Digging Into The Employment Gap

How much worse is unemployment for people with disabilities, compared with non-disabled people? While working on the Disability.TV Podcast episode on disability in Seinfeld, I came across a couple of bits where the comedy depends on the idea that disabled people have all sorts of perks and advantages in the workplace.

I get what that’s referring to. People with disabilities do have some specified legal rights in employment that non-disabled people don’t have, and "hiring the disabled" is widely understood to be a good thing to do. I also know that these advantages don’t amount to much, and that disabled people are in fact massively disadvantaged in the job market, at least if employment rates are any indication.

The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics now reports monthly on employment of people with disabilities nation-wide. Here is the June, 2015 report:

I circled eight items, each of them a percentage, because I think they are the easiest to understand and most meaningful measurements and comparisons. For one thing, they include only "working-age people" … age 16-64. They also take in two other relevant comparisons: Disable vs. Non-Disabled and Male vs. Female.

Finally, the report highlights two main ways of measuring employment itself: Participation Rate and Unemployment Rate.

The Participation Rate is the percentage of the given population that is either working or looking for work. It doesn’t count retired people or people who are unemployed not actively looking for a job.

The Unemployment Rate is the percent of people in the Participation Rate measure who are not employed. That is, it’s the percentage of people actively looking for work who haven’t found it. Put another way it’s the gap between how many people want and intend to work, and the number who are actually working.

With all of that said, here are some tentative, non-expert conclusions:

- The Participation Rates for disabled men and women are a lot lower than for men and women without disabilities. A far higher percentage of disabled people are neither working nor looking for work than the percent of non-disabled people. 28-34 percent of disabled are working or looking for jobs, while 70-83 percent of non-disabled people are working or looking for jobs. There are probably many reasons for this difference, including self-perception, societal expectations, work disincentives, and the immediate barriers imposed by peoples’ actual disabilities.

- The Unemployment Rate for disabled people is also quite a bit higher than for non-disabled people ... 11 to almost 9 percent for disabled, and only a little over 5 percent for non-disabled people.

- This means that, controlling for people not participating at all in the job market … leaving out people who consider themselves “too disabled” to work … we are still left with a large employment gap. If we go further, and note that there would probably be a lot more disabled people looking for jobs if they felt any hope of finding one that would hire them, then the gap would be much, much higher.

- It is worth noting that the Participation Rate has been growing and the Unemployment Rate dropping for disabled people over the last several months. But we’re talking about improvements in tenths of a percent, nothing to indicate a revolution or some massively successful new policy or approach, at least not yet.

Overall it’s hard to find bright spots or some hidden advantage of being disabled, when only about a quarter of working age disabled people are working, while over three quarters of working age non-disabled people are employed. The numbers certainly suggest that George Constanza faking a disability to get a job is not just funny, it’s nonsense.

---------

[Facebook] [Twitter] [Podcast]

Throwback Thursday

Two years ago in Disability Thinking: NBC Looks At “Sheltered Workshops”.

I’m not sure, but it feels like we are a lot closer to the end of Sheltered Workshops than we were two years ago. Maybe not the end, but a situation where they are quite rare seen as weird, not the standard employment program for developmentally disabled people. For more on this: “Serfdom” and Ending Sheltered Workshops: It Can Work.

----------

[Facebook] [Twitter] [Podcast]

Some Thoughts On Employment

nTIDE Jobs Report: New Year Shines Bright for People with Disabilities Finding Employment

Penny Gould, Research On Disability / UNH - February 6, 2015

Comparing the employment data in the infographic above to a similar report from last September, it does look like more disabled people are getting into the job market … some actually getting jobs, others actively and intentionally looking for them. That’s good news.

I guess I’m part of the trend. After a year and a few months without paid work, I got a part-time job tutoring students in writing at a local community college. Right now it’s the perfect job for me, given my health and the state of my disability. You could say I am “under-employed”, but I am participating in the labor market and satisfied with my current situation.

Of course the big picture is that by every measure, employment for disabled people has been extremely very low for decades … probably for as long as anyone has bothered to collect statistics. What could possibly change those numbers dramatically? What could we do to bring “employment” and “labor-market participation” for people with disabilities up to, say, 50% or higher?

