[Ct-nfb] Good News from Rhode Island

Tue Mar 18 18:59:20 UTC 2014

 right on Justin. this as a great reply to susan

On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 03:46 PM, Justin Salisbury wrote:

Friends and Colleagues:

I have compiled a comprehensive response to all involved in this 
discussion with further explanation of the issue at hand.  If people 
with disabilities are going to achieve equality, we must face the 
dignity of risk in the job search process. 

Rich: You said “I hope they are rehired at a decent wage.”

In order to be rehired, these people would have to be hired in the first 
place.  I’m not sure that I would say that they were hired in the first 
place.  You are obviously right that other placements will be necessary, 
and we have seen their
  successful achievement in Vermont.  Just because the article doesn’t 
explain that the disabled Rhode Islanders will be empowered to the next 
level doesn’t mean that it won’t happen.  In fact, it appears that this 
is the obvious goal.

Len: You explain that someone will have to find you another job, or you 
will be unemployed.  They are cutting your hours and benefits already. 

The sheltered workshops have every incentive to bluff at this measure in 
hopes that it will be repealed.  They want to continue to prey on 
disabled people because it makes them a ton of money.  It will continue 
to make them a lot of money
  once they have to pay minimum wage, but not quite as much.

Susan: You believe that sheltered workshops provide a host of services 
as well as a social atmosphere and acceptance; it is already difficult 
to connect with peers. 
You believe this will be a way to further isolate and separate those 
with the most need for services. 
You believe folks will be less able to advocate for their needs and 
languish in communities where there are already too few services.

What a lot of people do not realize is that sheltered workshops actually 
are the forces isolating their clients and limiting self-advocacy.  If 
we, the Federation, could reach into every sheltered workshop and teach 
those people and their
  families that they deserve better, the sheltered workshops would lose 
their employees.  There are plenty of successful people with 
disabilities who could be interacting with the sheltered workshop 
employees if they were out of the sheltered workshop and in
  a competitive employment setting.

Rich explained that there are other social settings available in the 
community, and we should not fund them if they continue to exploit the 
disabled.  Employment exists with a goal of earning a living.

I absolutely agree.  Rich is one example of our success.  He wears the 
dignity of risk.  Employment is employment, and social opportunities are 
social opportunities.

Susan: You believe we need a continuum of services because everyone has 
different levels of ability.  You have raised many children and know all 
of their abilities. 

I understand that you have not a single negative intention for your 
children and all Americans with disabilities.  I seriously do.  There 
are many others out there who support sheltered employment as a measure 
of what they believe to be
  compassion and empowerment, but the expectations are not as high as 
real people prove that they can be.  Innovative job training and 
placement services can and do get people with any disability competitive 
employment.  Sheltered employment is not, has never
  been, and will never be anything close to a stepping stone to 
competitive employment.  Research demonstrates that people who start 
working in sheltered workshops actually become less productive because 
of their time in sheltered employment.

Only 5% of people who start working in a sheltered workshop ever go on 
to earn a minimum wage in their entire lives, according to a Government 
Accountability Office report.  95% remain permanent wards of the 
government
  and never achieve competitive employment.

Independent academic research indicates that supported employment 
produces far better vocational outcomes than sheltered employment.  
Supported employment provides all of those benefits that Susan Harper 
credits sheltered workshops with
  providing.  This research includes people with all types of 
disabilities.

The State of Vermont got smart many years ago and decided that spending 
millions of taxpayer dollars each year (matched by federal tax dollars) 
to fund enterprises paying less than the federal minimum wage was an
  ineffective use of public funds.  The State of Vermont de-funded 
sheltered employment, and sheltered workshops in Vermont converted to 
competitive employment models, often harnessing supported employment 
mechanisms in order to maintain the continuum of services. 
  The employers paid at least minimum wage and kept their government 
funding.  In supported employment scenarios, workers with disabilities 
are paid at least the minimum wage. 

In sheltered workshops, there is negligible incentive for the workshops 
to increase the productivity of the employees earning less than the 
minimum wage.  They are paid by our government per “client” served in 
the
  shops, as well as with grants and donations.  This is not adjusted 
based on the client’s earnings or changes in productivity.  The 
permanent funding stream is used to pay the salaried administrators and 
staff, while the contracts are used to pay the workers
  and further pay the salaried employees.  The administrators get a 
double-dip.  When negotiating contracts, the sheltered workshops are 
able to factor in enough expenses to cover administrative costs, too.  
Administrators of sheltered workshops call themselves
  human service providers, but they are paid far more than other human 
service professionals because of how the workshops parasitically 
manipulate a lucrative system.  As demonstrated in Vermont, these 
enterprises all have enough money to pay their workers with
  disabilities the minimum wage, but they do not do it because the 
government allows them to get away with paying less. 

