U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

79–736 PDF 2014

S. HRG. 113–434 

STATE LEADERSHIP AND INNOVATION IN 

DISABILITY EMPLOYMENT 

HEARING 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EDUCATION, 

LABOR, AND PENSIONS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

ON

EXAMINING STATE LEADERSHIP AND INNOVATION IN DISABILITY 

EMPLOYMENT 

FEBRUARY 26, 2013 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/ 
COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EDUCATION, LABOR, AND PENSIONS 

TOM HARKIN, Iowa, Chairman 

BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland 

PATTY MURRAY, Washington 

BERNARD SANDERS (I), Vermont 

ROBERT P. CASEY, JR., Pennsylvania 

KAY R. HAGAN, North Carolina 

AL FRANKEN, Minnesota 

MICHAEL F. BENNET, Colorado 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut 

ELIZABETH WARREN, Massachusetts 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming 

RICHARD BURR, North Carolina 

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia 

RAND PAUL, Kentucky 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah 

PAT ROBERTS, Kansas 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska 

MARK KIRK, Illinois 

TIM SCOTT, South Carolina 

PAMELA J. SMITH, Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

LAUREN MCFERRAN, Deputy Staff Director 

DAVID P. CLEARY, Republican Staff Director 
C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS 

TUESDAY, FEBURARY 26, 2013 

Page 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS

Harkin, Hon. Tom, Chairman, Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 

Pensions, opening statement ............................................................................... 1 

Alexander, Hon. Lamar, a U.S. Senator from the State of Tennessee ................ 4 

Hatch, Hon. Orrin G., a U.S. Senator from the State of Utah ............................ 6 

Warren, Hon. Elizabeth, a U.S. Senator from the State of Massachusetts ........ 20 

Murphy, Hon. Christopher, a U.S. Senator from the State of Connecticut ........ 22 

Baldwin, Hon. Tammy, a U.S. Senator from the State of Wisconsin .................. 23 

Murray, Hon. Patty, a U.S. Senator from the State of Washington ................... 25 

WITNESS—PANEL I 

Markell, Hon. Jack, Governor of Delaware, Dover, DE ........................................ 8 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 11 

WITNESSES—PANEL II 

Boone, Jane, Consultant, State Employment Leadership Network, Washington State, Seattle, WA .................................................................................... 27 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 29 

O’Brien, Michael, Ed.D., CRC, CVE, Executive Director, Oklahoma Department of Rehabilitation Services, Oklahoma City, OK ....................................... 39 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 42 

Uchida, Donald R., Executive Director, Utah State Office of Rehabilitation, 

Salt Lake City, UT ............................................................................................... 48 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 49 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL 

Statements, articles, publications, letters, etc.: 

Response to questions of Senator Murray by: 

Hon. Jack Markell ..................................................................................... 74 

Jane Boone ................................................................................................. 75 

Michael O’Brien, Ed.D., CRC, CVE ......................................................... 83 

Donald R. Uchida ...................................................................................... 83 

(III) 

(1) 

STATE LEADERSHIP AND INNOVATION IN 

DISABILITY EMPLOYMENT 

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2013 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EDUCATION, LABOR, AND PENSIONS, 

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:35 p.m., in room 

SDG–50, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Tom Harkin, chairman of the committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Harkin, Murray, Murphy, Warren, Baldwin, 

Hatch, and Alexander. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HARKIN

The CHAIRMAN. The Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 

Pensions will please come to order. Today the committee will examine leadership and innovation on the part of States in the field of 

disability employment. 

The topic and timing of today’s hearing are inspired by the leadership of Governor Jack Markell of Delaware, who in his role as 

chair of the National Governors Association has made boosting employment outcomes for Americans with disabilities his signature 

initiative. This past weekend at the NGA mid-winter meeting, Governor Markell and NGA vice-chair, Governor Mary Fallin of Oklahoma, led two discussions with the other Governors in attendance 

designed to share best practices and highlight State level innovations and public-private partnerships that can be replicated across 

the country. 

During the last Congress, this committee focused significant attention on the goal of boosting disability employment. We held a 

series of bipartisan hearings and roundtables and issued a chairman’s report last July titled ‘‘Unfinished Business: Making Employment of People with Disabilities a National Priority.’’ I want to 

thank Senator Enzi and other members of the committee who 

pitched in on advancing this bipartisan priority. 

In that July report, we noted that labor market participation 

rates for working age Americans with disabilities had not improved 

in any significant way since the late 1980s, and that the number 

of individuals with disabilities in the workforce had shrunk by 

about a million workers, from 5.8 million to 4.8 million, during the 

recent economic downturn. This decrease, on a percentage basis, 

was five times greater than the impact of the recession on workers 

without disabilities. 

I have set the committee’s sights on a twin goal to make up the 

ground we have lost since 2008 and to increase the size of this 

workforce to at least 6 million by 2015. I am grateful that the U.S. 
2 

Chamber of Commerce has endorsed that goal. And during this 

new Congress, I look forward to working with Senator Alexander, 

our new Ranking Member, and my fellow members on this committee as well as stakeholders in the business and disability communities to achieve this goal as we seek to grow the economy and 

expand opportunities for all Americans to join the middle class. 

I just might point out we’re in 2013. We have until 2014, so we 

have only 2 years to go to reach that 6 million goal. 

As we noted in the July report, States can play a huge role in 

helping boost disability employment outcomes. In fact, it’s worth 

pointing out that at a time when the national employment rate for 

18 to 64-year-olds with disabilities was 32.6 percent, according to 

2011 numbers from the U.S. Census Bureau, the range in employment rates at the State level went from a low of 24.3 percent in 

West Virginia to a high of 49.8 percent in North Dakota. 

This variation among the States was most recently documented 

by the Institute on Disability at the University of New Hampshire. 

And I will submit a summary of the institute’s findings into the 

record so that members of this committee can see how their own 

States compare. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

Table 2.1: EmpLoyment—Civilians With Disabilities Ages 18 to 64 Years 

Living in the Community for the United States and States: 2011 

State Total 

Employed 

Count Percent 

U.S. ......................................................................................................... 19,988,156 6,521,860 32.6 

AL ........................................................................................................... 433,042 114,848 26.5 

AK ........................................................................................................... 44,003 18,158 41.3

AZ ........................................................................................................... 375,002 122,867 32.8 

AR ........................................................................................................... 268,822 84,720 31.5 

CA ........................................................................................................... 1,879,561 590,531 31.4 

CO .......................................................................................................... 281,930 116,804 41.4 

CT ........................................................................................................... 185,373 70,687 38.1 

DE ........................................................................................................... 55,773 20,051 36.0

DC .......................................................................................................... 36,735 11,025 30.0 

FL ........................................................................................................... 1,131,661 330,657 29.2 

GA ........................................................................................................... 663,904 196,757 29.6 

HI ............................................................................................................ 63,025 21,886 34.7 

ID ............................................................................................................ 100,818 36,605 36.3 

IL ............................................................................................................ 659,300 225,864 34.3 

IN ............................................................................................................ 459,135 156,024 34.0 

IA ............................................................................................................ 168,942 70,216 41.6 

KS ........................................................................................................... 181,978 77,113 42.4 

KY ........................................................................................................... 421,076 107,586 25.6 

LA ........................................................................................................... 384,372 124,345 32.4 

ME .......................................................................................................... 108,156 33,985 31.4

MD .......................................................................................................... 305,903 113,541 37.1 

MA .......................................................................................................... 373,361 118,518 31.7 

MI ........................................................................................................... 749,714 216,619 28.9 

MN .......................................................................................................... 270,050 115,040 42.6 

MS .......................................................................................................... 264,876 77,680 29.3

MO .......................................................................................................... 449,310 146,338 32.6 

MT .......................................................................................................... 67,840 29,177 43.0 

NE ........................................................................................................... 93,933 42,034 44.7

NV ........................................................................................................... 166,295 60,374 36.3 

NH .......................................................................................................... 77,941 28,694 36.8 

NJ ........................................................................................................... 412,949 145,510 35.2 

NM .......................................................................................................... 147,060 47,125 32.0
3 

Table 2.1: EmpLoyment—Civilians With Disabilities Ages 18 to 64 Years 

Living in the Community for the United States and States: 2011—Continued 

State Total 

Employed 

Count Percent 

NY ........................................................................................................... 1,062,862 332,740 31.3 

NC .......................................................................................................... 687,820 204,522 29.7 

ND .......................................................................................................... 33,678 16,788 49.8 

OH .......................................................................................................... 816,572 265,017 32.5 

OK ........................................................................................................... 322,232 113,834 35.3 

OR .......................................................................................................... 279,001 95,248 34.1

PA ........................................................................................................... 862,369 279,458 32.4 

RI ............................................................................................................ 64,693 19,799 30.6 

SC ........................................................................................................... 351,739 94,592 26.9 

SD ........................................................................................................... 47,498 22,825 48.1

TN ........................................................................................................... 546,248 152,788 28.0 

TX ........................................................................................................... 1,572,066 580,472 36.9 

UT ........................................................................................................... 133,893 54,126 40.4 

VT ........................................................................................................... 41,854 15,169 36.2

VA ........................................................................................................... 458,657 153,089 33.4 

WA .......................................................................................................... 457,528 160,888 35.2 

WV .......................................................................................................... 198,721 48,218 24.3

WI ........................................................................................................... 327,040 126,657 38.7 

WY .......................................................................................................... 36,302 17,347 47.8 

PR ........................................................................................................... 405,543 96,904 23.9 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011 American Community Survey, American FactFinder, Table B18120; <http://factfinder2.census 

.gov>; (accessed 24 September 2012). Based on a sample and subject to sampling variability. 

Table 2.9: EmpLoyment Gap—Civilians Ages 18 to 64 Years Living in the Community 

for the United States and States, by Disability Status: 2011 

State 

Employment rate (percent) 

Gap (percent pts) 

Disability No disability 

U.S. ........................................................ 32.6 72.8 40.2 

AL ........................................................... 26.5 70.2 43.6 

AK ........................................................... 41.3 75.3 34.0 

AZ ........................................................... 32.8 69.9 37.1 

AR .......................................................... 31.5 72.3 40.8 

CA .......................................................... 31.4 69.5 38.1 

CO .......................................................... 41.4 76.3 34.8 

CT ........................................................... 38.1 76.2 38.1 

DE .......................................................... 36.0 74.5 38.6 

DC .......................................................... 30.0 71.5 41.5 

FL ........................................................... 29.2 70.6 41.4 

GA .......................................................... 29.6 70.4 40.7 

HI ........................................................... 34.7 74.4 39.7 

ID ........................................................... 36.3 73.1 36.8 

IL ............................................................ 34.3 73.3 39.0 

IN ........................................................... 34.0 74.0 40.0 

IA ............................................................ 41.6 80.7 39.1 

KS ........................................................... 42.4 78.9 36.5 

KY ........................................................... 25.6 72.0 46.4 

LA ........................................................... 32.4 72.0 39.7 

ME .......................................................... 31.4 78.1 46.7 

MD .......................................................... 37.1 77.3 40.2 

MA .......................................................... 31.7 76.9 45.2 

MI ........................................................... 28.9 70.2 41.3 

MN .......................................................... 42.6 80.2 37.6 

MS .......................................................... 29.3 68.6 39.2 

MO .......................................................... 32.6 75.6 43.1 

MT .......................................................... 43.0 76.5 33.4 

NE .......................................................... 44.7 81.5 36.7 

NV .......................................................... 36.3 71.3 35.0 

NH .......................................................... 36.8 79.5 42.7 
4 

Table 2.9: EmpLoyment Gap—Civilians Ages 18 to 64 Years Living in the Community 

for the United States and States, by Disability Status: 2011—Continued 

State 

Employment rate (percent) 

Gap (percent pts) 

Disability No disability 

NJ ........................................................... 35.2 73.9 38.7 

NM .......................................................... 32.0 69.7 37.7 

NY .......................................................... 31.3 72.1 40.8 

NC .......................................................... 29.7 71.8 42.1 

ND .......................................................... 49.8 83.7 33.9 

OH .......................................................... 32.5 74.1 41.7 

OK .......................................................... 35.3 74.8 39.5 

OR .......................................................... 34.1 71.0 36.9 

PA ........................................................... 32.4 74.3 41.9 

RI ........................................................... 30.6 76.3 45.7 

SC .......................................................... 26.9 70.3 43.4 

SD .......................................................... 48.1 81.3 33.2 

TN ........................................................... 28.0 72.8 44.9 

TX ........................................................... 36.9 73.5 36.6 

UT ........................................................... 40.4 75.1 34.7 

VT ........................................................... 36.2 80.0 43.8 

VA ........................................................... 33.4 76.0 42.6 

WA .......................................................... 35.2 73.3 38.1 

WV .......................................................... 24.3 69.2 44.9 

WI ........................................................... 38.7 78.7 39.9 

WY .......................................................... 47.8 80.1 32.3 

PR .......................................................... 23.9 52.7 28.8 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011 American Community Survey, American FactFinder, Table B18120; <http://factfinder2.census .gov>; (accessed 24 September 2012). Based on a sample and subject to sampling variability. The complete document may be found at 

http://disabilitycompendium.org/. 

The CHAIRMAN. Today we’ll hear from four States that are doing 

better than the national average on this issue: Delaware, Washington, Oklahoma, and Utah. In addition, because Governor 

Markell of Delaware has been engaged since last July in a discussion with other Governors, his testimony will give us an opportunity to learn about best practices from a number of other States 

that have been a part of his NGA chair’s initiative. 

As this committee works to improve employment opportunities 

for all Americans, we must remember our citizens with disabilities, 

including our wounded warriors, and ensure that they have access 

to the same opportunity to be a part of the American workforce, the 

same opportunity to pursue the American dream, as their friends 

and their neighbors. 

I now invite my colleague, our new Ranking Member of the 

HELP Committee, Senator Alexander, for an opening statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR ALEXANDER

Senator ALEXANDER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Governor and distinguished attendees at our hearing today, we’re 

glad you all are here. I have three things I’d like to say. First, to 

Chairman Harkin, who has announced that after a couple more 

years he’ll be retiring from the Senate—I’d like to salute him for 

his nearly 40 years in Congress addressing the challenges of many 

Americans with disabilities. He helped sponsor and pass the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Individuals with Disabilities Act, 

the Assistive Technology Act, and the Vocational Rehabilitation 

Act. 
5 

A lot of his work is a tribute to his late brother. He has pioneered in policy. It has been his focus. And when he’s rocking on 

his porch in Iowa thinking back over what he has accomplished, 

I’m sure his work for Americans with disabilities will be one of the 

things that we remember most about Tom Harkin. 

Second, to the Governor and to Chairman Harkin. I really am delighted with the way you’re approaching this. Sometimes in Washington, we come up with a big idea and say, ‘‘Well, now, let’s make 

everybody do it.’’ Another way to do it is to create an environment 

in this big complex country where States, communities, and the 

private sector can succeed. And that’s the approach that you’re taking today, Mr. Chairman, and I admire it. 

I know something about the National Governors Association. I 

was chairman of it in 1985 and 1986. I had a precocious young 

Governor from Arkansas named Bill Clinton who was the vice 

chairman. And that was the first year that we had selected a single 

subject—that year, it was education—to focus on for the entire 

year, getting all of the Governors involved in some way toward that 

goal. 

I think when the NGA was founded—and I think it was by 

Teddy Roosevelt, who must have been so busy he didn’t have time 

to do anything else—they focused on a single subject. I think it 

might have been railroads. But this idea of focusing the attention 

of all the Governors on a single subject is a terrific tactic—the way 

our country works—for expanding the goal that Senator Harkin announced earlier, which is how we can help more Americans with 

disabilities find employment. 

Involving the private sector makes a difference. And if you’ll permit one personal example, I remember the last year I was Governor, my Commissioner for Human Resources, whose name was 

Marguerite Sallee, came to me and said, ‘‘I have an idea for worksite daycare. Let’s just ask employers in Tennessee to provide 1,000 

worksite daycare sites,’’ a lot like what you’re talking about, Governor. Let’s ask employers to do thus and so involving disabilities. 

And I was busy and didn’t have much time to do it, so I said OK. 

But we did that, and they produced 2,000. In other words, they did 

twice as much as we had asked. Then after we got out, we saw the 

need for the idea of worksite daycare. And she and Captain Kangaroo and I and my wife and another founded a company, which 

was called Corporate Child Care, and we helped companies provide 

worksite daycare centers. That has now merged with Bright Horizons, and it is the largest such company in the world providing 

worksite daycare—so ideas that we can create an environment and 

that Governors can encourage and spread the message and even 

create private sector opportunities. 

The last thing Mr. Chairman, is just an example of the kind of 

person we might be talking about today. And I think of a friend 

of our family, whose name is Jack. He was born with fragile X syndrome. He has an IQ of about 55. His mother considers him to be 

an individual of high functioning skills, but he does need help and 

assistance at times. 

He’s had some good help in schools, a Montessori school in the 

Montgomery County Schools, a residential high school in New 

York. He’s had different jobs as a bus boy. He worked at a grocery 
6 

store. He finally got connected with a company—I don’t know if it’s 

profit or nonprofit—called Service Source that provides training to 

individuals with intellectual disabilities and matches them to the 

needs and skills. 

He started at one place, at the Air and Space Museum. That 

didn’t work out. Now, he’s employed at the Marine Corps barracks 

as a mess attendant. He’s been there 10 years and thinks it’s the 

right fit. It’s a success story. He enjoys getting a paycheck and 

likes to contribute to his living expenses. The company provides a 

way to get him back and forth from home to there. 

So in our big, resourceful, enterprising country, we perhaps can 

help create an environment in which you, the Governors, and the 

private sector in our country can reach the goal that Senator Harkin has spent his years in Congress hoping that our country 

reaches. I look forward to learning from you today. 

The CHAIRMAN. That was excellent. And thank you for your kind 

words. I appreciate that very much. 

My good friend, Senator Orrin Hatch. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR HATCH

Senator HATCH. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I remember 

those days when you and I stood on the floor on the Americans 

with Disabilities Act and passed it and how we both broke down 

and cried afterwards after we went outside and saw all the wonderful people who were so pleased that that bill was finally passed, 

and I’ve been proud of your work ever since. 

And, of course, naturally, I’m proud of the distinguished Senator 

from Tennessee. He’s been a mentor to me and a great human 

being in my life. 

But in 1981, I established my Utah-based advisory committee on 

disability issues to partner with all Utah stakeholders committed 

to disability policy. The committee has maintained an official membership of between 15 to 20 members. In every one of the 30 years 

since, I’ve been able to get special advice from my disability advisory committee, special insights, and, of course, input. 

And today, I’m very proud to introduce Mr. Don Uchida to the 

Senate HELP Committee. Don has been serving on my disability 

advisory committee for many years. He is the executive director of 

the Utah State Office of Rehabilitation. And because Utah’s vocational rehabilitation program has been so successful, I felt Don 

would be an ideal witness for this hearing on State leadership and 

innovation in disability employment. 

Don pays regular visits to my offices in Utah and here in Washington to dazzle us with how many individuals with disabilities are 

being successfully trained, retrained, and sustained in employment. 

Don is so enthusiastic about the program and always comes prepared with data, numbers, pie charts, graphics, ET cetera. But 

nothing speaks of Utah’s successes more than the personal stories 

of Utah’s disabled citizens who are gainfully employed. So I want 

to give thanks to Utah’s VR program. 

Now, I don’t want to steal any of Don’s thunder, because I know 

he’ll be sharing why Utah has one of the most productive and costeffective programs in the Nation. But I know a lot of that has to 

do with the strong support of our Governor and our State legisla-
7 

ture, as well, and partnerships with agencies, organizations, and 

businesses. And, of course, a major part of that success can be attributed to Utah’s dedicated rehabilitation staff under Don 

Uchida’s leadership. 

It means a lot to me to have him here today. And I won’t be able 

to stay because of my other problems. But it’s really an honor to 

introduce Don Uchida to the committee, and I trust that both of 

you will treat him well. I don’t want to get mad. I’m just kidding. 

The CHAIRMAN. He’s in safe hands. 

Senator HATCH. I know he is. 

Let me just say, Don, that these are two of the best people in 

the Senate. And when it comes to Americans with disabilities, both 

of them are very compassionate, decent, and honorable leaders, and 

I, personally, appreciate them. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Hatch. And, again, thank 

you for your long service both on this committee and in advancing 

the cause of full integration of people with disabilities. We had the 

benefit of your service here and your expertise when we developed 

the Americans with Disabilities Act in the 1980s and passing it in 

1990. And you’re right that we stood shoulder to shoulder on that, 

and I appreciate it very much. It’s been a great working relationship ever since. 

We’re going to have two panels. For our first panel, we’ll hear 

from Governor Jack Markell, whom we’ve talked about as the chair 

of the National Governors Association. And, as you heard Senator 

Alexander say—and I didn’t know this until I met Governor 

Markell—when you become the head of the National Governors Association, you get to pick one topic for the entire year and get the 

other Governors to focus on that. 

He dedicated his term to improving employment outcomes for individuals with disabilities through his initiative, quote, ‘‘A Better 

Bottom Line: Employing People with Disabilities.’’ The goal of this 

initiative is to create a blueprint for businesses and States that 

identifies best practices and outlines steps to put in place to increase economic opportunity for people with disabilities. 

Since being elected in 2008, Governor Markell has worked to improve the economy, improve education, and grow jobs in Delaware. 

He was re-elected in 2012 with close to 70 percent of the votes cast. 

How do you do that? I guess you do it by doing a good job. 

I have enjoyed working with Governor Markell as part of his 

NGA chair’s initiative. I appreciate his participation in the great 

summit we had last summer, a CEO summit that Walgreens 

hosted in Windsor, CT, last June, and also a roundtable that Senator Enzi and I hosted last July. His commitment to boosting disability employment is broadly shared among his fellow Governors, 

and his initiative, I can tell you, is making a real difference. 

We welcome you, Governor Markell, to this committee and we 

look forward to your comments. And, without objection, your statement will be made a part of the record. Please take whatever time 

you so desire. 
8 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JACK MARKELL, GOVERNOR 

OF DELAWARE, DOVER, DE 

Governor MARKELL. Thank you, Chairman Harkin, and to you 

and Ranking Member Alexander, Senator Hatch, Senator Warren, 

thank you very much for having me today. It’s really an honor to 

testify before you about my initiative as chair of the NGA, which, 

as you mentioned, is called Building a Better Bottom Line: Employing People with Disabilities. I’ll also talk a little bit about some 

other Governor-led efforts to advance employment opportunities for 

people with disabilities. 

As you mentioned, in July 2012, I became chair of the NGA and 

began this year-long chair’s initiative, which is focused on the role 

that both State governments and businesses can play in advancing 

opportunities for individuals with disabilities to be gainfully employed. And before I begin, I very much want to thank this committee, under your leadership, for the role that you’ve played in advancing employment opportunities for people with disabilities from 

across the country for a long time. 

I also want to thank the Secretary of the Department of Health 

and Social Services, Rita Landgraf, who is here with me, and the 

staff of the National Governors Association, which has done a terrific job on this initiative. I also want to thank your staff, and especially Andy Imparato for the great help he has provided as we’ve 

tried to think through some of our initiative. 

I chose to focus the chair’s initiative on employing people with 

disabilities because I’ve really seen firsthand the difference that it 

can make in people’s lives. And it really started for me about 10 

years ago. I visited what was then MBNA, now Bank of America, 

which continues to be an important employer in Delaware and including an important employer of people with disabilities. They 

have 300 people with disabilities employed in our State. 

Ten years ago, I visited a site. Many of the people were making 

promotional materials. I met a guy who was 25 years old. He was 

making tee shirts. He had Down’s Syndrome. And he was extraordinarily excited to have this opportunity to have this job. I asked 

him what he did before he got the job, and he told me that he had 

sat at home for 6 years watching TV with his parents. 

For me, a light bulb really went off in my head about the profound improvement in his quality of life and the profound improvement in the quality of life for his family, because now he had a reason to get up every day. He had a purpose. He was going to be part 

of something that was bigger than himself. He was part of a team. 

He was productive. He even earned a paycheck. 

Ever since then, I’ve been very interested in this issue, and I’ve 

had the opportunity to work with Secretary Landgraf, who has 

really spent her life as an advocate for people with disabilities. And 

I believe, as chair of the NGA, that this is something that we really 

could move the needle on across the country. 

Everybody who wants to work and participate fully in society 

should have the opportunity to do so. And research indicates that 

67 percent of working age people with disabilities would rather be 

working than be unemployed and unproductive—not a surprise. 

And yet at the same time, the United States spends hundreds of 

billions of dollars a year to support people with disabilities who are 
9 

unemployed. The circumstances provide an opportunity for growth 

and improvement, which is why I chose to focus on employing people with disabilities this year. 

Our initiative at the National Governors Association is really designed to do two things. One is to raise awareness of how the untapped talents of people with disabilities can contribute to a business’ bottom line. And second is really to define ways that State 

government and businesses can partner to advance the employment of individuals with disabilities in the labor market. 

As you mentioned—and I was grateful for the invitation that you 

gave me last year to visit at Walgreens, where you and I and Congressman Pete Sessions heard—Senator Blumenthal was there as 

well—the CEO of Walgreens, Greg Wasson, say to his fellow CEOs 

of some of the biggest companies in the country that Walgreens 

was an employer of people with disabilities not because of charity, 

but because it was the right decision for their business. It was 

right for the shareholders. 

And I think it’s really important that that message from one 

CEO to the next—large businesses, mid-size businesses, and small 

businesses—gets spread. So we’re working with businesses to try 

to make sure that that message gets shared. Just this past weekend—it really just ended yesterday—at the NGA winter meeting 

here in Washington, Governors from different regions and different 

parties shared what their States are doing to advance employment 

opportunities for people with disabilities. 

In our State of Delaware, we are what we call an Employment 

First State, and that was triggered by my signing of legislation in 

July. You’ll hear later from Jane Boone of Washington State about 

how Washington, in fact, led the way with these Employment First 

policies. In Delaware, the legislation requires State agencies that 

provide services to persons with disabilities to promote as the first 

option employment in an integrated setting and establishing, essentially, an oversight commission to continuously review the process. 

I’ve also instructed members of my cabinet to form a working 

group to upgrade State hiring practices and procedures with a 

focus on advancing recruitment, retention, and career advancement 

opportunities. And I expect to have that State plan established by 

early summer. 

At the winter meeting, the Governor of South Dakota, Governor 

Daugaard, shared his State’s dedication to developing statewide 

employment practices as well as Employment First policies. This is 

a movement to guide policy with the central philosophy that employment is the first priority and is the preferred outcome for people with disabilities. 

Employment First policies are not the only things that States are 

doing. In Connecticut, Governor Dan Malloy told us about an interactive Web portal called ConnectAbility with a mission to bring 

Connecticut’s employers and people with disabilities together 

through an interactive Web portal. It’s supported by partners 

across multiple sectors, from businesses to advocates to State agencies and a community college. 

In Iowa, Governor Terry Branstad shared information about his 

conversations with you, Senator Harkin, regarding initiatives to in-
10 

crease employment of Iowans with disabilities, and he highlighted 

the importance of supporting businesses. 

There was a great cross-section of Governors, people of both parties. This is, as you know, the ultimate bipartisan issue, and it was 

great to hear so many Governors share what’s going on in their 

States. You’ll hear more from some of the other panelists today 

about what their States are doing, and I’m proud of the work that 

my fellow Governors are doing across the country. 

I’m also proud of what we’re doing in this NGA initiative. We’ve 

worked hard to engage directly with a broad cross-section of shareholders to inform the efforts. Since we started this in July, the 

NGA staff and my staff have taken more than 50 meetings with 

subject matter experts in the field of disability employment, including some of the businesses that I mentioned who employ people 

with disabilities. We’ve talked to researchers, providers, policymakers, and, very importantly, self-advocates. This has been a 

really important and valuable part of the conversation, people who 

can really speak from experience. 

Everyone may speak with a different voice. They may come from 

different parts of the country, and they may have different views. 

But I’ve learned three key things or lessons that consistently come 

into these conversations. No. 1, employers don’t care about labels. 

They care about skills. The focus has to be on the ability rather 

than the disability. And people with disabilities need to be part of 

the mainstream workforce right along with people without disabilities. 

No. 2, when businesses hire people with disabilities, they benefit 

not only in their bottom line, as I mentioned a few minutes ago 

with respect to Walgreens, but they also experience significant improvements in their own corporate culture. This is true for small 

businesses as well as large national companies. It’s true for the entire spectrum of industries, from manufacturing to entrepreneurship to STEM fields. We heard from a Baltimore area window and 

door company the other day who talked about this in a very compelling fashion. 

And, No. 3, the path forward is one of shared responsibility. As 

Ranking Member Alexander mentioned, this is not about something that government is doing to business. It’s really about an opportunity that businesses and government see together to improve 

the bottom line of these businesses and to provide more opportunities for people with disabilities. 

Congress has a role to play. So as Governors continue to push 

action and innovation to advance employment opportunities for 

people with disabilities, we believe that Congress can help. States 

need to have the flexibility to be innovative in order to support 

businesses in advancing these employment opportunities. 

