Quality and Equality in Employment Services for Adults with Severe Disabilities

Abstract

This paper responds to Brown et al. (1984), who propose an extended training program involving work without pay in integrated settings for adults with severe intellectual handicaps. While agreeing about the capability of persons with disabilities, the importance of integration, and the failings of typical services, we believe that their extended training proposal represents an unnecessary retreat from values that have guided development of exemplary school and community services for persons with severe handicaps. As an extended outcome of services, the proposed program needlessly sacrifices wages and other employment benefits, distorts the benefits of integration by looking only at the workplace, and tolerates unequal treatment of citizens with severe handicaps. Relying on unpaid work as a strategy for time-limited employment preparation creates the risk of overuse and of perpetual readiness programming, suggesting that professional effort could be better spent in development of supported employment opportunities. Current federally supported employment initiatives provide a framework for combining wages and integration and offer support for local program development.

Employment of Persons with Dual Sensory Impairments: Strategies for Inclusion

“…Bishop and Falvey (1989) similarly argued that volunteerism that leads to change, through enhancing individual autonomy, decision making, and increased opportunities, is an appropriate work option. A volunteerism renaissance has been reported in the American population as a whole (Krantrowitz, 1989), suggesting the emergence of a new role for work performed without monetary compensation, but the role of volunteer work continues to be controversial (see Bellamy et al, 1984).…”

School-Based Vocational Programs and Labor Laws

“…The worker in the extended training option could receive no wages for up to 1 year or longer while he or she learns how to become a productive employee (see Rusch, 1986). In contrast, Bellamy et al (1984) argued that extended unpaid work is unaccept able, implied that it may be illegal, and stated that programs must be implemented in accordance with the rules set forth in the Fair Labor Standards Act.…”

Payment Mechanisms for Community Employment: Realities and Recommendations

“…As an alternative to continued segregation, Brown et al (1984) have recommended establishment of an extended training option, whereby workers with severe disabilities could work for extended periods withRequests for reprints should be sent to David Hagner, Division of Special Education and Rehabilitation, Syracuse University, 805 S. Crouse Avenue, Syracuse, NY 13244-2280. out wages, under carefully specified and monitored conditions. Bellamy et al (1984) have argued against a direct pay waiver and have provided examples of what they believe to be sufficiently integrated work arrange ments allowable under current payment mechanisms: mobile workcrews, enclaves, and benchwork industries. The authors of both articles agree that receiving pay is better than not receiving pay and that integrated work settings are better than segregated work settings.…”