Subminimum Wage and 

Supported Employment

National Council on Disability

August 23, 2012
Letter of Transmittal

August 23, 2012

President Barack Obama

The White House

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW

Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President:

On behalf of the National Council on Disability (NCD), I am pleased to submit NCD’s report, 

Subminimum Wage and Supported Employment. 

Section 14(c) of the Fair Labor Standards Act allows employers certified by the United States 

Department of Labor to compensate people with disabilities for work at a rate less than the 

minimum wage—a wage set by Congress for all other workers in the United States. Many 

disability advocates argue that 14(c) should be abolished because it discriminates against people 

with disabilities and is thus inconsistent with our national disability policy goals enshrined in the 

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Others argue that the subminimum wage certification 

program still has an important role among a range of employment options because it provides 

opportunities to people with disabilities who are unable to obtain competitive employment jobs. 

Debates among advocates and policymakers about the future of Section 14(c) have often been 

divisive, and consensus has been elusive.

NCD recognized it had a unique opportunity to develop a constructive path forward on subminimum 

wage policy. Following discussion at a December 2011 meeting of the Council, I appointed Council 

Member Clyde Terry as Chair of the Subminimum Wage Committee to examine the issue and bring 

forward recommendations to the full Council. 

The recommendations contained in this report reflect the considered judgment and analysis of 

NCD. As part of our exploration, we engaged in a series of site visits around the country to learn 

from the ground up about how policies are actually working in the lives of people with disabilities. 

Our report is not empirical in its approach, but we have tried to capture the essence of all of the 

voices and perspectives we heard. Our comprehensive recommendations seek to be responsive to 

all of the opportunities and concerns identified. 

The central theme of our recommendations is that the 14(c) program should be phased-out 

gradually as part of a systems change effort that enhances existing resources and creates new 

mechanisms for supporting people in obtaining integrated employment and other nonwork 

services. The comprehensive system of supports we propose is designed to improve opportunities 

for people with disabilities. NCD recommends a phase-out of the 14(c) program rather than 

immediate repeal because those who have been in the program for many years need time to 

National Council on Disability

An independent federal agency making recommendations to the President and Congress 

to enhance the quality of life for all Americans with disabilities and their families.

1331 F Street, NW ■ Suite 850 ■ Washington, DC 20004

202-272-2004 Voice ■ 202-272-2074 TTY ■ 202-272-2022 Fax ■ www.ncd.gov
transition to a supported employment environment. Our comprehensive approach includes formal 

requirements of mandatory information-sharing to workers, as well as informal systems of peer 

support and incentives to states and providers to expand supported employment services in integrated 

settings. 

NCD further recommends that the U.S. Department of Education should improve K–12 education and 

expand opportunities for higher education and postsecondary training for people with disabilities. As 

with all of our disability policies and programs, our transition programs and supportive employment 

programs should strive for maximum self-sufficiency. The end result will be greater opportunities and a 

stronger, more inclusive workforce for American businesses.

NCD recognizes that a report such as this is a starting point rather than the final word on overhauling 

a longstanding policy and program. NCD stands ready to assist you in taking the next steps to expand 

opportunities for people with disabilities to achieve economic independence and self-sufficiency.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Young, Ph.D., J.D.

Chairman

(The same letter of transmittal was sent to the President Pro Tempore of the U.S. Senate, the Speaker of the 

U.S. House of Representatives, and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget.)
National Council on Disability Members and Staff

Members

Jonathan M. Young, Ph.D., Chairman

Janice Lehrer-Stein, Vice Chair

Gary Blumenthal

Chester A. Finn

Sara Gelser

Matan Aryeh Koch

Kamilah Oni Martin-Proctor

Lonnie Moore 

Ari Ne’eman

Dongwoo Joseph (“Joe”) Pak, MBA

Clyde E. Terry

Fernando M. Torres-Gil, Ph.D.

Linda Wetters

Pamela Young-Holmes 

Staff

Aaron Bishop, Executive Director

Stacey S. Brown, Staff Assistant

Julie Carroll, Senior Attorney Advisor

Lawrence Carter-Long, Public Affairs Specialist

Joan M. Durocher, General Counsel & Director of Policy

Lisa Grubb, Confidential Special Assistant / Coordinator of Administration

Geraldine-Drake Hawkins, Ph.D., Senior Policy Analyst

Sylvia Menifee, Director of Administration

Carla Nelson, Administrative Specialist

Robyn Powell, Attorney Advisor

Anne Sommers, Director of Legislative Affairs & Outreach

Subminimum Wage and Supported Employment 3
4 National Council on Disability
Table of Contents

List of Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  

NCD Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  1

Benefit Planning, Work Incentive Counseling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  1

Peer Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Notification of Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Transformation of the 14(c) Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  1

Education Systems Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2

Enforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2

Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2

Notes from Council Dialogue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2

Site Descriptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2

Burlington, Vermont . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2

New York, New York . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2

Salem, Oregon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2

Vancouver, Washington . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3

Pierre, South Dakota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3

Baton Rouge, Louisiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3

Columbus, Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3

APPENDIX Implementation Plan for Subminimum Wage Recommendations . . . . .  4

Proposed Council Vote (July 26, 2012) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4

Endnotes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4

Subminimum Wage and Supported Employment 5
6 National Council on Disability
List of Acronyms

ADA Americans with Disabilities Act

CMS Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services 

DDS Vermont Developmental Disability Services

DOL U.S. Department of Labor

ED U.S. Department of Education 

ESD Education Service District 

FAFSA Free Application for Federal Student Aid

FMAP Federal Medicaid Assistance Percentage

GAO Government Accountability Office 

GSA General Services Administration 

ID/DD intellectual and developmental disabilities 

IEP individualized education plan 

NCD National Council on Disability 

SSA U.S. Social Security Administration 

VR vocational rehabilitation

Subminimum Wage and Supported Employment 7
NCD stands for the principle that no person with 

a disability should be discriminated against in 

an employment setting by paying less than the 

minimum wage available to all other citizens. [

8 National Council on Disability
I

n December 2011, the National Council on 

Disability (NCD) began discussions relative 

to Section 14(c) of the Fair Labor Standards 

Act. This provision allows employers certified 

by the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) to 

compensate people with disabilities for work at 

a rate less than the minimum wage—a wage set 

by Congress for all other workers in the United 

States. Following the Members’ discussion, 

Chairman Jonathan Young appointed Council 

Member Clyde Terry to chair the Subminimum 

Wage Committee (the Committee) to examine 

the issue and bring forward recommendations to 

the full Council.

The Committee met several times in 

early January to review national research. 

The Committee determined that there are 

approximately 420,000 people with disabilities 

in the 14(c) program.1 The Committee also 

discussed the history of other attempts to 

address this issue. It was the Committee’s intent 

to learn from those attempts, recognize the 

concerns raised by people with disabilities and 

their families, and come forward with a series of 

recommendations that would address them. The 

guiding principle for the Committee’s work was to 

apply the vision of the Americans with Disabilities 

Act (ADA) to assure equality and opportunity for 

all and eliminate any policies of discrimination on 

the basis of disability.

It became clear the Committee needed to 

hear from stakeholders to determine how best to 

approach the issues. The Committee decided to 

visit seven states that reflected regional diversity, 

including both urban and rural settings. The 

Committee also selected states that exhibited 

a range of progress in transitioning from 14(c) 

programs to supported employment programs in 

integrated, competitive settings.

