Author: John Wayne Barker

On April 15, 2014, Twin Cities Public Television debuted “Independence to Inclusion” a show produced with the support of the MN Governor’s Council on Developmental Disabilities. I first watched it in March because a number of the people in the show are served at Merrick. At the time I noted some remarks that challenged my perspective of how and why our human service system operates. I watched it again after the Independence Day holiday and encourage others to do the same by clicking on the following link – http://bit.ly/1tk5dDW. It is 27 minutes that will enable you to examine your own beliefs on society’s role in disability services.

I agree with those in the show who state that humans are not born with a predisposition to discriminate against others because of the color of their skin, religion, disability, or any other notable characteristic difference. It also seems most everyone agrees that discrimination is a behavior that we learn from verbal and non-verbal experiences in our everyday lives. I also agree that disability, “an impairment that substantially limits typical life activities”, is most often a naturally occurring event in human reproduction and is neither a choice nor an illness to be cured. Finally, as one of the people in the show stated – “you cannot legislate morality and attitudes.” Still, I believe government has a role to ensure every citizen’s freedom from discrimination and to establish protections and legal recourse.

Where I disagree with some in the show, is with the assertion that “the system” is evil and seeks to continue the client’s dependency to protect human service system jobs. Throughout the nation, many people with disabilities are contributing much to the economy, diversity, and enrichment of the communities in which they live. While great strides have been made in supporting the presence of people with disabilities in local communities through employment, the truth is that few of these people have solid, reciprocal connections and support networks. Many are in fact more like visitors to communities rather than true community members. It is my belief that supporting people with disabilities to be a part of their community was never intended to be the role of the “day service system.” Protection rather than connections was the focus.

Based on what we have learned over the last two decades, day service providers need to shift their role and find ways to open doors, build bridges, make introductions and support relationships. In other words, our new role is to create and support opportunities for people with disabilities and other community citizens to come together and share common experiences. There are many ways we can support the inclusion of people into the community, for example:

• Getting to know a person and the talents and gifts they have to offer;

• Encouraging people to maintain their relationships;

• Supporting people to develop new relationships;

• Assisting people to learn how to do things they need or want to know;

• Getting people to participate in community activities based on their interests and cultural connections;

• Providing assistance and support to be healthy and safe; and

• Ensuring back-up to a person when asked.

However, we need to constantly remind ourselves that our role is to support the inclusion of people into their community, not to be their community. People with disabilities, their families, friends, and allies are teaching us much about the importance and value of listening to and being guided by people who experience the “services” or supports, since they are in the best position to know how it works and feels for them. We are learning that the needs of people with disabilities have little to do with their disability and much to do with where they live, work, and play. Supports need to take into consideration the cultural/ethnic background of people as well as their preferences. As professionals in the service system, we can and should make it a focus of our programs to connect the people we serve to their communities.

TELL THE WHOLE STORY

I am not an economist, labor expert, or politician so I am NOT going to weigh-in on the merits or concerns with raising the Minnesota minimum wage for large employers to $9.50 an hour. I am pleased to report that all of our employees are paid more than $9.50 an hour and the average wage for direct care staff is above $14 an hour. As a nonprofit we have spent considerable time developing a compensation plan, participating in salary surveys every two years, and evaluating data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. We understand that a basic quality of life in Minnesota requires an income above the minimum wage and have used the information found on the Jobs Now Coalition website (http://www.jobsnowcoalition.org/) in our compensation plan.

In an about face, the Obama administration has now decided that the federal minimum wage of $10.10 an hour DOES apply to those workers with disabilities employed under service or concession contracts with the government. As Michelle Diament of DisabilityScoop (http://www.disabilityscoop.com/2014/02/12/under-order-pay-hike/19102/), reports. “We applaud the administration for hearing the voices of the disability community and including disabled workers in the new minimum wage protections for contractors,” said Ari Ne’eman, president of the Autistic Self Advocacy Network, one of 25 groups that signed a letter from the Collaboration to Promote Self Determination urging the White House to include workers with disabilities. To be clear these zealots are NOT part of our disability community and their intent is very clear in the following quote, “We hope to work with them going forward to convince Congress to repeal Section 14(c) for all disabled workers,” Ne’eman said. “Equal rights should apply to everyone — President Obama and (Secretary of Labor Tom Perez) helped us take a significant step forward towards realizing that vision today.” Unfortunately, Ne’eman chooses to further inflame the discussion by suggesting it is an “equal rights” issue when it is truly an economic issue.

