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) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

85–221 PDF 2014

S. HRG. 112–816 

LESSONS FROM THE FIELD: LEARNING FROM 

WHAT WORKS FOR EMPLOYMENT FOR 

PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES 

HEARING 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EDUCATION, 

LABOR, AND PENSIONS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

ON

EXAMINING LEARNING FROM WHAT WORKS FOR EMPLOYMENT FOR 

PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES 

JULY 14, 2011 

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 

JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico 

PATTY MURRAY, Washington 

BERNARD SANDERS (I), Vermont 

ROBERT P. CASEY, JR., Pennsylvania 

KAY R. HAGAN, North Carolina 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

AL FRANKEN, Minnesota 

MICHAEL F. BENNET, Colorado 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut 

MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

RICHARD BURR, North Carolina 

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia 

RAND PAUL, Kentucky 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

PAT ROBERTS, Kansas 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska 

MARK KIRK, Illinois 

DANIEL E. SMITH, Staff Director 

PAMELA SMITH, Deputy Staff Director 

FRANK MACCHIAROLA, Republican Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

(II) 
C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS 

THURSDAY, JULY 14, 2011 

Page 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS

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

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

Enzi, Hon. Michael B., a U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming, opening 

statement .............................................................................................................. 3 

Casey, Hon. Robert P., Jr., a U.S. Senator from the State of Pennsylvania ...... 14 

Blumenthal, Hon. Richard, a U.S. Senator from the State of Connecticut ........ 29 

WITNESS—PANEL I 

Martinez, Hon. Kathy, Assistant Secretary of Labor, Office of Disability Policy, U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, DC .............................................. 5 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 8 

WITNESSES—PANEL II 

Ridge, Governor Tom, Chairman, National Organization on Disability, Washington, DC ............................................................................................................. 15 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 19 

Dagit, Deborah, Vice President and Chief Diversity Officer, Merck, 

Whitehouse Station, NJ ....................................................................................... 30 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 32 

Wallrich, Amelia, Law Student, Northwestern University, Frankfort, IL ......... 39 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 41 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL 

Statements, articles, publications, letters, etc.: 

The Corporation for Enterprise Development (CFED), letter ....................... 53 

Response to questions of Senator Enzi by: 

Hon. Kathy Martinez ................................................................................ 54 

Governor Tom Ridge ................................................................................. 59 

Deborah Dagit ........................................................................................... 69 

Amelia Wallrich ......................................................................................... 70 

Response to questions of Senator Casey by Governor Tom Ridge ................ 62 

(III) 

(1) 

LESSONS FROM THE FIELD: LEARNING FROM 

WHAT WORKS FOR EMPLOYMENT FOR 

PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES 

THURSDAY, JULY 14, 2011 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EDUCATION, LABOR, AND PENSIONS, 

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m., in Room 

SD–430, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Tom Harkin, chairman of the committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Harkin, Casey, Blumenthal, and Enzi. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HARKIN

The CHAIRMAN. The Senate Committee on Health, Education, 

Labor, and Pensions will please come to order. 

The title of this hearing is ‘‘Lessons From the Field: Learning 

What Works for Employment for Persons with Disabilities.’’ The 

purpose of today’s bipartisan hearing is to learn from a diverse 

group of witnesses about proven strategies that have a positive impact on employment outcomes for all people with disabilities, including young adults and veterans. 

Later this month, we’ll mark the 21st anniversary of the signing 

of the Americans With Disabilities Act, landmark legislation that 

made our country more accessible, that raised the expectations of 

people with disabilities and their families about what they can 

hope to achieve at work and in life, and inspired the world to view 

disability issues through a human rights frame and not simply 

through a medical or a charity model. 

The ADA stands for the proposition that disability is a natural 

part of the human experience that in no way should limit a person’s right to fully participate in all aspects of society, including 

employment. Thanks to the ADA, our built environment and our 

transportation and telecommunications infrastructures are dramatically more welcoming to people with disabilities. Yet, notwithstanding the many improvements that have been brought by the 

ADA, the sad reality is that people with disabilities still experience 

discrimination and encounter low expectations as they engage in 

the workforce. 

As we enter the third decade since its passage, I believe that one 

of the critical challenges we still need to tackle is the persistently 

low employment rates among Americans with disabilities. In 2008, 

the Bureau of Labor Statistics began collecting monthly statistics 

that help us track the workforce participation of Americans with 
2 

disabilities. As of June 2011, less than a third of working-age people with disabilities were participating in the labor force. 

The disability labor force, which includes people with disabilities 

who are either working or actively looking for a job, was a little 

over 5 million. Last April, at a disability employment summit 

hosted by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the U.S. Business 

Leadership Network, I challenged the employer representatives in 

the room to work to increase the size of the disability labor force 

to 6 million by 2015. Later that week, in a piece he wrote for The 

Examiner, Mr. Tom Donahue from the Chamber endorsed the goal, 

encouraged his colleagues to meet or exceed the 6 million number 

because, ‘‘It’s a good thing to do and it’s good for business.’’ 

If we’re going to get serious about the growing size of the disability workforce, we need to start by recognizing that people with 

disabilities have been disproportionately impacted by the bad economy. Compared to the general workforce, in the last 2 years adults 

with disabilities have left the labor force at a rate six times the 

rate of adults without disabilities. Today’s hearing creates an opportunity for us to have a discussion about how to turn that trend 

around. 

At a hearing in March we learned about Walgreens’ public commitment that at least 20 percent of the workers in their distribution centers will be workers with disabilities. As Governor Ridge 

notes in his written testimony for today’s hearing, a number of 

companies have been inspired by Walgreens’ example and have 

begun their own targeted hiring programs. 

But employment is not just about labor statistics. Work helps all 

of us, including people with disabilities, create structure and meaning in our lives and provides real opportunities to be full participants in our society and to access the American dream. 

We have a very distinguished panel today. First, Ms. Kathy Martinez, the Assistant Secretary for the Office of Disability Employment Policy at the Department of Labor; and then next we’ll hear 

from former Governor Tom Ridge and former first Secretary, as we 

know, of the Department of Homeland Security, who’s been a 

champion for disability employment in the public and private sectors; Deborah Dagit, vice president and chief diversity officer at 

Merck; and a young woman with a disability who is at the beginning of what I’m sure will be a successful career, Amelia Wallrich. 

Our goal is to ensure that all individuals with disabilities have 

similar opportunities for careers that meet their goals, interests, 

and high expectations. 

Before we move on to our first witness, I want to acknowledge 

the many folks in the room and I guess in a spillover room who 

are in town for the National Council on Independent Living’s national conference. NCIL, as it’s known, is a great grassroots organization that is making a real impact in improving the quality of life 

of people with disabilities all over the country, and I appreciate 

NCIL’s commitment to improving employment outcomes for people 

with disabilities as part of their work to promote independent living. 

Now I want to also take a moment to thank my colleague and 

the Ranking Member on this committee, Senator Enzi, for his own 

commitment and long-time leadership, both as Ranking Member 
3 

and when he was chairman of this committee, on these issues. So 

now I turn to him for his opening statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR ENZI

Senator ENZI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing. I know it’s something near and dear to your heart, that you’ve 

been involved in for a long time and made some great inroads on. 

I appreciate the way that you and your staff have again involved 

my office in an effort to have a truly bipartisan hearing and assembled an excellent set of witnesses who can share their perspectives 

on this important issue. 

I also want to thank today’s witnesses for agreeing to appear and 

share their views on how to increase workplace opportunities for 

individuals with disabilities. Each of you brings unique personal 

experiences and professional expertise that will greatly benefit this 

committee as we proceed with the reauthorization of the relevant 

Federal legislation, such as the Work Force Investment Act, which 

includes the Vocational Rehabilitation Act, the Elementary and 

Secondary Education Act, and the Individuals with Disabilities 

Education Act. 

Taken together, these three pieces of legislation serve as the 

foundation for the Federal Government’s efforts to improve the 

educational and workplace prospects of individuals with disabilities. Although significant advances have been made as a result of 

these pieces of legislation, wonderful things are also taking place 

throughout the country based upon our fellow Americans’ desire for 

inclusive environments in their local schools, communities, and 

workplaces. 

As we heard in our last hearing on this issue, Walgreens and 

Booz Allen Hamilton, for example, are providing excellent work opportunities for individuals with disabilities. In Wyoming, our director of Workforce Services, Joan Evans, shared at the same hearing 

a truly exciting opportunity with Lowes in our State. 

I’ve invited Deb Dagit, the chief disability officer at Merck Pharmaceuticals, to share her experiences about how that large corporation has expanded workplace opportunities for individuals with disabilities. As her testimony suggests, Merck has made conscious effort to create an inclusive environment where every employee is 

treated fairly and disabilities aren’t an impediment to hiring and 

advancement. 

With that said, I’m interested in hearing how scalable many of 

these practices are for smaller employers that might only have the 

capacity of a few employees and who are struggling to keep the 

lights on in their companies in this continuing economic slump. My 

wife and I are former small business owners. We operated Enzi 

Shoes for nearly 30 years. From my experience, what might work 

at a larger employer almost never worked at Enzi Shoes. So I caution against trying to make broad conclusions based upon individual experiences in this regard, especially in light of the ongoing 

economic struggles small businesses are facing. 

I’ve talked with a number of the small businessmen and their 

biggest request is to have someplace that they can go where they 

can find out where the capabilities match up with their needs. 

They need kind of an employment agency. They’re not big enough 
4 

to have the capability to go out and interview a lot of people and 

do any testing or anything like that. So I think that’s one of the 

big needs. 

But since May 2009, the so-called beginning of the recovery summer, the average unemployment rate has been 9.5 percent for the 

workforce overall, with the participation rate for individuals with 

disabilities dropping from 22.3 percent to 21.1 percent over the 

past year. Last month, the Federal Reserve lowered its economic 

outlook for the rest of 2011, and last week’s dismal jobs report only 

confirmed a dark economic future. 

These realities suggest that a full economic recovery for America 

and the pain for employers throughout the country is going to continue for a while longer. When asked this past weekend when the 

American people would feel the effects of economic recovery, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said, 

‘‘I think it’s going to be a long time still. This is a very tough 

economy and I think a lot of people—it’s going to feel very 

hard, harder than anything they’ve experienced in their lifetimes and now for a long time to come.’’ 

As a result, Congress and this Administration would do well to 

find ways to reduce mandates, regulations, and burdensome rules. 

In addition, businesses, particularly small businesses, need better 

information on how to identify, recruit, retain, and advance qualified individuals with disabilities. Our local chambers, the U.S. 

Business Leadership Network, and the Department of Labor’s Office of Disability Employment Policy, the ODEP, are already providing some of these resources. 

The problem is that this information is not getting to our small 

businesses. In today’s troubled economy, our small businesses are 

struggling just to keep the doors open. Small businesses sometimes 

lack the resources or the capacity to seek out information about 

hiring people with disabilities. I ask my colleagues to help us identify more effective ways of disseminating this information to small 

businesses across the country. I know, based on conversations I’ve 

had in Wyoming, small businesses are interested. They just don’t 

know where to turn. 

This hearing, along with many others that have been recently 

held by the committee on the middle class, lowering unemployment, and so on, have yet to yield legislation or strategy for accomplishing these goals. In short, I hope today’s hearing provides tangible solutions for how we can finally get the American economy 

moving and lower the unemployment rate overall and particularly 

in the area of disabilities. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Enzi. 

We’ll now start with our first panel: the Honorable Kathleen 

Martinez, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Disability Employment 

Policy. Ms. Martinez was nominated by President Obama to be the 

third Assistant Secretary for Disability Employment Policy and 

was confirmed by the U.S. Senate on June 25, 2009. 

Prior to that she had a very distinguished career. In 2002, she 

was appointed by President Bush as one of 15 members of the National Council on Disability. In 2005, Secretary of State 

Condoleezza Rice appointed her as one of eight public members of 
5 

the newly established State Department Advisory Committee on 

Disability and Foreign Policy. In 2007, she was appointed a member of the board of the U.S. Institute of Peace, a congressionally 

created agency dedicated to research and projects in conflict management. 

As the head of the U.S. Department of Labor’s ODEP, the Office 

of Disability Employment Policy, Ms. Martinez advises the Secretary of Labor and works with all DOL agencies to lead a comprehensive and coordinated national policy regarding employment 

of people with disabilities. 

Ms. Martinez, welcome back to the committee again and your 

statement will be made a part of the record in its entirety. If you 

could sum up in 5, 6 or 7 minutes, we’d certainly appreciate it. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. KATHY MARTINEZ, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF LABOR, OFFICE OF DISABILITY POLICY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, WASHINGTON, DC 

Ms. MARTINEZ. OK, I’ll do my best, Senator Harkin. 

I’d like to just thank Chairman Harkin and Ranking Member 

Enzi and the distinguished members of the committee for this opportunity to testify and I appreciate your continued support of the 

Office of Disability Employment Policy, or ODEP. I’m honored to 

appear here. 

I want to give a shout-out to my distinguished members of the 

panel that will follow me today, Governor Ridge, Deborah Dagit 

and Amelia Wallrich. It’s an honor to share this time with you all. 

As a person with a disability who managed to get off supplemental security income benefits, as a long-time advocate for disability rights, and as ODEP’s Assistant Secretary, it’s clear to me 

that the vast majority of the policies and practices that promote 

the employment of people with disabilities are just good business 

practices. ODEP’s efforts help not only those of us with disabilities, 

but others, other folks with complex work needs, like working 

mothers, sandwich generation caregivers, and people who work two 

jobs to make ends meet. 

It’s important because each person that finds a job contributes to 

our tax base and helps strengthen the economy and our financial 

future. 

Now, the Senators did mention the disappointing data, and I 

won’t go into that. It is disappointing that folks with disabilities 

are still last hired, first fired, unfortunately, and we have suffered 

in this downturn of the economy. But closing this gap would mean 

millions of Americans currently disconnected from the economy 

would begin earning income, paying taxes, and reducing their benefits or their dependence on public benefits. 

I want to talk a little bit about what ODEP is doing to help close 

this gap. As we know, older workers are projected to have the highest growth rate in the workforce for the first quarter of the 21st 

century. It’s anticipated that the increase of those 55 years and 

older is 43 percent by 2018. Consequently, this fall, to deal with 

this issue—because we’re getting a lot of requests from companies 

about how to accommodate older workers, so ODEP is implementing an employer pilot demonstration project focusing on workforce flexibility, and we’re conducting research on using flexible 
6 

workplace strategies to retain older workers with disabilities who 

work in the healthcare sector and in the community colleges sector. 

This will also include introducing the concept of reasonable accommodations. 

We’re also working with the Department of Labor’s Office of 

Workforce Compensation Programs to identify workforce flexibility 

strategies that Federal agencies can use to successfully return their 

injured employees to the workplace and provide technical assistance so that they can adopt and implement effective return-to-work 

strategies. 

ODEP is working extensively with the private sector. We have a 

program called ‘‘Add Us In.’’ Innovative small businesses, as you 

mentioned, Senator Enzi, are critical to our economic growth and 

our closing—we’re working with them to help close the employment 

gap for folks with disabilities. 

This includes many minority-owned and operated firms, the 

numbers of which have grown in recent years at approximately 

double the rate of all firms in the United States. Recognizing the 

opportunity that this growth provides, ODEP created a new initiative called ‘‘Add Us In,’’ through which we are working across the 

country to increase the capacity of small businesses to include people with disabilities in their workforce. 

We expect three more grantees this fall and, in addition to creating replicable models to ensure people with disabilities have access to a broader range of employment opportunities, we also are 

training and setting up the national and local networks of experts 

to better connect small employers with, as you requested, the talent pool of folks with disabilities. 

Access to technology, as many people have said, is the great 

equalizer for those of us with disabilities. To harness the promise 

of the technological revolution, ODEP promotes universal design in 

information technology and the availability of assistive technology 

at work. ODEP is partnering with the Assistive Technology Industry Association to improve the accessibility of emerging technologies, such as Web 3.0 and 3D Internet technologies. We’re also 

working with technology developers to make sure that the technology is accessible right out of the box. 

This fall we’ll develop and implement a comprehensive plan for 

accessible workplace technology with a focus on core competencies 

with regard to accessibility. 

We want to talk about a variety of models that have worked to 

get folks into integrated and competitive employment. One is the 

concept of customized employment, which is kind of a framework 

of principles which basically matches people’s talents to a job. An 

example is, in a large department store they hired a guy named 

Scott, who’s a job seeker with a disability, after his personal representative negotiated a new way for the store to handle merchandise delivery. Originally, store clerks unloaded and repackaged new 

merchandise. Mina, who was Scott’s representative, suggested that 

the department store hire Scott to perform this task instead. The 

employer agreed and for Scott performing a customized function, 

the clerks were freed up to spend more time serving customers. As 

a result, sales increased. 
7 

We’ve seen similar positive outcomes when this model has been 

used with disabled veterans, the homeless, and recipients of temporary assistance for needy families, TANF. 

As you know, Senator Harkin, we are well under way with improving opportunities for folks with disabilities by strengthening 

our job training system. I’d like to thank you for your support. 

ODEP and the ETA, the Employment Training Administration, 

have implemented the disability employment initiative and more 

than $21 million in grants, as you know, have been awarded to 

nine States, Alaska, Arkansas, Delaware, Illinois, Kansas, Maine, 

New Jersey, New York, and Virginia, last year. We expect an additional 6 to 10 States to receive funding this year. 

The goal is to promote greater coordination and training services, 

to provide targeted technical assistance, to improve education and 

training outcomes for folks with disabilities who are unemployed, 

underemployed, and/or receiving benefits in our workforce system. 

To date, all sites are in the process or have already become employment networks, meaning that they provide employment-related 

and supportive services to social security beneficiaries under the 

Ticket to Work program, which prior research suggests improves 

long-term employment outcomes. We are conducting extensive evaluations of the grantees, ETA and ODEP, through DOL’s Civil 

Rights Center. They’re conducting an independent review of the accessibility of one-stop centers throughout the system, and that 

means programmatic and physical access. 

I want to just briefly say that we’re looking at reframing the 

youth conversation with regard to employment. We’ve developed 

our guideposts, which is—let me just say—a widely used strategy 

to improve employment for folks with disabilities. You know that 

our 503 regulations, our NPRM, are being scheduled to be held in 

August. 

I’d just like to say, like many other people with disabilities, I was 

supported by taxpayer benefits, and after being funneled to work 

in a lock factory and having my case closed, I stand before you 

today as a prime example of what can happen when people with 

disabilities are given the opportunity to work and to access productivity tools. 

As a closing example, we have our wonderful example of Poppin 

Joe, who was very significantly disabled, was basically originally 

funneled into a sub-minimum wage job. But Joe developed a business plan. He sells popcorn with the help of ODEP’s Start-Up USA 

grant. In addition to having a goal of 100,000 in popcorn sales by 

2012, Joe now has several part-time employees, is a taxpayer, and 

rents his own home. 

There are many more individuals like Joe and, while improving 

employment outcomes for people with disabilities is a complex undertaking, it holds great promise to improve the lives of everybody 

in this country. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Martinez follows:] 
8 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. KATHLEEN MARTINEZ

I. INTRODUCTION

Chairman Harkin and Ranking Member Enzi, distinguished members of this committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today and discuss emerging labor 

market trends for individuals with disabilities, our efforts for addressing these 

trends, and the Office of Disability Employment Policy’s (ODEP) priorities in the 

coming years. We appreciate your continued support of ODEP’s work, and I am honored to appear before this committee. 

Based on my experiences as a person with a disability who managed to get off 

Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits, as an advocate, and as ODEP’s Assistant Secretary, it is clear to me that the vast majority of the policies and practices 

that promote the employment of people with disabilities, are just good business 

practices. Therefore, ODEP’s efforts to promote these policies and practices help not 

only people with disabilities, but also others who have the potential to enter the 

workforce, if provided with appropriate supports and flexibilities. And, as you know, 

each person that finds a job contributes to our tax base and helps to strengthen the 

economy and our Nation’s financial future. 

II. THE NEED FOR FLEXIBLE WORKPLACES

Research shows us that people with disabilities have been disproportionately affected by the recent downturn in the economy. Data available from the Current Population Survey (CPS) indicate that between October 2008 and June 2011, the rate 

of job loss among workers with disabilities far exceeded that of workers without disabilities, with the proportion of employed U.S. workers identified as having disabilities declining by 9 percent. In addition, their labor force participation lags behind 

people without disabilities. The most recent data, released in July 2011 by the Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), shows that only 32.8 percent 

of working age people (16–64) with disabilities are actually in the American workforce. In comparison, the participation rate for people reporting no disabilities is 

77.2 percent. Closing this gap would mean millions of Americans who are currently 

disconnected from the economy would begin earning income, paying taxes, and reducing their dependence on public resources. 

Our Nation as a whole is graying, and so is our workforce. Older workers are projected to have the highest growth rate in the U.S. workforce for the first quarter 

of the 21st century. As this population grows, the number of people in the workplace 

with disabilities is likely to increase too. The number of workers aged 55 and older 

is forecasted to increase 43 percent by 2018. In contrast, for those aged 16 to 24, 

a decrease of 4.1 percent is expected, and for those 25–54, a 1.5 percent increase. 

We also know that as people age they are more likely to experience chronic illness 

or the onset of disability; many of these highly skilled and experienced workers will 

want or need a more flexible work environment if they are to be retained. 

A growing number of business leaders recognize that workforce flexibility provides 

them with a competitive edge. Because workforce flexibility benefits both workers 

and employers, ODEP launched two initiatives with workforce flexibility at the core. 

First, this fall, we will implement an employer pilot demonstration project that will 

focus on using flexible workplace strategies to retain older workers with disabilities 

who work in the health care sector and in community colleges. 

Second, we will collaborate with DOL’s Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs 

to focus on identifying strategies that Federal agencies can use to return to work 

employees who sustained disabilities as a result of workplace injuries or illnesses. 

OWCP and ODEP plan to offer tailored technical assistance to Federal agencies regarding the adoption and implementation of successful return-to-work practices and 

related disability employment practices. 

III. PRIVATE SECTOR PRACTICES AND INITIATIVES

Small Businesses 

Our economy relies on the private sector to drive job creation and I know this 

committee is interested in what is working and what practices should be expanded. 

ODEP directs much of its energy towards helping private employers employ people 

with disabilities and we are happy to have the chance today to share what we have 

learned. 

As you all know, innovative small businesses are a critical engine of U.S. economic growth. This includes many minority-owned and -operated firms, the numbers of which have grown in recent years at approximately double the rate of all 

firms in the U.S. economy. (Census Bureau’s 2007 Survey of Business Owners) 
9 

This provides a real opportunity to improve employment outcomes for people with 

disabilities. ODEP therefore created the Add Us In Initiative, which focuses on increasing the capacity of small businesses to effectively include people with disabilities in their workforce. 

We are working with grantees in different parts of the country to create replicable 

models that can be used by small businesses and their associations to reach out to 

ensure that youth and adults with disabilities have access to a broader range of employment opportunities. We expect to add three more grantees to this initiative this 

fall. We are also working to train and set up national and local networks of experts 

skilled in connecting small employers with the underutilized talent pool of people 

with disabilities. 

Technology 

In addition to our work with small businesses, we are also making progress helping private employers use technology to improve their workers’ productivity. Access 

to technology is the great equalizer for people with disabilities who are looking for 

a job or trying to advance in their professions and in today’s workplace. It’s not optional; it’s a necessity. 

To harness the promise of the technological revolution, ODEP focuses on promoting universal design in information technology, and increasing the availability 

of assistive technology for use in the workplace to benefit workers with disabilities. 

To advance these twin goals we have funded a contract that enables ODEP and the 

Assistive Technology Industry Association’s Accessibility Interoperability Alliance 

(ATIA/AIA) to work together to improve the accessibility of emerging technologies, 

such as Web 3.0 and 3D Internet technologies. 

This fall we will take what we have learned and develop and implement a comprehensive plan to make workplace technology accessible. A primary area of focus 

will be the identification and validation of core competencies required to certify professionals involved in the field of accessibility. We will also conduct research into 

how Assistive Technology Act funding is being used to support employment. We will 

also develop technical assistance to enable States to use it more effectively. 

Customized Employment 

I know that a key priority for your committee is getting the best return on investments in the workforce. One way to achieve this is to find effective approaches that 

can be replicated and scaled by employers with different workforce needs. Within 

ODEP, we have found a way to do so through ‘‘Customized Employment.’’ 

We believe Customized Employment works because it is not a program, but rather 

a set of universal principles and strategies specifically designed to support both 

sides of the labor force: supply and demand. For the job candidate, the process considers the whole person—his/her skills, interests, abilities—as well as the conditions 

necessary for successful employment. For employers, customized employment allows 

a business to examine its specific workforce needs—both ongoing and intermittent— 

and fulfill those needs with a well-matched employee. For example, a large department store hired Scott, a job seeker with a disability, after his personal representative, Shaina, negotiated a new way for the store to handle merchandise delivery. 

Originally, store clerks unloaded and repackaged new merchandise. Shaina suggested that the department store hire Scott to perform this task instead. The employer agreed and Scott began working for the store. Scott’s customized job freed 

up other clerks to spend more time serving customers. As a result, sales increased. 

This is not an unusual result. Customized employment has had similar positive outcomes when used with disabled veterans, the homeless, and recipients of Temporary 

Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). 

IV. FEDERAL EFFORTS TO REDUCE BARRIERS TO EMPLOYMENT

In carrying out its mission, ODEP partners with other agencies and offices within 

the executive branch on strategies that improve employment outcomes for all, including individuals with disabilities. It is an honor to serve in an Administration 

that understands that universal design practices benefit job seekers and employers. 

Improving the Workforce System 

For example, thanks to the vision and leadership Chairman Harkin has provided, 

ODEP has been working extensively over the last year with the Employment and 

Training Administration (ETA) on the Disability Employment Initiative (DEI). This 

initiative provided more than $21 million to nine States (Alaska, Arkansas, Delaware, Illinois, Kansas, Maine, New Jersey, New York and Virginia) last year, and 

this year we expect to add another 6 to 10 more States as grantees under the program. The goal of this Initiative is to improve education, training, and employment 
10 

opportunities and outcomes for youth and adults with disabilities who are unemployed, underemployed, and/or receiving Social Security disability benefits. To meet 

this goal, DOL is providing technical assistance to grantees and to the workforce 

system to expand the capacity to serve those with disabilities. In addition to coordinating with a broad range of State agency partners as needed to create systems 

change, the grantees must connect with the Social Security System. To date, all 

sites are in the process, or have already become, employment networks—meaning 

that they can provide employment-related and supportive services to Social Security 

beneficiaries under the Ticket-to-Work program—which prior research suggests may 

improve long-term employment outcomes. 

ETA and ODEP are also committed to evaluating grantees to make sure taxpayers are well served by their investments and so that other stakeholders can 

learn from what works. In addition, through a combination of on-site evaluations 

and an on-line survey, ETA and ODEP, with the assistance of DOL’s Civil Rights 

Center, are conducting an independent review of One-Stop Career Centers throughout the system to assess the extent to which they are accessible to people with disabilities. 

