@RealChangeNews – help us understand

 

Please, Councilmember Upthegrove, explain to us all how someone who will only be working 8 hours or less a week will enable them to make enough money to have the “independence everyone wants”

Please review the JLARC report and evaluate the changes that have already occurred before blasting ahead with more changes which will eliminate jobs and opportunities for many in this vulnerable population community.

October was National Disability Employment Awareness Month (#NDEAM).  With this, let us not forget about Person-Centered Planning and Individual Choice.

Evelyn Perez, Assistant Secretary for Developmental Disabilities Administration (DDA)  in Washington State, has started off every presentation I have seen her in the past couple of years with “We are Person-Centered and provide individual choices”  Maybe she does not understand the policies of some of the supports and services in DDA – particularly that of EMPLOYMENT FIRST in Washington State.

We believe people have choices and Washington state denies people their rights in regards to employment and community supports under DDA.  In March 2012, Washington State Legislature passed restrictive legislation with regards to employment.

Employment needs to be the first choice for adults of working age.  If after 9 months they are not satisfied and had an unsuccessful job search, only then may they request a transition to the community access program.  These are two mutually exclusive support services regardless of how few hours a person may utilize.  There is only one service option at a time.

“Please remember that Employment First does not say that people with disabilities have to work at a community job.  They can still work at a facility based program or workshop, or not work at all if that is what they really want to do.”  RTC on Community Living video “What is Employment First?

WAC 388-828-9335

How does DDA determine your employment service level?

DDA determines your employment service level using the following table:

If your

employment

support level in WAC 388-828-9205 is:

And your

employment

status in WAC 388-828-9330 is:

Then your employment service level is: And your employment service hours per month are:
None Working A 0
Working at sub-minimum wage or in job development B 0
Low Working C 4
Working at sub-minimum wage or in job development D 7
Medium Working E 7
Working at sub-minimum wage or in job development F 9
High Working G 11
Working at sub-minimum wage or in job development H 12

 

 

 

Time to get back to work!

Now is the time to start planning for the upcoming legislative session.  As a community member, it is very, very difficult to be aware of these planning meetings in which paid advocates come up with their annual agenda.  Typically, the issues are not shared or discussed with the community and public until it’s a done deal.

This year, I contacted the King County Developmental Disabilities Administration regarding the legislative committee and planning sessions.  For some reason, the meeting dates and participants were not being shared on the website.  After my inquiry, I have received the information that I requested and an invite to the upcoming meetings.

I greatly appreciate the opportunity to participate in these planning meetings. With that being said, I am also disturbed by the gas-lighting that occurred at the meeting.

The issues that I raised at the meeting was the fact that in Washington State (an Employment First state) which means that a person age 21 or older with intellectual/developmental disabilities MUST try employment services first for 9 months before accessing community inclusion services under “Employment and Day Programs”  within DDA.

In addition, a person utilizing the employment supports (regardless if they are actually working at all or have minimal hours (5 or less a week) they are restricted from accessing community inclusion.  These two supports are mutually exclusive.

Many times these people have no community engagement or opportunities for meaningful interactions during this first 9 months or afterwards.  When these people are left without active supports, they lose skills and become more isolated and we believe that these supports should be able to be accessed concurrently (as many other states offer them.)

There were several representatives from The Arc of King County (paid advocates) at the meeting in addition to representatives from the state DDA, King County DD Admin, and representatives from other agencies which serve people with IDD.

The Arc of King County Director of Advocacy and the Arc of King County Family Engagement Coordinator both spoke up and stated that I was wrong in my statement that people receiving employment supports were not able to also access community inclusion.  I questioned when that change had been made and I was told that it was made several years ago and was in the waivers.

Being “corrected” by these paid advocates and “experts” at this public meeting was really a slap in the face.  They provided false information with their attempts to discredit what I was advocating for.

I followed up with emails to both of these people and to the King County Administrator who was running the meeting.  When questioned and asked for resources to back up their comments, both of these people wrote back to me that I was CORRECT in what I had said at the meeting.

What was the purpose of them speaking out against my comment?  What was the reason that they provided false information to those in the legislative planning meeting?

