by Paul Hippolitus

Introduction:

Recently, the World Institute on Disability (WID) launched its new Center on Economic Growth. The purpose of WID’s Center on Economic Growth (CEG) is to identify, study, research, debate and recommend new strategies on how to overhaul our nation’s policies and practices in order to reverse the negative economic and employment trends facing people with disabilities. In short, the CEG is a think tank dedicated to helping our country generate a new paradigm designed to break the seemingly impenetrable glass ceiling blocking the economic growth of millions of people with disabilities.

On October 28, 2011, the work of the CEG was begun with an initial discussion involving key disability policy and program leaders. The purpose of this report is to outline (for further study, research and debate by the CEG) the key points made during the October 28th discussions.

The Alarming Facts:

Based on Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) numbers, over the last three years, the number of working age people with disabilities who were participating in the labor force has gone down from 5.7 to 4.9 million. For every non-disabled person who left the labor force over the last three years, two disabled people left the labor force.

The overall data published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics show stark disparities facing working-age individuals with disabilities with 79.2 percent outside the labor force altogether, compared to 30.5 percent of those without disabilities.

On a percentage basis, the percent decrease in the labor force for people without disabilities was less than 1/3rd of 1 percent while the percent for people with disabilities in the labor force decreased by 14 percent. During the last three years, people with disabilities have left the labor force at a rate 10 times that of people without disabilities.

Our Response:

The creation of WID’s Center on Economic Growth (CEG) was inspired by a meeting convened last year by Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) to discuss the employment situation facing people with disabilities. That initial meeting was followed-up with a summit co-hosted by WID, Mathematica and NCIL, focusing on disability benefits and their relationship to employment. The conversations resulting during those two meetings convinced WID to launch its new Center on Economic Growth.

October 28, 2011 the CEG held its first formal event to begin its work. The major topics discussed are reported below.

The Spirit of the Center on Economic Growth:

The Disability Movement has historically been about changing paradigms. During the 50’s and 60’s, the predominant paradigm regarding disability was that people with disabilities had to “adjust to their environment.” People with disabilities should look, sound and act as “normal” as possible.

It wasn’t until the paradigm changed during the ‘70’s (the consumer’s movement) when we realized that “society should become accessible to people with disabilities,” not us to society.

Even so, that paradigm shift had little impact on either the economic circumstances or employment outcomes of people with disabilities. The proof of this statement is the dreadful employment trends of the last 20 years of living under the new paradigm of Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990.

When the ADA was passed, people with disabilities were participating in the labor force, either full or part-time, at the rate of 33%. Today it’s 21%.

Something is wrong. Do we need a new paradigm? The discussion has begun.

Key Points Highlighted During the Meeting:

The key points discussed during this meeting fell into four broad categories of concern. They were: 1) beliefs; 2) benefits; 3) education; and 4) employment.

1) Beliefs

Discussions focused on the understandings, expectations and biases regarding the potential of people with disabilities to succeed in employment and economically. Are the beliefs of teachers, employers, key public figures, family members and people with disabilities aligned with success in education and employment? Or, are their beliefs mired in negative attitudes, low expectations and misconceptions? Positive outcomes depend on positive beliefs.

2) Benefits

Disability benefits systems are based on the principle that eligible individuals with disabilities cannot work. This premise is both antediluvian in today’s work place environment as well as the key factor in today’s wide spread economic dependence and poverty among people with disabilities. We need dramatic change in our benefits programs if we are to make any progress.

3) Education

Economic growth and independence for people with disabilities depend on them having marketable skills. If we are to make progress, education programs, including rehabilitation programs, must be up to the task of adequately preparing individuals with disabilities for today’s jobs and careers.

4) Employment

With regard to employment, we need better messaging, supports, models, research, coordination of effort and legal enforcements. Getting a job is a market place transaction. The job applicant must be able to make the sale. The employer must be able to recognize the opportunity. We need to be working with both sides of this equation.

Key Comments included:

“Maybe we should use government disability benefits to pay people to go to work -instead of paying people not to work. This would be similar to what exists for disabled veterans. They get benefits based on disability, not on not working or being unemployable. There is no disincentive for those individuals to go to work. They don't lose their health care. They don't lose anything when they go to work. In fact, some nations have this model, and it works well for them. We need to study what other nations are doing in this regard.”

