The Sheltered Workshop

I have been hesitant to write this post, due to the intense controversy that the topic tends to generate. Ironically, this controversy is not so heated in conversations with consumers, but tends to be a philosophical discussion between different organizations. Personally, I tend to be on the fence, as I see very good arguments on both sides. Besides, similar to the "meaningful day" issue, it is pretty presumptuous for me or anyone else without a disability to talk about what is in the best interest of another.

The argument against the workshop, obviously, is that it is not an inclusive atmosphere- that being in this environment does not allow integration into the community. The change in waiver service definitions that prohibit any specific job skills training makes the use of pre-vocational services as a stepping stone to community employment more challenging than ever.

The argument for sheltered work is mostly found in conversations with consumers who attend this service, and have done so for a long time. In multiple interviews, I hear the same thing: "I like it here." "This is my job, why should I get another?" "My friends are here."

So, the people directly able to choose (consumers and families) choose sheltered work as an option, even as providers and advocates work to find the most inclusive environment possible.

I had a long conversation with Mike Callahan (of customized employment fame) at the annual INARF conference, and I asked him what he thought of sheltered work. He said the problem may stem from the fact that well-meaning people will ask a transitioning person with a disability if they want to work. For people without a disability, this is never a discussion.

I don't have any answers for the Sheltered Workshop question. I have seen some very good things happen in workshops, and very happy people working. I have seen skills developed, friendships made, and wages earned. I have seen people with and without disabilities working side by side to make quality products. I have also seen people with disabilities working in community settings who are happy, making friends, and earning a wage in an integrated setting. All people deserve to spend the day in a situation that is meaningful to them, regardless of where or what it is. I have a few thoughts, though, on what would be needed to work toward a compromise between the two opposing viewpoints.

First, addressing Mr. Callahan's concern, transition programs must assure that all options are open, starting with post-secondary or community employment. As Indiana VRS already supports this program, these options should be the first ones on the list. Facility-based options can be discussed at parental or consumer request. As the Medicaid Waiver service definitions state, facility based employment programs should not approached as a final destination, but as needed training with the goal of community-based employment. It becomes part of a continuum that is regularly reviewed for each consumer.

In order for this to work, however, the service definition for Pre-Vocational Services would need to allow for job-specific training. That way, in following the community-based employment model, skills are taught that are in line with the consumer's desired outcomes and specific needs. Training tracks could be utilized to prepare an individual for the job in which they plan to apply.

Finally, for any community-based training alternative, funding must be made available to support it. An individual who has multiple or significant disabilities may need job coaching for a very long time, if not indefinitely. In order to be supported individually, this will probably be costly. The bottom line, however, is that strong beliefs remain strong beliefs only, unless there are resources to put them into effect.

There are solutions to be found, certainly. These solutions will only be found, though, by open and frank discussion that does not devolve into anger. Service models change over time, but abrupt change or unsupported change are disastrous to all.