[nfbmi-talk] why new horizons, peckham etc important
joe harcz Comcast
joeharcz at comcast.net
Fri Jan 27 16:20:40 UTC 2012
Segregated & Exploited
A Call to
Action!
NDRN_final_spot.jpgThe Failure of the Disability Service
kcrg-tv9-turkey-houseSystem to Provide Quality Work
Curt Decker.jpgPicture 361.jpg Cover photo by WQAD in the Quad Cities, IA (www.wqad.com). Image of the unheated and boarded up
bunkhouse where Henry’s Turkey Service housed its workers with disabilities. The Bunkhouse National Disability Rights Network: Protection, Advocacy & Assistance
The National Disability Rights Network (NDRN), is the nonprofit membership organization for
the Protection and Advocacy (P&A) system and Client Assistance Program (CAP). The
P&A/CAP network was established by the United States Congress to protect the rights of
people with disabilities and their families through legal support, advocacy, referral, and
education. The P&A/CAP network is the largest provider of legally based advocacy services
to people with disabilities in the country.
NDRN strives to create a society in which people with disabilities are afforded equal
opportunity and are able to fully participate by exercising choice and self determination. It
promotes the integrity and capacity of the P&A/CAP national network by providing training,
technical assistance, legislative advocacy, and legal support. NDRN advocates for the
enactment and vigorous enforcement of laws protecting the civil and human rights of people
with disabilities. Reports, like this one, are an integral part of the services NDRN provides to
the P&A/CAP network and the disability rights movement in general.
Please visit www.NDRN.org for more information.
A Letter from the Executive Director
Dear Friends,
Today, across the United States of America, hundreds of thousands of
people with disabilities are being isolated and financially exploited by their
employers. Many are segregated away from traditional work and kept out of
sight. Most are paid only a fraction of the minimum wage while many
company owners make six -figure salaries. Many people profit off of their
labor. All, except the worker. For many people with disabilities, their dream
of leaving their ?job training program? will never come true. They labor
away making only a tiny portion of what they should because there is a system in place that provides
no true alternatives.
For the past several decades, activists and advocates for disability rights were complacent in our
silence. The National Disability Rights Network, included. We fought for and continue to fight for
community integration and an end to the abuse and neglect of people with disabilities while
neglecting the evidence that segregated settings, sheltered work and sub-minimum wage contradicts
this effort. Sheltered workshops are not what they promise to be, and sometimes serve as an
unsettling example of how good intentions can lead to terrible outcomes.
The truth is that people with disabilities can—and do—work in all areas of the American workforce.
They thrive when they fully participate in their communities, and in turn, the nation thrives.
Unfortunately, sheltered workshops and the sub-minimum wage still exist today because of self-
interested employers and systematic neglect by federal agencies, buttressed by outdated stereotypes
of people with disabilities and the low expectations held by the general public, lawmakers, and, sadly,
even some families and the disability rights community. Simply put, sheltered workshops are just
another institution segregating people with disabilities away because of our unwillingness to accept
that our perceived notions about their ability to work may be wrong.
This call to action is long over-due. It is time to end segregated work, sheltered employment and
sub-minimum wage. Now.
Sincerely,
Curtis L. Decker, Esq.
Table of Contents
Segregated and Exploited
The Failure of the Disability Service System to Provide Quality Work
Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................... 7
Segregated and Exploited ..................................................................................................................... 11
A Brief History of Segregated & Sheltered Work .......................................................................... 12
Contradicting National Policy ............................................................................................................... 15
Work Segregation of People with Disabilities is Damaging ...................................................... 24
Sub-minimum Wage Reinforces a Life of Poverty for People with Disabilities ................... 28
Sheltered Workshops Lead Nowhere ................................................................................................ 32
Sheltered Workshops Profit Greatly from the Status Quo ......................................................... 35
Policy Recommendations ...................................................................................................................... 45
End Segregated Employment & Sub-minimum Wage ............................................................... 46
Promote & Facilitate Integrated Employment ............................................................................... 46
Increase Labor Protections & Enforcement ..................................................................................... 49
Conclusion .................................................................................................................................................... 51
Appendices ................................................................................................................................................... 52
Commonly Used Phrases
Employment: an activity performed by an individual where there is an expectation of wage for
services rendered and the services are for the primarily benefit of the employer.
Work: an activity done on a personal basis to enable personal growth and skills development,
improve social interactions, and development of self by contributing to society through volunteerism
or increased community interaction and participation in civic events. While there is a valued
relationship in this activity, it is not necessarily recognized through financial remuneration.
Competitive employment: work in the labor market that is performed on a full-time or part-time
basis in an integrated setting for which the individual is compensated at or above minimum wage,
but not less than the customary and usual wage paid by an employer for the same or similar work
performed by individuals who are not disabled.
Supported employment - competitive work performed in an integrated work setting where
individuals are matched to jobs consistent with the strengths, resources, abilities, capabilities,
interests, and informed choice and are provided individualized supports to learn and keep the job.
Sheltered work settings - separate environments known as sheltered workshops, affirmative
industries, training facilities, and rehabilitation centers which congregate large numbers of people
with disabilities and claim to be providing rehabilitation geared toward transition into the general
labor market by providing activities that typically involve repetitive tasks; the workshop was
designed by parents to give their sons or daughters dignity, self worth, socialization, and most of all
respite because parents had peace of mind that their son or daughter was safe, secure, and
protected against the risks and demands of the competitive world.
Financial exploitation - the wrongful taking, withholding, appropriation, or use of the money, real
property, or personal property of an individual with a disability.
Sub-minimum wage – section 14(c) of the Fair Labor Standards Act allows employers to pay
individuals less than the minimum wage if they have a physical or mental disability that impairs their
earning or productive capacity.
Executive Summary
The National Disability Rights Network (NDRN) has been studying segregated work, sheltered
environments, and the sub-minimum wage to determine whether they meet the needs of people with
disabilities and whether they comply with federal law. Unfortunately, what we found was
disappointing to say the least.
NDRN’s Policy Recommendations
Detailed recommendations can be found on page 46.
End Segregated Employment and Sub-minimum Wage for
People with Disabilities
? Restrict all federal and state money that is spent
on employers who segregate employees with
disabilities from the general workforce.
? End the ability of employers to pay employees with
disabilities a sub-minimum wage.
? End all programs that emphasize moving young
adults from the classroom to a segregated or sub-
minimum wage employment environment.
Promote and Facilitate Integrated and Comparable Wage
Employment Alternatives
? Strengthen existing and create new federal and
state tax incentives for employers to place
employees with disabilities in integrated
environments at comparable wages.
? Assist employees with disabilities to find
employment in the general workforce in jobs that
they choose.
Increase Labor Protections and Enforcement
? Fully investigate violations and abuses perpetrated
by employers that pay less than the minimum
wage or segregate workers with disabilities.
? Increase penalties for violators.
? Formalize standards for employee evaluations and
productivity measurements.
The product of this study is our call to action,
?Segregated & Exploited: The Failure of the
Disability Service System to Provide Quality Work.?
Through this report, NDRN casts a spotlight on
the problems of segregated work, sheltered
environments, and sub-minimum wages. This
report identifies the barriers to employment that
people with disabilities face and dispels myths
about their capability to be fully employed,
equally compensated, and an integral member of
American workplaces and communities. It
illustrates a systemic failure to provide hope and
opportunity to young people with disabilities who
want to transition into traditional work but instead
wind up trapped in a sheltered workshop with
little chance for something different.
In the best of situations, sheltered environments,
segregated work, and the sub-minimum wage
does not truly provide a meaningful experience
for workers with disabilities. Workshop tasks are
often menial and repetitive, the environment can
be isolating, and the pay is often well below the
federal minimum wage. In the worst situations,
the segregated and sheltered nature of the lives of
workers with disabilities leaves them vulnerable to
severe abuse and neglect.
The Problem of Segregated Work, Sheltered Environments & Sub-minimum Wage
The central arguments against segregated and sheltered work, and the sub-minimum wage can be
summarized as the following:
? Segregated Work, Sheltered Environments, & Sub-minimum Wage Directly Contradict
National Policy. The passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in 1990 was a major
step in correcting past wrongs faced by people with disabilities. It provides broad protection in
employment, transportation, public accommodations, telecommunications, and public services
for people with disabilities. In the following two decades, more laws, legal decisions, and state
and federal regulations came to be, all making a very clear statement: people with disabilities
should live and work independently in their communities. Segregated and sheltered work—by
definition—goes against this very principle. But more than that, it keeps people with disabilities
marginalized and hidden in the shadows and these environments create opportunities for
abuse and neglect to occur. While good national disability policy exists that could remedy this,
there is an incomprehensible lack of oversight and enforcement of these good policies.
? Work Segregation of People with Disabilities is Damaging. Segregated work facilitates
feelings of isolation for many people and impinges on the natural desire to connect with
others. Sheltered workshops have replaced institutions in many states as the new warehousing
system and are the new favored locations where people with disabilities are sent to occupy
their days. People with disabilities deserve the right to live and work independently in their
chosen communities. These work settings violate statutes passed to encourage just that.
? Sub-minimum Wages Reinforce a Life of Poverty for People with Disabilities. Labor law
exemptions for employers of people with disabilities have created jobs that pay as little as 10%
of the minimum wage with most workers earning only 50%. Reports on sheltered workshops
often show that workers take home about $175 each month, while those working in traditional
jobs take home about $456 each week. Few workers receive health or other employment
benefits typical for the average American worker, and since workers do not have a voice, there
is little opportunity to improve their conditions. Yet their employers are reaping the benefits of
their labors.
? Sheltered Workshops Lead Nowhere. Sheltered workshops are predominantly set up as a
type of ?job training program? that teaches valuable skills and prepares people to compete for
traditional jobs. Unfortunately, the reality is vastly different. They are often taught skills that are
not relevant or transferable to traditional work environments. Even with the dramatic
improvements in competitive employment, there remains three individuals in segregated day
programs for every one person working in competitive employment.
? Sheltered Workshops Profit Greatly from the Status Quo. While many sheltered workshops
argue that the cost to provide work for people with disabilities is higher than similar worksites
with a labor force consisting largely of people without disabilities, the facts do not support it.
Not only are their profit margins protected by statutes allowing them to pay workers far below
the minimum wage, they also receive sizeable subsidies from the local, state and federal
governments equaling as much as 46% of their annual revenue. Since sheltered workshops
don’t have to compete in the open market to earn income, they also don’t have to do the
things other businesses must do like innovate, adapt, and evolve. Sheltered workshops today
are not very different than they were when they were started more than 170 years ago—and
that is the problem.
Sheltered workshops are often celebrated for providing an altruistic service to their communities
while neglecting the fact that in reality they provide workers with disabilities with dead-end jobs,
meager wages, and the glimpse of a future containing little else.
Considering these stark realities, it is clear that segregated and sheltered work no longer provides
workers with disabilities an opportunity for ?life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.? They may no
longer be warehoused in institutions without meaningful daily interactions, but the change may
merely be logistical. Segregation—whether it be in an institution or at work—is still segregation.
Separate is still not equal.
– ? – ? –
Americans with Disabilities Act
Statement of Findings
“Historically, society has tended to isolate and segregate individuals with
disabilities, and, despite some improvements, such forms of discrimination
against individuals with disabilities continue to be a serious and pervasive social
problem, … individuals with disabilities are a discrete and insular minority who
have been faced with restrictions and limitations, subjected to a history of
purposeful unequal treatment, and relegated to a position of political
powerlessness in our society….”
Segregated & Exploited
Often, good intentions go wrong. Segregated and sheltered work and paying less than the minimum
wage are perfect examples of that axiom. They are programs that were designed to help people with
disabilities learn meaningful skills and obtain gainful employment, while protecting them from public
judgment, ridicule, and shame.
Today, we live in an era of evolving thinking about people with disabilities. Attitudes have changed.
So have many laws. But most importantly, what has changed is the quality and quantity of
information available illustrating that segregating and sheltering workers with disabilities and paying
them less than minimum wage is no longer the best course of action. It is time we value the unique
skills and talents of people with disabilities and move toward full workplace integration.
Case Study:
Henry’s Turkey Service
Atalissa, Iowa
The story of the workers at Henry‘s Turkey Service, a meat processing plant in Iowa,
is an appalling example of the abuse that can happen when workers with disabilities
are segregated and sheltered away from others. At Henry‘s, as many as 60 men from
Texas with intellectual disabilities once lived together, ate together, traveled together,
and worked together. All day. Every day.
Henry‘s wasn‘t only these men‘s employer. They also acted as landlord, ?caregiver,? and was the representative payee for
their Social Security payments. The housing they provided—a 106-year-old cockroach infested, unheated abandoned school
turned bunkhouse—had boarded up windows and a cracked foundation. Records show that Henry‘s paid $600 each month in
rent for use of the tax-free bunkhouse. For the privilege of living in the bunkhouse, the company deducted approximately
$10,000 a week from their paychecks.