I’ve written about commensurate wage on five separate occasions (Bytes 1, 4, 14, 18, & 19) and won’t repeat myself other than to provide the following brief description of the commensurate wage certificate that is permitted by the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) to pay people with disabilities a wage based on their individual productivity. To be factual, providers are NOT paying sub-minimum wages to anyone and opponents choose to use this term because it sounds more negative. Providers with an FLSA 14(c) commensurate wage certificate are paying special minimum wages that are rigorously monitored, subject to renewal procedures, and enforced by the DOL. Calculating a special minimum wage requires the provider to establish the local market wage, not the minimum wage, and the output of a worker who is non-disabled to determine the “unit rate” for the work to be completed. The provider must then track the number of units the worker who is disabled produces and multiple this by the rate to determine each individual’s earnings. Everyday workers who are disabled are paid more than the minimum wage because they produce units at a rate exceeding the standard. And what the zealots don’t tell you is that any increase in the minimum wage will likely increase all prevailing wages resulting in a commensurate increase to workers with disabilities. Instead they select the quotes that best support their rhetoric to repeal the commensurate wage regulations.

What they also don’t tell anyone is the devastating impact getting rid of commensurate wage practices will have on those with disabilities that have limited work options. The reality is the “market” is not going to pay the same wage for workers with disabilities to produce less than workers without disabilities; and if the commensurate wage regulations are repealed people with disabilities are going to have an equal right to sit at home and not earning any wage. As a provider we are only able to secure contracts with businesses that offer meaningful work to clients because the commensurate wage certificate permits us to offer labor costs that match the market. To expect businesses to pay more than “market value” for a unit is asking the private sector to subsidize the human service system and this added cost would have to be passed onto the consumer inflating the cost of living and essentially become a hidden tax. Finally, let’s talk about choices for workers who are disabled and their families. No one is required to be served by a provider with a commensurate wage certificate. If a person with a disability does not want to be paid a special minimum wage they are free to find a job on their own for a wage they find acceptable.

The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pension (HELP) Committee passed the Workforce Reinvestment Act (WIA) reauthorization amendment on 7/31/2013 with bipartisan support of 18-3 that updates the commensurate wage regulation. It is time to say enough with the half-truths and distracting rhetoric and send a note to Senators Franken and Klobuchar asking them to ignore these false prophets and support the WIA reauthorization amendment as passed by the HELP committee. The people we serve have been certified as disabled, by law are vulnerable adults, rely on transportation services, require 24-hour support and supervision, and cannot function independently in a business setting or they wouldn’t be in our program. To demand they be placed in a full-time job making at least minimum wage with benefits and only natural supports from the employer is bureaucratic VAPOR (Very Appealing Promises Obfuscating Reality) that is exacerbated by the threat to now eliminate their choice to make meaningful wages through a commensurate wage program.

The zealots, wannabe speakers, and bureaucratic theorists are acting as false prophets in attacking our most important tool in providing meaningful work to the clients in our program. We need to identify these 25 “groups”, cancel our memberships, and publicly criticize their misguided actions. There is no need to destroy an option that permits providers and businesses to offer meaningful work at a fair wage to millions of our citizens with disabilities. If you don’t get engaged who will? Send your letter asking for support of the WIA reauthorization amendment to:

Senator Amy Klobuchar
1200 Washington Avenue South, Room 250
Minneapolis, MN 55415

Senator Al Franken
60 East Plato Boulevard
St. Paul, MN 55107

On November 14, GiveMN will host its fifth Give to The Max Day (GTMD) event. Merrick, Inc., will again participate with a goal of highlighting and funding our partnership with Dodge Nature Center, another local nonprofit. Before giving you all the details on our 2013 GTMD plans, I want to step back and take a bigger look at the nonprofit sector in Minnesota. Using information from the “2013 Minnesota Nonprofit Economy Update” provided by the Minnesota Council of Nonprofits, I found the following results to be most interesting:

• In 2012, there were fewer than 3,600 nonprofit employers in the state, which is slightly down from previous years.

