Author: Megan Kunelli
A Special Friend | Emily’s Story
Published January 19, 2024
Between 2:15 and 2:30 pm each afternoon, the tinkling of piano keys can often be heard echoing through the halls of Merrick’s Willow Lake Boulevard site. The notes do not form a clear melody line, and their sparseness may lead visitors to question whether the tinkling sound was just their imagination. Ask any staff member about it, and they will tell you that it’s Emily. Playing the piano is part of her afternoon routine. A routine that was not always so easy to follow.
When Emily first started at Merrick in the summer of 2023, nothing was routine. Being that Emily is non-verbal, uses limited American Sign Language, and had no prior experience at a day program, it proved a challenge for Emily to learn the daily routine. From where to place her personal belongings to when it was time to use the bathroom, none of it came easily at first. Slowly that all changed, in part, thanks to Emily’s new friend, Brooke.
Direct Support Professional Brooke joined the Willow Lake team around the same time that Emily started at Merrick, and it soon became clear that she and Emily had a special connection. While other DSPs relied exclusively on a hand-over-hand teaching style when supporting Emily, Brooke found that simply pointing to or handing her an object would elicit a response. Under Brooke’s direction, Emily would readily play with various wooden activity boards and would eventually develop an interest in playing the piano so much so that it would become part of her daily routine.
Because of their connection, Brooke learned more about Emily than most and got to know the sweet, energetic person that she was. For instance, though Emily is sensitive to sound and will place her hands over her ears, Brooke discovered that she has a secret affinity for 90s music one day when she played New Kids on the Block and noticed Emily perk up. In addition, while Emily has enjoyed many community outings, Brooke quickly realized that her favorite outings were any that involved shopping, not because she liked to shop, but because she liked to push the shopping cart.
Reflecting on Emily’s first 6 months at Merrick, Brooke can say she has noticed definite improvements. When she first arrived, Emily would not carry her own lunch box or backpack, had a penchant for breaking things, and would anxiously pace the floor. Now, not only does Emily not do any of those things, but she looks forward to coming to Merrick every day. However, the work is far from over.
Going forward, Brooke has many goals in mind for Emily to work on and knows the road ahead will not always be smooth or straight. For example, though Emily works well with Brooke, Brooke cannot always be with her, and Emily needs to learn to work with other staff. In addition, Brooke hopes to increase Emily’s knowledge of American Sign Language and is currently teaching her the word for “bathroom.” Brooke would also like to see Emily participate in large group activities someday such as playing with the parachute.
For Emily, learning the daily routine at Willow Lake did not come easily. But she learned it. It just took time, patience, and a special friend. The same can be said for any one of her new goals. To achieve them will not come easily or quickly. But, with friends like Brooke along for the ride, it is not impossible. And that’s all anyone needs to know to pursue it.
2024 Policies & Procedure Updates
Published January 9, 2024
This is a formal notification of Merrick’s policy and procedure updates that impact service delivery.
- The following language was added to the Admission Policy
- The Company may deny admission based on a person’s criminal history that poses an imminent risk of harm to self or others.
- The Company may offer a trial enrollment for a specified period when the following occurs.
- The Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) cannot identify the person’s specific support needs due to a new environment and needs the assessment period to identify those needs.
- The person’s support needs are not consistent with the company’s assessment upon enrollment and needs the assessment period to come to agreement on those support needs.
- The Program Director(s) or designee will approve all admissions, trial admissions, or denials and document in writing.
- The EUMR (Emergency Use of Manual Restraint Policy) was updated as follows:
- An EUMR may be reported verbally or in writing to an Assistant Program Director, Program Director, or designee. The previous policy only allowed for a written report to an Assistant Program Director or Program Director.
- A completed BIRF (Behavior Intervention Reporting Form) will be sent to each member of the expanded support team upon their request rather than within 24 hours.
- The Program Abuse Prevention Plans have updated demographics.