The visits occurred between March and May 

2012. The Committee met with individual workers 

with disabilities, family members, parents and 

siblings, workshop operators who hold 14(c) 

certificates, state policymakers, and operators of 

supported employment programs.

The Committee recognized early that 

any statement of public policy or a simple 

recommendation to eliminate all Section 14(c) 

certificates would jeopardize the security of 

many people who are currently involved with 

the program. The Committee thus concluded 

that a transformation strategy was needed to 

phase out a policy relic from the 1930s, when 

discrimination was inevitable because service 

systems were based on a charity model, rather 

than empowerment and self-determination. 

Introduction

Subminimum Wage and Supported Employment 9
NCD stands for the principle that no person with 

a disability should be discriminated against in 

an employment setting 

by paying less than the 

minimum wage available 

to all other citizens.

This report offers 

a systems change 

approach. It puts forward 

a comprehensive 

system of support that will result in greater 

opportunities for people with developmental and 

intellectual disabilities. This report recommends 

a phase-out of the 14(c) program, realizing 

that those who have been in the program for a 

long period of time will need time to transition 

to a supported employment environment. 

This approach includes formal requirements 

of mandatory information sharing to workers, 

informal systems of peer support, and incentives 

to states and providers to expand supported 

[E]ven supported employment is 

not an end of a career but rather 

a stepping stone for greater selfsufficiency. 

employment services in integrated settings. 

The Committee also recognized the need to 

make certain recommendations to the U.S. 

Department of Education (ED) to improve K–12 

education and to expand opportunities for 

higher education and postsecondary training for 

people with disabilities. Those recommendations 

acknowledge that even supported employment 

is not the end of a career but rather a stepping 

stone for greater self-sufficiency. The end result 

will be greater opportunities for these people 

and a stronger, more inclusive workforce for 

American businesses.

The Committee researched and studied the 

issues of the subminimum wage program and 

Section 14(c) during the winter and spring of 

2012. The Committee sought out views and 

experiences from workers with disabilities, family 

members, workshop operators, policymakers, 

and supported employment programs to 

learn how best to address the many issues 

surrounding the 14(c) 

program.

In addition to its site 

visits, the Committee 

also reviewed the broad 

scope of research 

literature and policy 

information surrounding supported employment, 

sheltered workshops, and the outcomes and 

cost-effectiveness of each. Key findings include:

■ Sheltered workshops are ineffective at 

transitioning people with disabilities to 

integrated employment. According to the 

2001 investigation by the Government 

Accountability Office (GAO) into the 14(c) 

program, only approximately 5 percent of 

sheltered workshop employees left to take a 

job in the community.2

10 National Council on Disability
■ According to the Centers for Medicare 

& Medicaid Services (CMS), Medicaidfinanced pre-vocational services to 

sheltered workshops are “not an end point, 

but a time limited (although no specific 

limit is given) service for the purpose 

of helping someone obtain competitive 

employment.”3

■ People with disabilities in supported 

employment who had previously been 

served in sheltered workshop settings do 

not show a higher rate of employment as 

compared to those who had gone straight 

to supported employment without ever 

being in a sheltered workshop.4 However, 

research indicates that those who had 

previously been in sheltered workshops had 

higher support costs and lower wages than 

comparable people who had never been in 

sheltered workshop settings.5

■ The 14(c) subminimum wage program 

is utilized primarily by nonprofit or stateoperated social services providers—

specifically, sheltered workshops—rather 

than private, for-profit businesses. According 

to GAO, 95 percent of all workers with 

disabilities being paid less than minimum 

wage under the 14(c) program were 

employed by sheltered workshops.6

■ Research indicates that employees 

receiving supported employment services 

generate lower cumulative costs than 

employees receiving sheltered workshop 

services and that, whereas the costtrend of supported employees shifts 

downward over time, the opposite is 

the case for people receiving sheltered 

workshop services.7

It is important to note that the purpose of 

NCD is to promote the policies, programs, 

practices, and procedures that guarantee equal 

opportunity for all people with disabilities, 

regardless of the nature or severity of the 

disability; and empower people with disabilities 

to achieve economic self-sufficiency, 

independent living, and inclusion and 

integration into all aspects of society.

This is not an empirical study. The Committee 

did not review every state, every sheltered 

workshop, and every piece of literature on the 

subject. However, the Committee did set out 

to systematically ensure all stakeholders were 

represented and given an opportunity to present 

their views.

Subminimum Wage and Supported Employment 11
In addition to examining subminimum 

wages and legacy programs such as sheltered 

workshops, NCD is also looking at what states 

are doing regarding supported employment 

and Employment First initiatives. The 

overarching framework for NCD’s examination is 

modernizing systems, eliminating segregation, 

and encouraging fair wages and competitive, 

integrated employment for workers with 

disabilities.

At its June 2012 quarterly meeting in Los 

Angeles, the Council was presented with the 

recommendations in this report and voted 

unanimously to approve them.

12 National Council on Disability
NCD Recommendations

Benefit Planning, Work Incentive 

Counseling

During the course of the Committee’s site visits, 

the Committee heard from workers, families, and 

providers alike about how important benefit/work 

incentive counseling is to a successful transition 

into a competitive, integrated employment 

situation. This counseling allows the person with 

a disability to make decisions that assure their 

critical needs are supported. The Committee 

learned that the transition was much more 

successful when the person had this counseling 

support, but some people were not aware of this 

valuable service.

The U.S. Social Security Administration 

(SSA) has important, long-established work 

incentives that allow Supplemental Security 

Income beneficiaries to accumulate income and/

or resources without risking loss of benefits 

while working toward a future occupational 

goal or maintaining self-employment and small 

business ownership. However, the Plans for 

Achieving Self-Support program and the Benefits 

Planning, Assistance, and Outreach Program, 

among others, are still relatively unfamiliar 

to agency personnel and service provider 

agency staff, as well as beneficiaries. For these 

programs to have any widespread or lasting 

impact, SSA needs to embark on a major public 

awareness, outreach, education, and technical 

assistance campaign.

In addition, these programs preclude savings 

for nonemployment related purposes and are 

perceived as being complex and bureaucratic 

in nature. Thus, while SSA has taken steps to 

improve its return-to-work services through 

the provision of work incentives, these efforts 

are hampered by the underlying program rules 

that were designed for people assumed to be 

permanently retired from the workforce and 

people who were viewed as unable or unlikely to 

work in the future.

Recommendation: NCD recommends 

that Congress reauthorize and direct 

SSA, CMS, the Department of Housing 

and Urban Development, and DOL’s 

Employment and Training Administration 

to develop and implement an expanded, 

integrated benefits planning and assistance 

program that coordinates resources and 

oversight across several agencies, enabling 

beneficiaries, including those transitioning 

out of subminimum wage settings, to access 

benefits planning services within multiple 

federal systems. SSA should also make 

changes to the existing system to improve 

the accuracy and quality of services provided 

to individual beneficiaries.

Subminimum Wage and Supported Employment 13
Peer Support

The Committee identified a need for strong peer 

support for people and their families transitioning 

from the 14(c) program to a supported 

employment environment. The consumers the 

Committee met with in Vermont, for instance, 

described how helpful their peers were in 

resolving workplace issues they encountered. 

Some of the issues included how to talk to 

coworkers who were rude or how to speak with 

supervisors. One worker, who now has a job at 

a music store, stated how important peers have 

been to him.