These 60 men worked alongside men without disabilities. They did the same job and worked the same long hours.
Unfortunately they were not treated the same. They were verbally and physically abused, taunted, and humiliated because of
their disabilities. Their movements and contacts were restricted, and they were not allowed appropriate access to medical care.
They were not paid the same either. The men‘s net pay averaged $.41 an hour although they performed the same work as their
co-workers without disabilities who earned $9-12 hour. At the end of the month, and after the various levies Henry‘s
assessed, the men got to keep approximately $65 each month.
Source: Clark Kaufmann, State closes bunkhouse that housed mentally retarded workers, Des Moines Register, February 8,
2009; Henry’s turkey Service once praised, now condemned, Des Moines Reporter, May 25, 2009; Clark Kaufmann, Turkey service
faces fines of $900,000 from Iowa, Des Moines Register, May 29, 2009; Clark Kaufmann, Henry’s Turkey Service told to answer
state’s questions, Des Moines Register, April 13, 2010 Clark Kauffman, Ruling: Henry’s cheated workers at Atalissa turkey plant,
Des Moines Register, May 7, 2010.
A Brief History of Segregated Work, Sheltered Environments, & the
Sub-minimum Wage
Sheltered workshops have existed since as early as 1840 with the Perkins Institute for the Blind, an
institution in Massachusetts. Jobs for people who were blind were protected, or sheltered, from
competition in order to create permanent job opportunities for them. This concept was cutting-edge
170 years ago. Today, it is a quaint notion at best that should be left behind.
The origin of sub-minimum wages for people with disabilities stems from the National Industrial
Recovery Act, one of the early pieces of President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal. On February 17,
1934, President Roosevelt issued an Executive Order which stated that it was permissible to pay
individuals with disabilities ?below the minimum established by a Code.?1
1 William, Whittaker, Treatment of Workers with Disabilities Under Section 14(c) of the Fair Labor Standards Act, Federal
Publications, Paper 209 http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/key_workplace/209 (2005). 2 29 U.S.C. 201, et seq.
3 Whittaker, supra note 1
4 42 U.S.C. §§ 15041-15045
5 Whittaker, supra note 1
In 1938, the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) was passed. It specified standards for basic minimum
wage rates and overtime pay. It also created a special exemption authorizing employers to pay wages
that were significantly lower than the minimum wage to workers with disabilities.2 These wage
provisions were originally created to encourage the employment of veterans with disabilities in a
manufacturing-centered economy.3
Sheltered workshops increased in popularity in the 1950’s and 1960’s. In 1963, the Developmental
Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act (DD Act) was passed. Beginning the shift in national
policy, the DD Act focused on the need to provide support and opportunities that promote
independence, productivity, integration and inclusion of people with disabilities in the community
with an emphasis on employment.4
Despite the positive philosophy promoted by the DD Act, in 1966, PL 89-601 created an even broader
definition of disability under the FLSA, increasing the number of workers that can be paid less than
the federal minimum wage while also increasing the prevalence of sheltered workshops.5 In contrast,
the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 provided a clear emphasis on the importance of competitive wages,
even for those individuals with the most significant disabilities.6 However, in 1986, a step backward
occurred when the FLSA was amended again. This amendment removed any specific minimum wage
floor for workers with disabilities, making it even more profitable for employers to exploit their
employees with disabilities.7
6 P.L. 93-112
7 Whittaker, supra note 1
8 FLSA Section 14(c), the Payment of Special Minimum Wages to Workers with Disabilities for the Work Being Performed, http://www.dol.gov/elaws/esa/flsa/14c/ 9 Id.
The ability to pay individuals with disabilities sub-minimum wages for their work is still alive and well
today. The Department of Labor (DOL) Wage and Hour Division is given the authority to issue
certificates to employers allowing them to pay less than the prevailing wage if a disability interferes
with the productive or earning capacity of a worker on the job.8
In such cases, the individual with a disability is not given a competitive wage, but is, instead, paid a
commensurate wage that compares the individual productivity of the worker with a disability to
objective data reflecting the prevailing wages of at least three non-disabled employees who are
engaged in comparable work within the community.9
For example, if the prevailing wage for a particular job is $8 an hour and the productivity of the
individual with a disability is determined to be 50% of the experienced, non-disabled employee, the
commensurate wage would be $4 an hour.
This narrow sub-minimum wage philosophy, developed more than 70 years ago and designed to help
veterans within a largely industrial economy, is not applicable today. The types of jobs available to
individuals with disabilities are no longer limited solely to low-skilled or manufacturing-type tasks.
Additionally, many kinds of assistive technology—from power wheelchairs to high-tech
communication devices—open the door for people with significant disabilities to pursue employment
opportunities that were previously thought to be unrealistic or even impossible.
Despite the good intentions to find job opportunities for workers with disabilities, the results have
been a disaster. The Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) Longitudinal Study which studied 8,500 VR eligible
clients from 1994 to 2000 confirmed that people placed in sheltered work earn far below the
minimum wage and fail to make gains in earnings over time.10
10 B.J. Hayward & H.S. Davis, Research Triangle Institute, LONGITUDINAL STUDY OF THE VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION (VR)
SERVICES PROGRAM, THIRD FINAL REPORT: THE CONTENT OF VR SERVICES (2005), available at http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/rehab/vr-final-report-3.pdf. 11 Fredrick K. Schroeder, ?Address to the 1th Annual National Federation of the Blind Convention? (July 7, 2000) available at http://nfb.org/legacy/bm/bm00/bm0008/bm000805.htm. 12 Institute for Community Inclusion, STATEDATA: THE NATIONAL REPORT ON EMPLOYMENT SERVICES AND OUTCOMES (2009),
available at http://statedata.info/datanotes/pdf/Statedata2009.pdf citing H. Boeltzig, J.C. Timmons, J. Marrone, (2008).
?Maximizing potential: innovative collaborative strategies between One-stops and mental health systems of care.? in Work:
A Journal of Prevention, Assessment, and Rehabilitation, 31(2), 181-193 13 Fredrick K. Schroeder, ?Address to the 1th Annual National Federation of the Blind Convention? (July 7, 2000) available at http://nfb.org/legacy/bm/bm00/bm0008/bm000805.htm. 14 Id.
According to the study, of the 7,765 people placed in sheltered work in 1998, 89.3% earned less than
the minimum wage of $5.15 an hour. The average hourly earnings for people placed in sheltered
work was $3.03. One year later, average hourly wages dropped to $2.64 an hour. Two years later,
average hourly wages rose slightly to $2.84.11 The problem of low wages is compounded by limited
work hours and limited access to health insurance.12 People placed in sheltered work averaged 27.6
hours per week. One year later, the average work week was 28.1 hours and the following year 29.1
hours per week.13
Lastly, according to the study, for people placed in sheltered work, only 16% had health insurance.
One year later, the number dropped to 12%. For people with disabilities in integrated employment,
the wages started at $7.56 an hour, and rose to 13.48 an hour, with 58.8% of individuals having access
to health insurance three years post the VR closure.14
The history of segregated work, sheltered environments, and sub-minimum wage highlights the
contrasting national policies toward people with disabilities and work. It is time to acknowledge that
policies developed more than a half century ago that supported sheltered work and sub-minimum
wage are out of step with national disability policy today.
Segregated Work, Sheltered Environments, & Sub-minimum Wage Directly
Contradict National Policy
Activists and advocates for disability rights have worked for decades for community integration of
people with disabilities. Building on that work, Congress and the Supreme Court have established a
strong national policy promoting the integration of people with disabilities into all facets of life,
including employment. Some laws, however, still conflict with this policy.
The History of the Development of National Community Integration Policy
Congress first promoted the idea of community integration when it enacted the Rehabilitation Act in
1973, which identified one of its purposes as ?promot[ing] and expand[ing] employment
opportunities in the public and private sectors for handicapped individuals and to place such
individuals in employment.?
In 1984, Congress amended the DD Act so that the ?overall purpose was to assist States to assure
that people with developmental disabilities receive the care, treatment, and other services necessary
to enable them to achieve their maximum potential through increased independence, productivity,
and integration into the community In 1990, Congress enacted the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA), declaring that ?the Nation’s proper goals regarding individuals with disabilities are to assure
equality of opportunity, full participation, independent living, and economic self-sufficiency for such
individuals.? Congress found that ?the continuing existence of unfair and unnecessary discrimination
and prejudice denies people with disabilities the opportunity to compete on an equal basis and to
pursue those opportunities for which our free society is justifiably famous, and costs the United States
billions of dollars in unnecessary expenses resulting from dependency and non-productivity.?15
15 42 U.S.C. § 12101(a)(8)
16 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(d).
17 P.L. 105-220
In 1991, the Department of Justice issued regulations implementing the ADA which required public
entities to ?administer services, programs, and activities in the most integrated setting appropriate to
the needs of qualified individuals with disabilities.?16
As part of the Rehabilitation Act Amendments (Rehab Act) of 1998,17 Congress found that ?disability is
a natural part of the human experience and in no way diminishes the right of individuals to … pursue
meaningful careers … and enjoy full inclusion and integration in the economic, political, social,
cultural, and educational mainstream of American society.?18 Congress stated that the purpose of the
Rehab Act is to ?empower individuals with disabilities to maximize employment, economic self-
sufficiency, independence, and inclusion and integration into society.?19 In 2001, the Rehabilitative
Services Administration (RSA) limited employment outcomes in Title I of the VR system to integrated
employment. RSA decided that segregated and sheltered work could only be funded with Title I
funds under temporary training circumstances leading to integrated employment. It reflects the intent
of Congress for rehabilitation to prepare people with disabilities to be equal and productive members
of America’s workforce.
18 29 U.S.C. § 701(a)(3).
19 29 U.S.C. § 701(b)(1).
20 P.L. 106-170.
21 P.L. 106-170 § 2(b)(4)
22 P.L. 106-402, 42 U.S.C. §§ 15001 et seq.
23 42 U.S.C. § 15001(b)
Eleanor’s Story
Eleanor is a 22 year old woman who enjoys spending
time hanging out with her friends, chatting and
laughing. She graduated from high school in 2008
and like many people her age had to choose the next
step in her life. Eleanor decided she wanted to work
and that she did not want to go to a sheltered
workshop or other segregated training program.
?Sheltered workshops are a waste of time, and they
don‘t pay minimum wage,? Eleanor said during an
interview. ?If you‘re in a sheltered workshop you can‘t
interact with people who don‘t have a disability.?
Eleanor, who has Down Syndrome, loves people. She
wanted a job where she could talk to people and use
her customer service skills. She tried getting
experience through a program that offered specialized
training but they wouldn‘t listen to her requests to work
with people and made her do tasks they thought were
a better fit.
So, being a strong self-advocate, she fired her job
developer and hired a new one who found her a job as
a courtesy clerk at a new store where she could put to
use her best skills. Eleanor represents the next
generation of young people with disabilities who won‘t
settle for an outmoded employment system that offers
nothing but segregation and financial exploitation.
The Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Improvement
Act of 1999,20 further recognized that work should be
in an integrated setting. The purpose of the Act is ?to
establish a … program that will allow individuals with
disabilities to seek the services necessary to obtain
and retain employment and reduce their dependency
on cash benefit programs.?21
In 2000, Congress reinforced the national policy
promoting community integration when it amended
the Developmental Disabilities Act (DD Act) in 2000.22
Congress stated that the purpose of the DD Act is to
assure, among other things, that individuals with
developmental disabilities and their families ?… have
access to needed community services, individualized
support and other forms of assistance that promote …
self-determination, productivity, and integration and
inclusion in all facets of community life.?23
When Congress enacted the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA) of
2004,24 it declared that, ?Improving educational results for children with disabilities is an essential
element of our national policy of ensuring equality of opportunity, full participation, independent
living, and economic self-sufficiency for individuals with disabilities.?25
24 Pub.L. 108-446
25 20 U.S.C. § 1400(c)(1).
26 527 U.S.C. § 581 (1999)
27 http://www.hhs.gov/newfreedom/init.html. 28 White House Press Release (6/22/09) http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/President-Obama-Commemorates-
Anniversary-of-Olmstead-and-Announces-New-Initiatives-to-Assist-Americans-with-Disabilities/ 29 41 U.S.C. § 46 – 48c
30 41 U.S.C. § 48
In its 1999 landmark decision, Olmstead v. L.C., the Supreme Court held that individuals with
disabilities had to be provided services in the most integrated setting appropriate to the needs of
qualified individuals with disabilities.26
The New Freedom Initiative, announced by President Bush in 2001, was a nationwide effort to remove
barriers to community living for people of all ages with disabilities and long-term illnesses. It
represented an important step in working to ensure that all Americans have the opportunity to learn
and develop skills, engage in productive work, choose where to live and participate in community life.
