|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
| |
 |
|
| |
COMMENTARY: WORKERS WITH DISABILITIES DESERVE REAL CHOICES, REAL JOBS
|
| |
The recent public controversy surrounding the decision of the NY state Office of Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities (OMRDD) to move clients from the failed Consolidated Industries to the sheltered workshop run by Arc of Onondaga is perplexing.
Central New York is a community that prided itself on the closure of Syracuse Developmental Center in 1998. It is also a community with a national reputation for the inclusion of students with disabilities in regular school programs. Should anyone really be surprised that there is opposition in Central New York to continuation of the out-dated model of the sheltered workshop?
Sheltered workshops for people with disabilities became popular in the 1950s and 60s. This was an era in which people with developmental disabilities and their families had two options: institutional placement or nothing. Children
with disabilities were educated in special schools or, just as likely, totally excluded from a public education. For adults with disabilities
living alone or with their families, sheltered workshops offered the opportunity to get out of the house and to have something to do during the
day.
Much has changed in American society since the 50s and 60s. With the passage of P.L. 94-142 (now known as IDEA--the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act), children with disabilities were guaranteed the right to a free, appropriate public education. The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and then the Americans with Disabilities Act, passed in 1990, outlawed discrimination against people with disabilities. Federal and state vocational rehabilitation programs have been established to help people with disabilities to enter the work force. Work incentives have been created for beneficiaries of federal disability benefits, and tax credits and deductions have been developed to encourage employers to hire people with disabilities.
Most significantly, societal attitudes toward people with disabilities have changed. To be sure, there are still instances of prejudice and
discrimination directed toward disabled people. Backward attitudes and stereotypes persist. Yet, as a community and society, we are learning that
people with disabilities do not need to be put away or segregated and "sheltered" from society. We are also learning that our communities,
neighborhoods, schools, and work places are enriched by the presence and participation of people with disabilities.
The case against sheltered workshops can be argued not merely on philosophical grounds, but pragmatic ones as well.
Low pay. A story in the Herald American on April 15 reported the earnings of two former clients of Consolidated Industries. One made $30 to $50 weekly take-home pay and the other made $35 for three days of work. Sadly, these are not isolated anecdotal reports. A 1998 national report indicated that sheltered workshop clients earned an average of $65 per week, while rehabilitation clients working in the competitive labor market earned a weekly average of $272. Even for people with severe mental retardation, earnings are significantly higher in competitive employment than in sheltered workshops. Workshop clients earned a weekly average of $37, and workers in competitive employment made $110.
Dead end placement. Supporters of sheltered workshops often defend them as a
"transitional step" to prepare people to enter the competitive work force. Studies have consistently shown that segregated environments do not prepare people to live, work, or participate in integrated environments. Statistics support this common sense notion. A mere 3.5% of people in sheltered workshops move into competitive employment in a given year. This is one of the reasons why the federal Rehabilitation Services Administration issued a regulation last January that sheltered workshop placement would no longer qualify as an accepted employment outcome. The reason people ever move from a sheltered workshop into the labor force is not because they have learned requisite skills, but because someone finally decided to offer them a better choice.
Incentive to keep the most productive clients. Sheltered workshops receive
their funding from a combination of public vocational and rehabilitation programs and contracts from businesses. Like any enterprise, workshops need to provide products of high quality to survive and continue to receive
contracts. Workshops have a built-in incentive to retain the most productive and dependable clients. These are precisely the persons most likely to succeed in the competitive labor market, with the fewest supports.
Defenders of sheltered workshops have put forth arguments to support their position. These deserve an examination.
Do people with severe disabilities need the "safety net" of sheltered workshops? Study after study has shown that people with severe disabilities can thrive in regular employment, if given the proper supports. The problem is that the bulk of public funds continue to be channeled into sheltered
workshops and other segregated facilities. In its 1996 position statement on employment, the Arc of the United States recommended, "Federal and state policy shall establish as a workforce development priority, employment of people with mental retardation in competitive settings with supports as necessary."