I used to think that the gold standard for disability employment was the traditional, 9-5, full-time job, in an office. I thought anything less, or anything less traditional, was a defeat or a cop-out. I still feel that way about sheltered workshops, “enclaves” (where all-disabled work crews go somewhere to do a job, basically in isolation), and businesses set up specifically to employ disabled people. In some cases, it feels like an important principle to stick to. In others, well, maybe it’s just a prejudice for me.

The thing is, I’m starting to think that the key to really moving the needle on employment for disabled people is to be open to a wider variety of work models. Part-time. Flexible schedules. Consulting. Working from home. Freelancing. Jobs crafted to fit a particular person’s abilities and talents. Seasonal employment. These kinds of models, coupled with firmer income support programs to fill in the gaps and self-adjust with the ups and downs of erratic employment, could make a real difference.

Which is not to say that anyone should assume that any of us has to work in some non-traditional setup, just because we have a disability. Plenty of us, maybe most of us, are fully capable of doing traditional full-time jobs The viability of “lesser” options should never be an excuse for relegating any of us to them if we want more. Also, non-traditional models need good policy development and vigilance, to make sure they don’t end up being exploitive.

It’s been a long time since I talked at length with a Vocational Rehabilitation Counselor. I wonder what they are thinking these days?

----------

Facebook

Twitter
Disability.TV Podcast

ABLE Act Wonkery

Law Creates Special Savings Accounts for Disabled People

Ann Carrns, New York Times - January 30, 2015

This is an unusually complete explanation of the new ABLE Act. Although it is written entirely from a money / personal finance perspective, it’s one of the few articles I have seen that gives anything close to equal weight to the idea of disabled individuals opening and using their own accounts for earnings.

Most stories about the ABLE Act focused almost exclusively on families setting aside money to “take care of” disabled loved ones. That’s certainly one of the intended uses of the law, but its one that assumes a more passive role for the disabled person. In fact, the ABLE Act should be very helpful to disabled people who have the opportunity to work and earn.

Of course, it is worth repeating and lamenting that all of this is only available to people disabled before age 26 … a somewhat last-minute restriction cuts out thousands of disabled people who could have benefitted.

Still, if this thing works out well, it could be expanded down the road.

———————

Facebook

Twitter
Disability.TV Podcast

ABLE Act Followup: I Guess I'm In ... It's Your Call

I just got an email alert from the Center for Disability Rights, asking people to call their Senators and encourage them to vote “No” on S. 313, which is the Senate version of the ABLE Act. The email provides a good overview of what’s wrong with the ABLE Act at this point:

There are two major problems with this bill:

1. It caps eligibility by age. Only people who have acquired their disability before age 27 would be eligible. There has been no logical explanation for this arbitrary number and the Disability Community does not accept leaving anyone with a disability behind.

2. It includes budget cuts to vital services for people with disabilities. One group of people with disabilities should not have to sacrifice such services in order for another group of people with disabilities to have what they need to survive.  Things that would be cut if this version of the ABLE Act passes include:

Specific oral medication that many dialysis patients with End Stage Renal Disease (ESRD) take would not be covered by Medicaid until 2024.  People will die because of this.

Vacuum Erection Systems (VES) would no longer be covered by Medicare.  This seems trivial, but it is assistive devices such as this that allow some people with disabilities the opportunity to have a family – the same right able-bodied people enjoy.

As I have written about recently, I am upset by the last-minute changes to the bill … both for their practical consequences, and because I think it signals a failure of cross-disability collaboration. That said, I can’t quite bring myself to ask Senators to vote no at this point. If I thought there was a real chance to revisit the changes and fix the bill, I would urge them to vote it down, but especially with two-house Republican majorities on the way I don’t see that happening.

I do hope that Senators who have supported this bill will take a good look at the limitations, and realize that they really are more than just the usual compromise all bills go through before they are passed. The age limitation, especially, fundamentally changes the bill, by cutting out entire portions of the disabled population. I think I would rather have seen the ABLE Act account limits reduced … either to a bit less than $14,000 per year, or to a lower total account limit than $100,000 per person.