Improving Transition Outcomes by Reframing the Youth Conversation 

A simple and ground-breaking concept—that youth with disabilities are youth 

first—has reframed the conversation and is the hallmark of ODEP’s youth transition efforts. The Guideposts for Success framework, the central point from which 

ODEP’s youth work is based, reflects key educational and career development interventions that make a positive difference in the lives of all youth, including youth 

with disabilities. The Guideposts have been widely used for strategic planning and 

policy development across Federal, State and local levels, and are also woven into 

ODEP’s ongoing work. Moreover, the contents of the Guideposts have been incorporated into the proposed Rehabilitation Act reauthorization. Guideposts for youth 

from specific populations have also been developed to meet the needs of youth with 

learning disabilities, with mental health needs, and those in foster care. 

The success of ODEP’s youth policy work hinges on its ability to frame challenges 

in a positive light and in the context of broader youth policy applicable to all youth. 

For example, many employers assert that today’s youth lack the soft skills needed 

in the workplace. Consequently, this past year we developed a tool to help all youth 

acquire the soft skills employers demand. We called it ‘‘Skills to Pay the Bills’’ and 

tested it with youth, including those with disabilities, throughout the country. The 

feedback was overwhelmingly positive. The youth and the instructors who delivered 

the training liked the interactive approach used in this classroom-based tool. This 

year, we will expand our outreach to youth by developing games and applications 

as a way to get this information regarding soft skills to an even broader group of 

youth. 

In order to serve youth effectively, including those with disabilities, research tells 

us that youth service professionals need to have certain knowledge, skills and abilities. Using a universal design approach, we developed eight training modules that 

are being used by workforce professionals across the country, thereby improving 

service delivery to all youth. 

Last month, ETA and ODEP issued guidance to the public workforce system on, 

‘‘Increasing Enrollment and Improving Services to Youth with Disabilities.’’ The 

guidance provides information and resources on promising practices and successful 

strategies that promote the enrollment, education, training, and employment outcomes of youth with disabilities. The resources and successful strategies included in 

this guidance can further assist the public workforce system to expand capacity and 

adopt practices for effectively serving this population. The ultimate goal is to better 

assist youth with disabilities and enable them to become economically self-sufficient 

through training, educational opportunities, and jobs with career pathways. The Department continues to provide technical assistance to State and local workforce systems to provide better outcomes for youth with disabilities. 

Making the Federal Government a Model Employer 

ODEP is also focused on making the Federal Government a model employer of 

people with disabilities. The President demonstrated his personal commitment to 

this goal when he signed Executive Order 13548 last year. The Executive order requires the hiring of an additional 100,000 people with disabilities within the Federal 

Government over the next 5 years. It calls on all executive departments and agencies to create goals and action plans for increasing the numbers of people with disabilities hired and to improve retention and return to work of Federal employees 

with disabilities. The Order also requires Federal agencies to work together to develop and implement action plans, which include performance targets and numerical 
11 

goals, to improve their hiring of people with disabilities. A senior-level official must 

also be designated to ensure accountability and to report progress on their plans to 

the President, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and the public. 

We have been working closely with OPM, OMB, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in implementing the Executive order. Our work has included 

assisting several Federal agencies in the development of their plans, and helping 

OPM design model recruitment and hiring strategies and training programs for 

human resources professionals across the government. We have also developed a 

network of Federal practitioners and a resource tool kit to assist them and their 

agencies in implementing the Executive order. 

In addition, we can improve the hiring of people with disabilities by helping Federal contractors see the value of accommodating a diverse workforce. Last year, 

ODEP worked closely with DOL’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs 

(OFCCP) to issue an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) seeking 

input from the public on ways to strengthen its regulations requiring Federal contractors to take affirmative steps to employ and advance in employment qualified 

individuals with disabilities. In the near future, a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(NPRM) will be issued seeking additional comments from the public, and the submission of substantive comments once the NPRM is issued. The potential impact of 

revising the section 503 regulations could be significant given that nearly one in 

four American workers are employed by a company that is either a Federal contractor or subcontractor. 

V. CONCLUSION

Like many other people with disabilities, I was on taxpayer supported benefits, 

after having being funneled to work in a lock factory and having my case closed by 

a staid bureaucracy. I stand before you today, however, as a prime example of what 

can happen when people with disabilities are given the opportunity to work and access to productivity tools. 

In closing, I wanted to give you another example of how ODEP’s programs can 

change the lives of individuals and contribute to our Nation’s financial future. I 

want to tell you about Joe, the owner of Poppin’ Joe’s Kettle Korn, who has autism 

and Down syndrome and uses an augmentative speech device to communicate. Previously considered unemployable, Joe developed a business plan with his parents 

and ODEP’s Start-Up USA grant. In addition to having a goal of $100,000 in popcorn sales by 2012, Joe now has several part-time employees. He is now a taxpayer 

and rents his own home. 

There are many more individuals like Joe. Improving employment outcomes for 

people with disabilities is a significant and complex undertaking, but one that holds 

great potential to improve the lives of many and strengthen our economy. 

Thank you again for this opportunity to testify and I would be happy to answer 

any questions you may have. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Madam Secretary, for your statement. As I said, your full statement will be made a part of the 

record in its entirety. 

We’ll just begin a quick round. I know Governor Ridge has to be 

out of here, too, soon and we want to hear from him. 

It seems, Madam Secretary, that one of the key things for increasing the rate of employment of people with disabilities is, No. 

1, outreach. Businesses have to do a better job of outreach. There 

needs to be a better pairing of people and their abilities to the job 

structure itself. 

But also, many people with disabilities are able to do work, have 

a great job, if they have certain support systems. I have often 

talked about my nephew, who’s quadriplegic and he has a nurse 

comes in, gets him up in the morning, takes care of all of his needs. 

He then gets in his van and drives himself to work, comes home 

at night, lives by himself, independent living, by the way. And then 

he has another nurse comes in and takes care of him. If it weren’t 

for that, he couldn’t be able to work. 
12 

Other people need some minor help during the day on their job 

site. 

Can you address that, about how are you looking at it from 

ODEP’s standpoint and what we need to do to help employers understand that; and what can we do to make sure that people understand that for a minimal amount of money that might require us 

to put in for support services, a person can work and become a taxpayer? And what is ODEP doing in that regard, in terms of supportive services? 

Ms. MARTINEZ. Well, first of all, I think that’s a great question. 

I will tell you that we have an entire kind of team dedicated to employment supports at ODEP. We have, as I discussed, our grants 

in the area of technology. We’re working with the Department of 

Transportation to make sure that transportation is accessible, so 

that folks can get to work. 

We have worked with the Department of Health and Human 

Services on their community living initiative, which is promoting 

folks to live in their homes and get attendant care services to be 

able to do exactly what your nephew does, get services to be able 

to work and pay taxes. 

I think at this point ODEP is focusing on technology and transportation sort of as the main employment supports, and we’re 

working again with HHS on the community living initiative. 

The CHAIRMAN. Last, I just wanted to ask—you mentioned about 

the grants that were going out through the Employment Training 

Administration on the disability employment initiative. You mentioned the States—I think the money went out last year, if I’m not 

mistaken. 

Ms. MARTINEZ. It did. 

The CHAIRMAN. Is your office tracking that and what that money 

is being used for? How soon could we get some feedback to this 

committee about how that money has been used and any results 

of that? 

Ms. MARTINEZ. According to a 2010 Mathematica study, the onestop system is being used more and more by a larger share of SSA 

beneficiaries interested in employment. Therefore, it’s really important that this system be accessible, both physically and programmatically, and in terms of communication access. So the disability 

initiative is intended to eliminate silos and hopefully result in improved coordination. 

For example, Arkansas is working very closely with their youth, 

and Delaware—they’re helping, I guess, one-stops to adopt a universal design approach, which really helps all job seekers to access 

services more easily, including folks who don’t even have disabilities or won’t identify as having disabilities. 

The CHAIRMAN. I ask that you keep this committee advised, and 

as soon as you have some data back from the States, those nine 

States, that you would give us a report on that. 

Ms. MARTINEZ. You bet. The other thing is that they’re all part 

of the Ticket to Work program. They’re all employment networks. 

The CHAIRMAN. Right. 

Ms. MARTINEZ. So they’re working closely with the social security 

system as well. 
13 

The CHAIRMAN. All right. Thank you very much, Madam Secretary. 

Ms. MARTINEZ. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Enzi. 

Senator ENZI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Last year the President signed an executive order to increase the 

Federal employment of individuals with disabilities, which was intended to improve the hiring practices of the Federal Government 

with respect to individuals with disabilities. How have those practices improved over the past year? 

Ms. MARTINEZ. I think very soon OPM will be formally signing 

onto the various plans that have been developed by each agency. 

I know that each agency is required to have a very senior person 

be responsible and be accountable to the President. I know that, 

from the Department of Labor standpoint, we have worked extensively with the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs to develop our strategies for keeping people at work. As you know, it’s 

very expensive for the government to pay disability benefits sometimes, and a lot of the folks who go out on disability benefits can 

actually work and can stay in the job if they knew about, what 

some people call, accommodations, and I like to call productivity 

tools, because we all need them; it just happens to be called accommodations for people with disabilities; and also the concept of a 

flexible work environment. 

So really there’s two prongs. OPM is trying to address the myth 

that there aren’t qualified people with disabilities out there, by contracting with a consulting company who provides the Federal Government qualified Schedule A-eligible people every month. The list 

is available to every agency in the government. 

In addition to that, the President will be monitoring what agencies do. Agencies have to set goals, and then on top of that working 

to retain Federal workers when they become injured, are some of 

the things that are happening with regard to that executive order. 

Senator ENZI. Thank you. 

Most of my other questions deal with some of the small business 

things and they’re fairly technical in nature. So if it’s OK I’d just 

submit those in writing. 

Ms. MARTINEZ. OK. 

Senator ENZI. Thank you. 

Ms. MARTINEZ. Thank you, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Enzi. 

Thank you, Madam Secretary, for being here again. Thank you 

for your testimony. 

Ms. MARTINEZ. Thank you very much. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you for your leadership on this issue. Like 

I said, my staff will be in touch with you about making sure we 

get some reports back from those States and how they’re utilizing 

that money. 

Ms. MARTINEZ. And we’re happy to provide them. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Madam Secretary. 

We’ll excuse you and now we’ll call up our second panel. We’ll 

call up Governor Ridge, Ms. Dagit, and Ms. Wallrich. Our first witness will be from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and I ask my 
14 

colleague, Senator Casey, who is here on our committee, to please 

make an introduction of our distinguished guest. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR CASEY

Senator CASEY. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. 

I have the great honor and privilege to be able to introduce a fellow Pennsylvanian to this committee, but certainly no stranger to 

the U.S. Congress and indeed the U.S. Senate. 

Governor, welcome. 

Mr. RIDGE. Senator, it’s a great pleasure to be here with you. 

Senator CASEY. Good to see you again. I didn’t have a chance to 

greet you personally, but we’re grateful you’re here and grateful 

you’re part of this hearing today. 

Tom Ridge is a son of Erie, PA. For those who don’t know our 

geography, I live in northeastern Pennsylvania, in one corner of the 

State, and Governor Ridge hails from the northwestern corner of 

our State. 

His life has been a life of service, service to our Commonwealth 

of Pennsylvania, service to our country, whether as a soldier, as a 

member of the U.S. House of Representatives for 12 years between 

1982 and 1994, service then as Governor of the Commonwealth 

from 1994 through the time he was named Secretary—the first 

Secretary of Homeland Security in the aftermath of the attacks of 

9/11. So his life is one of service. 

And also he’s been—in those years, in all the positions he held 

in government, positions of service, he’s been an advocate. And he 

comes here today with not just that experience behind him but also 

that passion for advocacy and the good results that come from that. 

I’ve known him a long time. I know him to be a person of great 

character and integrity. And there are moments in the life of a 

public official where his or her constituents focus, and I think in 

a very intensive way, on that person’s leadership and their commitment to public service. And one of those moments, I think, for Governor Ridge came at a very tragic time for the country, the day we 

were attacked. And one of the attacks, of course, was in Pennsylvania—Shanksville, PA. And at that moment, he had to lead our 

State and be part of the leadership of the country. 

Governor, we remember that moment very poignantly, when you 

were expressing both the frustration and anger of our citizens, but 

also the resolve that came in the aftermath of that attack. So we’re 

grateful for that kind of leadership, and we’re certainly grateful 

you’re here, back before the U.S. Senate. And I know that we’ll 

benefit from your testimony and from your continuing leadership. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. RIDGE. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Senator Casey. And, 

again, one thing I would just add to that is that I know of Governor 

Ridge’s long-time work in the whole area of disability policy and 

employment of people with disabilities. I would like to add that, 

too. 

Mr. RIDGE. Thank you, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. Governor—and I say to my other panelists the 

Governor has to leave here shortly, so I’m going to recognize him 

for his statement and for any questions or interchange that we 
15 

want. I know he has to be out of here before 11 o’clock. So if you 

don’t mind, I’ll have the Governor testify first, and then we’ll move 

on to the other two members of our panel. 

So, Governor, again, welcome to the committee. Your statement, 

which I read last night, which is very profound, a very good statement, will be made a part of the record in its entirety. And please 

proceed as you so desire. 

STATEMENT OF GOVERNOR TOM RIDGE, CHAIRMAN, 

NATIONAL ORGANIZATION ON DISABILITY, WASHINGTON DC 

Mr. RIDGE. Well, I thank you very much, Chairman Harkin. I 

would be remiss if I didn’t recognize your life-long commitment to 

the issue. 

To Ranking Member Enzi and to my friend and colleague, Senator Casey, a Republican from one end of the State in the corner, 

a Democrat from the other end of the State in the corner. We both 

survived the statewide elections, which means that Pennsylvanians 

are pretty independent thinking. And I appreciate that very kind 

and gracious—very gracious introduction, and it’s a great pleasure 

to appear before the committee. And I thank my colleagues here on 

the panel for indulging a schedule of mine and for allowing me to 

go first. 

I want to thank you for your time and attention you are giving 

to the vital issue of disability employment in America. For a community that so frequently struggles to have its voice heard, these 

hearings are a very important opportunity, and I’m honored to 

share my perspective and my experience. 

To shed some light on these issues, I would like to share some 

of the work being done by the National Organization on Disability, 

NOD, whose board I am very privileged to chair. I am honored to 

have my leader, my boss, the president of the National Organization on Disability, Carol Glaser, here with me, a passionate, committed, effective leader who also deals with the challenges of a disability in her home every single day. And she’s also accompanied 

by Rick Scarp, a vice president of the organization, who oversees 

our Wounded Warrior Careers Program. 

I also would like to briefly discuss my experience as Secretary of 

the Department of Homeland Security and the initiative we took to 

encourage employment of people with disabilities within the department. 

Over the past three decades, NOD, whose Harris surveys have 

been an authoritative source of data on the status of people with 

disabilities, has addressed a range of issues. Most recently, we 

have focused our efforts on the staggering and stubbornly high rate 

of unemployment among people with disabilities, a rate sadly that’s 

been virtually unchanged since even the years before the ADA. 

NOD’s employment agenda begins with privately funded demonstration projects that test innovative employment practices and 

service models. Of NOD’s many funders, we are particularly grateful to the Kessler Foundation, a leader in devoting philanthropic 

dollars to the needs of Americans with disabilities. With the knowledge gleaned from our work on the ground and the evidence gathered through project evaluations, we seek really to scale up some 

of these small but effective demonstrations in part by addressing 
16 

bodies and organizations such as a congressional committee who 

are in a position to set policies and allocate resources. 

One of these projects is our Wounded Warriors Careers, which 

has proven to be a highly effective service model for veterans with 

severe disabilities. Over half a million veterans have returned 

home with injuries from the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, 

many of them with disabling conditions that will impact the rest 

of their lives. To better address the career needs of these veterans, 

in early 2007, the Army entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with NOD, under which we are providing career counseling and employment placement support to veterans in North 

Carolina, Texas, and Colorado. 

I might add, Mr. Chairman, we were happy to have the Memo 

of Understanding, but, unfortunately, at the time and to the 

present day, there wasn’t a check that went with it. We’ve funded 

this demonstration program through a consortium of national and 

local funders who contributed for these three demonstration 

projects a total of $5 million, with leadership support from Ford, 

Robert Wood Johnson, Mott, Kellogg, and Bob Woodruff Foundations. 

If I might add, sir, as a veteran, anybody that’s been in combat 

knows that but for the grace of God goes I. And one of these days, 

hopefully, we’ll continue—we’ll see that caring for the severely disabled veterans is a continuing cost of defense and find ways to allocate even additional resources, particularly to support the programs necessary to support those who were severely injured. 

It’s a great credit to our leaders in government when they look 

for ways to partner with those outside of government to serve 

transitioning veterans with disabilities. However, I think we continue to send an inconsistent message to our veterans and their 

families. Of the 268 veterans that NOD currently serves, 40 percent were given a disability rating of 100 percent, which in the terminology of the DVA, Department of Veteran Affairs, means a person we do not expect will ever work. 

Beyond its obvious impact on the veteran’s earning potential, 

telling a veteran that he or she cannot work has implications, 

much broader implications than people can realize to their recovery, to their health, and their long-term well-being. NOD’s program 

evaluation has shown that veterans who are pursuing or who have 

attained education and careers perceive their own health as better, 

have a more positive view of their future, regardless of the severity 

of their disability. 

After about 2 years of operations, roughly two-thirds of these veterans, program participants, including the 40 percent who were labeled as unable to work, are engaged in education, training, or 

work. 

A detailed account of this program outcome is included in my 

written testimony, as you referred to, Senator Harkin. 

It’s particularly notable that this support to our veterans comes 

with a considerable cost savings. In fact, I think our work is far 

less expensive than doing nothing at all. The dignity and financial 

self-sufficiency that comes with the pursuit of a career is a powerful deterrent to homelessness, substance abuse, domestic abuse, 
17 

unemployment, and crime, all of which bring considerable societal 

costs. 

Strong congressional support for the Wounded Warrior Careers 

Program has led to legislation in the House Defense Authorization 

Act that would apply key elements of NOD’s program on a larger 

scale. Similar legislation is expected in the Senate. But since our 

role in the program is not assured, NOD remains committed to continuing to produce best practices that can be used and adopted by 

relevant State, local, and Federal organizations. We obviously welcome support from Congress to assure NOD’s best practices are implemented by the Department of Defense. 

There are a couple of important lessons we’ve learned from this 

experience, and I’d like to share them briefly with the committee. 

First, severely disabled veterans require ongoing and flexible support, sometimes over the course of multiple years. We have veterans working with veterans, and it’s a long-term commitment, 2 

or 3 years—interaction almost on a monthly basis and sometimes 

weekly as we try to help them and their families, by the way, develop a career path. 

We understand that there are evolving circumstances, and we 

need to craft these relationships around the specific needs of the 

veteran and their family. And so the first point is the return to civilian life and career. It’s not an event, ladies and gentleman. It’s 

a process, and we need to understand that. 

Second principle—services and support must address the unique 

demands of traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic stress. 

These are hidden disabilities, but they pervade every aspect of 

many veterans’ lives and if not addressed can undermine every attempt at success. 

And, third, I think we have to provide support to the schools and 

businesses that train, educate, and hire veterans. Many want to 

help our returning veterans but need support to do so effectively. 

So recognizing the importance of this last recommendation, I’d 

like to talk briefly about the work of NOD’s Bridges to Business 

Program, which helps employers effectively recruit, hire, train, and 

retain job seekers, veterans or nonveterans, with disabilities, and 

also helps agencies that provide job training and placement services to job seekers with disabilities to work more effectively with 

businesses. Our work with these companies has yielded a number 

of findings that we believe will be instructive to this committee as 

you continue very important work on behalf of veterans and all 

Americans with disabilities. 

These findings are included, again, in my detailed testimony. But 

there is one other finding I’d like to emphasize publicly before you 

now. 

Members of this committee, your colleagues in Congress, the executive branch, and the Federal Government, we encourage you to 

use your visibility and your advocacy to inspire businesses to commit themselves to employing Americans with disabilities. That 

doesn’t necessarily mean regulation, which I think sometimes intimidates and frustrates businesses. It means genuine leadership 

that begins with a clear and forceful call to action and continues 

with the Federal Government fulfilling its goal of becoming itself 
18 

a model employer of people with disabilities at all levels of responsibility and in all types of jobs. 

And on this point, I would offer some personal insights from my 

time as Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. Once 

my team understood that it was a priority for the Secretary, and 

once I assigned someone to design a plan to open up opportunities 

within the department—and we started at headquarters level—we 

began to see change. We didn’t set a quota, but we did make it a 

leadership priority so that everybody knew that it was a priority 

for the Secretary and, therefore, a priority of the President. 

The first thing we did was send out a memo to all the undersecretaries or the bureau chiefs. Second, we had even the undersecretaries and assistant secretaries go to a 90-minute training program 

identifying, No. 1, it’s a priority for the Secretary; No. 2, are the 

resources out there; and No. 3, beginning the acculturation process 

is a little discomfort. Unfortunately and improperly, sometimes 

people without disabilities working with people with disabilities— 

well, they shouldn’t be uncomfortable because the people with disabilities aren’t uncomfortable. They’re just happy to work and want 

to interact with folks. So we had that training session. 

The third thing we did was make our department aware of a program at DOD called the Computer Electronics Accommodation Program. DOD will buy, install, and train assistive technology to help 

people with disabilities in our department. So within about 18 

months, we went from 1 percent at headquarters to 5 percent of 

people with disabilities. I can’t report what occurred thereafter. But 

it’s going to take executive leadership, congressional leadership, 

and everybody needs to understand before we can have businesses 

to be a model, we need the Federal Government to be a model as 

well. 

In closing, I’m aware that one of your ultimate goals is to address the disability benefit structure in America, a system that currently acts as an overwhelming disincentive to work for most 

Americans with disabilities. Currently, an individual who relies on 

Medicaid and Medicare for health coverage, which for most Americans with disabilities, even more than most of us, is of huge importance, will be justifiably hesitant to risk these benefits in search of 

what must often begin as entry-level employment. 

Part of the problem, I believe, is rooted in the fact that these 

well-intentioned systems designed decades ago were created with 

little expectation that Americans with disabilities would ever be 

anything more than recipients of care, that they could not, in fact, 

become contributors to our economy, our tax base, and our communities. We live in a society where your sense of self-worth is really 

predicated upon what you do for yourself, not what other people do 

for you. And that is embedded in the heart and soul of every person 

with a disability. 

Sure, it’s great to have the check, but the Harris survey said that 

two-thirds of the people we surveyed of all those unemployed—they 

want to work. They want to work. So it’s not a lack of talent, drive, 

or ambition in Americans with disabilities, but rather this tyranny 

of low expectations that has led to what I consider to be an opportunity gap between people with and without disabilities in America. 
19 

This committee began its work with a clear message that Americans with disabilities can and should be contributors. I urge you to 

see that message through to ensure that we—to see it repeated in 

every policy, every agency, and every service we deliver to people 

with disabilities. 

On behalf of the National Organization on Disability, I say to my 

colleagues in public service we thank you for your time, your interest, your commitment, and your passion to this issue. And I’d say 

again that I, personally, and the team at NOD—we volunteer. If 

you need us, we’d love to help. 

You’re, and again I reiterate, Senator Harkin—well, well known 

for years and years. You’re a strong advocate, and we’d like to be 

part of your advocacy team. 

Thank you very much. 

And thank you again, Senator Casey, for such a gracious introduction. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ridge follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF GOVERNOR TOM RIDGE

Thank you Chairman Harkin, Ranking Member Enzi and distinguished members 

of this committee for inviting me to speak with you today. 

Thank you for the time and attention you are giving to the vital issue of disability 

employment in America. For a community that so frequently struggles to have its 

voice heard, these hearings are an important opportunity. I am honored to share 

my perspective and experience. 

The issues affecting the disability community are very close to my heart. When 

I was governor of Pennsylvania, I worked with a great group of people to create a 

statewide agenda in support of people with disabilities. 

Ensuring that people with disabilities have the opportunity to contribute to society is a noble task. Employment brings dignity and purpose in life. Employment 

also brings personal independence and freedom. That’s why it’s so crucial that the 

staggeringly high unemployment rates among people with disabilities come down. 

Because not only are unemployed disabled Americans losing out on the benefits 

of employment, but our society then loses out on the potential contributions of these 

great Americans. Their resourcefulness in tackling issues that others do not encounter and their persistence in overcoming obstacles all lead to innovative approaches 

and a drive that is welcome in any job, in any field. 

To shed some light on these issues, I would like to share some of the work being 

done by the National Organization on Disability (NOD), and for whom I serve as 

chairman of the board of directors. I would also like to discuss my own experience 

as the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security and the work we did to 

encourage the employment of people with disabilities within that department. 

NATIONAL ORGANIZATION ON DISABILITY

NOD was founded in 1981 with the Mission of expanding the participation and 

contribution of America’s 54 million men, women, and children with disabilities in 

all aspects of life. 

In recognition of what we believe to be the most pressing need for Americans with 

disabilities, NOD’s board of directors recently adopted a Strategic Plan focused on 

improving employment prospects for America’s 33 million working-aged Americans 

with disabilities. 

And the need is pressing. Our most recent Kessler/NOD Survey of Americans with 

Disabilities conducted by Harris Interactive reveals that only 2 in 10 working age 

Americans with disabilities are employed, versus 6 in 10 of those without. These 

numbers have remained virtually unchanged for more than 20 years, regardless of 

the strength or weakness of the overall economy. 

To realize our Mission, NOD has positioned itself as an engine for new ideas and 

proven practices in our field. We begin with small, typically privately funded demonstration projects. Of NOD’s many funders, we are particularly grateful to the 

Kessler Foundation—a leader in devoting philanthropic dollars to the needs of 

Americans with disabilities. These demonstrations are built as a response to the 

needs of individuals and businesses, and our use of private funding allows for a de-
20 

gree of flexibility and risk-taking that is not often possible with publicly funded initiatives. 

To ensure that these projects accomplish their goals, each of them includes a 

built-in evaluation process, which allows us to continuously improve our work, and 

ensure that we are responding intelligently to new findings. 

With the knowledge gleaned from work on the ground, and the evidence gathered 

through project evaluations, we seek to ‘‘scale up’’ our small demonstrations. We accomplish this goal either through direct pursuit of sustainable public dollars, or by 

‘‘spreading the word’ about our work, and influencing policy and practice in an attempt to see the best of our work replicated in larger-scale agencies and service providers. 

One of these projects is the Wounded Warrior Careers initiative, which has proven to be a vital source of support to nearly 300 Army Veterans with significant disabilities, and an opportunity for us to learn what can and should be done to support 

all of our Nation’s returning heroes. 

THE CURRENT STATE OF VETERANS SERVICES

The most recent data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that 530,000 veterans have returned home with injuries from the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. 

Many of these injuries have led to disabling conditions that will impact the rest of 

their lives. Over 114,000 have garnered disability ratings of 60 percent or higher. 

In previous wars, some of these service members would not have survived. Today, 

they return home with disabilities ranging from burns and amputations to posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and traumatic brain injury (TBI). 