Ironically, neither Consolidated Industries nor the sheltered workshop of the Arc of Onondaga have served people with the most severe disabilities.
From the vantage point of sheltered workshops, these people are deemed unproductive and unlikely to help them fulfill their contract work. People
with severe disabilities are working in supported employment, receiving nonvocational day habilitation services, or sitting at home.
Should people with disabilities have the "choice" of sheltered employment? "Choice" is a popular term in political rhetoric. It is invoked to justify policies favored by the left as well as the right. Yet the term "choice" is consistently misused and abused in debates over segregation versus integration in disability policy. Many people with disabilities have, in fact, been sheltered from society and denied the opportunity to participate in community life. Some may have had unsuccessful experiences in community jobs due to a lack of adequate supports. To suggest that people who have never had opportunities to work in the community or have not been adequately supported exercise "choice" in working at sheltered workshops is a misrepresentation of people’s preferences and an abuse of language. What the closure of Consolidated made abundantly clear is that many people preferred going to the workshop over sitting home all day watching television. Having something to do is better than having nothing to do; making a little bit of
money is better than making none. This is not "choice."
Are businesses that contract with sheltered workshops satisfied with the
quality of work products? There is no question that people with disabilities
can be productive and dependable workers. I am sure that many clients at sheltered workshops are proud of their work. But wouldn’t those clients be prouder if they knew that they could perform their skills in real places of employment and be included and accepted into the regular work force—just like anyone else? And wouldn’t those businesses and places of employment be enriched by having workers with disabilities on-site, rather than out of sight?
The unforeseen failure of Consolidated Industries created a crisis in our community. Between 85 and 120 clients at Consolidated’s workshop suddenly found themselves with nothing to do. This could and should have been prevented. As early as the 1970s, disability groups in Central New York questioned the appropriateness of sheltered workshops. The success of supported work and school-to-work transition programs in Central New York should have demonstrated to OMRDD and private providers that people with disabilities did not need to be placed in sheltered facilities. Plans should have been made years ago to phase-out Consolidated’s workshop in an orderly and careful manner. As noted by the Arc of the United States, "Funding, training and technical assistance must be made available to current vendors of services to enable conversion of traditional services to the provision of competitive employment in inclusive settings."
The decision by OMRDD officials in Albany to transfer Consolidated clients to the Arc of Onondaga might have been the expedient thing to do. It is relatively easy to change the administration of an existing sheltered facility or to move people en masse to a new building. When done right, placing people with disabilities in real jobs in the community can be a
time-consuming process. Considerable effort must be devoted to ascertaining people’s real preferences and choices, matching skills to work place demands, determining what supports people will need, and developing back-up plans if initial placements are not successful. This can only be done one person at a time.
We should learn from the failure of Consolidated. Instead of defending an anachronism and rationalizing an expedient solution to an immediate crisis, we should begin planning immediately for the eventual phase-out of remaining sheltered workshops in Central New York. Acrimonious debate, defensiveness,
and justification of the status quo serve no one’s interests. What is needed now is a community-wide commitment to ensure that all people with disabilities have the opportunity to exercise real choices in real jobs in the community. As stated by the National Council on Disability in a recent report, "It is not the capacities of people with disabilities that limits
their employment, but outdated attitudinal, organizational, societal and policy barriers."
Steven J. Taylor, Ph.D. is Director of the Center on Human Policy at Syracuse University. His e-mail address is staylo01@mailbox.syr.edu.
Partial support for the preparation of this article was provided by the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research for the National Resource Center on Supported Living and Choice. The opinions expressed here are those of the author.
TheArcLink invites responses to its editorial content, which is intended to promote debate and dialogue on on all sides of important issues facing people with developmental disabilities and their families. It will publish those responses from time to time, reserving the right to edit for length and readability. Send your response to webmaster@thearclink.org
|
| |
|
|