So, go ahead and pass the ABLE Act. See how the model works. Make the case for expanding it to the whole disability community. Build on it, or adjust as needed to make it better. But let’s not let Congress and the media celebrate this “rare example of bipartisanship” without acknowledging how it got done. And, next time a bill like this comes up, let’s all make it clear that we won’t accept “divide and conquer” anymore, or be talked into throwing disabled people a bit different form us under the bus.

If you want to contact your Senators anyway, click here to get started.

The ABLE Act ... Last-Minute Limitations On A Good Idea

House OKs Bill to Widen Federal Help for Disabled

Hope Yen, Associated Press / ABC - December 3, 2014

I was excited about the ABLE Act from the moment I first heard about it, about 3 or 4 years ago. The ABLE Act is intended to address an economic barrier well known in the disability community and virtually unknown outside it. In order to keep Social Security, and often Medicare and / or Medicaid benefits many people with disabilities absolutely need to survive, they can’t accumulate over $2,000 in savings. This means, among other things, that families have a hard time giving extra financial support to members with disabilities, and adults with disabilities risk losing secure benefits whenever wages they earn get “too high”. Essentially, millions of disabled people are punished for working too much or too hard, or for being thrifty, or saving for an important item, like a car or a house.

The ABLE Act has until very recently proposed to raise the savings limit substantially, allowing disabled people and / or family members to put up to $14,000 per year, maximum total $100,000 away in special accounts for specific independence-enhancing purposes, without that money affecting eligibility for benefits, and tax free as well. It sounded too good to be true. While the bill worked it’s way through the process, I tried on several occasions to dig up a flaw or a misunderstood concept. Always, the answers I got were positive.

Yet, I had a nagging feeling there was going to be a “but” in there somewhere. And there is.

At some point fairly recently … I’m not sure when … the bill was amended to create an age limit on eligibility. It will now only apply to people with disabilities that begin before age 26. That means a 27-year-old paralyzed in a car accident would not be able to use the ABLE Act. As it happens, it also means that a lot of people who get MS won't be eligible, I would think, since that condition typically starts when people are in their late 20s and up. Not to mention people who go blind, lose hearing, have traumatic brain injuries, or any of a myriad of serious disabilities that don't always begin in childhood. All potentially deal with the same work disincentives, and all will now be ineligible for the ABLE Act.

I have also read that in order to make the bill “revenue neutral”, some other disability-related programs will be cut, though I haven’t yet seen the details on that. An organization I greatly respect, the Center for Disability Rights, wants the Senate to vote down the bill, or pass a version that doesn’t have an age limit, and doesn’t cut other programs. I am really undecided on whether to fully advocate that at this point. Let's just say I really hope that the Senators take notice of the changes and see that there's more to them than just the typical horse-trading.

In a practical sense, it’s awful to realize that this bill will basically be of no benefit to several whole subsets of the disability community, purely because of an arbitrary age limit, presumably set to limit the bill’s costs. In  a broader sense, too, I think it reflects another unfortunate thing about the ABLE Act’s history.

Fairly early on, the ABLE Act was endorsed by a wide variety of disability organizations … the “usual suspects” of disability activism you might say … but the real impetus for the bill has always seemed come from parents of disabled "children", and from one particular organization, the National Down Syndrome Society. Maybe when push came to shove, the strongest backers of the ABLE Act may not have given much thought to adults with later onset disabilities. They might have been, perhaps naturally, thinking in terms of developmental disabilities and other conditions most often associated with “children”, and not "other" disabilities like spinal cord injuries, traumatic brain injuries, hearing or vision loss, etc. I don't know what happened or who was involved, but I do notice that a tiny minority of disability advocates is even talking about this last-minute change. It looks very much like some sort of agreement was struck and a consensus arrived at that the cuts and age limit were "okay". Maybe they are worth it, but I have a feeling there weren't many people inclined to argue to the contrary.

Don’t get me wrong. I don’t blame advocates for maybe seeing this bill from a particular angle and fighting for it accordingly. What disappoints me more is the relative lack of enthusiasm and urgency the rest of the disability community showed towards the ABLE Act from the start. I just don’t think we had much of a voice at the table, so when the time came to cut deals, a broader constituency wasn’t there to speak up. I'm not saying other disability groups were excluded, just that they were, perhaps, not sufficiently motivated or focused.