Employment Programs – DDA Fact Sheet 2019

Community Inclusion – DDA Fact Sheet 2019

 

 

More subminimum wage – can we just get real

EHB 1706 sits in the Senate Rules Committee.  As long as it’s in Rules committee there is still some hope that reality will set in that this bill not only short-sighted but harmful.

I am writing with some major concerns regarding issues with EHB 1706. While this bill may have started with good-intentions, it is extremely short sighted regarding the complexity and collaboration needed in any supports addressing the needs of our disabled population affected by significant intellectual and developmental disabilities. Contrary to what has been said in hearings, it is not common practice to pay disabled people less than minimum wage. It is not common practice to use special certificates for a commensurate wage.

Special certificates for a commensurate wage are not the same thing as “warehousing people in sheltered workshops”. Special certificates do allow a choice and alternative for those who may not be able to work independently in a competitive market or for those who enjoy the camaraderie of working with peers.

We no longer have sheltered workshops in our state but these certificates are very much desired by those who chose to work in group integrated employment in community settings. Person-centered planning and adherence to the Olmstead decision regarding choice are issues that would be violated if this alternative was removed from a smorgasbord of opportunities that people with significance disabilities may choose from. Again, the issue is choice. No one is forced to use these and they are not common practice – but for those who do choose to use them, this opportunity can be life saving. Why take this away?

Other concerns regarding the issues of supported employment in our state – if the support is considered only short-term until the employee is able to be independent or the employer builds in enough “natural supports” so that the employee does not need a job coach, this will lead to even more unemployment in this population. Unfortunately, I know this too well given issues with my son who works in supported employment with a 1:1 job coach. This is not something that he will “outgrow” but a support that he will need the rest of his life. Is he going to be the victim of this policy when it is decided that job supports are no longer needed because he’s had enough time to learn the job?

It is not common practice to pay people with disabilities less than minimum wage. These special certificates are for specific employers, specific jobs, specific employees and for a specific, limited time. It is common practice to pay people with disabilities minimum wage or higher but their work hours are greatly reduced. For instance, my son works in supported employment in a competitive integrated job – he earns $16.58 an hour – a great wage for him. He only works 7.5 hours a week. This is also great for him because of his disability – working more hours a day would be disastrous for him.

While this bill seemed to have good intentions – it is extremely short sighted. There was a failure to even address the recent JLARC report which addresses how few hours disabled people work and less than 10% make a “living wage.” DDA intends that its services provide quality of life benefits for clients, such as choice, relationships, integration in the community, and competence., however there are no evaluations that are done to measure if this outcome is met.

We hear from an affiliate of the national Arc Agency that Washington ranks highest percentage of “employment and day services clients” enrolled in employment services. (87%) But – “Not all clients who receive employment services have a job” which is very clear when scouring the data reported by the county contracted providers ( https://www.statedata.info/washington-ddd/) When one of the affiliates testified that working under a certificate was something that was forced on them by “well meaning do-gooders”, it inhibits their growth as employees, chances of advancement and their ability to support themselves and live off of public assistance. This person is speaking from a totally different reality and perspective than that of the people who have chosen to work under a certificate or of a person, like my son, who while able to learn and function with appropriate supports, will never be independent, able to support himself or live off of public assistance. We need to face reality and this bill is not the way to do that.
Below are just a few bullet points from the JLARC report that need to be taken into consideration:

JLARC staff analyzed DDA data for the 6,975 clients enrolled in individual supported employment during fiscal year 2018.

• 675 clients (10%) earned more than the federal poverty level ($12,140 per year for a single person).
• Earnings vary by support needs. 2 Clients with lower support needs tend to earn more wages.
• 44% of clients with high support needs were unemployed. This is double the rate for clients with medium support needs and five times the rate for clients with low support needs.
• Clients with high support needs who were employed worked 21 hours per month on average. This is less than half the average hours for clients with medium support needs, and a quarter of the hours for the clients with low support needs.
• 99% of clients with high support needs earned less than the federal poverty level.