One of its goals is to ?integrate Americans with disabilities into the workforce.?27
President Obama summed up the national policy of promoting community integration of individuals
with disabilities when he introduced the ?Year of Community Living,? stating:
?I am proud to launch this initiative to reaffirm my Administration's commitment to
vigorous enforcement of civil rights for Americans with disabilities and to ensuring the
fullest inclusion of all people in the life of our nation.?28
Laws Conflicting with National Community Integration Policy
Although the legislative, judicial and executive branches have promoted integration in all facets of
community life for individuals with disabilities, some laws are still in conflict with this policy. One
example of such a law is the Javits-Wagner-O’Day Act of 1971,29 now commonly referred to as the
AbilityOne Program. AbilityOne, enacted more than 70 years ago, is a federal law that requires all
federal agencies to purchase specific supplies and services from non-profit agencies which employ
individuals who are blind or have severe disabilities.30 While the law does provide for employment
opportunities for people with disabilities, it does so at a steep price. The non-profit agencies that
fulfill the federal contracts are allowed to pay their employees based upon pay rates that are less than
the prevailing wage. These contracts encourage people with disabilities to work in segregated
environments, allowing for little, if any, interaction with co-workers without disabilities. In order to
obtain an AbilityOne contract, the agency must ensure segregation because at least 75% of the direct
labor hours required to produce the commodity must be provided by people with disabilities.31 The
AbilityOne program is lagging behind the national policy of full integration and community inclusion
and needs to be updated.
31 41 U.S. C 48b(4)(c)
32 29 U.S.C. § 214(c)
33 34 C.F.R. § 361.37.
34 34 C.F.R. § 361.55.
35 34 C.F.R. § 361.55..
Another law of concern is the Fair Labor Standards Act Section 14(c) described in the previous section
which allows employers to pay employees with disabilities less than the minimum wage.32 NDRN
believes this provision to be out of date and that all individuals who can perform the essential
functions of their jobs, with reasonable accommodations, should be paid minimum wage, regardless
of whether they have a disability.
The continued government sanctioning and support of segregated and sheltered work through
AbilityOne and the FLSA sends a message that people with disabilities are not truly equal.
This must change.
Enforcement Problems with Federal Laws Regarding
Segregated Settings and Sub-minimum Wage
VR Agencies Bungle Compliance and Quality Reviews
State VR agencies cannot use federal funds to help an individual find permanent employment in
segregated settings,33 and are required to conduct an annual review and re-evaluation of people with
disabilities who are referred to or who choose to work in them.34 State VR agencies must also
conduct an annual review when an individual achieves employment following participation in a VR
program but is paid sub-minimum wage under a 14(c) certificate. These annual reviews must occur
for the first two years after the VR case is closed, and then annually if a review is requested.35 These
reviews are intended to assure that maximum efforts are made to assist the individual in engaging in
competitive employment through the identification and provision of VR services, reasonable
accommodations, and other necessary support services.
Although clearly laid out in the regulations, RSA does not track compliance of this requirement when
collecting annual data from the state VR agencies thus, there is no record of annual reviews taking
place or of the quality of reviews and re-evaluations. Without compliance information, people
referred to segregated settings may become stuck in a sheltered workshop because the VR did not
follow-up. Workers paid less than minimum wage may have improved and be able to earn more, but
it would be missed because an annual review was not conducted. Without proper oversight and data
by RSA regarding compliance with these federal requirements, VR agencies may be failing to ensure
individuals do not become trapped in segregated settings or earning below the minimum wage.
Oversight and Enforcement of FLSA 14(c) Certificates
In 2001, the Government Accountability Office (GAO), DOL, and the Office of Inspector General issued
reports critical of the oversight of the sub-minimum wage program.36 The GAO stated that ?Labor has
not effectively managed the special [sub] minimum wage program to ensure that 14(c) workers
receive the correct wages because ... the agency placed a low priority on the program…? noting
problems like failure to act on expired certificates, no data nor system to verify worker productivity.37
36 Government Accountability Office, Special Minimum Wage Program: Centered Offer Employment and Support Services
to Workers with Disabilities, But Labor Should Improve Oversight, GAO-01-886 at 4 (September 2001).
37 U.S. Dept. of Labor, Office of the Inspector General, The Wage and Hour Division’s Administration of Special Minimum
Wages for Workers with Disabilities (March 2001).
38 Preventing Worker Exploitation: Protecting Individuals with Disabilities and Other Vulnerable Populations Hearing Before
the S. Comm. on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, 111th Cong. 13 (2009) (Statement of John L. McKeon, Deputy
Administrator for Enforcement, Wage and Hour Division, U.S. Department of Labor. )
39 Dept. of Labor, US Labor Secretary sends message to America‘s under-paid and under-protected:= We Can Help!‘
http://www.dol.gov/opa/media/press/whd/WHD20100411.htm (April 01, 2010).
Though DOL’s Wage and Hour Division worked to address the GAO’s concerns,38 and focused on low
wage and vulnerable workers,39 oversight and enforcement problems remain. As of 2009 only three
Division staff and a supervisor were assigned to review the 2,500 annual renewal applications as well
as first time applications for 14(c) certificates. Since each staff member processes 800 applications in
a year, it is questionable the level of depth and analysis possible to ensure that the employer is
conducting valid productivity measures and wage assessments. This is further compounded by the
fact that between 2004 and 2009, DOL conducted on average 135 on-site reviews of 14(c) certificate
holders, representing about 4% of the certificates held by employers in 2010. In addition, it is unlikely
given the structure of the 14(c) statute that Wage and Hour Division staff consider whether an
employer is providing reasonable accommodations as required under Title I of the ADA to allow
individuals to properly perform jobs when reviewing employers paying sub-minimum wages.40
40 Dept. of Labor, US Labor Secretary sends message to America‘s under-paid and under-protected:= We Can Help!‘
http://www.dol.gov/opa/media/press/whd/WHD20100411.htm (April 01, 2010).
41 Id. at 15
42 Government Accountability Office,19, 29 (Statement of James B. Leonard, Former Attorney, U.S. Department of Labor).
43 20 U.S.C. § 1401(34); 34 C.F.R. § 300.43(a).
44 Id. (emphasis added).
More critical is the inability, given staffing and other demands, of DOL to properly follow-up on
employers who fail to renew a certificate and inform the Department of the reason. Each year
approximately 250 employers fail to respond of those employers required to renew a 14(c) certificate,
to renewal notices and after follow-up by the Wage and Hour Division, 45 indicate the certificate is no
longer needed and another 45 never respond. Thus employers with expired certificates may
purposefully or by mistake continue to pay sub-minimum wages in violation of the FLSA as there
appears no additional follow-up by the Department of Labor of employer who fail to respond. Henry’s
Turkey Service mentioned earlier in this report failed to renew a 14(c) certificate while continuing to
pay sub-minimum wages. Protection and Advocacy agencies have further uncovered employers who
allowed their certificates to expire while continuing to pay a sub-minimum wage.
The DOL reported in 2009 that it receives very few complaints about the sub-minimum wage
program.41 Given the vulnerability of individuals with disabilities paid sub-minimum wage, most of
whom have intellectual, cognitive, or mental disabilities, it is not surprising few complain.42 Therefore,
more pro-active oversight is necessary to assure the protection of worker rights for individuals
working in sheltered workshops or paid sub-minimum wages.
No Implementation of IDEA Transition
Transition services are defined in the IDEA as a coordinated set of activities for a student, designed
within a results-oriented process that facilitates movement from school to post-school activities. The
areas of adult living to be considered include preparation for postsecondary education, vocational
education, integrated employment (including supported employment), continuing and adult
education, adult services, independent living, and community participation.43 Services are to be based
on the individual student’s needs, taking into account the student’s preferences and interests.44
Additionally, any other agencies that may be responsible for providing or paying for transition
services must be invited to the IEP meeting.45 Schools are expected to become familiar with the
services available to students with disabilities in their communities and ?make use of this information
in the transition planning for individual students.?46 The result:
45 34 C.F.R. § 300.321(b)(3).
46H.R. Rep. No. 101-544 at 12, U.S. Code Cong. & Admin. News 1990, p. 1733.
47 H.R. Rep. No. 101-544 at 12, U.S. Code Cong. & Admin. News 1990, p. 1733.
48January 13, 2011 email from Lori Idland, Disability Rights Montana.
[S]chools can facilitate linkage with agencies when needed by students, can ascertain
requirements for access to, and participation in, the opportunities offered by these
agencies, and thus can effectively communicate this information to students and their
families, and identify ways in which they can prepare students with disabilities to take
advantage of these opportunities.47
All too often, however, neither the requirement to base the transition services on the individual needs
of the student, the requirement to base the program on the students interests, nor the requirement to
establish linkages to other services while a student is still in school are met. VR linkages are easily
forgotten or overlooked because VR's role in the transition planning process is simply advisory until
the student completes an application for services and is found eligible for VR services. Therefore a
comprehensive needs assessment is not conducted and the individual never actually becomes a VR
client, accepting instead, alternatives put forth by the school system.
In Montana, schools do not provide sufficient resources for transition services while the student is still
in school; therefore sheltered employment becomes the default placement. Very, very few students
receive any sort of employment exposure or job opportunity awareness outside of a resource room
setting. The training of professionals on the resources available and how to develop a transition plan
are not a priority and almost non-existent. Teacher training seems to always focus on academics.
There are extensive waiting lists for services funded through Medicaid waiver for such things are job
coaching, job placement assistance and residential services. Parents are often times overwhelmed
with the concept of transition planning and service waiting lists. They become willing to accept
anything that becomes available because at least it is something. Also, parents may have limited
resources and are not able to self-fund services.48
Oregon P&A Finds Neglect at Sheltered Workshop
In a large cavernous room, 30 individuals with disabilities were sitting at tables. Some were doing puzzles and art work,
others were staring blankly at the wall. When advocates from Disability Rights Oregon who were inspecting the facility
asked why all of these individuals were in the room, they were told that there was no work available and the law stated
?they had to go somewhere.? When further questioned about the lack of staff supervision and the absence of structured
activities, they received the response ?it‘s a mellow group, they don‘t need much.?
In a far corner of the room sat Barry, segregated away from his peers. On the table in front of him were two boxes, one
with rocks and the other without. Advocates were told that Barry‘s task each day was to count the rocks as he placed
them from one box to the other. Barry went to the workshop to build skills that would help him get a job, but was given a
box of rocks. Alvin, Barry‘s housemate, sat three tables away, his hands raw and red. Staff said that though they‘ve tried
measures like hot sauce and restraint, they had been unable to prevent him from chewing on his hands. They stopped
trying to intervene. Another worker, Mary, asked to speak to the advocates. Staff said she was one of their happiest
residents and would share the positive work that the workshop and the provider were doing. When alone in the room,
Mary said that she was bored and wanted to do office work. She had tried to express this to the staff but they told her that
there were no other options for her and that she should make the best of it.
Disability Rights Oregon filed a licensing complaint relating to the health and safety status of the room and for the lack of
structured activities and staff supervision of individuals. The provider received both state and federal funds to provide
both pre-employment and on-the-job vocational skills but workers received no assessment or vocational training.
Advocates filed two abuse complaints based on the neglect of Barry and Alvin. Due to the work by the P&A, the Board of
Directors of the provider agency made significant changes in personnel decisions and policies.
Mary received representation from a P&A attorney and is now making plans to move into her own home and is starting to
do part time office work in the community.
VR Agencies Fail to Meet Their Transition Obligations
The VR system also has a role to play in preparing students for the world of work while they are still in
school. In fact, VR agencies must be actively involved, in collaboration with school officials, to plan for
and provide services to students with disabilities during their transition years.
The law requires state VR agencies to ?increase their participation in transition planning and related
activities.?49 Accordingly, there must be coordination between the VR agency and education officials
to facilitate the transition from the special education system to the VR system. VR agencies are to be
4966 Fed. Reg. 4424 (emphasis added).
actively involved in the transition planning process with the school districts,50 not just when the
student is nearing graduation.?51
5034 C.F.R. § 361.22(b).
5166 Fed. Reg. 4424.
All too many state VR agencies, however, are still unwilling or unable to get involved until very late in
a student’s transition to post-school activities.
From Mike Montgomery
Former director of Singing River Industries - a sheltered workshop:
We found that people could work in the community, if someone was
willing to work with employers to accommodate individual disabilities.
Our ideas sometimes scared families. They had been told by doctors
and service systems that their kids needed to be in a sheltered and
safe environment. Although some of the parents of children in the
workshop began to realize that their son or daughter could do good
work, it was the switching of environments that was troubling. One of
our parents, who at the time was very concerned that his son stay in
the safe environment of the workshop, recently told me that his son
was working in a restaurant where he was very happy. He could
now see the benefits of working in the community. His son enjoyed
being viewed as a regular employee, but for fewer than forty hours.
Families need assurance that their children will have a meaningful
job and not spend part of their time at home alone.