• Nonprofits employed 304,236 people in 2012 and, primarily due to adding locations, experienced a growth of 9% since 2007 whereas the for-profit sector had a 3% loss of employment during the same period.

• Of the 2,644,909 employees counted in this report, 75% were in for-profits, 14% in government, and 11% in nonprofits.

• After removing hospitals (33% of nonprofit employees) and higher education (5% of nonprofit employees) from the total count, weekly nonprofit wages trailed the government sector by 5% and the for-profit sector by 11%. Average weekly wages in the nonprofit sector are highest in the healthcare industry and the lowest for vocational rehabilitation, childcare providers, and civic organizations.

Another report from the Minnesota Council of Nonprofits is their “Nonprofit Current Conditions Report”. It is based on a survey sent to 2,000 nonprofits that was completed by 436 organizations throughout Minnesota and offers a real-time analysis of changes that nonprofits have experienced in 2010. Some of the more interesting changes I noted include:

• Seventy-four percent of nonprofits reported an increase in service demands compared to 42% and 60% in 2008 and 2009 respectively.

• More than 7 out of 10 nonprofits reported they were able to increases services to meet demand, up slightly from 2009.

• Demand for mental health services had the highest spike with an increase of 92% from 2009.

• The percent of nonprofits reporting a decline in total revenue in 2008, 2009, and 2010 was 55%, 61% and 37% respectively.

• In out-state, 62% of nonprofits in South Central/Southwest and 50% of nonprofits in Southeast Minnesota reported a decline in total revenue whereas only 29% of nonprofits in Central and Northern Minnesota reported a decline in total revenue.

• In general, nonprofits have access to three main sources of revenue: individual contributions; earned income, and grants from private foundations and corporate giving programs. Coming out of the recession, in 2010 only 31% of nonprofits reported an increase in individual contributions and 26% reported an increase in foundations and corporate giving. It appears that giving from private foundations and corporate programs continues to decline at a higher percentage than individual contributions.

There are two points I want the reader to take away from this editorial.

1. Nonprofits are a vital economic sector providing at least 11% of all employment in Minnesota; and

2. Giving from private foundations and corporate programs is going down so the need for contributions from individual supporters is critical to sustaining the good works of the state’s nonprofits.

This is where your support can make a difference by participating in our GTMD campaign. The focus this year is on our partnership with fellow nonprofit Dodge Nature Center (DNC) that employs a crew from Merrick. Referred to as the “A Team”, this crew has formed genuine relationships with DNC staff and demonstrates to visitors, many of whom are schoolchildren, that they have “real jobs” and are contributing members of society. Please take a moment to read more about the partnership and, as an individual, help us activate our two generous matching grants from Kowalski’s Markets and Wolf Motors for this year’s GTMD by visiting: www.razoo.com/story/Merrickinc

EXPECTING MORE

The 2013 Legislative Session began on Tuesday, January 8. It is the first year of the biennium which means the primary focus will be setting the biennial budget. The November election brought big changes in Minnesota state government. For the first time in 22 years, the Senate, House, and Governor’s office will all be controlled by the DFL. The election also brought 65 newly elected members of which nineteen have previously served in the legislature. The DFL has targeted balancing the budget, jobs creation, tax reform, and education as their top priorities. In the area of health care – health reform and adopting legislation to implement the health insurance exchange will be at the top of the list.