The imperative to expand support to transitioning veterans with disabilities and 

their families has multiple components: the moral obligation to assist this population; the need to sustain the all-volunteer military; and, the anticipated impact 

of additional costs that will be borne by local, State, and Federal agencies to assist 

‘‘at-risk’’ veteran families if they do not achieve self-sufficiency. 

In response to the transition needs of the most severely wounded warriors, the 

military has developed important programs to provide Recovery Care Coordinators 

or Advocates to assist these service members. These programs have improved the 

transition activities of veterans with disabilities, even as the programs continue to 

evolve their missions and compete for limited resources. However, the capacities of 

the Nation are not yet fully developed nor engaged to support the full range of our 

Wounded Warrior’s needs. NOD is proud to be involved in these efforts. 

To provide a sense of this rapidly expanding work, take the population of Army 

Wounded Warriors, which has more than quadrupled since 2006, from about 2,000 

to over 8,500 today. When combined with the other military services, including Special Operations Command, there are some 14,000 to 16,000 veterans with disabilities attempting to transition to civilian careers, achieve self-sufficiency, and forge 

lives of dignity in the wake of their military service. Yet, the most seriously wounded veterans leave the military today with career assistance needs that are still not 

fully addressed by existing education, employment, and vocational rehabilitation 

programs. 

The veterans we serve face many of the same obstacles to employment that all 

persons with disabilities face: employer perceptions, low expectations, and inadequate programs to facilitate their movement into the workforce. 

It is a great credit to the Army that it sought out allies to explore new approaches 

to serving transitioning veterans. We further laud this Administration for its clear 

commitment to our Nation’s veterans, and this committee for its interest in continually improving the supports and services we provide to our returning heroes. 

However, we continue to send an inconsistent message to our veterans and to 

their families. Of the 268 Veterans that NOD currently serves, 40 percent were 

given a disability rating of 100 percent which, in the terminology of the Department 

of Veterans Affairs, means a person who is not expected to ever work. Of that group, 

1⁄3 are currently pursuing post-secondary education—graduate level education, in 

some cases—and another 1⁄3 have joined the workforce. 

Beyond its obvious impact on the veteran’s earning potential, telling a veteran 

that he or she ‘‘cannot work’’ has implications to their recovery, their health and 

their long-term well-being. As our evaluation has shown, the veterans NOD serves, 

who are pursuing or have attained education and careers, perceive their own health 

as better, and they have a more positive view of the future, regardless of the severity of their disability. When we tell a returning veteran that we do not believe they 

will ever work again, we are not only robbing them of their potential income, we 

are robbing them of their hope, their health and their well-being. 
21 

The most seriously disabled veterans urgently need intensive career planning and 

mentorship so they can move into training, education, or work, and achieve selfsufficiency as contributing members of their communities. And the impact of their 

ability or failure to do so extends beyond the veteran population—in the case of the 

Army, over 70 percent of these wounded warriors are married, 65 percent have children under 18. Moreover, these veterans have little familiarity with civilian labor 

markets and employment. Often they have never held a civilian job, prepared a 

resume ́, or been interviewed for civilian employment. As a result, these veteran families are an ‘‘at-risk’’ population that requires assistance in navigating paths to civilian careers. 

THE NOD WOUNDED WARRIOR CAREERS DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM

In order to better address the needs of veterans with severe disabilities, in early 

2007 the Army entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with NOD. 

Under this MOU, NOD is providing career counseling and employment placement 

support to veterans in North Carolina, Texas, and Colorado through a 3-year demonstration program funded by a consortium of national and local funders who contributed a total of $5 million, with leadership support from the Ford, Robert Wood 

Johnson, Mott, Kellogg and Bob Woodruff Foundations. In North Carolina, we are 

grateful to the Cannon, Z Smith Reynolds, and Duke Foundations. In Texas, we appreciate the support from the Dallas and Meadows Foundations. And in Colorado, 

the El Pomar Foundation has been a significant supporter. After about 2 years of 

operations, over 68 percent of the 268 NOD Careers program participants have entered into education, training, or work. 

This pilot project was established at three sites to demonstrate innovative transition support for veterans with disabilities that can accelerate and ease their reintegration and return to self-sufficiency. The program includes an analytical and 

best practices evaluation that is designed to identify enduring changes that are 

needed in the services and support to transitioning veterans. 

The service model, which NOD and the Army developed after focus groups with 

more than 200 veterans and family members, is intensive, high touch, and characterized by long-term career counseling and mentoring to veterans with disabilities 

and their family members. NOD’s Career Specialists, with expertise in workforce development (and many with a background of military service), work directly with veterans and family members. We connect the veterans we serve to a wide range of 

service providers, therapists, employers, schools, government agencies and others offering career support. We further work closely with the Army’s Advocates to ensure 

that our services are well-coordinated, and offer the widest possible range of supports to the veterans we serve. 

To the best of our knowledge, we remain the only program of this kind to offer 

comprehensive, wrap-around services that respond to the specific needs of each veteran—and each family—that we work with. Among our most important findings is 

that we should not—we must not—be alone in this effort. 

Strong congressional support for the Wounded Warrior Careers program has led 

to legislation in the House Defense Authorization Act that would apply key elements 

of the program model on a larger scale. Similar legislation is expected in the Senate 

Defense Authorization Act. However, since NOD’s role in that program is not assured, NOD is committed to continuing to produce best practices and lessons 

learned that can serve as innovative concepts for adoption by relevant Federal, 

State, and local organizations. We welcome support from Congress that ensures 

NOD’s best practices are implemented by the Department of Defense, as intended 

by Congress. 

WOUNDED WARRIOR CAREERS PROGRAM OUTCOMES

We believe the outcomes of the Careers project are a clear demonstration of its 

value. Midway through the demonstration, 68 percent of our program participants 

are in education, training or jobs—a figure that is twice the rate of wounded veterans who do not receive our services. Other significant findings include that about 

70 percent of those employed have stayed in their job longer than 12 months and 

veterans in the program report a high level of satisfaction with the program and 

its services. (Refer to Attachment I for a more complete listing of early quantitative 

and qualitative outcomes.) 

Further, this work comes with a considerable cost savings; in fact, our work is 

far less expensive than doing nothing at all. When weighed against the cost of unemployment and lost productivity, the $3,000 to $4,000 (on average) that we are 

spending per veteran per year in this program is a cost-effective investment for the 

American taxpayer. The dignity and financial self-sufficiency that comes with pur-
22 

suit of a career is a powerful deterrent to homelessness, substance abuse, domestic 

abuse, unemployment, and crime, all of which bring considerable societal costs. 

VETERAN-RELATED RECCOMENDATIONS

Based on these outcomes, and the work we have conducted in the field, I would 

like to offer the following recommendations to this committee as it considers how 

best to serve our Nation’s wounded veterans: 

1. Veterans require ongoing and flexible support—sometimes over the course of 

multiple years—support crafted to the specific needs of the veteran and their family, 

and which meets their evolving circumstances. We have learned that for all veterans, but particularly those with significant injuries, the return to civilian life and 

career is not an event, but a process. Our services must support that process over 

time. 

2. We should foster a focus on career-related employment that begins as early as 

possible in the veteran’s process of return. In VA hospitals and rehabilitation centers, we often see posters that encourage veterans with disabilities to aspire to play 

sports again—we ought to also let them know that they can and should aspire to 

the careers of their choosing. Pursuant to this, no matter how we classify the services an individual might require, we must never send them the message that they 

cannot work. 

3. Veterans should have access to career planning with clear steps toward success 

that are driven by the goals, interests and ambitions of the veteran. Veterans rarely 

have access to a long-term support in this regard. 

4. Service models should include the veteran’s family. Families often play a key 

role in the veteran’s transition and can be a source of inspiration and support, if 

we in turn provide them with the support they need through the course of the veteran’s process of return. 

5. We must have a provision for flexible emergency funds that assist the veteran 

in financial crisis, and can meet discreet but crucial support needs in the course of 

the veteran’s career planning process. 

6. Services and supports must address the unique demands of TBI and PTSD; 

these often hidden disabilities pervade every aspect of many veterans’ lives, and, if 

not addressed, can undermine their every attempt at success. Support to veterans 

with TBI and PTSD means ensuring a robust network of mental health services, 

available throughout the country. Currently, our Nation’s infrastructure for mental 

health services for veterans and civilians is inconsistent from State to State, and 

entirely absent in many areas. 

7. We must provide ongoing support for veterans in education and employment. 

Veterans consistently report that having someone to ‘‘check in’’ can be both helpful 

and reassuring as they acclimate to educational and career placements. 

8. We need a better and more consistent system for translating military experience to civilian qualifications and credentials, that captures all of the talents, skills 

and aptitudes that are developed in one of the most demanding jobs in the marketplace. 

9. We must provide support to the schools and businesses that train, educate and 

hire veterans. Businesses want to hire veterans; providing hands-on training and 

support to both the veterans, and schools and businesses is essential to their longterm success. 

Recognizing the importance of this last recommendation, I would like to talk with 

you about the work NOD is currently doing to support the many major corporations 

who have dedicated themselves to the principle of including the talent of Americans 

with disabilities at all levels of their operations. 

In your last hearing on this subject, you heard from Randy Lewis, senior vice 

president at Walgreens, who has emerged as a leader in a new way of demonstrating that businesses can and should take full advantage of every kind of talent available to them in their communities. Mr. Lewis is an inspiring leader—so 

much so that a number of other companies—Lowe’s, Sodexo, Sam’s Club, Aetna and 

ADP, to name only a few—have taken up his challenge. These companies aspire not 

only to match Walgreens in hiring, retaining and promoting people with disabilities, 

but to be even better. 

To support these companies in this crucial effort, NOD has staged the Bridges to 

Business program. 

Current Employer Attitudes and Practices 

In 2010 NOD and the Kessler Foundation commissioned the survey firm of Harris 

Interactive to interview officials at 400 small, medium and large companies, on their 
23 

disability employment attitudes and practices. Among other things, the survey 

found: 

• While most companies have diversity hiring policies and programs, less than 3 

in 10 include disability as a diversity category. • While 25 percent of the companies have disability hiring policies, only 12 percent have programs; • Companies report a desire to hire more workers with disabilities, yet their primary recruitment sources are word of mouth and employee referrals. This method 

of hiring will only replicate the current workforce, rather than diversify it. • In business, what matters gets measured. And yet our survey revealed that only 

one in three companies tracked their hiring rates of candidates with disabilities. • Six in ten companies report a lack of familiarity with publicly funded service 

providers who source candidates with disabilities. • When asked why companies don’t recruit more people with disabilities, they say 

they don’t know where to source candidates. 

With these numbers as a backdrop, it’s not surprising that only 3 percent of new 

hires have disabilities and unemployment rates are stubbornly high. 

NOD’S BRIDGES TO BUSINESS PROGRAM

NOD’s Bridges to Business program is an ongoing initiative to help employers to 

effectively recruit, hire, train and retain job-seekers with disabilities; and to help 

agencies that provide job training and placement services to job seekers with disabilities work more effectively with businesses. 

NOD provides the following services to these businesses that seek to hire, retain 

and promote Americans with disabilities: 

1. Training to management and Human Resource staff on disability hiring retention and accommodation practices, and training to general staff about the nature of 

disability in the workplace. 

2. Development of effective partnerships with community-based agencies and organizations that can effectively source and support candidates with disabilities. 

3. Goal-setting and measurement practices that help companies establish quantifiable goals for the hiring of candidates with disabilities; typically, NOD sets the minimum goals for this effort at 10 percent of all new hires. 

But our work is not limited to support of businesses. As you have heard from a 

number of other witnesses, the public workforce development system for people with 

disabilities is often ineffective in its service both to people with disabilities, and to 

the businesses that seek to hire them. 

What should be a clear and focused support for citizens with disabilities is often 

a confusing, bureaucratic and disheartening system that traps the individual in dependence on public benefits. 

What should be a responsive and dynamic source of well-trained talent for businesses is instead an unresponsive series of agencies that presents countless points 

of contact, and too few results. 

As such, in supporting businesses, NOD has also been called upon to work with 

the many public and private agencies that ultimately should serve as their source 

of human resource talent. We provide the following services in support of providers 

of workforce development services: 

1. Training and consultation to build their capacity to be responsive to businesses’ 

hiring and retentions needs. 

2. Facilitated partnership building and coordination between multiple agencies 

and providers, to ensure that they work together to provide more effective referral 

and services to businesses and career seekers, and a single point of contact for those 

businesses. 

3. Connections to businesses, and a facilitated process of joint goal-setting. 

RECCOMENDATIONS FOR BUSINESS SERVICES

Our work with these companies has yielded a number of findings that we believe 

will be instructive to the HELP Committee as they continue their work on behalf 

of veterans—and all Americans—with disabilities. 

1. All agencies—including Vocational Rehabilitation, the Workforce Investment 

System, Developmental Disability Services, and various private organizations that 

contract with these agencies to provide direct services to career-seekers with disabilities—must present a business with a single point of contact through which the 

business can access the widest possible range of talent. 

2. Public agencies must recognize businesses as important customers of their systems, equal to the citizens with disabilities that they already serve. It is impossible 
24 

to provide effective workforce development services to a job seeker without also providing the high quality services to businesses. 

3. The performance of these agencies and organizations should be measured in 

part by their effectiveness in serving businesses. We must hold these agencies accountable for the speed with which they respond to a business’ job posting, the effectiveness of the training they offer to meet their talent needs, and the satisfaction 

of their business customers with the services they receive. 

4. To echo Randy Lewis’s eloquent testimony before this committee: 

‘‘Businesses need an efficient and effective source of talent, and the certainty 

that the candidates who are being referred to them are the right match in 

terms of skills, training and goals. While there are numerous other services and 

supports required by career-seekers with disabilities, we should structure employment services—and our means for measuring their success—around these 

basic goals that are essential to the success of both the business and the careerseeker.’’ 

5. Our current system of ‘‘pay for performance’’ for the community-based providers 

of services has much to recommend it. It has the potential to inspire excellence in 

the services these organizations provide, and the kind of competition that ultimately 

fosters innovation. However, an unfortunate side effect of this system is the extent 

to which it discourages collaboration amongst both public agencies and private providers. Ultimately, this has led to a workforce development system for people with 

disabilities that is territorial; a system or providers that must compromise the overall effectiveness of its services to businesses and career seekers in hopes of earning 

the payments they need to survive and thrive. We strongly recommend that the current system of pay-for-performance that is used by so many agencies in their contracts with community providers be tempered with measures that recognize and reward, not punish, collaboration. By this means, we can begin to move toward a system wherein a single agency contact can act as the source of a much wider array 

of talent to its business customers, and one in which a more diverse range of career 

opportunities is available to every job seeker with disabilities. 

6. As we have done in the Workforce Investment Act, we must create a space for 

the perspective of business in the leadership and oversight of these agencies. This 

leadership will give these agencies insight in to labor market trends and businesses’ 

hiring needs. It will focus the training and candidate sourcing efforts, and provide 

local and State accountability to the needs of the business customer. 

7. Finally, beyond policy, the members of this committee, their colleagues in Congress, the executive branch and the Federal Government must use their visibility 

to inspire businesses to commit themselves to hire, retain and promote Americans 

with disabilities. This does not mean regulation, which only intimidates and frustrates businesses. It means genuine leadership that begins with a clear and forceful 

call to action, and continues with the Federal Government fulfilling its goal of becoming a model employer of people with disabilities at all levels of responsibility, 

and in all types of jobs. 

DEPARMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY HIRING EFFORTS

On this last point, I can offer my personal insight from my time as the Secretary 

of the Department of Homeland Security. From the beginning, Homeland Security 

maintained a commitment to being a model Cabinet agency for the 21st century. 

And part of that commitment is reflected in our efforts to promote employment opportunities for people with disabilities, both those who are highly skilled and 

credentialed—people to fill jobs at the highest GS and SES levels of this Department—and those who are seeking entry-level positions. 

When we had a position to fill, we asked one key question: what does this person 

have to offer us? If the person had the skills and enthusiasm and determination to 

help us further our mission, we wanted that person on our team. 

And so, it’s in that spirit that I’m pleased to talk with you about a major initiative 

that I led at Homeland Security to make these words of commitment a reality, and 

to ensure that people with disabilities were given every opportunity to succeed at 

our Department. I issued a directive to all of the senior leaders of our Department 

that we must aggressively promote equal opportunity for people with disabilities. 

Under this initiative, there were several specific directives. Let me highlight a 

few: 

• Managers at Homeland Security headquarters completed a training course, designed to encourage them to interview and hire applicants and employees with disabilities. The course described the tools available to managers to help them successfully hire qualified candidates and included a panel of employees with disabilities 
25 

who could talk about the barriers to employment and the steps that can be taken 

to knock those barriers down. • Additionally, every office within the Department was directed to engage interns 

with disabilities. These internships were valuable to both the students who built 

skills and experience, and the managers who learned how to ensure that people 

with disabilities have the necessary tools and opportunities to grow and contribute 

to the organization. • And finally, every office within headquarters was required to let our equal employment opportunity (EEO) program know about hiring needs in advance. Our 

EEO program developed a network of people with disabilities who were available 

to work, so that when they got advance information about job openings, they were 

be able to put those resume ́s on a manager’s desk quickly. 

One thing to keep in mind is that the headquarters at Homeland Security is relatively small; the majority of the Department’s employees are people on the front 

lines of the war on terror—they are in the field, stationed around the country everywhere from border crossings to airports to seaports. 

The initiative I mentioned was aimed directly at Homeland Security headquarters; and since we know that the ‘‘one-size-fits-all’’ approach wouldn’t work, we 

also tasked each component agency under the department umbrella to develop a 

similarly aggressive strategy for hiring people with disabilities—one that was tailored to their specific circumstances. 

These are easy, effective and sustainable steps that can position all Federal agencies to take full advantage of the talent available to them in the American workforce. Further, these steps will allow us to speak with knowledge and authority 

when we give the same message to businesses. 

CONCLUSION

In closing, I am aware that one of your ultimate goals is to address the disability 

benefits structure in America—a system which currently acts as an overwhelming 

disincentive to work for most Americans with disabilities. Currently, an individual 

who relies on Medicaid and Medicare benefits for their health coverage—which, for 

Americans with disabilities even more than most of us, is of huge importance—will 

be justifiably hesitant to risk these benefits in search of what must typically begin 

as entry-level employment. As such, we are asking would-be employees to take a 

huge risk in the name of a reward that, to most of these folks, seems all too distant. 

As we heard from an official representing one of the major Federal disability employment programs in a Reconnaissance we conducted in preparation for our employment efforts: 

‘‘You have to acknowledge at the outset that employment policy in this Nation 

is simply ineffective with respect to people with disabilities. We are at a crossroads because we have created policies that are contradictory and create dependency. . . . Basically, you couldn’t purposefully design a system more fundamentally flawed than this!’’ 

There are, of course, a complex system of Waivers and Buy-Ins that exist in many 

States that is designed to allow Social Security beneficiaries to work without losing 

their health benefits. However, these resources are often little-know, confusing and, 

as a consequence, underutilized. 

Essential reform will require a system-wide assurance for all career-seekers with 

disabilities that their health benefits through Medicare or Medicaid will not be 

threatened until they have reached an income threshold wherein it is reasonable to 

expect that they or their employer will be able to replace these benefits directly. 

Without first removing the pall of fear which hangs over every individual’s job 

search, we cannot reasonably expect to foster the hope, the vision and the drive necessary to begin a successful career. 

The cause of these policy barriers, I believe, is rooted in the fact that these systems were originally created with little expectation that Americans with disabilities 

would ever be anything more than recipients of care; that they could not, in fact, 

become contributors to our economy, our tax base and our communities. It is not 

a lack of talent, drive or ambition in Americans with disabilities, but rather this 

tyranny of low expectation that has led to the opportunity gap between people with 

and without disabilities In America. 

This committee began its work with a clear message: that Americans with disabilities can and should be contributors, not recipients. I urge you to see that message 

through, to ensure that we see it repeated in every policy, every agency, and every 

service we deliver to people with disabilities. 

On behalf of the National Organization on Disability, I thank you for your time, 

your interest, on your vital efforts on behalf of all Americans with Disabilities. 
26 

ATTACHMENT I: NOD WOUNDED WARRIOR CAREERS EARLY OUTCOMES

Overall: 64 percent of 268 program participants are in education, work training 

or employed; this success rate is twice the average of wounded veterans who do not 

receive NOD’s services. 

EDUCATION

• 109 currently in education • Success in education (attending, completed or in follow-on education): 90 percent • Those not in school who are interested in education/training: 89 percent 

EMPLOYMENT AND RETENTION

• 70 percent of those employed have stayed in their job longer than 12 months • 71 percent have held only one job (vs. multiple) • Percent of jobs with benefits: 70–80 percent • Satisfaction with employment/career goals: 93 percent (67 percent a lot/26 percent some) • Satisfaction with job: 76 percent (21 percent very/55 percent somewhat) • Satisfaction with job pay: 67 percent (19 percent very/48 percent somewhat) 

OTHER

• Participation in volunteer programs: 20 percent • Career assistance provided to spouses: 30 percent • Veterans with moderate to high degree of confidence in ability to achieve employment or career goals: 80–90 percent. 

Veteran Satisfaction: The following chart is derived from veteran satisfaction 

surveys and shows the level of satisfaction with NOD’s career services in comparison to others. 

The CHAIRMAN. Governor, thank you very much—a very profound statement. And I read most of it last night, too, and I said, 

you know, this is a person that has led by example, which you did 

as Secretary. 

Believe me, I’m well aware of what you did when you were Secretary of Homeland Security, breaking down these barriers, setting 

up systems. The problem is we’re not seeing that going on in some 

of the other areas. And I think you kind of put your finger on it. 

We’ve built up a system that was sort of based on dependency. We 

built up this system, and we’ve just got to start breaking that 

down. 

And it’s everything from independent living to outreach and getting young people with disabilities to understand that the default 
27 

position for them is not to go into some kind of covered employment, but it’s to be going out there in competitive employment. Get 

those young people out there. Start thinking about that. And we’re 

working on that right now in terms of—with voc rehab, to get them 

to start looking at getting young people from the very beginning to 

think about themselves as being out there in competitive employment. 

I don’t mean to go on too long here, but you struck so many 

chords there, Governor. But you mentioned, for example, on the 

100 percent disability thing—that just drives me nuts, you know. 

I see you understand that. 

Mr. RIDGE. Yes, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. You’re 100 percent disabled. But that doesn’t 

mean you can’t work. 

Mr. RIDGE. Exactly. 

The CHAIRMAN. And most people can work and want to work. 

And how do we break that down? How do we change that system? 

Mr. RIDGE. Well, I don’t think—first of all, I don’t think you have 

to change the mind set of the individual that’s given the designation and the categorization of 100 percent disabled. They already 

know, in most instances—and some of them, unfortunately, will 

have to have that social net, that safety net—maybe so impaired 

that it’s virtually impossible. But we want to give everybody a 

chance. 

We have to recognize it may not be a possibility for every—but 

for the vast majority of people, it’s a possibility. So you don’t have 

to change the mind set of the man or woman with a disability. You 

have to change the mind set of the people—prospective employers. 

And that’s where I think government has a role to play. 

Senator, I think you mentioned it. It’s a matter of matching—nobody wants charity. But there’s a lot of ability out there, and we 

just want to match the ability with the need of the government, the 

ability with the need of the employer. One of the things we did to 

try to—and, again, encourage—your point—young people—we hired 

interns with disabilities. We asked them to come in, and then we 

matched—on the adult level, we had an individual, wheelchairbound who was in IT. We had an attorney who couldn’t hear but 

was doing a lot of legal work. We had a service connected employee 

working on security. 

Match the need with the ability. And we like to say in NOD in 

the disability, it’s the ability that counts. 

The CHAIRMAN. That’s right. That’s right. Governor, you’re a 

breath of fresh air. Thank you very much. 

Senator Enzi. 

Senator ENZI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you for your testimony. I was particularly impressed 

and want to emphasize page seven of your testimony when you say, 

‘‘When asked why companies don’t recruit more people with disabilities, they say they don’t know where to source candidates.’’ And 

just before that, you said, ‘‘Six in ten companies report a lack of 

familiarity with publicly funded service providers who source candidates with disabilities.’’ Somehow we’ve got to get that all 

matched up because I really do think there are a lot of people out 

there that just haven’t considered hiring people with disabilities. 
28 

They don’t even know what the process is or what’s involved with 

it. 

So I appreciate what your organization does, and I’m very interested in the National Organization on Disability’s Wounded Warrior Program. Could you talk a little bit about the partners that 

you have that work to achieve that goal? 

Mr. RIDGE. First of all, we’ve been certainly supported by primarily private foundations to support us. Second, I think the cost 

per—as I mentioned before, it’s a very cost-effective approach, and 

it’s a model that we think could be scaled. 

What we basically do, Senator, is we have veterans supporting 

veterans and their families. As you can well imagine, when mom 

or dad leaves with all their normal capacities and comes home from 

a tour of duty without sight or in a wheelchair or is dealing with 

some of these hidden wounds of PTSD and TBI, it’s not just the 

veteran you have to be focused on, but it’s also the family that has 

to adjust. So there’s a range of psychological and emotional and 

physical problems that we think—that’s why we—and you mentioned it, Senator—it’s almost a wrap-around service model that 

says for a year or two or three, in order to get the veteran career 

focused—and sometimes it’s education and then career—but also 

the family acculturated, we really need to do more than just—it’s 

good to have all these programs that the Federal Government has, 

the Department of Labor has, the VA refers them to. But just referring them to a Web site or dealing with a career counselor, particularly for the severely disabled, that’s just not enough. 

We have great partners in these local communities in the three 

projects we’re working with, and we also have veteran caseworkers—veterans helping veterans. There’s a certain empathy 

there. 

And we’ve talked to some of the veteran service organizations, 

and one of the things that they do—and you’ve got to give credit 

to these VSOs—many times, when there’s a severe disability, they 

will send in—they don’t talk about employment or careers, but 

they’ll send in someone at the Walter Reed, for example, who’s severely disabled as a result of their efforts on behalf of our country, 

and show them what they are presently doing, and almost begin 

to acculturate—it took a while to get here, but look what I’m doing 

now. I am employed. You can be employed. You can be a contributor. 

You said it right, Senator Enzi. There are a lot of partners. But 

it’s a wrap-around support program that these men and women are 

certainly deserving of because of their service. But, again, the 

Bridges to Business—we focus on veterans, but nonveterans alike. 

Senator ENZI. Thank you. In the interest of time—I know you 

have a schedule—I’ll submit some other questions in writing. 

Mr. RIDGE. I hope you do. I’m happy to answer them. 

Senator ENZI. Thank you. 

Mr. RIDGE. When I was Secretary of Homeland Security, getting 

QFRs wasn’t exactly something that I encouraged—questions for 

the record. It’s not something I necessarily encouraged, but everybody was very responsive. But in this instance, bring them on. 
29 

The CHAIRMAN. I’m very conscious of your time, but if you have 

at least one question or a comment, Senator Casey and Senator 

Blumenthal. 

Senator Casey. 