In the late 70s folks believed, and I think that many still do, that
people need to be sheltered. They just don‘t believe that people can
grow with the right training and support, that they can have a good
life. I believed that we owed it to each individual and family to try
new ideas and work diligently for each person regardless of disability.
If we fail to put our heart and soul into the challenge for everyone, we
would never see their potential. Everyone that I have ever worked
with truly wants a life with work, a place to live, friends, and social
outings. A job provides the money to secure everything else.
Work Segregation of People with Disabilities is Damaging
All individuals, even those with the most significant disabilities, have a right to live and work in the
community alongside their peers without disabilities. However, rather than wholeheartedly embracing
this inclusive philosophy, people with disabilities are often placed in segregated environments which
allow for little contact with those working in the community. Such work settings violate statutes and
court decisions, discussed in other sections of this report, which were passed to encourage individuals
with disabilities to thrive within community settings.
What is the theory underlying the segregated employment perspective? Put simply, the support for
segregated employment environments is predicated on misguided public attitudes and beliefs that it
is perfectly acceptable to marginalize and isolate people with disabilities.52 This philosophy seems to
echo the idea behind the so-called ?ugly laws,? in existence until the early 1970s, which made it illegal
for those with ?disgusting or unsightly? disabilities to appear in public.53 These startling laws were
eventually repealed, yet surprisingly, segregating people with disabilities still remain.
52 Jacobus TenBroek, The Character and Function of Sheltered Workshops, (1960),
http://www.blind.net/resources/employment/the-character-and-function-of-sheltered-workshops.html.
TenBroek founded the National Federation for the Blind (NFB), which copyrighted this article in 1995. TenBroek‘s classic
observations from this article still hold true more than 40 years later.
53 David Boles, Urban Semiotic, Enforcing the Ugly Laws,2007 http://urbansemiotic.com/2007/05/01/enforcing-the-ugly-laws/ 54 TenBroek, supra note 33.
55 Steven Taylor, On Choice, http://thechp.syr.edu/on_choice.htm
The detrimental effects of placing individuals with disabilities into segregated work environments are
numerous. First, it denies an adult with a disability the opportunity to make meaningful job choices.
Almost all of the options within a sheltered workshop are unskilled, low-wage jobs with few, if any,
benefits.54 The limited array of employment choices directly impacts an individual’s capacity to live a
full, rich life as an active, tax-paying member of the community.
When discussing the concept of choice as it applies to people with disabilities, the central conclusion
should be that all people, even those with the most significant disabilities, have the right to enjoy the
same choices and options as other people in society.55 Assuming that a person with a disability is
incapable of making choices is often used as a justification for placing that individual into a
segregated or sub-minimum wage work environment. You rarely, if ever, will hear a person say, ?I
want to attend a sheltered workshop!? Rather, a person likely ends up working in a sheltered or
segregated environment simply because it was presented as the only available opportunity.
Myth:
There are no other options for students with disabilities exiting
school.
Fact:
Segregated or sheltered work is not the only option for children with
disabilities exiting school. IDEA entitles people with disabilities to a “Free
and Appropriate Public Education” in the least restrictive environment.
However, transition from school to eligibility-based services is a confusing
paradigm for most parents and children. They are not always informed of
the availability of VR and the vast array of services provided to increase an
individual’s potential employment. They trust the educators who may
falsely believe that sheltered workshop placement is in their child’s best
option. Children, young adults with disabilities, and their family members or
guardians need to learn about other options for employment besides
segregated employment. They need to understand the benefits of early
attachment to the workforce and understand that person-centered planning
and a thorough assessment of skills, interests, and abilities will contribute to
a plan of employment that can be meaningful and rewarding. In addition to
direct competitive employment, options such as supported employment and
customized employment are available through VR and other centers.
These services coupled with work incentives can significantly contribute to
the financial security of a real job for real wages.
Success Story:
William is 21-years old and works at McDonald‘s. He loves his job and has
even been awarded ?employee of the month.? William has an intellectual
disability and receives supported employment services through a county run
program. This program provides him with a job coach who helps with
transportation, instruction, and safety precautions. When the county
informed him they were cutting his job coach from 3 hours per day to 3
hours per week, William knew he could not perform his duties at
McDonald‘s. Fearing that his only option was a sheltered workshop he
asked the Minnesota P&A to appeal the cuts. The Judge agreed with
William and found no legitimate rational for the county‘s decision. William
continues to work at McDonald‘s with the supports he needs.
Many states are now focusing on
consumer choice as a key value in
the growth and reform of their
community-based long-term
support systems. With this focus
however, has come an awareness
that low participation in
integrated employment, and
community life in general, is
evidence of a lack of choice for
people with disabilities that needs
to be addressed.56
56 Lisa Mills, Revitalizing Integrated Employment: A Study of Nationwide Best Practice for Increasing Integrated
Employment Outcomes Among People With Developmental Disabilities, (December 2006).
57 Michael Wehmeyer & Michelle Schwartz, The Relationship Between Self-Determination and Quality of Life for Adults with
Mental Retardation, 33 Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 3, 12 (1998).
On a related note, the importance
of considering the job preferences
of the individuals with disabilities
cannot be underestimated. A 1998
study looked at the relationship
between self-determined behavior
(control over one’s life choices)
and positive adult outcomes. It
found that 80 percent of the
people who were rated as ?highly
self-determined were working for
pay,? compared to 43% of the
people who were rated as having
low levels of self-determination.57
The individuals with disabilities
who had more input into their job
selections were more likely to be
employed within the community.
The consistent isolation of people with disabilities from people without disabilities can significantly
hinder the proper development of socialization skills and self-esteem. Several important studies have
confirmed this key conclusion. For example, a study of the results of the 1994 closing of North
Princeton Developmental Center in New Jersey, published by the American Association on Mental
Retardation, compared people who moved from institutional settings to similarly situated people
who, instead, remained in institutions.58
58 P Lerman, D. Apgar et al. Longitudinal Changes in Adaptive Behavior of Movers and Stayers. Mental Retardation Journal,
American Association on Mental Retardation. 25, 41 (2005).
59 Id. at 41
60 Id.
61 TenBroek, supra, note 33
Everyone Deserves a Job They Love
A young woman, in her 20‘s, who happened to have a
cognitive disability, worked for 5 years at a cafeteria
on a college campus. She loved her job and eagerly
looked forward to work each day. This young lady
particularly loved the variety in her job – she stocked
shelves, greeted customers and cleaned tables. Her
mother reported that the consistent interaction with
others in the community improved her social skills.
When her job at the cafeteria was eliminated by the
college, she was placed in a sheltered workshop. She
reported being very unhappy due to the boredom and
repetitive nature of the work. Her work behaviors are
reportedly not nearly as strong as they were when she
was working in the community and she no longer
looks forward to her job at all.
The study produced convincing evidence that
the multi-cognitive scores of people who
remained in institutional settings significantly
decreased over a seven-year period.59 Based
upon this data, it seems possible to draw an
analogy between the diminished opportunities
for interactions with others resulting from
institutional segregation and the diminished
social interaction opportunities presented by a
segregated employment setting.
This study also concluded that those who
moved to community settings demonstrated
significant increases in self-care skills over time.
The authors concluded, ?If we had focused
solely on the ?movers?…we would have missed
one of the most salient findings of this
evaluation, namely, the significant loss by
?stayers? of their multi-cognitive competencies,
particularly in the area of social skills…? 60
The effects of this segregated isolation may be even more direct and concrete within the employment
context. A lack of social skills and/or poor self-esteem issues can be easily misinterpreted by
employers as a non-compliant response to a particular work assignment.61 More specifically, a study
that considered self-esteem issues for people with disabilities, revealed that when placed in a
sheltered workshop environment, individuals with mental illness were more likely to exhibit problem
behaviors and demonstrate a poorer attendance record.62
62 J. Ciardiello, Job Placement Success of Schizophrenic Clients in Sheltered Workshop Programs, Vocational Evaluation
and Work Adjustment Bulletin, 125, 140 (1981).
63 Id.
64 42 USC § 15002(17)
65 Northern Wisconsin Center (NWC) Relocation Survey – prepared by APS Healthcare, Inc. for The Wisconsin Department
of Health and Family Services (DHFS), Division of Disability and Elder Services (DDES), (2006).
66 Id.
Segregated work environments commonly exist in industrial workshops that are situated in remote
locations far from major cities or towns. These locales serve to further intensify the sting of the
separation because of their limited access to transportation options, community activities as well as
infrequent interactions with their family members and friends without disabilities.63
The benefits available to people with disabilities working within integrated, traditional jobs are
plentiful. According to the DD Act ?integration? means ?exercising the equal right of individuals with
developmental disabilities to access and use the same community resources as are used by and
available to other individuals.?64 For instance, a Wisconsin survey of guardians of people with
significant disabilities who moved from institutions to integrated community settings led researchers
to conclude that the vast majority of guardians felt that the transition to the community led to equal
or enhanced satisfaction with their loved one’s living arrangements and overall happiness.65
A literature review, related to the previously mentioned Wisconsin survey, concluded: ?The studies
reviewed here demonstrate strongly and consistently that people who move from institutions to
community settings have experiences that help them to improve their adaptive behavior skills. The
studies suggest that community experiences increasingly provide people with environments and
interventions that reduce challenging behavior.?66
When an adult with a disability has access to effective training and support as well as the opportunity
to find a traditional job in the community while becoming an essential part of the community, it is
good public policy. When this goal is achieved and implemented appropriately, the lives of people
with disabilities will no longer have to center around concerns about dependency and poverty.
Sub-minimum Wage Reinforces a Life of Poverty for People with Disabilities
Skills Ignored
Andy has been working in a sheltered workshop for more than 15
years. He shreds paper. The warehouse where he works is a
large and cold cavern where the walls echo with the rumbles of the
industrial-sized shredders that are on full power the whole day.
The air is filled with dust.
Andy has autism. Outside of the workshop, he completes daily life
activities such as shopping, cleaning and even paying bills almost
completely independently. His favorite hobby is to buy old
computer parts and build new computers. He has taught himself
five languages and has a photographic memory which he exercises
by telling people what clothes they had on the last time he saw
them. He frequents the local library scanning dozens of books on
whatever topic is of interest to him at the moment.
His employer, who is also the provider of his housing and other
Medicaid funded services, has expanded rapidly over the last five
years and Andy‘s current work environment bears little
resemblance to the quiet and warm office he used to work in.
Because of his disability, Andy has a low threshold for social
interactions and a sensory sensitivity that causes him to avoid loud
and cold areas. The only time Andy will work now is when he is
sequestered to a corner of the room. He must wear a winter parka,
face mask and ear plugs while working. Getting him to work
requires constant coaxing by his supervisor. Yet, Andy‘s employer
and service providers have not looked at other employment
possibilities in the community because, they say, he is too shy and
there are no other options for him other than shredding paper.
So Andy is only able to fulfill his potential in his free time by putting
computers together while reading a manual in Chinese.
The lack of a true minimum wage for many workers with disabilities keeps them in a life of perpetual
poverty. It leaves them dependent on family or government programs just to meet their basic needs
of food, shelter, and medical care. It denies them the opportunity to take advantage of the
pleasures—continuing education, vacations, restaurants, and hobbies—that many people take for
granted. It prevents them from achieving
true independence.
Worse, once in this system, it’s almost
impossible for workers with disabilities to
get out. They become trapped in a
vicious cycle. Due to an exception in
labor laws discussed earlier, workshops
can pay less than minimum wage to
people with disabilities.67 This forces
them to continue to rely on federal
benefits such as SSI and Medicaid which
themselves require recipients to be poor.
67 29 U.S.C. § 214(c).
This circular system is responsible for
creating a class of citizens permanently
dependent on public benefits and
subsidies because their employers pay
less than the minimum wage and provide
no benefits. Earning at least the
minimum wage, if not a living wage,
would allow workers with disabilities to
support themselves and reduce the
amount of aid they receive from
government sources.
The majority of workers in sheltered
workshops that are paid less than the
minimum wage receive incredibly low
pay. According to a 2008 study of 291 individuals with disabilities from 40 sheltered workshops, the
average hourly earnings were $2.30 and average monthly earnings were $175.69.68 A recent
University of Indiana study indicated that, in May 2009, people in sheltered workshops in Indiana
earned an average of $1.59 per hour.69 Additionally, employees who receive housing, food or
transportation from their employers often find fees for these services deducted from their weekly
wages—leaving them even less money for necessities. And even worse, at some sheltered workshops,
employers serve as the Representative Payee of their employees’ Social Security benefits, giving them
even more control over the finances of their employees.
68 Alberto Milgiore et al., ?Why do adults with intellectual disabilities work in sheltered workshops?? 28 J. VOCATIONAL
REHABILITATION 29-40 (2008) at 29.
69 T. Grossi et al., Indiana Day and Employment Services Outcomes System Report (May 2009), at 2, available at
http://www.iidc.indiana.edu/styles/iidc/defiles/CCLC/desos_5_09report.pdf.