In the 1970s, Congress passed the 

Development Disabilities Bill of Rights Act. This 

legislation created an infrastructure of state 

developmental disability planning councils, 

the University Affiliated Centers (now known 

as Centers of Excellence), and the Protection 

and Advocacy system. Within these systems 

much has been done to build both peer and 

family support programs. These programs have 

proved helpful in those states that have closed 

institutions. This same type of support would 

be most helpful to create successful transitions 

from sheltered workshop settings to integrated, 

competitive employment opportunities. 

NCD’s recent report on the Developmental 

Disabilities system offered recommendations to 

improve coordination and peer support. This issue 

could provide an excellent opportunity for all the 

partners to come together and make systems 

change for the benefit of people with intellectual 

disabilities.

Notification of Services

Through the course of this effort, the 

Committee found people who are currently 

in the 14(c) settings earning subminimum 

wages have had very few opportunities to 

learn about the possibilities of integrated 

employment outside the workshop. Similar 

to the Committee’s findings regarding benefit 

planning and work incentives, the need for 

knowledge is great—not unlike the needs 

of people in nursing homes to know about 

their rights to transition into the community. 

In the case of nursing home transition, CMS 

now requires nursing home residents be 

given notice of the possibilities to live in 

the community.

A similar approach would be helpful in this 

context. Thus, operators of 14(c) workshops 

should be required to provide notice and 

information of the availability of supported 

employment services for positions in integrated 

employment, as well as the availability of 

benefit counseling and peer support. Systems 

change recommendations are needed 

to improve and enhance the supported 

employment infrastructure so this will not be a 

hollow promise.

Infrastructure

Over the course of the Committee’s site visits 

and general research, it became evident that 

financial incentives could play an important 

role in shifting behavior on the part of people, 

Recommendation: NCD recommends 

that the three partners authorized under 

the Development Disabilities Bill of Rights 

Act coordinate and expand efforts to 

support peer support to both families and 

people with intellectual and developmental 

disabilities transitioning from the 14(c) 

programs to integrated employment.

14 National Council on Disability
provider organizations, and state and local 

governments. Rate-setting, contracting 

methodologies, Federal Medical Assistance 

Percentages and other considerations in the 

financial relationships between the federal 

government and state 

and local government 

entities, and that 

between state and 

local entities and 

individual providers, 

have a profound and 

significant impact on the 

likelihood of integrated 

employment outcomes for people with 

intellectual and developmental disabilities. As 

one state policymaker in Vermont put it, “We 

made the decision many years ago to invest our 

money where our values were, and not fund 

the outcomes we didn’t believe in. That has 

made all the difference.”

Throughout the history of supported 

employment services, federal funding policies in 

both the Medicaid and vocational rehabilitation 

programs have profoundly impacted the 

expansion of integrated employment outcomes 

for people with intellectual and developmental 

disabilities. Several states NCD visited credited 

key initial efforts to build supported employment 

infrastructure to systems change grants provided 

by the Rehabilitation Services Administration 

throughout the 1980s, at the behest of then 

Assistant Secretary of Education for Special 

Education and Rehabilitation Services Madeline 

Will. Numerous other examples of federal 

policy changes impacting or having the potential 

to impact the rate of growth in supported 

employment services emerged during our 

site visits.

Prior to 1997, Medicaid waiver funding had 

a limited impact on supported employment 

services as compared to the vocational 

rehabilitation system. Before the Balanced 

Budget Act Amendments of 1997, which 

expanded the availability of supported 

employment services 

to all people receiving 

services under the 

HCBS waiver, people 

with disabilities could 

only receive supported 

employment funding 

from Medicaid if they 

had previously been 

institutionalized.8 As a result of this policy shift, 

federal supported employment expenditures 

under the HCBS waiver jumped from $35 

million in FY 1998 to $108 million in 2002.9

Unfortunately, this increase in supported 

employment expenditures seems to have 

come primarily from a relatively small group 

of states.10

States with strong track records of integrated 

employment outcomes have reflected a valuesbased philosophy in their financial arrangements 

with providers, reflecting a strong preference 

for integrated employment outcomes as 

Recommendation: DOL should undertake 

rulemaking to require all participants of 

14(c) certificate programs to provide twice 

annually to all workers the opportunities to 

transition from a 14(c) setting to a supported 

employment situation in an integrated 

worksite with competitive wages. Such 

notice should also include information 

about benefit work incentive counseling and 

peer support.

“We made the decision many years 

ago to invest our money where 

our values were, and not fund the 

outcomes we didn’t believe in. That 

has made all the difference.”

—Vermont policymaker

Subminimum Wage and Supported Employment 15
opposed to segregated and nonwork options. 

Approaches varied significantly, but all 

carried with them an explicit and unequivocal 

endorsement of integrated employment as the 

preferred outcome for people with disabilities. 

Vermont decided to stop funding new entrances 

into sheltered workshops in 2000 and by 

2002 had decided to close its workshops 

altogether, utilizing a 

three-year phase-out 

period. According to 

state officials, the last 

workshop was closed 

18 months later in 

2003. Today, Vermont’s 

integrated employment 

rate for people with developmental disabilities 

is twice the national average.11

Other states have adopted strategies 

focused more specifically on expanding 

supported employment services. A growing 

number of states are adopting the Employment 

First model as the guiding philosophy for 

their day and employment services, setting 

an expectation that integrated employment 

should be considered the first and preferred 

option for all people with disabilities, including 

intellectual and developmental disabilities. 

Some participating states, such as Tennessee, 

have adjusted their rate setting to align 

with this philosophy.12 At least one state—

Oklahoma—has adopted a performance-based, 

rate-setting system within their developmental 

disability service-provision system, paying for 

hours worked rather than hours of service 

provided. This has incentivized serviceproviders to maximize the use of natural 

supports, accommodations, and other similar 

strategies that enhance the independence 

of the employee with a disability.13 Almost all 

states that have been successful in expanding 

integrated employment services have depended 

on close collaboration between the state 

intellectual and developmental disabilities (ID/

DD) and vocational rehabilitation (VR) agencies.

Unfortunately, despite promising outcomes 

in several key states, the national picture for 

supported employment 

services has been 

worsening over the 

course of the last 

decade. Between the 

mid-1980s and mid1990s, supported 

employment services 

expanded rapidly, driven by key federal 

investments and the expansion in expertise 

and awareness of the potential for this form of 

service-provision for people who have historically 

been excluded from employment. The integrated 

employment rate for people receiving services 

from a state ID/DD agency peaked in 2001 at 

25 percent. Since then, it has declined to 20.3 

percent in 2009.14

Additional federal investments are necessary 

to encourage states to shift funds away from 

sheltered workshops and nonwork day services 

toward supported employment services and 

integrated employment outcomes.

States with strong track records of 

integrated employment outcomes 

have reflected a values-based 

philosophy in their financial 

arrangements with providers...

Integrated Employment Rate

The integrated employment rate for people 

receiving services from a state ID/DD 

agency peaked in 2001 at 25 percent and had 

declined to 20.3 percent in 2009.

16 National Council on Disability
Recommendations: NCD recommends the following steps be taken with respect to the 

expansion of supported employment services:

At the state level:

■ Align reimbursement rates to providers to reflect a bias in favor of integrated settings and a 

primary preference in favor of integrated employment services.

