IDRPP Officials Respond to DOJ Findings of Segregation in Utah

On June 18, the US Department of Justice announced that Utah violates federal civil rights by segregating people with intellectual and developmental disabilities.

“The department found that the State relies on segregated settings, such as sheltered workshops and day facilities, where people with I/DD have limited interaction with people without disabilities and have little choice in how to spend their time,” a press release states. “Utah’s sheltered workshops are often located in large, industrial warehouses. People with I/DD who work in sheltered workshops may spend all day at the warehouse, performing rote tasks — like shredding paper — often for less than minimum wage. In day facilities, people with I/DD may similarly spend all day at the facility with nothing much to do other than craft or watch TV.”

IDRPP Executive Director Matthew Wappett and IDRPP Research and Training Division Director Tim Riesen reacted to the findings in the Q&A below.

Q: Executive Director Wappett, what happens next? Will the DOJ finding be enforced?

MW: We had a call with the DOJ yesterday afternoon and they outlined the process for us very quickly. The State has two weeks to respond to the initial findings and to present a plan to remedy the situation. The DOJ will then be coming out to Utah during the last two weeks of July to work with the State and stakeholders to finalize the next steps and to come to some formal agreement on remedies. The DOJ will work with the state to come up with timelines and benchmarks to demonstrate progress on addressing the issues outlined in their findings. If the State meets these timelines and benchmarks there won’t be any additional enforcement, but if the State refuses to comply or address the issues outlined in the DOJ findings, the DOJ stated that they will move forward with formal litigation against the State of Utah, so enforce compliance.

Q: What is your reaction to this finding?

MW: Prior to the mid-1970’s, people with disabilities were largely absent from public life in our schools and communities. Most people with disabilities lived their entire lives within publicly funded asylums and institutions, where they were out of sight, out of mind. Asylums and institutions were promoted as “safe” places to “protect” people with disabilities, but most became warehouses for a population that society didn’t want to deal with.

Unfortunately, Utah has been stuck in this same old, segregated care model that is more expensive and resource-intensive than newer, community-based care models that ensure that people with disabilities have an opportunity to live, learn, work and play within our communities and workplaces. Utah also has a significant problem with expectations for people with disabilities: there are consistently low expectations for people with disabilities here in the state and there are still many who assume that just because someone has a disability it means that they can’t work or contribute to their community. This is absolutely untrue, and our communities are actually improved and strengthened when we have systems that support the needy and the vulnerable.

Adults with disabilities in our state have literally disappeared from public life by being herded, often without their knowledge or consent, into segregated settings where they are often overlooked, abused, and exploited. This finding by the DOJ is a clear shot across the bow of the State of Utah, letting them know that they are clearly in violation of the civil rights of individuals with disabilities…and hopefully this is a wakeup call to the governor, legislators, state administrators, and service providers. We can do better as a state, and hopefully this DOJ finding will finally provide the necessary motivation to address these issues that advocates have been pointing out for years!

Q: What does employment look like for people with intellectual/developmental disabilities in Utah?

MW: People with disabilities in Utah are still segregated and paid sub-minimum wage in sheltered workshops that continue to reinforce an expectation that people with disabilities cannot be employed in our communities in integrated settings. Sheltered workshops are work centers which exclusively or predominantly employ people with disabilities. Most of these sheltered workshops hold 14(c) certificates, named after the section of the Fair Labor Standards Act allowing certain employers to pay people with disabilities less than minimum wage.

Sheltered workshops have slowly been on the decline across the United States since the 1980’s, although Utah has a strong sheltered workshop “lobby” that continues to seek to maintain this outdated and exploitative service model. Excluding workers with disabilities from minimum wage protections denies them equal protection under the law. … Most people don’t realize that their cardboard boxes, the little bag of plastic silverware and napkin at your local restaurant, and even your little bags of screws and parts for your DIY furniture are often manufactured and packed by individuals with disabilities making less that $2 per hour! Make no mistake: even non-profit sheltered workshops are businesses, and like any business, they seek to maximize their profits. Corporations and service providers that use sheltered workshops are making a profit through government-subsidized labor that exploits people with disabilities. It is essentially legally sanctioned slavery!

To further complicate this issue, workers with the greatest likelihood of success in the general workforce are those that sheltered workshop supervisors are most loath to part with. These workers are necessary to ensure that the workshop can deliver on its contracts. Workers with disabilities in sheltered workshops lack any recourse to improve their economic prospects because the people whose job it is to assist them in doing so have a vested interest in keeping them where they are.

People with disabilities deserve an equal opportunity to live, learn, work, and play in our communities. Today in Utah, many people with disabilities go straight from public school into a sheltered workshop setting, where many remain. Many people with disabilities are denied the opportunity to try different jobs and learn through discovery and experience. People with disabilities, like the rest of us, deserve the opportunity to learn through trial and error and to experience the dignity of risk and the rewards of working in a job of their own choice. 

Q: Division Director Riesen, what role does training play in the inclusion of people with intellectual/developmental disabilities in the workplace and community?

 

TR: At the IDRPP’s Center for Employment and Inclusion, we find that transitioning from segregated to integrated services is contingent on the values reinforced by the agencies and staff providing supports to people with disabilities. Agencies and direct support professionals who are champions of integrated services are often those who have the prerequisite knowledge and skills to support a range of disabilities in different community settings. Unfortunately, while many direct support professionals value inclusion and integration, they often lack the systemic support to implement high-quality, research-based practices that promote positive community-based outcomes.

The path to systemic change and more integrated services hinges on agencies and direct support professionals receiving validated training and technical assistance. Without it, agencies and direct support professionals often implement ineffective and inappropriate practices that lead to segregation or a lack of individualized services and supports. With few exceptions (i.e., the workplace supports and customized employment training the Center for Employment and Inclusion provides), Utah does not invest in or require high-quality, competency-based training for providers and direct support professionals. Without more stringent training and technical assistance requirements, it is unlikely that agencies and direct support professionals will be equipped to adequately support the full range of individuals with disabilities in meaningful integrated community settings. Furthermore, training and technical assistance should be paired with robust process and outcome measurements aimed at inclusion of individuals with disabilities.