I get the feeling that the newly truncated ABLE Act is going to pass, and that few people will notice how it was changed or what those changes say about how disability-related legislation is developed and advocated. The ABLE Act is being compared, mostly by journalists with scant experience covering disability politics, with the Americans with Disabilities Act. One difference with the ADA is that nearly the whole disability community … all ages, all disabilities … made it the top legislative priority, and for the most part prevented any particular disability sub-group group from being carved out. The ADA isn’t equally effective for all disability sub-groups, but the eligibility criteria were specifically crafted to be radically inclusive, (at least for that time), and to make no real distinction between physically, cognitively, sensory, or mentally disabled people, or between the elderly, adult, or children.

The ABLE Act is a step forward, because it sets up a mechanism to deal with a mostly unintended barrier to greater financial security. But it looks now like it will mainly benefit a vaguely defined “type” of disabled person, and their families, (read: parents), rather than the disability community as a whole … a completely unnecessary limitation on a good idea. That’s a shame and we all ought to be more careful next time not to let it happen.

Employment Talk

Disabled Girls Talk Episode 2: Employment

Maddy Ruvolo and Emily Ladau - October 20, 2014

Maddy Ruvolo and Emily Ladau discuss what it’s really like for young disabled people to be looking for work right now. They are joined by Maria Town, of the Youth Policy Team at the Office of Disability Employment Policy and the CP Shoes blog and Twitter feed.

Maddy, Emily, and Maria are realistic about the dire employment rates and barriers to improvement, without being too depressing. Best of all, they go way beyond the usual bullet points and problematic clichés about disability and employment … employers just need to “look past” our disabilities … they should hire us because we’ll be more loyal than non-disabled workers … we’re all totally ready to work and we never have any problems as long as we’re given a chance.

They talk about transportation barriers, how important those “first jobs” are for teens with disabilities, and the fact that sometimes, our disabilities really do interfere with our ability to work to full our full capacity.

This podcast is well worth a listen. I can’t wait to hear their next episode!

The Minimum Wage, Again

Welfare reform minister: some disabled people ‘not worth’ minimum wage

Nicholas Watt, The Guardian - October 15, 2014

So, the debate over paying some disabled workers less than Minimum Wage has come up in the UK. It’s interesting how the same arguments, pro and con, rise to the surface.

I think there’s one thought that’s missing from most of these stories and discussions. While I believe that far too many disabled workers are assumed to be sub-par in their work abilities, due to their disabilities, I also think it’s pretty obvious that there are some disabilities that really do prevent people from handling a “normal” job. That’s Lord Freud’s justification for paying less than Minimum Wage, and the reason most often given for continuing the practice here in the U.S.

All of which takes for granted the idea that the only factor in determining wages should be productivity.

Yet, some of those who defend these sub-minimum wage schemes most vigorously do so because they see certain disabled workers as, essentially, needy people who require special considerations and protections. If that’s so, then why not agree that for these folks in particular, we will all just agree to pay them at least Minimum Wage, whether or not they “earn it”, strictly speaking? Presumably, the taxpayers will spend to assist these people anyway. Why not do so through subsidizing Minimum Wage, or better yet, through minutely higher prices for the products and services of companies who pay those wages? Or maybe (shocker), some of these companies that love to show off how charitable they are to disabled workers could actually just pay them a bit more and take it out of their massive profits.

In fact, we already subsidize companies that pay less than minimum … through SSI and Developmental Disability services that make up for the wage gap. And in the UK, through whatever support systems they have.

One other thing. If you have a job, do you always, every day, every hour of every day, work at your full capacity? Do you always earn exactly what you are paid?

Employment Awareness

Setpember Disability Employment Data

Six By ’15 - October 3, 2014

October is National Disability Employment Awareness Month, and related articles are starting to appear. The graphic above is the best thing I have seen so far. It clearly and simply communicates the issue we are dealing with … a huge employment gap for people with disabilities in the United States.

Why the gap? That's a much bigger question, with many answers. But it helps to know the size and shape of the problem before trying to understand and solve it.