Senator CASEY. Questions for the record. We’ll get you some. 

Mr. RIDGE. Good. 

Senator CASEY. Governor, thanks for being—I don’t want to hold 

you up. But thank you for being here. 

Mr. RIDGE. Yes. I really apologize. I hope I get a chance to come 

back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Absolutely. 

Senator Blumenthal. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR BLUMENTHAL

Senator BLUMENTHAL. I want to thank you for being here as 

well, Governor, and great to see you again. And thank you for your 

great work, particularly on disabilities of veterans. And, again, I 

don’t want to hold you now, but I am very much involved in trying 

to work on behalf of veterans and particularly those whom you 

know firsthand have been injured in these last 10 years of war. 

And I’d welcome any comments that you have on the record now 

or, even better, afterward—perhaps be in touch with you directly 

on how we can improve what the United States does to help these 

wounded warriors. 

Mr. RIDGE. I would welcome that opportunity. You know, we 

want our veterans to be employed, but there’s a group of them that 

will come back with both visible and invisible injuries. They’re 

going to need a lot more than what we’re providing now. And what 

NOD has tried to demonstrate is that some of these veterans need 

more, far, far more than the well-intentioned programs that presently exist offer. And we hope that our approach can be scaled up, 

particularly with those with very severe disabilities. 

But, again, we are also mindful as we build Bridges to Business 

that there are millions of other Americans with disabilities that 

may—if we looked at them carefully, may need some more support. 

So the Wounded Warriors Careers Program may be a good model 

for a much broader group of Americans than just veterans. I will 

welcome that conversation, Senator, and thank you for the invite. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, Governor Ridge, again, thank you very 

much for being here, but also just for your great leadership, and 

through you, thank the National Organization on Disability for all 

that they do. We appreciate it very, very much. 

Mr. RIDGE. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thanks, Governor. Thank you. 

Now we’ll turn to the rest of our panel. Ms. Deborah Dagit has 

been the vice president and chief diversity officer for Merck and 

Company for the past 10 years. She currently serves on the board 

of the U.S. Business Leadership Network and is the past chair of 

the Conference Board’s Workforce Council on Diversity. 

Ms. Dagit has been a small business founder and owner, starting 

‘‘Bridge to Jobs’’ in 1987, a firm that placed 400 people with disabilities annually in full-time employment positions. She also 

worked with Representative Norm Mineta in the House for the pas-
30 

sage of the ADA—thank you—and, as far as we know, is the only 

Fortune 100 company diversity officer with a visible disability. 

We welcome you. 

Our final witness is Ms. Amelia Wallrich, a recent graduate from 

the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, and a rising first 

year law student at Northwestern University. Ms. Wallrich has 

been in Costa Rica as a goodwill ambassador for Mobility International USA, has served as an AAPD intern in Senator Durbin’s 

office, has worked on international student exchange programs, 

and has been a campus leader in educational access for students 

with disabilities. 

So, again, I thank you both for being here. Your statements will 

be made a part of the record in their entirety. 

Ms. Dagit, we’ll start with you. Welcome, and, again, please proceed as you so desire. 

STATEMENT OF DEBORAH DAGIT, VICE PRESIDENT AND 

CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER, MERCK, WHITEHOUSE STATION, 

NJ 

Ms. DAGIT. Thank you very much. And thank you, Chairman 

Harkin and Ranking Member Enzi, for having me here today and 

allowing me to make this testimony. 

I come to this conversation as a person who was born with brittle 

bones, otherwise known as Osteogenesis Imperfecta. And, as you 

said, I led ‘‘Bridge to Jobs’’, which was actually a coalition of agencies, a private partnership with the public sector. We were very 

proud of how many people we were able to place. I also have been 

a vice president and chief diversity officer in the private sector for 

20 years now. 

As a baby boomer, I attended school in the San Francisco Bay 

Area in the 1960s and 1970s. And at that time, my mother had to 

fight just to get me into public school. Today, as the parents of 

three teens who all have various types of disabilities, my husband, 

who’s here with me today and also has a disability, we can attest 

that parental advocacy is still needed in our schools. Thankfully, 

it’s not required to get into school, but rather to make sure that 

our children are not tracked away from competitive college and career preparation. 

As parents, we must also continue to work to affirm that our 

children’s individual education plans are treated as environmental 

enablers in their education instead of as premature labels that stigmatize them and limit their potential. Our schools must have high 

expectations of all students, and in addition to high standards for 

academic performance, school experience must include critical socialization and work experiences for students with disabilities. 

There are three model programs that Merck actively sponsors 

and engages with that I would recommend for all firms: the Rutgers Future Scholars Program, Career Opportunities for Students 

with Disabilities, and the U.S. Business Leadership Network. All 

of these resources are highly effective and provide students with 

the supports they need to prepare for postsecondary education, 

transition to the workforce, and become active participants in their 

communities. My written testimony includes details about these, 

and I’d be happy to provide more information. 
31 

In addition to external partnerships such as these, companies 

that are really serious about fully including people with disabilities 

in their workforce also need to make sure that they have the right 

internal policies and practices in place. For most companies, a 

major barrier to including people with disabilities is that they need 

to move away from the commonly held medical model that defines 

disability as some sort of deficiency that is inherently negative to 

a model that is more consistent with other aspects of how companies address diversity in their workforce. 

At Merck, we believe that for colleagues with disabilities to be 

viewed like other underrepresented groups, it is imperative to 

think about it through a social model that simply defines disability 

as different from the majority and neutral in the absence of additional context. Most importantly, it identifies the primary agents of 

change as company representatives and the person themselves. 

Our social model is embodied in our Workplace Enablement Program. Nora Velli and June Mills, our colleagues at Merck who are 

here with me today—and they lead that program, which provides 

work environment solutions for all employees with both nonapparent and visible disabilities. This resource positively impacts 

return to work after a health event and enhances productivity for 

employees, their managers, and their peers because they can quickly access accommodation solutions. 

Like many of us in this room, I am experiencing various changes 

associated with the aging process. In my case, that means my 

bones are becoming more fragile. Last year, I fell and broke both 

legs, which changed my needs so that I could still be safe and productive at work. Due to this program, rather than go on medical 

leave or retire early, I was able to quickly obtain the accommodations I needed, like door openers and my husband being able to accompany me on business, like this hearing. 

The barriers people with disabilities in this Nation face are persistent and not subtle. As an example, a mere decade ago, 10 years 

after the passage of the ADA, when the IT sector in Silicon Valley 

began to shed many jobs, I decided to pursue new opportunities in 

other industries, including healthcare, finance, and retail. I interviewed with many Fortune 250 companies and was surprised and 

dismayed that despite my strong resume ́, which included 10 years 

of experience as a successful and well-regarded diversity leader, I 

was repeatedly rejected as a candidate when they met me in person. 

In one particularly memorable situation, after several phone 

interviews, I was flown first-class to New York City, put up in a 

five-star hotel, driven to the employer in a limousine, and then 

upon meeting me, the recruiter for the company canceled all the 

interviews. He explained that his firm was not comfortable considering someone like me for the role. However, given my subject matter expertise, he did wonder if I would be open to them hiring 

someone else who had strong media and government contacts but 

lacked diversity experience so that I could support their success 

from behind the scenes. 

Fortunately, shortly after this experience, I interviewed at 

Merck, where I finally found the perfect match. At Merck, I feel I 

am truly a partner in our mission to enhance and save lives. 
32 

In closing, as parents, Dan and I know we can continue to be 

strong advocates for our children in partnerships with the schools 

they attend to make sure they are fully prepared to compete for 

jobs in our country. But if they are to fully contribute to this Nation as Americans with disabilities, I’m going to need your help. I 

will not be the chief diversity officer for the company they go to 

work for some day. And I am counting on the people in this room 

to make sure the public policy and legislative requirements are in 

place that not only help the United States to be more competitive 

in the global marketplace, but also ensure that my children are not 

stigmatized, marginalized, or excluded from contributing to their 

full potential. And I am at your service if I can help in any way. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Dagit follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DEBORAH DAGIT

Chairman Harkin, Ranking Member Enzi and committee members, I am honored 

to participate in this committee’s examination of employment opportunities and barriers for Americans with disabilities. I bring to this discussion both my experiences 

as someone born with a visible disability and my experiences in the business community as a human resources professional and chief diversity officer. 

I am a baby boomer, born in 1959 in San Francisco, CA at Letterman Army Hospital. The doctor who delivered me told my terrified parents that I had two broken 

femurs due to a brittle bones disease (Osteogenesis Imperfecta), and that I would 

not likely live beyond age 2. He said that if I lived I would not walk or go to school. 

My parents carried me home on a pillow afraid that they would cause a fracture 

when feeding or caring for me. Although I would end up having more than 70 broken bones and 25 major surgeries to straighten and strengthen my legs, I have been 

able to live a full and active life. 

Starting in the second grade I was able to attend regular public school. I went 

on to college and then entered graduate school for clinical psychology. I worked fulltime, and went to school at night—still experiencing fractures now and again—but 

they were less frequent, and I was able to live independently. 

Upon graduation I wanted to apply my skills in a corporate setting, but I faced 

many attitudinal challenges. Five different senior corporate executives told me that 

I should stop applying for more senior level positions. They felt I was ‘‘lucky to have 

a job,’’ and should realize ‘‘someone like me’’ could not expect to be in a leadership 

position. 

In 1987, when the COBRA act took affect, I decided to try a new strategy. COBRA 

created an opportunity for me. It allowed me to maintain my health benefits while 

I founded and managed ‘‘Bridge to Jobs,’’ a non-profit job placement agency for people with disabilities. We were able to annually place approximately 400 people with 

disabilities into meaningful employment. I learned from this experience that many 

people with disabilities also belong to other disadvantaged and/or under-represented 

groups including people of color, older workers, veterans, and individuals living in 

poverty or are otherwise economically challenged. 

In 1990 my Congressman, Norm Mineta, asked me to assist with the passage of 

a bill he was a key co-sponsor of in the House, the Americans with Disabilities Act. 

After much hard work by many, including the Chairman of this committee, I was 

honored to be there on the White House lawn when President George Bush signed 

the ADA into law. 

After that historic day, I thought about how best to make sure this legislation resulted in the intended outcome of ensuring that Americans with disabilities can 

fully participate in our society. I quickly realized the best place for me to affect 

change was back in the corporate sector—creating sustainable replicable models for 

full employment and inclusion of people with disabilities in the workforce. 

In addition to my extensive business and corporate experience, I also have a great 

deal of family experience. My husband Dan, who also has a disability, and I have 

three children who are now teenagers. They each have various disabilities, and we 

have learned much about the contemporary challenges youth with disabilities face 

educationally, socially, and in preparing for college and a career. 

In my professional life, I have been a ‘‘Chief Diversity Officer’’ (CDO) for 20 years 

in three different companies. Being the only CDO that I know with a visible dis-
33 

ability, I have been honored to represent both the business perspective and the 

needs of people with disabilities in a variety of settings—including this important 

hearing. I have come to understand the enablers and barriers to fully including people with disabilities in the workforce. Today I would like to share my recommendations from these experiences. 

IMPROVING THE LIVES OF PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES BY MOVING TO A SOCIAL MODEL

I strongly believe that the foundation of any changes in our current system needs 

to be rooted in moving our view of disability from a medical model to a social 

model. 

The medical model of disability is still prevalent in our country as evidenced by 

the manner in which Americans with disabilities are depicted through our language 

choices, media portrayals, fundraising activities, and program eligibility requirements. People with disabilities are routinely characterized as having some sort of 

deficiency, that their condition is inherently negative and needs to be ameliorated, 

and that the agent of remedy is some type of health professional’s intervention. In 

the employment sector, we may do the most harm of all. Before individuals with 

disabilities are eligible for supplemental security income (SSI) or social security disability insurance (SSDI), they must declare they cannot work. This is the ultimate 

example of a deficit model approach, and is bad policy if we want individuals with 

disabilities to be part of the workforce. 

A social model defines disability as different from the average, neutral in the absence of additional context, and located in the interaction between individuals and 

society. The remedy in the social model is ensuring that the environment is accessible and that attitudinal barriers are addressed. In this model there are multiple 

individuals who might assist in this process, and self-assistance is often the primary 

mechanism. There are signs that this model is gradually emerging in our Nation’s 

schools, programs, workplaces and policies, but we need to accelerate this paradigm 

shift to effect sustainable change and to ensure that individuals with disabilities are 

fully included in all parts of society. 

At Merck our philosophy about employees who have disabilities is that they likely 

have strengths that offset and are linked to their limitations. It is also likely that 

their limitations provide new perspectives that support innovative thinking. We believe that living life with some limits can hone skills and values that can enrich 

the contributions employees can make. The inclusion of people with disabilities in 

our workforce sets a tone, particularly in a health care company, which improves 

the work environment for all. It demonstrates a core principle, that better health 

care outcomes are achieved when consumers are empowered decisionmakers that 

make informed choices due to heightened health literacy and confidence. Diversity 

is our Nation’s strength and competitive advantage in the global economy. We literally represent the world in one country, and if we could more consistently harness 

the available knowledge and insight of diversity of thought and experience through 

inclusive practices, we would be able to develop and deliver more innovative solutions faster than any other nation. 

EDUCATIONAL CHALLENGES

Schools are the source of our workforce, but as early as middle school we are 

starting to lose talent in our country. Unfortunately for students with disabilities 

there is all too often a crisis of low expectations. While access to public education 

is better today than in the past, often children with disabilities (mine included) are 

‘‘tracked’’ away from college. While today’s Individual Education Plans (IEPs) help, 

it is important that they be set up to enable students to attain the same academic 

standards as their peers, not just to pass standardized testing. An IEP needs to be 

viewed as an environmental enabler in our education system, much like a job accommodation in a company. The IEP should promote access to rigorous curricula 

that will enhance the opportunities for students with disabilities. It is important 

that we have the same standards for young people with disabilities. The tools available to access challenging curricula, including modified instructional techniques, assistive technology and accessibility as resources, will allow students with disabilities 

to achieve outstanding educational goals. This is consistent with the Elementary 

and Secondary Education Act expectations that are set forth, and we should be holding schools accountable for the rigorous academic achievement of students with disabilities. 

One great program that is currently underway and is similar to the U.S. Department of Education TRIO programs is the Rutgers Future Scholars Program (RFSP). 

This intervention at grade seven identifies disadvantaged youth, including young 

people with disabilities, and offers them a variety of invaluable resources including: 
34 

• The program focuses on building the Scholar’s social capital through collective 

efficacy. The RFSP is unique in that it creates a pipeline of support from 7th grade 

through college graduation (9-year continuum of support) providing academic year 

tutoring, mentoring, cultural and career-readiness activities, and summer learning 

cost free. Every year 200 Scholars are selected, and as of 2011 the program serves 

800 students from across New Jersey. Lastly, which makes this program extraordinary, every Scholar is promised a tuition scholarship to study at Rutgers if they 

earn admission upon graduating from high school. • Staff who work directly in the schools to obtain additional information about selected students, such as their Individual Education Plans. This informs the accommodations that are provided for the students while they are in the program and enables RFSP staff to maximize each scholar’s multifaceted growth. All accommodations are defined and progress is tracked through the creation of an Academic Success Plan or Victory Plan. This is a key tool, enabling RFSP to provide optimal 

learning and accessible environments based on the students’ strengths and challenges. As part of this planning school partners, parents, and the Scholar him or 

herself are included in the development of the plan. • The program’s goal is to provide a wide variety of promising students who are 

underrepresented in higher education with the support needed to graduate from 

both high school and college. Thus, the program focuses on the many dimensions 

of differences of the scholars and provides support so the scholars can maintain a 

focus on inclusion as well as fostering educational equity. 

Public-private partnerships like the Rutgers Future Scholars and the U.S. Department of Education’s TRIO programs demonstrate that this model of early support 

can have tremendous impact on students with disabilities when they are included 

in the target population. 

Once a student graduates from high school and begins their college experience, 

a new set of challenges emerges. While there is frequently some form of disabled 

student services on campus, designed to gain access to accommodations and various 

types of academic support, student career planning and placement centers are less 

accessible. Those career planning and placement centers often direct students with 

disabilities who are seeking employment advice back to the disabled student services offices. Disabled Student Services office staff, while often very qualified to provide accommodation for students while they are on campus, often know very little 

about the career planning and placement process and the labor markets in which 

students with disabilities might be interested. This leaves students with disabilities 

without the type of job placement resources that non-disabled students receive. 

But there is a solution: Career Opportunities for Students with Disabilities 

(COSD). In its 12th year, COSD is a network of over 1,200 colleges, universities and 

national employers in the private and public sectors. They raise awareness regarding the unique challenges that students with disabilities face and help with career 

placement. They also encourage employers to specifically request access to students 

with disabilities during campus recruiting activities, and inquire whether or not the 

school coordinates their disability support services and career placement programs. 

The employers’ advocacy, combined with information from COSD, leads more 

schools each year to adopt an integrated approach to supporting students with disabilities as they begin their job searches. 

Every year, contemporary information, resources and training are disseminated 

by COSD via conferences, summits and webinars to professionals in both higher 

education and employers. The goal is to enhance awareness of career development 

strategies and to foster best recruiting practices of college students and recent graduates with disabilities, including veterans. COSD Career Gateway provides direct 

service to college students through a nationwide, online, no-charge job posting and 

student resume ́ database specifically designed for college students and recent graduates with disabilities. Finally, COSD coordinates ‘‘Student Summits,’’ regional networking events that bring together up to 60 college students, veterans and recent 

graduates with disabilities with employers in an intimate and relaxed setting to network and get to know one another. The purpose is to help students become more 

confident and be able to more positively present themselves to employers. These 

summits also allow hiring managers to become more comfortable interviewing students with disabilities in a no pressure setting. 

Other supports are needed to further the COSD model. For example, grant funding is needed to establish Communities of Practice with higher education institutions to identify the best method for each campus to outreach to students with disabilities for career development activities and to benchmark methods of collaboration between student disability services and career planning and placement. In 

2010, a demonstration project, funded through the Medicaid Infrastructure Grant, 

was conducted with nine higher education institutions in New York State. The re-
35 

sult was each campus identified their own unique model programs integrating disability support service and career placement services. These models were shared 

among the nine IHEs. A more extensive communities of practice model using this 

approach could be very helpful if it were replicated across the country. 

In addition, research is needed to specifically identify the barriers that prevent 

college graduates with disabilities from making a direct transition to work. This research should be conducted by disability categories to allow a more targeted plan 

to help students with specific types of disabilities that have a significantly more difficult time in finding career employment. This includes students with psychiatric 

disabilities, intellectual disabilities, autism and sensory disabilities (blindness and 

deafness). As you can see, COSD is a great model for accessing college students with 

disabilities, but for companies of all sizes to access candidates at all career levels, 

additional partnerships are needed. 

EMPLOYMENT CHALLENGES

At Merck we collaborate with and support the US Business Leadership Network® 

(USBLN®) where I am proud to serve as a board member. It is a national disability 

organization that serves as the collective voice of over 60 Business Leadership Network affiliates across North America, representing over 5,000 employers. The 

USBLN® helps build workplaces, marketplaces, and supply chains where people 

with disabilities are respected for their talents, while supporting the development 

and expansion of its local BLN affiliates. 

The membership of the USBLN believes that the following public policy changes 

would expand the pool of job candidates and entrepreneurs with disabilities: 

• establish appropriate affirmative action expectations for people with disabilities 

as with other under-represented groups. We also suggest there be an expansion of 

the census survey to include questions that help bridge the gap between occupational information and demographics inclusive of people with disabilities and veterans. For those that are unemployed, we could leverage the educational attainment 

tables to set more aggressive hiring goals. In the interim, it may be worth establishing a percentage hiring goal for a location as the available pool of talent with 

disabilities varies across the country due to practical matters like access to public 

transportation and other forms of infrastructure that are required. 

• evaluate the impact of developing a standardized definition of disability across 

all Federal programs. The USBLN believes that Federal agencies need to have better alignment about when it is appropriate to ask about a disability and necessary 

accommodations and supports; in addition, companies need to make the self-disclosure process for employees with disabilities something that is both easy to do (separate from requests for workplace accommodations) and as risk-free as possible. 

• evaluate the impact of modernizing the Social Security definition of disability 

by defining disability in a manner that acknowledges the interaction between the 

person’s disability and the environment, and does not require the individual to 

prove their inability to engage in substantial gainful activity. 

• create employer incentives to increase the availability of effective workforce retention policies and programs to keep working adults with newly diagnosed or recently exacerbated medical conditions. 

• develop financial incentives for businesses to provide transportation subsidies 

for employees with disabilities. 

• promote international accessible design standards for building environments, 

transportation vehicles, and information and electronic technology. 

• create incentives for the parent and academic communities to promote STEM 

careers for students with disabilities. 

• authorize research to collect hard data about the discretionary spending power 

of people with disabilities, the actual and potential employment pool of persons with 

disabilities, the disability market share, and the long-term ability of people with disabilities to retain employment. 

• authorize a comprehensive review of statutory and regulatory authorities addressing procurement and acquisition of Federal contracts and develop proposals for 

revisions, as necessary, to insure increased utilization by, and awarding of contracts 

to, disability-owned business enterprises. 

The USBLN’s flagship program is the Disability Supplier Diversity Program 

(DSDP). DSDP is the Nation’s first and only third party certification program for 

disability-owned businesses and includes service-disabled veterans. The certification 

is a rigorous process that includes a site visit. It offers the Disability Owned Business Enterprise the opportunity to market its certification and to connect with 

USBLN member companies. The program advances economic opportunities for all 

entrepreneurs with disabilities, by working with America’s top corporations to 
36 

broaden corporate supplier diversity programs to include disability-owned businesses. The ultimate goal of the Disability Supplier Diversity Program is to develop 

and grow an infrastructure that will foster a mutually beneficial relationship between corporate purchasers and disability-owned businesses. 

The business community needs research to effectively build the business case to 

broaden corporate supplier diversity to include disability-owned businesses. The research should: 

• identify the pool of entrepreneurs/potential suppliers with disabilities; 

• identify barriers and facilitators experienced by disability suppliers; 

• examine issues of capacity development, job creation, effective relationships 

with corporations, and inform more targeted capacity/business development for disability-owned businesses; and 

• identify facilitators and barriers to becoming a successful supplier and coming 

to scale as a business, and working effectively with corporations. 

Once a company has successfully recruited people with disabilities, the next step 

is to ensure full inclusion in their workforce and workplace. At Merck we have a 

‘‘Workplace Enablement’’ program that provides supportive, productive and flexible work environment solutions for employees with both non-apparent and visible 

disabilities. This not only ensures we are fully compliant with regulations, but positively impacts return to work after a health event, and enhances productivity for 

employees, their managers and peers who can quickly access appropriate accommodations solutions. 

There are four key pillars in the program: 

• Inclusion messages that ensure the program is well understood and easily 

accessed by employees, managers, and the human resources community. 

• Linkages to our broader health and wellness initiatives to ensure all employees 

are proactively engaged in our fit and healthy efforts. 

• Ensuring full compliance with ADAAA and OFCCP guidance and associated 

documentation requirements. 

• Training for managers to support confidence and capability by addressing any 

concerns around language choices, accommodations, and performance management; 

linking these efforts to the broader talent objectives (e.g. retaining top talent after 

the advent of a health challenge), the business case for disability inclusiveness, an 

overview of the ADA Amendment, and some case scenarios to ‘‘make it real.’’ 

At Merck we also have evaluated other aspects of company life to ensure full inclusion of people with disabilities: 

• We have created guidelines and checklists for ensuring meetings are accessible 

and that accommodations are readily available for travel, hotel requests, accommodations for presenters with a disability, and dietary needs. 

• We have evaluated and addressed various access issues to Merck facilities for 

both guests and employees to make sure our environment is safe and welcoming. 

• We ensure that development opportunities, both virtual and classroom, are accessible. 

• We routinely included closed-captioning during major business meetings and 

make this service or sign language interpreters available to colleagues upon request 

for smaller meetings. 

• We offer a variety of work/life tools and resources, including ready access to 

flexible work arrangements, and a variety of home health support through an external partner. 

• We include entrepreneurs with disabilities in our supplier partner programs. 

• Merck has partnered with eSSENTIAL Accessibility, a provider of a softwarebased service, to make online environments fully accessible to individuals with physical disabilities. 

Our desired outcome at Merck is that candidates and colleagues who have a disability believe that ‘‘Merck is always there for me. They know that I am not defined 

by a disability, but by the contributions I am able to make to my team’s goals.’’ 

Finally we have a very active Employee Resource Group for colleagues with disabilities, caregivers and allies. The members of this team have helped us to develop 

our approach, as outlined above, in keeping with the social model of disability. The 

Employee Resource Group has played a key role in executing our disability support 

and diversity programs. We truly believe that our efforts to fully include people with 

disabilities in our workforce will help Merck to achieve our mission: to become the 

most trusted and valued healthcare company to all people. 
37 

FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS

Prior to joining Merck in 2001, I interviewed with many Fortune 250 companies, 

most of them on the East Coast. I was surprised and dismayed that despite my 

strong resume ́ and 10 years of experience as a successful and well-regarded diversity leader, I was repeatedly rejected as a candidate and was explicitly told it was 

because of my disability. In one particularly memorable situation, after several 

phone interviews, I was flown to New York City for an interview. Upon meeting me 

the recruiter cancelled all my other interviews. He explained that the firm was not 

comfortable considering someone like me for the role. However, given my subject 

matter expertise they wondered if I would be open to working ‘‘behind the scenes’’ 

if they hired someone with strong media and government contacts who did not have 

diversity experience. Obviously, I declined the offer. 

I am interested in contributing to society, and fortunately when I interviewed at 

Merck, I found the perfect match. At Merck I feel I am truly part of our mission 

to enhance and save lives by addressing unmet medical needs. I believe I can have 

particular impact in under-served communities. When I interviewed at Merck, their 

chief concern was whether or not I was willing to relocate from California to New 

Jersey, a move I have learned is not all that common in our country. Now having 

served as a chief diversity officer for 20 years, I would offer the following parting 

thoughts regarding full inclusion strategies for people with disabilities: 

Recommendation #1: Like many who identify as a person with disability from 

a young age, I was told that I was ‘‘special.’’ Everything I was involved with was 

‘‘special.’’ This included the special school I attended for the first few years, the reason why the local newspaper featured me regularly in the Sunday living section, the 

wheelchair I used after a broken bone or surgery, the place where I received 

healthcare, and the various adapted activities I engaged in—all were ‘‘special.’’ Fifty 

years later, we still commonly use ‘‘special’’ to describe the ways our society thinks 

about people with disabilities and the associated products, services, and activities 

we use. The intent was and is to depict these things in a positive light. The reality 

is that if you are special enough to be periodically featured in the Living or Community section of your newspaper, whatever health condition you are managing is the 

least of your worries. You have now entered a world where people are either characterized by society as ‘‘poor souls’’ who are dependent on others, or ‘‘inspirational heroes’’ who make those who don’t have a disability shake off their worries and say, 

‘‘If they can do X, (fill in the blank activity), why then I should stop feeling sorry 

for myself and do more with my life!’’ 