Addressing this issue only from the Department of Labor viewpoint totally misses the collaboration needed to provide appropriate supports for our disabled community members and I find this approach extremely harmful to those people it was supposed to help. The misinformation used and biased opinions heard regarding choices and alternatives for those with significant disabilities has been ridiculed and dismissed as “living in fear”. I and others who live this life challenge you to listen to those who are actually affected by these policies – not necessarily the people you are hearing from. We need an opportunity to be heard too but when we are censored and blocked from the affiliate agency, it appears to legislators that we do not exist.

Our hope is that this will change. We are gathering people who have first hand knowledge of the issues and how these policies are actually hurting, rather than helping those we live with, care for and love.
=

Employment First!

Washington State is an Employment First state – this means working age adults (ages 21-61 years of age)  enrolled in Developmental Disability Services are REQUIRED to first participate in employment services for 9 months before they can switch to community inclusion services.

According to the “JLARC Review and Analysis Report of Employment and Community Inclusion Measurement 2018  the data collected by the State of Washington through the CARE database and the National Core Indicators (NCI) limit the evaluation of the benefits and outcomes for people with IDD to just a descriptive state level information.  There is no information that can be used for systemic improvement of services for actual individual outcomes for people with IDD.  Below are just a few quotes from this informative report.

We often assume that services for people with IDD are effective but often this is assumption is only supported by anecdotal evidence or no evidence at all.

Under the new Home and Community Based Services (HCBS) settings rule, there has become a heightened need to assure the services people with IDD receive allow them to use personal autonomy, community inclusion and choice.

It has been noted that with fewer people with IDD working in sheltered workshop settings today there has not been a corresponding increase in the percentage of people with IDD working competitively (Butterworth, etlal, 2012)

The Arc of King County reported in a tweet:

87 percent working in WA

According to data from the Developmental Disabilities Administration 2018 Caseload and Cost Report a different story is told:

In FY 2017 there were 8102 people receiving supported employment services

  • 45% made at least minimum wage
  • 28% made less than minimum wage
  • 27% did not earn any wage

This is very concerning regarding current legislation of HB 1706 which will eliminate special certificates.  Also, what are those 27% doing if they are not earning a wage?  Are they losing skills while they sit and wait 9 months until they can request to be transferred to community inclusion services?

DDA cost report 2018 employment status

 

DDA employment clients by wage status

 

Where are the evaluations?

Shaun Bickley “an autistic person who organized a campaign to end subminimum wage in Seattle” turned down the choice to work in a sheltered workshop when he was younger while living in Texas.  It’s great that he had the choice and is employable – he currently works for The Arc of King County in Seattle, WA.

While Bickley flips a page that lists  “over 80 organizations that have signed on in support”  (see link). I am curious if any of them know the full story, have heard of evaluations that have been done in states which have eliminated special certificates or that people in Seattle lost work hours – due to this type of legislation.

There is more to the issue than the wage and the fact that these advocates do not understand or acknowledge that supported employment, while a wonderful opportunity, is costly to sustain.  This is clearly evident in the fact that their Fiscal Note states “No fiscal impact”.  How do they propose employing all these people in supported employment without a fiscal impact?

There needs to be a lot of answers here before moving forward with anymore legislation of this kind.

The following information is taken from Morningside’s Website 

How does Morningside’s Supported Employment Program Work?

After a careful assessment of an individual’s skills and vocational interests, a Morningside job developer will conduct a job search in the community, assisting prospective employers in the identification of appropriate jobs and tasks to meet the needs of their specific businesses. A comprehensive job analysis is conducted to ensure a good employer/employee match. An applicant is referred followed by a job interview, after which the final hiring decision is the employer’s.

How is Morningside Involved After the Placement?

Employment specialists, or job coaches, assist new employees with a comprehensive job orientation, followed by on-going, individualized training and assistance to promote satisfactory work performance on an as-needed basis. They may also provide job modification assistance to employers, disability awareness training for co-workers, or job retention services to the employee and business on a long term basis.

What Reasonable Accommodations will I be Expected to Make for my New Employee and What will They Cost?

The employment specialist may analyze job tasks, restructure how specific job tasks are completed or teach tasks differently to best fit employer/employee needs. Most accommodations cost nothing at all and, in most cases, the employment specialist’s time is free to the employer.