Governors would really value your leadership in supporting what 

we call flexible federalism, like the Workforce Investment Act 15 

percent set-aside, in order to continue innovating so we can effectively serve people with disabilities and the businesses who serve 

them. For years, States relied on this 15 percent WIA set-aside to 

support and to seed innovations that allow us to partner with industry, attract new business, upgrade the skills of our current 
11 

workforce, and better serve constituents, for example, who rely on 

America’s Job Centers. 

Washington State used the 15 percent set-aside to support a 

business that employs people with disabilities. So we would love to 

see your continuing support of that set-aside. 

We also believe that Congress should prioritize and modernize 

the Workforce Investment Act. It’s been well over a decade since 

Congress revised the law. Much has changed in the work place, 

much has changed in business, and much has changed as evidenced by this incredibly high-tech modern economy that we’re all 

living in. We’re learning a lot, and the ability for States to innovate 

in their own unique set of circumstances will always yield the best 

outcomes for individuals and the best lessons for other States. 

The success on this effort, we believe, really depends upon the 

shared passion and commitment that we see across so many diverse sectors of society. It has been heartening to see advocates, researchers, business people, individuals, and government officials 

across political parties and across all regions of the country come 

together to support this initiative and advance progress on this 

topic. 

I really believe that we can make a profound difference in the 

quality of life of so many people across the country with disabilities 

and their families when we work together. So I very much appreciate the opportunity to be with you today. 

[The prepared statement of Governor Markell follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JACK MARKELL

SUMMARY

WELCOME AND OVERVIEW OF THE NGA INITIATIVE

Before I begin, I’d like to thank this committee, under the leadership of Senator 

Harkin, for the leadership role you have played in advancing employment opportunities for people with disabilities across the country. 

Chairman Harkin, Ranking Member Alexander and distinguished members of the 

Senate HELP Committee, on behalf of the National Governors Association (NGA), 

it is an honor to testify before you today about my initiative as Chair of NGA, A 

Better Bottom Line: Employing People with Disabilities and other Governor-led State 

efforts to advance employment opportunities for people with disabilities. 

In July 2012, I became Chair of NGA and began a year-long Chair’s initiative focused on the role that both State government and business can play in advancing 

opportunities for these individuals to be gainfully employed in the competitive labor 

market. 

WHY THIS TOPIC?

I chose to focus the NGA Chair’s Initiative on employing people with disabilities 

because I have seen firsthand the difference it can make in people’s lives. 

About 10 years ago, I visited a company in Delaware and met a young person 

with a disability working there. It was clear that the young man was passionate 

about his job and glad to be there. When I asked the young man what he did before, 

he said he sat at home with his parents. It was that moment when a light bulb 

went off for me: employment for that individual was not only benefiting the company he works for; it was significantly improving the quality of life for him and his 

entire family. Ever since, I have been interested in the topic of employing people 

with disabilities. 

Everyone who wants to work and participate fully in society should have the opportunity to do so. 

Research indicates that 67 percent of working-age people with disabilities would 

rather be working than be unemployed and nonproductive. Yet, the United States 

spends an estimated $300 billion annually to support people with disabilities who 
12 

are unemployed. The circumstances provide an opportunity for growth and improvement, which is why I chose to focus on employing people with disabilities this year. 

GOALS OF THE INITIATIVE

The NGA initiative is designed to do two primary things: 

(1) raise awareness of how the untapped talents of people with disabilities can 

contribute to a business’ bottom line; and 

(2) to define ways both State government and business can partner to advance 

the employment of individuals with disabilities in the competitive labor market. 

WHAT ARE STATES DOING?

Last weekend at the NGA Winter Meeting here in Washington, DC, Governors 

from different regions and different parties shared what States are doing to advance 

employment opportunities for people with disabilities. 

In Delaware, we are now an Employment First State since my signing of this 

most significant legislation in July. You’ll hear later from Jane Boone on the panel 

today about how Washington State led the way with Employment First policies. In 

Delaware, this legislation requires State agencies that provide services to persons 

with disabilities to promote, as the first option, employment in an integrated setting 

and established an Employment First Oversight Commission to continuously review 

the progress. In addition, I have instructed members of my Cabinet, to form a 

workgroup to upgrade State hiring practices and procedures with a focus on advancing recruitment, retention and career advancement opportunities for individuals 

with disabilities and have asked each to lead by example. I expect to have the State 

plan established by early summer. 

At the Winter Meeting, Governor Dennis Daugaard shared South Dakota’s dedication to developing statewide employment strategies as well as employment-first policies. Employment first is a movement to guide policy, with a central philosophy that 

employment is the first priority and preferred outcome for people with disabilities. 

It’s not just Employment First policies that States are adopting to advance employment opportunities. States are partnering across sectors and directly with business. For example, Connecticut Governor Dannel Malloy told us about an interactive Web portal ‘‘ConnectAbility’’ with the mission to bring Connecticut’s employers and people with disabilities together through an interactive Web portal. The 

project is supported by partners crossing multiple sectors—from businesses to advocates to State agencies and a community college. 

Iowa Governor Terry Branstad shared information about his conversations with 

Senator Harkin regarding initiatives to increase employment among Iowans with 

disabilities, and highlighted the importance of supporting businesses—saying that 

the State’s approach is cross-agency, collaborative, and outcomes-based in effort to 

make it easy for business to find talented workers with disabilities to join their companies. 

The cross-section of Governors who shared their best practices during the NGA 

Winter Meeting underscores the response from Governors has been tremendous 

across different regions and parties. 

You’ll hear more from the other panelists today about what States are doing to 

lead the way. 

I’m proud of the work of my fellow Governors to help make sure people with disabilities are part of the competitive workforce and fully included in society. 

THE PATH FORWARD AND LESSONS LEARNED

I am also proud of the work we’re doing with the NGA initiative. We have worked 

hard to engage directly with a broad cross section of stakeholders to inform the initiative’s efforts. 

Since the initiative began in July, NGA staff and my staff have taken more than 

50 meetings with subject matter experts in the field of disability employment, including the businesses who employ people with disabilities, providers, researchers, 

policymakers, and—importantly—self-advocates, who speak from experience with 

disabilities. 

While everyone speaks with a different voice, from different parts of the country, 

and certainly different views: I’ve learned three key things or ‘‘lessons’’ that consistently pervade our conversations. 

1. Employers don’t care about labels, they care about skills. People with disabilities need to be part of the mainstream workforce, right alongside people without 

disabilities. 
13 

2. When businesses hire people with disabilities, they benefit in their bottom line 

and also report improvements in their culture. This is true for small businesses as 

well as large national corporations. It’s true for the entire spectrum of industries— 

from manufacturing to entrepreneurship to STEM fields. 

3. The path forward is one of shared responsibility—it’s a path that business, government, and families are going to chart together. 

WHAT CAN CONGRESS DO?

As Governors continue to push action and innovation to advance employment opportunities for people with disabilities, Congress can help. States need to have the 

flexibility to be innovative in order to support businesses in advancing employment 

opportunities for people with disabilities. 

RESTORE THE 15 PERCENT SET-ASIDE

Governors will need your leadership to support flexible federalism, like the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) 15 percent set-aside, in order to continue innovating so 

we can effectively serve people with disabilities and the businesses who hire them. 

For years, States have relied on the 15 percent WIA set-aside to support and seed 

innovations that allow us to partner with industry, attract new businesses, upskill 

our current workforce, and better serve our constituents who rely on America’s Jobs 

Centers. 

State Example: Washington used 15 percent set-aside to support a business who 

employs people with disabilities. 

• Washington State used the set-aside funds to allow the Governor’s office to facilitate a partnership across the public and private sectors to attract a new manufacturer, Profile Composites, to the State. The British Columbia based company—which makes collapsible wheelchairs, sport crutches and other assistive products—is committed to hiring veterans and individuals with disabilities and is designing its training and manufacturing facilities to accommodate all levels of physical ability. 

• A $100,000 investment of WIA set-aside funds will go toward workforce recruitment and integrating the company’s training with established college degree and 

certificate programs. The company is investing $10.4 million to build the facility and 

establish its training programs, creating at least 200 jobs. 

As you can see, the 15 percent set-aside is a valuable tool for States. But since 

2008, funding for this flexible, innovative fund has been reduced by nearly 70 percent. In fiscal year 2010, the cut to State set-aside dollars from 15 percent to 5 percent hurt States’ ability to serve our workers, including workers with disabilities. 

I want to thank Senator Harkin and this committee for your work to restore the 

set-aside. What is really needed from Congress now is a restoration of the full 15 

percent.

PRIORITIZE AND MODERNIZE WIA

Congress must also prioritize and modernize the Workforce Investment Act. It’s 

been well over a decade since Congress revised this law. Much has changed in the 

work place, much has changed in business, and much has changed as evidenced by 

today’s modern, high-tech economy. We are also learning much. The ability for 

States to innovate in their own, unique set of circumstances will always yield the 

best outcomes for individuals, and the best lessons for other States. 

CLOSING

Success depends on the shared passion and commitment that we see across so 

many diverse sectors of society. It has been heartening to already see advocates, researchers, businesses, individuals and government officials across the political parties and all regions of the country come together to support the NGA initiative and 

advance progress on this topic. Together, we can continue to make a difference so 

that persons with disabilities have the same opportunities as everyone else. 

Chairman Harkin, Ranking Member Alexander and distinguished members of the 

Senate HELP Committee, on behalf of the National Governors Association (NGA), 

it is an honor to testify before you today about my initiative as Chair of NGA, A 

Better Bottom Line: Employing People with Disabilities and other Governor-led State 

efforts to advance employment opportunities for people with disabilities. 
14 

Before I begin, I’d like to thank this committee, under the leadership of Senator 

Harkin, for the leadership role you have played in advancing employment opportunities for people with disabilities across the country. 

THE NGA CHAIR’S INITIATIVE, A BETTER BOTTOM LINE: EMPLOYING PEOPLE

WITH DISABILITIES

In July 2012, I became Chair of NGA and began a year-long Chair’s initiative focused on the role that both State government and business can play in advancing 

opportunities for these individuals to be gainfully employed in the competitive labor 

market. 

I chose to focus the NGA Chair’s Initiative on employing people with disabilities 

because I have seen firsthand the difference it can make in people’s lives. About 10 

years ago, I visited a company in Delaware and met a young person with a disability working there. It was clear that the young man was passionate about his 

job and glad to be there. When I asked the young man what he did before, he said 

he sat at home with his parents. It was that moment when a light bulb went off 

for me: employment for that individual was not only benefiting the company he 

works for; it was significantly improving the quality of life for him and his entire 

family. Ever since, I have been interested in the topic of employing people with disabilities. 

Everyone who wants to work and participate fully in society should have the opportunity to do so. Research indicates that 67 percent of working-age people with 

disabilities would rather be working than be unemployed and nonproductive. Yet, 

the United States spends an estimated $300 billion annually to support people with 

disabilities who are unemployed. 

The circumstances provide an opportunity for growth and improvement, which is 

why I chose to focus on employing people with disabilities this year. 

The NGA initiative is designed to do two primary things: (1) raise awareness of 

how the untapped talents of people with disabilities can contribute to a business’ 

bottom line and (2) to define ways both State government and business can partner 

to advance the employment of individuals with disabilities in the competitive labor 

market. 

STATE PRACTICES

Last weekend at the NGA Winter Meeting here in Washington, DC, Governors 

from different regions and different parties shared what States are doing to advance 

employment opportunities for people with disabilities. 

In Delaware, we are now an Employment First State since my signing of this 

most significant legislation in July. This legislation requires State agencies that provide services to persons with disabilities to promote, as the first option, employment 

in an integrated setting and established an Employment First Oversight Commission to continuously review the progress. In addition, I have instructed members of 

my Cabinet, to form a workgroup to upgrade State hiring practices and procedures 

with a focus on advancing recruitment, retention and career advancement opportunities for individuals with disabilities and have asked each to lead by example. I 

expect to have the State plan established by early summer. 

You’ll hear later from Jane Boone on the panel today about how Washington State 

led the way with Employment First policies. At the Winter Meeting, Governor Dennis Daugaard shared South Dakota’s dedication to developing statewide employment 

strategies as well as employment-first policies. Employment first is a movement to 

guide policy, with a central philosophy that employment is the first priority and preferred outcome for people with disabilities. 

It’s not just Employment First policies that States are adopting to advance employment opportunities. For example, Connecticut Governor Dannel Malloy told us 

about an interactive Web portal ‘‘ConnectAbility’’ with the mission to bring Connecticut’s employers and people with disabilities together. The Web site has a 

wealth of information for people with disabilities of all ages and employers of all 

sizes and in all industries who are seeking valuable, qualified workers. The project 

is supported by partners crossing multiple sectors—from businesses to advocates to 

State agencies and a community college. 

Iowa Governor Terry Branstad shared information about his conversations with 

Senator Harkin regarding initiatives to increase employment among Iowans with 

disabilities. The State of Iowa’s initiatives are aimed to complement the efforts of 

business leaders. The State’s approach integrates related efforts and resources to 

demonstrate that a cross-agency, collaborative, outcomes-based approach is the best 

strategy for success. Governor Branstad highlighted the efforts of private sector 
15 

companies like Casey’s, Hy-Vee, Walgreens, and Wellmark that have targeted training and skills-building initiatives for individuals with disabilities. 

Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell talked about the Executive order he signed last 

November, which states that it is the policy of the Commonwealth to encourage and 

enable persons with disabilities, including wounded soldiers, to engage in employment, with the goal of enhancing the employment opportunities for Virginians with 

disabilities. 

In Minnesota, the disability employment efforts are connected to the State’s economic development plan. The Pathways to Employment is to increase competitive 

employment of people with disabilities and meet Minnesota’s workforce needs by 

bringing together people with disabilities, employers, businesses, government and 

providers. 

Kansas Governor Sam Brownback and Kansas’ Commission on Disabilities host 

‘‘Disability Mentoring Day’’, where students and job seekers with disabilities 

(mentees) are matched with workplace mentors according to expressed career interests. Mentees experience a typical day on the job and learn how to prepare to enter 

the world of work. 

The cross-section of Governors who shared their best practices during the NGA 

Winter Meeting underscores the response from Governors has been tremendous 

across different regions and parties. Since the start of the initiative, Governors and 

business leaders from all over the country have expressed interest in the topic and 

support for the initiative. Business leaders from Fortune 500 companies to small 

businesses have come forward to express their support and share their experiences. 

As CEOs of States and businesses, we all have an opportunity to help ensure that 

all citizens, including those with disabilities, have the chance to engage in productive employment and participate fully in community life. To that end, we have to 

invest in strategies that result in benefits for these individuals, and in turn, States 

and businesses. 

CHARTING THE PATH FORWARD

Advancing employment opportunities for individuals with disabilities is the right 

thing to do. It’s the smart thing for government to do. And it makes good business 

sense. I’m so proud of the work of my fellow Governors to help make sure people 

with disabilities are part of the competitive workforce and fully included in society. 

I am also proud of the work we’re doing with the NGA initiative. We have worked 

hard to engage directly with a broad cross section of stakeholders to inform the initiative’s efforts. Since the initiative began in July, NGA staff and my staff have 

taken more than 50 meetings with subject matter experts in the field of disability 

employment, including the businesses who employ people with disabilities, providers, researchers, policymakers, and—importantly—self-advocates, who speak 

from experience with disabilities. I am so grateful to everyone we’ve talked to for 

their enthusiastic support and valuable insights. In September and October, NGA 

held two roundtables—one among national advocacy organizations and the other 

with a broader cross section of experts—with the goal to learn two things: 

What is working, and what is the path forward? 

While everyone speaks with a different voice, from different parts of the country, 

and certainly different views: I’ve learned three key things or ‘‘lessons’’ that consistently pervade our conversations. No. 1, employers don’t care about labels, they care 

about skills. People with disabilities need to be part of the mainstream workforce, 

right alongside people without disabilities. No. 2, when businesses hire people with 

disabilities, they benefit in their bottom line and also report improvements in their 

culture. This is true for small businesses as well as large national corporations. It’s 

true for the entire spectrum of industries—from manufacturing to entrepreneurship 

to STEM fields. And No. 3, the path forward is one of shared responsibility—it’s a 

path that business, government, and families are going to chart together. 

Over the next several months, we will bring together State policymakers and business leaders in two regional summits. The goals of the NGA summits are, first and 

foremost: to share best practices across States and identify what’s already working. 

The other key goal is to chart the path forward—together. The path forward is one 

of partnership and shared responsibility across sectors and stakeholders. 

In August, NGA will release a blueprint to Governors and businesses capturing 

best practices and outlining options for carrying the momentum forward. At the end 

of the initiative, it is my goal to have a clearer picture of how Governors can continue to: 

• Educate both private sector and public sector employers about accommodating 

people with disabilities in the workplace and the benefits of doing so; 
16 

• Support State governments in joining with business partners to develop blueprints to promote the hiring and retention of individuals with disabilities in integrated employment in both the public and private sectors; and 

• Promote public-private partnerships to build out those blueprints and increase 

employment of individuals with disabilities. 

Much is being learned through our work; and much more can be learned. If our 

Nation is to be competitive and our economy is to grow, the skills and knowledge 

of all our citizens must be brought to bear. I’m so proud that Governors are leading 

these efforts and working to streamline access and training so that employers have 

a pool of job-ready individuals to draw upon. 

As Governors continue to push action and innovation to advance employment opportunities for people with disabilities, Congress can help. States need to have the 

flexibility to be innovative in order to support businesses in advancing employment 

opportunities for people with disabilities. Governors will need your leadership to 

support flexible federalism, like the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) 15 percent setaside, in order to continue innovating so we can effectively serve people with disabilities and the businesses who hire them. 

For years, States have relied on the 15 percent WIA set-aside to support and seed 

innovations that allow us to partner with industry, attract new businesses, upskill 

our current workforce, and better serve our constituents who rely on America’s Jobs 

Centers. For example, Washington State used the set-aside funds to allow the Governor’s office to facilitate a partnership across the public and private sectors to attract a new manufacturer, Profile Composites, to the State. The British Columbiabased company—which makes collapsible wheelchairs, sport crutches and other assistive products—is committed to hiring veterans and individuals with disabilities 

and is designing its training and manufacturing facilities to accommodate all levels 

of physical ability. A $100,000 investment of WIA set-aside funds will go toward 

workforce recruitment and integrating the company’s training with established college degree and certificate programs. The company is investing $10.4 million to 

build the facility and establish its training programs, creating at least 200 jobs. 

As you can see, the 15 percent set-aside is a valuable tool for States. But since 

2008, funding for this flexible, innovative fund has been reduced by nearly 70 percent. In fiscal year 2010, the cut to State set-aside dollars from 15 percent to 5 percent hurt States’ ability to serve our workers, including workers with disabilities. 

I want to thank Senator Harkin and this committee for your work to restore the 

set-aside. What is really needed from Congress now is a restoration of the full 15 

percent.

Congress must also prioritize and modernize the Workforce Investment Act. It’s 

been well over a decade since Congress revised this law. Much has changed in the 

work place, much has changed in business, and much has changed as evidenced by 

today’s modern, high-tech economy. We are also learning much. The ability for 

States to innovate in their own, unique set of circumstances will always yield the 

best outcomes for individuals, and the best lessons for other States. 

Success depends on the shared passion and commitment that we see across so 

many diverse sectors of society. It has been heartening to already see advocates, researchers, businesses, individuals and government officials across the political parties and all regions of the country come together to support the NGA initiative and 

advance progress on this topic. Together, we can continue to make a difference so 

that persons with disabilities have the same opportunities as everyone else. 

The CHAIRMAN. Governor Markell, thank you for a great statement. Thank you for your leadership on this. I know how busy you 

are. Thanks for being here today to lead off our discussion. 

I, too, was very impressed by that day in Connecticut last summer—CEOs of all these major businesses, and CEO Greg Wasson 

of Walgreens hosted it. It was interesting, I think, that about half 

of the people who worked at that distribution center were people 

with disabilities, and yet it’s their most productive center that they 

have. I think that made a great impression on a lot of people, including me, and it pointed out that with just minor modifications, 

sometimes people with disabilities are more productive than people 

without disabilities. 

We all have our own stories. I have mine. What kind of got me 

involved in this many, many years ago was my own brother, Frank, 
17 

who was deaf. He was told when he went to deaf school that he 

could be a baker or an apprentice shoe repair person or something 

like that. He didn’t want to do any of that. So they said, ‘‘OK, 

you’re going to be a baker,’’ so he became a baker. He never really 

liked that. 

But one day, just through happenstance, he was hired by Mr. 

Delavan at a manufacturing plant in Des Moines, IA, or West Des 

Moines, IA. It was a hold-over from World War II, and they made 

nozzles for jet engines and had to operate these very intricate little 

machines and drill these very fine little holes. They had to be very 

precise. So he hired my brother to do that. 

But it was a very noisy place, and people were always distracted 

by the noises. Noise didn’t bother my brother one bit. So once he 

learned how to run that machine, he was more productive than 

anybody else that had ever run those machines. And all that Mr. 

Delavan had to do was put up a little light to signal my brother, 

Frank, if he needed to stop and converse with someone or to have 

someone talk to him about something, because he couldn’t hear. So 

he just had a light set there, and if the light turned on red, he 

stopped what he was doing to see what someone wanted him to do. 

Mr. Delavan, based on that, started hiring even more people with 

disabilities, because he found out that they were actually, with 

minor modifications in the work place, more productive. I think we 

saw that up at Windsor, CT, the minor little modifications here 

and there, and people could do the job. 

And I take your comments on WIA, the Workforce Investment 

Act—I am chagrined and disappointed that we were not able to get 

it through in the last Congress. I’m committed to work with Senator Alexander. We’re going to try it again. It was only held up by 

a minor problem, and, hopefully, we can get over that hurdle and 

get the Workforce Investment Act reauthorized so we can get back 

to that 15 percent set-aside that you mentioned. 

Last, I want everyone to know that what we’re talking about 

here is a new structure where the default position of a young person in high school now is not to go into some kind of sheltered employment at subminimum wage, but the default is to go into competitive employment. That ought to be the first thing. That ought 

to be the first that they go into, and we need training for that. We 

need internships for young people. We need better voc rehab people 

working with these young people in schools to get them ready for 

competitive employment. 

The only question I’d have for you is this, because we’re talking 

about private sector employment here. In your discussions with 

your business leaders in Delaware and perhaps around the country 

now as head of NGA, what is it that the businesses are telling you 

that they need that we could do both on a State level and from a 

Federal level that would move this forward for them to be able to 

do more, to hire more people with disabilities? What do business 

people say? What do they need us to do? 

Governor MARKELL. In many cases what they’re asking for is a 

more functional system within the States. Instead of, for example, 

vocational rehabilitation agencies going to the businesses with a 

list of individuals, saying, ‘‘Can you please place these people?’’, 

let’s think about it from their perspective. Let’s go to the busi-
18 

nesses and say, ‘‘Can you please help us understand the specific 

skills that you’re looking for and let us go find people with those 

skills?’’ The fact is those skills could very well be possessed by people who have some type of disability, and that disability doesn’t actually get in the way of them doing a great job using that particular skill. 

That’s one important learning. Another thing—and it really gets 

back to what you were just talking about with the young people in 

schools and what it is that we’re preparing them for. And I think 

you went through a pretty good list. But in addition to the policy 

piece, there’s also an issue of changing the expectations. Too often, 

what we have heard is that students, young people with disabilities 

who are in school, are prepared for the time that they turn 17. 

Historically, too often, they’ve been told that when they turn 17, 

it will be time for them to sign up for one benefit or another, instead of really inculcating from the time that they are young that 

what they’re really being prepared for is a lifetime of work, that 

there are lots of jobs that they can do. And I think the point that 

you were just making with respect to making sure that there are 

internship opportunities and that we partner with the business 

community—I think, as you said—and you talked about it in the 

case of Walgreens and their distribution centers. 

Walgreens has distribution centers all over the country, and a 

company that is as sophisticated as they are—they measure every 

possible metric. And what they, in fact, have found—whether it’s 

the one in South Carolina or the one in Connecticut—is that their 

distribution centers that have a significant number of people with 

disabilities tend to perform better. They’ve got lower turnover. 

They have less absenteeism. They’ve got a great work ethic. 

The CHAIRMAN. That’s right. 

Governor MARKELL. I think this is a message that we are working very hard to make sure it gets out, not just from us to the business community, but from the business community to the business 

community, because if a CEO hears about that from a fellow CEO, 

we think that can go a long way. 

The CHAIRMAN. I shouldn’t ask this, but you just rung my bell 

again when you talked about work ethics. When my brother finally 

got the job that challenged him—I remember I was in the military, 

and I came home one Christmas on leave, and I went to his company Christmas party. And he got a gold watch because in 10 

years, he hadn’t missed 1 day of work or been late once in 10 years. 

So it’s that kind of work ethic, once given the opportunity to do 

that. 

Thank you again. I’m sorry. I took too long. 

Senator Alexander. 

Senator ALEXANDER. That’s one of the advantages of being chairman. You’ve worked hard to get in that position. 

Governor, thank you for being here, and I’m impressed with 

what you’re doing and the way you’re doing it. Talk a little bit 

about the interaction between Federal vocational rehabilitation dollars and the State match, which I understand is about 20 percent 

of Federal dollars. Are there things we need to do to make that 

work more effectively? 
19 

Governor MARKELL. I mentioned the WIA set-aside, but I think 

there’s a bigger point here, which has to do with workforce development dollars, generally, the wide array of programs and, frankly, 

the benefit that would accrue if States had more flexibility about 

how to use them. I mean, my sense is there are many, many different programs, each with their own line items, and, as a result, 

these programs are often run separately. 

If you go back to the example of what I mentioned a moment ago, 

one of the things we’ve heard from businesses—they’re saying, 

‘‘Please, instead of coming to us with a list of people and asking us to place them, instead come to us asking us what positions we have available and what skills we’re looking for.’’ 

And if the moneys are more flexible, we can essentially go back— 

and it’s not going to be one visit by the voc rehab people and another visit by another group from the Department of Labor and another group from the Department of Labor. 

We can say that we understand that businesses in our State are 

looking for skilled people, and we have a list of lots of people, some 

who have disabilities, some who may not have a disability. And 

what we’re really trying to do, particularly these days when we’re 

working so hard to put people back to work—what we’re looking to 

do is say, ‘‘OK. Let’s go back to all the people that we’re serving 

and find out who has the right skills, whether it’s people with disabilities, whether it’s people without disabilities.’’ And the more 

flexibility we have, the better off we’ll be. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Governor, I mentioned a little earlier the 

young man, Jack, the example I used, who is successfully employed 

and has been for the last 10 years. But he had a company that 

helped place him in first one job and then a second job and, finally, 

in a third job that worked for that 10 years. 

What has your experience been? Have you found nonprofit or forprofit companies useful, or have you found a large number of them 

who are basically in the business of identifying Americans with disabilities and matching them with employers? I mean, that’s something the State does. But is there also room there for nonprofit or 

even for-profit companies who basically make a business out of 

making this match work? 

Governor MARKELL. Without question, not only is there a place, 

but I think we need them, because, as you know, government can’t 

do it all ourselves. And we often find that there are valuable partners, whether they’re in the for-profit world or the not-for-profit 

world. But what we need to do is make sure that everybody’s incentives are aligned properly, that the system is a functional one. 

We’re a lot more likely to be successful if we really have a sense 

of what these skills are that local employers are looking for. And 

then let’s make sure, whether they’re for-profit, not-for-profit, or 

government agencies, that we’re all focused on serving that need. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Have any of the examples that you’ve 

learned from other Governors or in your experience focused on finding better ways to help students, say, high school students with 

disabilities, transition more easily to the workforce, in other words, 

start earlier with them in finding ways to find opportunities for 

them with the appropriate modifications? 
20 

Governor MARKELL. I’d say it’s three things. First, it is starting 

earlier with them. Second, when we start earlier with them, it’s 

changing the culture and changing their expectations of what 

they’re going to do with the rest of their lives. And, third, it’s about 

providing the opportunities while they’re still in school to have a 

sense of what that future might actually look like. It’s not just 

about the talk, but, actually, it’s about working with local employers to give them a chance, to get them into the workforce. 

We’ve got a partnership with our biggest healthcare system in 

Delaware that’s doing just that, and it’s a great training program. 

It’s an opportunity for these young people to learn early on what 

it means to show up in the workplace, the fact that they are expected not just to show up but they’re expected to—you know, how 

they’re supposed to dress, how they’re supposed to interact with 

people. 

So much of this comes back to what expectations we have. And, 

obviously, some people are capable of doing more than others, 

whether it’s intellectually or whether it’s physically. But I think 

part of the responsibility here is for us to help them and help their 

families figure out what their potential really is and to do everything we can so that there are opportunities to capitalize on that 

potential. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Thank you, Governor. 

And thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Alexander. I might just add 

that—I shouldn’t maybe go into this area, but in trying to get rid 

of No Child Left Behind, we’re trying to set up a new structure of 

career- and college-ready, or career- or college-ready. We never 

quite decided on that, did we? But the idea being that kids in 

school, including kids with disabilities—you back down from where 

they are all the way to grade school and say, ‘‘OK. How can we prepare them for college or career?’’ so that by the time—the expectations are always that they’re going to either go on to college or 

they’re going to have some kind of a career in the private sector. 