■ Explore the possibility of performance-based payment systems for employment supports, 

keeping in mind the need for ensuring adequate reimbursement to maintain and grow an 

adequate provider network.

■ Expand access to customized employment and job carving services.

■ Develop a strong working collaboration, including a Memorandum of Understanding outlining 

funding and administrative responsibilities and mechanisms for resolving disputes, between 

the state VR agency, ID/DD service-provision agency, and state education authority.

At the federal level:

To CMS:

■ Require states applying for waivers or demonstration authority shifting part or all of their 

long-term services and support systems into managed care to indicate how they will 

maintain access to employment services, track quality through the use of nonclinical 

outcome measures, and ensure managed care organization competency to develop and 

maintain the employment supports service-provision system.

■ Enhance monitoring, compliance and enforcement activities regarding state employment 

support policies to promote alignment with CMS September 2011 Informational Bulletin on 

Employment Support.

Congress:

■ Create a Money Follows the Person for Integrated Employment program, enabling the 

Federal Government to pick up 100 percent of the costs of supported employment services 

for people leaving a sheltered workshop or day habilitation setting for integrated employment.

■ Increase the Federal Medicaid Assistance Percentage (FMAP) for Supported Employment 

Services in integrated employment settings while reducing the FMAP for pre-vocational 

services.

■ Instruct CMS to develop a minimum standard definition for integrated employment 

settings aligned with national best practices.

(continued)

Subminimum Wage and Supported Employment 17
Transformation of the 14(c) Program

The Committee recommends that the Section 

14(c) program should be phased out gradually 

to provide adequate time for transition to new 

alternatives. The Committee recognized early 

on in this project that any statement of public 

policy or recommendation to DOL or Congress 

to simply eliminate all Section 14(c) certificates 

would jeopardize the security of many people 

who are currently involved with the program. 

The committee realized what is needed is a 

conversion or transformation strategy and phaseout of a relic in policy left over from the 1930s. 

To that end, this report 

offers a systems change 

approach to focus 

on a comprehensive 

system of support that 

will result in greater 

opportunities for people 

with disabilities. This 

approach includes 

formal requirements 

of mandatory information sharing to workers, 

informal systems of peer support, as well 

as incentives to states and providers to 

expand supported employment services in 

integrated settings.

The Committee realizes that change will 

come slowly and the facts on the ground require 

a phased-in approach to support people who 

currently receive subminimum wage be given 

the chance to earn at least minimum wage or 

greater. In addition, the Committee learned that 

younger workers have a higher expectation 

of employment than older workers, and there 

is a real need to prevent those graduating 

from high school from 

entering the workshop 

environment. This was 

best demonstrated 

by a man from Baton 

Rouge, Louisiana, whose 

family had this insight 

early. Eighteen years 

ago, his family realized 

■ Create a federal grant program, administered by the Administration on Developmental 

Disabilities, aimed at supporting state systems change efforts regarding integrated 

employment outcomes. Require states applying to include in their application clear and 

measurable systems change goals relating to integrated employment and a memorandum 

of agreement indicating means of collaboration between a consortium of relevant state 

entities, including at minimum the state VR agency, the state ID/DD service-provision 

agency, and the state education authority.

■ Enhance the Administration on Developmental and Intellectual Disabilities budget for 

Projects of National Significance, specifically targeting initiatives relating to enhancing 

integrated employment outcomes.

[T]he Committee learned that 

younger workers have a higher 

expectation of employment than 

older workers, and there is a real 

need to prevent those graduating 

from high school from entering the 

workshop environment.

Recommendations to Congress, continued

18 National Council on Disability
his potential and rather than let him stay in a 

workshop, worked with a provider to get him a 

job at McDonald’s. He has been there ever since. 

He told the Committee how much he enjoys 

the work, lives in the community, and is much 

happier than when he was at the workshop. His 

sister reported that he considers the lobby as 

his lobby and has worked with many different 

managers who end up relying on him regarding 

how the lobby is cleaned and organized.

To accomplish this transformation, the 

first step is to prohibit DOL from issuing 

14(c) certificates following the passage of 

the legislation. As part of this phase of the 

effort, NCD also recommends prohibiting any 

individualized education plan (IEP) to identify 

placement in a subminimum wage program as a 

permissible goal (see ED recommendation).

The second phase will require all providers 

who administer 14(c) certificates to convert to a 

supported employment model supporting people 

with developmental or intellectual disabilities in 

an integrated, competitive environment. Even 

this conversion should be phased in with priority 

given to those people who have held a 14(c) 

certificate for 10 years or less. Those individuals 

should be supported in an integrated setting 

within 2 years.

Those individuals who have held a 14(c) 

certificate for a period of time between 10 

and 20 years should be supported in an 

integrated setting within 4 years, and all 

people who have held a 14(c) certificate for 

any period of time greater than 20 years 

should be supported in an integrated setting 

within 6 years.

Recommendation: NCD recommends Congress should pass legislation phasing out the 

14(c) program as outlined in this report.

Recommendation: NCD recommends that DOL cease issuing all Section 14(c) certificates 

30 days after passage of this legislation.

Recommendation: NCD recommends that ED undertake rulemaking to prohibit school 

districts from establishing placement in a setting whereby the student will receive 

subminimum wage as a goal in any IEP.

Recommendation: NCD recommends that DOL undertake rulemaking to phase out all 

existing 14(c) certificates to providers of employment services according to the following 

schedule:

■ All people in certificate settings for 10 years or less shall be transitioned within 2 years.

■ All people in certificate settings for 10 to 20 years shall be transitioned within 4 years.

■ All certificates shall expire in 6 years, and all people in certificate settings longer than 

20 years shall be transitioned within 6 years.

Subminimum Wage and Supported Employment 19
Education Systems Change

During the Committee’s site visits, it became 

clear that two key indicators suggested an 

individual was more likely to choose competitive 

employment. The first indicator was age, with 

younger people with disabilities more likely to 

advocate for competitive employment at or 

above the minimum wage. In addition, young 

people transitioning to work out of inclusive 

K–12 education environments where they had 

access to the general curriculum and experiences 

in integrated classrooms were also most likely 

to state a desire for integrated employment. In 

these cases, parents also seemed more likely to 

support this desire.

Although few states demonstrated clear 

alignment between education planning and 

post school outcomes, 

the state of Washington 

intentionally 

begins focusing on 

employment outcomes 

for all students in 

early childhood. For 

instance, elementary school-aged children 

(including students with intellectual and 

other disabilities) may be supported to take 

on chores, school responsibilities, and other 

activities that develop job skills alongside their 

peers without disabilities. It was clear from 

the Committee’s visits that an individual’s 

desire to work at all, and at what wage, 

was influenced heavily by the expectations 

that were set for that person beginning in 

childhood and all the way through school. It is 

because of this change in expectations that 

the 14(c) program is outdated in 2012 and 

needs to be phased out.

Further, with NCD’s recommendation to 

convert the 14(c) program to a supported 

employment model for people with disabilities 

to work in integrated settings with competitive 

wages, it is imperative that students are 

educated in integrated environments. Students 

with disabilities, including those with intellectual 

disabilities, need to access the general 

curriculum in inclusive settings beginning in early 

childhood. Students who learn in segregated 

settings are less likely to believe they can earn 

money in competitive, integrated settings 

as adults.