Who pays Morningside (and other agencies? According to the Fiscal note it appears there is no cost.

How can the fiscal note be ZERO?

“Bottom Dollars”, a documentary on sub-minimum wage and sheltered workshops produced by @rootedinrights and Disability Rights Washington, has a statement which tells the truth about the situation –

“If people are given the proper services and supports and proper assistive technology, the sky is the limit for many, many individuals”  – For some reason, this critical statement is not mentioned in any reference to the documentary or supported employment.

Supported employment offers wonderful opportunities to disabled employees and benefits to the employers and our community.  Unfortunately, just as “Bottom Dollars” states, the proper services and supports are needed.  This means FUNDS.  For some reason, advocates, legislators and community members forget about this cornerstone to supported employment  which ensures supported employment to be successful and sustainable.

Microsoft, has developed a “SE -Toolkit” and has a wonderful outlook regarding the benefits to all of hiring people with disabilities. The videos on the site have examples of some wonderful success stories and it is terrific to see disabled people working and enjoying their jobs in the communities.

The information below is from the Microsoft Supported Employment FAQ webpage

Who pays the Supported Employees and their coaches?

Employers do not pay a fee to the coaching agencies. Coaches work for employment coaching agencies, which are usually non-profits funded by government entities. In Washington, the primary government funders are the Department of Social and Health Services, Division of Vocational Rehabilitation and county Divisions of Developmental Disabilities.
Supported Employees are paid by their employer. The expectation is that vendors will hire Supported Employees within existing labor budgets within the Real Estate and Facilities scope. Vendors hire Supported Employees for roles that they need to fill.

How do job seekers with I/DD find out about Supported Employment opportunities with Microsoft RE&F vendors?

When a vendor has a job opening for a Supported Employee, the program manager notifies the coaching agency partners. The agencies determine which individuals are best suited and qualified for the specific job opening, and assist those individuals with applying, interviewing, onboarding, and ongoing job coaching.
Candidates for employment should contact one of our partner agencies. See the earlier topic, “Who are the primary partners in the Microsoft RE&F Supported Employment Program” for more information, or download our employment agency list.

Commission for PwD Discriminates against those with IDD

https://seattle.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=5215197&GUID=132D578C-0E3D-4B68-A1B2-FDCB1FFA841F

Seattle Commission for People with Disabilities – Accountability to the Community

Last week, Mayor Jenny Durkan signed into law that Seattle will no longer issues special certificates to allow specific employers to hire specific employees to do a specific job for a wage that may be less than minimum wage.  These certificates typically were used by employers as an accommodation to allow them to hire people with significant disabilities that interfere with their ability to be as productive as a non-disabled peer.

For the people who worked under these certificates the job is much more than a wage to them.  The people involved typically work 2-25 hours a week, also received SSI cash benefits (which are then reduced somewhat with the earned wages  – see formula for this reduction below) and other supports in the community and home to assist them in activities of daily living and community integration.

This legislation was based on lies propagated by the Seattle Commission for People with Disabilities.  The information they used to push this harmful agenda was also a series of half-truths with censorship of concerns leading this group to say there was unanimous agreement among disabled people .

It is true that this request for information sent out from the Office of Labor Standards generated the most response they have received on any request.  But the information shared by the Commission took this a bit further into an outright lie.

The proposal to kill the exemption has generated “the largest amount of discussion the Disability Commission has ever received on a topic,” according to the letter. Subminimum wage is overwhelmingly opposed by workers with disabilities.” Commissioner Shaun Bickley says, he’s unaware of public opposition to the rule change

(From Seattle Weekly, August 18, 2017)

While the co-chair tends to lies,  Karina Bull, Policy Manager for Seattle Office of Labor Standards, reports a different account in this Housing, Health, Energy and Worker’s Rights Committee meeting dated March 29, 2018, She states “we had our  most robust rule making processes.  We received more comments for this change than we have for any other – we had almost 70 people respond with a slight preference for prohibiting the practice of sub-minimum wage for people with a disability. 