Recommendation: Avoid the word special when referring to programs, services, 

building, and other supports related to disability. We have done a good job of 

eradicating ‘‘handicapped,’’ ‘‘crippled,’’ ‘‘confined,’’ ‘‘afflicted,’’ and various other 

damaging words to describe people with disabilities. Let’s go the distance and 

work on this last word that damages self esteem and sets people apart. For 

firms that have a global footprint, they may want to consider adopting ‘‘differently able’’ or other country-specific language which translates better than 

‘‘disability.’’ Unfortunately ‘‘disability’’ in some languages translates as not valued or less valued. It is also important to take the time to ask and seek to understand how each sub-community of people with disabilities prefers to be referred. For instance those with hearing impairments prefer to be referred to as 

‘‘deaf,’’ individuals who are of small stature, like my husband and I prefer 

‘‘short-statured’’ over ‘‘midget,’’ and people with intellectual disabilities prefer 

‘‘developmental disabilities’’ vs. ‘‘mental retardation.’’ Words matter. 

Recommendation #2: Managers of people with disabilities sometimes assume 

that everything is fine because the person with a disability who works for them is 

not complaining, even if they have remained in an entry level role for an extended 

period and are not interacting with people outside of their immediate work area. 

These employees are highly vulnerable to reductions in the workforce as their skills 

often become dated and they are typically not visible to more senior leadership 

when business decisions are made about layoffs and workforce reductions. 

Recommendation: Make sure programs for individuals with disabilities continue 

to enhance their job skill development after the person is hired. Ensure managers continue to follow the progress of people with disabilities once they join 

the firm to ensure they are reaching their full potential to contribute to the 

business. If people with disabilities are languishing in entry level roles, find out 

why, even if they are not complaining, and support them to grow and develop. 

If a firm has low expectations, of anyone, those employees will likely live up 

to those low expectations. 
38 

Recommendation #3: Caregivers should be considered. My husband Dan and I 

both have disabilities ourselves, and are also caring for three children with disabilities. We also care for my mother who is challenged by various conditions. We are 

just as grateful for the resources and supports that we have access to as caregivers 

as for the workplace accommodations I have had available to me over the years. A 

company’s reward for addressing the needs of caregivers as part of their corporation’s disability strategy is more engaged employees who are getting the support 

they need to care for a loved one so they can focus at work. Examples of resources 

we provide along those lines at Merck include elder care resource and referral, college planning resources for parents of children with autism spectrum disorders, a 

robust Employee Assistance Program, back-up child care, flexible work arrangements and various internal networks for caregivers to exchange ideas and resources. 

There are some risks to focusing on the care-giving population as part of an overall approach to addressing disability at work. The ‘‘out’’ caregiver population is usually much larger than people who are willing to self-identify as having a disability. 

As a result the needs of this group can over-shadow the needs of the individuals 

who are differently able, and they do tend to be different. Caregivers are often focused on how to help their loved one get the quality health care and educationrelated support they need. People with disabilities are focused on career development, accommodations in the work environment, inclusion in company social activities, and social justice/equality issues like other under-represented populations in 

your workforce. 

Recommendation: Combine the two groups to create a critical mass for disability 

initiatives. Because there are some common interests, this can help programs 

be sustainable and help companies identify and train workplace ‘‘allies’’ who 

will create momentum. Separate and clearly articulate the needs and priorities 

of the two groups making sure that both are experiencing visible and substantive progress towards their most pressing concerns. 

Recommendation #4: Companies should foster an environment where people are 

comfortable with their disabilities. Then they are able to more freely ask for what 

they need to be fully productive, engaged, and included. It is useful to look to the 

lessons learned from the work those of us in the field of diversity and inclusion have 

done in the Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) community, which faces 

many similar challenges around being out at work: 

• Ensure benefits plans and flexibility policies are equitable and accessible (e.g. 

eliminate pre-existing condition clauses in medical plans, provide coverage for mental health support, manage employees by objectives vs. face time). • Engage allies in the workplace, and provide them with the language and tools 

of empowerment like ‘‘differently able’’ and ‘‘wheelchair user.’’ It was a big deal for 

the LGBT community when company leaders could say those four words in the acronym. We need to do the same for those who have been traditionally known as 

‘‘handicapped.’’ Refer to this group in a manner that is empowering and deserving 

of respect as colleagues and consumers vs. in the context of philanthropy. Create 

‘‘safe space’’ efforts where allies are available as visible confidantes to interrupt misinformation and champion full inclusion. • Make sure your business case is strong and well-articulated for this population, 

which is well-represented both in the labor pool and marketplace. LGBT and disability populations are very similar in size and buying power. • Ensure that senior level leaders who have a disability are visible as role models 

and have them address head-on the perceived risks around being out and the importance of bringing all of who you are to work. • Invite other Employee Resource Groups to support disability efforts. Since all 

other groups include people with disabilities there is a strong case to be made for 

everyone getting involved in the efforts for this constituency. Remind your ERG 

members that cultural differences can lead to additional challenges for people who 

have a disability, and if we are to address the needs of this population, as we have 

done with LGBT, we need to be courageous enough to say out loud how these cultural norms compound the challenges people with disabilities face. 

Recommendation: Apply best practices and lessons learned from LGBT advocacy 

work in addressing needs of employees who are differently able. 

Recommendation #5: With the current conflicts in the Middle East and the 

many service men and women who are returning with both hidden and visible disabilities, there is a new call to action we must meet. The military is looking for corporate partners to help them in supporting veterans who are transitioning back to 

civilian life. Now more than ever it is important that we invest time and effort in 

understanding the transferrable skills that these men and women learned during 

their service and how they might be applied in our industries. We also need to edu-
39 

cate ourselves in the various hidden disabilities that are all-too-prevalent in this 

population including post-traumatic stress disorder, traumatic brain injuries, and 

various other chronic health conditions that are the result of the extreme and dangerous duty they lived through. 

Recommendation: Develop partnerships with military leadership to understand 

and transition returning veterans. At Merck we have formed a Veteran’s leadership network that is made up of about 500 men and women from all branches 

of the military who have informed our outreach, recruitment, accommodation, 

and inclusion efforts in a manner that is respectful, sensitive, and credible. We 

are encouraged by the enthusiasm of our Merck veterans who are applying their 

can-do spirit to the challenges associated with matching returning veterans 

with our job opportunities. 

I feel very fortunate to have had several people in my work life who gave me the 

opportunity to demonstrate that I am differently able. Their names and faces are 

always with me. I know how important it is to evaluate a person with a disability 

to determine what they are capable of and what they have not yet demonstrated. 

We should all strive to be that person who sees what is possible. 

Since the Americans with Disabilities Act was signed into law 20 years ago many 

things have changed, but I think we can all agree that we have not yet achieved 

the vision of economic empowerment and meaningful employment for people with 

disabilities that we all dreamed of that day on the South Lawn of the White House. 

As we near this milestone anniversary let’s celebrate the laudable successes, and 

redouble our efforts to address unemployment and under-employment of people with 

disabilities. 

In closing, as parents, my husband and I know we can continue to be strong advocates for our children in partnership with the schools they attend to make sure they 

are fully prepared to compete for jobs in our country. But if they are to fully contribute to this Nation as Americans with disabilities, we will need your help. 

I will not be the chief diversity officer for the company they go to work for some 

day, and I am counting on the leadership of our country to make sure that public 

policy and legislative efforts are in place that not only help the United States to 

be more competitive in the global marketplace, but also ensure my children are not 

stigmatized, marginalized or excluded from contributing to their full potential. 

I am at your service if I can help in any way. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much for your testimony and for 

being here. And now we’ll go to Ms. Wallrich. 

Welcome. Please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF AMELIA WALLRICH, LAW STUDENT, 

NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY, FRANKFORT, IL 

Ms. WALLRICH. Thanks. Good morning, Senator Harkin, Senator 

Enzi, and Senator Casey. Thank you very much for the opportunity 

today. It’s an incredible honor not many people of my age have the 

chance to take part in. 

I’m also particularly indebted to this committee. I grew up in the 

generation that had the benefits of the Americans with Disabilities 

Act and the IDEA, and many of the opportunities and my successes 

come from the protections of this law. So I thank the committee 

and, in particular, Senator Harkin, for your tireless leadership in 

continually pushing our community forward and making sure we 

have continual access. 

I’m also incredibly indebted to my fellow witnesses who served 

as role models and definitely pushed these laws forward so that future generations would have so many more opportunities. And 

we’re doing our best to make the most of them. 

As you’ve read in my testimony, I grew up with a rare genetic 

bone disorder that causes limitation in the joints. So my hands and 

feet are basically frozen in their positions, and my knees, elbows, 

and shoulders have limited movement. I’m able to walk and stand 

for short periods of time, but mostly I use a motorized scooter to 
40 

get around. I use other accommodations in school and the workplace when I have to do a lot of writing or typing, and at home I 

use devices for putting on my shoes, turning on lights, so that I can 

live independently. 

One of the unique perspectives I guess I can add is that I am 

the ADA generation. ADA is 21 this year. I’m 22. So I had so many 

of the opportunities because of this act. I did not have to fight to 

have access to school, which was very fortunate, because I love 

school. But I did, as you said, need a lot of parental advocacy to 

make sure that I was continually part of the learning environment. 

I am very fortunate that I have a very assertive mother who continually pushed and advocated on my behalf with school officials, 

making sure that I wasn’t placed into a special ed classroom, that 

I had access to advanced courses, that I had access to aids that 

helped teach me self-advocacy skills so that I did not have to rely 

on an adult or a school official to tell teachers about my needs. I 

could talk to them myself, and that was hugely instrumental in not 

only my transition to secondary education, but to higher education, 

and now on to law school. 

But also in the workforce, when I get a job, I’m not going to bring 

my mother with me to my interview to sit next to me and tell them 

about me and my disability. I’m going to be there on my own, saying, 

‘‘Yes, I can do a fantastic job, but I need a little help. Maybe 

you can not put me in the office at the top of four flights of 

stairs, and you could have a nice, strong intern carrying the 

heavy boxes.’’ 

These were very, very key, and a lot of students with disabilities—I wish sometimes I could clone my mother. Maybe I’d like to 

add a little caveat to that. I’m definitely not showing her this testimony so she doesn’t hear that. 

But she was great in the sense that she never wanted me to be 

dependent. She wanted to stay out of my way so that I could do 

what I wanted. But she was very aware that she needed to teach 

me how to speak for myself so I could go out into the world. And 

I think that self-advocacy training is still a big part of the job transition and the school transition that is overlooked. 

It is great that we have all these resources. But we need to learn 

how to get those resources on our own. And that’s where I had the 

huge benefit, not only in school but also in structured internship 

programs, to be able to have role models with disabilities that said, 

‘‘Well, this is how it works in the workforce; this is how you can 

present your disability so your employer will understand,’’ and having resources to kind of bounce ideas off of or places to go when 

I have questions on how to further my career and how to resolve 

issues with disabilities. 

The last thing I want to say is, as you’re considering legislation, 

you should keep youth with disabilities at the forefront. As the 

ADA generation, we grew up with the expectation that we would 

have high successes, and we really expect those to be met in the 

laws that you guys are making. And as you’re considering broad 

education and employment legislation, youth with disabilities 

should be included with those, not an afterthought. We should be 

at the forefront, because we matter as well. And we’re more than 
41 

capable of being strong and hard workers to contribute to our economy and our society. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Wallrich follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF AMELIA WALLRICH

First, I would like to thank Chairman Harkin, Ranking Member Enzi, and the 

other committee members for the opportunity to speak today. As a young person 

with a disability, just beginning my career, it is an incredible honor to be able to 

share with you a little about my employment and educational experiences and my 

hopes for the future. 

My name is Amelia Wallrich, I am 22 years old, and am from Frankfort, IL, a 

small suburb of Chicago. I was born with a rare genetic bone disorder, called Torg 

Syndrome. I am one of a handful of people in the world with this disorder, and doctors are still researching its root causes, treatments, and the way the disorder progresses. The disease works by causing inflammation in the joints, when a joint becomes inflamed I experience extreme pain and a loss of full movement in those 

joints. The inflammation has resulted in weakened bones and limited movement in 

almost every joint. My hands and feet are basically frozen in their positions, and 

my knees, elbows, and shoulders are limited in their movements. I was 13 months 

old at the disease’s onset, and it has steadily progressed, affecting more joints, as 

I aged. Because the disorder is so rare, treatment is more of an art than a science, 

and doctors are unsure how the disorder will progress and affect me in the future. 

Doctors have tried to slow its progression with intensive physical therapy, various 

drug therapies, and most recently surgery. 

In my day-to-day life, my disability affects how I move. I am able to walk and 

stand for short periods of time, but mostly I use a motorized scooter. I have difficulty with tasks requiring fine motor skills, for example I write and type more 

slowly than the average person. Therefore, in the academic setting I use extended 

time on tests and note taking services. At home, I use devices for putting on my 

shoes, opening jars, even turning on lights. Additionally, I struggle with unexpected 

‘‘flare ups,’’ where any type of movement becomes too painful, and I require assistance with basic tasks. 

My goal through this testimony is to share my experiences in preparing for the 

workforce. In doing so, I hope to highlight some of the obstacles facing young people 

with disabilities seeking employment and some ways these obstacles can be eliminated or minimized. As you will see, I benefited greatly from mentorships, self-advocacy and leadership training, structured internships, and an inclusive educational 

environment that understood as a young person with a disability I required a customized approach to integrate into the workforce. 

EXPECTATIONS

As young people, we often rise to the expectations society sets for us, whether 

positive or negative. At a basic level, society needs to learn to have higher expectations for youth with disabilities. Youth with all types of disabilities should be expected to be successful in school, to be permanently employed, and to be active, contributing members of their communities. Higher expectations are a basic foundation 

for any other supports for people with disabilities. To meet these expectations, youth 

with disabilities need the same access to opportunities to grow and develop as any 

young person, but customized to their specific abilities. The path to permanent employment for people with disabilities should include: 

• customized support in job seeking and career preparation services; 

• self-advocacy training that teaches youth how to manage and accommodate 

their specific disability in the workplace; 

• leadership training to compliment self-advocacy skills; 

• opportunities to gain work-related experience through internships and community service activities that allow youth with disabilities to explore their talents and 

gain new skills in a supportive environment; and 

• access to an inclusive education that teaches youth with disabilities skills that 

are marketable in the workforce. 

Every person with a disability will have different strengths, different needs, and 

access to different resources, but the important thing is that every person with a 

disability is capable of being a contributing and valued member of the community. 

Society and employers should be flexible in bringing out the many talents of youth 

with disabilities and in making accommodations. 
42 

A little bit more about my background, I graduated from Lincoln-Way East High 

School in Frankfort, IL in 2007 in the top 3 percent of my class. I attended the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, where I majored in English and Political 

Science, graduating in December 2010 cum laude. In August, I will begin law school 

at Northwestern University. Eventually, I plan to become a lawyer working in disability rights advocacy. I have an older sister who lives and works in Switzerland 

as a stock trader and analyst. My mother works as a Community Development Director in local government and my stepfather is an instructional designer for food 

safety training. I benefited greatly from my parents hard work, both are highly educated and work to offer their children every possible advantage in life. From the 

time I began preschool, my mother constantly battled to ensure I had the same opportunities as everyone else and never let anyone use my disability as an excuse 

to hold me back. 

I wish I could say the experiences I will share with you are typical for youth with 

disabilities, but too often they are the exception. In part, much of my relative success has been due to the expectations set by my parents that pushed me to seek 

out opportunities that would make me competitive in the workforce. It was never 

a question that I would graduate college, attend law school, get a job, and eventually provide for my own family. My parents’ expectations were the same for my sister and I; my disability did not diminish these expectations, it just changed the way 

I went about achieving my goals. My family’s expectations helped me form the expectations I have for myself. These expectations are the basis for all my goals and 

give me confidence in pursuing new opportunities. 

I experienced both high and low expectations from teachers during my educational 

career. Those with high expectations offered the most support in accommodating my 

disability and ensuring I was a full participant in the classroom. They were flexible 

and open to helping me make the most of my abilities. Teachers with low expectations were predictably less supportive. I had to work twice as hard in those classrooms to have the same basic access to learning, and often needed to continually 

educate these teachers about my disability and remind them of my accommodation 

needs. Often this resulted in my spending more time trying to accommodate my disability than learning. During college, I found much more consistent support because 

high expectations and equal access for students with disabilities is a large part of 

the campus culture and history at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. 

The disability services department works on behalf of the student to set up all accommodations, and students with disabilities are active in all aspects of campus 

life—from Student Senate, to Greek life, to adapted athletics. This type of culture 

meant I was able to focus fully on working towards my goals and had access to a 

variety of specialized resources to help me throughout my education and in seeking 

work experience for future employment. 

In the workplace, when employers had high expectations of me, I was given more 

responsibilities and thus more opportunities to learn new skills. When employers expected very little of me, it was a struggle to receive meaningful projects. With my 

first internship at Odelson & Sterk, a law firm in Evergreen Park, IL, my boss, Burt 

Odelson, expected me to attend law school and someday be a practicing attorney, 

so he gave me a variety of projects to introduce me to the work of a lawyer and 

to help develop my research and writing skills. 

ACCESS TO OPPORTUNITIES

In addition to high expectations, I received support in reaching my goals through 

opportunities to job shadow, perform internships, and hold part-time jobs. I was 

lucky that my mother worked outside the home in local government and was therefore able to provide me with a range of job shadowing opportunities and introductions. Beginning in junior high, I participated in job shadowing programs in the 

local government, where a group of students were able to observe the work of local 

leaders, ask them questions about their careers, and learn about the education and 

experience needed to attain these positions. Both of my parents also participated in 

‘‘Take Your Daughter to Work Days’’ throughout junior high and high school where 

I had the chance to observe a typical day in a professional setting. This allowed me 

to observe and understand more about workplace cultures, how meetings are conducted, how employees interact with each other and their bosses, and more basically 

what is expected of an employee on a day-to-day basis. 

These job-shadowing opportunities provided me with connections and confidence 

to find part-time jobs during high school to further develop my resume ́. My first job 

was as a receptionist in a local bank. Finding employment through family and community connections made it much easier for me to transition into the workforce because I did not have to figure out how to ‘‘break the ice’’ about my disability, my 
43 

boss already knew me and any accommodations I might need. This allowed me to 

worry less about managing my disability in the workplace and instead focus on 

learning professional skills. Through my job as a receptionist at the bank and later 

as a receptionist at a real estate agency, I learned how to interact professionally 

with customers on the phone and in person, communicate with my supervisors and 

coworkers in a professional setting, and a variety of other soft skills like using fax 

machines and copier machines, clerical work such as filing and typing, dressing professionally, and managing a work schedule. Having part-time jobs during high 

school was also important for building a competitive resume ́ for college admissions. 

Additionally, it provided me with references and helped me develop a professional 

reputation for seeking internships in the future. 

Having a job also taught me important independent living skills related to finances. When I started earning a paycheck, I opened a savings and checking account, and my parents taught me how to balance my checkbook, create a budget, 

and plan for future expenses. These basic skills started teaching me about responsibility and gave me a preview of adult life. 

The next step in my preparation for permanent employment was seeking an internship. Too many students with disabilities do not seek out internships because 

they do not have access to supports to show them how to disclose their disability 

in a work environment or how to seek accommodations. Additionally, if there are 

low expectations of a student with disability in an educational setting, it is unlikely 

a mentor will push a student with a disability to seek an internship, job shadowing 

opportunity, or part-time job to further develop their work-related experience. I received guidance from my parents, my University’s disability services department, 

and a structured internship program for people with disabilities on the importance 

of an internship and how to manage my disability in the workplace. 

As mentioned, at my first internship at Odelson & Sterk I was fortunate to have 

a boss who cared a lot about my success and was flexible as I learned how I would 

need to accommodate my disability in a professional setting. He continually checked 

in to see how I was navigating the office and introduced me to a wide range of jobs 

and experiences. He gave me meaningful work so I could gain a holistic view of a 

lawyer’s job. He pushed me to speak with the various attorneys’ in the office so I 

could hear many different perspectives and get advice from a variety of sources. 

Successfully completing an internship in my field of interest raised the expectations 

I had for myself and renewed my confidence in seeking permanent employment as 

a lawyer. More importantly, the internship taught me the practical skills needed to 

reach my career goals and showed me the steps I would need to take in working 

towards these goals. This internship experience was essential for developing a professional network that helped me build a stronger resume ́ and provided professional 

references that helped me seek even more competitive internships and eventually 

apply to law school. 

After my junior year of college, I participated in a structured internship program 

geared towards mentoring students with disabilities through the American Association of People with Disabilities (AAPD). This internship program provided training 

on self-advocacy in a professional setting. Through the program I was a congressional intern in Senator Durbin’s office. This internship was the first job I held 

without the assistance of family or community connections, which meant I was responsible for communicating information about my disability and any accommodations I would need. AAPD’s assistance was key in helping me navigate this new 

arena, they asked questions about my disability and necessary accommodations that 

helped me frame how I was going to communicate any issues with the Senator’s office. Furthermore, they know a lot about the work environment on Capitol Hill and 

were able to give me advice about where I should go for assistance for disabilityrelated concerns. AAPD also served as a resource for the Senator’s office on how to 

create an inclusive environment for an intern with a disability. 

Through job shadowing, part-time jobs, and internship experiences I gained more 

confidence in defining my career goals, but more importantly I learned skills to help 

me work towards these goals. I learned what is expected of an employee and how 

I can meet those expectations. I have steadily taken on more and more of the responsibilities of living independently as an adult as a result of these work experiences; and I have immense satisfaction in being a valued and contributing member 

of society. 

SUPPORTS

I was able to gain access to various educational and employment opportunities, 

and perform successfully in these settings, because of the support of mentors and 

accommodations. Through family connections I had access to various types of law-
44 

yers and a local judge whom I could seek advice from and ask career-related questions. These mentors provided guidance on what I should study during college, the 

importance of internships, and even on beneficial extracurricular activities. Through 

my internship with AAPD I gained access to mentors with disabilities, mentors active in the disability community, and peer-to-peer mentors. These mentors were able 

to offer me valuable perspectives on living successfully and independently with a 

disability. They further offered examples and strategies of how to request accommodations and even on specific accommodations that could make me more successful 

in the workplace. I continue to use these mentors as a resource in goal setting and 

working towards career goals. 

I need fewer accommodations in the work setting than in the classroom, in part 

because I have benefited from the support of flexible employers and mentors who 

worked with me to design projects that would allow me to use my talents and abilities. Some of the basic accommodations I have used are flexible work times/the ability to work from home, limiting work tasks that required heavy lifting, and a place 

to park my scooter when not in use. In the future, I may make use of more assistive 

technology, such as speak-to-write programs that would alleviate the need for long 

hours of typing. 

SELF-ADVOCACY AND LEADERSHIP TRAINING

Finally, self-advocacy and leadership training will further prepare youth with disabilities for permanent employment by teaching them how to communicate effectively about their disabilities and accommodation needs, while giving them confidence to find ways of using their talents and contributing to their community. Selfadvocacy takes a lot of practice and the continued support of people who understand 

a person’s specific disability and accommodation needs. During grade school and 

junior high my mother met with teachers and school officials on a regular basis to 

educate them about my disability and the accommodations I would need to have 

equal access to the classroom. She included me in these conversations and continually pushed me to advocate for myself, showing me how to communicate about my 

disability with teachers and which school officials to go to if I encountered problems. 

I also benefited from having the same disability resource aide/teacher from 3d grade 

through my graduation from high school, which helped with transitions between 

schools. Like my mother, she made self-advocacy a top priority, so by the time I 

reached high school I was able to communicate with my teachers and request disability accommodations on my own, only using her or school counselors when I met 

resistance. In college and in the workplace, therefore, I was more comfortable communicating independently about my disability and my accommodation needs because I had experience doing so in high school, and I knew where to look if I had 

questions about ways I could be a better self-advocate. 

Moreover, the leadership training I received from community service and extracurricular activities reinforced my advocacy skills. I tried a variety of activities during high school, but focused most of my energy towards Student Council, Speech 

Team, and Key Club (a community service organization). I learned to work with my 

fellow students to make improvements to the school and compete in tournaments; 

my involvement in Student Council led to leadership positions on the executive 

board and eventually president. In college, I was largely involved in Student Senate 

and an international student organization called AIESEC, where I was a member 

of the executive board and the head of two committees. My experiences in high 

school and college taught me how to work in a collaborative environment, how to 

conduct efficient meetings, and even how to speak in front of large groups. These 

skills taught me leadership qualities to be a better self-advocate, and also provided 

me with marketable skills when I sought internships and other employment opportunities. I was able to be a fully participating member of all of these activities because there was a basic respect for my disability, and a willingness to make necessary adjustments to allow me to participate. 

CONCLUSION

As you can see I benefited greatly from a variety of resources as I worked towards 

my career goals. The biggest resource was my parents’ expectation of my success, 

which pushed me to work hard and seek out opportunities where I could use my 

talents. Their expectations and support helped me make use of employment, educational, and leadership opportunities. While my experiences are limited to my specific physical disability, the lessons apply to the entire disability community. People 

with all types of disabilities—intellectual, learning, sensory, physical, and mental 

health—can be permanently employed if there is a customized approach to their development and a basic willingness to support the growth of their talents and abili-
45 

ties. These approaches need to include access to an inclusive educational environment, self-advocacy and leadership training, mentorships, and opportunities to gain 

work-related experiences and skills. 

As you address major employment and education legislation, I hope you will keep 

the specific needs of youth with disabilities at the forefront. My experience shows 

that youth with disabilities are more than willing to work hard if given the proper 

resources and support to succeed. There are resources out there for the disability 

community, but they need to expand so they work across systems and disability 

groups to reach more individuals. As it is, permanent employment for a person with 

any type of disability is still too often the exception rather than the norm because 

many in the disability community do not have access to the same resources I did. 

Access to a lot of these resources comes down to funding. Programs that contribute 

to the growth and development of youth with disabilities need adequate funding to 

ensure youth with disabilities have a good start to their lives and can become contributing members of society. The disability community has so much to offer as 

members of the workforce and members of society, but we need help breaking down 

barriers to our full participation. 

I would like to thank the committee again for the opportunity to share my experiences and speak on such an important topic; it has been a great honor. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, Ms. Wallrich, thank you very much for a 

very profound statement. I left a couple of things out in my introduction of you, that you were a December 2010 graduate cum laude 

with a 3.84 GPA, on the dean’s list five out of six semesters, university’s James Scholar Honor Program. That’s quite an accomplishment. 

Ms. WALLRICH. I didn’t sleep much during my undergraduate—— 

The CHAIRMAN. The most important thing, though, that I wanted 

to focus on was your senior thesis was entitled ‘‘Harry Potter and 

the War over Normal.’’ And I happen to be a big Harry Potter fan. 

I’ve read all the books. I’ve listened to Jim Dale’s tapes. I haven’t 

seen the latest movie yet. But— 

Ms. WALLRICH. Midnight tonight. 

The CHAIRMAN. Would you please get me your thesis so I can 

read it? 