Participation in inclusive settings should 

include both academic work and opportunities 

to take on their share of classroom chores and 

responsibilities along with their nondisabled 

peers. It is important 

to note, however, it is 

not helpful for students 

with disabilities to 

be assigned chores 

and work in place of 

academics, nor be 

assigned work and chores not typically assigned 

to peers without disabilities. All of this will lead 

to an expectation that meaningful work in an 

inclusive environment is possible and part of 

each student’s future.

To that end, students with disabilities need 

to have the high school credentials and the 

same access to higher education as their 

contemporaries without disabilities. Failure to 

earn a high school diploma or GED is a nearly 

insurmountable barrier to employment for 

all people. Students with disabilities are no 

exception. Students with disabilities should 

be supported to pursue diplomas, and states 

Students who learn in segregated 

settings are less likely to believe 

they can earn money in competitive, 

integrated settings as adults.

20 National Council on Disability
should pursue the development of statewide 

standards for achievable diplomas that 

demonstrate content mastery and the ability to 

complete school and attain goals. Oregon offers 

an example of this type of statewide approach 

to rigorous, attainable goals for students with 

intellectual and learning disabilities through 

its statewide modified and extended diploma 

standards.

Obtaining this credential is vital for some 

students with disabilities who may benefit 

from pursuing postsecondary educational 

opportunities, either in a four-year institution 

or in a certificate program at a community or 

technical college. Recent changes in the law 

surrounding the Free Application for Federal 

Student Aid (FAFSA) create new barriers for 

students with disabilities through the elimination 

of the Ability to Benefit Test. Under these 

changes, students with disabilities who have 

not earned a standard diploma or GED are not 

eligible for any federal aid, including loans or 

Pell grants, even if they have been admitted 

to a postsecondary institution. This shuts the 

door to affordable training programs that might 

help more people with disabilities, including 

intellectual disabilities, gain skills in trades, 

culinary arts, child care, and other programs 

offered at these institutions. This issue needs to 

be reexamined.

Recommendation: ED should issue technical assistance guidance to help school districts 

understand that, while a student with a disability is enrolled in kindergarten through grade 

12, the primary focus should be on attainment of a rigorous school completion document. 

Preparation to earn this document should include academics aligned with the general 

curriculum and transition services designed specifically to address job development and 

independent living skills.

Recommendation: Legislation should be passed to restore the Ability to Benefit Test 

for FAFSA. This is critical if we are to remove barriers to postsecondary educational 

and career opportunities for students with disabilities. The ED should modify the rules 

concerning FAFSA to incorporate the educational and career opportunities for students 

with disabilities.

Recommendation: ED should prohibit the use of sheltered workshops as placements for 

transition-related activities, or for skills assessments completed during a transition program 

in a public school. There should be clear financial sanctions for districts that violate this 

prohibition.

Recommendation: When collecting data about post-school outcomes for people with 

disabilities, work in a sheltered workshop or in any setting for less than minimum wage 

should not be counted as a successful placement.

Subminimum Wage and Supported Employment 21
Enforcement

In 2009, the Civil Rights Division of the 

Department of Justice (DOJ OCR) launched 

an aggressive effort to enforce the Supreme 

Court’s decision in Olmstead v. L.C.,15 a ruling 

that requires states to eliminate unnecessary 

segregation of people with disabilities and to 

ensure that people with disabilities receive 

services in the most integrated setting 

appropriate to their needs. States are obligated 

to maintain plans demonstrating movement of 

people with disabilities living in such institutions 

to community-based settings with support. 

The Department of Justice (DOJ) is seeking 

similar authority to move people with disabilities 

in segregated worksites to more integrated 

employment settings and has filed a Statement 

Recommendation: DOJ should exercise 

its monitoring and enforcement authority to 

assure that all people with disabilities are 

transferred to an integrated employment 

setting and that such a person receive a 

competitive wage.

of Interest asserting that the “integration 

regulation prohibits the unnecessary segregation 

of [people] with disabilities by public entities in 

nonresidential settings, including segregated 

sheltered workshops.” The recommendations 

contained in this report provide a road map 

for movement to community inclusion and 

integrated employment for all.

22 National Council on Disability
NCD Chairman Jonathan Young appointed 

a Council Member, Clyde Terry, to 

Chair an ad-hoc group dubbed the 

Subminimum Wage Committee, made up of 

five Council Members and NCD staff. Seven 

states were selected for site visits—New 

York, Ohio, Vermont, South Dakota, Louisiana, 

Oregon, and Washington—taking into account 

diversity, geography, states that had successfully 

converted and/or 

eliminated sheltered 

workshops and those 

that have not; states that 

have a large population 

of people with disabilities 

in sheltered settings 

and those that do 

not; suburban; urban; 

and rural settings. The 

Committee selected a cross-section of states 

and communities to get a detailed understanding 

of how employment programs work best and 

to identify the difficulties faced by workers with 

disabilities in gaining competitive, integrated 

employment.

Using the same series of open-ended 

questions, each set of questions crafted for a 

specific group of stakeholders, the Committee 

interviewed advocates, supported employment 

providers, state policymakers, workers with 

disabilities, families, and providers of workshop 

programs. The Committee’s methodology 

is intended to help the Council advance 

recommendations to improve opportunities for 

adult workers with disabilities in competitive, 

integrated employment at fair wages.

The Council started its analysis and crafted 

its recommendations from the stakeholder level 

rather than the policy level. In other words, the 

Council’s preferred entry 

point is the lives of 

people with disabilities 

rather than a policy 

debate. That conviction 

led to undertaking site 

visits and the interviews. 

The Council focused on 

identifying frameworks 

that will promote 

improved quality of life for people with disabilities, 

and particularly what people with disabilities 

believe better quality of life means for them.

NCD’s primary constituents are people with 

disabilities. In this context, that meant focusing 

primarily on people with ID/DD. The Committee 

has ensured their voices received priority and 

have resisted the assumption that parents, 

siblings, and providers speak for these adults. 

Adults with ID/DD have a long history of others 

claiming to speak for their interests. While they 

Methodology

NCD’s primary constituents are 

people with disabilities . . . The 

Committee has ensured their voices 

received priority and have resisted 

the assumption that parents, 

siblings, and providers speak for 

these adults.

Subminimum Wage and Supported Employment 23
care deeply, we, as NCD, seek to ensure that 

this population of adults is empowered to speak 

for themselves. We are mindful of the slogan 

adopted by those in the disability community 

who successfully negotiated the first human 

rights treaty of the 21st century, the Convention 

on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities—

“Nothing about us, without us.”

Notes from Council Dialogue

Key points that emerged from Council 

deliberations include:

■ There are two main forces at work. On the 

main, those who might seem to be opposed 

to subminimum wages and sheltered 

workshops emphasize the inherent injustice 

and flaws in the systems, while those who 

might seem to be in support of them reflect 

concerns about the alternatives that will 

be available for themselves and/or their 

loved ones should subminimum wage be 

abolished.

■ The Council did not meet many stakeholders 

who believe the current system represents 

an intrinsic ideal. Very few stakeholders are 

proponents of the perfection of the existing 

system.

■ There are weaknesses in the availability 

of community-based options, and it would 

be as short-sighted and inconsistent with 

NCD’s mission to ignore those realities as 

it would be to recommend the immediate 

shutdown of what is an outdated system 

that is ill-equipped to maximize the life and 

choices of people with disabilities. However, 

NCD must ensure the injustices propagated 

by the current system are eliminated.