“Thank you for writing Councilmember Herbold regarding the subminimum wage issue. The Seattle Commission for People with DisAbilities (PwD) conducted a four-month review of Seattle’s policy and practice as well as held a public comment session to hear from the community and organizations. Additionally, they reached out to all the businesses that currently utilize the subminimum wage. The PwD Commission received no comment opposing the elimination of the subminimum wage certificates. Some people contacted Councilmember Herbold’s office concerned that people need the subminimum wage to get jobs.  Yet, no people with disabilities contacted Councilmember Herbold’s office to say so.  Since the PwD Commission, through their individual lived experiences, can speak to these issues best, Councilmember Herbold asked that I share with you excerpts from the PwD Commission letter that outlines several specific points as evidence against these concerns specifically and opposing the subminimum wage as a policy.  ”  (from correspondence with Alex Clardy,  Legislative Assistant to Councilmember Lisa Herbold)

Of note, the PwD Commission just copied/pasted part of a report from the APSE Advancing Employment Connecting People  (The Association of People Supporting Employment First) without understanding the background and other recommendations in the bullet points shared.

The Commission for PwD also lied about the numbers of people involved and their wages.   The total lack of understanding of what these jobs mean to the people actually involved is an outright act of discrimination.

The Commission  refuses to provide answers to critical questions with this legislation and the supposed research that was done.  Given that there was a transition plan for the enactment of the minimum wage law in Seattle and all the research that I have read on this issue (including the 3 reports the Commission used as their research) reports there needs to be a well planned and funded transition plan in place prior to elimination of special certificates.  Where is the transition plan and phase in of this legislation?  It appears that was not considered and there were immediate changes made which were harmful to those involved.

Unfortunately, again in an act of discrimination, there has been an elimination of these special certificates with no transition plan (at least that I have been aware even given my multiple requests for information on this issue).  The Commission’s responses to me on this issue accuse me of lying and spreading false information and publishing personal attacks and libel.

The interactions I have had with the Commission have been most frustrating.  Below are some of the first comments and interactions I had with the Commission my attempts to learn about the legislation.  I had been blocked from the Commission for PwD Facebook page so shared this to my personal page to which a Commissioner made these comments.

Cheryl Felak shared a post.

It needs to be noted that not ONE person on this commission has an intellectual and developmental disability and they do not understand the issues involved with the need for these certificates or that we all need to have choice and these certificates provide some choice for those who would be unable to work if they did not exist.

Another article about the Commission’s work in ending subminimum wage in Seattle.

About this article

 

Some workers now make 36 cents an hour, according to the Seattle Commission for People with Disabilities.
SEATTLEWEEKLY.COM
Maura Wachsberger
Maura Wachsberger Out of the 120 people who lost their jobs at my agency, 3 have jobs. All are part time and 2 out of the 3 are 1 hour a month. People are so angry and upset that there is no option for them to work. Makes me furious! It’s so obvious that it’s ridiculous!!!!! Keep options open!!!
Cheryl Felak

Cheryl Felak I plan on going to their next meeting – probably will get shouted down because I’m a guardian and according to this group do not speak for my son.

Seattle Commission for People with disAbilities
Seattle Commission for People with disAbilities Commission meetings are open to the public. Members of the public get 2 minutes for comment. You are welcome to attend, but I would appreciate you not spreading misinformation about the Commission as there are multiple members with intellectual and developmental disabilities even if you don’t like what we have to say.
Maura Wachsberger
Maura Wachsberger Sounds like you don’t like what Cheryl has to say.
Bonnie Sullivan
Bonnie Sullivan That’s a two-way street. Since she knows her son best she should be respected for that knowledge.
Carol Jackson Fenske
Carol Jackson Fenske …so why was she blocked from your comments section for talking about her son?
Cheryl Felak
Cheryl Felak since I am not able to make comments on the Seattle Commission for People with disAbilities Facebook page or reply to the comment you made on my page, I would like to know who you are who is responding to me. I’m not spreading misinformation, I have taken information from your own website – if it is wrong, please correct it.
Shaun Bickley

Shaun Bickley I’m not sure why you can’t respond when you can share from the page but okay. You’ve already been told that multiple members have an I/DD. I told you I did (I don’t see myself in that wall of text). Not everyone on the Commission is verbal. Multiple people with ID/IDD submitted testimony on this issue. Just because you don’t like what we have to say doesn’t mean it’s okay to pretend we’re not I/DD.