The underlying problem with sheltered employment is the misperception of 
the lack of capacity of people with disabilities.  There once was a day 
when it was normal for blind people to spend their days rocking back
  and forth in a corner and drooling.  Then, the National Federation of 
the Blind was formed, and we began to correct these misperceptions about 
the blind.  If not for our efforts, many of us would still be drooling 
and rocking in a corner.  When we see people
  who are in such terrible situations, it is because the right 
intervention has not yet occurred.  It is not because the disability 
prevents them from reaching productivity.  With the right expectations 
and support, we do achieve.  To demonstrate that people
  with all types of disabilities would benefit from the eradication of 
subminimum wage employment, I have attached the list of organizations 
which support HR 831, the Fair Wages for Workers with Disabilities Act 
of 2013.

Only in the case of sheltered employment does anyone consider the 
employer to be providing the employee a service.  This is accepted in 
society because of the misperception of the lack of capacity of the 
disabled. 
  With this misperception in mind, the high unemployment rate for the 
disabled is easily but incorrectly explained by the notion that the 
disability itself prevents the workers from being productive.  
Hispanics, African Americans, and Native Americans have long
  had higher unemployment rates than Caucasians and Asians.  Should we 
take away the minimum wage protection that Hispanics, African Americans, 
and Native Americans experience today in order to create more employment 
opportunities?  How would we respond to that
  as a nation if that happened?  We would resist the drop in 
expectations because we would know that we were dooming the people we 
sent into sheltered workshops.  It is the same for the disabled.  We, 
the disabled, have capacity, and we intend to use it.  Those
  who do not believe in us should not try to trip us while we compete in 
the workforce and help others escape the bondage of sheltered 
employment.  We must inoculate each other against the misperceptions 
that may hinder us all.

Love,

Justin

From: Ct-nfb [mailto:ct-nfb-bounces at nfbnet.org]
On Behalf Of Susan Harper

Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2014 7:13 AM

To: Richard McGaffin; NFB of Connecticut Mailing List

Subject: Re: [Ct-nfb] Good News from Rhode Island

I'm not upset.  Thanks for your concern.  There is good and bad in 
everything.  What I'm saying is that there is a need for a continuum of 
services.  Sorry your friend had such a difficult experience.  Yes many 
good people deserve a lot
  more.  That is why folks advocate for change.  

Blessings,

Sue H.

On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 6:51 AM, Richard McGaffin <rmcgaffin at snet.net 
<mailto:rmcgaffin at snet.net> > wrote:

Good morning all;

Look Sue I'm not trying to upset you, I understand your situation and I 
have a certain compassion for those who aren't able to compete with the 
rest of the world. Itoo worked in a sheltered workshop for about
  6 months in 1996, that's how I met my friend Leonard. However when 
they wanted to remove me from being a staff worker for $6.00 an hour and 
have me work on a bench for half day because they needed another client 
to fill their list of clients, so they could
  put another man on as a staff member. I decided it was time for me to 
quit. That dishonest practice is basically the way B.E.S.B. 
industries in West Haven was run.  Fortunately the manager welcomed me 
back to the Orange S&S which is now closed. Since my leaving
  Stop & Shop in 1999 I have discovered the computer, and have developed 
quite a nack for it. I worked in several telemarketing, and customer 
service place since them. Yes it's true I'm currently unemployed as I 
stated before, but I'd rather be unemployed than
  work for less than minimum Wage. 

As far as my friend Leonard is concerned I think it's terrible that he 
was even placed in one of these places to begin with. Here a veteran 
of our own military how dare the Connecticut state services place
  him in such a situation. Again I say shut these sweat shops and stop 
funding them with Federal & State funds.

Rich 

From: Susan Harper <sueharpernp at gmail.com <mailto:sueharpernp at gmail.com> 
>

To: Richard McGaffin <rmcgaffin at snet.net <mailto:rmcgaffin at snet.net> >; 
NFB of Connecticut Mailing List <ct-nfb at nfbnet.org 
<mailto:ct-nfb at nfbnet.org> >

Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2014 4:09 PM

Subject: Re: [Ct-nfb] Good News from Rhode Island

Richard, I love your thoughtful reply.