By the way, the “Six By ’15” coalition looks pretty interesting. It’s the first I have seen of it, but I like the list of sponsors and endorsements, and the six goals all seem pretty well chosen.

(Graphic from the University of New Hampshire Institute on Disability).

Ending Sheltered Workshops: It Can Work

What Happens When Sheltered Workshops Close?

Halle Stockton, Publicsource / Disability Scoop - September 30, 2014

This is a tremendously encoraging article on how Vermont transitioned from sheltered workshops (and closing them), to community employment, while raising the rate of employment for people with developmental disabilities. Cheers to my neighboring state across the lake!

As with all reforms, the keys to success are good followthrough and reforming for the right reasons. One reason why significant numbers of people still oppose phasing out sheltered workshops is that they have seen poor followthrough on disability policy before, and they don’t trust the legislators and bureaucrats who actually have to carry out disability policy reforms.

For one thing, state Developmental Disability service systems have spotty track records, sometimes championing progressive change, but just as often presiding over outdated, neglectful, even barbaric programs and institutions.

Meanwhile even some of the best reforms end up looking a lot like plain old budget cuts. In fact, disability advocates often “sell” progressive change to lawmakers by telling them the changes will save taxpayer’s money. And it’s true! However, many families fought very hard for what little they get, and they view with suspicion anything that looks like economizing.

Finally, similar reforms of other systems show mixed results. Special Education still splits meagre resources between self-contained and inclusive classrooms, and it often seems like schools only embrace inclusion when it suits their need to save money. The widespread closure of mental institutions in the 1980s is a horror story social work professors tell their students … about how the Reagan Administration capitalized on desires for a more humane, liberating mental health system, by shutting places down and then forgetting to reinvest the money saved into community services.

Well-meaning advocates have a noble idea, politicians and policy wonks get ahold if it, ram it through, and vulnerable people suffer. That’s the story I hear starting to be told about the move away from sheltered workshops. It is a potent story that has got to be countered with facts, and with a genuinely careful implementation as seems to have been done in Vermont.

Change is scary, but so is the status quo.

Disability, Benefits, & Employment

Modernize Disability Benefits So People With Disabilities Can Work

Jennifer Lazlo Mizrahi, Huffington Post - September 26, 2014

This is a pretty good round-up of the major problems with Social Security’s disability benefit programs … SSDI and SSI … most of which relate to two basic ideas:

1. Disability means an inability to work, and

2. The ability to work is an either-or proposition.

Neither of these concepts are valid today, if they ever were.

Physical or mental disabilities often have an impact on employment, but people with any kind of disability can work for pay, given the right adaptations and opportunity. At the same time, any kind of disability can, at times, make regular work difficult or impossible, even if only temporarily. Then there is that gray area many disabled people find themselves in … able to work for awhile, at something less than full time, and not enough to earn a complete living.

Reforms like the ABLE Act are good ideas, but they don’t quite get at the root of the problem. Two thoughts occur to me:

1. Sever the connection between disability benefits and employment entirely. Make benefits eligibility dependent solely on actual disabilities and individuals’ disability-related needs, regardless of their employment status.

2. Increase subsidies to employers who hire people with disabilities.

I’m not sure these are politically feasible or even good ideas, but they are worth discussing because they might lead to a better understanding of the real relationships between disability, benefits, and employment.

Disability And The Military

Rep. Mark Takano Introduces Legislation to Let Deaf and Hard of Hearing Serve in the Air Force

Press Release - July 30, 2014

Via @SFdirewolf.

I read an article last year about a young Israeli man with Cerebral Palsy who, though his own self-advocacy, was permitted to serve as an officer in the Israeli Defense Forces. In Israel, military service is compulsory for all but a few very specific groups, including people with significant disabilities. This young man may or may not have started a trend towards broader acceptance of disabled people into the Israeli military, but he certainly demonstrated what should be obvious … that in the modern military, there are plenty of duties that don’t require physical fitness, that disabled people are perfectly qualified to do.

That’s one reason why news of this House Bill caught my eye. Another is remembering a few months in my senior year in high school when I got some phone calls from branches of the military asking if I was interested in enlisting and pursuing certain career paths, based on my test scores. I had no desire to serve in the military, but it rankles just a little bit that the joke then was what a “mistake” they made, not realizing I was disabled.

