice homes, and more friends, and they cost no more when implemented properly.
Fast forward to today. A cadre of professionals, but still a minority to be sure, remain committed to implementing these no-longer “new” ideas. Nearly everyone now knows the terms and supports their philosophy. But the talk and the walk are very different. By and large, most services remain stuck in the 1980s. I can walk into almost any community and find most adults with developmental disabilities living in group homes or even larger settings, attending workshops or day programs, and living lives of isolation. Few have jobs or a real home to call their own. Many earn less than minimum wage, if they work at all. We celebrate the minority who have achieved a better life, but too often selectively ignore the large majority who have not.
Occasionally, we do hear in the media about the incidents of institutional abuse, negligence, or workers earning pennies per hour while agency management make six-figure incomes. These cause outrage, and the response is usually to clean up the situation. We then try to tinker with a model that seems by its nature to invite this type of problem. This leads to statements like “our workshop is not like those dirty sweatshops, it’s clean,” or “we have 24-hour video surveillance in the residence..” Hmmm… 
But when are we going to examine the model in its full details? What we don’t hear can be just as disturbing: the adults who sit coloring because the “clean workshop” has little work; or the resident who sits on the couch because the staff just wants to watch TV. These are not headline events, but they are a slow drip of negligence because we know how to do better. I have come upon these kind of things far too often and too recent, and this type of living is unnecessary for anyone.
We are caught in an old narrative. It goes like this: People with disabilities need special places and special programs. They prefer each other’s company. They are too vulnerable to live in the community and are not really productive to be employable. This narrative was codified into law, and policy focused on building specialized facilities. Programs were developed and people were placed into them, based on their label and perceived functioning level. Professionals were trained, many times by entering the system as a staff person, and then learning by watching “how things work here.”
Discarding such a narrative and what it produced isn’t easy – it takes work. First, you have to produce an approach that is doable and based on evidence that it works. This we have done. But then you have to help people to understand the new narrative rationally, emotionally, and philosophically. Then -and this is the deepest challenge – you have to break down the existing codes, restructure the policies, and retrain the professionals, or hire new ones. This involves resetting expectations, and accepting that what we have, even though it’s better than nothing or something even more restrictive, isn’t good enough. The new narrative threatens the old and the economics it produces. Even if research says changing services is by far the better thing to do, people tend to discard or discount information that just doesn’t fit the narrative they have – a well-studied effect called the confirmation bias.
So, there are at least two basic things we must accomplish to change things:
1. Expose the flaws in the old narrative.
2. Continue to present a compelling new narrative.
So far, advocates have only been doing the second option. I’ve been told directly, it’s too disruptive to rock the boat right now. Too disruptive for whom? In my view, not rocking the boat has kept us from enabling any systemic change. Civil rights didn’t come just from talking about a new world of equality. Advocates also had to expose the indignities, inequality, and pervasive inhumanity that was going on every day, in everyday neighborhoods. It was sometimes blatant, and sometimes subtle, but always just as wrong. I welcome your comments.
segregation sheltered workshops