I just know that for a lot of folks, those things just aren't options 
for a lot of reasons.  Not all sheltered workshops are equal.  I agree 
there are many other ways to do the social piece.  But not everyone can 
access those options.  We
  need a continuum of services so that no one gets left out.  I've 
always advocated Independence for all my children of varying degrees of 
abilities.  I'm not disabled, at least I don't think I am.  Don't tell 
me if I am.  I like laboring under the illusion
  of who I am.  I am the legal parent to 14 children and fostered many 
more.  I believe in  the worth of all my children and have worked 
diligently to get them into the adult world with as many skills as they 
can muster.  I love these kinds of conversations,
  that may be hard.  However, they are necessary to get the many points 
of view and educate each other as to our collective needs.

Blessings,

Sue H.

On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 3:47 PM, Richard McGaffin <rmcgaffin at snet.net 
<mailto:rmcgaffin at snet.net> > wrote:

Good afternoon all;

Sue you bring up some interesting views on this subject, however those 
individuals whe are or were employed at sheltered workshops are there 
for one reason and that is to earn a living. If indeed they're earning
  a competitive wage, and manage to make some social contacts this is a 
good thing. I have met a number of individuals the several different 
work places. In fact I met my wife at Stop & Shop while I was employed 
there. However a place of business is just that,
  and there are a lot of other places such as church, and other so 
called social settings. I don't believe that either the state of federal 
government should fund a place just for people to go and hang around and 
be soically excepted. If indeed they're looking
  for social hangouts than let's call them social hangouts and forget 
exploiting the disabled by paying them less than minamum wage. I am 
afraid I will have to side with Justin (which by the way is a rarity for 
both us) on this one. Let me also add that I am
  currently unemployed and have been for over 2 years, this is partially 
due to the fact that I was hospitalized for 2 months of last year, and 
it has taken me pretty much a whole year to recover. 

Rich McGaffin

From: Susan Harper <sueharpernp at gmail.com <mailto:sueharpernp at gmail.com> 
>

To: NFB of Connecticut Mailing List <ct-nfb at nfbnet.org 
<mailto:ct-nfb at nfbnet.org> >

Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2014 9:05 AM

Subject: Re: [Ct-nfb] Good News from Rhode Island

I disagree that this is a good idea.  Sheltered workshops do a lot more 
than provide employment.  Generally they provide a host of services as 
well as a social atmosphere of acceptance and a peer group.  It is 
already difficult to connect
  with others and find support and important information regarding many 
issues and rights.  I think this will be a way to further isolate and 
separate those with the most need for services.  Folks will be less able 
to advocate for their needs and languish in
  communities where there are already to few services.  Be careful what 
you wish for!  There are pros and cons to everything.  I strongly agree 
that there should be real pay for real work.  There still needs to be a 
stepping stone and a continuum of services,
  a bridge if you will to get there.  

Blessings,

Sue H.

On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 8:10 AM, Len Schlenk <lfs40 at optonline.net 
<mailto:lfs40 at optonline.net> > wrote:

The closing of all workshops in Ct will take its effect on me the end of 
June. They will either find me another job or I will be unemployed.

Len Schlenk ---- Original Message -----

From:

Justin Salisbury <mailto:PRESIDENT at alumni.ecu.edu>

To:

nfbwnews at nfbwis.org <mailto:nfbwnews at nfbwis.org>  ;
ct-nfb at nfbnet.org <mailto:ct-nfb at nfbnet.org>

Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2014 12:43 AM

Subject: [Ct-nfb] Good News from Rhode Island

Stenning’s goal: Close all ‘sheltered workshops’ for adults with 
disabilities within three years

January 16, 2014 11:20 PM

CRANSTON — The head of the state agency that serves adults with 
disabilities has set a goal of closing all “sheltered” workshops in 
Rhode Island within the next three years.

Craig S. Stenning, director of the state Department of Behavioral 
Healthcare, Developmental Disabilities and Hospitals (BHDDH), on 
Thursday outlined an aggressive effort under way to move disabled adults 
out of what federal civil-rights
  officials say are segregated work settings and day programs and into 
jobs and activities in the community.

The effort, he said, represents a “major transformation of the system” 
akin to the movement to deinstitutionalize the disabled in residential 
settings with the closing of The Ladd School in the mid- 1980s.