Senator Warren. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR WARREN

Senator WARREN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It’s 

something to be here with you, Senator Harkin, with Senator Alexander, and earlier with Senator Hatch, truly giants in this field. 

Your work on the Americans with Disabilities Act is historic and 

truly changed this country. So thank you. And you will be missed 

when you go. But I’m glad you’re here for 2 more years. We have 

a lot of work to do. 

Also, this is a very personal hearing for me and very important 

on this work. I taught special needs children as my first real paying job, and I loved the work. And, I have to say teachers who 

teach special needs kids work hard, and special needs kids work 

hard. But it was always in the back of my mind—where do they 

get to go from here for all their hard work? 

So a hearing that talks about how we open more opportunities 

for our young people who have worked for so many years to get 

themselves into a position where they will be able to do meaningful 

work is really important. So I commend you for your work, Gov-
21 

ernor, and commend you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing. 

I also hope, Governor, that you will indulge me if I brag on my 

Governor from back in Massachusetts. 

Governor MARKELL. He is the best. 

Senator WARREN. He is pretty terrific, isn’t he? Governor Patrick, 

in the first 90 days after he became Governor, put in executive orders that have resulted in an increase, about a 70 percent increase, 

in the employment of people with disabilities in the executive 

branch of government. And I want to talk for just a minute, if I 

can, about two particular parts of what Governor Patrick did, just 

so we get some conversation about it. 

One of them is that Governor Patrick insisted on mandatory 

training for all employees in the executive branch so that the 

issues about employing disabled citizens was something that everyone talked about. And I just wonder if you could talk about that 

for just a minute. 

Governor MARKELL. I think it’s a great idea. I mean, it does not 

surprise me that Governor Patrick is a leader in this field. I mean, 

he really is extraordinarily effective. So much of this, again, has to 

do with the culture, the expectations, and how they will be received. And we had just the other day at the NGA hearing the vice 

president of a company, as I mentioned, that makes windows and 

doors in Baltimore. I think it’s about a 60-employee company, and 

they’ve got quite a few people with disabilities. 

It’s not something that they really intended to do. They thought, 

window and door places actually can be pretty dangerous with all 

the glass, and they said this really couldn’t work. But they had a 

very effective advocate who said to give it a shot. And one of the 

things that they found is that this has made them a kinder company. 

When you go to the Walgreens facility in Windsor, CT, that Senator Harkin and I went to, there are signs all over the place making clear that it’s not us and them. It is we. And this is a very important learning that the way for this to be successful is that we 

will learn from each other. I think this idea of the training for all 

people makes it a whole lot more likely that the people with disabilities will be more successful and that, as a result, the organization as a whole will be successful. 

Senator WARREN. Thank you very much, Governor. Can I ask one 

more question? Governor Patrick also set up a pool of money so 

that it could be used to help pay for reasonable accommodations 

when a little change, just as Senator Harkin was talking about, 

needs to be made. And we understand that everyone is under financial pressure. There was a pot of money to go to be able to 

make those changes if they would permit the employment of someone who was disabled. Could you comment on that, please? 

Governor MARKELL. Well, it’s interesting. One of the things that 

some of the folks talked about at the panel the other day—I mean, 

certainly, accommodations do need to be made. In the case of 

Walgreens, which has about 250 employees at the Windsor, CT, facility who have disabilities and another 250 people without disabilities, there they have two job coaches. Now, not every company can 

afford a job coach. If you’re a 10-person company, you may not be 

able to afford a job coach. 
22 

But what one of the companies the other day found is that the 

accommodations ended up costing maybe $500 per employee, I 

mean, just not a big deal. They thought it would be a lot. But one 

of the things that they found—they actually became a safer company when they brought in more employees with disabilities, because they really took a hard look at their processes, and they 

wanted to make sure that the people with disabilities were not injured. The improvements that they made actually made it safer for 

everybody else. 

The accommodations can vary considerably from place to place. 

I think it is reasonable to expect that some accommodations may 

have to be made, but it’s also likely, if you really think about how 

you’re doing your business, that it may not be that expensive. 

I also appreciate you bringing up the idea of employment in the 

public sector generally. Our initiative, while largely focused on 

working with businesses, also recognizes that we as State governments can be model employers as well, and we have to walk the 

walk. There are lots of opportunities in government, whether it’s 

State, Federal, or local, where we can provide these employment 

opportunities. I think it’s easier, frankly, to go to businesses to encourage them to do the right thing when we can say, ‘‘Here are 

some of the steps that we’re taking within our own government and 

it’s working for us.’’ 

Senator WARREN. Thank you very much, Governor. Thank you 

for the pivot to what would have been my third question, but I 

would have been out of time. Thank you very much for your work, 

and greetings from Governor Patrick. 

Governor MARKELL. Thank you. Give him my best. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Warren. 

Now, we’ll go to Senator Murphy, Senator Baldwin, and Senator 

Murray. 

Senator Murphy. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR MURPHY

Senator MURPHY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I am so glad that you have taken this on as your mission, and 

I’m equally pleased that both you and Senator Harkin were able 

to come to Connecticut and see that amazing facility. You’ve said 

it better than I could say it, so I won’t repeat it. 

But it’s just good business for Walgreens. They certainly are 

doing it because they believe it’s the right thing. But, as you mentioned, productivity is up, safety has been enhanced, and the accommodations that they have to make are, frankly, stunningly 

minor compared to what most people would think the accommodations would need to be. It’s just a success story that we hope will 

be repeated. So I’m so glad that you came, and, hopefully, more 

Governors and more Senators will be able to see it, because it’s 

something that we should be replicating throughout the country. 

Governor, I wanted to talk about one subject that is absolutely 

essential to making sure that these individuals are ready to work, 

and that’s housing. I helped write a bill in the House of Representatives about 3 years ago that reformed the Nation’s support of 

housing laws. And the result of that bill will be that we’ll build 
23 

about three times as many supportive housing units across the 

country with Federal dollars. 

And even if we do reach this goal of having more private employers picking up disabled workers with these relatively small accommodations, it will likely still fall back on the public sector to help 

find appropriate housing. What we know is that in supportive 

housing, that relatively small investment in one individual living 

in the building who can act in some small measure as a job coach, 

to sort out any problems that might have happened that day, and 

to make sure the individual gets to places that they need to get for 

their different therapies and medicines—that makes the biggest 

difference in the world. 

So I wonder if you might talk about how you see the interaction 

of appropriate housing for individuals with disabilities play into 

their employability and how, unfortunately, if we continue down 

the path of taking supportive housing units offline as budgets get 

tighter and tighter, it’s going to make it a lot harder to actually 

get a lot of these individuals employment ready. 

Governor MARKELL. Thanks for the question. It’s about housing. 

It’s about transportation. It’s about providing the community supports. And I mentioned earlier that Secretary Landgraf, who is the 

secretary of Delaware’s Department of Health and Social Services, 

is with us today. 

I’ve been in office just over 4 years now, and she has been spending considerable time since we took office together in January 2009 

on this very issue of making sure that people with disabilities and 

others have the opportunity to live in the least restrictive setting, 

meaning the community, if that’s what they want to do. And that 

obviously means having an available, affordable supply of housing 

stock that is close to transportation and close to other services as 

needed. 

This is a difficult thing to do, because you’ve got to make these 

investments early enough on. And when you make these investments, you need to make sure that people also have the community 

supports, like the community support that you just mentioned. So 

it can be expensive for States at a time when States can’t afford 

a lot of expensive things, because before we start giving people 

these offerings in the community, you’ve got to make sure that all 

of the community supports are available. 

We are spending considerable time on this in Delaware. I know 

a lot of States are doing the same thing. And I have to say I agree 

with the premise of your question, that we need to make sure—if 

people are going to be working out in the community and, certainly, living there—that we’ve got an adequate and affordable supply of good housing stock. 

Senator MURPHY. I don’t waste a moment to make a pitch for 

supportive housing because, to me, it’s the building block of success. If that individual has a safe place to live in the community 

with a modicum of support, then that allows them, frankly, to pay 

back that investment in spades through this private employment 

model that we’re talking about here today. And I appreciate your 

efforts on all of this. 

Governor MARKELL. Thank you. 

Senator MURPHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
24 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Murray. I was going to call on Senator 

Murray for purposes of—OK. 

Senator Baldwin. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR BALDWIN

Senator BALDWIN. Thank you, Chairman Harkin, and I want to 

add my thanks to you and Ranking Member Alexander for holding 

this very crucial hearing on State leadership in employment of people with disabilities. 

Governor, thank you also for being with us this afternoon. Your 

work on behalf of the National Governors Association on this important initiative to employ people with disabilities is very encouraging, and I’m delighted to get a chance to learn more. 

In preparation for this hearing, I spoke to some of the folks at 

the Wisconsin Vocational Rehabilitation Division about what’s happening in the various States that will be represented on the panel 

that’s following yours. And it wasn’t a big surprise to me to know 

that the Wisconsin DVR has been in close touch with all three 

States, talking about best practices and sharing innovative ideas. 

They consulted with Washington State on motivational interviewing, they consulted with Oklahoma on their cold case unit, and 

Wisconsin stole Utah’s best practices for improving our quality assurance program. All of these across-State collaborations have been 

very important to Wisconsin’s ability to serve individuals with disabilities and, hopefully, to those States they’ve partnered with over 

the years. 

Governor, how would we best increase the level of collaboration 

between States and make sure that best practices are available and 

shared? And how can we ensure that these types of collaborations 

are sustainable? 

Governor MARKELL. Well, thank you for the question. The answer to the first part of the question, only slightly tongue in cheek, 

is I would encourage—we think we should encourage all the Governors to go to Milwaukee this August when the National Governors Association is going to be having its next big meeting. I’m 

sure you appreciate the tourism plug. 

Senator BALDWIN. No question. 

Governor MARKELL. But that’s really a big part of this effort in 

the first place, to get Governors talking to each other, and I was 

very encouraged just a couple of days ago when we met. We had, 

actually, two separate meetings on this issue. And I should have 

said to Senator Murphy that Governor Malloy was very engaged in 

the conversation. Governor Walker was there the entire time, very 

focused. We’ll be going to Washington State in a few months to 

Governor Inslee. 

We’ve actually got a couple of institutes coming up. We’re calling 

them Governors Institutes. One is going to be in May in Pittsburgh, the other in May in Seattle. And the NGA is actually making money available to send a few people from each State so that 

we can have a day and a half of dialog about best practices. We 

are certainly hoping that Governors show up. And then we’ll be following that up, as I mentioned, with the meeting in Milwaukee. 

My sense is—and I was speaking earlier to the panelists who are 

coming on next. Senator Alexander was speaking earlier about 
25 

when he was chair of the NGA. That was really when they started 

this idea of having the organization focus on one initiative for the 

year. And they generally tend to be on education, healthcare, infrastructure, you know, big important issues. 

This is the first time that there’s been a focus on people with disabilities. And my guess is it’s probably going to be the last time in 

quite a while. It’s a relatively niche issue and, I think, a really important issue. But it’s one that hasn’t gotten so much attention. 

And a big reason that I chose this initiative is because I believed 

that it was tangible enough that it’s something that we can move 

the needle on if we got businesses and States working together. 

One of the things that we’re especially focused on is the involvement of the business community. For example, Greg Wasson from 

Walgreens came back the other day, and he spoke to all the Nation’s Governors. He and I were speaking about some of the other 

companies around the country and CEOs with whom he has relationships and the idea of him talking to some of these other executives. 

I’m sure I could name companies in each of your States. I mean, 

you think about Amazon, which has a massive distribution center 

network, and imagine the power if they did things—and, by the 

way, Amazon has a big facility in Delaware about which we’re 

thrilled—two of them that we’re thrilled about. But imagine the opportunity if CEOs listen to each other and understand this is not 

just about charity. This is about doing the right thing for their 

shareholders. It’s great for the community. 

We’re hoping that Governors, their staffs, and businesses working together can figure out best practices and make a commitment 

to moving forward. So I appreciate the question. And, really, one 

of the main reasons I chose this initiative was to answer that very 

question, which is let’s get the issue on the table. I mean, Senator 

Harkin, obviously, has done an incredible job throughout his career 

at a Federal level of making this a really important issue. We believed that it was time to make sure that States were really following in the lead that he and his colleagues have set out on over 

these years. 

Senator BALDWIN. Thank you. 

Governor MARKELL. You’re welcome. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR MURRAY

Senator MURRAY. Mr. Chairman, I’ll just thank Governor 

Markell for all of his work on this issue and this is an incredibly 

important hearing. I know he’s been sitting here a long time, and 

you have another panel, and I want to make sure I have an opportunity to introduce a member of the next panel. 

But, Governor, thank you very much for your focus on this. 

Governor MARKELL. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Again, Governor Markell, thank you, thank you, 

thank you for your great dynamic leadership on this. I know that 

all who are here and watching on C-SPAN can get a sense of your 

deep commitment to this. And you are moving the needle, believe 

me. I’m picking it up around the country. 

I know about the weekend you just had here. Hopefully, we’re 

going to have another session with Pete Sessions in Texas. We’re 
26 

thinking about having something, I think, in Delaware, if I’m not 

mistaken, in May. 

Governor MARKELL. Right. 

The CHAIRMAN. So things are moving, and I think with the examples that a lot of our private companies have given—we talked 

a lot about Greg Wasson and Walgreens, but others have stepped 

in there, too. With the examples that they’re showing and the fact 

that we have the U.S. Chamber of Commerce onboard with their 

stamp of approval on this, I think we can really make some differences. 

And you’re right that we can only do so much at the Federal 

level. The States—that’s where you can really make this really 

happen. And with some of the changes we need to make in voc 

rehab, in WIA reauthorization, and a couple of other things, I believe we’re at this point where we’re going to see more and more 

businesses understand that hiring people with disabilities is not, as 

you said, a charity. It’s best for their business. 

Thank you very much, Governor Markell. 

Governor MARKELL. Thanks for having me. 

The CHAIRMAN. Now we’ll call our second panel, Jane Boone, 

Mike O’Brien, Don Uchida. For the purpose of an introduction, I 

will first recognize Senator Murray. 

Senator MURRAY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I 

am very pleased to introduce one of our next panelists. As everyone 

here knows, Washington State has one of the most successful efforts to make sure that individuals with disabilities have full access to competitive integrated employment opportunities. It’s a 

commitment that I have strongly supported, and I want to thank 

the chairman for his continued and passionate leadership on this 

issue. 

Jane Boone, who is here with us, lives in Seattle and currently 

serves as a consultant with the State Employment Leadership Network. Until this past January, she administered the Jobs by 21 

Employment Partnership Project for the Washington State Division 

of Developmental Disabilities. In that position, she worked at the 

local, State, and national levels to put in place the collaborative 

practices, policies, and funding strategies needed for the State and 

the Nation’s workforce of persons with intellectual disabilities to 

get jobs and earn good wages. 

She administered an innovative funding strategy for pilot sites in 

Washington State so youth with intellectual disabilities could start 

work in a good job prior to school exit. Before moving to the State 

level, Jane spent 27 years working in Thurston and Mason Counties, and during her time there, both counties’ employment agencies closed their sheltered workshops and changed their business 

models to offer the support needed for working age adults with disabilities to work and earn real wages with community employers. 

Jane, welcome to today’s hearing. It’s great to have you here. 

And thank you for all your hard work over many years on this 

issue. I want you to know we all appreciate very much everything 

you’ve done to keep Washington and the United States out in front 

of providing quality employment opportunities for people with disabilities. It’s great to have you here. 
27 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for having her as one of your witnesses. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Murray. 

We’ll start with Ms. Boone, and then we’ll go to Mr. O’Brien, and 

then to Mr. Uchida. If you could sum up within 5 to 7 minutes— 

I read all your testimonies last night. They’re just great, every one 

of them. And, without objection, they will all be made a part of the 

record in their entirety. So if you’d just sum it up, then we can get 

into an exchange. Welcome. Thanks. 

STATEMENT OF JANE BOONE, CONSULTANT, STATE EMPLOYMENT LEADERSHIP NETWORK, WASHINGTON STATE, SEATTLE, WA 

Ms. BOONE. Thank you so much. 

And thank you, Senator Murray, both for the lovely introduction 

and for your service not only to our great State, but to this country 

and internationally. It’s much appreciated. 

Senator Harkin, it is a privilege to be in the same room with you. 

Your leadership, Senator Alexander’s leadership, and the leadership that is coming from our new members—it’s just an exciting 

time to be in the United States and talking about this particular 

issue. I was asked to speak today about Washington’s leadership 

and what we’ve accomplished, and I will speak to the accomplishments that we’ve achieved within the context of the workforce of 

people with intellectual and developmental disabilities. 

Some consider those disabilities to be the most complex because 

they may be also accompanied by a physical disability. A person 

can be blind, they can be deaf, they can have any variety of additional physical disabilities. But an intellectual disability is the disability that’s in common amongst all the workforce that I’ll be 

speaking about today. 

The foundation of the success in Washington State is pretty simple. We value people. We value every single person that is in our 

workforce in our State. We want those people to experience lives 

of value, to have respect, to have status, to increase in competence, 

to be healthy, safe, to have power, and to have choices. And like 

any of us in the room, they may not be able to do every job, but 

they can do several jobs. 

All of us need some sort of support, some sort of encouragement, 

some sort of accommodation, and it isn’t any different for a person 

with an intellectual disability. Beyond that, when we line up our 

policies, our funding, our accountability, and our message to say 

everyone is employable, everyone, we accomplish it. 

When we started in 1980, our employment rate of people working 

in jobs in the community, something that’s called integrated individual employment, was at zero. We didn’t even let people be in 

sheltered employment in 1980. We had day activity centers. 

By 2004, when we enacted our working age adult policy that said 

that the support we would provide to people to achieve lives of 

value where they could gain in status and respect and in competence and have more choices and be more integral in their community, we were at 53 percent. As last measured by the Institute 

of Community Inclusion, the wonderful institute in Boston, MA, we 

were at 89 percent. Being able to clearly say to our State that peo-
28 

ple would be expected and supported to achieve a living wage was 

absolutely paramount in our success. 

Currently, there are over 3,000 people with intellectual and developmental disabilities working in individual jobs for employers 

large and small, rural communities, urban areas, metropolitan 

communities, the private sector, the public sector, across Washington State. I wish they could all be here today. I wish all their 

employers could be here. I wish their families, their special ed 

teachers, their neighbors—I wish they were all here. 

But they can’t be. They’re at home. They’re working. I’m here. So 

I’ll share just two brief stories. Like most people working for Microsoft, Dan Thompson was the best at what he did. He could sort 

mail more quickly and more accurately than anyone else. And like 

most people who work at Microsoft, he liked having a connection 

with Bill Gates. Within 10 minutes of meeting him, you’d probably 

know he worked for Bill. He sorted his mail. 

What was different about Dan was not that he was born with 

Down’s Syndrome or an accompanying fragile medical condition. It 

was that Dan was born into the Thompson family. His parents, 

Margaret-Lee and Lorin Thompson—when they met Dan, when he 

was born, his doctor said, ‘‘Fragile heart condition—probably not 

going to make it very far.’’ They didn’t know they had a Thompson. 

When Dan graduated from high school, he had a job at Microsoft. 

And for the next 141⁄2 years, he worked there. The fact that Dan 

was really good at his job was an absolute requirement for working 

at Microsoft. It wasn’t required that he be such a likeable guy. It 

wasn’t required that everybody enjoyed going to the mail room to 

check in and hang with Dan for a while. 

The day after Dan died, the Microsoft flag on the Redmond campus flew at half staff. And both Governor Gary Locke and, at the 

time, Dino Rossi, his gubernatorial challenging candidate for the 

Governor’s position, sat side by side at his memorial service. 

Ron’s story is different. The complexity of Ron’s disability was 

such that he was unable to speak. Having no other way to communicate, in his frustration he inflicted grave harm to himself. Over 

his time, his injuries resulted in causing his own deafness and his 

own blindness. He was institutionalized with around the clock two 

on one staffing just to prevent him from inflicting further harm on 

himself. 

When he moved to King County, Ron’s employment agency found 

a job for Ron at a grocery store. And with a job coach, he learned 

to clean freezer cases and do other tasks at the grocery store. He 

learned he could count on himself and he could count on others. To 

get up in the morning, he had his hand on a vibrating alarm that 

told him it was time to get up and make his way to the bus stop. 

His self-injuring behavior stopped. He took home his paycheck. He 

interacted in the community. He didn’t hurt himself anymore. He 

had co-workers to interact with. He learned other ways to communicate. He did that at his job. 

We have learned person by person, job by job that everyone is 

employable. Right now in Washington State, people are averaging 

17 hours of work per week, and even though our minimum wage 

is right up there nationally, that means that they’re only earning 

about $7,000 a year. That’s not enough. Some people are working 
29 

40 hours a week, and in the public sector, they’re making closer to 

median wage. That’s what we want for everyone. We want everyone earning median wage. 

Self-advocates with disabilities are clear. They want good jobs, 

and they have a strong presence in our State legislature. Our employers in our communities know firsthand the importance of including everyone in the workforce. 

Shifting briefly to the national picture and speaking just to the 

intellectual disability community, nationally, between 80 and 90 

percent of people with intellectual disabilities are unemployed. Federally, we pay for people to be unemployed, either in a non-work 

day activity center or a segregated setting. That’s not the case in 

Washington State. It’s flipped the other way. Of the 7,500 people 

who are relying on the division for support, only 500 are left in 

sheltered workshops in the State of Washington, and that came 

simply from believing that everyone is employable and that we 

needed to line up our supports, our funding, our contracting, and 

our expectations to achieve that. 

So I would ask you that you insist upon cross-agency collaboration with other committees beyond your own—yours is critical— 

with education, because if we can assure America’s youth with the 

most complex disabilities are expected and supported to get good 

jobs, we will have this problem solved in the next two generations. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Boone follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JANE BOONE

SUMMARY

The success of Washington State in developing a workforce inclusive of those with 

intellectual and developmental disabilities is attributed primarily to the value that 

we as a State place on including each person as a valuable, contributing member 

of their community. Washington State understands that in America, earning a living wage is key to achieving health and safety, overcoming loneliness, gaining in 

competence and respect, making contributions to the community, having status, and 

exercising real power and real choice. The ability to earn a decent living in a rewarding job with the proper support is not something seen as privilege, but rather 

a right—an integral part of how we think about our workforce. 

However, achieving relatively high integrated employment among individuals 

with intellectual and developmental disabilities did not happen overnight. Sustained 

improvement in our State’s disability employment rate was achieved through leadership, careful planning, accountability, and close stakeholder involvement. 

A key factor to Washington State’s success has been the longstanding commitment 

to the principles and benefits of inclusion, leading first to approval of inclusive education laws in 1971. ‘‘Employment First’’—which articulates our philosophy that 

services and supports should be designed and delivered in a manner that leads to 

and supports competitive, integrated employment as the expected outcome—was approved by the State legislature in 2012. Employment First in Washington is not just 

a policy, but a fully supported and integrated practice in the State. Key to the success of Employment First has been the data collection and accountability component. 

The degree of stakeholder involvement has also been crucial to the success of Employment First. Self-advocates, along with their families, were among the strong initial supporters of Employment First. The daily presence of people with significant 

disabilities in workplaces across the State have helped to make commonplace the 

fact that people once considered unemployable are willing and able to fill important 

jobs in our communities. Employers have come to embrace this model and understand its benefits. 

However, there is more to be done. While the percentages of adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities working in competitive, integrated employment 

in Washington positions us as a national leader, the next step is reaching typical 
30 

employment rates, improving hours worked per week, wages, and benefits for these 

individuals. Although we are doing what we can Washington, collective accountability between State and Federal agencies and programs is essential to leveraging 

funding and programming opportunities that could serve those who are ready to 

work. This is especially important as a new generation of individuals with disabilities prepares to enter the workforce. 

Chairman Harkin, Ranking Member Alexander, distinguished committee members and dedicated staff, thank you for the opportunity to testify. My name is Jane 

Boone and I live in Seattle, WA. I currently serve as a consultant to the State Employment Leadership Network (also known as the SELN), a growing consortium of 

27 States across the country from Hawaii to Massachusetts. The SELN is collaboratively staffed by the Institute of Community Inclusion and the National Association of Directors of Developmental Disabilities Services. The purpose of the SELN 

is to improve employment for each State and our country’s workforce with intellectual and developmental disabilities. For the first 27 years of my career I worked 

as a grants administrator at the local government level in Thurston and Mason 

counties, one a metropolitan and the other a rural county in Washington. Then, for 

5 years until January 2013, I managed Washington State’s Jobs by 21 Employment 

Partnership. 

My career has one clear focus—developing and implementing the policies and 

practices needed for youth and adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities to get good jobs with good employers at typical ages, have the opportunity to 

advance in their careers, and earn a decent—better than decent—living. Having the 

opportunity to briefly summarize the key elements in place in Washington State 

over the past 40 years that have led to the inclusion of youth and working age 

adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities in Washington State’s workforce is, truly, a privilege. 

The core foundation of Washington’s success is simple. We value people with intellectual and developmental disabilities being in our lives and living as equally participating members in our communities. That is the heart of it. Given that, we know 

it is the responsibility of publicly funded support to promote the opportunity for all 

citizens to be integral members of our communities, living with status and respect, 

increasing in competence, expanding meaningful friendships and relationships, having access to an array of good choices, and being healthy and safe. These basic values make Washington’s focus on employment obvious. The most simple and costeffective way to achieve all of the basic elements essential to a decent life—for any 

of us—is to support everyone, perhaps most especially people with intellectual and 

developmental disabilities, to get and keep a good job and advance in their careers. 

Contrary to previously held beliefs in the United States, beliefs that resulted in 

segregating people with even very mild disabilities into sheltered workshops and 

adult ‘‘habilitation’’ centers, Washington has learned over and over again, job by job, 

person by person, employer by employer, that everyone is employable. Over 3,000 

people with significant and sometimes very complex disabilities are now working in 

integrated, competitive jobs with employers large and small. These are people who 

were segregated and not working 30 years ago in our State. With purposeful intent 

in policy and in funding, collaboration amongst government agencies, and the support of employment service agencies, families, friends, schools and networking, those 

jobs happened one employer and one person at a time. It didn’t happen overnight. 

With over half of Washington’s workforce relying on supports from the Division of 

Developmental Disabilities employed in individual integrated jobs, we now know 

that the entire workforce of youth and adults with intellectual and developmental 

disabilities are employable. Every young person, every middle-age person, every 

older person, can work in an integrated job in the community, no matter how complex or unusual the disability. We have learned that exactly like for you and me, 

with the right job match, the right jobs supports and a willing employer, everyone 

is capable of working and contributing to our economy and our communities. None 

of us can work for every employer, but each one of us can work and have a job when 

our talents and skills match the needs and supports available at our job. None of 

us gets through a workday without some level of support from our co-workers, our 

supervisors, some level of accommodation, no matter how great or small, and technology. For the workforce of people with very complex disabilities, that support will 

likely include expertise from a job developer to get the job, and a job coach or employment specialist on the job. That is not always needed, and when it is, it’s not 

usually much of a difference, it may include more in the way of on the job supports, 

job restructuring or more thinking about arranging the accommodations any of us 

need to get our jobs done to our employer’s and our own satisfaction. 
31 

While valuing the inclusion of all people is at the heart of Washington’s success, 

being clear and accountable to a goal is critical to successful achievement of any 

pursuit. 

WASHINGTON’S GOAL

Youth and adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities in Washington 

State will: 

• Have the support and expectation needed to earn a living wage; • Actively use existing talents and gain new abilities in every sector of the State’s 

workforce; and • Contribute as equals in the labor force and economic vitality of the State. 

WASHINGTON EIGHT ESSENTIALS TO GOAL ACHIEVEMENT

(1) Stakeholder Leadership—clear communication of vision, values and goal in 

policy and practice. 

(2) Accountability and Performance Measurement of data on progress toward employment goals. 

(3) Funding and Contracting methods investing in integrated employment. 

(4) Training and Technical Assistance to support and expand the expertise of 

employment agencies. 

(5) Common Accountabilities and Working Agreements amongst partners 

including local government, schools, Vocational Rehabilitation, employers and families. 

(6) Stakeholder and Advocacy involvement and guidance in policy and practice. 

(7) Private and public sector employment—government and business leadership in hiring. 

(8) Innovation and continuous quality improvement at the local and State 

level, including investment in new and increasingly effective business models. 

National Picture: Washington has relied on maximizing every element essential 

leading to our success for over 30 years, and our data shows the improvement in 

our employment outcomes and progress toward our goal of full inclusion in the 

workforce. Nationally, despite many employers hiring people with intellectual and 

developmental disabilities, despite the need for people to get and keep good jobs, despite our country’s urgent need for a capable workforce, it is not yet a commonly 

held belief that it is possible for everyone to work, and the data reflects the lack 

of expectation, the lack of assumption that everyone is employable. At the national 

level, currently, 80 percent to 90 percent of people with intellectual disabilities remain segregated in publicly funded sheltered workshops or segregated non-work day 

activity centers. The National Core Indicator study demonstrates that of those who 

are unemployed, the majority want a job, yet only 28 percent have an individual 

service plan that includes the goal of a getting a job. (Human Services Research Institute (2012). Working in the community: The status and outcomes of people with 

intellectual and developmental disabilities in integrated employment. NCI Data 

Brief, October 2012. Cambridge, MA: Human Services Research Institute.) 