Post what you like, I would just appreciate you not spreading misinformation especially when disabled advocates have told you otherwise.

Cheryl Felak

Cheryl Felak Shaun Bickley Thank you for your response. I’m sorry but the testimonies are not on the website and the meeting minutes state that business and families declined testimony. There is quite a bit of misinformation that is being shared by this committee and when people who have questions about some of these issues are blocked from comments it perpetuates the spread of the false information.

Also, the tone of your writing is very disrespectful and undiplomatic. Accusing a guardian of not understanding the issues involved of living with a disability and denying the guardian the ability to perform their court appointed and legal responsibility is discrimination against those who have chosen to have a guardian.

Shaun Bickley

Shaun Bickley Declined public testimony. We still talked to them. OLS has talked to them. No one is objecting except people like you who aren’t impacted by it.

If I need a plumber, I’m going to talk to someone who understands the issue, not someone who lives with aplumber. If I want to hear about women’s health experiences I’m not going call and center husbands, fathers, brothers, and sons. Living around DD person is not interchangeable with BEING a DD person and I’m sorry if this is the first time anyone’s told you that.

And if I can level with you, suggesting you’re going to go to a meeting to shout down disabled people is pretty scary. Just because you can observe or make comment doesn’t mean you have a right to shout at people, to disrupt the meeting or to intimidate people.

Shaun Bickley

Shaun Bickley I’m not particularly interested in debating whether you subsume your child’s personhood here or anywhere else. If you want to see the letter the Commission wrote to the City Council dated June 21 it should be on the FB page. You’re free to submit comment on this or something else. I just ask that you not spread misinformation about people and that you not come to the meeting with the intention of shouting people down. Several of us have been in institutional/segregated settings or experienced violence at the hands of caregivers, so that kind of tone is an unwelcome abuse of power.

Cheryl Felak

Cheryl Felak Shaun Bickley Again, you have totally misinterpreted what I said – I never said that I would shout but that I would be shouted down – big difference.

Cheryl Felak
Cheryl Felak Shaun Bickley interesting that you assume that I am not impacted by this recommendation. You have made many assumptions and I would suggest that you listen and have a conversation with others who may have a different perspective than your view. There are ways to work together.
Shaun Bickley

Shaun Bickley You are not impacted. Every worker and family member who will be impacted by this change has been talked to already. I know their names, you are not one of them. At best this is a hypothetical option you wanted for someone else, but that’s not the same as being paid subminimum wage or even supporting a family member who is.

I appreciate the clarification re: shouting. Nobody needs to shout, there hasn’t been any shouting yet.

Cheryl Felak

Cheryl Felak Shaun Bickley I’m sorry that you have many misunderstandings regarding this issue and who it will impact – now or in the future. I am very interesting in reading the studies and testimonies of those who have submitted them. Are they referenced on the website too.

Cheryl Felak

Cheryl Felak Shaun Bickley the issue is much more complex than the minimum wage aspect and the impacts of such an elimination of choice will be far reaching. I would urge a more thorough investigation and study of the topic.

Have you or other commissioners looked at an overall increase in costs that may result from an increased need for more intense employment supports or other opportunities to help those with IDD interact and be involved in their communities?

Shaun Bickley

Shaun Bickley Cheryl Felak I will email you information if you’d like to provide it. However:

1) You still have a post up claiming that no one on the Commission has an I/DD when you’ve been told otherwise. That is lying.
2) It’s incredibly creepy that you’ve put up a public post listing out everyone on the Commission and whether or not you think they’re actually disabled. This is bordering on stalking behavior.

It’s kind of ironic because by virtue of BEING on a Commission you’ve automatically assumed that everyone there is Not Like Your Child, but actually listing out and evaluating non-elected, unpaid disabled volunteers is super sleazy.