- The Client Rights added language on #12 which now states:
- Be free from maltreatment including abuse, financial or other exploitation, retaliation, humiliation or neglect by the Company or its employees.
- The Safe Medication Administration Policy was updated due to the company’s transition of nurse consulting to Health Counseling Services.
- A Maltreatment of Minors Policy was added.
The policies referenced above can be viewed in full below. We will mail a hardcopy to you upon request.
Admission Policy
Emergency Use of Manual Restraints Policy
Program Abuse Prevention Plan – 3210 Labore Rd
Program Abuse Prevention Plan – 1239 Willow Lake Blvd
Client Rights
Safe Medication Administration Policy
Maltreatment of Minors Policy
A Parent’s Perspective on Disability Employment
Published November 17, 2023
Amy S.F. Lutz writes (November 8) from both experience and as a disability professional showing that elimination of the 14(c) wage paid to disabled workers is profoundly misguided. Minnesota considered and rejected such a course in its last legislative session, only narrowly avoiding an action spelling widespread unemployment and disenfranchisement for disabled workers like Lutz’ son and my daughter Elizabeth, who has worked at a disabled employment center in St. Paul for over a decade.
Advocates of eliminating the “subminimum wage,” have made two major errors that would have terrible consequences for disabled adults. The policy misapprehends both the basic realities of the labor market and the standards of equity it purports to defend.
Elizabeth’s experience belies descriptions of workplaces like hers as Dickensian dens that segregate disabled people to toil at monotonous work. Far from placing them in an environment in which they are exploited, such centers protect vulnerable adults from the risks and possible abuse they would face in an unfettered job market. Her job allows her to spend full days with talented staff and with her friends and co-workers. She receives a wage based on an established record of her productivity, which is not sufficient to support her, but does not cause her federal disability income to be reduced. Some of her co-workers stay at the center while others go into the community to work at businesses such as local supermarkets, where they are carefully supervised.
Suppose the subminimum wage were ended and an employer at a supermarket faced the choice of hiring someone to stock shelves. One applicant can stock product at twice the rate of another applicant who has cerebral palsy. Both are required to be paid the same minimum wage. Who will get the job? Probably not the disabled worker. Without the subminimum wage allowance, even employers who want to hire the disabled will have a disincentive to do so. Many more such workers will never find jobs at all.
Requiring that all workers, disabled or not, be paid the same wages confuses two types of equity. One kind of equity says people who are similarly situated should be treated the same. The other says that those who are not similarly situated should be treated differently. Those advocating the elimination of subminimum wages confuse the first type of equity with the second. A worker with cerebral palsy is not the same as a worker without it, and they should not be treated as if they are.
No one would deny the right of any worker to seek employment at any wage they might be able to secure, at or above the minimum. But to deny the opportunity to work for less than the minimum wage to those disabled workers who desire and enjoy such employment will mean that many more such workers will be closed out of the marketplace and will remain unemployed and home alone. It may also cause many disabled adult employment centers to shut down, reminiscent of Reagan era efforts to close centers for the mentally ill and leave them to fend for themselves.
These are the realities which advocates of eliminating 14(c) wages refuse to recognize.
Carlisle Ford Runge
Distinguished McKnight Professor of Applied Economics and Law
University of Minnesota
A Man of Many Goals | Mike’s Story
Published November 13, 2023
At one-tenth of a mile long and spacious enough for two wheelchairs to easily pass by each other, Merrick’s hallway is a common thoroughfare for clients. Some use it as an exercise route while others use it to practice using a walker or other mobility device. Few can say for certain that they could navigate the wide hallway blindfolded. Mike is one of those few. Only he does not have to wear a blindfold to prove it.