How can this be, how can such a large segment of America’s workforce 

who wants to work remain segregated and unemployed without the expectation or assistance to get a good job and earn good wages? Some of Washington State’s self-advocates grew up knowing they would be expected to work, others feel lucky to have a job and see it as a privilege, especially amongst the older 

workforce. Typically, we think of privilege as being defined as an unusual benefit, 

perhaps a rare advantage or special honor. In America, a country founded on the 

rights of all citizens to pursue life, liberty and happiness, a nation with an economy 

based on the principles and benefits of capitalism, few of us would consider working 

or earning a living to provide for our families and ourselves as a rare privilege or 

a special honor. It is just what we do—we get up and go to work for a living. Few 

Americans consider paying taxes as a privilege; it is simply a measure of ordinary 

contribution in civic participation. 

However, the only reason I am here testifying before you today is that, according 

to data compiled annually by researchers at the Institute for Community Inclusion 

(ICI), and data published by the National Core Indicators project, at best 20 percent, 

and perhaps measured more accurately, 10 percent, of our workforce with intellectual and developmental disabilities are working in individual integrated jobs in a 

competitive environment. Said a different way, as mentioned, we are talking about 

an 80 percent to 90 percent unemployment rate for a significant portion of our country’s workforce. Not being expected to work and earn a living is distinctly not a 
32 

privilege. America’s working age adults with intellectual or developmental disabilities are overwhelmingly excluded from what the rest of our Nation takes for granted—the right, opportunity, support and expectation to find employment and ‘‘make 

a living.’’ Not surprisingly, for the most part, they are living in poverty. Poverty is 

not by definition an accompanying condition to disability, but unfortunately, that is 

the case in the United States. Now that we know how to do better, we have to do 

better. The privilege of my presence here is due to what is viewed as a ‘‘notable accomplishment’’—the relatively high number of adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities in Washington State working in jobs for employers in their communities and earning minimum wage or better. 

Washington’s success: With collaboration between the private and public sector, 

innovation, commitment from employment support agencies, and a persistent expectation and investment in employment, the integrated employment rate of adults relying on day and employment support from the Washington State Division of Developmental Disabilities has risen from just around 0 percent in 1980, to 53 percent 

in 2004 and, as last measured by ICI, to 89 percent in 2011. That may sound impressive, but we are the very first to admit that we have a long way to go until 

the day every person of working age is employed and earning decent wages. Eightynine percent is the total percentage of individuals receiving funded employment supports who are working in an individual job, or at a small group employment site. 

In that 89 percent figure are people who are working, but some are between jobs, 

or receiving support to land their first job, or advance in their career. The good news 

is that Washington has pretty much figured out how people with intellectual and 

developmental disabilities with relatively low employment support needs can enter 

the workforce and be successful on the job, but we are still learning how to work 

with employers so that 100 percent of the workforce can be working. The biggest 

disappointment is in the average hours worked per week and the wages earned. 

With only 17 hours per week as the average hours worked per week, and the hourly 

wages averaging just right around minimum wage, average annual earnings are 

roughly $7,000 and that is very different from our goal of median wage earnings 

and full-time work. 

National Initiatives: For over 5 years, Washington has actively participated in 

what is now a 27 State consortium—the State Employment Leadership Network. In 

2012, we also received a Federal grant from the Office of Disability and Employment Policy at the U.S. Department of Labor to mentor three States in Employment 

First practices—Iowa, Tennessee and Oregon. In the summer of 2012, Iowa’s team, 

led by David Mitchell, the Iowa vocational rehabilitation director, asked Washington 

to answer a series of questions that would help explain how Washington State has 

been able to achieve the relatively high level of people in integrated employment 

settings. That outline is summarized here: 

What are some factors essential to Washington’s success that might guide 

us? 

Washington is fully engaged in implementing an Employment First practice, it is 

not just a policy or a statute. Washington’s service system is aligned toward people 

with intellectual and developmental disabilities getting what they need to earn a 

living wage, reach their individual career goals and contribute to our State’s economy through participation in the labor force. Fundamental elements of Washington’s 

Employment First practice include: 

• The premise and expectation that almost all of us need to work to earn 

a living—and with a good job match and effective support, all of us can work. 

• It is essential to invest in an employment agency infrastructure competent to assess the community job market, match and train job-seeker skills and 

abilities to employer needs. 

• Effective employment support needs are unique to the individual and 

can be expected to fluctuate over time and vary in intensity along with job 

demands. 

• Publicly funded employment services, allowable expenditures, service 

definitions and billable activities are directed to the State’s intended outcome 

that people earn a living wage in an integrated job in the community. 

• Reimbursement and funding allocation methodologies provide the varying levels of support needed for individuals to get and keep good jobs, and continue 

to advance in careers. 

• Employment services are integral to the HCBS waiver plan and Washington provides Medicaid coverage under the Healthcare for Workers with 

Disabilities (HWD) program. The availability of Healthcare for Workers with disabilities helps remove the disincentive of losing medical insurance as workers earn 
33 

higher wages over time. Washington relies on Benefits Planners to assist individuals to use all available Federal resources in the pursuit of gainful employment. • Individual employment outcome data is collected monthly, is integral 

to the billing process and includes data on individual wages earned, hours 

worked, type of employment, hours of support received, job setting, cost of support 

and funding source. • Transparency and accountability to employment outcomes is paramount to achieving the goal: Statewide employment outcome reports based 

on the above data elements with report query capacity at the employment service 

type, age, level of support need, provider, county, regional and statewide level are 

available to anyone with Internet access at this Web site: http://www.statedata.info 

/washington-ddd/. • Employment earnings data is available from the State’s unemployment 

insurance department each quarter via an interagency agreement. The reports, trends and patterns reflected in that data is integral to our measurement of 

progress in employment outcomes. • Washington State Division of Developmental Disabilities relies on collaborative inter-agency partnerships with Counties, the Division of Vocational Rehabilitation, Self-Advocate Organizations, Family Organizations, 

the Developmental Disabilities Council, Disability Rights and Advocacy Organizations, the Workforce Investment Board, the State Department of 

Education (Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction), University Centers for Excellence, the State Legislature and the Governor’s office. Counties 

and employment providers have much deeper connections at the local level with 

schools, employers, families, Rotary and Kiwanis, transportation providers, and 

other community agencies and service providers integral to the employment success 

of local citizens with intellectual and developmental disabilities. • Employment provider evaluation and monitoring is conducted regularly, 

and includes the essential elements defining measures counties must regularly review in evaluating service providers. • Technical assistance and training is available through the Washington Initiative for Supported Employment and other contractors for county and contracted 

employment providers to gain in competency and create new business models and 

ways of achieving valued outcomes. Individualized Technical Assistance is also 

available to job seekers who are experiencing difficulty in achieving their employment goals. • County contracts define and reinforce the expectation of integrated employment outcomes for individuals. • High School Transition to Work is encouraged at the local level, and counties may elect to use State contract funds to foster collaborative relationships with 

communities and schools so youth exit school with good jobs. The DDD County Program Agreement cites as an allowable category, 

‘‘Partnership Project: Collaborative partnerships with school districts, employment providers, DVR, families, employers and other community collaborators 

needed to provide the employment supports and services young adults with developmental disabilities require to become employed during the school year they 

turn 21.’’ 

The Partnership Project 2009 evaluation report provides more information on the 

State’s innovative, effective and above all, collaborative efforts in school transition 

to work. 

Washington has been working toward supporting individuals with intellectual and 

developmental disabilities to earn living wage jobs in integrated community settings 

for over 30 years, and the principles and practices of Employment First exist 

throughout the service system. Additional factors include: 

State Legislative Role: Until the 2011 legislative session with the passage of 

Employment First legislation (SB 6384), the legislative policy framework for delivering employment services has been through budget appropriation language, which 

has consistently provided funding for employment and day services. In 2004, the division, working with stakeholders, drafted the Working Age Adult Policy and gave 

counties until 2006 to implement. The policy made employment the only option for 

working age people unless an exception was granted. In 2009, there was a significant stakeholder discussion about access to lifelong learning opportunities—more 

than just employment. Part of the discussions was disagreement about whether or 

not all working age people could or should work. The legislature did not address 

the policy issues and the budget continued to make employment funding available. 

In the 2012 legislative session the legislature considered the issue again and in 

effect passed Employment First legislation by ensuring working age people have the 
34 

right to participate in Community Access if efforts at employment are unsuccessful 

after 9 months. 

There is some disagreement in the legislature about Employment First. The State 

Senate has been almost unanimous in its support of employment. The State House 

has had significant supporters of Employment First and significant supporters of a 

non-employment agenda. In 2012, Employment First became State policy by legislative direction. 

Grassroots efforts: Washington has been working on developing stakeholder 

commitment to the value of employment for people with disabilities; the community 

inclusion options it brings, the status people gain by being employed, expanding system capacity and expertise for and experienced much success. Self-advocates with 

disabilities are clear that they want employment first and are a consistent presence 

in the legislature. Employment agencies (including agencies that run sheltered 

workshops) have been consistently supportive of Employment First and were the 

leaders in changing their business models. Families are passionate advocates for 

employment and there are families that are passionate about employment first 

being wrong for their family member. 

To emphasize the clarity on the type of employment opportunities the State has 

expected the county to deliver for the past 20 years, below is an excerpted section 

of the 1992 County Guidelines on Employment Services: 

The following are some of the outcomes counties would want to see people experiencing from employment services: 

• Employment in businesses that: 

• Offer status in the community. • Are typical businesses in the community. • Offer opportunities for an increase in natural supports. • Offer benefits, including vacation, health insurance, retirement, etc. • Offer the opportunity for wages that support economic self-sufficiency. 

• Jobs that contain elements of upward mobility, including: 

• Opportunity for advancement. • Increased wages. • Opportunities for new employment. 

• Choices for individuals in: 

• The work they do. • Who provides the support. • Location of the job. • Hours worked. 

• Opportunities for relationships and support from co-workers who are not labeled disabled. 

• Supports that provide culturally competent services to individuals and their 

families, and demonstrate a value for diversity and 

• Opportunities for everyone that wants a job to have a job. 

Real change relies on believing that it can happen and must happen and the determination to see it through. At what point in time did people in Washington accept (realize, buy in, understand) that individuals with significant and intellectual 

disabilities can work in good jobs, contribute to the general labor force and earn a 

living wage? 

Not surprisingly, some of the strongest initial opponents have become the strongest advocates, especially among family members, but also among legislators, county 

coordinators, employers, boards of directors, sheltered workshop CEO’s and school 

districts who have realigned their services and curriculums toward the realization 

of integrated community employment for the State’s labor force with the most significant intellectual and developmental disabilities. For every would be opponent, 

there is likely a different story behind why they became a strong advocate, but almost to a person have in common knowing or employing one or more students or 

adults with a significant disability who may have once been in a segregated setting—and who are now working successfully in a job in the community. Large, medium and small employers hire individuals statewide, in rural, urban and metropolitan areas. Minimum wage in Washington is just over $9 an hour, but many employees make more, and some have excellent job benefits. 

Employment in community jobs is becoming more and more what is typical for 

people with significant disabilities in Washington and less and less the exception. 

It has taken a few generations to get to this point, and it may take at least one 

more to realize employment rates and earnings for the labor force with intellectual 

and developmental disabilities at levels typical for the general population. 
35 

Historically, on a national level, before Marc Gold introduced systematic instruction techniques in the late 1960s, there were few people, (outside of family members 

working in family businesses or who had a very strong work ethic and had helped 

their sons and daughters get a job) who believed people with a significant intellectual disability could work. Tom Bellamy, at the University of Oregon in the 1970s 

and 1980s, with the development of the Specialized Training Program, continued to 

build on the premise of systematic instruction, making it clear that the capability 

of individuals could be greatly enhanced by the competency of their employment 

specialists. National leaders came early and often to Washington State, and directly 

contribute to Washington’s success, most notably including David Mank, John 

Butterworth and Rich Luecking, John and Connie Lyle O’Brien and Washington 

State’s 45-year fearless leader and force of nature, Linda Rolfe. Michael Callahan 

and his colleagues at Employment for All advanced the concepts of systematic instruction further through their tireless work in customized employment, placing an 

increased emphasis on the importance of coupling systematic instruction with job 

placement that meets both the employer’s needs and the job seeker’s unique interests, abilities and non-negotiable job requirements. 

Informally, the expectation that everyone can work, and the message that thousands of Washingtonians with significant disabilities are working, is reinforced 

every day by employers who continue to hire, and employees who continue to work, 

be promoted, and advance in their careers. It is further reinforced in the State’s 

school districts that have entered into collaborative agreements with counties, DVR 

and community employment providers to assist students age 18–21 to get jobs and 

graduate with positive post-school outcomes competitively employed. The Washington Initiative for Supported Employment provides reinforcement by maintaining 

an ever-growing collection of employment success stories hosted at the YouTube 

Web site: http://www.youtube.com/user/WiSeMovies. 

At the most basic level, the expectation of employment in community jobs is likely 

reinforced best by the presence and participation of citizens with significant disabilities on the bus on their way to work, in the office interacting with customers, on 

job sites with co-workers, at family gatherings, parties and in casual conversation 

when a person with a significant disability answers the question ‘‘What do you do?’’ 

by talking about her or his job. 

Washington employment providers have banded together under the Community 

Employment Alliance to support each other to be ever more successful in the mission of supporting all individuals in Washington to work in good jobs. The Washington Initiative for Supported Employment uses social media to get the word out, 

and continues to produce and collect video and spoken testimonials and publishes 

them on their Web site. 

What difference has the policy toward employment made in Washington? 

Since Washington has been working toward integrated employment since the early 

1980s by the time the Working Age Adult policy was adopted in 2006, Washington 

Division of Developmental Disabilities did not have a large investment in Day Habilitation centers or a large number of segregated employment service providers. 

Many of the former sheltered workshop agencies have been at the forefront of the 

positive changes, and most have either transformed their business model entirely 

to one of assisting individuals to work in supported employment, or have a smaller 

population of people receiving prevocational services as they continue to work toward integrated employment. 

To illustrate the impact the policy has had over time, between July 2007 and July 

2011, there was a 33 percent decline in the numbers of people in segregated 

PreVocational Service settings and a 28 percent increase in numbers of people receiving support in Individual Employment Services: 

• July 2007, 809 clients in PreVocational and 3,044 in Individual Employment 

Services 

• July 2011, 541 clients in PreVocational and 4,170 in Individual Employment 

Services 

Washington DDD relies on a strong partnership with the Division of Vocational Rehabilitation and invests in staff competencies. Community Rehabilitation Providers (employment supports and service agencies) serving more than 

20 clients are required to have CARF accreditation and meet their staff competency 

criteria. Agencies keep track of employee training in personnel records, Counties 

track agency provider compliance with training requirements through their monitoring activities. 

Why is data collection and accountability critical? Simply put, you get what 

you measure. 

The data is used to demonstrate: 
36 

• employed people use fewer resources to maintain employment; • employed people like their jobs; show up and are good employees; • employed people can earn good wages; • it costs more to find jobs for people of high employment support need than it 

does for people of low and medium employment support need; • there are lots of jobs people with developmental disabilities can do; • there are lots of employers that like the work ethic demonstrated by workers 

with disabilities; • successful job finding involves knowing the person, knowing the job market, assessing work flow in businesses and being able to connect the right person with the 

right job; and • more jobs are available when employment agencies focus on employer interests 

such as good employees that improve employer’s bottom line and do not regard employment as the employer’s civic duty. 

We are not there yet, but Washington is making progress. We have learned by 

paying close attention to the data we collect, data that merges our publicly funded 

service billings (primarily CMS Medicaid-funded services), with employment outcome reporting, that dramatic results can occur when values line up with leadership, and the message is a clear investment in employment. 

On June 7, 2012, Governor Christine Gregoire signed the State’s ‘‘Employment for 

All’’ legislation, which received national recognition. Many advocates, families, employers, employment agencies, county and State government stakeholders were at 

the signing ceremony to celebrate. But June 7, 2012, was also a celebration of over 

40 years of working toward that day. Washington was the first State in the Nation 

with parents lobbying successfully to pass HB 90 in 1971, Washington’s Education 

for All bill. It was not until 1975 that a similar bill was passed at the Federal level. 

It is likely no coincidence that our integrated employment rates are now the highest 

in the Nation for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Many of 

these same parents, who expected their sons and daughters to go to school with 

their sisters and brothers, also expected them to work, have a career, pay taxes, and 

earn a living. These families know they are capable of contributing to their communities. Washington has sustained the commitment to integration and inclusion 

begun by parents in the 1960s because integrated and inclusive employment for 

adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities—just as it is for anyone— 

proves to be the best way to achieve the greatest level of personal development and 

economic self-sufficiency. 

What is happening nationally with the Federal investment? We know that 

the most effective way out of poverty is not by relying on welfare. Being reliant on 

a government check is risky business and the pay is lousy at the individual level, 

but collectively, as a Nation, it is very expensive and costly. The average social security check issued to a person with a disability puts their earnings far below the Federal poverty level, yet Medicaid funding has reached crisis proportions. Not one of 

us wants Federal funding to result in people living in poverty, be unemployed, or 

earn less than minimum wage, but this is what the majority of our country’s Medicaid investment is in a day and employment supports is buying for our workforce 

of people with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Researchers ICI began in 

1988 to annually collect national investment and outcome data at the individual 

State level. 

The ICI data continues to demonstrate, year after year, that our country pays 

more for people with intellectual disabilities to remain segregated in sheltered 

workshops, or not work at all, than it invests in the supports needed for them 

to join America’s workforce, earn a living wage, be a tax-paying citizen, and 

gain in competence, friendships, status and relationships. 

States are doing what they can to improve employment opportunities and outcomes. In addition to the initiative at the National Governors Association, several 

States are working toward or adopting what is known as ‘‘Employment First’’ policies and States have access to the U.S. Department of Labor’s Office of Disability 

Employment Policy’s leadership. More than half the States in our Nation currently 

belong to a consortium referred to earlier as the State Employment Leadership Network (SELN). The SELN is staffed by ICI at UMass/Boston and the National Association of Directors of Developmental Disabilities Services. The mission of the State 

Employment Leadership Network is to improve employment outcomes through a series of well thought out strategies, technical assistance, webinar training, data 

briefs and onsite training and support. But State leadership is not enough, Federal 

policies need to clearly direct funding and construct legislation supporting the expectation and opportunity of typical living wage employment for all Americans with intellectual disabilities. We have a long way to go to get there, but we are a country 
37 

with a history of figuring out how to do better and how to innovate. We are a country capable of changing business models to achieve effective practices. 

Perhaps most importantly, we are a country capable of including and valuing 

Americans we once shunned. In 1975, Congress passed the legislation allowing 

every child the right to a public education, Public Law 94–142, now authorized as 

IDEA, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. If almost 40 years ago, Congress could pass legislation allowing every child the right to go to school along with 

their sisters and brothers, isn’t it time they now be employed along with their sisters and brothers, community members and neighbors? Data shows us this is not 

the case for the majority of students exiting school, but this is where we need to 

start—with youth getting typical jobs at typical ages. We need to include students 

with intellectual disabilities in our country’s excellent career and technical education classes in high school, not just in special education. Even with a strong emphasis on effective transition principles in IDEA, and with data collected on postschool outcomes, the national data ICI collects demonstrates that in most States, 

the overwhelming majority of adults with intellectual disabilities are in segregated 

sheltered workshops or day habilitation centers. Washington State’s Jobs by 21 

Partnership Project demonstrated that with effective collaboration between counties, 

schools, supported employment agencies, Vocational Rehabilitation and employers 

during the critical ages of 18 and 21, youth can exit school with jobs. The data also 

demonstrated that the most likely indicator of a young adult’s ability to have a job 

after school was his or her job status at the time of school exit. Students need to 

be working and have a resume to remain working and advance in their careers and 

wage earning potential after exiting school. 

What can the Federal Government do to provide leadership? The Federal 

statutes and Federal money are not currently aligned in a way that we are collaboratively accountable to employment outcomes for youth or adults with intellectual 

and developmental disabilities. There is no place to identify what we expect of the 

different systems, Employment and Training Administration, Vocational Rehabilitation, Education and Medicaid, where we are collectively accountable to the same set 

of goals and reasonable outcomes of employment. We are not working together, we 

are not leveraging funding and opportunities and we are not holding ourselves accountable to the outcome of employment. We need to invest in employment, develop 

cross agency accountability, judge agencies similarly and make employment the 

most attractive support States can offer this workforce. To embark on the generation that will change the landscape of employment for generations to come, we need 

statutory change that effectively support students with the most significant disabilities who are the most difficult to support so that every Federal agency is held accountable to youth earning a good job and a good wage. If our country aligns its 

Federal resources and accountability to insure that youth with the most significant 

and complex disabilities will be expected and supported to work at a real job and 

earn real wages, we will have this problem solved in two generations. 

To close, I have chosen to share just two brief stories that illustrate better than 

any statistic why Federal investments need to be redirected to support integrated, 

living wage employment, and why funding for people to be segregated, day in and 

day out in habilitation centers, and not working, is not acceptable. 

From the over 3,000 compelling stories about people working in individual, integrated employment in Washington State today, I cite these two, one each from the 

public and private sectors. The first story is from the ‘‘early days’’. Along with developing jobs in the private sector, in large and small businesses, Washington began 

developing jobs in the public sector jobs in the 1980s. One of the first public sector 

jobs specifically carved out was in Olympia, WA, an Office Trainee job, a job primarily requiring numerical and alphabetical filing. Several people with developmental disabilities applied for the job, and Bruce got it. On Friday, Bruce left his 

job at the segregated sheltered workshop, where he had worked for many years 

microfilming State records for archives. Like others at the workshop, Bruce was 

paid there based on productivity, and he legally earned a subminimum wage. His 

monthly earnings in the late 1980s averaged approximately $150 a month. On the 

following Monday, when he began work for his new employer, his starting salary 

earned him a little over $1,400 a month, with full holiday, sick, dental, vacation and 

retirement benefits. Bruce was the same guy in both jobs, with the same reliable 

work habits, same cheerful can-do attitude, the same basic skills. He needed some 

support to learn his way around the new job, and along with everyone else, his job 

duties with the State shifted over time, but from the first day on the job he didn’t 

need any help engaging in elevator banter with his coworkers about the Seattle 

Mariners or the Seahawks. Asked if he wanted to go back to his old job at the sheltered workshop, he said ‘‘No way. I like my paycheck. I have new friends here. Besides what would they do without me? The filing would pile up.’’ 
38 

Second story: I live in Seattle where Microsoft is a major employer, with about 

40,000+ employees in the Puget Sound region and 97,000+ worldwide. Standing on 

the corner with a morning cup of coffee, waiting for the Microsoft Connector transit 

shuttle to the Redmond Microsoft campus, says pretty clearly that you are rolling 

with the in-crowd. You work for Microsoft. If Dan Thompson were alive today, and 

speaking before you, you would learn within the first 10 minutes that he worked 

for Microsoft. Dan Thompson’s mother, Margaret-Lee Thompson said, ‘‘If you can 

find something people do well, you can connect them with a good job.’’ Dan was good 

at putting things in the right place and he liked to read. Microsoft’s mailroom was 

a good fit, and he was the most accurate and fastest sorter. ‘‘I like my job,’’ Dan 

said, ‘‘I work for Bill.’’ 

Dan Thompson was like many people working for Microsoft, they are the best at 

what they do, and they appreciate having a connection with Bill Gates. What was 

different about Dan is not that he was born with Down syndrome or an accompanying medical condition; it was Dan’s family’s expectation that he be included and 

contribute at home, at church, and at school. If Dan’s family had expected less, or 

if he lived in another State, Dan may have spent the rest of his days segregated 

from the community, playing BINGO, or maybe watching television in a habilitation 

center. But Dan was a Thompson family member, and Dan never set foot in a sheltered workshop. Dan went to work at Microsoft, where he was as included and valued at work as he was at home. The day after Dan died, the Microsoft campus flag 

was lowered to half-mast. If they were here today, Dan’s parents, Margaret-Lee and 

Lorin Thompson, might add that what Dan loved best was having enough money 

saved from his earnings to give gifts, to contribute to the happiness of his family. 

His parents would definitely tell you that Dan having a good paying job with a great 

employer was not only the best thing for Dan, but for Dan’s family. It went pretty 

well for Microsoft, too, he worked there for 141⁄2 well-paid years. 

As I close, I must say that even as I speak to our successes, the fact that Washington’s data, statistics and stories, are viewed as amongst the best in the Nation, 

simply serves to underscore the most painful aspect of my testimony. More people 

with intellectual disabilities in Washington State may be working and for the most 

part earning better wages than elsewhere in the country, but the average annual 

earnings are still significantly below the Federal poverty level. Most people are not 

yet working full-time, they are not yet earning median wage. Too many are unemployed and most are underemployed. If Washington State’s employment rates and 

earning for this capable sector of America’s workforce is the best in the country, we 

have reason to be ashamed, but we can struggle with shame only briefly. People relying on us for support need us to act immediately, to take every opportunity before 

us, in legislation and in policy, in funding directives and in leadership, to expect 

better, to do better, to hold ourselves and each other accountable, and to do it now. 

I trust that as I testify before you today, you will do what you can to align the support, policies and legislation needed for everyone of working age to participate in 

America’s workforce, to earn median wage, to pay taxes. I trust you will put into 

motion the leadership needed for us to become a country where the question asked 

of every person of working age is not, ‘‘Do you have the rare privilege of working?’’ 

it is simply, ‘‘Will you tell me about your job so I can get to know you a little better?’’ 

For more information you may contact JaneBoone@comcast.net, or the Washington 

State Division of Developmental Disabilities at http://www.dshs.wa.gov/ddd/. 

Washington’s Jobs by 21 Partnership Project—effective school to work practices: 

(1) AIDD journal article: Jobs by 21 Partnership Project Report: Impact of Cross 

Systems Collaboration on Employment Outcomes of Young Adults with Developmental Disabilities (Winsor, Butterworth, Boone, August 2011) is in the attached 

PDF. 

(2) 2008 Jobs by 21 Partnership Project Evaluation Report by the Institute for 

Community Inclusion (ICI)—click on hyperlink to read. 

(3) 2009 Jobs by 21 Partnership Project Evaluation Report by ICI: click on 

hyperlink to read. 

For the national picture, the best reference is the invaluable ‘‘State Data: The 

National Report on Employment Services and Outcomes’’. That gives an annualized 

State-by-State picture of Federal, State and local funding investment and employment outcomes for adults with disabilities. The book is arranged in alphabetical 

order by State, and as such, Washington’s data is near the end. While States pay 

attention to, track and report on data slightly differently, the national context is 

very helpful. 

For Washington specific data, the best place to produce reports on the 

State’s outcomes is via the interactive Web site: Washington DDD Employment 
39 

Supports Information System. Washington’s data and billing system are integrated 

into one reporting system, and this ICI developed Web site serves as the outcomes 

reporting mechanism available to anyone with Internet access. Once the query variables are entered, the report shows either by trend or summary the number of 

Washington State Division of Developmental Disabilities clients employed statewide, 

by region, by county, and by employment provider, by level of employment support 

need, residence, and type of support received. 

ICI publication: Innovations in Employment Supports: Washington State’s 

Division of Developmental Disabilities 

Research to Practice 33a 

As evidence of the positive outcomes associated with integrated employment develops it is important to identify policy and practices at the State level that expand 

access to employment opportunity. This brief presents findings from Institute for 

Community Inclusion (ICI) case study research focused on State agencies that support individuals with developmental disabilities. 

ICI Publication: High-Performing States in Integrated Employment 

Research to Practice 32 

Despite recent improvements, community employment outcomes vary widely 

across States. This report highlights successful practices of States that were identified as ‘‘high performers’’ in integrated employment for people served by State MR/ 

DD agencies. 

(1) Butterworth, ET al., University of Massachusetts/Boston Institute of Community Inclusion. 2011 State Data, the National Report on Employment Services and 

Outcomes. 

(2) Winsor, Butterworth, Boone, Jobs by 21 Partnership Project: Impact of CrossSystem Collaboration on Employment Outcomes of Young Adults With Developmental Disabilities, AIDD. 

(3) Washington State Comprehensive Employment Report, 2010: Washington Initiative for Supported Employment. (attached to testimony) 

(4) Human Services Research Institute (2012). Working in the community: The 

status and outcomes of people with intellectual and developmental disabilities in integrated employment. NCI Data Brief, October 2012. Cambridge, MA: Human Services Research Institute. (attached to testimony) 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Ms. Boone, for a very profound statement. 

Next I’ll introduce Dr. Michael O’Brien, currently the executive 

director for the Oklahoma Department of Rehabilitation Services. 