70 Milgiore, 28 J. VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION at 29.
71 John Kregel and David H. Dean, Sheltered vs. Supported Employment: A Direct Comparison of Long-Term Earnings
Outcomes for Individuals with Cognitive Disabilities, in ACHIIEVEMENTS AND CHALLENGES IN EMPLOYMENT SERVICES FOR
PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES: THE LONGITUDINAL IMPACT OF WORKPLACE SUPPORTS MONOGRAPH (Kregel, et al., editors), at 75,
available at http:// http://www.worksupport.com/main/downloads/dean/shelteredchap3.pdf
Conversely, people with disabilities in competitive employment earn much more. The 2008 study
followed the 291 individuals as they moved from sheltered employment into supported employment,
and found that their average hourly earnings increased to $5.75, with average monthly earnings of
$456—more than twice what they earned in the sheltered workshops.70 Another report titled,
?Sheltered vs. Supported Employment,? found workers with disabilities in traditional jobs paired with
support services earn two to three times more than their counterparts in sheltered work. A worker
making just the minimum wage would earn $270 each week compared to the $100 that a sheltered
worker would make working full time at $2.50 an hour.71
Hypothetically, if a sheltered workshop did pay the minimum wage, you would expect a worker with a
disability to earn a decent living in this situation.
This is not the case.
Yet another characteristic of sheltered work prevents workers from ever escaping a life of poverty.
Sheltered workshops survive on contract and piece work. They, however, do not secure the number
of necessary contracts needed to run the workshop at full capacity resulting in substantial down-time
and periods of inactivity. Some of these hours are supposed to be spent improving skills, the reality
of life in a sheltered workshop consists of sitting around idle waiting for the next contract or order to
come in. Most workers in sheltered workshops work less than part-time. Some work just a few hours
a week. The GAO found that 86% of workers being paid less than the minimum wage were also
working part-time.72 Further, with no opportunity to work full time for people who want to, nor any
opportunities to advance internally through regular raises or promotion, workers with disabilities are
left with nothing but the fear, stress, depression and despair that comes with poverty.
72 United States General Accounting Office, Special Minimum Wage Programs: Centers offer Employment and Support
Services to Workers With Disabilities, But Labor Should Improve Oversight,” United States General Accounting Office,
GAO-01-886 (Sept. 2001),at 4, GAO-01-886, available at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d01886.pdf
Laura’s Story
Success with Customized Employment with Georgia
Employment First
(based at office of Georgia Advocacy Office – the GA P&A)
Two to three days a week she wakes early and travels to the bakery
shop. Laura, who is a person with mental illness loves baking and has
mastered pastries and cookies.
The shop where she works is small and under-capitalized. Both the
owner and Laura recognized that the business could benefit from
serving coffee, but the state-of-the-art machine was expensive and
required major electrical and plumbing work. Through her customized
employment program, Laura was able to purchase the espresso maker
for the business. This purchase by Laura resulted in a resource
partnership and significant expansion of services for the small pastry
shop which is now also a coffee shop. Laura maintains ownership of the
espresso maker which she can take with her should she choose to
change employment. Laura‘s customized employment and resultant
partnership has resulted in improved customer service and profitability
for the company and the resource ownership has provided Laura a
position of importance which she values. Now, in addition to baking
pastries and making coffee, Laura sells chocolates, treats, small games,
and trinkets from her own business within a corner of the shop. The
owner helps her price the items in her shop, keeps track of her inventory
and assists her in calculating costs and profit. This is a win-win situation
for the both the coffee shop owner and Laura her employee and
resource partner.
One alternative is customized
employment. Customized
employment means individualizing
the relationship between
employees and employers in ways
that meet the needs of both. It is
based on a determination of the
strengths and interests of the
person with a disability, and the
needs of the employer.
It may include employment
developed through job carving,
self-employment, or
entrepreneurial initiatives, or other
job development or restructuring
strategies that result in job
responsibilities being customized
and individually negotiated to fit
the needs of individuals with a
disability. Customized employment
assumes the provision of
reasonable accommodations and
supports necessary for the
individual to perform the functions
of a job that is individually
negotiated and developed.
Customized employment works because it is person-centered, and driven by the interests, strengths
and conditions for success of each individual. It is real work for real pay in integrated settings. It is
not based solely on job development techniques to secure existing work through a competitive
employment process. A customized job is a set of tasks that differ from the employer’s standard job
descriptions but are based on actual tasks that are found in the workplace and meet the unmet needs
of the employer. Practitioners and innovators in customized employment accomplish customized job
descriptions through job carving, negotiated job descriptions, and job descriptions specifically created
to meet the employer’s unmet needs.
Unlike traditional day and employment programs for people with disabilities, that often encourage an
employment path of stereotypic work options, customized employment begins with the assumption
that the job seeker is ready for work, and has a valuable contribution to make that is based on their
unique skills, interests and preferences. Customized employment does not occur in segregated settings.
I heard a woman speak about how she would like to
work in a ?regular job at regular pay.? The woman had
lived in an institution for many years, then a group
home, and eventually an apartment. At that time she
had been working in a sheltered workshop for 16 years.
The woman wanted to know how long she had to be in
training before she could graduate and get a job.
-Vickay Gross, Disability Rights North Dakota
Sheltered Workshops Lead Nowhere
The Bigotry of Low Expectations
A Sad Statement defending sheltered
workshops from the Mentally Retarded
Citizens of Missouri:
"Persons with mental retardation are not
normal and they never will be. Quit trying
to make them something they are not!"
http://www.rcomo.org/whatisasw.htm#Defense (1/13/11) Segregated employment was initially conceived to provide people with disabilities opportunities for
activity and productivity during the day. As social attitudes that required isolation for people with
disabilities started to change, segregated employment’s purpose shifted to one that could prepare
individuals to be employed in a traditional job in the community. However, purpose and practice part
ways as the reality for most individuals working in a sheltered workshop is not a transition point but
rather a dead end. While sheltered workshops purport
to offer pre-employment and pre-vocational skills,
these programs most often only prepare people with
disabilities for long term sheltered employment.
It is a common practice for most new employees in
traditional jobs to enter a probation period during
which they receive on the job training. The probation
period then ends. The same options should be
encouraged for people with disabilities. Getting ready
to go to work is not a lifetime activity and individuals
should not have to train for ten or twenty years to get a
job, especially when the work for which they are
training has nothing to do with their interests, skills, or
a potential job match.
Since sheltered workshops are seriously limited by adequate quantities and types of paid work, there
are frequent periods of inactivity during which individuals are denied interactions with their peers who
do not have disabilities. They spend their time in day wasting activities, often practicing assembly
skills which will be taken apart by the line supervisor or their peers in order to keep everyone busy.
Low challenge work such as sorting, collating, labeling, folding, mailing, sewing, subassembly, heat
sealing, hand packaging or other similarly light assembly work comprise the bulk of services done for
businesses on a contract basis. 73 Typically these skills are sometimes not even transferable to
traditional work because most sheltered workshops do not have modern tools or machinery. So, in
the end, they fail to prepare workers for traditional work—even traditional factory work—at all.
73 Alberto Migliore, et al. ?Why do adults with intellectual disabilities work in sheltered workshops?? 28 Journal OF
VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION 29, 6, 29-40.
People with disabilities are often fast tracked into segregated employment and do not have the
benefit of individualized work assessments. Even though most individuals with disabilities in sheltered
workshops favor employment outside of workshops,74 questions about where an individual would like
to work, or what skills they can strengthen or develop are irrelevant. Choice is largely irrelevant.
While individuals may experience the normal task requirements of work such as using a time clocks,
working a fixed schedule, and being supervised, most provide bench work and do not promote self
direction, self determination or skill development. Many times the very environments they are
required to work in do not take into account their disabilities. Loud and dusty industrial settings are
often the only option for people with sensory sensitivities or crowded and busy rooms are the settings
for people with autism. An argument that service providers make to prove that an individual would
not be successful in competitive employment is that their productivity is low in the sheltered
workshop. Ironically, a person with a disability would receive more individualized accommodations in
a competitive work environment because of the protections set forth in the ADA.
74 Alberto Migliore, et al. ?Why do adults with intellectual disabilities work in sheltered workshops?? 28 Journal of Vocational
Rehabilitation 29, 12.
75 Id at 29.
76 Alberto Milgiore et al., ?Why do adults with intellectual disabilities work in sheltered workshops?? 28 Journal Vocational
Rehabilitation 29-40 (2008) at 37.
77 34 C.F.R. § 361.55
Though it would be less resource intensive and more personally advantageous for people with
disabilities to provide employment support in the community, funding for segregated employment
continues to flow.
Even with the dramatic improvements in competitive employment, we continue to see that for every
one person working in competitive employment, three people remain in segregated settings. Medicaid
spending increased from nothing in 1997 to $108 million in 2002 for competitive employment while
only slightly dropping from $514 million to $488 million for segregated day programs.75
Consequently, $1 was spent on supported employment compared to the $4 utilized for segregated
day programs.76
Staff members’ opinions about employment and the employability of people with disabilities strongly
influences the future of segregated employees. For example, when a state VR agency conducts a
required annual review of an individual who works in a sheltered workshop, the staff will often
indicate that the individual needs to remain in the workshop as they are not yet ?job ready.?77 This
bias is not surprising, given that, in order
to continue to operate, workshops need
to promote their existence.
Myth:
People with Disabilities Cannot Fit into Traditional Work.
Fact:
Workers with disabilities can be employed and be paid equally
with the appropriate job development, training, work support, and
assistive technology. However, the low expectations of service
providers and families contribute to workers with disabilities
being unaware of opportunities for employment in the general
workforce. Supported employment (and customized
employment) opportunities help place workers in a job that is a
match for their skills and interests and better meets the needs of
employers and workers.
Success Story:
Nancy Ward is an Oklahoma resident who staffs the Medicaid
Reference Desk funded by the Administration of Developmental
Disabilities. She is an individual with a cognitive disability.
Nancy previously worked in a sheltered workshop. After three
years of employment, her supervisor at the workshop resigned
but before leaving suggested to Nancy that she apply for the
supervisory position. Despite performing the job functions on a
daily basis, Nancy did not believe she was qualified to be
supervisor because no one else at the workshop had ever
indicated she could be considered for advancement. She was
extremely reluctant to place the application, but finally, after
much convincing by her peers and the plant manager, Nancy
went to the main office to apply. However, the office personnel at
the agency would not allow her to apply because she was ?a
sheltered employee.? Imagine Nancy‘s surprise several weeks
later when she was instructed to train her new supervisor. Angry,
Nancy quit the sheltered workshop and found a job at a local
nursing home where she was fully integrated into the workforce.
Hear Nancy’s story in her own words:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8uKVH8WxCs.
Sheltered workshops, whether not-for-
profit or for-profit, are still businesses
that need the income generated from
contracts and government sources. And
like any other business there is an
incentive to keep the best employees on
the payroll. This practice perpetuates the
stereotype that workers with disabilities
cannot work in traditional settings
because the best workers, the ones who
would most likely succeed in competitive
employment, rarely graduate from the
workshop’s ?training program.?
Sheltered Workshops Profit Greatly from the Status Quo
The national policy toward integration of people with disabilities into every aspect of American life is
thwarted by the actions of government agencies that provide funding which perpetuates
segregated and sheltered work. According to a study by the GAO, sheltered workshops are largely
funded as follows:78
78 United States General Accounting Office, Special Minimum Wage Programs: Centers offer Employment and Support
Services to Workers With Disabilities, But Labor Should Improve Oversight,” United States General Accounting Office,
GAO-01-886 (Sept. 2001),,at 4, GAO-01-886, available at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d01886.pdf
79 http://www.tacinc.org/downloads/Pubs/Medicaid-Final-July10.pdf
80 United States General Accounting Office, Special Minimum Wage Programs: Centers offer Employment and Support
Services to Workers With Disabilities, But Labor Should Improve Oversight,” United States General Accounting Office,
GAO-01-886 (Sept. 2001), at 4, GAO-01-886, available at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d01886.pdf
? 46% from State and County Agencies
? 35% from Production Contracts
? 9% from Retail Sales
? 2% from Donations
? 1% from Investment Income
? 7% from Other Sources
The sheer quantity of government funds subsidizing sheltered workshops illustrates the point that
they are not self-sustaining.79 An eye-opening, 99% of sheltered workshops augment their meager
contract income by providing ancillary services funded by government sources. Some government
funding supports sheltered workshops directly, however, there are likely not enough sources to total
the estimated 46% of workshop income. The ancillary services provided by workshops, such as daily
living skills training, case management, housing, transportation, and job-related services, are all linked
to funding.80 This bundling of habilitative services with workshop-based job-training supports the
status quo service delivery model of segregated and sheltered employment.
