Within the last few months, media outlets are beginning to report that some aspects of the national economic picture are beginning to experience relative improvements in the stock market, major employers beginning to hire, businesses planning capital investments, and general business confidence in the future as slightly more optimistic.

While this economic news is welcomed,  it should be viewed from the stark reality that  government budgets at every municipal level have for years continously cut back on direct services, supports, and funding for people with disabilities. This, in turn, has had a considerable negative impact on neighborhood and community capacity-building efforts to enhance the employment, social inclusion, and self-sufficiency of PwD.

Some recognizable impacts of these cutbacks can be seen through data analysis from sources such as the Bureau of Labor Statistics   (BLS) monthly reports.  At the end of April 2011,the BLN documented the TOTAL (part/full time) reported employment rate for young adults with disabilities ages 16-19 at 12.1 % (11.6% March 2011) compared to 24.9 % (24.7% March 2011) for same-aged youth with no disabilities. Young adults with disabilities ages 20-24 had an employment rate of 29.4%  (31.4 % for March 2011). The employment rate for young adults ages 20-24 with no disabilities was 61.3 percent for April 2011 (61.0% for March 2011). 

As appalling as these statisitcs seem, Senator Tom Harkin’s (D-IA) recent keynote address at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Corporate Disability Employment Summit, sounded additional alarms on continuing disturbing trends:

• More than one out of three of all American adults who left the workforce have disabilities
• More than two thirds of Americans with disabilities are without a job
• Adults with disabilities are leaving the labor force during this recession at more than 10 times the rate of adults without disabilities 
•  Between March 2009 and March 2010, the  size of the workforce with disabilities shrank by 395,000

Harkin then correctly called on the CEOs and business owners in the audience to join him in his goal of increasing the number of disabled Americans in the workforce from 4.9 million today to 6 million in 2015.

What are the most likely conditions of qualified applicants with disabilities that CEOs and business owners will draw upon to achieve this goal?

Based upon  the recently released  national 2010 Disability Statistics Compendium (Rehabilitation Research and Training Center on Disability Statistics and Demographics), the types of disabilites for students ages 6-17 recognized/served through special education programs found that more than 4 out of 10 have LD and 1 out of 20 are served under the autism category (approximately 50% of all special education students).

So, (as he takes a deep breath) given that the majority of school-aged students with disabilities are considered to have learning disabilities or related disorders, one could assume that legislative, business, and community efforts would be aligning to propose/provide comprehensive programming for successful transition of the largest, single category of condition recognized as a significant barrier to educational attainment, employment paying a living wage,  community participation, and civic engagement, right? …not so fast, grasshopper!

Research on pending or approved legislation related to PwD, indicates a lack of inclusive vision whereby elected bodies are trying to split the “disability baby”, i.e. choosing to include/exclude entire categories of disabling conditions based on a set of standards which focuses on what these legislative bodies have determined are the “most significant disabilities.” Illustrating this point at the federal level, are  the well-intended Congressional Bills HR 602, HR 603, and HR 604 collectively called the “Transition toward Excellence, Achievement, and Mobility through Empowerment Act of 2011″ or the “TEAM-Empowerment Act of 2011.”

The Good to Great Aspects

There is much to like, respect, and admire about the TEAM-Empowerment Act of 2011 such  as it:

• Requires local educational agencies (LEAs) to provide a disabled child and his or her parents, when the child’s secondary education ends, with a comprehensive record of the child’s work experiences and skills that would be relevant to prospective employers, post-secondary education programs, career placement services, and mentors.
• Amends the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act of 2000 to provide assistance to States for development and implementation of an individual transition plan for each individual with a developmental disability in the State who is making the transition from the secondary school system into adulthood.
• Awards competitive grants to states for the development and implementation of an individual transition plan (ITP) for each individual with a developmental disability in the state who is transitioning from secondary school into adulthood.
• Requires ITPs to assist the developmentally disabled achieve integrated employment, postsecondary education, independent living, and community engagement.
• Requires each grantee to establish a transition planning and services (TPS) administrative unit within its intellectual and developmental disabilities agency to develop, and assist in the implementation of, ITPs.
• Requires that unit to offer strategies, training, and information to the developmentally disabled and their families that facilitates their participation in the transition process.
• Provides services until the age of 26.
• Seeks to reduce numbers of people receiving SSI/SSDI by providing them with opportunities to earn a living wage and pay into the system. 