He has more than 35 years of experience in vocational rehabilitation. He is on the adjunct faculty at Langston University. He received his doctorate of education from Oklahoma State University 

in occupational and adult education and his master’s of education 

from Chadron State College in career and vocational guidance. 

He is a published author and has more than 130 international, 

national, regional, and State presentations and publications to his 

credit. A four-time Institute for Rehabilitation Issues national 

scholar, he served as the chair of the 30th IRI. Also, my notes tell 

me that prior to this, he was associate professor of rehabilitation 

and special education in New Mexico at New Mexico Highlands 

University, and prior to that was a professor with the Department 

of Rehabilitation Medicine at the University of Washington School 

of Medicine. 

Welcome, Mr. O’Brien, and please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL O’BRIEN, Ed.D., CRC, CVE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION SERVICES, OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 

Mr. O’Brien. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairman Harkin, 

Ranking Member Alexander, and members of the committee. I really appreciate the opportunity to talk about this subject. As you 
40 

said, I’ve spent 35 years. It’s been my passion and my career to be 

a part of this. 

I am the director of the Oklahoma Department of Rehabilitation 

Services. But I also have previously been the director of the Washington Division of Vocational Rehabilitation Services, and I’ve 

served in two other States. I come to this with information from 

multiple settings. Also, today, what I’m going to try to do is give 

you two examples that encapsulate many of the things that I 

talked about in my written testimony rather than just specifically 

rely on that. 

To assure innovation for people with disabilities and to assure 

employment and opportunities for people with disabilities, I think 

that I need to focus on two concepts today. The first is high expectations, and the second is a dedicated presence. I’d like to share an 

example with you of a young man who works for me, and with his 

permission, he has allowed me to share this story. 

His name is Jason Price, and he works for me. He was born with 

cerebral palsy and currently is a power wheelchair user, and he requires some attendant care. He was born in Dover, OK, which is 

in the northwest part of the State and has roughly 250 people to 

account for its population. His family is in the oil field business. 

From the beginning, his family had high expectations that he 

would both work and live independently. 

He attended a school where his teacher and his family expected 

him not only to attend, but to graduate. His family and his school 

expected that he would go to college. So he learned to expect that 

himself from the very beginning. He applied for vocational rehabilitation services, and his counselor had high expectations that he 

would graduate from college and that he would go to work. 

Jason did go to work. He became a public information officer at 

the Department of Rehabilitation Services, working for us. As any 

employer would, we made the appropriate accommodations, bought 

the right software, and positioned him to be able to do his job. But 

we had high expectations that he would do a good job. 

His family had expectations that Jason would live independently. 

He is. He’s a father. He’s a husband. He’s a van owner, a homeowner, a professional, and, in his favorite phrase, a taxpayer. Jason 

had additional expectations of himself. He wanted to make a difference. So he returned to graduate school, earned a master’s degree in rehabilitation counseling, became a certified rehabilitation 

counselor, became a social security expert, became a manager and 

a supervisor for us, and he now supervises some of the model programs that are noted in my written testimony. 

He supervises the Ticket unit, the Benefit Planners unit, and the 

Cold Case unit. And last year, through his assistance with his 

team, they were able to generate almost $2 million in social security reimbursement because of the number of people that they were 

able to convince to choose work over benefits, and social security 

reimbursed our agency for those people going back to work. 

Jason is a rehabilitation leader and a change agent. Yes, he 

needed accommodations. Yes, he will tell you he needed vocational 

rehabilitation services. But he will tell you it was the high expectations from the first moment that was his greatest asset in making 
41 

choices to work. He did receive social security benefits, but he 

chose to leave them. 

His family expected highly of him. His school expected him to be 

successful. Vocational rehabilitation supported his efforts and expected him to be successful, and he expected it. He went from being 

a social security recipient to a taxpayer to an individual whose primary job now is to help other people leave the disability roles. 

Too often, high expectations don’t exist for people with disabilities, students or adults. Families are afraid of losing benefits, and 

so they might let students participate in the services, but when it 

comes time to choose work, they choose not to. Businesses and 

schools are not always confident that the person with a disability 

can work. Someone has to create that message, that high expectation. When these things are in place, it’s easy for the person to 

choose benefits and not working than it is to choose working over 

those services. 

I think if we could affect just one thing from today’s testimony, 

it would be to introduce high expectations at the earliest possible 

point in our school systems. That might be the most innovative 

thing that we could create, high expectations from the beginning. 

The second concept that I want to talk about that incorporates 

some of the other ideas we’ve looked at is what I call dedicated 

presence. Innovation occurs because someone is focused on the 

issue and trying to create success. Each presenter here today has 

brought forward innovative practices because they and the people 

around them focused on opportunities for people with disabilities 

that would be unique and that would advance what we’re looking 

forward to. 

Governor Markell has brought national attention to employment 

for people with disabilities by making it the focus of the NGA. In 

my own State, Governor Fallin has allowed us to be innovative and 

works with us so that we could make this same focus. In each case, 

there’s been a dedicated presence to these issues and a knowledge 

to offer change. 

As a VR director, my most frequent experience, regardless of 

whether I’m at a workforce board, whether I’m in the schools, 

whether I’m meeting with business and other agencies across the 

State, is that when I walk in the room, I’m typically the only one 

who is focused on inclusion of people with disabilities at that meeting. I am that dedicated presence. 

At the counselor level, they tell me that that’s true locally as 

well. It’s not my opinion that workforce, business, schools, and 

other agencies are unwilling or uninterested. It’s just that disability is not continuously on their radar. They’re more than happy 

to be inclusive. They’re more than happy to provide accommodations. And they’re certainly willing to hire people with disabilities. 

I think that the issue of employment for people with disabilities 

cannot be handled generically. There has to be a dedicated presence. I discussed in my written testimony the Career Pathways 

model. In it, we were allowed to include people with disabilities as 

part of the State Career Pathways, but it was because we were at 

the table. I’m a voting member at the State table, and at the local 

table, we were able to be present. That dedicated presence brings 

forward the issue of disabilities. 
42 

To ensure employment at the highest levels for people with disabilities, I believe there have to be dedicated resources exclusively 

for people with disabilities, dedicated presence to provide focus, 

and dedicated partnerships. Obviously, as the director of a State 

agency, I believe that this can best be accomplished by people with 

disabilities in partnership with innovative people in public agencies. 

I appreciate the time to present today, and I thank you for this 

opportunity. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. O’Brien follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MICHAEL O’BRIEN, ED.D., CRC, CVE 

SUMMARY

As the director of the Oklahoma Department of Rehabilitation Services, I have 

had the opportunity to have multiple experiences related to promising practices in 

public vocational rehabilitation. This testimony provides a description of innovative 

practices that have been implemented in Oklahoma. Although many of these originated in Oklahoma, some have been borrowed from other successful enterprises and 

initiated in Oklahoma. Innovations in four particular areas will be shared: transition services for students with disabilities, helping people navigate disability benefits and choose work, working with business and interagency and public-private 

partnerships. 

Oklahoma has a positive environment that allows business and government agencies to work together. This environment is enhanced by the Department of Rehabilitation Services (DRS) being a full voting member of the Governor’s Workforce Board 

and by DRS being represented on all local workforce boards. Employment opportunities for people with disabilities are enhanced by the encouragement of Governor 

Fallin for the partnerships to be successful. This is exemplified in the increased 

number of people DRS has been able to help to go to work over the past 4 years. 

Several specific projects are discussed. DRS studied its own placement history and 

compared it to current business and industry trends and has begun a new process 

of assuring that client goals can be aligned with where the real opportunities for 

work exist. Partnership with the Governor’s Workforce Board on the statewide Career Pathways Initiative is presented. Transition age youth projects are highlighted 

by four examples: paid work experiences, TechNow (helping students get into technology-related jobs), a transition program for juvenile offenders, and Project Search 

(partnership with business, schools and DRS). Two programs related to Social Security issues are presented. They include the Benefit Planner program and the Ticket 

program. Other innovative projects include the National Employment Network, The 

American Indian Vocational Rehabilitation partnerships and a new type of unit 

called the Cold Case Unit is presented. 

Several recommendations are presented at the conclusion. A proposal for transition services is provided. Also discussed is the current system focus on people continuing benefits rather than choosing work. A specific recommendation for enhanced 

partnership between Social Security and public rehabilitation is presented. Possible 

rule changes related to the Rehabilitation Services Administration and utilization 

of reallotment dollars for supported employment or innovation is discussed. It is recommended that there needs to be continued dedicated funds specifically for people 

with disabilities to be served by qualified practitioners. Finally, a recommendation 

to enhance career planning for students with disabilities in future legislation is provided. 

Good morning Chairman Harkin, Ranking Member Alexander, and members of 

the committee. My name is Mike O’Brien and I am the State director of the Oklahoma Department of Rehabilitation Services. I am extremely grateful to the committee for having the opportunity to share with you today some innovative practices 

we have implemented in Oklahoma that I believe could be of benefit to other States. 

Some of these practices we created and others we borrowed from other partners because they were effective. I would like to share innovations in four areas in particular: transition services to students with disabilities, helping people navigate disability benefits and choose work, working with business, and inter-agency and public-private partnerships. 
43 

1 Engaging Youth In Work Experiences: An Innovative Strategies Practice Brief located at 

http://www.ncwd-youth.info/innovative-strategies/practice-briefs/engaging-youth-in-work-experiences. 

I have been a rehabilitation practitioner for more than 35 years. My professional 

experience has included work as a rehabilitation counselor in the public and private 

sector, vocational evaluator, university professor of rehabilitation counseling and 

special education and director of two State vocational rehabilitation agencies (Washington and Oklahoma). I hold an earned doctorate in occupational and adult education and am nationally certified as a rehabilitation counselor and vocational evaluation specialist. Currently, I am president-elect of the Council of State Administrators of Vocational Rehabilitation. I have been fortunate to see vocational rehabilitation from many sides and am confident people with disabilities will be served well 

through the on-going and future efforts in the public program. 

I was very excited to return home to Oklahoma in December 2008 as the director 

of the Department of Rehabilitation Services. I had previously worked in the agency 

and with many of the State partners. I believed there was an opportunity to move 

the organization forward because of the potential for interagency cooperation and 

business partnerships that existed in Oklahoma. However, we were facing our worst 

performance year as an agency; we were mired in long waiting lists and needed to 

change how we did business. In Oklahoma we are an independent department and 

do not report to a parent agency. This gives us greater flexibility for innovation and 

rapid change. This makes us peers with all other agencies and creates the capacity 

for full partnership on equal ground. Since returning I have had the strong support 

of Governor Fallin, the Governor’s Workforce Board (as a voting member), and many 

agency partners. Governor Fallin has encouraged the agencies to partner on issues 

for people with disabilities. During that first year we only achieved a little over 

1,600 successful closures (successful placement in a job for at least 90 days); however, since that time we have had 2 of our best 3 years ever and last year achieved 

over 3,000 closures. We have been able to achieve success with a discrete population 

and limited resources (in Oklahoma, there are about 580,000 people with disabilities 

and we can serve 15,000–17,000 at any given time). Below are several innovative 

projects that have helped increase employment of VR consumers with disabilities in 

Oklahoma. I have also identified several concerns and hopes I have for the future. 

WORKING WITH BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY

It has become more and more evident that perhaps the most critical partner to 

successful innovations serving people with disabilities is the business community. 

Employers must be seen as a full partner that not only hires the consumers we 

serve, but helps the agencies clearly understand local business needs. We recently 

did a small study looking at what kind of jobs our consumers were getting. We 

worked with the State workforce board to make sure we had a clear understanding 

of what industries were the growth sector industries and where future jobs would 

likely be. We discovered a disconnect between some of the jobs we were preparing 

people for and where the opportunities for these jobs actually existed. Many of our 

clients were being placed in service industries, customer service, food service, cashiers and clerical positions. When we looked at the Oklahoma labor market, the current and future job openings were in medical fields, the energy industry, technology 

and manufacturing. These jobs pay better, but employers have specific training 

needs for people to move into these jobs. By reviewing this information we have now 

made some changes in our practices. We have local business advisory boards being 

established. We have also looked at our career planning activities and initiated 

training that we think will help the local counselor align career planning with local 

job opportunities. 

SERVING TRANSITION-AGE YOUTH

Transition is particularly important. Research reported by the National Collaborative on Workforce and Disability for Youth 1 suggests that if students have positive experiences early on and are provided with work-based experiences (paid or unpaid) while still in school they are likely to experience reduced dropout rates, increased school attendance and more likely to go to college or to work, compared to 

their peers. Work-based learning experiences are particularly important for students 

with disabilities. Students participating in these experiences are more likely to be 

competitively employed than their peers and earn higher wages. If they are able to 

achieve better wages they will be less likely to use Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI). 
44 

We believe that having a statewide coordinator of transition services helps our 

agency improve employment and post-secondary outcomes for students with disabilities. There are four transition programs in Oklahoma that I would like to highlight. 

In Federal fiscal year 2007, Oklahoma had 1,080 paid work experiences for transition-age youth. By 2011, with the support of ARRA funds, this number had risen 

to 1,861 paid work experiences. Even during 2012, after ARRA funds went away 

and the agency had extensive waiting lists, there were 1,244 paid placements. These 

occurred because our statewide coordinator had managed to create contracts with 

local school districts across the State that resulted in high school students with disabilities obtaining paid employment (typically 10 hours per week at $7.25 per hour 

during the school years with additional employment opportunities in the summer). 

These jobs occur in a variety of settings including partnerships with local businesses. Students are paid through agreements with local schools, career technical 

centers or through temporary employment agencies. 

Another successful program focusing on this population is TechNow. TechNow is 

an innovative program that begins working with students during 9th or 10th grade. 

This program is a partnership between vocational rehabilitation, career technology 

centers and local school districts. It is an effort to help transition students think 

about jobs in technology-related fields and in business. Students are taught marketing, sales and other skills. They learn to operate current business software to develop these skills. As part of this program students create banners, brochures, cereal 

boxes, cars and other projects. They then market the products in a statewide competition. Local businesses sponsor the competition and work with the students. Although TechNow has operated since 1999, our agency has only been a partner for 

4 years. 

Three years ago we established a pilot project where we became a primary partner in the project. Our main reason for increasing VR’s involvement in this program 

was based on the project’s graduation rates exceeding 94 percent since the inception 

of the program. In a State-by-State report from the Department of Education (2012), 

graduation rates for students with disabilities vary from a low of 23 percent to a 

high of 83 percent (with more than half below 60 percent) for students with disabilities. 

High school graduation is particularly important when considering the labor market future of students with disabilities. According to a report from the group Advocacy in Action, high school dropouts earn less than high school graduates across 

their lifetime, perhaps as much as $270,000 (Goodman, Hazelkorn, Bucholz, Duffy 

& Kitta, 2011). Graduation rates at TechNow are very promising for students with 

disabilities. By piloting this project and becoming involved at an earlier age with 

these students we believe we can connect them to work-based experiences while still 

in school and increase their likelihood of post-secondary training and/or employment. We also believe we can match them to better career opportunities in technology-related businesses. Over 400 students have been through this program. Additionally, many students earn scholarships to local career technology centers and 

area colleges. 

A multiagency partnership was initiated about 18 months ago between Oklahoma 

Department of Rehabilitation, the Office of Juvenile Affairs, a local career technical 

center, the Oklahoma Commission for Children and Youth, and local one-stop employment center. This project works with juvenile offenders who have disabilities 

and who are in a secure facility. VR counselors are able to take applications for this 

population while they are still in the facility, initiate an individualized plan for employment, provide career counseling, assist with payment of on the job training 

(OJT) while still in the facility, and then followup with the students after they are 

released to their home communities. It is a relatively new program, but all the partners have brought resources to the table. About 50 students have participated in 

this project thus far. A recent client in the program exemplifies its importance. He 

was exiting the program and wanted to have a career as a welder but could not get 

accepted to the training program. He also had housing issues. With the efforts of 

his rehabilitation counselor he was able to find local housing and get admitted to 

school. He is currently in training and doing well. If he had not had assistance from 

VR, he would not have been admitted to training or obtained his current housing. 

Early results have shown less recidivism for these youth; however, it is too early 

to make long-term projections since this is a population doubly at risk due to disability and legal problems. We believe it has great promise because of the multiple 

partners working together to wrap services around these individuals. 

Project Search is a national program that many agencies across the country are 

working with to find successful employment for students upon graduation. In Oklahoma we have managed to have success both in urban and rural communities. 

Project Search exclusively focuses on students with intellectual disabilities and on 
45 

helping these students become competitively employed. It is a program where students work as interns in a business. Project Search is considered a formal class and 

students will spend a large share of the school year working in the business. Although it originated in hospital settings, we have expanded it to other businesses, 

most recently to Chesapeake Corporation, a major energy provider. Job coaches 

work with the students to develop skills and good work habits. When a student completes the internship they begin the job search process. Perhaps the most exciting 

part of this work is that students are exposed to good jobs and career opportunities. 

Employment rates vary by facility but most have between 60 percent and 90 percent 

success. Often the company where the student interned offers a job to the successful 

student. 

ADDRESSING THE FEAR OF LOSING BENEFITS AND HELPING PEOPLE CHOOSE WORK

A significant barrier to work for people with disabilities (both adults and students) is the perception about loss of benefits, particularly medical coverage. It has 

been our experience that many people want to work and will choose work if they 

understand what will happen with their benefits and can plan effectively. The Social 

Security Administration (SSA) had a program for several years where there were 

‘‘Benefit Planners’’ who worked with beneficiaries to understand implications of 

going to work. It has since been discontinued. Although it was generally helpful, we 

discovered many benefit planners helped people to choose work but to earn only 

enough money so they could retain benefits. This essentially did not position people 

to get good jobs where they could leave the SSDI/SSI roles. In Oklahoma, we created 

a benefit planner program; however we made two critical changes from the SSA program. First we try to refer every consumer who receives SSDI/SSI to a benefit planner who will focus on choosing work. The consumer can make a real choice about 

work rather than earning an amount below the level where they would lose benefits. 

If the jobs offered consumers are quality jobs, they can choose work. The second 

change we made was to ensure that the benefit planners had expertise in other 

areas, not just social security. Our benefit planners are knowledgeable about social 

services, veteran’s services, housing benefits, etc. When we started this program we 

had a little over 50 people leave the social security roles, however this past year 

almost 160 left the roles and we continue to see growth in the program. We are certain it is a model that can be successfully replicated. 

As part of our focus on Social Security we have also created a ‘‘Ticket-to-Work’’ 

team. Ticket-to-Work is a program that can be used by SSDI/SSI recipients to attempt to go to work and leave the roles. Individuals can work with the State vocational rehabilitation agencies or they can work with private providers called employment networks (ENs). Employers, One-stop centers, community rehabilitation providers and a host of others can become ENs. The application process can be overwhelming and we had a very restricted number of ENs in Oklahoma. Our Ticket 

unit was created to partner with businesses, One-stop centers and others to make 

it easier for them to become Employment Networks for Social Security’s Ticket to 

Work efforts. We help the business prepare the applications, provide training, work 

with the potential ENs on the services they need to be able to provide the individual 

after VR services are completed, so that they can remain stable on the job. The VR 

case is closed after 90 days of successful employment, but the person does not leave 

the SSDI/SSI roles until they have had at least 9 months of gainful employment. 

By partnering with ENs they can follow the individual for a much longer period of 

time and assist with long-term job stability. As an example, we have been able to 

partner with HERTZ Corporation as an EN. We would like to work with Social Security to partner with other employers in Oklahoma to become ENs. We continue 

to help develop other potential ENs. With the longer term followup, we believe it 

will ultimately help beneficiaries leave SSDI/SSI roles. 

LEVERAGING INTERAGENCY PARTNERSHIPS

In Oklahoma, the rehabilitation agency is fortunate, because as the agency director I am a full voting member of the Governor’s Workforce Committee. This means 

that I am at the table with all of the agencies and businesses when programs are 

developed and decisions are made. We also have representation on every local Workforce Board and every Youth Council. This is not the case in all States. There are 

States where the vocational rehabilitation agency is represented on the State Workforce Board through their parent agency. We have been able to use board partnerships to increase opportunities for people with disabilities to access employment 

across the State. 

A good example of this partnership is reflected in the statewide Career Pathways 

initiative and in the specific pilot of Career Pathways in Duncan, OK. This model 
46 

is a collaboration between workforce partners (through the Workforce Investment 

Act), local schools and local businesses. At a statewide level we are affecting policy 

and helping to develop the model. In this model schools begin a career development 

process in 6th grade that continues for students through high school. The process 

includes career guidance, work experiences, career exploration and businesses coming to the school to work with students and the faculty. Exposure to local jobs is 

provided. The local One-stop Center is a resource and repository of local jobs. Vocational rehabilitation is also at the table. Although this program is for all job seekers, 

VR is a key player. I am able to be a part of every policy decision and offer my 

expertise about disability and related concerns. At the local level, the VR counselor 

serves on the board but is also a key resource to students and adults with disabilities as they move through their career pathway process. Knowing where the jobs 

are and what employers expect helps vocational rehabilitation and the schools better 

prepare job seekers to make career decisions. 

A national business model known at The NET (National Employment Team) was 

started by The Council of State Administrators of Vocational Rehabilitation. The 

NET is a one-company approach to serving a variety of businesses through the national network of the 80 publicly funded vocational rehabilitation (VR) programs. 

The NET offers business customers, in the private and public sectors, a designated 

single point of contact to connect qualified applicants, resources and support services in their local area, multi-State or national marketplace. The NET provides employment supports in all 50 States, the District of Columbia and the territories. Employers across the country have had very positive experiences filling jobs with qualified candidates for employment from the pool of workers available through The 

NET. At a national level, examples include, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) that 

has hired 111 people in 31 States and 556 VR consumers hired with Lowe’s across 

the country in fiscal year 2012. On a much smaller scale Oklahoma has had recent 

hires through The NET with JLodge, Convergys, Pearl Interactive, and Tinker Air 

Force Base. The Oklahoma VR Agency has also initiated a project with Walgreens 

as a result of The NET. 

Oklahoma VR has additional partnerships with whom we have worked well. 

There are 25 States that have American Indian Vocational Rehabilitation (AIVR) 

agencies. There are 9 tribal programs in Oklahoma and over 80 across the country. 

We are able to cost share consumer services and other resources to help tribal members with disabilities go to work. To date we have co-served more than 700 clients 

with AIVR programs in Oklahoma. VR started a new program 2 years ago with 

three of the tribal programs. We contract for job placement services, both for tribal 

members and non-tribal members. Contracting for services that apply to non-tribal 

members is unique to Oklahoma. Many of the tribes are amongst the largest employers in the State. By working together we have been able to open an entire new 

area of employment opportunities. By sharing resources and expertise we are able 

to expand the capacity of both programs. We are also able to increase services to 

an underserved group of people and create long-term partnerships. 

MANAGING CASES MORE EFFECTIVELY

One of the challenges of managing large caseloads and working under an Order 

of Selection (OOS) (putting clients on a waiting list when there are not enough fiscal 

or staff resources to serve everyone), is that some applicants for VR services get lost 

along the way or simply drop off the wait list. The Rehabilitation Services Administration has cited Oklahoma’s ‘‘Cold Case Unit’’ as a model to solve this problem. We 

created a unit in VR whose sole purpose is to find and contact these consumers and 

to get them re-established in services or close their cases so that the resources can 

be assigned to others. The project has been so successful it is now being replicated 

in at least 5 other States. It has helped us to resolve over 1,000 cases. Of these, 

more than 600 people have been able to restart the rehabilitation process again in 

earnest. One of the counselors in this unit actually helped save a life. He arrived 

at the client’s home and saw her small child playing in front of the house and asked 

to check on her mother. He discovered they were out of food and that the mother 

had been bedridden for several days. The counselor was able to help her get her 

medical needs attended to and to get assistance from social services. After her immediate needs were met, the VR counselor was also able to get her involved in 

training and working toward her employment goal. 

There are other innovative programs that are being developed all over the country. We are working with other States on a number of projects . . . reaching across 

State lines to jointly solve problems. I am certain that partnerships of all kinds will 

be what drive innovation for agencies serving people with disabilities. If you look 

at all of our projects, in every single case, partnership created the success. We will 
47 

need to reach out more to business and industry, across sister State agencies, 

schools, and across State lines if we are to continue to have success in helping people with disabilities find work. 

RECOMMENDATIONS—MOVING FORWARD

As I look to the future of serving people with disabilities, I am convinced that the 

public vocational rehabilitation program is the best entity to assure good jobs, career 

opportunities and bright futures. To achieve Chairman Harkin’s goal of increasing 

the size of the disability labor force by more than 20 percent by 2015, I believe there 

are some critical actions that need to happen. 

• Transition and early intervention are critical to the long-term success of students with disabilities. However, this cannot happen at the expense of serving 

adults who acquire disabilities. We have dedicated a number of new efforts to transition age youth (many with the help of ARRA funds, which have now had to be 

reduced without those funds). If we are to continue to be successful, there will need 

to be dedicated resources to serve transition students, and schools will need to actually fulfill their obligations to transition students. Additionally because each State 

is so different in the types of partnerships with schools, businesses and other agencies, I do not believe there can be a single national model. States will need to aggressively develop a model that meets their needs based on State resources and 

partnerships. 

• Our country spends far too much money on maintaining people with disabilities 

outside the workforce and a very small amount on encouraging people with disabilities to work. If you combine the annual costs of SSDI, SSI, Medicaid and Medicare, 

we spend roughly $400 billion on safety net supports and about $4 billion helping 

people with disabilities build their skills and go to work. We need an early intervention system with social security that positions people to be referred to vocational rehabilitation at the on-set of disability and that encourages work rather than longterm receipt of income supports. This means that current Social Security Work programs such as Ticket-to-Work need better alignment and cooperation with the public vocational rehabilitation program. We continue to be the most successful program 

in putting people with disabilities to work. Why not increase our participation? Once 

people become entrenched in the system, it becomes difficult for them to choose 

work. It is a much longer discussion, but disincentives have got to be resolved, particularly issues with Medicare and Medicaid, so that people can choose work. 

• Every year States return money to the Rehabilitation Services Administration. 

It is not because the money is not needed; it is because many States cannot meet 

their Federal match requirements. The money is redistributed through a re-allotment process for States that can match the dollars. The problem is that the rules 

make it difficult for all the funds to be used and this past year money was returned 

to the treasury. This is money that could have been used to help people with disabilities go to work. There are two considerations that have merit in resolving this problem. The first is to amend the Rehabilitation Act to allow unmatched Federal funds 

to go to supported employment which does not require a State match. Recent data 

collected by the Council of State Administrators of Vocational Rehabilitation 

(CSAVR), with just 35 State VR agencies reporting to date, revealed expenditures 

of more than $80 million of title 1 VR funds on supported employment. If unmatched Federal funding, following a reallotment process, could be targeted to supported employment, more title 1 funds would be available to serve greater numbers 

of transition youth. A second alternative for consideration would be to allow unmatched Federal funds to be available for various innovation efforts. Projects could 

be attempted that have the potential to change how VR provides services in dynamic ways. 

• When ARRA funds were available, the Oklahoma agency was able to serve all 

individuals who applied for services for the first time in years. There were no waiting lists for services; rather, services were increased, and dramatically greater numbers of VR consumers went to work. The advantage of ARRA funds was that there 

was no match requirement. For Oklahoma it was $7,000,000 that changed VR’s 

whole business. The availability of some funding that does not require State match 

could make dramatic difference in increasing the number of VR consumers with disabilities who go to work. 

• I also believe it is essential that there remain dedicated funding for services for 

people with disabilities and qualified vocational rehabilitation staff to provide these 

services. I remain fearful that if vocational rehabilitation is seen as just a jobs program it will have a long-term negative impact on people with disabilities. We are 

not just a jobs program; we are a group of uniquely qualified and dedicated people 

who make a difference in the lives of people with disabilities seeking employment. 
48 

• I believe there must be a renewed focus on career counseling and planning activities at all levels. I think there has to be an expanded focus in IDEA legislation. 

Effective career planning is a game changer for any job seeker, but is even more 

important for a person with a disability to get the right job match. Effective career 

counseling in the schools and resources to provide it is essential; however, it has 

to be considered as a critical need and may require this committee’s leadership to 

have this need included in future legislation. 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide this testimony and I look forward to any 

questions or comments you might have regarding its content. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. O’Brien. 

Now we will turn to Mr. Don Uchida, who was also introduced 

earlier by Senator Hatch. I might just add that he was appointed 

the executive director of the Utah State Office of Rehabilitation in 

April 2006. He has a bachelor’s degree in psychology from Weber 

State College and a master’s degree in special education from Utah 

State University. He has worked in vocational rehabilitation for 

over 44 years—he beat your record, Mr. O’Brien—as a rehabilitation counselor, supervisor, district director, field service coordinator, division director, and his present position as executive director of Utah’s State Office of Rehabilitation. 