Ms. WALLRICH. Definitely. I had a hard time getting it approved 

at first, because English majors sometimes like to be a little bit 

pretentious and only want you to talk about Jane Austin or 

Charles Dickens. But I feel like my thesis has been the most useful. I’ve had it brought up in every interview I’ve ever had, and it’s 

been a great avenue for explaining disability to people who have 

no familiarity with the disability world, because everybody has 

some familiarity with Harry Potter. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I haven’t read it, but just from the title of 

it, I have kind of a perception of what it’s about, having read all 

the books and being a big fan of Harry Potter’s. I’d like to read it. 

You’ll get that to me, right? 

Two things, Ms. Dagit. Let me get back here to your testimony. 

There was something here that I wanted to especially focus on. 

What you talked about: 

‘‘The medical model of disability is still prevalent in our 

country as evidenced by the manner in which Americans with 

disabilities are depicted through our language choices, media 

portrayals, fundraising activities, and program eligibility requirements. People with disabilities are routinely characterized 

as having some sort of deficiency and that their condition is inherently negative and needs to be ameliorated, and that the 
46 

agent of remedy is some type of health professional’s intervention.’’ 

You go on: 

‘‘Before individuals with disabilities are eligible for SSI or 

SSDI, they must declare they cannot work. This is the ultimate 

example of a deficit model approach and is bad policy if we 

want individuals with disabilities to be a part of the workforce.’’ 

Could you develop that a little bit more, because I think you’re 

onto something there, and it’s a mindset that we’ve tried to change 

through education. And you talk about people that—when you 

came to work, and they saw you, they said—well, maybe you didn’t 

fit in or something like that. I’ve seen that so many times. 

But those of us who have been here a long time—when we started with IDEA—and I remember when my daughters were young 

and in school, and the first child that came into class with a disability—I just remember that so well. And I remembered as they 

went through school, the good thing about it was not just for the 

kids with disabilities to be mainstreamed, but the kids without disabilities to be able to associate and to grow up together, to play together, to associate, so that when they entered the workforce, it 

was not a big deal to be working next to someone with a disability. 

Well, that’s back in the 1970s. And so we’ve come all this way. 

I’m just somewhat surprised, I guess, or dismayed—I don’t know 

what—to find that these attitudes are still out there, even though 

we’ve had pretty much full integration and mainstream kids with 

disabilities in our schools for all these years. 

Ms. DAGIT. Right. 

The CHAIRMAN. So how do we start overcoming this medical 

model? 

Ms. DAGIT. I think that’s a great question. And I think part of 

the challenge is that the decisionmakers for jobs are not in that 

generation. They’re not in Amelia’s generation, and they’re not 

often yet the business owners that are deciding who to hire. And 

so we need to work on attitudes with people who didn’t grow up 

with peers who had a disability. 

There was a public service announcement. I always forget the 

name of it. But there’s a woman rolling through a workplace, and 

she’s noting all the oddities and peculiarities about the people that 

work with her. And they don’t have a disability, but they like to 

play with the copier or they dress odd or something like that. I 

think public service announcements help. 

I can also tell you that we really need to encourage the media 

to do a better job of portraying people with disabilities. Unfortunately, for better or for worse, reality shows have helped a lot. My 

husband and I joke about the fact that there’s a reality TV show 

that’s been very popular for years called ‘‘Little People, Big World’’ 

that are two short-statured parents and their kids. And although 

we don’t look anything like them, we frequently get asked for their 

autograph. 

What it’s really helped with is that people exposed to individuals 

with disabilities in positive media portrayals that are not on the 

Sunday Living section and designed to make people cry and say, 
47 

‘‘There but for the grace of God go I’’ but instead are talking about 

some of the successes that have been noted by this panel and just 

talk about them as business owners and as regular, everyday people. I think the more exposure people get to seeing a person with 

a disability doing normal, everyday things will help a lot. 

For employers, I can tell you that what we also do, very briefly, 

is something called Just in Time Training. It was put together 

through Cornell University. It’s very inexpensive. It would be accessible, Senator Enzi, to the constituents in Wyoming, and it’s not 

at all expensive. And it has different modules, so it’s getting ready 

to interview. It’s accommodation. It’s using the proper language. So 

there are really great no-cost and low-cost resources out there that 

can help baby boomers who didn’t grow up with someone with a 

disability in their classroom get new knowledge and new language 

and feel more confident. 

The CHAIRMAN. As you know, we have the provision of reasonable accommodations. We’ve had a pretty good history of that— 

court cases and things like that—we have a good background on 

what is expected of employers for reasonable accommodations. Do 

you think that employers, by and large, understand that? And are 

they cognizant enough of what they need to do to provide those reasonable accommodations? Tell us about Merck. I mean, for example, what did Merck do? 

Ms. DAGIT. Well, we were looking at it through a variety of 

lenses. One, we wanted to make sure that when someone requested 

an accommodation for a disability, whether it was the individual 

themselves or their manager, that we responded very quickly and 

appropriately. And, as Kathy said, it’s a productivity tool. 

There’s a real financial enabler for this, for any business of any 

size. If you can help people be safer so they don’t end up becoming 

injured at work, if you can return people to work more quickly 

after the advent of a health condition, and if you can avoid having 

people go on public assistance, it saves a lot of money and allows 

valuable talent to stay in your workforce if they have a health 

event or challenge. 

At Merck, what we did is we simply put in a 1-800 number and 

advertised it very broadly and said, ‘‘If you have a question or a 

need about accommodation, here’s the number to call, and we guarantee you that we’ll respond in no more than 14 days.’’ In most 

cases, we could do it within 24 to 48 hours, because most of them 

are simple. But for things that take longer, like some of the requests I’ve needed to make with door openers, they’ve got to order 

it and install it. 

I think an employer of any size can do this. It’s pretty rare, if 

you go to the Job Accommodation Network and look at all the accommodations provided, for them doesn’t cost very much at all. 

And, often, they can be gotten from public agencies like the vocational rehab. 

The CHAIRMAN. I’ve gone way over my time. I have to yield to 

Senator Enzi. But on reasonable accommodations, about the door 

openers, we have found that in many cases, the reasonable accommodations provided for a person with a disability actually helps everybody. 

Ms. DAGIT. Right. 
48 

The CHAIRMAN. Not just the person with a disability. It helps 

productivity. It helps people move around better, have better accessibility, that type of thing. Has that been your experience? 

Ms. DAGIT. Excellent point. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thanks. 

Senator Enzi. 

Senator ENZI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And, Ms. Wallrich, I think you’re going to make a fantastic attorney. I don’t say that about many people. 

Ms. WALLRICH. Thanks. 

Senator ENZI. I always try to encourage them to go into accounting. 

Ms. WALLRICH. Oh, my sister’s the one good at math, not me. 

Senator ENZI. Oh. But both you and Ms. Dagit spoke about how 

the individual education plan, the IEP process, was particularly instrumental in your education experience, and that you valued the 

inherent inclusiveness of IEPs. Although IDEA authorization is 

further down the road, what recommendations can you provide relative to that IEP process for the committee to consider? And I’d ask 

that of Ms. Dagit, too. 

Ms. WALLRICH. Well, really, it’s more about a culture. I mean, 

IEPs—you have maybe an annual review, and you sit in the room 

with your teachers, the head of the special education department, 

and your physical therapist and your resource aid. And everybody 

talks about, ‘‘OK. What accommodations do you need next year? 

Did you have any problems this year? ’’ It’s a once-a-year thing, 

whereas a lot of people with disabilities—you’re going to encounter 

different issues every day. 

And, you know, for me, particularly, my disability can change unexpectedly. So I think the IEP is a good basis for starting a conversation on what is going to be needed in the classroom. But it 

also serves as a nice, formalized process to fall back on when you 

have teachers that are resistant or just not getting it, basically. 

I had great success at the University of Illinois, because they just 

have a fantastic disability resources department. It’s world renowned. It was started right after World War II when a lot of veterans were coming back with disabilities. And the whole culture 

there is preparing students for the next step. It’s not about just 

getting through day-to-day life, making sure that you have a note 

taker in class or that you have extended time on tests. It’s about, 

how are you going to use your classroom experience to go to the 

workforce. 

There needs to be a concentration on that transition, because 

that’s where a lot of people start to fall through the cracks—is because maybe you do really well in the classroom, and then you 

graduate high school and you don’t know what to do next. You 

don’t have that day-to-day place to go for a resource. 

At University of Illinois, you know, I’m still in touch with my disability services advisor. We’re friends on Facebook, and she asks 

how I’m doing, if I need help transitioning my accommodations to 

law school. And, you know, the services department there is so big, 

it has its own building. And she asks—she continually sends out 

job announcements and asks how I’m doing during a summer program—that I know I have that constant support, even if I am not 
49 

physically on campus. Or now that I’m an alumna, I know that 

they care about my development and my transition to the next 

step, so that I can start out the strongest possible at each step. 

It’s hard to catch up once you get in a place and there hasn’t 

been that attitude or culture of, OK, we’re going to work to bring 

out your abilities. We know we’re going to have to do that a little 

differently than perhaps we do with a student without a disability. 

I think there needs to definitely be a lot of focus on the transition, 

because that’s the place where you find a lot of setbacks. 

Ms. DAGIT. I would agree with everything that Amelia said and— 

so I’m speaking as a parent. But I would say that my concern with 

IEPs is twofold. One, it seems to be primarily aimed at students 

performing sufficiently well on standardized tests rather than getting them ready for competitive employment. And it also can be 

quite stigmatizing, depending on how it’s handled, because the students are actually tracked in some cases when they have an IEP 

and are not seen as college-bound. 

And so that’s a really huge problem, just that whole attitude of 

what an IEP is for. An IEP should be for people to reach their full 

potential and with the end result in mind that they are going to 

be able to fully participate. And that means that it should also include support to participate in socialization. When I was in school, 

I was student body president. I was in the Model United Nations. 

I competed in public speaking. And, like Amelia, I had a really 

strong mom. It was A’s or nothing. 

I liked the socialization aspect, because I spent a lot of time in 

the hospital, and when I got out of that kind of—what I thought 

of as incarceration and I got to go to school, I really loved to do 

the social aspects. And if I look back at what prepared me to work, 

it was public speaking skills. It was directing plays. It was understanding Model United Nations. I don’t see IEPs encouraging students to do that. 

I do think the Rutgers Future Scholars Program, which starts at 

seventh grade and is a whole person approach, is a great model, 

as well as to the point that Amelia made, Career Opportunities for 

Students with Disabilities, where the career placement office and 

the disabled student services partner to help the student get ready 

for employment. And that can be replicated on any campus of any 

size. 

Senator ENZI. I want to thank you both. I’ve used up all my time, 

too. But you’ve just been a wealth of information on this, and I 

hope that we can—as we get into the actual drafting of the legislation, we can count on both of you as a resource on that, too—phenomenal, phenomenal information. I do have a whole list of other 

questions, and I would submit some questions to you in writing, 

too. If you’d be so kind as to answer those, I’d appreciate it. 

Ms. DAGIT. Absolutely. 

Senator ENZI. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Enzi. 

Ms. Wallrich, can I just come back to you a second here? You 

talked a lot about in your written testimony—and you mentioned 

it also here, too, verbally—about expectations. You said here in 

your testimony, 
50 

‘‘As young people, we often rise to the expectations society 

sets for us, whether positive or negative. At a basic level, society needs to learn to have higher expectations for youth with 

disabilities.’’ 

And then you go on to talk about some other things here that 

would lead to that. 

Who was it that said something about IEPs—or the testing, because we’re involved in redrafting the ESEA right now—and this 

whole idea of testing but not preparing people for competitive employment. Who brought that up—who said that? 

Was that you, Ms. Dagit? 

Ms. DAGIT. Yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. Tell me more about that. What did you mean by 

that? 

Ms. DAGIT. The IEP—the way it’s measured in terms of whether 

or not it’s being successful is the proficiency on the standardized 

testing. They don’t have the IEP with a goal of, your child wants 

to do something in sports or wants to be an attorney. And, therefore, this is where we should emphasize in addition to the standardized tests. So if they wanted to be an attorney, for instance, you 

might want to make sure they’re in public speaking. It’s beginning 

with the end in mind, and the end not being their score on the test. 

The CHAIRMAN. College-ready, right? Excuse me. 

Ms. DAGIT. Does that make sense? I wish I could be even more 

clear about that. But you really hear it in terms of what their 

worry is and their concern that the way they’re being measured in 

the school is by the scores versus what the parents and the student 

themselves feel like the school is doing to prepare them for employment. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I think—one thing Senator Enzi and I have 

been working very hard on in working together on reauthorizing 

ESEA is to make the goal of it that every child that graduates from 

secondary school be career- and/or college-ready. Did I say that 

right? Career- and college-ready. 

And so I think you’re onto something there, that somehow we 

haven’t done that. And especially when it comes to IEPs, which you 

said before—sort of more of a limitation than it was as a kind of 

a pathway forward for high expectations. 

Ms. Wallrich, I really agree that somehow we’re not challenging 

young people with disabilities enough. 

I always call it about giving them a kick in the pants. 

Ms. WALLRICH. Exactly. You spoke about your mother. It was 

straight A’s or nothing. That was my household, too. And I can 

speak a little bit about my IEP, that when you go in there, they’re 

saying, ‘‘Well, do you want to go to community college?’’ And I’m 

sitting there thinking, ‘‘I’m top 3 percent of my class. I’m not going 

to community college. I have higher plans for that.’’ You know, I 

participated in student council as well and speech team. A lot of 

times, they’re like, ‘‘Well, why don’t you drop that, you know? You 

need time for physical therapy services.’’ And my thought and my 

mother’s thought—well, shouldn’t those services revolve around 

what I’m expecting to do in high school, not the other way around? 

And so there’s definitely—that IEP limits you to—well, this is 

the path that we think people with disabilities should go, not what 
51 

I want for my life and what I expect out of my future. And sometimes it would be a real struggle and very disheartening to be in 

those meetings and hear, ‘‘Well, this is what we think you should 

do.’’ And I’m lucky that I had a mother saying, ‘‘Well, that’s not 

what we’re doing.’’ 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I’m glad you had a mother like that and 

you had a mother like that. But what about kids that don’t have 

that kind of family support service? And there’s so many of them 

out there. What do we have—what needs to be in place for those 

kids that don’t come from that kind of a—maybe a well-structured 

family or a family that has some means or that are involved with 

their children? What about those kids? What about those kids that 

don’t have the kind of mothers and fathers like you had? What do 

we do for them? 

Ms. WALLRICH. I think you definitely touched on this, about 

being involved in student council. Being involved in your school is 

not being in class every day. Being involved in your school is being 

involved in sports or being involved in extracurricular activities. 

And I went to a very large high school, so there were a lot of options. 

But many times when I was in an activity, I was the first student with a disability who had ever been in that activity. So I 

needed to spend time educating those teacher advisors on my disability and how I would interact in community service activities. 

And, oftentimes, what I ended up choosing and the activities I 

ended up choosing were where the teacher advisors were also 

teachers I had in class, so that I didn’t have another barrier to full 

participation. 

I think there definitely—in the IEP, maybe that should be another section on the form or something that says, ‘‘How do we 

make this person part of the classroom or outside of the classroom 

as well? ’’ 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, anything else, Ms. Dagit, do you have anything to add before—— 

Ms. DAGIT. I was just going to say with all the social networking 

tools that are available out there, I think one of the things we 

could do, since especially teenagers starting in middle school are 

very interested—we could do outreach to students through those 

kinds of media and perhaps provide them with mentors, like many 

of the people in this room, in this hearing here today, who would 

be willing to be their remote mentors and coaches and cheerleaders. So that might be a possibility that would be an innovative 

solution. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, thank you very much. I want to thank you 

for being here today. And I also want to thank the attendees who 

are here with the National Council on Independent Living Conference. 

We’ll leave the record open for 10 days. I would just say that as 

we’ve heard from a number of witnesses, while there are many success stories in the area of employment for people with disabilities, 

we still have a way to go before our public policies consistently deliver the message that competitive employment is the expected outcome for young people and all citizens with disabilities. 
52 

I look forward to working with my friend and our Ranking Member, Senator Enzi, on a bipartisan basis to advance these goals and 

these efforts so that we can get that employment rate up for people 

with disabilities. 

Thank you all very much. And with that, the committee will 

stand adjourned. 

[Additional material follows.] 
53 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL 

THE CORPORATION FOR ENTERPRISE DEVELOPMENT (CFED), 

JULY 19, 2011. 

Hon. TOM HARKIN, Chairman, 

Hon. MIKE ENZI, Ranking Member, 

Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, 

428 Senate Dirksen Office Building, 

Washington, DC 20510. 

RE: Letter of Record: promote asset limit reform in the Supplemental Security Income program to enable employment for people with disabilities 

DEAR CHAIRMAN HARKIN AND RANKING MEMBER ENZI, The Corporation for Enterprise Development (CFED) thanks you for holding the July 14 hearing on employment for persons with disabilities. CFED is a national nonpartisan nonprofit organization dedicated to expanding economic opportunities for all Americans. CFED believes that Congress and the Administration should provide American households 

pathways to financial security and self-reliance through programs and policies, and 

the community of people with disabilities is no exception. 

We concur that the work participation rates among persons with disabilities is entirely too low and support policies that encourage people with disabilities to enter 

or remain in the workforce. However, we believe that Governor Tom Ridge, chairman of the National Organization on Disability, brought up a valid point during the 

hearing that is often overlooked: that we must address the disability benefit structure in America. 

Many people on disability desire working, paying taxes, and serving as full participants within their communities, but are discouraged by the asset limits of the 

public benefit programs that they often rely on, some entirely. This is particularly 

true in the case of the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program. 

The SSI program, administered by the Social Security Administration and providing cash-assistance to more than 8 million Americans, has asset limits that discourage its recipients to open a bank account, work and save because, with few exceptions, individuals cannot hold more than $2,000 in total assets and couples no 

more than $3,000. These limits have not been adjusted in more than two decades 

(since January 1, 1989). 

SSI asset limits: 

• Discourage many young people with disabilities from securing a first job, to 

gain experience which will likely lead to full-time work and employment with benefits; 

• Force many to stay unbanked and/or discourages participation in employersponsored retirement plans to remain eligible for SSI and Medicaid; and 

• Punish individuals with disabilities who are currently working who save for a 

future time when they may be unable to work. If their medical condition or disability worsens in the future, they cannot save now for a later time as they will be 

unable to work but no longer eligible for SSI. 

These asset limits leave SSI recipients vulnerable to predatory lenders and deeper 

poverty, and requires them to ultimately rely on greater government assistance. 

Given the high levels of asset-poverty (insufficient savings to cover 3–6 months of 

expenses without a steady income) within the disability community, CFED advocates and promotes policies that improve the financial stability of people with disabilities. 

CFED asks Congress to propose reforms in the SSI program to address this unfortunate but widespread and common issue for people with disabilities. We recommend the following reforms which are contained in the SSI Saver’s Act (H.R. 

2103): 

• Raise the asset limit test to $5,000/$7,500 for individuals/couples and 

index the limit to inflation: Allowing SSI recipients to have a slightly higher 

level of savings provides them with a buffer against one-time emergencies; without 

this modest buffer they are vulnerable to predatory lenders, deeper poverty, hunger, 

and potential homelessness, and will ultimately require greater government assistance. It would also encourage households receiving SSI to open savings accounts 

and participate in the financial mainstream. Indexing the limits preserves a modest 

level of personal savings. 

• Exclude retirement accounts, education savings accounts and savings 

bonds from the asset test: Exempting retirement accounts from the asset limit 

will allow SSI recipients the chance to accumulate modest savings and ultimately 
54 

be less dependent on government support for survival during retirement. Excluding 

special savings accounts such as 529s and Coverdell ESAs will allow recipients to 

save for their education, which will improve their earning potential over their lifetimes and thus their financial stability. Excluding savings bonds enables individuals 

with disabilities to receive gifts from families and personal investments in a safe 

and accessible vehicle now able to be purchased on tax forms. 

Thank you, Chairman Harkin and Ranking Member Enzi, for your commitment 

to increasing the workforce participation rates of people with disabilities. Please recognize that without changes in the asset limit test, people with disabilities will be 

hindered in their efforts to open a bank account, save for the future and pursue employment. 

Sincerely, 

CAROL E. WAYMAN, 

Director of Federal Policy, CFED. 

RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS OF SENATOR ENZI BY THE HON. KATHY MARTINEZ

Question 1. Senator Harkin has set forth a goal of increasing the number of persons with a disability participating in the labor force from 4.9 million to 6 million 

by 2015. How does the Department of Labor plan to do its share in increasing the 

number of employed persons with a disability? 

Answer 1. DOL’s Office of Disability Employment Policy (ODEP) provides national 

leadership on developing and influencing disability-related employment policy and 

practice affecting the employment of people with disabilities. It coordinates the Department’s efforts on disability employment by working with other DOL agencies 

such as the Civil Rights Center, Employment and Training Administration, the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, the Office of Workers Compensation 

Programs, the Veterans’ Employment and Training Service, the Wage and Hour Division, and the Women’s Bureau. To increase labor force participation among persons with disabilities, ODEP addresses three key factors that contribute to the 

under employment of people with disabilities: 

1. Low expectations and negative perceptions reflected in discriminatory policies 

and practices; 

2. Lack of access to training, employment, and transition services; and 

3. Scarcity of employment supports and accommodations. 

Although many of ODEP’s efforts are cross-disability and multi-faceted, ODEP 

concentrates significant effort on populations that face particular challenges to entering or remaining in the workforce such as youth, culturally or socio-economically 

disadvantaged groups, and workers disabled later in life through accidents, injuries 

or aging. 

CHANGING EXPECTATIONS, PERCEPTIONS AND PRACTICES

To counter low expectations and negative perceptions that may lead to discriminatory policies and practices, ODEP uses multiple strategies. For example, ODEP conducts an ongoing public information campaign (Campaign for Disability Employment) to increase awareness of the benefits of employing people with disabilities. 

The Campaign for Disability Employment reaches millions of Americans, including, 

but not limited to, employers and the workforce development system. ODEP also 

conducts public outreach activities during National Disability Employment Awareness Month (NDEAM) to highlight the contributions made by workers with disabilities. First established by law in 1945 to raise awareness about disability employment issues, NDEAM is recognized each October through a Presidential Proclamation. 

ODEP also aims to change the misperception that many business owners have 

about the costs of employing people with disabilities by developing and widely disseminating the ‘‘business case’’ for employing people with disabilities. By working 

with a business school, ODEP intends to strengthen the existing ‘‘business case’’ and 

provide the most reputable information available to demonstrate that employing 

people with disabilities makes good business sense. 

ODEP’s Add Us In initiative also aims to change negative perceptions of individuals with disabilities and the resultant policies and practices that deprive them of 

the opportunity to contribute to the economy. The Add Us In initiative specifically 

focuses on small businesses and brings together diverse organizations to collaborate 

on developing replicable strategies for increasing employment of people with disabilities. In September 2010, ODEP awarded four 2-year cooperative agreements totaling more than $2.4 million to four consortia in Kansas City, MO; Los Angeles, CA; 
55 

Bridgeport, CT; and Norman, OK. A second round of 2-year cooperative agreements 

totaling almost $2.2 million were awarded in September 2011 to four consortia in 

Chicago, New York, Oakland, CA and Rockville, MD. One of the high-priority goals 

of the Add Us In Initiative is to create business engagement models in these communities that can be replicated on a national scale. 

Another way to change perceptions and practices is for the Federal Government 

to set a good example as a model employer. Towards this end, ODEP works collaboratively with the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and other Federal agencies to increase employment of people with disabilities throughout the Federal Government (for further discussion see #2 below). 

ENHANCING ACCESS TO TRAINING, EMPLOYMENT AND TRANSITION SERVICES

The Nation’s workforce development system provides the training, employment, 

and transition services. It is essential that these services be fully available to and 

usable by people with disabilities. Toward this end and in order to realize Secretary 

Solis’s vision of Good Jobs for Everyone, including persons with disabilities, DOL 

implements a variety of efforts to increase the accessibility of the workforce development system. 

For example, DOL’s Civil Rights Center (CRC) enforces civil rights laws and concentrates its efforts on identifying potential systemic discrimination, including disability-based discrimination, within the workforce system. CRC conducts reviews to 

ensure that States and local areas are complying with requirements to identify statistically significant differences in participation or selection rates and to investigate 

whether such differences appear to be a result of systemic discrimination. 

CRC also provides technical assistance on nondiscrimination and equal opportunity issues, including disability-related issues, to Equal Opportunity (EO) Officers, 

EO staffs, and workforce system administrators from across the country through its 

annual National Equal Opportunity Training Symposium. It delivers webinars on 

disability-related topics and one-on-one technical assistance to EO Officers, officials 

and staff members of other DOL and Federal agencies, and members of the general 

public. 

To further increase the availability and use of the workforce development system 

by people with disabilities, DOL has implemented the Disability Employment Initiative (DEI) grant program, jointly funded by the Employment and Training Administration (ETA) and ODEP. ETA administers the grants and ODEP convenes grantee 

meetings and manages the contract that independently evaluates the initiative. 

DOL awarded $21,276,575 to 9 States under the DEI in September 2010, and another $21,166,560 to 7 States in September 2011. The goal of this initiative is to 

improve education, training, and employment opportunities and outcomes for youth 

and adults with disabilities who are unemployed, underemployed, and/or receiving 

Social Security disability benefits. To meet this goal, DOL provides technical assistance to grantees and to the public workforce system to expand its capacity to serve 

people with disabilities. Grantees are required to connect with the Social Security 

System and must also coordinate with a broad range of State and local, public- and 

private-sector partners to leverage resources and create systems change. DEI grantees are also required to become Employment Networks (ENs), which provide training, employment-related and supportive services to Social Security beneficiaries 

under the Ticket-to-Work program and receive payment from the Social Security Administration (SSA) only if the ‘‘Ticket Holder’’ (beneficiary) becomes employed. 

Research shows that individuals receiving SSI and SSDI benefits already use the 

workforce development system and suggests that the types of services offered by 

ENs may improve the employment outcomes of all individuals with disabilities. For 

these reasons, ETA and ODEP recently issued a joint Training and Employment Notice to encourage all State workforce agencies, local workforce investment boards, 

and One-Stop Career Centers to become ENs. ETA has also been working with SSA 

to develop tools and implement policies and procedures to help workforce system entities become ENs including a new initiative funded by SSA that provides intensive 

technical assistance to the public workforce system. The number of public workforce 

entities serving as ENs increased by approximately 37 percent from 2010 to 2011 

and currently totals 124. 

Another important means of enhancing the workforce system’s capacity to help 

customers with disabilities (and other challenges to employment) navigate the array 

of available services and resources is by providing training and technical assistance 

to the workforce system. Workforce3One, an interactive communications and learning platform that is ETA’s primary vehicle for delivering on-line technical assistance 

to the public workforce system, includes a Disability and Employment Community 

of Practice page with easy access to disability employment related topics, resources 
56 

and best practice information. In addition, ‘‘Disability’’ has been added as a ‘‘super 

search’’ category to make it easier for users to find disability-related information on 

Workforce3One. 