With only his white cane for assistance, Mike moves about Merrick’s main program site with relative ease leaving a wake of positivity behind him. Every morning, he arrives on the bus and makes his way to his workstation in Utility Services while being sure to greet everyone he comes across with a friendly “How are you doing?” or a congenial “Good morning!” Then, every day at lunch time, Mike heads to the Commons and sits down at the same table to enjoy lunch with the same group of coworkers. He even knows where to dispose of his trash when he’s finished eating! On Wednesdays, Mike will make his way from his workstation to the large Flesher Conference Room on the opposite side of the building for his weekly Self-Advocacy meeting. And he does it all with minimal help from staff.
Merrick DSPs are repeatedly impressed with Mike’s navigational skills, especially those that have known him the longest. Because they know that what seems to come naturally to Mike now, in fact, did not come naturally at all. It required lots of practice, frequent encouragement, and a strong dose of determination on Mike’s part. And through it all, Mike never doubted that he could do it. That’s just not how Mike thinks. For Mike, it was never a matter of whether or not he could do it, it was just a matter of when he would.
When he’s not impressing everyone with his navigational skills, Mike spends most of his workday in Utility Services where he does light assembly and packing jobs. Just as he’s mastered the art of navigation, Mike has mastered every job that has ever come his way: packaging x-ray bags, assembling rivets, or packing airplane headphones back in the 90s, just to name a few. These days, it’s in packing greeting cards where he finds the most reward. Even without the use of his eyes, Mike is one of the fastest card packers at Merrick. His current record is packing 53 jigs, or 636 cards, in a single day, but he believes he can do better. In fact, it’s his goal.
At the end of each day’s shift, Mike uses his accessible cell phone to calculate how many cards he’s packed and how much money he’s earned. He might even check his voice mail to see if he got a message from his sister or send her a quick text. However, just as with navigating the building, his DSPs remember a time when using his phone was a challenge for Mike, a challenge he was not afraid to take on in the slightest. But that’s Mike. He’s never been one to let his disability stop him or get him down. And by the looks of it, that doesn’t seem to be changing anytime soon.
2023 Empower! Lunch Video – A Remarkable Life Enrichment Program
Published October 4, 2023
In 2022, Merrick leased a new space and dedicated it for our life enrichment program. See how in just one year this space turned into a remarkable life enrichment program. Credit: Sharkbait Productions.
2022 Empower! Lunch Video – Expanding Our Services
Published May 12, 2023
Coming out of COVID, Merrick’s waitlist had expanded from 20 to 125 individuals. To meeting the growing needs of the adults with disabilities living in our community, Merrick signed the lease to a new building in September 2022 and is excited to explore this new opportunity.
2021 Empower! Lunch Video – The Importance of DSPs
Published December 20, 2021
Direct Support Professionals or DSPs provide the day-to-day support for the adults with intellectual or developmental disabilities served by Merrick, Inc. They’re coaches, advocates, and supervisors all at once. This is their story.
Bark’s Bytes #43 | Sameness
Published November 9, 2021
In the wee hours of 6/26/21, without following parliamentary procedures and with no public testimony, language creating a taskforce to eliminate the 14(c) special minimum wage option in Minnesota by August 2025 was included in an omnibus bill later signed by the Governor. While the how and why that happened may be a topic for a future editorial, right now 6,000 people with disabilities and their families need to understand the consequence of this legislation.