Why I Resigned from The Alliance for Full Participation

daledileo 11 Comment
We often compromise in the interest of a final goal – in life and politics you must – but in this instance, well, it was just way over the line for me. For many years now, I have been a strong advocate for ending the segregation of people with disabilities in education, community living, and employment. Despite numerous advances in technology and support strategies, the disability system remains largely segregated and resistant to change.
Last year, I was invited to participate on an Advisory Board for the Alliance for Full Participation (AFP). The AFP is composed of fifteen organizations. The goal of the Alliance states: “adult service providers must work to remove barriers and support individuals in real jobs for real pay” – something I believe in. In my first meeting with the AFP Advisory Board, we recommended that a clear national goal be set, rather than vague wording of “increasing” employment opportunities. This resulted in a revised AFP goal of doubling the employment rate for people with developmental disabilities by 2015.
However, very shortly, an issue arose that tested the AFP’s commitment to its goals. In a December 9, 2010 memo to the Obama Administration from several national agencies (those in bold are AFP members: ACCSES, Easter Seals, Goodwill Industries® International, NISH, The Arc of the United States, and United Cerebral Palsy), several positions were put forth regarding pre-vocational services. The memo lists 13 guiding value statements. 11 of these statements were very supportive of integrated employment. However two of them were very inconsistent:
Value 10: While a priority should exist for competitive, integrated employment, it should be recognized that other valid service outcomes may occur, including paid work in center-based program settings, in accordance with the Fair Labor Standards Act, self-employment, and volunteer (unpaid) work.
Value 12: …Prevocational services provided to individuals may assist them in reaching their optimal level of functioning…
A state should never subject an individual to arbitrary time limits regarding the provision of prevocational services, such as time limits based on the site or location of the prevocational services or by substituting part-time services for full-time services when full-time services are considered necessary and appropriate by the IDT.
There are several problems here. First, if you are committed to changing your services to integrated employment, then sheltered work should NOT be a valid service outcome. Tolerating a two sided service model (center-based training and integrated supports, which are contradictory at their core) is the main issue why segregated services are not declining. In addition, the value noted above in the memo that states that using pre-vocational services to prepare for some “optimal level of functioning” has not a shred of evidence to support it, and in effect the long history and the counter experience of supported employment shows it is a complete waste of time and money. The memo instead states that:
…prevocational services may be “provided in a center-based or other community based program setting to persons who are not expected to join the general work force or participate in a transitional sheltered workshop within one year of service initiation… If compensated, individuals are paid at less than 50 percent of the minimum wage… Services include activities that are not primarily directed at teaching job-specific skills but at underlying habilitative goals (e.g., attention span, motor skills).”
Wrong. To achieve full participation, disability services needs to get rid of segregated, pre-vocational readiness training, period. We also need to end subminimum wages, which are exploiting the work of people with disabilities. Finally, the recommendation to continue to provide pre-vocational training without a time limit has brought us to a national disgrace in which far too many individuals with disabilities have life-long segregation and never experience community employment.
So, we have a situation where some members of an Alliance dedicated to integrated work are advocating goals contrary to mission of the Alliance. After a long discussion by the Advisory group, we recommended that that the Alliance Board request that the three agencies clarify why they have advocated for center-based and pre-vocational employment, given their commitment to the Alliance for Full Participation. A public discourse of this issue is sorely needed. However, the response sent back to the Advisory Board is excerpted below:
Individual AFP organizations, organizational representatives, and advisory committee members should communicate any concerns about positions and actions of individual member organizations to the organizations themselves… AFP’s Board recognizes that each organization, while supporting AFP’s vision and mission, must also support its individual agenda and constituencies, which may lead to inconsistencies… AFP wants to avoid being drawn into a conflict that would put a focus on negative action, rather than the positive focus of its goal.
My resignation immediately followed. Being drawn into a rational discourse of where we disagree is exactly where we need to be. Nearly all agencies have inconsistencies in their current services and goals for the future, and of course these are not limited to AFP members. But the position taken here by some AFP members aren’t minor inconsistencies. Nor are they just inconsistent services during a process of agency change, which would be understandable. They are positions strongly advocated to federal policymakers and diametrically opposed to the stated values and reason of the Alliance. It’s one thing to tolerate inconsistencies as an agency moves toward a goal as part of a change process; quite another for an Alliance member to directly advocate a contradictory goal in a major policy memo to the Obama administration. I don’t believe you can just ignore it.
Focusing just on what you want cannot mean ignoring what you don’t want, especially when 30 years have taught us that our system change in disability services has not occurred by just trying to focus on integrated employment. Indeed, civil rights was not just about promoting integration; it was about calling attention to the unjustness of segregation. There is no difference in the disability movement. There is value in “keeping people at the table,” but not if they remain intransigent over evolving their services. Remember, we are talking about real people left in centers doing meaningless things with no time limits. Real people.
Despite my seemingly intractable position here, I am not advocating a strident message, nor a disrespectful one – just the truth told calmly. You cannot promote segregated, pre-vocational, non-time-limited training facilities and at the same time stand for full participation. While recognizing an alliance of organizations is a precarious and potentially useful thing, it is of little value and limited credibility if it ignores its members advocating opposing concepts. When the AFP decided to turn away an opportunity for such discussion, it might as well have become an Alliance of Sometimes Participation.
The AFP has an opportunity to frame a discussion, but the goal cannot just be to articulate a vision of integration. After almost 30 years of articulating integration, does anyone really believe what the field just needs is more education about it? There is a real urgency here. The longer hypocrisy is shielded, the longer the goal of Full Participation will take. If this is the leading edge for change, it is no wonder we get nowhere – there is just no energy in it. There are plenty of reasonable steps that can occur – highlighting the debate on the web, at the upcoming AFP summit, etc. Instead, the issue has been ditched. On the plus side, this has crystallized the problem quite clearly.
I write this on Martin Luther King Day, who said:
“In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.” Friends, I hope we will not again just stand silent.
choice conversion segregation sheltered workshops

The Fallacy of the “Choice Argument”: Most People in Sheltered Workshops Want a Job

daledileo 4 Comment

Despite numerouse national and state policies promoting integrated employment, 76% of adults with intellectual or developmental disabilities are served in facility-based, segregated programs – usually work activity centers or sheltered workshops. Whenever advocates talk about closing a sheltered workshop so the people there can get real jobs, the argument of choice is raised. “But this is where they want to be…” You are taking away their right to chose…”

In a recent article published in the Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, authors Migliore, Mank, Grossi and Rogan look at whether or not this gap between policy and practice is in part due to the lack of interest of adults with intellectual disabilities and their families for employment outside facility-based programs.