Additional DOL efforts to increase the availability and usability of the workforce 

development system for people with disabilities focus on equipping youth, including 

youth with disabilities and the systems that serve them, with knowledge, skills and 

abilities to help them succeed in the jobs of the future. For example, through the 

National Collaborative on Workforce and Disability for Youth (NCWD/Youth) funded 

by ODEP, the Department provides technical assistance to State and local public 

workforce systems to assist youth with disabilities to become economically self-sufficient through mentoring, training, educational opportunities, and jobs with career 

pathways. Also, an eight-day training curriculum, developed to increase the capacity 

of youth service professionals to effectively serve youth with disabilities, has been 

provided to youth service professionals in Chicago, Albuquerque, Boston, Maryland, 

and requested by many others. 

ODEP’s Individualized Learning Plan (ILP) research and demonstration project 

team has provided technical assistance to State-level officials responsible for developing and administering policies related to students’ transition from secondary 

school into post-school education and employment. Another component of ODEP’s 

technical assistance has included educating policymakers and practitioners on the 

differences and impact of ‘‘entitlement’’ policies that govern provision of services in 

secondary school and the ‘‘eligibility’’ policies that are present in college and employment settings.

In addition, ODEP and NCWD/Youth have worked closely with WIA-funded youth 

programs, including Job Corps and Youth Build, to assist them in enhancing outcomes for youth with learning disabilities and mental health issues. In Fall 2011, 

NCWD/Youth and ODEP are planning to deliver a series of webinars on increasing 

the number of youth with disabilities in pre-apprenticeship and apprenticeship programs. 

Moreover, ETA and ODEP recently issued a joint Training and Employment and 

Guidance Letter ‘‘Increasing Enrollment and Improving Services to Youth with Disabilities,’’ to provide information and resources to youth service providers on promising practices and successful strategies that promote the enrollment, education, 

training, and employment outcomes of youth with disabilities. 

INCREASING AVAILABILITY OF EMPLOYMENT SUPPORTS AND ACCOMMODATIONS

A number of ODEP’s efforts strive to change policy and practices that will ensure 

that critical employment supports and accommodations are available to enable 

workers with disabilities to be fully productive and contributing workers. ODEP 

funds the Job Accommodation Network, which provides expert and confidential 

guidance on workplace accommodations and disability employment issues to employers and employees with disabilities. 

ODEP also focuses on promoting workplace flexibility in the type of job, time, and 

place of work to shape the jobs and work environments to maximize the productivity 

of workers with disabilities. ODEP sponsored-research suggests that workplace 

flexibility strategies, including customized employment, may help individuals with 

significant disabilities succeed in integrated employment. ODEP is now exploring 

the use of such workplace flexibility strategies for workers who acquire disabilities 

through accidents, injuries and/or changes in health, including those due to aging. 

This fall, ODEP will implement an employer pilot demonstration project that will 

focus on using flexible workplace strategies to retain older workers with disabilities. 

ODEP will also conduct research on how workplace flexibility can be used to retain 

aging workers employed in the health care sector and by community colleges. 

To increase the labor force participation of people with disabilities, ODEP also 

works to improve accessible technology. ODEP promotes universal design in information technology and promotes increasing the availability of assistive technology 

in the workplace to benefit workers with disabilities. To advance these twin goals 

ODEP awarded a contract that enables ODEP and the Assistive Technology Industry Association’s Accessibility Interoperability Alliance (ATIA/AIA) to work together 

to improve the availability and usability of emerging technologies, such as Web 3.0 

and 3D Internet technologies. 

This fall, ODEP will develop and implement a comprehensive plan to make workplace technology accessible. Among other things, ODEP is working to establish a 

means of identifying and validating core competencies that can be used to certify 

professionals involved in the field of accessible technology. ODEP will also conduct 

research into how employers are using the Assistive Technology Act to support em-
57 

ployment and develop technical assistance to enable States to use it more effectively. 

Question 2. How do you think the Federal Government can be a model employer 

for individuals with disabilities? 

Answer 2. The Federal Government can become a model employer for individuals 

with disabilities by creating a workforce that truly reflects the diversity of the population. Last year’s Executive Order 13548 articulated the President’s commitment 

and charted the course for the Federal Government to employ an additional 100,000 

people with disabilities within the next 5 years. It also required Federal agencies 

to work together to develop and implement action plans that included performance 

targets and numerical goals to improve their hiring of people with disabilities, and 

imposed reporting requirements to ensure accountability. 

ODEP is working closely with OPM and other Federal agencies to provide them 

with the information and tools they need to achieve their goals. A few strategies 

that ODEP believes will position the Federal Government as a model employer for 

people with disabilities include: 

• Implementing centralized accommodation funds that pool agency resources to 

reduce the financial impact on individual office budgets; 

• Training all hiring managers and all those involved in the process on hiring 

policies and processes cluding Schedule A and other hiring authorities as well as on 

reasonable accommodations policies and ocedures; 

• Expanding the use of internships, fellowships, and training and mentoring programs, such as the Workforce Recruitment Program and Project Search; 

• Utilizing the Office of Personnel Management’s (OPM) shared list of qualified 

job candidates with disabilities (i.e., the ‘‘Bender’’ database) to hire eligible individuals through Schedule A appointments.

• Adopting practices to return-to-work Federal employees who have sustained disabilities as a result of workplace injuries or illnesses, such as those identified 

through the Protecting Our Workers and Ensuring Re-employment (POWER) Initiative, a joint effort of ODEP and DOL’s Office of Workers Compensation Programs; 

• Expanding the use of workplace flexibility and the provision of reasonable accommodation to retain, enhance and maximize the productivity of older workers as 

they acquire age-related disabilities, as well as employees with disabilities as their 

health changes with age; 

• Leveraging employee resource groups (ERGs) as tools to empower and develop 

an engaged workforce; and 

• Creating and maintaining a welcoming, safe and supportive work environment 

by accounting for the needs of employees with disabilities in emergency planning. 

Also, in this increasingly knowledge- and technology-based workplace, it is critical 

that all electronic and information technology are accessible, interoperable and usable for all—including technology used by applicants to find and seek jobs with the 

Federal Government. As the Nation’s largest employer, it is important that the Federal Government demonstrate a commitment to fully including people with disabilities in its workforce. 

Federal agencies can best be engaged to produce results by sharing knowledge 

about effective strategies for recruiting, retaining and advancing people with disabilities. Towards that end, OPM and ODEP are building a Community of Practice 

(CoP) Web site, eFedlink.org, for Federal disability program managers and selective 

placement managers to share information and promising practices with their peers. 

INTERNAL DOL EFFORTS

In addition to coordinating with OPM and assisting other agencies to meet their 

disability employment goals, the Department’s own commitment to a qualified, diverse, and inclusive workforce remains at the forefront of our recruitment and hiring strategies. DOL’s outreach efforts include activities at colleges and universities 

with a diverse population; local, State, and national organizations; and other targeted recruitment that promotes Departmental opportunities for people with disabilities and our valued veterans. 

The Department’s national recruitment team, comprised of six regional recruitment coordinators and four recruitment policy coordinators, including a disabled 

veterans’ employment program manager in the Human Resources Center (HRC) is 

fully versed on special hiring authorities, particularly Schedule A, veterans’ hiring 

authorities and recruitment of people with disabilities. The HRC recruitment policy 

coordinators work with each DOL agency to integrate the plan for the employment 

of people with disabilities, including veterans with disabilities, into the overall Departmental recruitment strategy. 
58 

The Department has worked for many years to establish relationships with local, 

State, and national disability organizations that advocate on behalf of and work directly with people with disabilities. In response to the Executive Order, the national 

recruitment team will intensify and expand its targeted strategies and lead an effort 

for the Department’s outreach to such organizations as One Stop Career Centers, 

State Vocational Rehabilitation Agencies, Centers for Independent Living, disabled 

veterans programs and others. The national recruitment team will develop and implement a national train-the-trainers program to educate DOL leaders as well as advocates in the disability community about the special hiring authorities, including 

Schedule A and veterans’ hiring authorities. 

Question 3. Please identify specific examples of where the Federal Government 

can remove regulations and burdens for private employers to assist in increasing 

employment levels overall. 

Answer 3. Department of Labor regulations ensure a level playing field for firms 

following our Nation’s labor laws so that they do not face unfair competition to 

maintain employment while following the law. The Department recently completed 

a review of its regulatory agenda following E.O. 13563, which requires regulations 

to be: (1) cost-effective and cost-justified; (2) transparent, allowing for public participation; (3) coordinated and simplified; (4) flexible, reducing burden and allowing for 

freedom of choice for the public; (5) science-driven; and (6) reviewed, updated, modified or withdrawn, as appropriate. In the Final Plan for Retrospective Analysis of 

Existing Rules published on August 23, 2011, the Department identifies examples 

of burden-reducing review projects. Access DOL’s Final Plan at: http:// 

www.dol.gov/regulations. 

Question 4. How have stimulus projects provided under the American Recovery 

and Reinvestment Act increased employment of individuals with disabilities? 

Answer 4. The Employment and Training Administration collects data on the 

number of WIA program exiters with self-reported disabilities and employment outcomes; however, ETA’s does not disaggregate the data between ARRA-funded 

projects and regular WIA formula grants. Similarly, the WIA nondiscrimination regulations enforced by CRC require the workforce system to collect data on individuals 

with disabilities who received services, but this data is not disaggregated by funding 

source. Therefore, we do not know how many people with disabilities were served 

with ARRA dollars specifically. Overall, in 2009 4.2 percent of WIA exiters were 

adults with self-reported disabilities, and 12.9 percent of WIA exiters were youth 

with self-reported disabilities. We believe that it is likely similar percentages were 

served with ARRA funding in the WIA Adult and Youth programs. 

Question 5. Has the number of persons with disabilities employed since February 

2009—the passage of the stimulus bill—increased or decreased? 

Answer 5. Disability statistics have only been available since June 2008 when 

questions were added to the Current Population Survey (CPS), making it difficult 

to compare the effect of this most recent recession on employment to the effects of 

previous recessions on employment. According to BLS, (http://www.bls.gov/ 

webapps/legacy/cpsatab6.htm) the proportion of persons with a disability who were 

employed began declining in September 2008, and since February 2009 the employment rates for persons with disabilities have followed that previous pattern. 

BLS also advises that because seasonally adjusted data currently are not available for this group, comparison of same month employment-population ratios (the 

proportion of a population group that is employed) can provide a clearer picture of 

changes in the employment situation of persons with disabilities. The employmentpopulation ratio of persons with a disability was 17.7 percent in August 2011, down 

from 18.4 percent in August 2009. 

Question 6. The U.S. Department of Labor has advocated passage of the Employee 

Free Choice Act (EFCA). Please provide examples of how EFCA can boost the employment levels for persons with disabilities. 

Answer 6. The Obama administration continues to strongly support proposals 

such as the Employee Free Choice Act which provide all workers, including workers 

with disabilities, with a voice in the workplace. Strong unions are a key to a strong 

economy and help provide a sure path to a secure middle class job that pays higher 

wages, and provides flexibility and benefits like paid leave, child care, education assistance, and retirement security. 

Question 7. President Obama’s Executive Order 13563 requires executive agencies 

to identify regulations that are outdated, outmoded, inefficient, and burdensome. 
59 

What regulations will the Department of Labor specifically seek to end that would 

enhance job creation, particularly for individuals with disabilities? 

Answer 7. As discussed in response to question 3 above, the Department has identified several burden-reducing regulatory projects. The efficiencies created by these 

regulatory modifications may benefit individuals with disabilities as well as other 

workers. 

RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS OF SENATOR ENZI AND SENATOR CASEY BY

GOVERNOR TOM RIDGE

QUESTIONS OF SENATOR ENZI

Question 1. In your opinion, how well-aligned are the career, education, and training programs that NOD accesses to provide coordinated services for these individuals? 

CIVILIAN PROGRAMS

Answer 1. Lack of alignment and coordination between the agencies that provide 

services to Americans with disabilities is a significant problem, and, ultimately a 

hindrance to these services and their intended beneficiaries. 

To be clear: the challenge is not that there are too many services; rather, that 

multiple agencies on both the Federal and State levels create a sometimes confusing 

array of eligibility rules, performance measures, and service delivery procedures. 

Navigating these processes can be a challenge even for those who work in this 

arena. For persons with disabilities and their families the processes can result in 

delays or otherwise make access unintentionally difficult. It can be impenetrable. 

Even in just the employment services area (not including benefits and services related to medical and personal care, therapy, housing, transportation, etc.), there are 

multiple agencies, legislation and funding authorities emanating from the Federal 

Departments of Labor (DOL), Education (Ed), Health and Human Services (HHS), 

Defense (DOD), Veteran’s Affairs (DVA), and Social Security (SSA), to name only 

the most significant players. Within each of these Federal departments are numerous sub-authorities that operate semi-independent employment initiatives. 

With each of these agencies and sub-authorities, the challenge is more than just 

the numerous eligibility, performance and spending rules that accompany them. As 

an individual, a family member, or a service provider on the ground, it can be difficult to reconcile the different perspectives of these agencies and the services they 

provide. 

For example, DOL and HHS each offer employment services for people with disabilities. The employment programs that are funded by HHS are invariably entwined with therapeutic services (e.g., housing, personal and medical care, therapies, etc.), while those funded by DOL are more directly focused on training, employment and self-sufficiency. HHS programs approach employment from the perspective of its impact on personal health and care, while DOL approaches employment 

services in hopes that every American can become self-sufficient. These different approaches can cause the professionals who implement them to present them in ways 

that can appear contradictory to the individuals and family members who depend 

on them. Starting from such different sources on the Federal level, these programs 

do not always mingle easily on the local level. 

Finally, in an era of unprecedented fiscal challenges, these State and Federal administrative entities can require a share of the dollars that could go to services on 

the ground. It is appropriate to review these programs with an eye for how to reduce 

any redundancies and improve efficiencies. 

As the first appointed Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, I sometimes felt that too many Federal agencies had overlapping responsibilities and that 

separate administration of similar services could be less efficient and effective. 

The problem is clear; the solution, less so. If, hypothetically, you were to combine 

many of these services and funds under a single administrative entity, you would 

have to make a number of choices, each of which comes with risks. I offer the following issues for consideration, to highlight some of the structural issues that result 

in practical challenges on the ground: 

Mingling Generic and Disability-Specific Services: Combining services designed for 

individuals with disabilities with ‘‘generic services’’ (those for individuals with and 

without disabilities) would run the risk of undermining years of advocacy by people 

with disabilities who fought to ensure that there would be dedicated agencies designed to meet their needs. The fear is that an agency designed to meet the needs 

of all job seekers might not fully grasp the intricate needs of job seekers with disabilities, and that these individuals’ needs would, as a consequence, go unmet. The 
60 

ultimate goal would be to combine generic and disability-specific services, while putting in place safeguards to ensure that disability-specific needs are not ignored. 

Combining Disability-Specific Authorities: If, alternatively, one chose to combine 

the various authorities that serve people with disabilities under a single administrative banner, there are two significant challenges to be aware of. 

First, this would perpetuate what is essentially a segregated system of services 

for people with disabilities. The fact that disability and ‘‘generic’’ services operate 

at such a distance from one another has made it much harder for people with disabilities to access services offered through the Workforce Investment Act, and other 

non-disability specific programs. Further, it codifies in law, regulation and policy the 

separation of people with and without disabilities. 

Second, looking only at disability-specific services, there is still a significant divide 

between funding and services that are built around a mentality of care, and those 

that are designed to promote economic self-sufficiency for individuals with disabilities, as I discussed in my testimony. It is for this reason that the Federal Government often appears ambivalent about the employment of people with disabilities— 

1 minute saying that we promote opportunity for all, the next threatening individuals with disabilities who attain success with the removal of the medical and personal care benefits they need to survive. Clearly, we must provide care and support, 

and we must create the path to self sufficiency for Americans with disabilities. The 

challenge is to ensure that these two goals are mutually supportive, not seemingly 

at odds. 

For this reason, the principal goal of any policy change must be to ensure that— 

in our words, in our policies, and in our funding choices—our government speaks 

with one voice. We must have the same expectations for people with disabilities that 

we have for all Americans, and we must ensure that the services we offer support 

this expectation. 

VETERAN PROGRAMS

NOD strives to provide veterans in transition to civilian careers with referrals to 

agencies that provide reliable services, whether at the Federal, State or local level. 

In instances where services are not available or are inadequate, NOD supplements 

the community’s resources to bridge those gaps. Several of the more notable programs are described below. 

Transition Assistance 

Federal Disabled Veterans Transition Assistance Program (DTAP)—While this 

program is currently under a major revision, the program is widely thought to provide too much information in too little time, particularly with regard to veterans 

with cognitive or psychological impairments. In addition, the seminar and materials 

are too often more useful at later junctures when the veteran may have trouble recalling the information. Also, there are many references, Web site links and pamphlets provided on a wide variety of topics, including career planning actions. However, career planning should be done in a much more comprehensive and integrated 

manner and it should integrate actionable career steps with resources available to 

accomplish those actions. Finally, financial counseling and planning is critical since 

most veterans suffer a significant decrease in pay as they separate—this is exacerbated by the lengthy VA disability determination process. Among the recommendations are: 

• Lengthen the seminar and allow spouses to attend with disabled veterans; 

• Develop a compendium of the information that remains a more handy resource 

by providing a tailored ‘‘separation benefits and entitlements’’ binder which veterans 

can use to organize and store the most relevant information, including DD Form 214 

and medical disability and similar reference materials; 

• Provide monthly DTAP update seminars at locations across the country that 

any veteran can attend to learn the most recent information and ask questions. 

These could easily include a web cast for more remote locations but should allow 

in person attendance so that first hand advice and referrals can be effected. 

• Develop a Joint Inter-Agency (DOD, VA, DOL, Dept of Ed, OPM) Career Planning Process that is initiated during transition and remains a resource to the veteran and the agencies that have missions to support veterans. NOD developed such 

a process out of necessity. Unfortunately, many PTSD and TBI veterans have trouble planning and executing key career steps. NOD developed an approach that simplifies and integrates career steps that they are more easily accomplished, managed, 

and so that progress can be more easily monitored by family members or supporting 

counselors. 
61 

• Provide a detailed financial counseling service to separating veterans that affords a more realistic assessment of expenses and income veteran families can expect after separation. Doing this at an early juncture allows better awareness and 

decisionmaking. Most veterans suffer financial hardship upon separation. Mitigation 

of any additional turbulence during separation is critical to sustaining focus on career and family needs versus managing financial crises. 

Vocational Rehabilitation 

Veterans Affairs Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment (VRE—While VRE is 

a valuable benefit to disabled veterans, many veterans needing these services choose 

to use the GI bill which they often view as more flexible. In some cases, disabled 

veterans with PTSD or TBI may find the additional bureaucracy of VRE difficult 

to navigate. NOD has attempted to develop a collaborative effort with the VA VRE 

service in order to increase utilization of this valuable benefit. Generally, however, 

VRE counselors have too large a caseload (about 150) to serve their clients fully. 

There appears to be little segmentation of the caseload to ensure that each counselor has a manageable size group of clients. Clearly the type and severity of the 

disabled veterans on the caseload can vary greatly, as can the demands on the counselor. Accordingly, each veteran served should be considered in the context of their 

needs, and services designed to meet those needs. Each case is unique, and the aspirations and support needs of each veteran are unique. Finally, the outcomes should 

be evaluated more closely. Simply getting a veteran into a job is not enough, nor 

is closing the case file when the veteran has completed 3, 6, or 9 months on the 

job. The goals of VRE should be long-range self-sufficiency and long-term/longitudinal tracking is necessary to more appropriately assess the effectiveness of how 

this benefit/service is administered. 

Employment 

Department of Labor Disabled Veterans Outreach Program Specialists (DVOPS) 

and Local Veterans Employment Representatives (LVERs)—In order for these federally subsidized, State-employed counselors to be effective, veterans have to register 

for services. In most cases, young veterans are not registering at State veterans employment offices. In part this is because these offices are widely perceived as providing only the most basic services, which often are not customized to the veterans 

careers aspirations. Since these personnel are provided to States via a noncompetitive grant program, there is insufficient Federal control of the metrics, outcomes, 

and operating practices at these offices. In short, NOD has tried to work with these 

offices but finds them largely ill-suited to disabled veterans today, the vast majority 

of which (75 percent) have a cognitive or psychological impairment (PTSD/TBI). In 

addition, these offices do not develop strong relationships with employers and veterans do not appear to believe their chances of employment are greatly enhanced 

by working with these offices. While some of the services are of some value, much 

of the resume ́-writing, interview skills, and similar employment classes are not specific enough for an individual who has never pursued a civilian job before and for 

whom significant skill gaps may remain. In short, many younger veterans are not 

entirely job-ready. The DOL program should be reviewed to assess how the current 

generation of veterans could be better served. SHRM recently published a report 

that shows few employers are aware of DOL offices and fewer choose to use them. 

That report alone indicates that these offices do not provide strong linkages to employment opportunities. 

Education 

GI bill (education)—Many NOD clients take advantage of the GI bill. Fully 80 percent of program participants are expected to use the GI bill within 3 years of separation from the military. This program is an essential component of retooling for civilian careers and to supplement knowledge/experience needs of employers. However, there are some limitations to the program and some measure of outcomes that 

do not fully ensure that maximum benefit is provided. One dynamic that is problematic are the financial needs of many separating veterans. In some cases, veterans 

will enroll in school in part because they will receive a stipend when they do so. 

Unfortunately, a difficult economy adds to this dynamic. Financial needs should be 

addressed by more suitable mechanisms and education counselors should be empowered to screen for this issue and address financial needs in others ways so that the 

education benefit is preserved for its best use. 

While annual adjustments/changes to living allowance rates and changes to authorized tuition payments are often slow in being announced and implemented each 

year, the GI bill is a tremendous benefit to veterans. Importantly, the Post-9/11 GI 

bill has expanded benefits to veterans for vocational, apprenticeship and On-TheJob training (OJT) programs. However, the approved list of programs does not al-
62 

ways allow veterans to enroll in the vocational program of their choice. Since many 

veterans choose vocational training, this limitation can be a hardship as veterans 

seek local programs in career fields of their choice. Expansion and more flexibility 

in this effort would enable more of our war-fighters to use their new GI bill benefits. 

Limitations in distance learning programs can be similarly restrictive, particularly 

the unavailability of the substantial monthly living allowance for those in distance 

learning programs versus attending a brick and mortar educational institution. This 

has the effect of forcing veterans who need the living allowance to pursue resident 

education when distance learning may be more convenient, appropriate and less expensive. 

The Veterans Administration should also monitor the outcomes associated with 

education programs. While each veteran’s success or failure in school and subsequent employment efforts may be the result of medical/disability conditions, personal efforts, and educational prowess, each school should be judged on the success 

of its graduates in some manner. Such an effort would help ensure that U.S. taxpayers get the results that they intend the GI bill to achieve. Moreover, such information would be useful to veterans as they select the school/program most appropriate to them. 

Also, many veterans are entering the civilian work environment for the first time. 

The VA should develop ways to encourage internships, mentorships, and similar exposure to civilian employers as part of the educational experience. It would not be 

unreasonable for schools to be required to have internship placement efforts that are 

required for a certain percentage of their veteran students, or for such a requirement to apply to certain career fields. This approach would allow veterans to develop job prospects while in school and for companies in such a program to be more 

receptive to employment of the graduate since they would be more familiar with 

them. Given the rate of unemployment among young veterans, it is clear that military experience and GI bill benefits alone are not sufficient. More innovation is 

needed to lower the threshold for veterans moving into the civilian workforce. 

Question 2. Please provide specific examples of what you did as Secretary of 

Homeland Security to increase the employment opportunities for individuals with 

disabilities. 

Answer 2. (See response to Senator Casey’s question 3b.) 

QUESTIONS OF SENATOR CASEY

Question 1. In your testimony you referenced that the return to civilian life is a 

process not an event. What do you think we can do to help make that transition 

smoother? Are there specific roadblocks that you find troops face when making this 

transition? 

Answer 1. There are several areas on which NOD would like to comment regarding transition challenges: 

Federal Disabled Veterans Transition Assistance Program (DTAP) and related 

processes—This program is currently under a major revision. However, the program 

is widely thought to provide too much information in too little time, particularly 

with regard to veterans with cognitive or psychological impairments. Alternative 

presentations, perhaps in smaller groups, at slower paces, and with a family member present, are among ideas to consider. PTSD and TBI victims will have special 

challenges focusing, recalling, or integrating transition steps/resources and those 

challenges are not well understood. NOD is among the few organizations with expertise in this area that comes from long-term support to disabled veterans. DTAP 

seminar topics and materials are often more useful at later junctures when the veteran may have trouble recalling the information. Also, there are many references, 

Web site links and pamphlets provided on a wide variety of topics, including career 

planning actions. However, career planning should be done in a much more comprehensive and integrated manner and it should integrate actionable career steps 

with resources available to accomplish those actions. Finally, financial counseling 

and planning is critical since most veterans suffer a significant decrease in pay as 

they separate—this is exacerbated by the lengthy VA disability determination process. Among the recommendations are: 

• Lengthen the seminar and allow spouses to attend with disabled veterans; 

• Consider alternative modes for delivering DTAP for cognitively or psychologically impaired veterans. 

• Develop a compendium of the information that remains a more handy resource 

by providing a tailored ‘‘separation benefits and entitlements’’ binder which veterans 

can use to organize and store the most relevant information, including DD Form 214 
63 

and medical disability and similar reference materials. Some veterans misplace paperwork or do not organize it or retain it in ways that are most helpful; 

• Provide monthly DTAP update seminars at locations across the country that 

any veteran can attend to learn the most recent information and ask questions. 

These could easily include a web cast for more remote locations but should allow 

in person attendance so that first hand advice and referrals can be provided. 

• Develop a Joint Inter-Agency (DOD, VA, DOL, Dept of Ed, OPM) Career Planning Process that is initiated during transition and remains a resource to the veteran and the agencies that have missions to support veterans. NOD developed such 

a process out of necessity. Unfortunately, many PTSD and TBI veterans have trouble planning and executing key career steps. NOD developed an approach that simplifies and integrates career steps that are more easily accomplished, managed, and 

so that progress can be more easily monitored by family members or supporting 

counselors. Such a career planning process, particularly if also made available 

through web-based applications, could be a resource on and off active duty and after 

separation, and should include interim and longer term actions and career goals. 

NOD has a model for this type of more integrated 5-year career planning module 

and we believe the VA should be required to develop such a program that is easier 

to access, more intuitive to use, which is initiated before separation, and which can 

help DOD, VA and DOL support these veterans more comprehensively. Veterans 

that need less assistance would be able to continue to employ the tool on their own. 

• Provide a detailed financial counseling service to separating veterans that affords a more realistic assessment of expenses and income veteran families can expect after separation. Doing this at an early juncture allows better awareness and 

decisionmaking. Most veterans suffer financial hardship upon separation. Mitigation 

of any additional turbulence during separation is critical to sustaining focus on career and family needs versus managing financial crises. 