Mr. Uchida, welcome and please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF DONALD R. UCHIDA, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

UTAH STATE OFFICE OF REHABILITATION, SALT LAKE CITY, 

UT 

Mr. UCHIDA. Good afternoon, Chairman Harkin, Ranking Member Alexander, members of the committee. And I want to give a 

special thank you to Senator Hatch. My name is Don Uchida. I’m 

the executive director of the Utah State Office of Rehabilitation. 

I appreciate the opportunity to speak to the committee about 

some innovative programs we have in Utah that we feel can be replicated with similar success in other States. There are three critical 

factors that will facilitate implementing these ideas and achieve increased numbers of people with disabilities going to work. 

The first factor is to have empowered, dedicated staff. Almost all 

of these ideas came from our staff. The second factor is having strategic partnerships with agencies, organizations, and businesses 

that have a common vision of employment for people with disabilities. The third factor is having a supportive Governor and a State 

legislature. 

Vocational rehabilitation, or VR, is a revenue generating program. We run the program like a business. Utah’s VR program is 

one of the most productive and cost-effective programs in the Nation. 

Now, the partnerships. The first one I’d like to talk about is with 

our workforce agency. It’s called Choose to Work Utah. This is 

where we co-fund 22 job development, job placement specialists 

that are strategically placed statewide, and they exclusively serve 

people with disabilities. There is no overlap. There is no duplication of effort. 

The second partnership I’d like to mention is with the Developmental Disabilities Agency. This partnership was created because 

we had two problems. No. 1, they had a growing wait list for their 

Medicaid waiver services. And our problem was we needed longterm funding for supported employment. The legislature passed a 
49 

bill that provided long-term State funding for supported employment. So we took the people off the DD waiting list, and we moved 

them into supported employment, and we got them working. 

A third example is the Utah Defendant Offender Workforce Development Task force, or UDOWD. This is a partnership that we 

have with the correctional system in the State of Utah. And the 

goal is to take offenders with disabilities, get them employed, and 

maintain their employment so they can become productive members of society. 

A fourth partnership is with our workforce agency and our 

health department. It’s called Utah’s Work Inventive Planning 

Service, or UWIPS. Regardless of where the funding comes from or 

what the funding source is, what agency it comes from, we control 

all of the benefits planning staff. That way, we have a coordinated, 

statewide, strategically placed staff that give a consistent message. 

And that message is ‘‘These are the work incentives and the safety 

nets that are available if you decide to work at a level that will reduce or eliminate your benefits.’’ This has led to a high number of 

people on SSI and people on SSDI in the State of Utah to go to 

work. 

Our fifth partnership is with the Greater Salt Lake City Chamber of Commerce, and the program is called Disability Friendly 

Business. This is where our staff works with business owners 

where they try to get the businesses to be more accessible and accommodating to people with disabilities. 

When they finish the training, they sign an agreement with the 

Chamber of Commerce, they pay a small fee, and then they get 

these Disability Friendly stickers that they can put on their doors, 

just like you put your membership to the Chamber or the Rotary 

Club or ‘‘we take Visa and American Express’’ or whatever. And 

the idea behind this was if the businesses get more people with disabilities coming in as customers and better their bottom line, they 

may be more inclined to hire somebody with a disability. 

And, finally, gubernatorial and legislative support. In 2007, our 

Governor signed an executive order designating the intent of the 

Utah State Government to be the model employer for people with 

disabilities. In 2010, our legislature created the Alternative State 

Application Process, or ASAP. This program is based on the Federal Government’s Schedule A program. 

In conclusion, vocational rehabilitation is a successful program 

that creates productive citizens with disabilities in the workforce. 

We’ve found partnerships to be key in Utah. They lead to cost-effective relationships that sustain current and future employment options for people with disabilities. 

Again, thank you for the opportunity to share these ideas, and 

I’d be happy to answer any questions. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Uchida follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DONALD R. UCHIDA

SUMMARY

There are three critical factors that will facilitate the implementation of innovative ideas that will increase the numbers of people with disabilities achieving employment outcomes. They are: dedicated, empowered staff; strategic partnerships 
50 

with agencies, organizations and businesses that have a common vision of employment for people with disabilities; and having a supportive Governor and Legislature. 

Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) is a revenue generating program. We run it like 

a business. Utah’s VR Program is one of the most productive and cost-effective programs in the country. A University of Utah study in 2010 showed that for every 

dollar the State invested in Utah’s VR Program there was a $5.64 return. 

Partnership with our Workforce Agency. It is called Choose to Work Utah (CTW). 

We co-fund 22 employment specialists who develop and place people with disabilities into jobs. Their work is coordinated so there is no duplication of effort. In fiscal 

year 2012, CTW placed 617 people with disabilities into employment. 

Partnership with Developmental Disabilities Agency. This was created to address 

two problems: they had a growing wait list for Medicaid Waiver Services and we 

needed long-term funding for supported employment. The Legislature passed a longterm funding bill for supported employment. We took people off the back end of the 

waiting list and put them into supported employment so they began working and 

not just sitting and waiting collecting SSI payments. Since we received funding in 

fiscal year 2012, 84 people with significant disabilities are working in supported employment. 

Partnership with Utah Defendant Offender Workforce Development Task force 

(UDOWD). This was between the correctional system and VR, with the goal of assisting offenders with disabilities to obtain and retain employment and to become 

productive members of society. In fiscal year 2012, 544 offenders with disabilities 

were placed into employment. 

Partnership with Workforce and Health Department. Utah Work Incentive Planning Service (UWIPS). We control all the work incentive planning staff. Statewide 

coordinated coverage with a consistent message of ‘‘these are the incentives and 

safety nets available to you if you decide to work at a level that will reduce or eliminate your Social Security benefits’’. In fiscal year 2012, 671 people on SSI/SSDI 

achieved an employment outcome. 

Partnership with Business. We are members of a national employment network 

called the NET, but one partnership that is unique to Utah is with the Greater Salt 

Lake City Chamber of Commerce. It is called Disability Friendly Business. Staff 

work with business owners to help make their businesses more accessible to people 

with disabilities. When they complete the training and sign the agreement, they get 

a certificate and ‘‘Disability Friendly Business’’ stickers they can display like Chamber memberships, Rotary, VISA, Master Card, etc. The idea behind this is that if 

more people with disabilities frequent their business, they may be more inclined to 

hire people with disabilities. Estimate due to self report: 44 hired by Disability 

Friendly Businesses. 

Finally, support from our Governor and Legislature. In 2007 our Governor signed 

an Executive order ‘‘Designating the Intent of Utah State Government to be the 

Model Employer for People with Disabilities’’. In 2010, our legislature created the 

‘‘Alternative State Application Process’’ (ASAP). This program is modeled after the 

Federal Schedule A Program where an otherwise qualified person with a disability 

can bypass the usual competitive application process and can get hired through a 

trial work period. Although much of the State has been on a hiring freeze or even 

cut backs, Division of Human Resource Management reported eight hires through 

ASAP. 

Vocational Rehabilitation is a successful program that creates productive citizens 

with disabilities in the workforce. We found that partnerships are key to success in 

Utah. They lead to cost-effective relationships that sustain current and future employment options for people with disabilities. 

Thank you for the opportunity to share these ideas. 

Good morning Chairman Harkin, Ranking Member Alexander, and members of 

the committee, with a special ‘‘Thank You’’ to Senator Hatch. My name is Don 

Uchida. I am the executive director of the Utah State Office of Rehabilitation 

(USOR). I started working for the agency in 1968 as a vocational rehabilitation 

counselor. Later, I was promoted to supervisor, then district director, field services 

director, division director and in 2006, I was appointed to my current position as 

executive director of the agency. I am also the parent of an adult child with multiple 

disabilities. I truly appreciate the opportunity to speak to the committee about some 

innovative ideas we are implementing in Utah that we feel may be replicated with 

similar success in other States. 

The primary purpose of USOR and other rehabilitation agencies throughout the 

country is to get jobs for people with disabilities. The 2012 Annual Compendium of 

Disability Statistics indicates that Utah has the smallest difference or gap between 
51 

the percentages of people with disabilities working full time, year round as compared to people without disabilities working full-time year round. (Attachment 1) 

This would indicate that what we are doing appears to be working and working 

well. 

We have identified three critical factors that we feel will increase the numbers 

of individuals with disabilities obtaining employment. 

The first factor is having dedicated professional, empowered staff. The second factor is having strategic partnerships with agencies, organizations and businesses 

that have a common vision of employment for people with disabilities. The third factor is having a supportive Governor and State Legislature willing to work within 

rules and guidelines provided by Federal agencies. 

Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) can be a revenue generating program. In Utah, we 

effectively use Federal and State dollars to train, re-train and sustain people in employment who then become productive taxpayers. Over time, our investment consistently provides a return. In 2010, the University of Utah conducted a study and determined that every State dollar invested in Utah’s vocational rehabilitation program had a return of $5.64. (Attachment 2) We run the program like a business. 

Utah’s VR Program is one of the most productive and cost-effective programs in the 

Nation with the second lowest cost per successful rehabilitation in Federal Region 

VIII. (Attachment 3) Nationally, we are the eighth most productive combined agency 

with the eighth lowest cost per successful rehabilitation.(Attachment 4) 

Utah’s VR program is unique within the Federal–State VR partnership. Utah’s 

VR accomplishments are especially noteworthy given the diverse population of citizens with disabilities living in Utah and complex geography of the State. We serve 

a growing refugee and immigrant population from all over the world in our larger 

cities. We are fortunate in that many of our staff served as missionaries to foreign 

countries for the Mormon Church and are fluent in a wide variety of languages. 

Utah covers 84,900 square miles of land and our population is estimated at 

2,817,222. About 80 percent of the people live in a narrow strip of land, that is 100 

miles long and 15 miles wide, called the Wasatch Front. The remaining 20 percent 

are scattered throughout the State in small rural communities. This requires us to 

have many one and two counselor offices that cover vast areas of land to serve this 

population. 

These unique features of Utah allow for innovative VR programs to be tried and 

tested. I am pleased to share with you some of our success in improving the lives 

of people with disabilities through meaningful employment. 

The three factors I mentioned previously are effectively demonstrated by five 

Utah VR programs: 

Partnership with the Department of Workforce Services (DWS). Choose to 

Work Utah (CTW) is a project originally created to address a lack of job placement 

resources for people with disabilities in a five county area in rural southwest Utah. 

With the passage of the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) in 1998, it was agreed 

upon to expand the project statewide. CTW is a partnership between USOR and 

DWS where employment specialists are co-funded by both agencies. These 22 specialists provide job development and job placement exclusively for individuals with 

disabilities and are strategically placed throughout the State. These specialists include two who work specifically with individuals who are blind and one who is fluent in American Sign Language (ASL). Their work is coordinated by a leadership 

team from both agencies so there is no duplication of effort or services and resulted 

in 617 successful job placements in fiscal year 2012. (Attachment 5) 

Partnership with Developmental Disabilities Agency. Support Work Independence is a partnership between USOR and the Division of Services for People 

with Disabilities (DSPD), Utah’s Developmental Disabilities Agency. Utah’s legislature identified and addressed two problems: First, there was an inability to place 

individuals with the most significant disabilities into supported employment because 

there was not a reasonable expectation of long-term funding being available. Second, 

there were a growing number of people on the waiting list for costly Medicaid services. DSPD’s waiting list is based on the same principle as the Order of Selection 

is to the VR System—those with the most significant disabilities or need are served 

first. The idea behind this partnership is to address the DSPD waiting list from the 

back or low priority side and it also gave USOR a source of long-term funding for 

consumers in supported employment. Those individuals would no longer just sit, 

wait and collect SSI or more expensive Medicaid services; they went to work, reduced their cash benefits, increased their income and paid taxes. In fiscal year 2012, 

DSPD had 156 individuals participating with 84 of them employed. Additionally, 

USOR successfully closed 59 individuals in supported employment and transferred 

them to DSPD for the long-term funding. (Attachment 6) 
52 

Partnership with Utah Defendant Offender Workforce Development 

(UDOWD) Task force. The UDOWD Task force established in the fall of 2009 as 

a partnership between Federal, State, and local law enforcement, USOR, non-profit 

and religious organizations. UDOWD’s primary goal is to assist offenders in the 

legal system to obtain employment and to become productive members of society. 

We want to end the cycle of re-offenders. We assigned VR counselors in several offices to work with individuals with disabilities who are offenders. These VR counselors are trained by the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) and are certified 

as Offender Workforce Development Specialists (ODWS). Services provided to eligible offenders by USOR include treatment, training, placement, and other services 

designed to remove barriers to successful employment. The employment rate for offenders who complete the UDOWD program is between 65 percent to 70 percent, 

which is well above the national and local recidivism rate for return offenders. The 

annual cost for incarceration is about $28,000. Substantial savings to the taxpayer 

are realized. (Attachment 7) 

In fiscal year 2011, 252 offenders with disabilities were successfully employed. In 

fiscal year 2012, there were 544 offenders with disabilities who successfully found 

and maintained employment. (Attachment 8) 

Partnership with DWS and the Health Dept. Work Ability Project. USOR’s 

Work Incentive Planning Service (UWIPS) helps people receiving Social Security 

disability benefits (SSI or SSDI) understand how employment impacts their Social 

Security and other benefits (including Medicaid, Medicare, food stamps, housing). 

The primary goal, however, is to inform recipients and beneficiaries about the work 

incentives and safety nets available to them if they decide to work. If you cannot 

convince the individual that it is in their best interest to try working at a level that 

will get them off of benefits, increase their disposable income, and improve their 

quality of life, nothing else you do for them in the VR program is going to make 

that big of a difference. In Utah, Benefits Specialists, Work Incentive Planners, 

Community Work Incentive Coordinators (CWIC)—whatever name or acronym you 

call them—are all under USOR supervision. Funding from DWS and the Health Department comes to USOR via interdepartmental transfers. Funding from Social Security ended in 2012 but we felt this is such a critical service that we continue to 

fund it with Cost Reimbursement program income. USOR is successful in helping 

SSI/SSDI recipients obtain gainful employment and reduce or eliminate use of Social Security.(Attachments 9, 10, and 11) In fiscal year 2012, 671 recipients and 

beneficiaries of SSI and SSDI were successfully placed into employment. 

Partnerships with Business: National Employment Team (the NET), and 

Greater Salt Lake City Chamber Disability Friendly Business. We are members of the Council of State Administrators for Vocational Rehabilitation (CSAVR) 

National Employment Team or The NET. The NET has helped us with national 

business contacts and contacts with Federal Agencies. In fiscal year 2012 we had 

the following successful placements: Lowe’s–8, Marriott–3, the BLM–2, U.S. Forest 

Service–3 and the IRS–7. 

Disability Friendly Business is a partnership with the Greater Salt Lake City 

Chamber of Commerce. (Attachment 12) Staff works with business owners to help 

make their businesses more accessible to people with disabilities. Businesses go 

through a self-assessment, get training on accessibility and accommodations as well 

as tips on communicating with individuals with disabilities. Upon completion of the 

training, the business signs an agreement with the chamber, pays a small fee and 

receives a ‘‘Disability Friendly Business’’ endorsement sticker. If more people with 

disabilities frequent their business, they may be more inclined to hire someone with 

a disability. 

Although it is difficult to track the exact number of individuals with disabilities 

that were hired exclusively through Disability Friendly Business partnerships, we 

estimate at least 44 individuals with disabilities were hired in fiscal year 2012 

based on self report from consumers, chamber and counselor feedback. 

GUBERNATORIAL AND LEGISLATIVE SUPPORT

• In October 2007, Utah’s Governor signed an executive order ‘‘Designating the 

Intent of Utah State Government to be the Model Employer for People with Disabilities.’’ 

• In 2010, the legislature created the ‘‘Alternative State Application Process’’ 

(ASAP) so an otherwise qualified individual with a disability could bypass the regular competitive State employment application process by going through a ‘‘Trial 

Work Period’’. If successful, the worker would then enter into the standard probationary work period and become a typical State employee. This is based on the Federal Government’s Schedule A process. Although the program did not get fully oper-
53 

ational until 2011, and with many State agencies still facing budget cuts and hiring 

freezes, the Division of Human Resource Management (DHRM) reported that there 

have been 8 individuals with disabilities hired through ASAP. 

In conclusion: Having a job and working is essential in improving the quality of 

life and increasing the level of independence for people with disabilities. I will use 

my daughter as an example. She has Autism, Epilepsy and Crohn’s Disease and despite the fact that her medical conditions limit her to part-time employment, she 

loves her job, is eager to go to work and sees herself as a productive contributing 

member of society. We feel the ideas and innovations we implemented here will help 

others like my daughter obtain and sustain meaningful employment now and in the 

future. 

ATTACHMENT 1—2012 ANNUAL COMPENDIUM OF DISABILITY STATISTICS

Table 2.13: Employment: Full-Time, Year-Round (FTYR) Gap—Civilians Ages 18 to 64 Years 

Living in the Community for the United States and States, by Disability Status: 2011 

State 

Gap (Between no disability and disability) 

Disability (In percent) No disability (In percent) Gap change (percent pts) 

U.S. ........................................................ 18.8 49.1 30.4 

AL ........................................................... 16.5 49.2 32.7 

AK ........................................................... 24.7 49.7 25.0 

AZ ........................................................... 18.6 47.0 28.4 

AR .......................................................... 19.1 50.6 31.5 

CA .......................................................... 17.0 44.6 27.6 

CO .......................................................... 24.2 50.9 26.7 

CT ........................................................... 19.9 50.4 30.5 

DE .......................................................... 19.9 50.4 30.5 

DC .......................................................... 17.7 55.0 37.4 

FL ........................................................... 17.0 47.8 30.8 

GA .......................................................... 17.1 55.0 37.4 

HI ........................................................... 23.8 52.9 29.0 

ID ........................................................... 21.2 45.8 24.6 

IL ............................................................ 18.4 49.2 30.8 

IN ........................................................... 20.1 49.2 29.2 

IA ............................................................ 21.6 55.6 34.0 

KS ........................................................... 25.9 54.9 28.9 

KY ........................................................... 14.9 48.6 33.7 

LA ........................................................... 19.7 49.4 29.6 

ME .......................................................... 17.7 50.9 3.2 

MD .......................................................... 22.5 54.9 32.4 

MA .......................................................... 15.8 50.5 34.7 

MI ........................................................... 15.2 44.0 28.8 

MN .......................................................... 21.4 52.6 31.2 

MS .......................................................... 16.2 47.6 31.4 

MO .......................................................... 18.8 51.5 32.7 

MT .......................................................... 21.4 48.8 27.4 

NE .......................................................... 26.5 57.0 30.6 

NV .......................................................... 23.7 47.7 24.0 

NH .......................................................... 21.1 54.1 33.0 

NJ ........................................................... 19.9 51.1 31.2 

NM .......................................................... 18.7 47.1 28.4 

NY .......................................................... 18.0 49.6 31.5 

NC .......................................................... 18.1 49.1 31.0 

ND .......................................................... 32.2 57.4 25.3 

OH .......................................................... 17.6 49.8 32.2 

OK .......................................................... 21.7 52.6 30.9 

OR .......................................................... 17.4 43.6 26.2 

PA ........................................................... 17.8 50.4 32.6 

RI ........................................................... 17.7 50.1 32.5 

SC .......................................................... 15.7 48.2 32.5 

SD .......................................................... 29.5 58.6 29.1 

TN ........................................................... 17.0 50.0 33.0 

TX ........................................................... 23.1 51.7 28.6 

UT ........................................................... 23.7 46.9 23.2 

VT ........................................................... 17.6 52.5 35.0 
54 

1 Authored by Sarah Wilhelm and Jennifer Robinson, The Center for Public Policy & Administration, 260 So. Central Campus Dr., Room 214, Salt Lake City, UT 84112, (801) 581–6781. 

Table 2.13: Employment: Full-Time, Year-Round (FTYR) Gap—Civilians Ages 18 to 64 Years Living in the Community for the United States and States, by Disability Status: 2011—Continued 

State 

Gap (Between no disability and disability) 

Disability (In percent) No disability (In percent) Gap change (percent pts) 

VA ........................................................... 20.8 54.7 33.9 

WA .......................................................... 19.4 47.9 28.5 

WV .......................................................... 15.4 48.7 33.3 

WI ........................................................... 20.6 51.6 31.0 

WY .......................................................... 31.9 56.3 24.4 

PR .......................................................... 14.8 35.0 20.2 

Table 2.13: In 2011, the FTYR employment rate for individuals with disabilities ages 18 to 64 years living in the community was 18.8 percent, while the FTYR—employment rate for individuals without disabilities ages 18 to 64 years living in the community was 49.1 percent—a 

gap of 30.4 percentage points. The FTYR employment gap was greatest in the District of Columbia (37.4 percentage points) and smallest in 

Utah (23.2 percentage points). 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011 American Community Survey, American FactFinder, Table C23023; <http://factfinder2.census.gov>;

(accessed 27 September 2012). Based on a sample and subject to sampling variability. See http://disabilitycompendium.org/ 

compendium-statistics for complete report. 

ATTACHMENT 2—UTAH ECONOMIC IMPACT STUDY 1

Background 

The purpose of this study was to find out what are the tangible benefits of the 

vocational rehabilitation program in the form of benefits to individual participants 

and to the State of Utah. The study included 6030 vocational rehabilitation consumers that were closed from services in FY 2005. The control group were 2058 individuals that were eligible but for whatever reason chose not to participate before 

closure and 3972 were the program group that did receive services. Earnings information for the study was taken from unemployment insurance data matched to 

cases for quarterly earnings for 3 years before application and 3 years after closure. 

Results 

• The impact on earnings for those who did receive services compared to those 

that did not was $3,534 for the first year after services, $3,347 in the second year 

and $2,976 in the third year. 

• The average annual increase in earnings for these 6030 consumers is $3,360. 

• Those who received services are 16% likely to be employed than those that were 

closed before services were provided. 

• The reduction in public benefits for these consumers results in $32,231,036 in 

savings. 

• Federal dollars and impact factored separately are not included in the return 

on investment figure below. 

• Return on Investment: For each State dollar spent, $5.64 is returned to State 

in terms of increased taxes and decrease benefits from public programs. 

To access full report click on: http://www.usor.utah.gov/publications/usor-economic-impact-study/. 
55 

Attachment 3—Ten State Comparison Study Fiscal Year 2011–12 

UTAH Colorado Idaho (General) Montana Nevada North Dakota Oregon S. Dakota (General) 

S. Dakota 

(Blind/ 

Visually 

Impaired) 

Wyoming 

Fiscal Year 2011: 

Number of Clients Placed in Jobs ............................................................................................... 3,587 2,348 2,083 776 947 76 1,793 719 115 676 Average Number Placed in Jobs per Counselor ........................................................................... 28 17 29 19 21 18 14 19 18 23 Cost per Client Rehabilitated ...................................................................................................... $10,559 $17,108 $7,432 $15,154 $19,659 $13,348 $21,784 $14,127 $22,258 $13,196 Average Caseload Size ................................................................................................................. 232 144 130 197 139 165 123 157 102 189 

Fiscal Year 2012: 

Number of Clients Placed in Jobs ............................................................................................... 3,427 2,496 1,814 830 852 708 2,032 823 120 678 Average Number Placed in Jobs per Counselor ........................................................................... 27 20 25 20 19 17 17 21 17 23 Cost per Client Rehabilitated ...................................................................................................... $10,760 $16,245 $8,966 $16,239 $14,596 $14,519 $19,368 $10,039 $19,419 $13,650 Average Caseload Size ................................................................................................................. 230 157 182 194 130 139 124 147 181 190 
56 

ATTACHMENT 4—ARSA PERFORMANCE OF COMBINED AGENCIES FISCAL YEAR 2011 

TABLE 4. 
57 

ATTACHMENT 5—CHOOSE TO WORK BROCHURE
58 

ATTACHMENT 6—2013 SUPPORTED EMPLOYMENT HANDOUT
59 

ATTACHMENT 7—UDOWD FLYER

ATTACHMENT 8—UDOWD TASK FORCE UPDATE
60 
61 

ATTACHMENT 9—UTAH WORK INCENTIVE PLANNING SERVICES

ATTACHMENT 10—2012 TICKET DATA. 
62 

ATTACHMENT 11—2009–12 SSA VR COST REIMBURSEMENT
63 
64 

ATTACHMENT 12—DISABILITY FRIENDLY BUSINESS FLYER

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Uchida. 

Thank you all very much. I hope I mentioned at the beginning 

that all testimony will be made a part of the record in their entirety. We’ll start a round of 5-minute questions. 

You all kind of focus on high expectations and starting early, 

forming partnerships, Mr. Uchida. But talk to me again about providing services to youth when they’re still in school. How do we get 

them on this pathway? 

Governor Markell, when I asked him about businesses and what 

they want, said that they wanted voc rehab to change a little bit. 

Rather than taking a list to employers and saying, ‘‘Here’s the list. 

Can you hire someone?’’, have voc rehab go to the employer and 

say, ‘‘What are you looking for? What do you need?’’, and taking 

that and going and finding people with disabilities who have those 

skills. 

I want you to address that but also to address this idea of getting 

at kids early on, both with high expectations but with what I call 

internships, where they can experiment and find out where their 

aptitudes and interests might lie in high school. 

Last, you mentioned, Mr. O’Brien, this TechNow. You didn’t 

mention it in your statement, but I read about it. And that has me 

intrigued, because there’s a lot of emphasis these days on STEM, 

science, technology, engineering, and math. But we tend to forget 

that this can be adaptable easily to people with disabilities. There’s 

a lot of jobs in this high tech which are very adaptable, which people with disabilities can feed right into because of its accessibility. 
65 

So my question for all of you is, how early can we start and 

where should the emphasis be? Second, do we need to change voc 

rehab’s emphasis and get them focused earlier on? And, third, what 

about this whole idea of emphasizing more technology in terms of 

future jobs for people with disabilities. 

Mr. O’Brien, I’ll start with you. 

Mr. O’BRIEN. Well, I will go ahead and start, and I appreciate 

the question. The challenge is, of course, in Oklahoma, we have 

about 600,000 people with disabilities and about 100,000 of those 

are students with IEPs. So whatever I talk about here, it’s in the 

context of I’ve got to figure out how to serve both adults who have 

acquired disabilities and at the same time ensure our students are 

being served. That is a challenge. 

But in Oklahoma, we’ve really focused on that over recent years 

in several ways. One is we think that actual work experience and, 

preferably, paid work experience for a student while they’re in high 

school during particularly the last 2 years before they’re going to 

exit school—in some cases, that’s while they’re a junior and senior, 

and, in some cases, because they might be in school until they’re 

22, that’s when they’re 19 or 20—but having an actual work experience in school. 

And what we know from that is, if you have a work experience 

in school, you’re more likely to graduate and you’re more likely to 

choose work when you exit. So that early experience is important. 

But we also think a paid experience, getting actual cash somewhere along the way, makes a difference. So in Oklahoma, we focused on increasing paid work experiences while the students are 

in school with contracts with schools and local employers, ET 

cetera. We think that’s one. 

The early intervention—we’ve been experimenting with that in 

the TechNow Project, because it actually starts in the 9th and 10th 

grade. And what we discovered is, we expose the students both to 

technology and business practice. They learn to operate Corel software, Word software, and different kinds of things like they would 

in any business. And they learn marketing strategies and they 

build things and work with a computer. 

What we’re finding is if they participate in that early, by the 

time they graduate, they’re thinking about employment. They’re 

wanting to find employment. They’ve actually met employers because of the competitions they’re going to. But the most important 

thing is that more than 94 percent of them graduate if they’ve participated in that. And for a group of students with disabilities, 

these graduation rates are a real issue across the country. 

There is a challenge in starting early, because if you start at 14, 

most transition cases are already 4 to 6 years. So now you’re talking about a case that might take 8 or more years, which means 

that you’ve got dedicated resources that can’t go somewhere else. 

So you have to decide how you’re going to respond to that and how 

you will work that to make sure that you can serve across the 

board. 

Oklahoma has also started this Career Pathways where, as a 

state, we’re trying to focus on all students, not just students with 

disabilities, with career planning beginning in the sixth grade, not 

because you’re a student with a disability, but because every stu-
66 

dent should know who the local employers are. Every student 

should do career planning interest inventories. Every student 

should go to job sites. If they do that from the sixth grade forward—and it’s inclusive of all students with disabilities, not disability specific—then we can start at sixth grade and advance that 

so that when they leave high school, they know what exists in their 

community and they can choose work or training. 

The CHAIRMAN. That’s why I’m hopeful that if we move off of No 

Child Left Behind and go to career- and college-ready, then that is 

an integration process right there. No Child Left Behind is almost 

a segregation kind of a process. We’re looking at more integration, 

so, hopefully, we’ll move in that direction. 

Ms. Boone. 

Ms. BOONE. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to effective 

transition, because it is my passion. I had on my county advisory 

board a special education teacher from the local school district. And 

it was breaking her heart to meet her students after they graduated at 21 and ask them what they were doing. When they said, 

‘‘I haven’t seen anybody that I saw at school. I’m at home. My sister had to quit her job and stay home to be with me,’’ she had 

enough. 

She got on the county advisory board that governs the funds that 

paid for the segregated workshops, and she said, 

‘‘No one should be sitting at home. My students deserve better, and I need to be on this advisory board and influence what 

happens after they turn 21 and are in the community and 

leave school.’’ 