■ NCD has a responsibility to make 

recommendations prepared to meet the 

needs of people who will be affected.

■ There needs to be a genuine remedy to a 

flawed system.

■ There is a divide within the ID/DD 

community, exacerbated by the age of 

the individuals (generational gap) and 

the varying stakeholders (self-advocates, 

family members, providers, etc.) within the 

community.

■ Some disability service providers welcome 

the transition. Some fear it as much as 

many parents of older adults with disabilities 

do, because they are vested in the current 

system and have fears about how it will be 

replaced.

■ The discussions NCD is encountering 

regarding subminimum wage and sheltered 

workshops parallel the discussions 

in the 1970s and 1980s regarding 

deinstitutionalization.

■ Historically, consensus is hard to come by 

whenever the disability service provision 

system has needed change.

24 National Council on Disability
Burlington, Vermont

Purpose of Visit: Vermont represented an 

extraordinary opportunity to view the outcome of 

a state that had eliminated sheltered workshops 

and subminimum wage almost 10 years prior. 

After making heavy investments in supported 

employment infrastructure and capacity, 

the state’s intellectual and developmental 

disability service-provision agency—Vermont 

Developmental Disability Services (DDS)—

determined in 2000 that they would no longer 

fund new entrances into sheltered workshops. 

In 2002, Vermont changed its system of care to 

indicate that it would no longer fund sheltered 

workshop services, allowing for a threeyear phase-out period to shut down existing 

sheltered workshops. By 2003, the last sheltered 

workshop in the state had closed, with agencies 

transitioning to providing supported employment 

services instead and people with disabilities 

moving into integrated employment and 

integrated nonwork options.

Summary of Activities: The Committee’s site 

visit in Vermont was broad and wide ranging, 

including senior officials in DDS and the state 

vocational rehabilitation agency, self-advocates, 

family members, supported employment 

coordinators, executives at support agencies, 

and past clients of workshops. According to 

state officials, approximately 80 percent of the 

workers in the last workshop closed transitioned 

into supported employment, while the remainder 

moved into a state integrated nonwork program 

called Community Support. Approximately 

40 percent of people with intellectual and 

developmental disabilities are in integrated 

employment, with the remainder in communitybased, integrated nonwork activities. There 

are no people in Vermont in facility-based work 

or facility-based nonwork activities. Data sets 

from the Institute for Community Inclusion’s 

StateData.info website confirms these statistics.

Observations: A consistent narrative emerged 

describing the state’s transition from sheltered 

workshops to a fully integrated employment 

Site Descriptions

In Vermont...

2000: Stopped funding sheltered workshops

2002: Closed sheltered workshops 

altogether using phase-out

2002: Every county in Vermont had a 

supported employment agency

2003: Last sheltered workshop closed

2012: Vermont’s integrated employment 

rate for people with developmental 

disabilities is twice the national average

Subminimum Wage and Supported Employment 25
support and day activity system. In the 1980s, 

the University of Vermont received a Systems 

Change grant from the Rehabilitation Services 

Administration, tasking it to work in tandem with 

the Vermont VR Agency and DDS to build up 

supported employment services throughout the 

state. The grant provided for extensive technical 

assistance and the creation of supported 

employment coordinators in key positions in 

state government. After the five-year grant cycle, 

both VR and DDS agencies decided to sustain the 

positions of supported employment coordinators 

within their agency. By 2002, every county in 

Vermont had a supported employment agency.

Vermont’s supported employment 

infrastructure depends on close collaboration 

between VR and DDS. VR agency funds 

supported employment through grants 

to providers rather than a fee-for-service 

reimbursement arrangement based on people 

served. VR’s grants to agencies for supported 

employment services are supplemented by 

Medicaid reimbursements from DDS, resulting 

in an effectively braided funding stream. The flat 

grant amounts made by VR allow many agencies 

to support services, such as “follow-along” 

tracking of people who no longer require direct 

service-provision to maintain their employment, 

that are not reimbursable by VR or Medicaid.

DDS noted that they funded a wide array 

of different kinds of integrated employment 

models. Those models range from supporting 

people with intellectual and developmental 

disabilities in applying for and succeeding 

in competitively posted jobs; working with 

employers and people with disabilities on 

designing positions through job carving and 

customized employment strategies; and 

supporting people to start their own business, 

having established self-employment services 

as a funded service from DDS. During the 

movement to close sheltered workshops, 

Vermont also eliminated enclave work settings as 

well. Prior to our visit, DDS officials reached out 

to the Department of Labor Regional Office and 

confirmed that there are no currently operating 

14(c) certificates in Vermont.

New York, New York

Purpose of Visit: The Committee conducted the 

New York site visit on March 7, 2012. New York 

was selected because it has one of the largest 

and oldest ID/DD service systems in the state, 

and gave the Committee the opportunity to look 

at employment opportunities in a very complex 

urban environment.

Summary of Activities: Most of our visits 

took place in collaboration with AHRC, the state’s 

largest and oldest ID/DD service provider. AHRC 

provides advocacy, residential, day habilitation 

and educational services in addition to supported 

employment and sheltered workshop services. 

The Committee spent the full day on March 7 at 

one of the AHRC centers, which was well used 

by dozens of adults with disabilities and their 

families. During the course of our day at AHRC, 

we met with:

■ AHRC program staff

■ People with disabilities working in the 

sheltered workshop or at AHRC

■ Parents of people with disabilities working in 

supported employment settings

■ State policy officials, including a 

representative from the state ID/DD 

program and a representative from New 

York’s VR agency

26 National Council on Disability
The Committee also toured the on-site 

workshop. On the day of the visit, the workshop 

activities included packaging insoles for shoes, 

packaging beverages marketed to lessen the 

symptoms of a hangover, and rehabilitation 

of printers. Work was done primarily on a 

piece rate.

Because the full Council was in New York City 

for our quarterly meeting, the Committee was 

able to extend the visit by an additional half day 

and include other Council members. On March 

8, Council members divided into teams to visit 

different supported employment worksites, 

including the transit center, some law offices, 

and a fabric store. Other types of supported 

employment described by AHRC staff included 

messenger services throughout the city, janitorial 

services, and hospital work.

On the afternoon of March 8, the full Council 

also had the opportunity to visit a nonprofit 

organization called Job Path that specializes in 

customized employment. The Council listened 

to a detailed presentation about the process 

the organization uses to develop jobs for its 

clients, and got to speak with two clients about 

their jobs.

Observations: New York State has a large 

and complex DD system, which is one of the 

most expensive in the nation. According to 

AHRC staff, consumer expectations for services 

are high and (according to AHRC staff) services 

for day habilitation and residential services are 

generous. The Committee noted that individuals 

were enthusiastic to participate in day habilitation 

programs, and all of the people with disabilities 

the Committee spoke with talked about the 

Subminimum Wage and Supported Employment 27
social benefits of coming to the day program 

and the workshop. Several mentioned returning 

to the day program and subminimum wage 

positions after successful placement in integrated 

employment settings with competitive wages. 

There was clearly a strong social attachment to 

the program and the people (staff and clients) 

involved with the program.