Bill authors also put considerable “teeth” into the policy descriptions, overall purposes, and expected outcome metrics including:

(1) Creating a systemic focus on cultivating the high expectations for youth with significant disabilities to transition successfully into adulthood and be able to work in integrated employment, earn a liveable wage, and live independently in integrated communities through public policies that advance equality of opportunity, informed choice, employment first principles, and economic self-sufficiency.

(2) Promoting innovative strategies to foster academic, professional, and social inclusion, and the solidification of long-term services and supports required to ensure full integration into the society (including school, work, family, social engagement, interpersonal relationships, and community living).

(3) Better defining and coordinating of specific services related to the effective transition of youth with significant disabilities.

(4) Eliminating barriers and provide incentives for multiple stakeholders to collaborate and improve transition services for youth with significant disabilities.

(5) Creating a holistic system across multiple Federal, State, and local public entities promoting employment first strategies and the successful transition of youth with significant disabilities into adulthood through strengthened coordination among and between public entities, including the alignment of planning processes, implementation systems, and funding streams.

(6) Aligning, enhancing, and improving performance and accountability measures among public entities involved in the transition of youth with significant disabilities into adulthood.

(7) Provideing  financial incentives to States to align their planning processes across and within public entities involved in transitioning, strengthen and coordinate regulations to ensure cross-agency emphasis on the promotion of employment first policies and practices, and rebalance resources toward an employment first paradigm to focus on the preferred outcomes of advancing integrated employment, economic self-sufficiency, independent living, and community participation for youth and adults with significant disabilities.

(8) Ensuring proper level of professional development training of publicly financed service delivery professionals involved in the transition of youth with significant disabilities into adulthood on evidence-based promising practices.

The Not-So-Good to Horrible Unintended Consequences Aspects:

• These Bills entail an extensive amending of current disability-related legislation including the IDEA, Rehabilitation Act, and  Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act of 2000.
• Excludes most of the recognized major disabling conditions from eligibility and participation.
• Drives most of the human, financial, research, and legislative resources in one overly-limited direction without calculating the cost to the rest of the disability community.
• Standards for inter-governmental and community-based partnerships are not congurent with current practice.
• Counts on Top-down approach and does not take into consideration that local agencies and government municipalities have cut or eliminated staff/programs counted on to deliver services.
• Expectations for FT competitive employment with career potential as the only acceptable outcome excludes many agencies serving individuals with extensive accommodation needs in supportive or sheltered workshops.
• Block grants to states to use for this purpose does not prohibit states from transferring funds for other needs.

What over 30 years of adult transition research and evidence-based best practices has demonstrated is in order to create  a  successful integrated mechanism (as outlined in HR 602-604), we must systemically provide ALL students with disabilities the basic functional tools and techniques any adult needs to navigate successfuly in life to the fullest extent of their capabilities.

As a nation dedicated to full employment and participation of its citizens, the last thing  needed is a system that segregates or pits advocacy organizations, people with disabilities and agencies against each other. We should not seek, and must not accept programmatic language, eligibility, or services that excludes the majority of people with disabilties which are deemed significant enough to be considered disabled in school or at work, but not disabled enough to qualify for vital life skill, postsecondary education & employment training resources that will help them to achieve a higher quality of life through meaningful contributions in our local communities.

About Life Development Institute

LDI offers internationally recognized and fully-accredited high school, college and career-focused programming in a community-based apartment setting for young adults with LD, Asperger's Syndrome, ADHD, NLD and similar conditions.

2 Comments for this entry

Kim

May 22nd, 2011 on 4:12 am

I”m trying to find help for my son. He has 2 disabilities. I don’t know where to turn can someone please help me??

Reply

Life Development Institute
May 23rd, 2011 on 7:13 pm
Good morning:
Please email me directly at: rcrawford@life-development-inst.org. When you are able to tell me additional details such as how old he is, formal diagnosis, what he wants, what you want for him, etc., I can hopefully point you in a direction that may help.
Thanks so much for reading and asking!
Rob
Reply