So she put together, along with the county funding that becomes 

a Medicaid support after they graduate—she started with a VR 

counselor that she knew, the county coordinator that she knew, her 

own students, and she got a site at the community college and said, 

‘‘My students at 18 are going to start going to school at the 

community college so they’re in a typical place at a typical 

time. And we’re going to focus everything we do on them getting a job, and we’re going to pool our resources to do this. But 

we’re going to have a common intent, and we’re going to meet 

every month cross-agency to talk about what it takes for all of 

us to align our supports so that no child, no adult, no one has 

an experience that’s not typical that their brother or sister 

would have.’’ 

So they’re walking the neighbor’s dog at age 14. And we’re talking about expectations. It doesn’t cost money to ask a little kid 

what he or she wants to be when they grow up. And that is the 

kind of expectation that permeates Washington State. It’s not if 

you’re going to work. It’s what job would you like to do. 

In my written testimony, there is a link to an AIDD Journal article about the Jobs by 21 Partnership Project, where we studied 

three different cohorts. And those were students who had been able 

to participate in that kind of collaborative, intentional—you know, 

get a job prior to school exit; a cohort of students who didn’t participate in one but were in a community that had one, a community 

that had higher expectations; and communities that didn’t have 

anything like that in place. And what we found, of course, was that 
67 

people were earning higher wages, working more frequently, and 

that the best indicator of their adult career was whether or not 

they were exiting school with a job. 

The career and tech ed piece of this is the piece that we have 

not addressed yet. We’ve gotten really good at special education. 

We have not gotten very good at integrating special education for 

students who want to access career and technical education. We 

have not integrated or embedded the expectation that all youth 

with an IEP will have access to career and technical education. 

We’ve modeled special ed after general ed. We need to start 

thinking about modeling special ed after career and tech ed and be 

thinking about what’s going to happen after they turn 21 and 

spend the next 40 or 50 years living in their communities. 

The CHAIRMAN. Very good. 

Mr. Uchida, do you have anything to add to this? 

Mr. UCHIDA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We don’t have a problem 

in Utah with the school age end of it. We have formal agreements 

with every single school district. We have a vocational rehabilitation counselor assigned to every single high school. Our problem— 

and one of them was the second partnership that I talked about. 

We would be working with these kids through school, but as they 

aged out, it was the same problem that Mike was talking about. 

They didn’t have anywhere to go. We didn’t have the long-term 

funding for supported employment, and we were going to be wasting all that effort that we had while they were in school because 

the collaboration was between the rehab agency and the school system. Most of those special ed kids come out and depend upon the 

Medicaid waiver money. 

That’s why we went to the legislature. The legislature responded, 

and they provided the long-term funding for supported employment. So there was a seamless transition of the kids coming out 

of the school system, going to the vocational rehabilitation program 

on the short-term supported employment, and then there was longterm funding for them that’s been provided by the State. 

I’d like to interject the fact that my daughter was one of those 

who kind of benefited from the State-run, long-term program. Before the Medicaid waiver money went away, she was working in retail, and she needed a job coach. But what happened was when 

that funding went away, we had to look for another job that didn’t 

require a job coach and she could have natural supports within the 

second job that she got. So, these kinds of things happen, and that 

was one of the motivating factors to get that State-funded longterm funding for supported employment. 

The CHAIRMAN. I’m going to yield to Senator Warren. But before 

I do, I’ll just add that there are certain mindsets that we have to 

break away from. And the mindset that someone with a disability 

gets trained or educated and they get in a job and they have it for 

40 years—that’s not the way society works. People have a job for 

a few years. They go to another job. They go to another job. They 

go to another job. 

We have to have a system whereby people with disabilities who 

may lose a job—jobs move, plants close—where they can get back 

in the system and be retrained just like anybody else for some 
68 

other occupation. I hope we kind of keep that in mind in terms of 

long-term supports. 

Senator Warren. 

Senator WARREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I just want to say, Ms. Boone and Dr. O’Brien and Mr. Uchida, 

thank you very much for the work you do. It’s just terrific. It’s inspiring. And, like the chairman, I read your testimony which is terrific. 

I wondered if I could change the conversation or just move it in 

a little bit different direction. I’ve been thinking a lot about the 

vets who are returning from Iraq and Afghanistan and who have 

sustained injuries that make it difficult for them to find employment. And, really more by happenstance than anything else, this 

morning, I was meeting with a group of veterans and activists. We 

had the vet coordinator from Framingham State University. I had 

the vice commander of the Disabled American Veterans and the director of the Boston Firefighters Military Veterans Legion and several others. 

The first part of the conversation that they brought up was the 

frustration they feel with the Veterans Administration. They talk 

about delays, lack of engagement, that they feel like they’re not 

getting the kind of support—that vets are not getting the kind of 

support they deserve. 

I wonder if you could speak just a little bit to the challenges facing our veterans, to your perception of how the Veterans Administration is meeting those needs, and about other options and how 

you create alignments in programs with the Veterans Administration. 

Mr. Uchida, you look ready to go. 

Mr. UCHIDA. Thank you, Senator. We have a formal cooperative 

agreement with our local VA. In fact, we have a very, very close 

working relationship, because that entire vocational rehabilitation 

unit is our former employees who left our State agency to go work 

for the Federal Government for higher wages. So they know our 

system, and they have a very, very close working relationship. 

We are aware of some of those problems and the shortcomings. 

So we have a cooperative agreement where most of the medical 

high-end expensive kinds of therapeutic modalities—they’re taken 

care of by the VA. Those other things that they’re waiting for that 

we can justify, we pay for with our vocational rehabilitation services money because of the cooperative agreement that we have with 

them. 

So, yes, that is a problem. The TBIs that come with a lot of those 

create some barriers to work with. But we are getting some of our 

staff trained to deal with that particular population. We’ve sent 

some of our people to work with directly and to get training 

through the VA to understand their system a little bit better, so 

we can navigate through all those problems that you discussed a 

little bit easier. 

Senator WARREN. Dr. O’Brien. 

Mr. O’Brien. I come at this issue from both a personal and a professional perspective. I have a brother who is a retired first sergeant from the Army who was medically retired and who had to 

use the VA’s rehabilitation system in order to earn his degree. And 
69 

he is now the manager of a major manufacturing plant. But he 

went through that system. 

I have a nephew who returned from Afghanistan as a Purple 

Heart winner who has had to utilize both types of vocational rehabilitation and who will graduate from college, we believe, this summer. So we’ve seen it in that system. And I have a son who is a 

soldier in Germany right now. So I pay quite a bit of attention to 

the veterans’ piece. 

In Oklahoma, what we found is that the Veterans Administration rehabilitation counselors typically have very large case loads. 

But they also have more money to serve people than we do. So 

we’ve begun a process of trying to meet regularly with their counselors. My counselors and their counselors meet at different times 

across the State. And we’ve found that we can provide counseling 

and case management and personal connection perhaps in a more 

convenient way than they can, because their case loads are bigger 

than our case loads, but that they can provide the resources. 

The other thing that we’ve tried to do is I regularly attend their 

State meeting and visit with their counselors, and their supervisor 

attends our meetings to be a part of that. We’ve not perfected the 

system, but what we’ve found is when we’re at the table together 

as often as we can get to the table together, we can find ways to 

pick up in the places where there are problems. Yes, it’s still slow, 

but more people are being served, and more people are getting opportunity, and they’re able to use both systems when we partner 

together like we’re trying to do in Oklahoma. 

Senator WARREN. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, I’m out of time, I realize. Would it be all right if 

Ms. Boone responded as well? 

The CHAIRMAN. Sure. 

Senator WARREN. Thank you. 

Ms. BOONE. Fortunately, for the interest of time, there is not a 

person within the Division of Developmental Disabilities who has 

served in the military. So this is not a matter that I’m familiar 

with. 

Senator WARREN. Well, that saved us some time. But thank you 

very much. I appreciate the responses. And I very much, though, 

want to underline what I think I was hearing, and that is you’re 

working hard, but it is a problem that is nowhere near a solution 

yet, that our vets are waiting a long, long time, and you’re trying 

to piece things together to try to make it work for them. Would 

that be a correct summary? 

Mr. O’Brien. I think that there’s a lot of people trying very hard. 

But you’re right. It’s not as efficient as it needs to be yet. But there 

are dedicated people focused on it. 

Senator WARREN. Fair enough. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. I might just add, Senator Warren, that one of the 

things that I’ve been working on with some others is to get the Department of Defense to do more hiring of wounded warriors who 

have disabilities and to get them trained and to—both on the civilian side but also on the military side, to stay in the military. 

The military has this thing that you have to be deployable. Well, 

maybe. Maybe not. There’s a lot of jobs in the military that uniformed military personnel could do that could be done by people 
70 

with disabilities. They may not be deployable to some other country, but they can sure do the job here. So I ask you to join with 

us and let’s work on that, because we’re trying to get the DOD to 

change its mindset a little bit here. 

Senator WARREN. I’m in, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. All right. Thank you. 

Senator Baldwin. 

Senator BALDWIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to, again, 

appreciate our three witnesses on this panel. And you might have 

heard me address the Governor earlier that my State of Wisconsin’s DVR has collaborated with each of your States very successfully, and I appreciate that. 

One of the problems of running in and out between two committee hearings is I’ve missed some of the questions. So let me just 

ask a couple of very specific things that perhaps won’t even use all 

of my time. 

Ms. Boone, after moving to Employment First, can you identify 

which policies adopted in the process of that, had the greatest impact on increasing your integrated individual employment rates? 

Ms. BOONE. I can. Washington is a State that actually came to 

its employment policy late. We had the values in place in the early 

1970s when Washington State’s parents were the first parents in 

the Nation to insist that their sons and daughters go to school with 

their sisters and brothers. And in 1971, they put in place an Education for All Act that later became Public Law 94–142. 

Because of that insistence in the early 1970s—it took a few years 

before that was passed. So these are parents from the late 1960s 

who said, ‘‘My kids are all going to go to the same neighborhood 

school.’’ Having that expectation of inclusion in place built toward 

the 1980s when we began to have more inclusive employment. 

By the time the Working Age Adult policy was written and 

issued in 2004, we already had embedded in practice our investments and our innovations and our business models, what it would 

take for someone to come in the door and say, ‘‘I want a job,’’ and 

for us to have a job developer who could go to an employer and say, 

‘‘I can see that you’ve got some work here that needs to be 

done, and I can match that job demand with a candidate I 

have that can match it,’’ 

much as Governor Markell spoke to earlier. 

It’s about what does labor demand, and who do we have that we 

can match with that effectively. What the policy did was put in 

writing, which can be very powerful, a set of very clear expectations about just what it meant. What did it mean to earn a living 

wage? What did that mean? What was integrated employment? 

What kinds of supports could people expect to get when they came 

to the Division of Developmental Disabilities and asked for something to do during the day? 

There was much debate about that in the House and the Senate. 

There were people who thought it was a really lousy idea, and 

there were people who thought it was a terrific idea. Governor 

Gregoire in 2012 signed that policy into State legislation. There 

was so much debate over it being at the policy level that our State 

legislature, through long debates, decided it needed to be in legislation, and that was signed on June 7, 2012. 
71 

Senator BALDWIN. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. I’m told you have a plane to catch, Ms. Boone. 

But before you leave, I also wanted to ask you about this Employment First, moving from the segregated model to an integrated 

model. Let’s be honest about it. Sometimes the hardest people to 

convince are skeptical parents. And I’m just wondering, how did 

you deal with that? 

Ms. BOONE. Senator Harkin, I’ve been thinking about that question, and I’ve been wondering if I could persuade you not to retire. 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Moving right along. 

Ms. BOONE. The best way to convince a skeptical parent is to listen. It’s not to start talking. It’s not to start convincing. It’s to listen, and we listen. We listen to parents, and we respect that 

they’re concerned. They should be. They’re that person’s parent. 

That parent wants to make sure that they’re safe, they’re protected, that they don’t come to any harm. They want them in the 

safest place possible. 

It’s about supporting the parent to experience the risk it takes 

to send their kid out the door, and that’s something common to 

every parent. You need support. We have parents talking to parents. It’s not about somebody from the government or an employer 

or even a school teacher, although sometimes school teachers can 

be effective. It’s the parent-to-parent conversations that are the 

most effective. 

When we have our high school celebrations of the kids who got 

jobs before they left school, the standing room only crowds were 

parent panels of students who had graduated a couple of years 

ahead talking to parents who had kids who were going to graduate 

in the next couple of years. They wanted to know what it was like, 

how did it work out, what happened, what does it look like. It’s 

really about leading by example and having parents and youth 

mentoring parents and youth and them telling each other the story, 

as well as employers telling each other the story. 

The CHAIRMAN. I understand. Obviously, parents are very concerned about what’s going to happen to their child with a disability, 

what happens after they’re gone. I understand that, and it’s a 

tough issue. But I think you’re absolutely right. You have to listen 

to parents and get other parents who have been through this to 

talk to them and to convince them. 

Did that happen when you got Employment First passed through 

the legislature? Did you have much of a reaction from that? 

Ms. BOONE. I really do wish Margaret-Lee Thompson could have 

been here today, because she was in many of the hearings where 

Employment First was passed, as was Joanne O’Neill and many 

other parents. Sometimes our strongest advocates—not MargaretLee or Joanne, but other parents or family members, sisters and 

brothers—were, at first, our strongest opponents. And those ferocious opponents who supported their brother or sister to take the 

risk of getting a job and saw what happened became the strongest 

advocates. 

So there’s a lot of passion and power, as you’ve noticed over the 

years, around these issues. And it’s something that in Washington 

State, because the greater percentage of people are working, it 
72 

doesn’t take as much convincing when you go to the grocery store 

and somebody with a significant disability is working there, or you 

go to Starbucks, or you go to the bus station and the person who 

tells you how to get to your route is a person with an obvious disability. They’re just part of the workforce. 

And I think in generations to come, because of Public Law 94– 

142 and IDEA, people will be included naturally. 

The CHAIRMAN. Because they’ve grown up together. They’ve associated together. They’ve been in school together. Yes, exactly. 

Ms. BOONE. They will get jobs. They will network. They will 

know each other. 

The CHAIRMAN. Exactly. 

Anything else, Mr. O’Brien or Mr. Uchida, you think you’d like 

to add anything that we haven’t asked or that you’d like to make 

a point on before we close down? 

Mr. O’BRIEN. Just real quickly, one of the things that I also think 

is important is that parents have to have information. Actually, for 

any person with a disability who is receiving benefits to make a 

choice about work and leaving benefits, they have to have enough 

information to make that choice. 

I think that the use of effective benefit planners that we’ve had 

as part of social security and that Don and I both have in our 

States because we started our own benefit planning units after the 

social security benefit planners were ended—you have to have 

someone who’s an expert to help you weave through the system. 

And I think that anything we do has to incorporate someone who 

can answer those questions, and it’s not always going to be the rehabilitation counselor. They have to know so many things. 

The social security system is—all of the benefit systems are complicated. And having an expert who can effect that so that people 

can make a real decision, an informed decision, about what their 

path could be if they chose work, I think is an important thing to 

consider as we move forward. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Uchida. 

Mr. UCHIDA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That very subject was 

one of our partnerships. It was the UWIPS. It’s the work incentive 

planning unit that we have that Mike talked about earlier. And 

one of the problems we had that created the second partnership, 

getting the State funding, were these kids coming out of school— 

transitioning kids when they aged out of the system. They needed 

some place to go, and they needed that long-term funding for supported employment. 

So we targeted many of the parents of those children. Now, legally, when they’re 18 years old, unless they have legal guardianship, we don’t need to talk to the parents. But in most instances, 

they do. And one of the things that we found is that if they can 

see—even though the social security system is so complicated, 

when they get through with our work incentive staff, they have 

something in writing that says if your kid goes to work and earns 

this much money, then this is going to happen to this benefit. 

But if they still need health insurance, they can have the Medicaid buy-in program. This is the sliding scale. This is how much 

it’s going to cost. And everything is in writing in that plan. So we 
73 

found that it gives the parents a little more assurance to have 

something in writing that they can go back to. 

And we found that more and more of these kids on SSI, especially—the parents can see in writing that it’s to their benefit financially, not losing any of the safety nets, that they can go 

through the vocational rehabilitation program, go to work in an integrated setting, work above SGA, and it’s still to their benefit because it’s in writing and it shows them. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Do any of my colleagues have any 

further followup questions? 

Again, I want to thank all of the witnesses for their testimony 

and for your leadership on this critical issue of boosting disability 

employment. And we certainly appreciate the time and the effort 

you’ve taken to come here today. I also want to again publicly 

thank Governor Markell and his colleagues at the National Governors Association for helping to elevate this issue and identify the 

best practices for State leaders and for the country. 

I am convinced that America is at a tipping point on this issue, 

and that increased engagement from the Governors coupled with 

Federal leadership, private sector leadership, and strong engagement from the disability community can really make a difference 

in the next few years. So I look forward to working with Senator 

Alexander and the wonderful members of this committee. 

We have a great committee. We have really dedicated people on 

this committee, and we’re going to do everything that we can to 

push this agenda and to work with States and the private sector 

to get through this transition from segregated, covered employment 

to fully integrated competitive employment for people with disabilities. 

You three have been sort of the vanguard of this, and we learn 

from your expertise and what you’ve done. And we hope that we 

can continue to ask for your input and your advice and consultation 

as we move ahead on this. 

With that, thank you very much. We’ll leave the record open for 

10 days to allow additional statements or supplements to be submitted, and this hearing is now adjourned. 

Thank you. 

[Additional material follows.] 
74 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL 

RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS OF SENATOR MURRAY BY THE HONORABLE JACK MARKELL, JANE BOONE, MICHAEL O’BRIEN, ED.D, CRC, CVE, AND DONALD UCHIDA

THE HONORABLE JACK MARKELL

Question 1. Last year the Social Security Administration did not issue new grants 

for the Protection and Advocacy for Beneficiaries of Social Security and Work Incentives Planning Assistance programs. As you know, these programs provide valuable 

advocacy, information, and training for people with disabilities receiving Social Security benefits to help the beneficiary return to work, thus reducing dependence on 

Social Security and encourage independence. These programs helped thousands of 

people with disabilities return to work each year, which benefits Federal, State, and 

local budgets. Do you think the Federal Government should be funding these programs to help people with disabilities return to work? 

Answer 1. The WIPA program is an effective investment of tax dollars. Research 

and evaluation of the program has shown that it clearly reduces reliance on public 

benefit programs and turns people with disabilities into taxpayers. The cost of the 

WIPA program is approximately $375 per individual served. The cost of the program 

is more than offset by extensive long-term savings in Social Security funds. 

Data from a few States like Vermont demonstrate that participants receiving benefits counseling versus the WIPA and PABSS programs provide a vital service that 

assists individuals with disabilities to go to work, and achieve self-sufficiency and 

financial independence. 

If the WIPA and PABSS programs are eliminated, over a decade of infrastructure 

development will disappear and people with disabilities will have no alternative for 

this type of service a control group (not receiving benefits counseling) received higher wages a year later. 

Question 2. Are there any examples in your State of the positive impact of the 

Protection and Advocacy for Beneficiaries of Social Security and Work Incentives 

Planning Assistance programs? Please provide one or two examples and describe the 

benefits of the grant. 

Answer 2. In Delaware the WIPA program assisted the 25 percent of DVR clients 

on SSI/SSDI to see the benefits of a paycheck over a benefit and make the choice 

to pursue employment. Many SSI/SSDI beneficiaries would not make that choice but 

for their consultation with a WIPA benefits counselor. The DVR success rate with 

SSA beneficiaries improved with the inclusion of benefits counseling into their service plans. Benefits recipients required the assistance of WIPA benefits Counselors 

at multiple stages in their journey to self-sufficiency through employment. Once 

they were actually receiving paychecks; when they were required to report wages 

to SSA; when their trial work period expired; and when they reached SGA; all of 

these milestones sent SSA recipients back to their trusted WIPA benefits counselor 

to navigate the system. Without a WIPA benefits counselor to guide them, most SSA 

recipients will stay away from the uncertainty of employment and the risk of losing 

benefits. For those who are working part time, without WIPA there is no one to 

guide them to full-time employment and the risks of rising above SGA. At a time 

when we are seeking solutions to sustain the SSA trust fund for individuals with 

disabilities, the WIPA program is a key component of the solution—helping people 

with disabilities to choose independence through employment. 

Question 3. Thank you for focusing on the important issue of employment as 

Chair of the National Governors Association. As you know, employment is the first 

option for Washingtonians with disabilities. Washington State’s policies have helped 

thousands with disabilities stay on the job and contribute to our State economy. 

This employment first approach has made Washington a model for the Nation and 

I’m very proud of the work done. During the year you have been Chair of the NGA, 

you have highlighted several of the executive actions that Governors can take to increase employment of persons with disabilities. As you have worked on this issue, 

are there specific things the Federal Government could do to increase employment 

outcomes for individuals with disabilities? 

Answer 3. As Governors continue to push action and innovation to advance employment opportunities for people with disabilities, Congress can help. States, business, and people with disabilities will need your leadership to support flexible federalism, like the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) 15 percent set-aside. Since 2008, 

funding for this flexible, innovative fund has been reduced by nearly 70 percent. In 

fiscal year 2010, the cut to State set-aside dollars from 15 percent to 5 percent hurt 

States’ ability to serve our workers, including workers with disabilities. I know that 
75 

this committee recognized the effect and tried to address through language allowing 

flexibility to 10 percent in fiscal year 2013. What is really needed to benefit all Governors is a restoration of the full 15 percent. 

For years, States relying on the 15 percent WIA set-aside to support and seed innovations that allow us to partner with industry, attract new businesses, upskill our 

current workforce, and better serve our constituents who rely on America’s Jobs 

Centers. For example, Washington State used the set-aside funds to allow the Governor’s office to facilitate a partnership across the public and private sectors to attract a new manufacturer, Profile Composites, to the State. The British Columbiabased company—which makes collapsible wheelchairs, sport crutches and other assistive products—is committed to hiring veterans and individuals with disabilities 

and is designing its training and manufacturing facilities to accommodate all levels 

of physical ability. A $100,000 investment of WIA set-aside funds will go toward 

workforce recruitment and integrating the company’s training with established college degree and certificate programs. The company is investing $10.4 million to 

build the facility and establish its training programs, creating at least 200 jobs. 

Congress must also prioritize and modernize the Workforce Investment Act. It’s 

been well over a decade since Congress revised this law. Much has changed in the 

work place, much has changed in business, and much has changed as evidence by 

today’s modern, high-tech economy. We are also learning much. The ability for 

States to innovate in their own, unique set of circumstances will always yield the 

best outcomes for individuals, and the best lessons for other States. 

Question 4. Are there any barriers at the Federal level that you have identified 

during your work? Could you expand on your testimony with specific issues identified? 

Answer 4. Among the biggest barriers for people with disabilities is the fear of 

losing public benefits when people with disabilities become employed. Many of the 

supports that benefits underwrite are critical to employment they need to function 

every day, such as personal care attendants. Providing States with flexibility to 

allow individuals to work and still maintain essential benefits is critical to ensuring 

that people with disabilities do not have to choose between the benefits they need 

and employment. 

JANE BOONE

Question 1. Last year the Social Security Administration did not issue new grants 

for the Protection and Advocacy for Beneficiaries of Social Security and Work Incentives Planning Assistance programs. As you know, these programs provide valuable 

advocacy, information, and training for people with disabilities receiving Social Security benefits to help the beneficiary return to work, thus reducing dependence on 

Social Security and encourage independence. These programs helped thousands of 

people with disabilities return to work each year, which benefits Federal, State, and 

local budgets. Do you think the Federal Government should be funding these programs to help people with disabilities return to work? 

Answer 1. To provide the most up to date information, Jane Boone collaborated 

with Washington Initiative for Supported Employment and the King County Developmental Disabilities Division in early March 2013 to answer these questions. A 

brief statewide survey on this topic was conducted between March 8 and March 12 

and the responses are compiled in the attached six page document ‘‘Washington 

State, March 2013 Survey on WIPA and PABSS Programs’’. Responses affirm that 

unquestionably yes, Federal Government funding of these programs including Work 

Incentives Planning Assistance (WIPA) in particular and the Protection and Advocacy for Beneficiaries of Social Security (PABSS) are important tools in getting people jobs. Both programs helped people navigate the SSA system; reduce their fears, 

concerns, and go to work in Washington State. 

Question 2. Are there any examples in your State of the positive impact of the 

Protection and Advocacy for Beneficiaries of Social Security and Work Incentives 

Planning Assistance programs? Please provide one or two examples and describe the 

benefits of the grant. 

Answer 2. The attached summary includes examples of people in Washington 

State who participated in WIPA guidance, got jobs and reduced or eliminated their 

dependence on Social Security benefits. Respondents also commented that the loss 

of the Medicaid Infrastructure Grant negatively affected the State’s ability to support people to work. Additional information about the value of WIPA and PABSS 

at the national level (including papers and citations) is available from David Hoff 

(David.Hoff@umb.edu) at the Institute of Community Inclusion, UMASS/Boston. 
76 

Question 3. In your work in Washington State, what was the impact of employment programs such as ‘‘Jobs by 21 Employment Partnership Project?’’ 

Answer 3. The impact of the Jobs by 21 Partnership Project was evaluated by the 

Institute of Community Inclusion (ICI UMass/Boston). The evaluation is available 

in The Washington State Jobs by 21 Partnership Project Report for 2009. To summarize, in 2007, the Washington State legislature allocated funding for the Jobs by 21 

Partnership Project to identify best practices that would result increasing employment of young adults with developmental disabilities prior to and after leaving 

school transition programs. The project demonstrated that partnerships between 

school districts and the adult service system including vocational rehabilitation, developmental disabilities and employment agency providers resulted in higher student employment rates. The evaluation shows that student participants were more 

likely to achieve employment following school exit and had stronger employment 

outcomes than students who did not participate in Partnership Projects. Data suggest that improved employment outcomes occur by leveraging and maximizing financial and in-kind resources and strengthening the collaborative relationships 

among project stakeholders. Citation: Winsor, J.E., Butterworth, J., Boone, J. (2011) 

‘‘Jobs by 21 Partnership Project: Impact of Cross-System Collaboration on Employment Outcomes of Young Adults with Developmental Disabilities.’’ Intellectual and 

Developmental Disabilities 49(4): 274–84 

The evaluation provides evidence that when students with intellectual and developmental disabilities are expected and collaboratively supported to work in a good 

job, and start their career exploration, skill development and resume building at an 

age typical to their peers, they are more likely to get good jobs, go to work and stay 

working in the years following school. With access to good information, job developers and job coaches, assistance with benefits planning and assistance figuring out 

public transportation, students are more likely to go to work with community employers before they leave school at age 21. The first intentional collaborations in 

transition from school to employment projects as described above began in Washington State in Thurston County in 1991. Students who got their first jobs at that 

time are now over 40 years old and well into their careers, while many students 

who did not participate remain unemployed. It has become clear during the last two 

decades that the positive impact of effective transition from school into employment 

continue across a work lifetime. Students with intellectual disabilities aged 18 to 

21 who begin working in good jobs with community employers are also more likely 

to avoid the crisis of exiting school and staying home during the day or placement 

in a segregated work or habilitation center. The formal evaluation conducted by ICI 

also demonstrated that this cohort stayed employed at a higher rate after exiting 

school. 

The collaborative supports available to students require multiple partners (during 

and after school) to align expectations and leverage resources toward the common 

goal of good jobs for students with intellectual and developmental disabilities exiting 

school. In Washington State, the Division of Developmental Disabilities and county 

government provide the leadership role needed for the collaborative effort involving 

school districts, employment agencies, Vocational Rehabilitation, employers and 

families. 

Question 4. Are there any barriers at the Federal level that you have identified 

during your work? Could you expand on your testimony with specific issues identified? 

Answer 4. It would be helpful for the Federal Government to: 

(1) Invest in employment by reimbursing States a portion of the savings realized 

by the Social Security Administration and Medicaid when SSI and SSDI working 

age adult recipients go to work and report earnings. Earnings in integrated employment of SSI and SSDI recipients are readily available through State and Federal 

unemployment insurance departments. 

(2) Increase the Federal match to States providing integrated employment supports to Home and Community Based Services (HCBS) waiver recipients to the 

same level of Federal match available to Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) participants. Integrated employment options, other than through VR, are currently reimbursed through Medicaid. The Federal Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP) available to States from Medicaid is the same rate for integrated employment, sheltered 

work, and day habilitation. A Federal reimbursement rate to States that does not 

differentiate the value of States providing integrated employment supports from 

States providing sheltered work or day habilitation programs, combined with chronically low expectations of people with disabilities means people who could work do 

not. 
77 

(3) Allow Vocational Rehabilitation to extend the period of on-the-job supports for 

the workforce with long-term support needs, including people with traumatic brain 

injury, very severe physical or psychiatric/behavioral disabilities and people with intellectual disabilities. 