And yet, I’m not sure exactly what the rules are in the U.S. military regarding disability and active service. As I also mentioned this Memorial Day, British fighter pilot Douglas Bader lost both legs before WWII. Initially, he was refused re-enlistment in the Royal Air Force, due to his disability, even though he had worked out adaptive techniques so he could fly again. Later, after start of the war and in the middle of the Blitz, he was allowed to re-enlist and fly as an active combat pilot.

Is there a difference between how the U.S. military regards serving with a disability acquired after passing Basic Training, and pre-existing disability? Can a soldier continue to service in some capacity after the onset of a disability?

If the military allows some service after a disability, how do they decide who can and who must be discharged? How much depends on the nature of the disability and how much on the nature of the work? Do they only allow non-combat work?

Any feedback from people more familiar with military rules and procedures would be greatly appreciated.

The Thing About Sheltered Workshops ...

I’d love to see sheltered workshops banned, phased out, or just plain abandoned. I think they might have been a good idea once, but at this point their weaknesses are plain to see, and they are based on ideas about disability that are no longer valid, if they ever were.

It looks like a renewed version of the federal laws shaping vocational services for people with disabilities is going to be signed soon, and it will include some steps to curb and discourage use of sheltered workshops. It doesn’t ban them, nor does it end the practice of paying below minimum wage. My simple, only moderately informed take is pretty much in line with that of the National Council on Independent Living … that it’s better than nothing.

I also have another thought on sheltered workshop that doesn’t seem to be talked about much. What bothers me most about sheltered workshops is that they are dishonest; they systematically lie to the people they are intended to serve. The tell and / or imply to the people with disabilities who “work” in them that they are “workers” doing a “job”, when in reality, they would be better described as students, clients, or even patients receiving services, or in the worst cases, warehoused and monitored. So, if Congress isn’t ready to ban sheltered workshops yet, I have another idea:

Stop calling what disabled people do in sheltered workshops “jobs”. Call them day programs. Call it work readiness training. Just don’t lie to disabled people and tell them they have a job when it really isn’t one.

If, on the other hand, these organizations want to contend that they are real workplaces … that the disabled people are employees doing jobs, then they should pay them minimum wage or above. The workers should be subject to the same responsibilities and rights that workers have in other non-sheltered jobs. They should be treated like employees, not students, clients, or patients. And if you’re going to do that, why not just ditch the whole “sheltered” part and provide the extra coaching and closer supervision they need individually, in real workplaces. Oh, wait, that’s already being done. It’s called Job Coaching or Supported Employment, and lots of organizations that used to run sheltered workshops gave that up and shifted to Supported Employment. So it can be done.

But again, if we’re not prepared to make that shift, let’s at least be honest about what they are really doing, which, at best, is providing training and structured day activities.

I might have different priorities if I actually worked in a sheltered workshop, but as a disabled person who has met and spoken to a fair number of sheltered workshop “workers”, what bothers me most is implication that sheltered workshop workers are too “simple” to know the difference, or mind. News flash, most of them know what they’re doing isn’t normal, and they do mind.

Thought Balloons

Wouldn’t it be great if people in real life had thought balloons you could see while talking to them, especially in tense chess game situations like job interviews? I wonder what we disabled people would read in job interviews if we has such powers, so we could see all that goes unsaid?

"You might be “adequate” for the job, but you can’t really be the best, can you?"

“The last thing I needs is to hire another 'high maintenance' employee."

"I feel awkward and anxious around you."

“If I hire you, sooner or later, I'll say or do something wrong that will get me in trouble."

"You say you can do the job but I don’t think you really know what you’re talking about."

"There’s something strange, something a bit 'off' about you that I just can’t place, and I don’t know how to ask you about it.”

"How can you possibly do this job with the disability you have?”

The next question is, what would employers read in our thought balloons?

Best Article On Disability By A Parent

For Hire: Dedicated Young Man With Down Syndrome ... A Father Reflects On His Son’s Search For Employment

Michael Bérubé, Al Jazeera America - May 25, 2014

(Via the Autistic Self Advocacy Network Tumblr blog).