There has been at least one article in Access Press by Andrea Zuber of Arc of MN celebrating this legislation and at least one television story on the topic. In the October 23rd KARE 11 story, Eva Anderson interviewed Brittanie Wilson, a disability advocate that works for the Minnesota Council on Disability and has applied to be on the taskforce. At the one-minute mark of the story, you hear Anderson mention a new taskforce that “aims to create a plan to make sure all people with disabilities are afforded that same right” (earn at least a minimum wage) followed by a statement from Wilson that it is “time for us to research, take our time, and make a plan that ensures no one is left behind.” I would concur that all people with disabilities should have the right to pursue making at least a minimum wage in the general workforce and time is needed to make sure that 6,000 people making an informed choice to earn a special minimum wage don’t lose that option. In that same story, Jillian Nelson from the Autism Society of MN is quoted as saying, “when we send a message that people with disabilities are worth the same as other employees, it’s going to improve employment outcomes for all people with disabilities, not just those in subminimum wage settings” and she could not be more wrong. In their March 2019 report “Success, Progress, and Struggle in Greater Minnesota,” the Mid-Minnesota Legal Aid (a federally designated protection and advocacy agency for MN) within the Minnesota Disability Law Center (MDLC) emphasized that “the most influential factor in creating this employment success was a high degree of person-centered focus within the DT&H facility.” Yet, they now support eliminating the special minimum wage option as an informed choice in a person-centered plan. How does that square up? Apparently, person-centered planning and informed choice only count to the MDLC when the outcome is the pursuit of employment in the general workforce making at least minimum wage.
In my view, Zuber, Nelson, and the MDLC subscribe to a belief that everyone is “the same” should be treated “the same” and have access to “the same” confusing equity for people in similar circumstances with reasonable accommodations for people in different circumstances. There was a related article in the New York Times entitled – “Helen Keller and the Problem of Inspirational Porn” (10/23/21) written by Leona Godin, an author with a sensory disability. This was followed by a letter-to-the-editor written by Carlisle Ford Runge, a distinguished McKnight Professor of Applied Economics and Law at the University of Minnesota and parent of a client at Merrick, Inc. His thoughts are as follows ~
“Leona Godin’s article is an important contribution. As parents of a disabled daughter (now 34) we have often found that the non-disabled seek the comfort of imagining the virtues of overcoming the many disadvantages the disabled and their caregivers face. Many of these disadvantages are simply physically or mentally impossible to overcome. One of the most pernicious and ultimately destructive ideas in current policy discussions is that all people, including the disabled, should be treated “the same”. This confuses the equity of treating similarly situated individuals in similar ways with the equity of treating differently situated individuals differently. These two forms of equity need to be balanced, so that unreasonable demands and expectations are not placed on the disabled. An example is the campaign in many states to eliminate lower-than-minimum wage allowances for disabled workers in places like supermarkets. The principal effect will be to eliminate opportunities for these individuals by forcing them to compete for the same jobs at the same wages with non-disabled workers. To put it starkly–does anyone really think that a paraplegic person can stock shelves at the same rate as a non-disabled person? Should this prevent the disabled worker from joining the workforce–albeit at an adjusted lower wage? Recognizing the differences of the disabled and making social and economic adjustments, rather than romanticizing their capacity to overcome their disabilities, is more fair, just and realistic.”
Recently the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (CCR) issued its “Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities” 2020 Statutory Enforcement Report. Not only was it long at 349 pages and detailed with 1,320 footnotes; more than 9,700 public comments were submitted (far more than any other issue ever studied by the CCR). That four of the six Commissioners recommended elimination of 14(c) is another example of “Inspirational Porn” (refer to my Bytes editorial entitled “You”). Some of the more relevant dissenting comments included:
- “Generations ago it was more common for people to feel uncomfortable around the severely disabled. They wanted to keep disabled persons out of sight, because … well … disabled persons offended their sense of aesthetics. Today those who want to abolish sheltered workshops and Section 14(c) believe themselves to be a universe apart from those earlier generations. But they are the same. In both cases, it is all a matter of appearances … of what looks good. What is actually in the best interests of the disabled individuals doesn’t enter their minds.”
- “The report and its findings and recommendations take the tone throughout that although some people have not yet caught up with the caravan of progress and realized that competitive integrated employment is the wave of the future, the evidence favors the superiority of this approach. This is wrong. The Commission received far more public comments from parents of individuals who tried working in mainstream environments and did not thrive there. The “story after story” consists almost exclusively of a few people who testified at the Commission’s public hearing, a tiny smattering of parents whose children transitioned away from a sheltered workshop, and some people in Vermont, most of whom never worked in a sheltered workshop. It is not until page 99 that the report divulges that 98% of the public comments submitted to the Commission support the continuation of 14(c).”