Cheryl Felak

Cheryl Felak Which of the people on the commission have an intellectual and developmental disability? I see other disabilities but none that are intellectual and developmental. It’s interesting that the website gives these bios of the people – I was curious who made up the commission and so I read what was on the website. If it is incorrect than take it up with whoever from the commission posted the incorrect information.

I do not recall my ever giving an opinion if I thought the people on the commission had a disability or not – that is something that you have imagined. I did say that not ONE has an intellectual and developmental disability and I believe that is the case.

Shaun Bickley
Shaun Bickley It’s none of your business. I told you I’m not going to give you people’s diagnosis information. I am. Multiple others are. It’s fair to ask if anyone has an I/DD but it’s not appropriate to expect detailed personal information.
Cheryl Felak
Cheryl Felak So no one has IDD – I’m sorry but having a diagnosis of autism is not the same as intellectual/developmental disability. I would think that you would be aware of that. Maybe you are not aware of what an intellectual/developmental disability is if you believe that the people listed on the website have this combined disability.
 
Shaun Bickley

Shaun Bickley Autism is a developmental disability. Maybe a trip down wikipedia would be helpful to your level of information.

Yes, several people have both intellectual and developmental disabilities. The fact that you don’t like what we have to say doesn’t change that. Your behavior is disgusting, if you do feel the need to come please limit your interaction with me to something professional instead of screeching about what you think people’s disabilities are and are not.

Cheryl Felak
Cheryl Felak I am fully aware that autism is a developmental disability – as is cerebral palsy and other disabilities. But I have a hard time believing that people with advanced college degrees have an intellectual disability.
Carol Jackson Fenske

Carol Jackson Fenske Shaun Bickley But why, why are you quoted in the Seattle Weekly as having had NO negative response to your initiative? Looks/sounds like misrepresentation to me. Perhaps you don’t really know what it’s like to spend 20-30 years of your life totally focused on a loved one with severe disabilities, advocating every single day for what seems to make them happy? Maybe that loved one is able to communicate, but not to strangers, and not in a way that would be understandable to a stranger. Cut us a little slack here, really.

Maura Wachsberger I have never seen such unprofessional responses from someone who represents a government agency. At least in NY they pretend to listen to us before they ignore us. It’s not people first, it’s money first and closing this option for people who truly need it will save money. Terrible!

 

https://seattle.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=5215197&GUID=132D578C-0E3D-4B68-A1B2-FDCB1FFA841F

Seattle Commission for People with Disabilities – Accountability to the Community

“Things I Mean to Know” (Sheltered Workshops and Supported Employment)

I was recently listening to the Podcast “This American Life” and was struck by the very question that I keep asking of advocates with regards to intellectual disabilities.   We are told over and over again that “evidence shows” yet have these advocates really looked at the evidence or are they just taking on faith what they have heard and have believed it?

Questions asked are “how do we know it’s true?”, “what is the proof of it?” “how much have you accepted without evidence?”

“Sometimes there’s a thing that you think you know, even though, right in front of you, staring you in the face, is clear evidence to the contrary.”  There are also the issues of denial  and deceit at play when censorship of opinions and experiences are practiced.

The most recent issue with lack of evidence is in the recommendation of the Seattle Commission for People with Disabilities (PwD Commission) to immediately eliminate the special certificates for employees with disabilities who would earn a sub-minimum wage.  Supposedly, the commission did 4 months of “intensive research” but they have not been able to provide any documentation of their research other than  opinion pieces, articles that actually oppose rapid elimination of the certificates or outdated research.  (Below this post are links to the documents the PwD Commission provided as their research into the issues of sub-minimum wage).  They have not been able to address the issues I have asked with regards to how this recommendation will affect other aspects of the people’s lives.  Apparently,  from the answer I received, the other aspects are irrelevant in this decision.