This is the best first-person article on disability by a parent of a disabled child I have ever read. It is very personal and anecdotal, but also connects one young man’s experiences with larger policy issues. Mr. Bérubé keeps the article focused on his son, Jamie, while also expressing how he, Jamie's father feels.

The picture he paints isn’t entirely gloomy. Age 21 isn’t quite the “cliff” it is sometimes said to be for disabled kids. There are systems in place with decent and improving philosophies behind them. Yet, so many disabilities … especially it seems intellectual disabilities … seem still to still baffle us, probably unnecessarily.

This is personal journalism at its best.

Job Discrimination: Still Looking For Feedback

I haven’t had any responses yet to my questions about employment discrimination. There are three reasons I am asking for feedback on this:

1. I am helping my local Center for Independent Living develop some classes for disabled people looking for work, and one of the topics we want to deal with is disability-based employment discrimination.

2. I am looking for work myself, and in my previous work experience, disability was actually a plus, not a problem. So I am personally curious about what real-life disability discrimination looks like in the job-seeking arena.

3. I think we in the disability community mention job discrimination a lot, often without being specific about it. It is annoying when non-disabled people say, “But what about the ADA? Isn’t it against the law for employers to discriminate?” It’s annoying because it sounds naive, but the question remains, how and why does disability discrimination still operate, and is there any practical, immediate way to combat it?

So please, dive in! Any comments on these and related questions would be helpful.

Questions About Employment Discrimination

I’m working on grant writing today, so how about another question for feedback?

How would you describe the most common ways that disability discrimination hinders employment for disabled people? Do employers simply want to avoid perceived hassles? Are they worried about specific perceived problems with disabled employees? Do disabled applicants and employees sabotage ourselves without realizing it? Do laws like the Americans with Disabilities Act help?

Please be as specific as you can. It’s easy to cite “discrimination”, but how, specifically, does it play out in real-life? Do you have any specific ideas on how to make the employment situation better for disabled people?

Later this week I will collect comments and write a more complete post on employment discrimination.

Justice Department Agreement On Sheltered Workshops

Rhode Island Settles Case on Jobs for the Disabled

Dan Barry, The New York Times - April 8, 2014

"The Justice Department on Tuesday announced a “landmark” agreement with the State of Rhode Island to free people with developmental disabilities from a decades-old system that kept them unjustly segregated in sheltered workshops and adult day programs, removed from the competitive workplace and the broader community."

"The settlement, which addresses the civil rights of about 3,250 Rhode Island residents, also provides a road map to compliance for the 49 other states, federal officials said. They estimated that across the country, 450,000 people with intellectual and developmental disabilities while away their days in essentially cloistered environments."

This is a great followup to the Obama Administration's about-face on the minimum wage increase. I hoped then that it would lead to a broader official assault on the whole practice of paying below minimum wage to certain disabled workers in sheltered workshops. Although the Justice Department agreement only applies to Rhode Island, it sets a strong precedent.

1. The fact that it is a Justice Department agreement in a civil rights case clearly indicates that this is a civil rights issue, not just a pragmatic policy issue. There are good policy and economic reasons to end the practice, but since change will have to be disruptive, putting it on civil rights grounds may make the process move faster.

2. The agreement applies to a whole state. That is important because states have the power to shape policies and practices for all the agencies they fund. Congress could repeal the laws that allow sheltered workshops and sub-minimum wage, and make the changes instantly for the whole country, but it's not likely to do so anytime soon. State-level change can be just as effective.

3. The agreement includes a sensible roadmap for change that spells out the viable alternatives to sub-minimum wage and sheltered, segregated employment. It starts a process. Watching the Rhode Island model play out will help other states refine the process so that the practices end with as little disruption as possible.

4. The agreement also encompasses self-contained, sheltered "Day Programs" that aren't about employment, which is really great news. This reinforces that segregation is wrong, regardless of the type or "severity" of the disability.