To better understand the legislative issues from the disability community perspective I reviewed the websites for The Arc of MN, Association of MN Counties, Association for Residential Resources in MN, Care Providers of MN, MN Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities, MN Council of Nonprofits; and the MN Day Activity Center Association. Some common themes that emerged include:

• Support a balanced approach to the 2014-2015 budget;
• Enact a Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) also known as a rate increase;
• Fund the health insurance exchange requirements and other Affordable Care Act mandates;
• Monitor Medicaid Reform initiatives coming from the Department of Human Services;
• Modernize and strengthen Minnesota’s election system while increasing access to voting;
• Ensure rate frameworks preserve the ability of organizations to provide critical disability services; and
• Promote funding strategies that assure people with disabilities live at the maximum level of independence.

The important issues that Merrick will be tracking this session include the following:

1. Encourage stakeholders to: (i) have the definition of DT&H services updated to reflect current practices and deemed an “essential service” (thereby mandated for payment during a government shutdown); and (ii) reestablish rules prohibiting any licensed provider from having 24-hour control of a vulnerable adult (sunshine rule) as part of finalizing the new licensing rule 245D.

2. Support MnDACA’s efforts to: (i) work with DHS on the final values for the new rate frameworks and implementation plan; (ii) repeal the 1.67% rate cut scheduled for 7/1/13 – 12/31/13 because CMS did not approve the state’s early implementation of the new nursing facility level of care (NFLOC) criteria; and (iii) eliminate the $2.55 “family out-of-pocket” fee being applied to MA providers.

3. Revise MS 174.30 (Subd 1)(c) to exclude vendors from STS regulations that exclusively provides transportation services to individuals enrolled in licensed day programs, including adult day care, family adult day care, day treatment and habilitation, prevocational services, and structured day services; and transports 15 or fewer persons, including passengers and the driver.

4. Oppose any legislation that does not affirm the service recipient’s choice as primary and/or restricts voting rights for citizens with a disability.

With the change in party control there has been a complete changeover in leadership. The Senate DFL has elected Senator Tom Bakk as the Majority Leader and he has served previously as the Minority Leader. Senator David Hann was elected as the Minority Leader, previously served as the Health and Human Services Finance chair, and is a friend to the disability community. Senator Tony Lourey will chair the Health and Human Services Finance Committee and Senator Kathy Sheran will chair the policy committee. Both are familiar with disability issues. In the House, Representative Paul Thissen was elected as Speaker and previously chaired the Health Policy committee. Representative Erin Murphy was elected Majority Leader and has served on the Health and Human Services Committee. Finally, the House Republicans have elected Representative Kurt Daudt as the Minority Leader and this is only his second term. Representative Tom Huntley will chair the House Health and Human Services Finance Committee and Representative Tina Liebling will chair the Health Policy Committee.

The November forecast projected another deficit of $1.1 billion for the coming biennium of FY2014-15. However, the current biennium ended with a positive balance of $1.3 billion which under current law was used to buy back the school payment shift. The DFL leadership and Governor Dayton are calling for a balanced approach in dealing with the deficit, meaning both additional revenue and budget cuts. The Governor has said that he will push his proposal to tax the top 2% of income earners. The Legislature has not totally embraced that proposal and has indicated an interest in tax reform that might close loopholes and/or expand the sales tax to cover more items, (i.e. clothing). The talk of additional revenue has triggered a lot of “pent up” demand for increased spending so DFL legislators are trying to lower expectations. That “pent up” demand is being felt by disability providers as rates have been cut to balance the budget. In fact, there has not been a COLA (cost of living adjustment) since 2008 and many services have had rates cut since then to balance the budget.