I wrote a letter to the Office of Labor Standards with my concerns about the recommendation and then again about the lack of evidence that was provided by the PwD Commission in making this recommendation (  letter to Ms. Bull in Office of Labor Standards regarding sub-minimum wage August 2017, non-evidence letter to K. Bull of OLS – November 2017)

One position paper submitted by APSE was used as evidence.  It is very interesting that in reading this position paper and looking up the citations,  the so-called evidence is not there.   They seem totally unaware of the significant limitations written by the author (Cimera) and only use part of the conclusion as the evidence.   (APSE is the Association of People Supporting Employment First –  Subminimum Wage Research Documents from PwD Commission)

Need to keep the findings in context:

  1. Did employee begin work immediately upon enrollment (tends to occur in sheltered workshops) or was there a long process to being employed (more likely in community employment)?
  2. The number of hours worked in each setting is unknown. Sheltered workshop employees by be “on the job” of physically present for 40 hours a week, there may be hours of down time when the employee is not actually working.  Also, by definition, sheltered workshops are continually staffed (this also helps with supports during “down time”)
  3. Community supported employees may not need (or may need) job coaches on site with them and therefore the costs are not influenced as much by the hours worked. Not knowing how many hours were worked and what percentage of those hours was staffed by a job coach, Given the number of hours worked by the employees and the amount of job support needed is unknown there is no possible way to make a comparison of the cumulative cost to that of a sheltered workshop.
  4. There is the issue of “skimming” – that is that even though the participants in this study were classified as having the same level of disability (“most significant”) there is no assurance that the level of limitations was identical.
  5. Given that it is impossible to quantify every variable that could affect cost-effectiveness, let alone find sets of supported and sheltered employees who have identical abilities, every study that attempts to compared sheltered and supported employees might be comparing apples and oranges” (Cimera, 2007)

My opinion is that both options are needed to best serve our population of people with disabilities and more specifically people with profound disabilities including intellectual disabilities.  There are pros and cons to each scenario and it needs to be individualized to the person as to which would be the best option.  This is what PERSON CENTERED PLANNING is about.

This is an issue that is happening all across the nation but there is no actual evidence or reliable research which supports the policies that are making sweeping changes to people’s lives.  When reviewing studies, reports and research, it is extremely important to consider the limitations in that study, the demographics and regional differences and the types of jobs that people are employed in.

Yes, there may be problems with the oversight and management of employment (as can be read about in this article – Segregated and exploited article) under the special certificates but that means we need to correct those problems so the system works as intended.  It does not mean to suddenly change to a different type of program or system that has not been documented to provide any better outcomes for a specific population.  Again, this is where is it critically important to read through the studies and understand the limitations.  The conclusions mean nothing without understanding the limitations.

My questions to the Seattle Commission for People with Disabilities regarding the recommendation to make a rapid elimination of the special certificates and the answer I received, indicate to me that this commission does not understand the full impact this recommendation will make in the lives.

My hope is that this commission does invite and pay attention to people with intellectual disabilities and their support circles.  It is critical to involve the people who will be affected by the change.  Remember “Nothing About Us, Without Us” 

 

References:

Akkerman, A., Janssen, C. G., Kef, S., & Meininger, H. P. (2016). Job Satisfaction of People With Intellectual Disabilities in Integrated and Sheltered Employment: An Exploration of the Literature. Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities, 13(3), 205-216. doi:10.1111/jppi.12168
Boyd, J. M., & Davis, C. (2016). When good is no longer good enough: Transitioning to greatness. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 44(3), 279-285. doi:10.3233/jvr-160798
Cimera, R. E. (2007). The Cumulative Cost-Effectiveness of Supported and Sheltered Employees With Mental Retardation. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 32(4), 247-252. doi:10.2511/rpsd.32.4.247
Cimera, R. E. (2010). Supported Employment’s Cost-Efficiency to Taxpayers: 2002 to 2007. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 34(2), 13-20. doi:10.2511/rpsd.34.2.13
Cimera, R. E. (2016). A comparison of the cost-ineffectiveness of supported employment versus sheltered work services by state and demographics of program participants. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 45(3), 281-294. doi:10.3233/jvr-160829
Cimera, R. E., Avellone, L., & Feldman-Sparber, C. (2015). An investigation of the outcomes achieved by individuals with intellectual disabilities and mental illnesses. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 43(2), 129-135. doi:10.3233/jvr-150762
Cimera. (n.d.). The percentage of supported employees with significant disabilities who would earn more in sheltered workshops.