Traditionally, developmentally disabled people have been slotted into one of a continuum of service models, based on some assessment of how "severe" their disabilities are. Mildly disabled people might hope for mainstream jobs in mixed company, possibly with some extra support from a disability agency. Moderate to severely disabled people were presumed to be unable to function in "normal" jobs, and so were placed in sheltered workshops. People "too disabled" to do even sheltered workshop work go to "Day Programs" that traditionally were more like day care for adults.

This agreement basically breaks up these boxes, and requires states and disability agencies to make sure disabled people aren't segregated anymore from mainstream life, and that if they work, that they are paid at least minimum wage.

I was particularly struck by the situation the Justice Department found, where a high school based work preparation program “had become a feeder system” where the kids would graduate or age out, and just move over to a sheltered workshop. This is what happens when a community of teachers, counselors, and disability service providers all reinforce a deep-seated conviction that, “This is the best we can do.” Sometimes, insular systems like this reform from within, as people increasingly realize how out of date their methods are, as well as their assumptions. But, often it takes an outside force like the Justice Department to crack the egg.

Hopefully, this will crack the whole bunch of eggs, and the 49 other states will take the hint and start … or finish reforming their systems.

On a personal note …

For what it’s worth, I clearly remember going to a workshop on Supported Employment as an alternative to Sheltered Workshops back when I first started working at a CIL. That was about 20 years ago. So, these really aren’t new ideas.

Also ...

I think Dan Barry did a great job with this article. He got the language right and all the relevant questions were asked and answered.

The New 7% Hiring Goal

Are You Disabled? Your Boss Needs to Know

Lauren Weber, The Wall Street Journal - March 18, 2014

There is hardly a word in the national press about the new U.S. Labor Department rules going into effect today, requiring companies with federal contracts to aim for 7% of their employees having disabilities, and 8% being veterans. I have seen some stories in random local outlets, but the The Wall Street Journal seems to be the only major news organization taking any time at all to cover this. At first that concerned me, because The Wall Street Journal is fairly conservative and has a pro-business outlook. However, I think that actually helps in this case because while the tone of the article isn’t what I’d call hostile, it does raise some sensible questions. For instance:

- Employers will need to ask all of their employees whether they have a disability, so they can be counted toward the 7% goal. Will that conflict with the Americans with Disabilities Act, which prohibits employers from digging for details on employees disabilities, and protects employees’ right to not disclose disabilities? It seems like it will be fine for employees to ask, in a general way, if employees have a disability, and the employees won’t be obligated to answer. And “answering” seems to amount to nothing more than Yes or No, no details required. Still, it may take quite awhile for everyone to get comfortable with the question itself, and the idea of counting the number of employees with disabilities at all.

- Some employees who actually do have qualifying disabilities might not think of themselves as "disabled", and won't be counted. This is one of those instances when the lack of consensus about what "disability" is, and what terms are preferred, actually could get in the way of a valuable policy.

- 7% sounds like a high goal, but that's only 3-4 people in workplace of 50 employees. The WSJ article speculates that many companies may already be in compliance, and I tend to agree. That's fine, but since the new goal is supposed to increase employment of people with disabilities, maybe the goal is too modest.

Of course even on paper, this is just a goal, not a requirement or quota. From one point of view, this suggests that the new rules are purely symbolic, possibly a futile gesture.

On the other hand, I think this is one of those rare cases when "awareness" is more than just a platitude. If nothing else, the new rules will make both employers and employees a bit more aware of various aspects of disability and employment. Hopefully it will also produce enough data to figure out whether 7% is reasonable employment goal, or if it's too high or too low. Accurate statistics across all qualifying businesses might also help distinguish between those that really are open to workers with disabilities, and those that might try to parlay a few "heartwarming" hires into some kind of Good Samaratin image.

The rules may also give disabled people looking for work a different feeling about their disabilities. At whatever point during the application process they feel comfortable, they can mention their disability as a potential positive, not something to explain away or minimize.

Best Advice For Wheelchair Users Looking For Work

Demonically Disabled gives the best employment advice I have ever seen to a new wheelchair user:

"Ultimately, kill them with kindness and confidence. They won’t expect it. You are brilliant. You are disabled. And you are badass. Make sure they know it."

Read the whole thing. It isn’t long, and there are good specific ideas in there. It is beautiful and brief. I have nothing to add. That is all.