“There is a structural work place skills gap facing people with disabilities. How do we narrow that gap? Moreover, in this economy, the 21st century global economy, we need to build a program that focuses on the skill sets needed today. Employers today still look at people with disabilities as cost centers and not productivity centers. This view has been in place for a long time and very hard to change.”

“The World Health Organization’s recent declaration on this subject may give us some ideas on the employment of persons with disabilities. They look at it from a clinical standpoint, as a simple concept which is: Do you have a functional ability to do whatever it is that you are trying to undertake? If not, how can we help you? If so, then that's the end of the discussion with regard to workplace definitions.”

“Employment is a basic human need. That’s what we know and what we can learn from our international partners. It’s a human need to be actively engaged in life. That's the paradigm that I am concerned about following and that our policies should be focused upon. Economically, we can't afford anything else. We need all people that can engage in productive work to do so. We can't afford to continue to pay people to be unemployed as they get worse and disengage from society.”

“There are many different employer models that exist in the U.S., like the U.S. Business Leadership Network and others like Kaiser Permanente that would benefit from research to legitimize and elevate work that is being done and to document critical ingredients or effective strategies. So, how will the CEG pursue such efforts?”

“We have some data on both employers and insurance companies, regarding good return to work policies for employees on workers compensation. The question is, 'How do we setup a system that promotes these best practices?'”

“As we pursue this goal, we must consider what the individual can safely do and must refrain from doing during the various intervals of healing. That is the big struggle right now. Plus, we need to examine the research around the question is work good for healing and well being?”

“Today, there is still the idea that we think we just need to tell employers that people with disabilities can work, and they will become employed. That's not enough. There needs to be enforcement. And, of course, there needs to be changes to the potential workers’ benefit programs which incentivize employment. We also need policies which change the business case for employing people with disabilities.”

“Keeping employees who become disabled in the workforce is one area that is very important. Where this happens successfully, data needs to be analyzed and documented, to show how to keep valued workers in the workforce. The positive in this approach is that they don't have to go out and invest in the recruitment and retraining of new workers. It's the bottom line that will compel employers. We really need data on this, that such a strategy really shows value.”

“Here’s a policy or paradigm shift. Several years ago, a deal was made to remove the earnings test for Social Security retirement benefits for people who stayed in the workforce after retirement age. Why did the earning test removal only apply to elder workers? Why isn’t it in place for workers with disabilities on SSI, SSDI? Why are people with disabilities penalized financially by SSA when they work? You can't earn too much money or else you’ll lose your benefits. Why can't we treat people with disabilities who are on SSI, SSDI, but could continue to work, the same way we do people who are between 66-70 and on Social Security retirement benefits? This is policy question number one.”

“Regrettably, it’s likely that 5 years from now, the unemployment rate for people with disabilities is going to be worse than it is presently, and the reason is an inadequate educational experience. The biggest negative that makes people with disabilities non-competitive in the job market is the failure of their educational experience to build their job ready skills as well as their self-confidence and expectations regarding their employment potential. They would have a better prospect for employment if they have the better credentials. We are afraid to admit our failure to both nurture and prepare them for the competition in the workplace. While the United States spends a lot of money on the promotion and placement of people with disabilities in employment, it spends very little money on the proper preparation of people with disabilities at the secondary and post secondary level. We should be more concerned about the kids who are in public schools, graduating from high school. What does the data show today as far as them going out into the workforce and getting into the universities in the first place? Are they prepared?”

“We have data in the public vocational rehabilitation system about outcomes which are dismal for people with disabilities who have completed academic programs and still can't get jobs. Let’s go back to the comment about the mismatch of the skill sets versus what employers are looking for. During this meeting, we have revealed the many areas where we need to impact policy as well as corporate practice. Where do we go from here? How do we take advantage of what we know? How do we leverage the research capacities that are out there to give us more data to make the more compelling arguments and find promising solutions? How do we pursue this imperative in a way that is going to have an impact?”

Conclusion:

With the points made and the questioned asked, WID has begun the work of its new Center on Economic Growth. This is only the beginning of a process which we hope will lead to a new paradigm which will finally reverse the negative economic and employment trends facing people with disabilities.