Career Counseling and Goal Setting—Most veterans, disabled or not, have very 

little civilian employment experience and have difficulty translating their experience 

into civilian equivalents. If disabled, they also do not receive adequate assistance 

from existing Federal programs in evaluating career options, developing career 

plans, selecting schools and training programs, preparing resume ́s and job interview 

preparation. These factors significantly complicate their ability to envision, plan, 

and execute the career change when leaving the service. While State and Federal 

agencies exist, such as the Department of Labor’s Disabled Veterans Outreach Program Specialists (DVOPS) and Local Veterans Employment Representatives 

(LVERs), these federally subsidized, State-employed counselors do not have appropriate outcomes measures and therefore are not incentivized to provide personalized 

assistance to disabled veterans. The common perception by younger veterans is that 

these agencies do not provide assistance that is needed. Therefore, most young veterans are not registering at State veterans employment offices. This is largely because these offices are widely perceived as providing only the most basic services, 

which often are not customized to the veteran’s careers aspirations. 

Since these offices are partially staffed by State employees via a noncompetitive 

grant program, there is insufficient Federal control of the metrics, outcomes, and 

operating practices at these offices. NOD has tried to work with these offices but 

finds them largely ill-suited to disabled veterans today, the vast majority of which 

(75 percent) have a cognitive or psychological impairment (PTSD/TBI). Because 

these offices measure success by job placement (measured once the veteran has been 

employed about 90 days), they are not incentivized to work with veterans over a 

longer period of time to ensure education and training needs are met to address experience gaps before pursuing employment. In short, many younger veterans are not 

entirely job ready. The DOL program should be reviewed to assess how the current 

generation of veterans could be better served. SHRM recently published a report 

that shows few employers are aware of DOL offices and fewer choose to use them. 

That report alone indicates that these offices do not provide strong linkages to employment opportunities. Among the recommendations are: 

• Provide set aside, competitively awarded funds within the Department of Labor’s Disabled Veterans Outreach Program Specialists (DVOPS) and Local Veterans 

Employment Representatives (LVERs) grant program to resource a number of locations where innovative approaches to veteran career counseling and employment 

can be piloted. Such a program would allow best practices to be substantiated and 

applied more broadly. More information on this idea is available from NOD staff. 

• Require new measures of outcomes for grant recipients that assess veterans’ 

satisfaction and longer term career goal achievement. Since veteran transitions 

often take several years as they pursue education, training, and often part-time 

work to supplement their income, short term measures of job placement are inad-
64 

equate to accurately assess transition success. The Nation expects these veterans to 

become self-sufficient and meaningful members of their communities. More appropriate measures of outcomes are needed. • Require/authorize the Departments of Defense, Veterans’ Affairs, and Labor to 

develop meaningful internships and partnerships with the private sector so that 

separating service members and veterans have easier access to employers who want 

to provide work experiences short of full time employment. While DOD has developed Operation War fighter, it is limited to internships for those still on active duty 

and only in Federal agencies. DOD and other agencies often cite ethics obstacles to 

working closely with private organizations. Existing interpretation of the law by 

Federal agencies is not what Congress intended and represents a significant obstacle to collaboration between government and nongovernmental organizations that 

prevents practical and effective relationships that could dramatically improve support to veterans in transition. 

Vocational Rehabilitation—Veterans Affairs Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment (VRE)—While VRE is a valuable benefit to disabled veterans, many veterans needing these services choose to use the GI bill instead, which they often view 

as more flexible. In some cases, disabled veterans with PTSD or TBI may find the 

additional bureaucracy of VRE difficult to navigate. NOD has attempted to develop 

a collaborative effort with the VA VRE service in order to increase utilization of this 

valuable benefit. Generally, however, VRE counselors have a very large caseload 

(about 150) to serve their clients fully. There appears to be little segmentation of 

the caseload to ensure that each counselor has a manageable size/group of clients. 

Clearly the type and severity of the disabled veterans on the caseload can vary 

greatly, as can the associated demands on the counselor, and even the skill sets of 

the counselors may need to be modified for some caseload types. Each veteran 

served should be considered in the context of their needs, and services be designed 

to meet those needs. Each case is unique, and the aspirations and support needs 

of each veteran are equally unique. Finally, the outcomes should be evaluated more 

closely. Simply getting a veteran into a job is not enough, nor is closing the case 

file when the veteran has completed 3, 6, or 9 months on the job. The goals of VRE 

should be long range self-sufficiency and long term / longitudinal tracking is necessary to more appropriately assess the effectiveness of how this benefit/service is 

designed, administered, and measured. 

• Provide legislation for a grant program that demonstrates best practices in supporting the career transition of disabled veterans. • Review metrics for success and modify to address self-sufficiency, long-term 

monitoring and support, and ensure integration of career planning with other Federal agencies involved in veterans services. 

Education GI Bill 

GI bill (education)—Many NOD clients take advantage of the GI bill. Fully 80 percent of program participants are expected to use the GI bill within 3 years of separation from the military. This program is an essential component of retooling for civilian careers and to supplement knowledge/experience needs of employer. However, 

there are some limitations to the program and some measure of outcomes that do 

not fully ensure that maximum benefit is provided. One dynamic that is problematic 

are the financial needs of many separating veterans. In some cases, veterans will 

enroll in school in part because they will receive a stipend when they do so. Unfortunately, a difficult economy adds to this dynamic. Financial needs should be addressED by more suitable mechanisms and education counselors should be empowered to screen for this issue and address financial needs in other ways so that the 

education benefit is preserved for its best use. 

While annual adjustments/changes to living allowance rates and changes to authorized tuition payments are often slow in being announced and implemented each 

year, the GI bill is a tremendous benefit to veterans. Importantly, the Post-9/11 GI 

bill has expanded benefits to veterans for vocational, apprenticeship and On-TheJob training (OJT) programs. However, the approved list of programs does not always allow veterans to enroll in the vocational program of their choice. Since many 

veterans choose vocational training, this limitation can be a hardship as veterans 

seek local programs in career fields of their choice. Expansion and more flexibility 

in this effort would enable more of our war-fighters to use their new GI bill benefits. 

Limitations in distance learning programs can be similarly restrictive, particularly 

the unavailability of the substantial monthly living allowance for those in distance 

learning programs versus attending a brick and mortar educational institution. This 

has the effect of forcing veterans who need the living allowance to pursue resident 

education when distance learning may be more convenient, appropriate and less expensive. 
65 

The Veterans Administration should also monitor the outcomes associated with 

education programs. While each veteran’s success or failure in school and subsequent employment efforts may be the result of medical/disability conditions, personal efforts, and educational prowess, each school should be judged on the success 

of its graduates in some manner. Such an effort would help ensure that U.S. taxpayers get the results that they intend the GI bill to achieve. Moreover, such information would be useful to veterans as they select the school/program most appropriate to them. 

Also, many veterans are entering the civilian work environment for the first time. 

The VA should develop ways to encourage internships, mentorships, and similar exposure to civilian employers as part of the educational experience. It would not be 

unreasonable for schools to be required to have internship placement efforts that are 

required for a certain percentage of their veteran students, or for such a requirement to apply to certain career fields. This approach would allow veterans to develop job prospects while in school and for companies in such a program to be more 

receptive to employment of the graduate since they would be more familiar with 

them. Given the rate of unemployment among young veterans, it is clear that military experience and GI bill benefits alone are not sufficient. More innovation is 

needed to lower the threshold for veterans moving into the civilian workforce. 

Federal and Private Internship Programs—Currently, the Departments of Defense, Veterans’ Affairs, and Labor have not been able to establish a full range of 

collaborative programs with the private sector, nor have Federal internship programs been assessed to identify and apply the very best practices, including metrics. 

NOD’s experience is that 75 percent of disabled veterans choose nonfederal employment. Serving the career aspirations of veterans therefore, requires a broader effort 

to provide experiential opportunities to learn about civilian career paths. Meaningful internships and partnerships with the private sector would provide separating 

service members and veterans with improved access to employers who want to provide work experiences short of full time employment. This is particularly important 

in the current economic climate when any hiring, much less a disabled person, is 

challenging for employers. DOD’s Operation War fighter program is limited to internships for those still on active duty and only in Federal agencies. DOD and other 

agencies often cite ethics obstacles to working closely with private organizations. Existing interpretation of the law by Federal agencies is not what Congress intended 

and represents a significant obstacle to collaboration between government and nongovernmental organizations, and which is preventing practical and effective publicprivate relationships that could dramatically improve support to veterans in transition. Recommendations include: 

• Review and modify ethics statutes their application in key agencies to ensure 

they do not inadvertently exclude appropriate public-private collaboration. • Members of Congress and committees interested in applying best practices in 

Veterans transition support should support legislation developed by Senator Bennet 

(CO) and already included in the House Defense Authorization Act (FY 2012 NDAA) 

as Section 594 (Wounded Warrior Careers Program). This section requires the Secretary of Defense to carry out a 5-year career-development demonstration program 

within DOD’s Education and Employment Initiative to apply best practices in career 

mentoring and transition support for severely wounded warriors of the armed forces 

and their spouses. This effort is required to be implemented in 20 geographic areas 

across the country where there are large concentrations of wounded warriors. This 

section would also require the Secretary of Defense to collect data on best practices, 

share lessons learned with other Federal agencies with missions to support veterans, and conduct a cost-benefit analysis of the results of the services provided to 

severely wounded warriors and their families. In addition, the section requires reports to Congress regarding program results, implementation of appropriate policies 

and programs, and associated budget actions. 

Question 2. What lessons have you learned from working with people classified 

as 100 percent disabled? What do you think we could be doing to give them greater 

access to education, training and employment opportunities? 

NOD’s Wounded Warrior Careers program has collected survey information that 

clearly indicates that veterans who are more engaged in career activity have a more 

positive view of their own health than those who are not engaged. NOD’s work with 

veterans has also demonstrated that even veterans rated at 100 percent disabled, 

some who have also been designated as ‘‘unemployable,’’ are capable of far more career activity and community involvement than our Federal programs and policies 

currently are designed to attempt to support. It is important to recognize that Federal agencies, which necessarily assign disabled veterans to categories for purposes 

of administering compensation and services, can inadvertently but negatively influ-
66 

ence the motivation of disabled veterans to pursue careers. Some policies serve to 

impede veterans’ views of what they are actually capable of doing. Therefore, a review of programs like NOD, and a new grant program that allows the VA and other 

agencies to systematically learn from private sector ventures like NOD’s, would 

allow alternative approaches to be tested within Federal agencies. Such efforts 

should be designed to remove unintended disincentives to career and community involvement for severely disabled veterans and apply best practices that are efficient 

and effective in inspiring greater involvement in careers and advancement of selfsufficiency for disabled veterans and their families. Recommendations include: 

• Review disability classifications and services afforded the most serious ones. Assess to ensure that services which could enhance involvement in community and careers, such as vocational rehabilitation, are not denied in any form to persons who 

have some ability for engagement. 

• Support legislation developed by Senator Bennet (CO) and already included in 

the House Defense Authorization Act (FY 2012 NDAA) as Section 594 (Wounded 

Warrior Careers Program). This section requires the Secretary of Defense to carry 

out a 5-year career-development demonstration program within DOD’s Education 

and Employment Initiative to apply best practices in career mentoring and transition support for severely wounded warriors of the armed forces and their spouses. 

Question 3a. Mentors play an important role in the lives of most people. In your 

testimony you referenced the especial role mentors can play in helping veterans 

with employment. My staff and I have been looking at developing legislation to help 

veterans entering or returning to college work with mentors to help with this transition including developing career opportunities and translating skills they learned in 

a military situation such as management and information technology to a nonmilitary situation. From your experiences do you have specific suggestions of policies 

we should include? What existing resources do you think we could build off in creating this program? 

Answer 3a. There are numerous philanthropic community and national organizations, as well as employers, which have undertaken a variety of mentoring programs. Each of these has its own design, focus, and goals, may occur inside or outside the actual workplace or educational institution, and may serve veterans and/ 

or family members. NOD believes that it is necessary to characterize and categorize 

mentoring programs in order to best assess their intent, their metrics, and their effectiveness. 

NOD’s mentoring approach is very holistic because it includes a wide variety of 

transition related support (career planning, benefits, access to key services, education, employment, and longer term self-sufficiency) and is also designed to link 

veterans with other community resources. Other programs may have a somewhat 

more narrow support role or focus, such as employment, education, or financial 

planning. Some programs provide morale support through social activities. All have 

the potential to enrich veterans, their families and the community separately, or in 

collaboration with other resources. 

The mentoring program landscape is very diverse and growing. Many mentoring 

programs primarily focus on veterans-to-veterans or citizen-to-veteran and provide 

employment advice and take place outside the work place (essentially familiarizing 

veterans with career paths, employer needs, or industry sectors). Other mentoring 

programs are sponsored by the employer and exist to support the veteran in the 

workplace or career path more directly. There are also mentoring programs that 

take place in educational settings, within national veterans’ organization programs, 

and within government and civilian internship and apprenticeship programs. In 

Michigan, the National Guard has a buddy-to-buddy program that focuses on general transition and mental health support. Other government-sponsored programs 

exist as well that provide general career-related support or support to veterans 

starting businesses. Accordingly, NOD’s recommendation is that mentoring programs should be looked at with specific regard to their purpose, beneficiaries, training or qualifications of mentors, location, design, metrics/measures of outcomes, relationship to partners or referral agencies, funding sources, cost/ease of replication, 

and likelihood of endurance, among other factors. Assessing effectiveness should include the opinion of the organization, but also extend to the veterans being served 

input from other relevant community partners that may be associated with the program or in a position to gauge it. Among other data collected in the NOD program, 

is a satisfaction survey, below: 
67 

Regarding existing resources that are worthy or consideration, in addition to a 

program like NOD, others include American Corporate Partners, Buddy-to-Buddy, 

Student Veterans of America, Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans Association, American 

Legion, Rutgers-University Veteran Mentoring Program, Joining Forces for Women 

Veterans mentoring project, Veterans Across America Champion Mentor program, 

VA Mentor-Prote ́ge ́ Program, Veterans Strategic Legal Resources Volunteer Mentor 

Program, and many that exist within corporations such as IBM. 

With regard to policies, a significant obstacle is the impediment to collaboration 

between private organizations and the Federal Government. Ethical statutes and 

regulations often prevent government agencies from referring separating service 

members to civilian/nongovernmental organizations in a systemic and efficient manner. Some organizations with congressional charters, are afforded unique access 

(USO, Red Cross, and some VSOs, while other worthwhile organizations find direct 

collaboration and referral processes exceptionally difficult to establish with government agencies. Too often, these challenges undermine the efficiency of private efforts that provide valuable services to separating service members and their families. Clarification of statutes should be accomplished to specify how governmental/ 

nongovernmental collaboration can be accomplished so that concerns about the appearance that the Government is endorsing private organization are addressed without undermining the potential for useful collaboration. The Chairman of the Joint 

Chiefs of Staff has described a ‘‘Sea of Goodwill’’ that is valuable to service members, veterans and families in communities across America. However, DOD too often 

cannot directly collaborate with much of the ‘‘Sea of Goodwill.’’ This represents a 

tremendous loss of opportunity and too often makes the use of private resources 

that are critical to veterans and communities that support them far less efficient 

and effective. Recommendations include: 

• Review key mentoring programs with specific regard to their purpose, beneficiaries, training or qualifications of mentors, location, design, metrics/measures of 

outcomes, relationship to partners or referral agencies, funding sources, cost/ease of 

replication, and likelihood of endurance, among other factors. Identify collaborative 

referral mechanisms and provide guidelines to Federal agencies to better exploit private organizations’ capabilities. 

• Develop grant program to allow most effective programs to receive some Federal 

support in order to achieve scale, further substantiate the model, or otherwise expand the ability of the Nation to exploit the potential of the approach inside or outside the Federal Government. 

Question 3b. Please provide specific examples of what you did as Secretary of 

Homeland Security to increase the employment opportunities for individuals with 

disabilities. 
68 

Answer 3b. 

• As I created a new Cabinet department, I determined that I wanted to provide 

as many opportunities for people with disabilities as possible. Employment of people 

with disabilities has always been a keen interest of mine, stretching back to my 

days as Governor of Pennsylvania when I had a disability issues agenda for my administration. 

• I tasked one of my senior leaders to develop a concrete plan to ensure that people with disabilities would get a fair opportunity to land positions within our new 

department. Please note that we did not set a ‘‘quota’’ or specific numerical goals 

for hiring people with disabilities. This is the approach taken in many ‘‘EEO’’ contexts, but we decided to pursue a different strategy. Our strategy was to identify 

this as a key leadership priority, give managers and supervisors all of the tools they 

needed to make this successful, and, aggressively recruit qualified candidates. We 

didn’t place a mandate on any of our hiring managers; we simply worked hard to 

make this a ‘‘win-win’’ opportunity for both our new Department and for prospective 

employees. 

• People told us we could not accomplish much with this initiative. First, they 

told us that we were a security/law enforcement agency. The government agencies 

that have had the best track records have been those with social service or education missions. We were told that people with disabilities are more drawn to that 

work, and that hiring managers in security/law enforcement agencies are far less 

inclined to hire people with disabilities than those in social service or education missions. Second, we were told that our initiative cut against overwhelming trends. At 

that time, employment of people with disabilities within the Federal Government 

as a whole was dropping by approximately 10 percent. We were told that our initiative could not be successful in the face of those trends. 

• We pressed forward. After 18 months, we evaluated the success of this initiative, and the results were astounding. In those 18 months, we had seen a 300 percent increase in the number of people with disabilities who worked for our organization. That is, we tripled the number of people with disabilities we had working for 

us. In proportion to the total population of DHS HQ, people with disabilities went 

from approximately 1 percent of the workforce to over 5 percent of the workforce. 

We had people with every type of disability and in all kinds of positions—an attorney who was deaf, a security employee who had been wounded in military service, 

an IT manager with a mobility impairment that required him to use a wheelchair, 

and people with learning disabilities. 

• Our initiative showed that it can be done; increasing the employment of people 

with disabilities can be accomplished, and, even in a very difficult context. Employment of people with disabilities should be a much easier proposition now for Federal 

agencies because of the large number of young men and women who are returning 

from wars in Iraq and Afghanistan with disabilities. These are young men and 

women who have security clearances. These are young men and women who are 

very inclined to do government service; they already have pledged to work in the 

public sector. These are young men and women with experience. These are young 

men and women who have a support structure to help make them successful—they 

have the DOD’s leadership and wounded veteran’s programs available to help them. 

In short, Federal agencies attempting to hire people with disabilities are faced with 

many advantages and opportunities that I did not have when I was standing up the 

new Department of Homeland Security. 

• Specifically, here is how we pursued this initiative: 

• Leadership. I sent a memorandum to my senior team announcing this initiative. It is critical to have leadership. When senior leaders take on an initiative like this, it is likely to be successful. This type of initiative struggles 

when it is a bottom-up approach; this type of initiative needs to have top 

leadership buy-in. And my senior team knew I meant business; I discussed 

this initiative with the leadership team on multiple occasions. Many of them 

reacted with great enthusiasm and took it on as a personal priority as well. 

• Training for Managers and Supervisors. We required every single person in 

DHS headquarters who was responsible for hiring or interviewing new employees to take a training class on this initiative. The training class was 90 

minutes long, and it accomplished two things. First, it showed all managers 

and supervisors that this was a project that really mattered to me and to my 

leadership team. When the managers saw Under Secretaries and Assistant 

Secretaries sitting through the training, with enthusiasm, it sent a message. 

Second, it greatly minimized the reluctance many people with disabilities 

have toward working with those with disabilities. We had several current employees with disabilities speak at length about how they get their jobs done, 
69 

their greatest hurdles on the job, and their greatest successes. This greatly 

increased the level of comfort our managers and supervisors had because it 

personalized the issue. Finally, it showed the managers that this would be 

a win-win. They were under pressure to bring on excellent new employees 

very quickly. We showed them that under the Schedule A hiring authorities, 

if they could identify a qualified applicant with a disability, they could move 

through the Federal employment process very quickly. So, they could get a 

qualified candidate in record-breaking time, AND make the Secretary happy 

by meeting this new initiative. They left seeing this as a win-win. 

• Technology. We signed an agreement with the Computer/Electronics Accommodation Program. CAP is a Department of Defense program that purchases 

assistive technology and related services, providing training on using assistive 

technology, advising on creating accessible electronic environments and assisting in accommodating workers with disabilities. In other words, when an 

employee needs some sort of accessible technology to do his or her work, CAP 

buys it, installs it, and trains them how to use it. For free. While CAP is located within DOD, it is authorized by Congress to provide assistance to employees at other government agencies. We signed a Memorandum of Understanding with CAP, and then had their leadership come to DHS headquarters 

to demonstrate the technologies that could be provided for free. This allowed 

employees with disabilities to do their work effectively. But it also reassured 

managers and supervisors that hiring employees with disabilities would be a 

success—because there would be the technology needed to support them. 

• Implementation. Finally, we hired a person who was completely dedicated to 

hiring people with disabilities. She attended job fairs, went to Walter Reed, 

and met with community groups. She got to know every manger or supervisor 

who expressed any interest in hiring a person with a disability. She took 

resume ́s from qualified candidates and then became a case worker to place 

that person in a job. 

RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS OF SENATOR ENZI BY DEBORAH DAGIT

Question 1. In your testimony you advocate for ‘‘employer incentives’’ as a means 

of increasing workforce retention. Please give specific examples of how we can do 

that on the Federal level. 

Answer 1. Authorize employer tax incentives that are not administratively burdensome and that will increase the availability and utilization of effective workforce 

retention policies and programs to keep working adults with newly diagnosed or recently exacerbated medical conditions connected to the workforce. 

The private sector has developed many best practices in disability management. 

For instance, when workers acquire new disabilities, employers focus on timely 

intervention to ensure that workers have the necessary health care and rehabilitation supports to adapt to new disabilities and/or recover. During the process, employers and insurers work intensively to assess and restore their employees’ work 

potential. Consequently, private sector disability insurers ask ‘‘what can you do and 

how? ’’, rather than require individuals to prove work incapacity. 

Employer-based disability management can reduce pressure on the Social Security 

disability rolls by enabling employees to remain connected to the workforce. Because 

disability management can reduce Federal income support expenditures, the Federal 

Government should play an active role in supporting and encouraging private-sector 

efforts. In fact, Unum, a disability, group, and term life insurance company, commissioned and released the following report, Financial Security for Working Americans: 

An Economic Analysis of Insurance Products in Workplace Benefits Programs. (July 

27, 2011). 

Question 2. How well aligned are Federal career, education, and training programs for individuals with disabilities? 

Answer 2. Federal career, education and training programs are marginally 

aligned for individuals with disabilities. Obviously there are exceptions, but generally the One-Stop Career Centers authorized through the Workforce Investment 

Act, school systems (elementary through post-secondary), and public training programs do not effectively coordinate services, lack innovative staff training, and do 

not prepare individuals with disabilities for the current or future job market. Innovative and successful model programs such as Career Opportunities for Students 

with Disabilities (COSD), High School/High Tech, Project SEARCH, Emerging Leaders, TransCen and BLNs struggle for funding and are seldom embraced by the traditional academic, training and employment systems. 
70 

Question 3. What must be done to improve the coordination between employers 

and agencies, including the Vocational Rehabilitation programs that serve as resources for hiring individuals with disabilities? 

Answer 3. From an employer’s point of view, for coordination to work at the local 

level, coordination must start at the Federal level and Federal agencies need to be 

held accountable. Not only is it critical that the Social Security Administration and 

the Departments of Labor, Education, Transportation, and Housing & Urban Development are at the table, but also Health and Human Services and its many components including Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services, Administration for 

Children and Families, and the Administration on Developmental Disabilities must 

be included. A holistic, coordinated and simplified service delivery system must be 

created that can incorporate innovative and successful programs in every State’s 

current delivery system. 

Employers, especially small and medium size companies, do not have the time or 

resources to deal with the various programs that serve individuals with disabilities. 

Neither do employers have the time or motivation to deal with the competition that 

exists among the service agencies nor the complicated and confusing requirements 

that the different agencies must follow to qualify for their funding. 

The key to improving coordination between employers and agencies including the 

Vocational Rehabilitation programs is to strengthen and grow the U.S. Business 

Leadership Network (USBLN®) network of affiliates. Businesses respond to their 

peers and the USBLN is the national disability organization that serves as the collective voice of over 60 Business Leadership Network affiliates across North America, representing over 5,000 businesses. The USBLN® helps build workplaces, marketplaces, and supply chains where people with disabilities are respected for their 

talents, while supporting the development and expansion of its BLN affiliates. The 

USBLN® recognizes and supports best practices in the employment and advancement of people with disabilities; the preparedness for work of youth and students 

with disabilities; marketing to consumers with disabilities; and contracting with 

vendors with disabilities through the development and certification of disabilityowned businesses. 

While the USBLN® movement was created by employers to reach their peers each 

local BLN is a non-profit entity that requires a stable public-private partnership to 

launch, expand and sustain itself. A strong BLN is the ideal link between government programs, community service providers and the employers. 

RESPONSE TO QUESTION OF SENATOR ENZI BY AMELIA WALLRICH

Question 1. During your testimony you shared your personal experience with the 

individualized education program (IEP). Please share some suggestions for how we 

might be able to foster a positive environment for individuals with a broad range 

of disabilities—particularly those with intellectual disabilities—so that the process 

can be positive, not adversarial. 

Answer 1. I think the IEP can be very useful, but it needs to be broadened to 

include more aspects of the educational experience. My IEP was helpful in procuring 

accommodations inside the classroom, but could have provided more support for 

transition planning and extracurricular and community activities. As I demonstrated in my testimony, extracurricular and community activities provided me 

with important training for future job skills. The broad goal of the IEP should be 

to implement a plan that helps a student with any type of disability use their education to obtain employment. The IEP should look for ways students with disabilities can explore their talents in a variety of arenas, the same way students without 

disabilities do. Part of the IEP process is an annual meeting that reviews a student’s accommodations, their progress in the classroom, and their needs for the upcoming school year. The discussion about progress should also include how the student is involved in school activities outside of the classroom and how these activities 

can help the student prepare for a future. The discussion about needs for the upcoming year should be held in the broader context of whether a student with a disability is being adequately prepared for the workforce and, if possible, higher education. Furthermore, the discussions about transition plans and preparing for employment should start at the beginning of a student’s education, not as he/she is 

about to graduate. 

In terms of students with intellectual disabilities, allowing them to identify different community programs, jobs programs, or specialized higher education programs, will allow them to test many avenues for their development. However, it is 

key to have this focus early on in the IEP process so students and support staff have 

adequate time to identify programs and use their education to prepare them for the 

programs. Moreover, opening extracurricular and community activities to students 
71 

with intellectual disabilities will prepare students without disabilities to work in a 

more inclusive environment, and eventually a more inclusive workforce. 

At a very basic level, the IEP should expect students with disabilities to be preparing for the workforce, just as our school systems are preparing students without 

disabilities for permanent employment. The IEP can help students with disabilities 

meet the expectation of employment by providing support and accommodations for 

community/extracurricular activities, by discussing transition plans early in a student’s education, and by focusing the IEP as a tool for helping a student with a disability use their education to obtain employment. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to speak on this issue. 

[Whereupon, at 11:37 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

Æ