Specific to the workforce of people with intellectual and developmental disabilities, Federal barriers exist on multiple levels. A significant barrier is the lack of 

expectation cemented in fiscal policy that people can and need support to work and 

can meet employers’ business needs. If Federal policy and funding reinforced the expectation of work, it would be easier for States and businesses to improve employment outcomes. Currently it takes very strong leadership at the State and local 

level to deliver employment first policy and expectation. It would be easier if Federal policy and funding were aligned with employment first goals. The billions of 

dollars in the Medicaid budget alone seems to be reason enough for the Federal 

Government to be interested in making integrated employment an attractive option 

for States to develop and offer. 

The lack of expectation of employment at the Federal level began in well-meaning 

policies and budget directives that originated over half a century ago, based on the 

outdated notion that people with complex disabilities are ‘‘unemployable’’, similar to 

the 1950s thinking that children were ‘‘uneducable’’. Both myths are now disproven. 

The Federal Government recognized this in the early 1970s with Public Law 94– 

142 (Education for All Handicapped Children Act) but there has not been a similar 

‘‘aha’’ regarding Employment for All, and the Federal Government has not made the 

investment in States needed for States to create the cost-effective infrastructure required to support integrated, competitive employment. 

Medicaid provides FMAP for day activities for people with the most severe disabilities. Rules are based largely on a segregated/medical/caretaking model and FMAP 

is the same regardless of the activity. The rules and funding policy do not support 

integrated, supported or customized employment. Support to States from the Federal Government does not make employment for the workforce of people with intellectual disabilities the most attractive support States can offer, yet it is the single 

most cost-effective support funding can provide to this population and a highly desirable outcome of government-funded supports. To attain what Senator Harkin sees 

as the goal of the ADA generation—participation in the middle class—people need 

to work in good jobs at good wages with decent benefits. To support this segment 

of the Nation’s workforce to leave poverty behind and enter the middle class, the 

Federal Government needs to align policy and funding to make achievement of integrated, competitive employment possible for individuals with complex disabilities. 

To get a strong start on employment, our Nation needs to expect and support 

youth with complex disabilities, during the transition years prior to exiting school 

at age 21, to have access to collaborative efforts between State and local government, adult service agencies and school districts and to participate in career and 

technical education. During my testimony, I asked the HELP committee to insist on 

the cross agency collaboration to achieve the goal of employment for youth and 

adults. To achieve typical levels of employment at median wage or better, common 

employment definitions and accountability, common goals and clear measurement of 

progress and success needs to be in place across Education, Labor, Rehabilitation, 

and Medicaid. 

With Federal support, States can more effectively take the lead with employment 

of their workforce with disabilities. Currently, 27 States participate in the State 

Employment Leadership Network (SELN), staffed by the Institute for Community 

Inclusion and the National Association of Directors of Developmental Disabilities 

Services. In their 2011 Accomplishment Report, the SELN identified elements critical to effective achievement of employment of the workforce of people with disabilities. Our Nation’s ability to accomplish the goal of employment of our workforce 

with disabilities would benefit from these elements being in place at the Federal 

level: 

SELN 2011–2012 Accomplishments Report: The SELN supports States formulate and achieve employment goals that lead to systems change. The following approaches and expectations are the hallmarks of SELN member 

States as they strive to improve integrated employment outcomes. 

• Leadership.—Clear and unambiguous commitment to employment in individual 

community jobs, from top leadership through all levels in the system. Local and 

State-level administrators are champions for employment. 

• Strategic Goals and Operating Policies.—Employment is identified as the preferred outcome in State developmental disabilities policy, and is supported by program goals and operating practices that are clearly designed to achieve that objective. 
78 

• Financing and Contracting Methods.—The outcome of employment in individual 

integrated community jobs is emphasized and supported through the State’s resource allocation formulas, reimbursement methods, and rate-setting practices. 

• Training and Technical Assistance.—High-performing employment systems invest in the development and maintenance of a strong, competent workforce, building 

the skills of job coaches and developers, supervisors, and key employment staff. 

• Interagency Collaboration and Partnership.—Building relationships with key 

State and local agency partners, such as vocational rehabilitation, education, mental 

health, and the State Medicaid agency, removes barriers to employment supports 

as people transition from one funding stream to another. 

• Services and Service Innovation.—Service definitions and support strategies are 

structured and aligned to facilitate the delivery of employment supports to all individuals with developmental disabilities, regardless of the intensity of their needs. 

• Performance Measurement and Data Management.—Comprehensive data systems are used to measure progress, benchmark performance, and document outcomes. Information is gathered on key indicators across employment and other related systems and is used to evaluate and track results, inform policy, and improve 

provider contracts and service agreements. Data are shared with other State agencies to report results and improve quality. 

For more information on the State Employment Leadership Network, contact 

John.Butterworth@umb.edu or Suzzanne.Freeze@umb.edu. 

ATTACHMENT—WASHINGTON STATE SURVEY ON IMPACT OF LOSS OF WIPA AND

PABSS FUNDING SUMMARY FINDINGS

Question 1. What is your position and your role (local, regional, statewide)? (16 total respondents to survey) 

Response: 

(1) Benefits Specialist for Division of Vocational Rehabilitation: Region—one 

third of the State 

(2) Employment Resource Coordinator, County Developmental Disabilities Division: Urban area 

(3) Senior Program Manager at Washington Initiative for Supported Employment: Statewide 

(4) Associate Director of Center for Independence: former western Washington 

WIPA contract 

(5) Executive Director, Advocate 

(6) Supported Employment Agency Director: Rural county 

(7) County Developmental Disabilities Program Administrator: Metropolitan and 

Rural county 

(8) Parent Coalition/Parent of adult child with developmental disabilities: Eastern WA 

(9) Benefits Planner, local government metropolitan county: Western Washington 

(10) Vocational Rehabilitation Counselor (unidentified location) 

(11) Partner, Pierce, Jones & Associates regional 

(12) Benefits Planner 

(13) Special Education Teacher and Transition Specialist, Urban school district 

(14) County Coordinator for Developmental Disabilities: Metropolitan county 

(15 & 16) Anonymous respondents to survey 

Question 2. Has the loss of funding for the WIPA and PABSS programs 

affected individuals’ dependence on Social Security? (14 responded ‘‘YES’’, 2 

responded ‘‘NO’’) 

Response: 

• Yes—the loss of funding has increased the dependence on Social Security. Without guidance and support from the WIPA and PABSS programs, beneficiaries do not 

have the knowledge they need to overcome their fears of working and how it affects 

their Social Security. 

• Yes—the individuals are not able to get accurate information about the impact 

of work on their benefits (or support for problems with SSA through PABSS) they 

are less likely to seek employment due to fear about losing benefits and myths they 

hear from others. By not seeking employment or limiting their earnings from employment unnecessarily, they remain dependent on Social Security. 

• Yes—when people do not have access to benefits planning, they do not know 

what happens with their benefits when they go to work. This makes people fearful 
79 

of trying employment due to fear of losing their benefits—especially medical coverage. • Yes—prior to WIPA, individuals routinely made the decision to not work for 

fear of losing benefits altogether. Through WIPA, widespread myths about working 

and the full loss of benefits has been widely dispelled. Individuals have become educated to understand that working, gaining independence, and relying less on Social 

Security and government systems is not only possible but encouraged by most systems without resulting in a total loss of fundamental supports and benefits. With 

the loss of WIPA, the myth that one can’t work while receiving benefits has 

strengthened and is spreading, thereby encouraging greater reliance on Social Security and other government systems. • Yes—lack of information tends to result in crisis for some individuals (such as 

overpayment of benefits, unexpected loss of Medicaid eligibility, etc.) and those stories spread like wildfire, along with the message that work is not possible. For 

years, with WIPA-funded benefits specialists and the Medicaid Infrastructure Grant 

funded assistance, we were making good headway toward employment and a reduction on reliance on SSA, and now, with a major source of benefits planning unfunded, we are losing some of the best-trained Benefits Planners. This lack of access 

to good information has caused people to be more dependent on Social Security and 

other public benefits. • Yes—the loss of this funding has significantly affected individuals who receive 

Social Security because they are unsure of how many hours and how much money 

they can earn. When these individuals are unsure and afraid they will lose their 

benefits entirely, they tend to reduce the amount of hours they work or stop working 

all together. • Yes—recipients no longer get the same level of assistance in reviewing their Social Security and other benefits prior to going to work. People do not understand 

the impact that work will have on their benefits and are afraid to work. • Yes—our agency provided expert benefit planning with WIPA funding to Washington State for 12 years. Daily, we continue to hear from dozens of people needing 

benefit planning assistance or help untangling the SSA overpayment web, but we 

no longer have funds to help them. • Yes—SS is a large and complex program; we have had a decrease in IRWE’s, 

PASS plans, and IDA’s. There has been an increase in individuals owing money 

back to SS because they do not know how, or are not able to fully comply without 

some assistance. • Yes—I think there are always concerns that people have regarding going to 

work and not having a good understanding on the potential impact to their benefits. 

Having agencies or organizations specializing in this area available to provide the 

needed information has been valuable in addressing those fears/concerns as it is a 

complicated system for the typical person to navigate and understand. Several people I have worked with have no understanding or mis-understanding of how much 

they can work and/or how to use SS work incentives. As a result they either choose 

to work less than they are able to or not work at all. • Yes—beneficiaries tend to be hesitant about going back to work due to a fear 

of loss of benefits. Without individuals to provide assistance and assurance through 

the return to work process, many beneficiaries are choosing not to pursue work. • Yes—individuals who do not know how employment will impact their benefits 

are unlikely to return to work, or may return to work without reporting appropriately. This can lead to suppression of earnings potential, or to overpayments or 

other unexpected impacts. Often these unexpected impacts lead to individuals deciding not to continue working. • No—(no additional comment) • No, we have not done much with WIPA in our county, but it will later stretch 

other resources. Protection and Advocacy is very important in all States. 

Question 3. Has the loss of funding for the WIPA and PABSS programs 

affected the employment outcome of people with disabilities going to work 

or returning to work? (14 responded ‘‘YES’’, 2 responded ‘‘NO’’) 

Response: 

• Yes—if individuals are not able to get accurate information about the impact 

of work on their benefits (or support for problems with SSA through PABSS) they 

are less likely to seek employment or limit their earnings due to fear about losing 

benefits and myths they hear from others. 

• Yes—Positive Solutions and Plan to Work (Washington State’s former WIPA 

contractors) worked with individuals with disabilities to overcome the obstacles that 

may discourage them from choosing to work or return to work. Their services included resolving overpayments; reducing fear about losing supports and services due 
80 

to work; understanding how to report to Social Security and other government programs when working; and utilizing Social Security work incentives to maximize benefits and build wealth. • Yes—it was very helpful to be able to give people general information that dispelled some of the myths around benefits and working, and refer them to the two 

Washington State WIPA funded contractors for people to call. There were times that 

I could refer to other resources as well, but that was hit and miss, depending on 

the area of the State. The loss of the resources, coupled with the loss of the Medicaid Infrastructure Grant funding, has had a tremendous impact. In addition, for 

those that needed the Protection and Advocacy system, I could refer folks to the Protection and Advocacy System people at Disability Rights WA. As a State and a country, we are expecting a lot of people who are reliant on benefits when we expect 

them to work. We know it is well worth it for people to get a good job, but the recipients must have good, individualized information to overcome the fears of loss of benefits, and to be able to make informed choices about their career decisions. When 

good information is available, people overcome their fears and go to work . . . I’ve 

seen it time and again. • Yes, without Benefits Planning help, SSA and SSDI recipients are back to the 

fear mentality, thinking all their benefits will be lost if they go to work. • No—our county decided to replace the loss of Federal funding with local funding 

previously dedicated for agency training and instead use it to pay for the benefits 

planning service. (Note: this is an indication of how critical benefits planning services are in removing barriers to work for SSA recipients, but in this case, reduced 

funding available for agency training.) • Yes—Plan to Work and Positive Solutions (the State’s 2 WIPA contractors) provided critical information, guidance, and instruction to individuals who were nervous about working because of the potential impact of working to their Social Security benefits. People work hard to get their SSA benefits in place and do not want 

to compromise them by working. Without a proper benefit analysis that reflects 

their own specific situation of SSA and working, people sometimes choose not to 

work. Plan to Work and Positive Solutions reduced peoples’ fears of working, and 

provided knowledge to individuals so they could make informed decisions about 

their employment and their employment goals. • Yes—we serve many individuals who without a benefits plan completed by a 

professional, choose not to work. They are afraid they will lose their medical benefits and there is little information out there to combat these urban myths. • Yes—I can think of two specific examples in which the person was working limited hours due to their misunderstanding that they could work more without losing 

all of their benefits. In both cases after working with a WIPA specialist, they began 

working more hours thus decreasing the amount of SS benefits they were receiving. 

In other cases, I am aware of people not wanting to work at all for fear of losing 

their benefits. After information is provided regarding of how going to work will impact their benefits, they were willing to pursue employment. Anyone who is working 

is paying taxes, spending money on goods and services so additional money is going 

back into the tax base. • Yes, one of the hidden benefits of the WIPA program was that CWICs often 

caught potential overpayments, provided guidance about Work Activity Reviews, 

and explained work incentives such as subsidies and special conditions. Without this 

information, many beneficiaries are intimidated by the communication they receive 

from the Social Security Administration, a normal mailing such as a Work Activity 

Review can instill fear in a beneficiary. Without a venue to receive assurance and 

information from, many beneficiaries opt to quit work instead of risk their benefits, 

even when there may be no substantial risk. • Yes, there are many myths surrounding working while on disability-based benefits that cause beneficiaries to avoid or fear pursuing work goals. Without access to 

clear, accurate information, some individuals are unnecessarily avoiding work altogether. • No (from county that did not use WIPA contractor) 

Question 4. Please give a few examples (individual stories) of the positive 

impact of PABSS or WIPA programs in Washington State. 

Response: 

• One person we worked with believed he was only allowed to work 15 hours a 

week or lose all his benefits. Through benefits planning with him, this individual 

was able to work 32 hours a week. After 1 year, he became a full-time employee. 

Another individual we serve worked full-time after discovering that he had not used 

his SSA allotted trial work months. After the trial months were over, he determined 

that he actually could work full-time. He is no longer receiving SSA benefits. 
81 

• An SSI recipient had chosen not to work due to fear of losing her SSI cash benefits and Medicaid. She was referred to Positive Solutions (Washington State WIPA 

contractor) by an employment support agency that was actively trying to help her 

find employment. Positive Solutions not only helped Jen understand that she could 

make more money by choosing to work, all the while maintaining her Medicaid, they 

eventually helped her develop an Impairment-Related Work Expense (IRWE) so that 

she could afford some of her personal costs associated with working, including transportation. This story is common. With a little guidance and support, individuals routinely made the decision to work and rely less on Social Security. When SSA recipients understand Social Security rules, their responsibilities, and the fundamental 

concept that it is ok to work without losing all supports, they go to work. • Larry contacted a WIPA program when he had a pending job offer. He quickly 

became full-time and started using his Trial Work Period Months. At first, Larry 

was apprehensive about moving off of benefits, but after working and receiving benefits counseling, he has now used his Grace Period months and his cash benefit has 

been paused. He does not feel like he would have made it this far without the support of WIPA. Donna is a struggling single mom on SSDI. She has two children living with her. After speaking with a benefit counselor, Donna was advised to contact 

her Social Security claims representative and inquire about receiving auxiliary benefits for her children. It turns out she was due auxiliary benefits and the extra 

money she will be receiving will help her put food on the table and provide for her 

children. Ty contacted a WIPA program when his Representative Payee, his mother, 

informed him that he should not take an increase of hours at his employment. He 

has been working steadily for several years, and had decided to try for more hours, 

and eventually a promotion. Through the WIPA program’s information and work incentive counseling, Ty and his Representative Payee were able to see how a subsidy 

would help Ty keep his SSDI for longer. He has increased his hours, and is now 

more financially stable. Also, he has been talking with his mother about accepting 

a promotion and moving out on his own, eliminating his reliance on benefits and 

increasing his self-sufficiency. • While federally funded, the WIPA program provided people with information to 

make informed choices about employment by better understanding the impact of 

work on their benefits. For the past decade, the WIPA’s served anyone who needed 

benefits planning, both individual services as well as community presentations. Between multiple resources (WIPA, DVR, DDD), most individuals with disabilities had 

access to quality benefits planning by certified benefits specialists. This kind of 

planning provides individuals with an accurate understanding of the impact of work 

in their cash and medical benefits, dispels myths, facilitates use of work incentives 

and provides guidance for problems with Social Security. This allows individuals to 

work to their potential; keep needed support services, and increase their income 

using work incentives. The service of benefits planning has a positive impact on individuals seeking and maintaining employment as well as increasing their monthly 

income. PABSS provides systemic advocacy as well as providing support with some 

individual problems. Every service provided by the WIPA programs and PABSS has 

a positive impact on the lives of people with disabilities and their communities. • During the 12 years we provided Benefit Planning, we saw people start out 

working part-time, then increasing their time as they felt able, resulting in many 

going off their government-funded benefits entirely. Additionally, with support and 

planning, many were able to utilize and partner with other benefit opportunities to 

purchase homes or start their own business. • One individual worked with a WIPA to have a large overpayment that was Social Security fault forgiven. IRWE’s or PASS plans are used for individuals to pay 

for their transportation to and from work so that they are able to work at businesses that are not on the bus line. • WIPAs have provided long-term services to help people move toward their employment goals, and to help them retain their employment outcomes. Sometimes, 

this results in something small, like an individual working part-time, reducing their 

SSI benefit, and paying more into the system through taxes. Other times, this can 

result in an individual understanding the system and moving entirely off benefits! 

Question 5. Please provide any other information that you think would 

be of assistance regarding WIPA and PABSS. 

Response: 

• The loss of funding for WIPA, as well as the loss of the Medicaid Infrastructure 

Grant, has been a devastating blow to Washington State. I receive several phone 

calls and e-mails from individuals with developmental disabilities and their families 

every day with questions about their benefits, and the impact of work on those benefits. They have already spoken with Social Security, and yet they continue to have 
82 

many unanswered questions, as well as a fear to go or return to work. To whom 

do I refer them? Without basic guidance, education, and support, people often make 

the decision to not work. The impact is great: without work, individuals lose an opportunity to gain independence, build wealth, and develop meaningful skills; their 

community loses the opportunity to get to know them and shed preconceptions 

about disabilities; and family members sometimes lose their own independence and 

ability to work as they stay home to support their loved one. 

• DVR has internal Benefits Specialists who provide benefits planning services to 

open DVR cases. We are not considered WIPA’s but our customers receive similar 

services to the WIPA’s and positive outcomes about benefits planning are likely 

similar across organizations. The loss of WIPA services is significant because thousands of people with disabilities will no longer have access to free quality benefits 

planning services. Many organizations, including Mental Health clients, Developmental Disabilities clients, those serving individuals with brain injuries, etc. believe 

benefits planning is important but few have resources to pay for this service. In addition, Washington recently lost Medicaid Infrastructure Grant (MIG) funding which 

supported the statewide benefits planning network. The funding was used to provide 

technical assistance, ongoing training and maintaining connections across organizations of certified benefits specialists. The statewide benefits specialist network is a 

unique group who works together across agencies to help all members of the network gain more knowledge, problem solve, advocate all of which results in higher 

quality services for customers. A study by Cornell University notes that it can take 

up to a year for someone certified as a benefits specialist to become independent 

and that ongoing training, mentoring, staffing, etc., supports their professional development. 

The MIG funding provided a structure for this that no longer exists. 

• I am concerned about the loss of the Medicaid Infrastructure Grants that came 

to the States, as these helped, at least in Washington State, to provide ongoing 

training and technical assistance that benefits planners need to continue to improve 

their skills and remain connected to a professional group with the same goals. In 

addition, the funding allowed State policymakers to collaborate with other policymakers around the Nation and share stories of success, and brainstorm strategies 

to address issues regarding employment. This is very important in moving to a system that encourages and supports working in good jobs for adults with disabilities. 

• The planners were able to educate and guide people through the multiple State 

and Federal programs. They were also able to help alleviate some of the burden on 

SSA employees by either educating the consumers or guiding them through the incentives and reporting of wages to maximize their earnings, prevent overpayments, 

and alleviate the fear of working without a safety net. 

• This program was instrumental in informing individuals and agencies of the accurate information needed about Social Security rules and supports to work. With 

this information, agencies helping people get jobs can better assist and plan for SSA 

recipients to become self sufficient. 

• The loss of funding to these programs has had a direct impact to the work I 

do. I work with individuals who are part of the Division of Developmental Disabilities (DDD), but I receive many phone calls from individuals who are not part of 

DDD. Patt Buff of Plan to Work (former WIPA contractor) was a contact for me to 

refer to for assistance for folks who are not a part of DDD. I was also able to refer 

individuals from other counties who do not have a benefits planner to Patt. Now 

there is a growing need for such a service in smaller counties who are trying to help 

people on their path to employment, many of whom believe they will lose their benefits if they start working. These individuals need a benefits planner to help them 

understand how work affects their SSA benefits. Patt broke down these barriers. 

• We ask people on title II and title XVI to go to work, and I think we should: 

but we must also be sure that these individuals are given all the needed information 

and supports they need to ensure that the benefits that they need stay in place. We 

need folks to know that they can work and keep their medical benefits or buy into 

the program as their incomes rise. 

• I think another area that the Federal Government should consider is increasing 

the amount people can earn on SSDI, $1,010 prior to losing their whole benefit and 

look into making it similar to SSI where it is more a gradual shift. I feel this could 

also save money for the Social Security Administration in the long run. 

• People feel safer looking for work, expecting to work and wanting to be productive society members when they know there are systems in place that will help 

them stay safe and we all know that working with assistance is far more advantageous to the economy of this country in the long haul than mere public assistance. 

For more information on this survey, contact Jane Boone: JaneBoone@comcast.net. 
83 

MICHAEL O’BRIEN, ED.D, CRC, CVE

Question 1. Last year the Social Security Administration did not issue new grants 

for the Protection and Advocacy for Beneficiaries of Social Security and Work Incentives Planning Assistance programs. As you know, these programs provide valuable 

advocacy, information, and training for people with disabilities receiving Social Security benefits to help the beneficiary return to work, thus reducing dependence on 

Social Security and encourage independence. These programs helped thousands of 

people with disabilities return to work each year, which benefits Federal, State, and 

local budgets. Do you think the Federal Government should be funding these programs to help people with disabilities return to work? 

Answer 1. Yes, I am convinced that new grants should be issued for the Protection 

and Advocacy of Social Security and Work Incentives and Planning Assistance programs. Oklahoma citizens benefited from these grants. However, I think additional 

guidance should be provided so there is more focus on full-time work and less focus 

(by some benefit planners) on part-time work. 

Question 2. Are there any examples in your State of the positive impact of the 

Protection and Advocacy for Beneficiaries of Social Security and Work Incentives 

Planning Assistance programs? Please provide one or two examples and describe the 

benefits of the grant. 

Answer 2. In Oklahoma we felt that benefit planning through the WIPAs was so 

critical that we added eight of our own that we paid for from our budget. For a period of time the two sets of benefit planners overlapped across the State and were 

able to meet with more than twice as many clients. Our own benefit planners, certified by Social Security, helped us more than double the number of Social Security 

recipients leaving the roles. We would expect these increases to be even greater if 

the WIPA program was returned. 

DONALD R. UCHIDA

UTAH STATE OFFICE OF REHABILITATION (USOR), 

SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114–4200, 

March 7, 2013. 

Hon. PATTY MURRAY, 

U.S. Senate, 

Washington, DC 20510. 

DEAR SENATOR MURRAY: I am responding to your ‘‘Questions for the Record’’ from 

the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee hearing on ‘‘State 

Leadership and Innovation in Disability Employment’’ held Tuesday, February 26, 

2013. 

Question. Do you think the Federal Government should be funding these programs [PABSS and WIPA] to help people with disabilities return to work? 

Answer. Emphatically, yes. We, in Utah feel this service is so critical that we decided to divert direct client service money to fund these positions when the Social 

Security WIPA funding went away. This was the 4th partnership mentioned in my 

written testimony. As I stated in my testimony, we run VR like a business and you 

have to invest money to generate money. 

Attachment 10 in the packet accompanying my written testimony indicates the 

level of beneficiaries we have involved in vocational rehabilitation preparing these 

individuals to go to and go back to work. Attachment 11 shows the return on our 

investment of keeping these WIPA staff intact. Our goal/benchmark is to get back 

at least $1 million each year in Social Security reimbursement for the individuals 

we get and keep working at a level that they are taken off disability benefits. 

Accompanying this letter are some success stories gathered from our UWIPS/ 

WIPA staff. 

Thank you for your interest in our program. 

Sincerely, 

DONALD R. UCHIDA, 

Executive Director. 
84 

UWIPS/WIPA SUCCESS STORIES

I. 

I recently assisted a client in learning about how work impacts his Social Security 

benefits. He was offered a position working as a carpenter renovating several Motel 

8’s to become accessible for people with disabilities. Upon completion of our Benefits 

Summary presentation, he realized he could accept and work at this full-time position earning $12 per hour. Although he would not be eligible for a SSI cash benefit 

during this employment venture, if he was physically unable to complete this project 

his case at Social Security would remain on hold for 1 year in case there was a 

change in his employment status, which gave him the confidence to work full-time. 

II. 

I met with a client who was referred to me by a community partner. He originally 

went to the community partner looking for income to supplement his SSDI check. 

They were able to find him a job working at the local mine as a security guard. 

When the job became a reality, he was hesitant to take the job because he feared 

how his SSDI benefits would be affected. The community partner recommended he 

meet with me to go over the SSDI program guidelines. 

After meeting with me and learning about the Trial Work Period and Extended 

Period of Eligibility, he decided to take the job. He is now working about 30 hours 

per week earning approximately $10 per hour, which is above SGA. He will try out 

working and see what he is capable of doing. He thought he may be able to go fulltime once his body adjusts to the number of hours he is working now. This is a 

great example of how someone’s life can be changed, as they have the knowledge 

and information provided by the WIPA/UWIPS program. 

III. 

I met with a client in January 2012. She is a concurrent beneficiary who has been 

receiving disability income since 2001. The client’s disability includes bi-polar, depression and anxiety. At one time she was considered severely and persistently 

mentally ill. She stated she received counseling and with the right medication she 

began to stabilize and life ‘‘calmed down’’. She began a protected employment position as a secretary at a local mental health center in September 2011 working about 

12–13 hours per week earning approximately $400 per month. In April 2012 she 

moved to a position with more hours and started using her Trial Work Months. 

She continued to do well and in June decided to move to a full-time position earning $9 an hour plus commission, which is earning above SGA. The client stated that 

because she received WIPA/UWIPS services she understood her Social Security benefits better and this gave her confidence to move to a full-time position. She said 

that because she would continue to have the medical coverage she needs and she 

has the option through Expedited Reinstatement to get back on benefits if something happens, she felt comfortable moving toward full-time employment. 

Her Trial Work Months will end in September 2012. The client is excited about 

her progress and said it feels good to do this because she is a better example to 

her kids, she wants to be financially independent, and she is looking forward to the 

work environment and friendships she will develop. 

IV. 

A client was referred to me by his service provider. He was receiving SSDI and 

also the Community Supports Waiver from the Division of Services or People with 

Disabilities (DSPD). The services he received from this waiver had allowed him to 

maintain his independence. He had been working part time for the past 5 years at 

a local store, and had received a letter from Social Security informing him that his 

SSDI was being terminated as of June 2011 due to earnings over SGA, and he had 

an overpayment of $8,500. His biggest concern was the potential loss of his Medicaid, and his Waiver status. 

After review of his situation, I suggested that he contact PABSS to assist him 

with the overpayment issue. Based on the information he had provided, it appeared 

he may be eligible for a work incentive, a subsidy. PABSS could help him pursue 

requesting a retroactive subsidy, which would be appropriate in his work situation, 

and could impact the amount of his overpayment. I suggested his Representative 

Payee contact the Area Work Incentive Coordinator, Esther Medina, at Social Security to make sure they were reporting earnings appropriately, as well as to gain information on additional responsibilities they may be unaware of as a professional 

Rep Payee. 
85 

I informed the client and his service provider that even if his SSDI benefit was 

terminated, he would maintain his Medicare for several years and could still qualify 

for his Medicaid based on his income and disability, thereby allowing him to maintain his Medicaid Waiver services. He would have to provide his disability information to the State Disability Board at some time in the future to be determined as 

disabled without his Social Security Benefits. 

The clients’ earnings from his job were higher than his SSDI payment, and due 

to his ability to maintain the medical benefits and Medicaid Waiver services, it was 

his preference to continue his current work schedule and earnings, and let Social 

Security terminate his SSDI cash payment. 

V. 

I met with a client in 2011 for WIPA/UWIPS. The client has a mental health disability and is receiving SSDI. She is single and does not have any children. When 

I first met with her she was working 20 hours or less per week. After receiving 

WIPA/UWIPS services she decided that, because of the work incentives provided, 

she would set a goal to increase her hours to 25 per week. She accomplished this 

goal in 2012. She contacted me during this quarter to review Extended Medicare 

Coverage and Expedited Reinstatement because she would like to increase her 

hours to full-time. 

[Whereupon, at 4:31 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

Æ