This patchwork of funding is used by sheltered workshop managers to cover the operational costs of
the facility. Some of the funding includes:
? Medicaid. Medicaid has the most funding for the types of services provided by sheltered
workshops. Funding is distributed through several vehicles that can often be used
simultaneously, including:
o Home and Community-Based Services Waivers (HCBS): HCBS waivers fund community
services which are defined by each state, therefore, its funding for employment services
through Medicaid varies from state to state.81
o Medicaid Rehabilitation Option: This funds ?employment-related rehabilitation services
to Medicaid eligible individuals in programs that provide both day habilitation and
sheltered work.?82
o Targeted Case Management: Typical activities reimbursed with these funds are loosely
defined to include services like identifying service needs, creating a service plan, referrals
to service providers, support, and monitoring.83
o Deficit Reduction Act (DRA): This established a new provision in the Social Security Act
to fund home and community-based services to people with disabilities that do not
have a HCBS waiver.84
? Vocational Rehabilitation. This funding is from the RSA. It is largely from Title I of the Rehab
Act. Money is provided to states for VR services. The services provided relate to eligible
people with disabilities and must help them meet their employment goals.
? Social Services Block Grants. These Social Security formula funds are also known as Title XX
Grants. Block Grants are given to states to provide community-based services for people with
disabilities. Employment services are commonly paid for using these funds.
? Local Taxes. Many states also provide funding from their own coffers to support employment
services for people with disabilities.
81 PL 109-171. Section 6086, 1915c
82 42 CFR §440.130
83 PL 109-171. Section 6086, 1915g
84 PL 109-171. Section 6086, 1915i
85 Leveraging Medicaid: A Guide to Using Medicaid Financing in Supportive Housing.
http://www.tacinc.org/downloads/Pubs/Medicaid-Final-July10.pdf
This patchwork of funding works together in the following manner: Under Medicaid, employment
related services such as helping to build the skills needed to become or stay employed, are
reimbursed through HCBS waivers or though the DRA, as long as these services differ from those
funded under the Rehab Act.85 Most Medicaid funds must also be matched. Depending on the
situation, Social Services Block Grants or local set-aside dollars can fulfill the matching requirement.
Even without the patchwork, the federal Medicaid program heavily funds sheltered work. Ironically,
funding largely comes from a program where Congressional intent was to enable individuals with
disabilities to access services in community based instead of segregated settings. Known as the HCBS
waiver, it permits funding for habilitation services defined as: services designed to assist individuals in
acquiring, retaining, and improving the self-help, socialization, and adaptive skills necessary to reside
successfully in home and community based settings.86 Included in the category of habilitative service
are pre-vocational services, educational and supported employment services.87
86 § 1915(c)(5)(A)
87 §1915(c)(5)(B)
88 CMS Instructions, Technical Guide and Review Criteria (January 2008) page 132
89 42 CFR 440.180(c) (2)
CMS regulates the spending of Medicaid dollars. CMS has made strides in the past decade to adjust
Medicaid long term care programs from traditionally institution-based programs to one that
facilitates services in community based settings. For example, CMS published guidance stating that
Medicaid should ?not [make funding] available for the provision of vocational services (e.g., sheltered
work performed in a facility) where
individuals are supervised producing in
goods or performing services under
contract to third parties.?88
Funding Breakdown for One Workshop
The Impact Federal Funding has on Sheltered Workshops
On August 19, 2010, the Evansville Courier & Press ran a story
about how rules adopted by CMS in 2008 to implement changes in
the Rehab Act were going to be enforced in Indiana, forcing a
change in the amount of funding going to sheltered workshops.
According to the article, these rules—reducing payments from $4 per
person per hour to $3.69—would have devastating consequences for
the Evansville ARC. Not only would the funding be decreased, but
the number of staff covered to supervise the activities would be
reduced as well. The total devastation: $50,000.
Devastating, that is, until you notice that their annual income is more
than $11 million. According to their 2009 Annual Report, they
received $6 million from business contracts, $3.8 million from
government funds, $565,000 from child care fees, $279,000 from
county taxes, and $800,000 from community support. Most
interestingly, they lost $66,000 in value from their investments—
though that was not mentioned in the article seeking community
sympathy and support.
Sheltered workshops, like the one run by the Evansville ARC, clearly
depend on federal, state and local dollars to maintain their outdated
service system.
http://www.courierpress.com/news/2010/aug/19/new-rules-rock-arc/
While this sounds like progress, CMS
recognizes a major loophole remains that
keeps Medicaid money flowing into these
segregated settings. Sheltered
workshops skirt this prohibition by
billing, not for vocational services but for
pre-vocational services like skills-building
activities aimed at preparing an individual
for paid or unpaid employment, for
example, building attention spans, and
improving fine motor control.89 The
hypocrisy is that these pre-vocational
services can be provided for decades on
end without CMS ever questioning why
they have not lead to vocation.
In other areas funded by Medicaid, CMS
often requires the provider to develop an
individual plan of services that will lead to
a measurable outcome.90 The plans are intended to be reviewed to see if the services need to be
changed or adjusted to better achieve the goal.91 Unfortunately, CMS requires no such oversight for
pre-vocational services provided in sheltered workshops.
90 See e.g., The Medicaid pre-admission screening and resident review program regulations in 42 C.F.R. § 483.440 (c)(1);
and the Medicaid Intermediate Care Facilities for Individuals with Mental Retardation program - individual plan requirements
at 42 CFR 440.150.
91 Id. at §483.440(f)(2)
92 66 Fed. Reg. 7254
93 46 FR 5425, Jan. 19, 1981, as amended at 53 FR 17144, May 13, 1988
94 West Virginia Division of Rehabilitation Services 2009 Annual Report.
http://www.wvdrs.org/press/WVDRS_Annual_Report_2009.pdf)
In addition to CMS, RSA funds sheltered settings through two avenues. Although extended
employment, a euphemism for sheltered workshops, has been eliminated as a final employment
outcome, services provided by sheltered workshops continue to be a VR service as an interim step
toward achieving integrated employment. For those choosing extended employment as a long term
option, it remains available, but outside the VR program.92
Maine P&A Finds Better Option
Ten years ago, there were numerous sheltered workshops in every
county in Maine and they were largely the only choice of employment for
individuals with intellectual and cognitive disabilities. The P&A formed
an alliance with Maine's statewide self-advocacy network, Speaking Up
for Us (SUFU) and began discussions aimed toward forming a
consensus opinion. Though many self-advocates were concerned about
losing their jobs, SUFU ultimately, after two years of internal
discussions, made a decision that making $2 for a week's work or
worse, owing money for the pizza party at the end of the week, was far
worse than losing a few jobs. SUFU and the P&A together publicly
denounced sheltered work. SUFU, the P&A, the DD Council and other
partners successfully advocated for the State to implement innovative
employment programs.
RSA also supports comprehensive
rehabilitation centers which serve as a
focal point for VR funding within some
communities for the development and
delivery of services for persons with
disabilities and others.93 Authorized
under the Rehab Act, these facilities are
large segregated compounds that
provide a broad range of vocational
rehabilitation, health, educational, social,
and recreational services to persons with
disabilities. Clearly the continuance of
these facilities has not kept pace with
community integration concepts.
Michigan, Pennsylvania, Maryland, West Virginia, Virginia, Georgia, Tennessee, Arkansas, and Kentucky
operate comprehensive rehabilitation centers funded with Title I VR dollars. In addition, South
Carolina operates public community rehabilitation programs which are not multidisciplinary. In 2007,
West Virginia closed its comprehensive rehabilitation center, allowing them to triple the amount of
money spent on other services.94
In His Own Words:
“Pay Me Minimum Wage or I’m Leaving!” – John Alder‘s Story
When I got out of high school, I started working at local markets and then in food service. I realized that it wasn‘t for me. I
wasn‘t challenged. I decided that I wanted to work with people with disabilities.
I started working at Career Resources which ran a sheltered workshop in Haverill, Massachusetts, hoping to get training for a
job helping people with disabilities. There was hardly any work in the sheltered workshop. Most people sat around playing
cards all day. When there was work to do, it was boring. They paid me $1.25 an hour to do piece work and then to be a
janitor. Even though I wasn‘t doing piece work as a janitor, my pay stayed the same. When I told them I wanted to do more
with my life and make more money, they let me work in the office, but still at the same pay. I wasn‘t doing what I really
wanted to do though, to help other people with disabilities.
After being in the sheltered workshop for many years, I was tired of earning diddly-squat. I showed my paycheck to the head
of the workshop and said, ?Is this how little money you can afford to pay me?? He responded that they didn‘t have enough
money to pay more. I was never told that I was being paid so little because the law lets them, or showed how they even
came up with my hourly rate.
So I got mad. I said, ?Pay me minimum wage, or I‘m leaving!? He said no. So, I walked out the door. He even chased after
me trying to convince me to change my mind!
After that, I worked with my service coordinator at DDS to find a job doing what I loved—helping people with disabilities reach
their potential. Now, I work at the State House as an intern and volunteer for Representative Tom Sannicandro. I research
bills and advocate for people with disabilities. I got the name of the Department of Mental Retardation changed to the
Department of Developmental Services and the ?R? word taken out of state laws.
My next plan is to help close the sheltered workshops and get people jobs out in the community.
John is an advocate and activist for disability rights in his home state of Massachusetts, and on Capitol Hill. He currently
serves as a member of the Board of Directors of the Disability Law Center, and is the former head of Mass Advocates
Standing Strong.
Local funds can also be a significant source of income for sheltered workshops. In Missouri, for
example, there is a special property tax that is assessed and collected specifically for services for
people with developmental disabilities—including sheltered workshops—which correlates to an
investment of $1.50 per hour per worker.95 The current rate for the property tax is 8.5¢ for each $100
95 http://moworkshops.org/offer.html
of assessed property value which generated approximately $16 million in fiscal year 2010.96 In 2009,
the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education—the agency that provides technical
assistance, guidance, and support to sheltered workshops—estimated that there are approximately
7,500 workers with disabilities in sheltered workshops.97 This tax provides Missouri sheltered
workshops with a significant and reliable revenue stream.
96 http://www.plboard.com/infobase/default.asp
97 http://dese.mo.gov/divspeced/shelteredworkshops/
98 http://www.in.gov/fssa/files/DDW20100930.pdf
99 http://www.in.gov/fssa/files/SSW20100930.pdf
100 T. Grossi et al., Indiana Day and Employment Services Outcomes System Report (May 2009), at 2, available at
http://www.iidc.indiana.edu/styles/iidc/defiles/CCLC/desos_5_09report.pdf.
101 http://www.dol.gov/whd/FOH/ch64/64btoc.htm
102 Michael Callahan, Employment for All TASH Connections Spring 2010 vol. 36, #2, page 1.
103 Michael Callahan, Employment for All TASH Connections Spring 2010 vol. 36, #2, page 2
According to Indiana’s HCBS98 and Social Services99 Waiver applications, the State will spend $17.9
million on ?Facility Based Habilitation? in 2011—another euphemism for sheltered workshops. The
portion of that funding dedicated to the Evansville ARC, or any other individual provider, was
undeterminable from the information posted. There are 58 sheltered workshops paying below the
minimum wage in that state. A recent University of Indiana study indicated that, in May 2009, people
in sheltered workshops in Indiana earned an average of $1.59 per hour.100
Additionally, the FLSA maintains sheltered workshops. Most sheltered workshops take an advantage
that few of their for-profit counterparts take—the subminimum wage allowance of the FLSA. In fact,
according to the GAO, there are more than 4,700 non-profit workshops paying an average of 86
workers each below the minimum wage while only 500 for-profit businesses pay an average of 3
employees each below the minimum wage.
Through the FLSA, sheltered workshops may pay an hourly wage below the federal minimum. These
commensurate wages are set based on productivity standards determined by workshop staff.101 The
ability to pay workers below the minimum wage from the outset is based on an outdated reliance on
?an absolute connection between pay and productivity? that carries through to today.102
There is another way. Rather than making the absolute link to productivity, customized employment
offers an alternative framework normally namely contribution. As discussed earlier in this report,
customized and supported employment can work to help met the unmet needs of businesses.103
Medicaid does provide an option for supported
employment which falls under the same HSBC
waiver as pre-vocational services. Increasing
funding for this program, which must be offered
in integrated settings, would be much more in
line with national policy.
More from Mike Montgomery
In the 1970‘s, the sheltered workshops in Mississippi were
run by annually renewable grants. In the 1990‘s, the funding
was converted to a purchase of service arrangement for X
dollars per unit of service. People who ran the programs
were not motivated to change. They liked the way that the
billing flowed and the families were happy to have their
children in a safe place and were not pushing for change.
There are more than 1,800 people on our waiver waiting list
in MS alone. Many could come off the waiting list if we
switched the way we use our resources.
CMS did, through Section 203 of the Ticket to
Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act of
1999, make it easier for states to fund supported
employment allocates, by offering Medicaid
Infrastructure Grants. As of 2008, at least 41
states had received these federal grants.