As evidenced by the recent election, citizens have grown weary of partisan dogma intending to restrict personal choice and political posturing on issues important to the wellbeing of our communities. It’s clear that our political and civic leaders are failing us – and it is our fault. As Sean Kershaw, Executive Director of the Citizens League, states in his recent Minnpost article – “I’m also tired of the pity-card being played by people like me who know better: who have enough time and energy and resources around them to do something differently; who recognize the silliness of whining and civic victimhood; and who realize that our leadership is a reflection of all of us and of a civic culture that has become too passive and a political culture that has become too toxic”. He goes on to discuss their new Quantum Civics program that sounds very intriguing and something to consider. Still it comes down to every citizen expecting that our civic and political leaders have a broader vision of what is good for our communities and the courage to find innovative strategies to confront the challenges we face. We have enough money, compassion, and intelligence to make Minnesota a better place for its citizens and we need to hold legislators in the 2013 session accountable for making progress to that end.

RESPONSE TO REAL JOBS

Jon Alexander is a respected colleague who sometimes challenges my messages. He is also the CEO of Kaposia, a supported employment and day training and habilitation provider, a co-manager of the Minnesota Employment Policy Initiative (MEPI) project, and a founding member of the MN Employment First Coalition. In the interest of full discussions leading to better outcomes, I invited him to share his thoughts on competitive employment through the Bark’s Bytes channel.

From Jon Alexander:

In 2009 and 2010, the MEPI conducted a series of listening sessions across disability groups to gather information focusing on the question, “What will it take to double the competitive employment of people with disabilities?” Over 200 individuals with disabilities, professionals, family members, and advocates participated. A series of policy briefs related to employment for people with intellectual or developmental disabilities, autism, physical disabilities, brain injuries, mental illness, deaf-blindness, or hearing loss, as well as youth in transition were presented.These policies briefs were then summarized in a final report. In the reports, the term “real jobs” was used in only one recommendation.

This recommendation pertained to students still attending school and is included below. Participants in the listening sessions used “real jobs for real pay” to clarify that they were recommending jobs similar to those secured by students without disabilities, not the types of “work experiences” available to students with disabilities as part of their school program. “Work experiences” were viewed as being developed by school personnel with the job belonging to the school program, not the individual. Listening session participants felt it was important for students with disabilities to have their own job prior to graduation to better inform their choice of employment upon leaving school.

Recommendation from one of the policy briefs: Ensure students with disabilities have real jobs for real pay while they are still attending school. There is no substitute for having a real job. Research on transition has documented that a positive correlation exists between the number of paid jobs held by youth with disabilities and their future competitive employment outcomes. A job is a powerful learning experience for a young person. It is the best way to learn about work and to start building a resume for future jobs. Students with more significant disabilities often have “work experiences” which are often unpaid, artificially created experiences that take place within the school setting or in groups in the community, rather than having real jobs while they are in school like other teenagers. While there is value in work experiences, they provide a limited opportunity for learning. There is usually no interview or selection process. Expectations are not the same as working directly for an employer for wages. In many work experiences, students are isolated from the paid workforce at the place of business, preventing them from fully experiencing the social aspects of a job. As a result, they do not learn some of the “soft” skills vital to successful employment or the direct connection and rewards of paid employment and work.

In his blog post titled, A Real Job, JWB connects the term “real jobs” with MEPI’s definition of competitive employment. MEPI does define the term “competitive employment” as “work in fully integrated settings, with or without supports, paid at prevailing wages.” We used this term because defining “employment” alone is a daunting task that is probably impossible given the differences of opinion on the issue as noted in a quote from the beginning of JWB’s post. We chose to emphasize “competitive employment” as it is the most consistently defined term and goal in statute and policy at both the state and federal level. We also typically include self-employment as part of our definition, though the quote used did not include this option.

So what’s my point?

I agree the term “real job” is one which can create at best, confusion and at worst, hard feelings. This term is used by many critics of our system who would like to see people move from low paying jobs where they work on a limited number of tasks and are paid directly by a provider into ones that are more typical of the general population, namely competitive employment. The MEPI reports however did not intend to use the term “real jobs” in the way JWB describes. In fact, the MEPI team worked hard to communicate its findings and recommendations in ways that attracted not repelled potential collaborators to its long range goal—increasing the number of Minnesotans who participate in the community workforce.