The Committee discussed with program 

specialists the reasons why some people 

came back. The most commonly cited issues 

were benefits planning and social isolation in 

integrated work environments. AHRC provides 

both integrated employment and sheltered 

employment, and reported that individuals 

move between both settings. Concerns were 

expressed that if 14(c) were eliminated or 

reduced, it would be very difficult to continue 

to provide employment services to many of the 

individuals the program serves. AHRC leaders 

also provided a useful history about services 

for people with DD in New York. One of the 

individuals helped move individuals out of 

Willowbrook [State School], and it became easier 

to see how the current state of services is part 

of an evolving service system. Many of those 

with whom the Committee spoke were strong 

leaders that helped create New York’s service 

system after Willowbrook in order to include 

more community-based supports for people with 

disabilities.

One person with a disability with whom the 

Committee met was working for a piece rate 

at the workshop when work was available, and 

participating in the day program when there was 

no work. He was in his early 30s, and had strong 

conversational and adaptive skills. If he were 

encountered by a member of the general public, 

they might not perceive him to be a person with 

a disability. This person recounted to the team 

his success in integrated employment. He was 

working regular hours at a café inside a Barnes 

and Noble Booksellers store. His performance 

was high enough that he continued to be 

rewarded with wages, at one point exceeding 

$12/hour. At this point, his benefits were at risk, 

so his mother required him to quit his job and 

return to piece rate work at the workshop. He 

reported that his benefits were needed to help 

pay rent each month.

The Committee also interviewed the mother 

of a person in his 20s. By report, her son has 

a significant intellectual disability, has limited 

verbal communication skills, and experiences 

challenges with fine motor dexterity. She was 

determined, however, that he would work in an 

integrated employment setting for a competitive 

wage. She utilized her natural networks and drew 

upon her son’s unique interests to work with 

the Disney Store in Times Square to develop a 

customized employment opportunity for him. 

His job responsibilities include performing 

the opening ritual with children each morning, 

greeting customers, bagging purchases, and 

ensuring customers have baskets in which to 

carry their goods. He works about 10 hours a 

week, and though he started at minimum wage 

he has earned several raises, which boosted 

his pay. He utilizes public transportation to get 

to his worksite. His mother describes this as a 

situation that gives her son meaningful work that 

he enjoys, allows him to earn some money, and 

contributes to the bottom line of the business for 

which he works.

One Council member had the opportunity 

to spend some individual time with one of the 

AHRC executives. The executive described 

messenger services as a competitive job with 

28 National Council on Disability
which many adults with intellectual disabilities 

found success. People deliver parcels, packages, 

and letters across all boroughs of the city utilizing 

public transportation and even taxis. This is a 

valuable service to the customers, and it allows 

the employees to earn competitive wages. She 

described one adult person with an intellectual 

disability who was working as a messenger 

on 9/11. He was able to navigate through the 

unexpected chaos to safety.

At Job Path, the Committee met a woman 

who participated in a customized employment 

development process. Her job coach spent 

a couple of weeks with the client in her 

neighborhood. He observed her interests and 

skills, as well as the business opportunities in the 

neighborhood. He noticed that when they visited 

retail stores, his client would fold merchandise 

that had not been put away properly. He used 

this information to approach one of her preferred 

retail stores about a potential job opportunity. 

She was hired at minimum wage to fold their 

merchandise as it arrived. Since being hired, 

she has been recognized as one of their most 

productive employees and has received pay 

raises. She reported that she enjoys her work, 

enjoys her colleagues, and appreciates that they 

include her in staff social activities and events.

Salem, Oregon

Purpose of Visit: Oregon was chosen because, 

based on data, it had a high rate of supported 

employment placement. However, after this 

selection was made, a class-action lawsuit was 

filed against the state because of an increasing 

number of sheltered workshop placements. 

As part of this lawsuit, the federal court ruled 

in May 2012 that the integration mandate 

under Olmstead is not limited to housing, and 

it applies to employment. Since the original 

draft of this report was offered to the Council in 

June 2012, the U.S. Department of Justice also 

issued a letter to Oregon stating that its own 

investigation of employment in Oregon found 

that the state was noncompliant with the ADA 

in regards to employment. Oregon also gave us 

the opportunity to see a state that has no private 

or public residential institutions for adults with 

intellectual/developmental disabilities and to 

examine a less urban area.

Summary of Activities: The Committee’s 

interviews in Oregon took place in Salem, the 

state capital. Because this is a central location in 

the state, we were able to talk with people from 

a variety of communities.

The Committee began the day with a 

tour of Shangri-La, one of Oregon’s largest 

providers of residential, employment, and day 

habilitation services for people with intellectual 

and developmental disabilities. The tour was 

led by the CEO of Shangri La, the Director of 

the Oregon Rehabilitation Association, and the 

Employment Program Director for Shangri La.

When the Committee arrived on site, it had 

the opportunity to observe a landscape crew 

at work, and to talk briefly with a couple of 

employees. These landscaping crews complete 

work on a contract basis with local businesses, 

and employees earn wages based on their 

productivity. The Committee also visited a 

woodshop on site as well as a sewing site. In 

the woodshop, the Committee saw a variety of 

specialized technologies that allowed people with 

disabilities to safely increase their productivity. 

Employees were engaged in loading, hauling, 

milling, sawing, stacking, and sorting wood 

products. The Committee also visited a day 

habilitation program on site, which included 

Subminimum Wage and Supported Employment 29
a variety of activities and classes, including 

cooking, computers, games, and functional 

academics. When the Committee arrived, there 

was a person sitting outside the facility waiting 

for the day program to open. He indicated his 

enthusiasm for the program and described how 

important it was to his quality of life.

Following the visit to Shangri-La, the 

Committee moved to a conference room at the 

state capitol to complete our interviews for the 

day. Interview panels included:

■ Employment providers using 14(c) 

certificates from several areas of the state

■ State policy officials, including 

representatives from the Developmental 

Disabilities Program (the team lead for the 

Oregon Employment First Initiative, the 

director of Vocational Rehabilitation, and the 

Assistant Superintendent from the Oregon 

Department of Education).

■ Advocates, including representation 

from The Arc of Oregon (an advocacy 

organization that does not provide direct 

services), Disability Rights Oregon (the 

state protection and advocacy center), a 

brokerage director, and the Oregon Council 

on Developmental Disabilities. Two of these 

people are also parents—one is the mother 

of a transition-age student, the other has 

a son in his 30s with significant physical 

and developmental disabilities who enjoys 

integrated employment with competitive 

wages.

■ Six adults with developmental/intellectual 

disabilities from Corvallis (a city of about 

54,000 people), along with their DD program 

director and a support person.

Observations: The Committee noted that 

all of the panels seemed aligned to a core set 

of values that focused on self-determination 

and community inclusion, despite some 

disagreements about 14(c) and appropriate 

employment settings. The policymaker panel 

and the advocate panel referred extensively to 

Oregon specific data, which is readily available on 

the Oregon Employment First website.

The Committee’s first visit in the morning 

was to Shangri-La, which provides a variety 

of worksites. The Committee talked to some 

employees, as well as to supervisors. The 

organization provides employment and day 

services to many people, and the providers 

explained the significant role the organization 

plays in providing structure during the course 

of the day for people. In this sheltered work 

environment, the type of work performed by 

people with disabilities was more complex, 

challenging, and meaningful than the type 

of work the Committee saw in some other 

workshops on our site visit tour. These worksites 

looked much like any manufacturing or mill 

worksite one would visit that primarily employed 

people without disabilities. We noted complex 

equipment, particularly in the mill and woodshop 

area of the site. The providers explained their 

significant investment in equipment to maximize 

efficiency for their employees (thus boosting 

wages), as well as to enhance safety and make 

the work accessible to more people. They 

lamented that industry has not adopted similar 

technology that would make it possible for more 

people to work in integrated settings.