Unfortunately, as government agencies face tight budgets, supported employment has been a target
for cuts because an individual’s supported employment budget is clearly delineated. On the other
hand, it is not so easy for an official to determine the cost savings from reducing an individual’s pre-
vocational services as these services are bundled as pre-vocational income in a complicated formula
with other workshop income.
Market Solutions Sheltered Workshops Should Adopt
While the disability rights community tends to think of itself as experts, it could learn a lot from some
traditional businesses. Business leaders would also have a lot to teach executives and staff of
segregated and sheltered workshops.
Walgreens has a lot to teach disability service providers, in fact.
Central to Walgreens’ diversity initiative is a policy of integration. All of Walgreens’ employees with
disabilities—from the factory to management—work side by side with their colleagues without
disabilities. And, they do it for the same pay.104
104 ?Walgreens program puts the =able‘ in disabled? http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19417759/from/ET/
Walgreens has not had to compromise quality or efficiency either. According to their Senior Vice
President of Distribution and Logistics, Randy Lewis, Walgreens gained efficiency by having a
workforce that is comprised of 40% people with disabilities. In fact, all workers with the same jobs
have the same productivity standards. What’s more, the adaptations they have made to the factory to
make it more assessable, have benefitted all their workers, not just the workers with disabilities.105
105 ?Walgreens program puts the =able‘ in disabled? http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19417759/from/ET/
106 http://askjan.org/media/LowCostHighImpact.doc
107 http://www.iarstl.org/papers/ShelteredWorkshops.pdf
108 http://www.iarstl.org/papers/ShelteredWorkshops.pdf
109 http://www.iarstl.org/papers/ShelteredWorkshops.pdf
110 http://www.iarstl.org/papers/ShelteredWorkshops.pdf
This information is right in line with recent survey of employers about worker accommodations. The
survey results indicated that 71% of accommodations cost $500 or less with 20% costing nothing.106
Considering the small investment, there is a great potential for wide-ranging benefits that can be
reaped by making workplaces more accessible.
Even though advances in technology—and thinking—have created new opportunities for people with
disabilities to find meaningful work in the communities where they live, many are still shuttled into
sheltered workshops, where they languish for years. The sheltered workshops of today do not look
like the sleek and state-of-the-art facilities run by their counterparts—like Walgreens—in the business
world. Their equipment is often old and out of date, and the facilities themselves show that few, if
any, capital expenditures for improvement were made. A study of workshops in Missouri found that
collectively, rather than mimicking traditional factories, they mimic each other both in form and
function—they teach the same skills in the same settings.107
When questioned, workshop executives often state that the type of work done and the workshop
setting itself reflected the preferences expressed by workers and their families. This level of attention
to the needs and desires of the workers with disabilities they employ does not appear to translate to
individualized planning and training.108 For the workers, sheltered workshops offer little training and
even less diversity. They simply do ?the same work, day after day, rather than the variety of work and
the experience of learning that comes from being trained in and doing a changing array of jobs.?109
The same study found that workshop executives themselves do not have the marketing skills, or
business plans in place to run an effective workshop. With of a lack of planning and marketing,
workshops do not have enough contract work to keep their doors open and employees working at or
near full-time levels.110 Rather than competition and the drive to achieve motivating work flow,
income generated by federal and state service systems place disincentives on the workshop to obtain
contract work, unlike their for-profit business counterparts.
The current reality of a seemingly endless supply of state and federal funds going to segregated and
sheltered work only supports the status quo for people with disabilities. Changing this system will
require a stronger hand by the federal and state authorities to fulfill the mandates of our national
policy of integration.
Case Study:
Walgreens: Breaking the Cycle
At least one major employer realizes the potential of hiring people with disabilities in integrated
competitive employment with the expectation that these employees adhere to company
performance standards. Walgreens actively hires people with disabilities at two distribution centers
located in South Carolina and Connecticut. In June 2007, the company opened a new state of the
art distribution center in Anderson, SC. The facility was designed to be accessible to people with a
wide range of disabilities in competitive employment.
Walgreens pays employees the same wages regardless of their disability and expects all
employees to adhere to the same performance standards. To achieve this goal, Walgreens
designed adjustable workstations, clear icon-driven touch screen computers and created signs with
pictures to allow people with physical, cognitive, intellectual and mental disabilities to perform
various jobs. Training programs consider the disabilities of employees. For example, management
and supervisory techniques were developed specifically considering employees with autism,
Asperger syndrome, and other cognitive disabilities. Employment at the distribution center was the
first real job for many of the Walgreens employees with disabilities.
Walgreens has also made a commitment to helping other companies build on its successes.
Walgreen's demonstrates its programs and processes to other retailers in an effort to help others
move in a similar direction. Walgreens will offer tours of its facilities along with mentoring, training
and guidance. Walgreens also offers students an opportunity to spend one week learning from
employees with disabilities about what makes their job work for them in the hopes that the students
take this information with them when they graduate.
For more information go to http://www.walgreens.com/topic/sr/disability_inclusion_home.jsp A Way Forward
It is clear that segregated and sheltered work, as well as sub-minimum wages for people with disabilities must end.
And in order for that to happen, systemic—and systematic—change must occur. Fortunately, a movement toward
change is under way in states across the country. One effort, Employment First, seeks to have individual states
adopt policies that focus on integrated, community-based employment at or above minimum wage as the first
spending option for state and federal dollars.
Other efforts include the promotion of supported employment and customized employment programs that focus on
creating or locating jobs in the community that match the personal employment goals of the person with a disability.
These approaches have a high incidence of success because they are personalized, integrated, and pay a prevailing
wage.
There are also efforts undertaken by states themselves to increase employment opportunities for people with
disabilities. Here are just a few examples:
? Washington: In 1997, the Washington state legislature created a supported employment program targeting
people with developmental or significant disabilities who are eligible for vocational rehabilitation services
and need training and support to perform successfully. These positions do not count against their
allotted full-time employee positions for the entire time the individual is employed by the agency. [1] In
2007, the Division of Developmental Services issued a policy establishing supported employment as the
primary use of employment or day program funds resulting in a 58% employment rate for people with
developmental disabilities.
? Oregon: The Youth Transition Program is a year-round comprehensive transition program for youth with
disabilities that prepares them for employment or career related post secondary education or training. It
is operated collaboratively by the office of Oregon Office of Vocational Rehabilitation Services, the
Oregon Department of Education, the University of Oregon, and local school districts. It operates in
approximately 120 high schools and is funded through a combination of state and local funds from
participating education and rehabilitation agencies.
? Kentucky: The Community Based Work Transition Program serves students with disabilities during their
last two years of high school explore potential careers, get work experience, stay employed, and
advance at work. The CBWTP is a cooperative effort between participating local school districts, the
Kentucky Department of Education, Office of Vocational Rehabilitation, the Kentucky Department for the
Blind, and the Human Development Institute at the University of Kentucky.
? Georgia: Georgia has created a cross-disability network of ?employment stewards?- both individuals and
organizations- working across the state to develop demonstrations of high quality customized
employment and to assist individuals with disabilities to start their own businesses and microenterprises.
While these examples indicate progress has been made, there is still quite a long way to go until our national policy
of integration is realized. Currently there are only 12 states that have made the Employment First commitment.
Supported and customized employment programs, while enormously successful, do not receive the level of funding
or attention that segregated and sheltered work does. It is the hope of NDRN, and thousands of advocates and
activists, that this soon will change.
Policy Recommendations
In 1990, the ADA was passed to end the segregation and other types of discrimination, including in
employment, against individuals with disabilities that was a serious and pervasive social problem.
The ADA integration mandate as expressed in the Olmstead decision and other federal laws have
also recognized the importance of integration over segregation. Yet, there are still far too many
situations in which our nation’s goal of integration for people with disabilities has not been realized.
In addition to being segregated in their employment environment, many people with disabilities
also face employment discrimination in the wages they can earn—an act of outright discrimination
that is sanctioned by the current law—leading to situations where some people with disabilities are
earning pennies an hour for their labor while their colleagues without disabilities earn a prevailing
wage doing the same job.
In 2011, it should not be permissible to pay what can be considered exploitive wages based on a
person’s status of having a disability. It should also not be permissible to segregate people with
disabilities at work—or home. NDRN believes that the sub-minimum wage and segregated
employment environments violate the spirit of the ADA, the Olmstead decision, and the national
policy of inclusion—and they must come to an end.
As society progresses, archaic policies must be abandoned, and replaced with forward thinking
ones. We, as a nation, must move forward and realize the promise of the laws already passed that
recognize and protect the civil rights of people with disabilities. We must work together to end
segregated and sheltered employment. We must end sub-minimum wage.
However, just seeking to end those practices addresses only part of the problem. At the same time
we seek to end these archaic policies, we need to focus our efforts on ensuring the availability of
integrated employment options that include support, services, and equal pay. To achieve these
goals, NDRN makes the following broad public policy recommendations.
End Segregated Employment & Sub-minimum Wage
for People with Disabilities
Congress
? Restrict all federal money, including Medicaid and Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) funds, from
being spent in a segregated or sub-minimum wage employment environment.
? Stop issuing 14(c) certificates that pay sub-minimum wage to individuals with disabilities.
? Forbid in all relevant federal statutes or regulations moving youth or young adults from the
classroom to a segregated or sub-minimum wage employment environment.
? Modify federal contract preferences so that they cannot be used by employers who utilize
segregated employment environments or where an employee is paid a sub-minimum wage.
States
? Forbid the use of any state funding from being expended in a segregated or sub-minimum
wage work environment.
? Modify state contract preferences so that they cannot be used by employers who utilize
segregated employment environments or where an employee is paid a sub-minimum wage.
Promote & Facilitate Integrated and Comparable Wage
Employment Alternatives
Congress
? Strengthen existing, and create new, incentives through the federal tax code to employ
individuals with disabilities in integrated employment environments paying comparable wages.
? Improve and enhance workforce programs such as apprenticeships and on the job training to
require greater participation by individuals with disabilities.
? Increase federal funding for person-centered planning for employment and employment
supports for supported employment, customized employment, and self-employment.
? Mandate under the IDEA that transition plans include social skills training components and work
preparation, such as placements outside of school in apprenticeship or internship programs.
? Create as part of the reauthorization of the Rehabilitation Act or IDEA a transition coordinator
position that will have overall responsibility to coordinate across the education, employment,
and disability systems and programs that provide transition services. The number of transition
coordinators located at each high school shall be based on the number of students needing
transition services at that high school.
? Require state vocational rehabilitation agencies to visit employers employing individuals with
disabilities under a sub-minimum wage certificate or which maintain segregated employment
environments at least once a year to inform individuals with disabilities of competitive
employment opportunities and to assess the vocational rehabilitation needs of those individuals.
? Mandate that supported employment services be funded under the Rehabilitation Act for at
least 36 months.
? Require Medicaid to fund services (employment supports, assistive technology, etc.) that will
allow individuals with disabilities in segregated or sub-minimum wage employment
environments to move to integrated and comparable wage employment.
? Amend Title I of the Rehabilitation Act to require state vocational rehabilitation agencies to
review and assess at least once a year the capabilities of individuals referred to train or work in
sheltered employment (?extended employment?) by the vocational rehabilitation agency.
Department of Education
? Establish new performance indicators by which the performance of state vocational
rehabilitation services agencies will be evaluated. The new performance indicators need to
include consideration of 1) the number of individuals with disabilities whom the vocational
rehabilitation agency assisted to move from non-competitive and/or segregated employment
or training environments to competitive and/or integrated employment environments, 2) the
number of Individual Education Plan (IEP) transition meetings staff from the vocational
rehabilitation agency attended to discuss the transition of a student with a disability from
secondary education to the vocational rehabilitation agency or to competitive employment,
and 3) the number of students with disabilities (eligible for IDEA or covered by Section 504)
the vocational rehabilitation agency began to serve before the individual exited the
secondary education system.
? Ensure that both RSA and OSEP utilize their monitoring authority under the Rehabilitation Act
and IDEA and issue joint policy memoranda to ensure compliance with requirements for
coordination and collaboration between the VR and special education systems for transition
age youth and young adults in each State.
? Ensure that there are appropriate vocational preparation programs available to prepare
students with disabilities for competitive employment. This includes ensuring that vocational
preparation programs for general education students comply with the IDEA and Section 504
and with student IEPs and 504 plans in admitting students with disabilities and appropriately
meeting their needs. Modified vocational preparation programs that will prepare students
with disabilities for competitive employment must also be made available for students who
cannot benefit from the general vocational preparation program even with appropriate
supplemental aids and services.
? Fund longitudinal studies that contain outcome data collected at several intervals after
students with disabilities exit high school. The data needs to include at a minimum such
variables as employment environment (segregated v. integrated), whether the student’s
employer holds a sub-minimum wage certificate, the number of hours employed, pay rate,
and occupation.