If JWB had asked whether or not MEPI established a preference of “competitive employment” to other types of employment, the answer is “yes.” We view employment that focuses on individual skills, offers market rate pay and benefits, encourages higher levels of integration, and offers capacities for employers to supervise and support their employee naturally as a preferred option to traditional practices. But valuing naturally supported competitive employment over center-based employment or other community employment like work crews or enclaves, does not equate to saying those options are not “real.”

Finally, I would like to add that there is a great deal of tension between differing sides in the on-going debate about how to improve the outcomes realized by the individuals who receive services from organizations like Merrick or Kaposia. Both sides need to do a better job of listening and communicating without the use of terms that create more rigidity in our positions. JWB and I met and discussed how we might do this on a personal level in the hopes that we can be role models to our colleagues on both sides of this debate. I’d like to thank him for this opportunity to respond to his latest editorial. ~ Jon Alexander

A REAL JOB

In July 2012 someone in our field was quoted in the local paper saying that the work clients at Merrick do and get paid for is “like an activity with an allowance” and “I don’t consider that work”. This person is also a constant voice within the Minnesota Employment Policy Initiative (MEPI). Visiting the MEPI website (http://www.mn-epi.org/first/index.asp) you can find their January 2012 policy statement that “Employment First is the vision of making integrated competitive employment (with or without supports) the first priority and preferred outcome of Minnesotans with disabilities”. In MEPI’s 2011 report “Policy Brief on Employment of Minnesotans With Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities”, they define competitive employment as “work in fully integrated settings, with or without supports, at prevailing wages.” From these two statements I understand MEPI to assert that a job must be both fully integrated and paid at a prevailing wage to be “real”.

Let’s examine their first assertion that a job must be fully integrated to be “real”. Not only do I struggle with their undefined use of the phrase “fully integrated” (see https://www.merrickinc.org/barks-bytes/247-numbers.html), I am perplexed by the notion that where one works can make a job any more or less real. What of an Internet entrepreneur working from a home office or a professional golfer that earns their money on 18 beautifully landscaped holes? As Jim Chicone said in his 9/20/12 Thoughts on Thursday’s Facebook post “While individuals, groups, and society at-large can place a higher value on some features of a job over other features, a job is a job; it is what it is”.

Their second assertion that to be “real” a job has to be paid at a prevailing wage is even less true than their first assertion. What of an artist that may work months or years on a sculpture only to sell it for a few hundred dollars? Or a real estate agent that works on a full commission? While what one gets paid certainly influences what one can buy, if a person performs an activity for any amount of compensation don’t they have the right to call it a real job?

Consider Luke Haley (http://www.twincities.com/ci_21338651) who takes an art class three times a week and volunteers at Trinity Lutheran Church, Feed My Starving Children, and Good Samaritan Nursing Home. In the article his mom reflects on the unique value he brings to the world when she says “It’s not easy to show that kind of generosity to your fellow humankind, but he does it boldly, and he does it with passion, and he never gets discouraged. He’s been such a teacher for me.” From the article the reader certainly gets the impression that the organizations that Luke interacts with count on him to greet visitors, package food, and deliver the mail – tasks that need to be done. Why does MEPI consider the wage the only factor in valuing the work being done and ignore Luke’s satisfaction and the gratitude of those he serves.

At Merrick we have narrowed our definition of meaningful work as having the following four criteria:
• a preferred task;
• in a setting of choice;
• with dependable hours; and
• for a satisfactory wage.

The beauty of this definition is that every client gets to define each of those four criteria for themselves and proudly call it their real job. It even works for Luke. What the people at MEPI fail to acknowledge is that, while a job can certainly enhance one’s life, it does not define it like choice. If government, providers, and advocates can work together to meet the four criteria above for citizens with disabilities we can stop wasting our energy on irrelevant employment policy and legislation. Finally, for the people at MEPI, what makes your job so “real”? If it is just pay and spending 40 hours in your definition of an integrated workplace – you might be missing the bigger picture and need to have a conversation with Luke.