The U.S. Department of Justice earlier this month released the findings 
of an investigation launched a year ago by its civil-rights division 
that charges the state with operating segregated employment, vocational 
and day programs for about
  3,600 adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities.

The report describes the problem of segregation as beginning when 
disabled students leave school and continuing throughout their lives. 
(The state Department of Education and the state Office of 
Rehabilitative Services also were named in
  the report.)

In an interview Thursday at his Cranston office, joined by five other 
staff members, Stenning spoke about some of the challenges his 
department has had in integrating disabled adults into the wider 
community, including a lackluster job
  market and the fear of change among some of the programs’ clients and 
their families.

The department’s (BHDDH’s) budget for “services to the developmentally 
disabled” has declined by about $29 million, or 11 percent, since 2009, 
when Stenning took over as director, state budget figures show.

But budget cuts, he said, have not been a major impediment to change. 
“At one time the budget for the State of Rhode Island for developmental 
disability services came to $109,000 per person per year — that was the 
highest in the country,”
  Stenning said. “So I don’t think the argument that budget cuts are the 
reason why it [integrated employment] didn’t happen is a valid 
argument.”

Stenning said that he and other department staff have begun reaching out 
to mayors in Cranston, Pawtucket and Warwick as part of the department’s 
new “Employment First” program aimed at ensuring equal employment 
opportunities for adults
  with disabilities.

The BHDDH also has sought bids for proposals to create a “center for 
excellence and advocacy” that would include providing job assistance and 
outreach to disabled adults and their families.

The department also is reaching out to private businesses, he said. Some 
companies, such as CVS and Automated Business Solutions, recently hired 
several adults with disabilities who were formerly in sheltered 
workshops.

The department has so far placed 40 adults with disabilities who 
formerly worked at a sheltered workshop run by Training Thru Placement 
in jobs in the community since the state signed an “interim settlement 
agreement” with the Justice Department
  last June. The agreement was to settle violations Justice Department 
officials found at the sheltered workshop and a vocational program at 
The Birch School in Providence.

To meet the goals of that interim settlement agreement — which covers 
about 200 adults at TTP and The Birch School — will take eight years, 
Stenning said Justice officials told him.

Now, the task has expanded to include thousands of adults with 
disabilities in 24 day programs, including six sheltered workshops. “My 
goal is much shorter … closing [sheltered] workshops in three years,” 
Stenning said, adding, “I’d love
  if we could fulfill our goal in five.” Even as he stressed his 
commitment to the goal of moving more adults with disabilities into jobs 
in the community, he defended the agencies that operate the sheltered 
workshops, saying they were “state of the art” at
  the time they were created.

Except for Training Thru Placement, which federal labor officials cited 
for wage hour violations, he said, the six other sheltered workshops 
have been operating in accordance with the state labor rules. Justice 
officials said in their report
  that many of the adults with disabilities participating in these 
sheltered workshops have the ability and desire to work in the community 
for jobs that pay at least minimum wage.

“The Department of Justice’s definition [of segregation],” Stenning 
said, “is different from the Department of Labor’s definition.”

He said that many of the recommendations made by Justice officials are 
“totally complementary” with efforts the department has had in the works 
for the last five years, such as improving how the department assess the 
needs and abilities
  of disabled adults and improving communication with their families.

Stenning, who joined the BHDDH in 2000, was appointed director in 2008 
by former Gov. Donald L. Carcieri and reappointed by Governor Chafee in 
2011.

Mr. Anil Lewis, M.P.A.

Deputy Executive Director

(410) 659-9314 ext. 2374

Twitter: @AnilLife

_______________________________________________

Nfb-legislative-directors mailing list

Nfb-legislative-directors at nfbnet.org 
<mailto:Nfb-legislative-directors at nfbnet.org>

http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-legislative-directors_nfbnet.org 
<http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-legislative-directors_nfbnet.org>

To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for 
Nfb-legislative-directors:

http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfb-legislative-directors_nfbnet.org/president%40alumni.ecu.edu 
<http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfb-legislative-directors_nfbnet.org/president%40alumni.ecu.edu>

_______________________________________________

Ct-nfb mailing list

Ct-nfb at nfbnet.org <mailto:Ct-nfb at nfbnet.org>

http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/ct-nfb_nfbnet.org 
<http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/ct-nfb_nfbnet.org>