? Provide funding to the Protection and Advocacy (P&A) Systems and the Client Assistance
Programs (CAP) focused on transition and employment to provide advocacy for individuals
with disabilities to work in integrated employment environments at comparable wages.
Department of Health and Human Services
? Issue guidance that, for those individual’s receiving Medicaid funded pre-vocational services in
a segregated employment environment, an annual two level assessment shall be conducted.
Level one shall determine if the individual’s current menu of pre-vocational supports could
otherwise be provided in a more integrated setting; and level two, if pre-vocational services
can only continue in a sheltered setting, what adjustments need to be made to their current
services, to better reach the goal of ?habilitation services? which is to ?Obtain the adaptive skills
necessary to reside successfully in home and community based settings.?
Department of Labor
? Create and disseminate information to assist providers and businesses in developing best
practices for competitive employment consistent with the person’s interests and skills.
? Work with the Office of Personnel Management to encourage the employment of individuals
with disabilities in integrated employment environments at comparable wages in the federal
government, including by allowing the agency to not count the employee against the agency’s
allotted full-time employees.
States
? Increase state funding for person-centered planning for employment, and employment
supports for supported employment, customized employment, and self-employment.
? Enact and implement state policies to encourage the employment of individuals with
disabilities in integrated employment environments at comparable wages in state
government positions.
? Strengthen existing and create new incentives through the state tax code to employ individuals
with disabilities in integrated employment environments at comparable wages.
? Use Medicaid funds for Employment First initiatives to help individuals with disabilities find
work in integrated employment environments at comparable wages.
? Fund short-term workforce programs, such as apprenticeships and internships, for individuals
with disabilities.
Increase Labor Protections & Enforcement
Congress
? Increase funding, and ensure access, for Protection and Advocacy Systems and the Client
Assistance Programs to monitor and investigate violations and abuses in segregated and sub-
minimum wage employment environments.
? Increase funding for the Wage and Hour Division to boost enforcement and oversight of wage
and hour laws, including the Section 14(c) program.
? Increase penalties for violations of the Section 14(c) program to ensure that employers take
their responsibilities seriously.
Department of Labor
? Provide funding to the Protection and Advocacy Systems and the Client Assistance Programs
focused on monitoring and investigating violations and abuses of sub-minimum wage and
integrated employment environment requirements.
? Issue guidance on how to formalize and standardize employee evaluations under a sub-
minimum wage certificate, including how to calculate productivity and other factors to
determine an individual’s wages.
? Require segregated, sheltered, and sub-minimum wage paying employers to report to the
Department of Labor yearly the wages, progress, attempts to move to integrated employment
environments, and reasons why the individual hasn’t moved to integrated employment for
each employee.
? Require sub-minimum wage certificate employee evaluations be performed by an independent
third party evaluator.
? Place critical information about the sub-minimum wage (14(c)) certificate program on the
Department of Labor’s website, and ensure it is presented with clarity. Data should be
prominently displayed, easily accessible, and include the percentage of employees operating
under the certificate, the productivity level of these individuals, salaries of all chief executive
officers and management personnel, and the dates for which certificate renewal is required.
? Increase enforcement of federal employment laws and requirements of federal contract work
by tasking the Office of Disability Employment Policy (ODEP), the Wage and Hour Division and
the Office of Federal Contract Compliance to collaborate and work together.
Department of Justice
? Enforce the integration requirements of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act against
states that fund segregated and sheltered employment more than integrated employment.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
? Enforce the non-discrimination requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act against
segregated and sheltered employers by forbidding unnecessary segregation.
Conclusion
Many people working in support of segregated and sheltered work don’t think there is another way.
In fact, there is. Thirty years ago no one believed there was another option for people with
disabilities but to live in large, state-run institutions. The belief was they could never care for
themselves, they were too vulnerable or made people too uncomfortable to live among people
without disabilities. But soon we saw these human warehouses for what they were and in state after
state institutions closed, and now millions of people with disabilities are living, successfully, in their
communities. They evolved and adapted and showed us they are more than we believed, as did the
rest of the country who recognized the value of having friends and neighbors with disabilities. We
witnessed lives changing.
The same can happen in the workplace. Sheltered workshops are just another institution segregating
our neighbors away because of our unwillingness to accept that our own preconceived ideas about
the workplace might be wrong. It’s time to do things differently.
Appendices
Appendix A
Michael Montgomery
Former Director, Singing River Industries
In March of 1973, I took the job as director of a work activity center which was a part of the services
offered through the local mental health center in Pascagoula. At that time, most Mental Health
Centers provided services for people with mental health concerns and people with developmental
disabilities. Nearly all had sheltered workshops which were innovative at that time. I, like many
directors at the time, had a background in education. I didn’t feel comfortable running a workshop as
I did not have the proper educational background or experience. Training provided through the
Developmental Disabilities Training Institute in Durham, North Carolina, helped me and others get the
training that we needed through a series of five day workshops. It also connected people from
various states and offered an opportunity for collaboration.
Our agency was called the Jackson County Training Center. We often received calls from people who
wanted to know what kind of training we did. When I arrived, some people with disabilities were
doing arts and crafts, but most people were sitting around in a big semi-circle watching the staff do
the work. My initial focus was to change from watching staff doing work to getting the people in the
workshop to do the work themselves. Over a period of time, I became successful at acquiring
contracts for the workshop. We made surveyor stakes for the state highway department and
sandblasted rust and old paint from boat trailers, yard furniture, and other metal objects which were
prone to rust in our gulf coast climate. Several of our clients (the term widely used at that time) also
learned how to apply primer to those surfaces with a spray gun.
In 1976, I was introduced to the work of Dr. Marc Gold. Marc helped me understand that we could
teach really sophisticated skills by using systematic instruction. I began to see that we should not be
only providing segregated activities. Rather than keeping people in the workshops, we needed to get
people out of sheltered workshops into jobs in the community. I was open to what Marc had to say
because I could see, even in 1974 and 1975, that there would be an endless line of people coming to
us from voc rehab and the schools. It was my impression at the time, that VR referred about 90% of
the people with disabilities that came to them to sheltered workshops. VR would verify them as
unemployable, refer them to workshops for work activity, and we would be the end of the line for
them. VR’s traditional testing and evaluation procedures did not support the notion that those
individuals could perform real work. I was also open because I could see that we could train people
to do what others were doing in the community, but they would never get the opportunity without
some assistance.
After meeting and working with Marc, we secured funding through United Way to hire someone to
slowly move people from the workshop into community jobs. We found that people could work, if
someone was willing to negotiate on behalf of people with disabilities and work with the employers
to accommodate individual disabilities. If we trained correctly, and not tested, we could find the right
match for people’s abilities. We were very successful in getting people out of the workshop and into
employment in the community.
We had a subcontract with Macmillan Bloedel to make cedar boards for privacy fencing. The plant
manager was Joel Donovan. Rather than building the fences in our workshop and paying for
materials to be moved back and forth, our crew went to his location. Our people liked working with
the other workers, liked being seen and respected. On days when there was no work, the individuals
on that subcontract would come back to shop until their services were needed again. On those days,
some of them would stay home or come under pressure from their families. They clearly didn’t want
to come back. They had graduated from the workshop. I understood and respected their position.
We got people jobs in hospitals, restaurants, and other businesses around the community. One of the
people that we trained in the late 1970s worked in a local hospital until his recent retirement. TS
came to us straight from an institution, where he had lived from early childhood until his 20’s. Like so
many people at that time, he never should have been at the institution. TS ran our sandblaster, drove
our forklift; it was clear that he could do more. His job started in the hospital laundry, but he moved
all around the hospital. He was a good worker. We made ourselves available to the hospital
administration; if they had a problem with TS’s skills, they could call us, and we would provide
additional training. Over the years, the hospital did call us a few times, and we were able to provide
the training that was needed. TS was absorbed into the fabric of the community. After he got the
job, TS got his own apartment and started dating a woman that he met in the workshop. He didn’t
have a driver license, but he used his bicycle to get around.
Our ideas sometimes scared families. They had been told by doctors and service systems that their
kids needed to be in a sheltered and safe environment. Although some of the parents of children in
the workshop began to realize that their son or daughter could do good work, it was the switching of
environments that was troubling. One of our parents who at the time was very concerned that his son
stay in the safe environment of the workshop, recently told me that his son was working in a
restaurant where he was very happy. He could now see the benefits of working in the community.
His son enjoyed being viewed as a regular employee, but for fewer than forty hours. Families need
assurance that their children will have a meaningful job and not spend part of their time at home
alone. The Community Calendar developed by Marc Gold and Associates is a tool that we used to
develop a life in the community around work and non-work time.
In the seventies, the sheltered workshops in Mississippi were run by annually renewable grants. In
the nineties, the funding was converted to a purchase of service arrangement for X dollars per unit of
service. People who ran the programs were not motivated to change. They liked the way that the
billing flowed and the families were happy to have their children in a safe place and were not
pushing for change. Folks believed then, and I think that many still do, that people need to be
sheltered. They just don’t believe that people can grow with the right training and support, that they
can have a good life. I believed that we owed it to each individual and family to try new ideas and
work diligently for each person regardless of disability. If we failed to put our heart and soul into the
challenge for everyone, we would never see their potential. Everyone that I have ever worked with
truly wants a life with work, a place to live, friends, and social outings. A job provides the money to
secure everything else.
There are more than 1,800 people on our waiver waiting list in Mississippi alone. Many could
come off the waiting list if we switched the way we use our resources. It saddens me that it is
taking so long for this switch to occur, but I do now our state leaders move toward the change
through a re-balancing initiative.
Appendix B
Table with 3 columns and 7 rowsCertified Agencies Paying Sub-minimum
Wages
Private, Not for Profit
2,414
Public (State or Local Government)
595
Private, For Profit
413
Other
16
Total Certified:
3,438
Data by Congressional Research Service from Wage
and Hour Division of the U.S. Department of Labor.
As of January 5, 2010
Table end Appendix C
Section 14(c) Wace Certificates111 and Sheltered Workshops112 by State
111 Data retrieved by Congressional Research Service (CRS) from Wage and Hour Division (WHD) of the
U.S. Department of Labor, Current as of January 5, 2010
112 Institute for Community Inclusion, STATEDATA: THE NATIONAL REPORT ON EMPLOYMENT SERVICES AND OUTCOMES (2008).
Table with 7 columns and 27 rowsState
Total
Served
%
%
Community-
Based Non
work
%
Total Section
14(c)
Certificates
Integrated
Employment
Combined
Facility-
Based
Settings
AK
1,394
24%
54.5%
8
AL
5,269
5%
0%
95%
56
AR
65
AZ
41
CA
78,250
11%
74%
15%
238
CO
5,731
27%
59%
62%
42
CT
8,433
56%
44%
9%
70
DC
1,449
7%
10%
78%
1
DE
1,546
26%
1%
68%
6
FL
18,692
23%
27%
58%
102
GA
98
HI
2,865
4%
98%
56%
8
IA
82
ID
6,980
5%
30%
58%
14
IL
25,500
10%
0%
94%
180
IN
12,491
25%
12.5%
62%
63
KS
5,991
19%
54%
80%
60
KY
7,975
17%
29%
54%
55
LA
4,139
34%
2%
64%
95
MA
14,038
22%
12%
65%
88
MD
9,768
38%
0%
62%
48
ME
21
MI
81
MN
149
MO
4,030
9%
2%
94%
120
Table end Table with 7 columns and 29 rowsState
Total
Served
%
%
Community-
Based Non
work
%
Total Section
14(c)
Certificates
Integrated
Employment
Combined
Facility-
Based
Settings
MS
5,904
7%
70.5%
40%
28
MT
32
NC
100
ND
1,782
22
NE
3,668
33%
0%
77%
39
NH
2,159
45%
49%
5%
10
NJ
9,081
15%
5%
80%
74
NM
3,056
32%
31%
65%
8
NV
1,919
20%
2.5%
77%
15
NY
55,420
15%
67%
32%
153
OH
32,133
23%
4%
66%
163
OK
4,168
61%
30.5%
53%
78
OR
3,834
5%
10.5%
67%
68
PA
139
RI
12
SC
7,549
30%
0%
83%
80
SD
2,307
24%
24%
100%
34
TN
7,770
22%
79
TX
40,038
9%
28%
46.5%
165
UT
2,670
33%
72%
0%
42
VA
11,259
21%
2.5%
79%
67
VT
2,252
39%
61%
0%
2
WA
7,183
57%
4%
11%
58
WI
10,338
33%
143
WV
21
WY
1,216
20%
15%
65%
12
430,247
24%
27%
58%
3,435
Table end National Disability Rights Network
900 2nd Street NE, Suite 211
Washington DC 20002
Phone: (202) 408-9514
Fax: (202) 408-9520
www.NDRN.org
National Disability Rights Network
900 2nd Street NE, Suite 211
Washington DC 20002
Phone: (202) 408-9514
Fax: (202) 408-9520
www.NDRN.org
More information about the NFBMI-Talk
mailing list