The authors surveyed 210 adults with intellectual disabilities in 19 sheltered workshops, their respective families or caregivers, and staff members in these workshops. They found that 74% of adults with intellectual disabilities, 67% of families, and 66% of staff felt those they serve would prefer employment outside workshops, or at least consider it as an option. The majority of all groups believed that adults with intellectual disabilities can perform outside workshops if support is made available.

The study highlighted the fact that the preference for employment outside of workshops is not associated with the severity of the disability. So, who is restricting choice? Perhaps it is those who insist that employment service dollars be spent on an obsolete model.

Source: Migliore, A., Mank, D., Grossi, T., and Rogan, P. (2007). Integrated employment or sheltered workshops: Preferences of adults with intellectual disabilities, their families, and staff. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation Vol. 26, No. 1, pp. 5–19.

employability sheltered workshops supported employment

Employability is a Given, Not Line to Cross

daledileo 0 Comment

During a recent training course about supported employment I gave, I found myself in a debate with a manager of an agency over whether people with disabilities should be “presumed employable.” I was most discouraged by this professional’s statement that the “overwhelming majority of these consumers are not employable.” To me, that is the single biggest obstacle people face – the low expectations by others.

Interestingly enough, in the US, current law mandates a presumption of employability. The reauthorized Rehabilitation Act begins with a presumption of ability that people can achieve employment and other rehabilitation goals regardless of the severity of disability, if appropriate services and supports are made available. The concept of employability has been replaced with one of “employment outcome.”

Despite this, I still often find myself debating with others whether the presumption of employability means everyone (as I believe), or just those judged as capable.

Ultimately, it is the belief in what people can achieve, despite the obstacles, that will drive their employment opportunities. And for this to happen, we need to re-think people who have a developmental disability or a mental illness as someone whose life is to never have a decent home or job because of some focus on a belief in a chronic, never-be cured aspect of their lives.

I have been struggling for years to advance the notion that people in sheltered workshops deserve the right to live and work in the community in real jobs and homes with the rest of us. I believe a huge body of research, national outcomes, and our collective experiences have demonstrated that it is more than possible. And my sometimes exasperated reaction to these kinds of debates probably reflect frustration with people in management particularly who dismiss these notions as unrealistic or requiring much more money. I think more money can help, but the reality is the service system already gets a great deal of money, but it is spent unwisely -on buildings, excessive salaries, etc.

Not too long ago, my colleague and long-time friend Bob Lawhead testified before Congress about the wasted spending and poor outcomes of sheltered workshops and day training programs. At the same time, a Congressional investigation found excessive management salaries and deal-making going on in some of these agencies. Can we justify a CEO earning $700,000, when hundred of workers labor in her workshop at sub-minimum wage?

I do not think it is not bad or evil somehow to have been taught that sheltered workshops (or institutions) are needed for a certain percentage of people. 20 years ago I had that belief myself.

But I do think it is wrong to still have that belief after you have been exposed to what is possible today – and that is real jobs and real homes, regardless of disability.

productivity segregation sheltered workshops

The Fallacy of Low Productivity: Why People with Disabilities Are Relegated to Segregated Facilities at Low Wages

daledileo 0 Comment

In a recent class I was facilitating, I again ran into the argument from someone that people with disabilities need sheltered workshops because they are not productive enough to be in the business world. Aside from the moral issue of segregating a whole class of people, let us address this stereotype of non-productiveness.

There is no doubt that some individuals with disabilities are slower in certain tasks, depending on the task and the disability. Of course this statement is also generally true of all people, depending on the task and the skill. The thing about productivity in a sheltered workshop is that it is largely confined to a limited scope of work, typically packaging, assembly, shipping, or some other rather repetitive task. If you happen to be slow on these type of tasks, or make too many mistakes, then you will be judged as not ready for prime time – a real job. The answer by the disability professional is typically then to provide training – year after year after year…

But this is inherently unfair. Productivity is largely related to the match of skill and task, but it is also related to motivation, the sense of belonging, wages, social relationships. self esteem, the assistance and training you get, and other factors.

Alberto might earn pennies a day for his slow pace assembling a business mailing, but at a health club where he welcomes customers and checks their membership cards, he might be at 100% for the employer. That is, with a little help, he does the job he is asked. He likes the work, the people, and it makes him feel good. He also has the supports he needs to succeed. Thus, he is motivated. And, he is good at what the employer needs.

This is productivity. A role for the disability professional, then, is not to pass judgment on who is productive to earn the right to a job, based on pretty invalid information. It is to figure out what the person needs to do and to have to be productive. It means finding the right job match and giving the right supports. Productivity isn’t fixed. Nor is the setting in which it is assessed.