- “It is also worth noting that the report found that employees with cognitive disabilities in Virginia and Arizona (which permit the payment of 14(c) wages) had the highest annual mean earnings every year since 2009. Vermont and Maine, which have ended 14(c), overall have the lowest annual mean earnings for employees with cognitive disabilities.”
Any decision regarding the special minimum wage should be based on the Minnesota Olmstead Plan approved by U.S. District Judge Frank. The current vision statement found on the Olmstead Implementation Office website states that “To get our vision, people with disabilities need choices about where to live, learn, and work. They need information about their choices and to understand their right to decide for themselves.” Where in this vision does it say we need to eliminate options or disregard informed choice? Getting back to Judge Frank’s ruling, he made some notable statements that I think support the protection of the special minimum wage option. These include:
- “In approving the revised Olmstead Plan, the Court also takes this opportunity to respond to those who have expressed fears about the plan’s purported harmful effects. The Court has received numerous submissions from concerned community members, parents, and advocates expressing fears that the Olmstead Plan will lead to fewer choices and diminished respect for individuals who choose not to fully integrate into community-based settings. Many individuals with disabilities in this state value living and working alongside other individuals with disabilities in settings such as group homes and sheltered workshops.”
- “The Court emphasizes that the Olmstead decision is not about forcing integration upon individuals who choose otherwise or who would not be appropriately served in community settings.”
- “The goal of placing individuals with disabilities in the most integrated setting must be balanced against what is appropriate and desirable for the individual.”
In response to the Levy Amicus Brief included in the ruling, then Commissioner Lucinda E. Jesson wrote a 3-page letter with a number of notable points that included:
- A statement that “…government and service providers begin listening to individuals about what is important to them in creating or maintaining a personally-valued community.”
- The term “productive employment” and not “competitive-integrated employment” was used when referencing the Plan’s vision statement, a term more consistent with individual choice, and “that people with disabilities should receive community-based services when the affected individual does not oppose it; segregated settings will be the preferred choice for some; and the Plan is not about eliminating certain service options or closing specific facilities.”
- Referenced a dispute resolution process for “individuals who believe that they have not received services or supports in accordance with the principles set forth in Olmstead v. L.C.” (page 537 of the dispute resolution process plan). In offering this “meaningful” protection the Commissioner essentially promised no harm to people with disabilities and the Court made a point of urging the State to “…remain vigilant to the public’s fears and concerns. Individual choice must remain a guiding factor in the delivery of community services and supports. The State must continue to assess its goals and priorities to ensure that they align with the goals and priorities of individuals with disabilities.”
Apparently, this balanced perspective on informed choice left DHS when Jesson did.
In 2016 it became a federal requirement that every person earning a special minimum wage go through an annual Career Counseling, Information and Referral (CCIR) session completed by the State Vocational Rehabilitation authority (DEED). The CCIR session includes the 14(c) wage worker, usually a family member, and an independent counselor (representatives from the day program are specifically excluded). In year five (2020 – 2021), DEED reports that 5,716 people earning a special minimum wage completed a CCIR session and 5,154 (90%) did not want a minimum wage job. Despite this fact, we are now on a course to eliminate the special minimum wage option for nearly 6,000 people with disabilities in Minnesota, who did not ask for this, merely for the appearance of “looking good.”
For the record, I believe that people with disabilities should have the right to work in the general workforce, at the same productivity level as their nondisabled coworkers, and be paid the same as their nondisabled coworkers; and that right should not eliminate the option for 6,000 other people with disabilities to earn a special minimum wage. There are many others that believe the same and are working hard to get this legislation repealed, or at the very least revised to make the purpose an objective study of employment services for people with disabilities in Minnesota. There is no harm in keeping the special minimum wage as one of the service options in Minnesota and to say otherwise is pernicious.