The providers the Committee interviewed 

each provided supports for a variety of work 

environments and wage scales. All talked about a 

desire to help individuals maximize their wages, 

30 National Council on Disability
but argued that without 14(c) they could not 

sustain their business model. As a result, they 

were concerned that the elimination of 14(c) 

would lead to fewer people being employed and 

diminish their ability to serve Oregonians with 

disabilities.

The Committee noted that the support 

needs of the people with disabilities we met 

were higher than the needs of those we met in 

other states. Despite this, with the exception 

of one individual living in foster care, all of the 

individuals the Committee interviewed were in 

supported-living situations where they had their 

own apartment or home. All of the people the 

Committee spoke with referenced busy lives 

that included work, romantic relationships, and 

volunteer commitments. The types of volunteer 

commitments people referenced included 

everything from membership in a Kiwanis 

Club, to serving on the board of a League of 

Women Voters, to providing mentoring and 

support to younger people with intellectual and 

developmental disabilities. Though not all people 

interviewed were earning minimum wage, 

they were all outspoken in their belief that they 

should earn minimum wage. The group seemed 

uniquely empowered about their employment, 

civil, and community inclusion rights. One person 

described walking off of a job after he saw his 

employer refuse to consider the application 

of a person in a wheelchair. He said that was 

not right, and he could not work at a place that 

discriminated. Another person talked about losing 

work from a towing company, but following up 

with a discrimination complaint. “He got in lots of 

trouble and had to pay fines,” said the employee.

One of the people interviewed works in a 

grocery store. He collapses boxes, works in 

the bottle recycling center (all Oregon beverage 

containers, including teas and water, have 

deposits; thus this is a big need in grocery 

stores), and returns carts. He earns more than 

minimum wage, and recently earned a raise 

that he was very excited about. He credited 

a supportive employer in creating a work 

environment that he enjoys. He said he can 

count on his employer to step in if customers 

are mistreating him because of his disability, or 

generally exhibiting bad behavior in the store.

Another person has been working at a 

golf course for more than 10 years. He uses a 

combination of special transportation and taxis 

to get to his worksite, where he earns more than 

minimum wage. His job responsibilities include 

maintenance of the golf course, supporting 

golfers, and he was recently promoted to driving 

Subminimum Wage and Supported Employment 31
service carts, which is an accomplishment of 

which he is very proud. The Committee received 

a letter from his parents, who were not available 

for an interview, explaining that the golf course 

manager recently reminded them that he is not 

employing this person as an act of charity—this 

person has a job because he does it well, and is 

an asset to the team. The person reported finding 

the job after he interned at the golf course as part 

of the job discovery process while he was still in 

high school. He did reference a job opportunity 

that did not work out at a burger fast-food 

restaurant. Initially, he had a lot of support at the 

worksite; however, when management changed 

he reported that he had a harder time making 

sure the burgers “weren’t pink.” He left the job.

A couple of the employees worked for an 

organization that creates small businesses in 

the community with the purpose of creating 

integrated, supported employment. People 

with disabilities work alongside people without 

disabilities in a variety of activities. Some 

people are earning more than minimum wage, 

others are earning less. Of note, one of the 

people we met with Down syndrome lives in her 

own apartment, is engaged, and participates in 

a variety of volunteer activities. She works at a 

bakery operated by Cornerstone and earns less 

than minimum wage. On the other hand, another 

person interviewed who has much higher support 

needs works in the downtown book bindery. She 

earns significantly more than minimum wage.

Vancouver, Washington

Purpose of Visit: Washington was added to the 

Committee’s site visit list late in the process 

because of a strong recommendation from 

people in the field about the state’s success 

with supported employment, particularly in Clark 

County. Because of the easy proximity to the 

Oregon site visit, it was added to the itinerary. It 

also gave the Committee an opportunity to look 

at how different employment policies apply in the 

same region and how the same basic economy 

impacts the experiences of people in the system. 

Vancouver, Washington, and Portland, Oregon, 

are separated by a bridge over the Columbia 

River. They share a workforce (people travel 

from one state to the other for work each day), a 

common demographic base, and are impacted by 

the same economic trends.

Summary of Activities: All of the interviews 

took place in a conference room at the Education 

Service District (ESD) building in Vancouver. 

The ESD facility is a mission-driven facility, with 

signage and photographic displays portraying 

the history of public education in Washington, 

particularly for historically underserved groups 

such as Native Americans and students with 

disabilities. There was also a clear focus on 

workforce development in the building, with a 

student-run coffee shop on site.

During the Washington visit, the Committee 

met with:

■ A director of an employment-focused 

consulting firm

■ The ESD superintendent

■ A special education director from Clark 

County Public Schools

■ The Clark County DD Program Employment 

specialist

■ The Washington State DD program director

■ Two parent advocates

■ Two employees with disabilities

32 National Council on Disability
■ Two employers

■ Two employment agencies

Observations: Like Oregon, Washington 

seemed to have a very clearly articulated and 

aligned set of values. Where Oregon was focused 

on community inclusion (at the social, residential, 

and community levels), Washington (or at least 

Clark County) has a laser focus on employment. 

Throughout the day, different stakeholders said: 

“Everyone can work. Everyone should work.”

The policymakers indicated that this focus 

begins in early childhood. Beginning in Early 

Intervention/Early Childhood Special Education, 

Washington students are given opportunities 

to contribute to their classrooms, and parent 

education includes encouragement to engage 

students in chores and productive activities 

at home. High schools focus on vocational 

opportunities, and there is a robust transition 

program in Clark County. All students—those 

with and without disabilities—are encouraged 

from an early age that they have a responsibility 

to work as adults.

There are no sheltered workshops in Clark 

County. All but one closed voluntarily as the 

service model in the county transitioned 

to supported, integrated, and competitive 

employment. The initiative seems to be 

successful because of proactive engagement 

with local employers, and a commitment from 

state and local government to participate by 

providing supported employment opportunities. 

People with disabilities are working for the 

county and for public transit agencies. Labor 

organizations have also been engaged in this 

work, with people with disabilities joining unions 

and becoming engaged in the worksite, social, 

and political activities of the organization. One 

anecdote was shared about a union steward who 

suspected one of his members with a disability 

as being financially abused. He became engaged 

in the situation, advocated for his union colleague, 

and eventually became the person’s trustee.

When the sheltered workshops closed in 

Clark County, all of the people transitioned to 

supported employment jobs, primarily individual, 

and the buildings were used for early intervention 

programs and gathering places for families (family 

support centers). There are no day programs 

in Clark County. The two parent advocates the 

Committee met with observed that much of 

the conversation about 14(c) and sheltered 

workshops is based on a misunderstanding of 

the definition of work. They argue that respite, 

day programming/day habilitation, and work 

are not the same thing, and the Committee 

should not intertwine them. All three items 

are important and are not mutually exclusive. 

However, respite and day habilitation are not 

work, and they suggested policymakers should 

stop arguing that they are work.

One innovative state policy adopted by 

Washington is legislation that allows state 

agencies to use savings in their budgets to hire a 

person with DD/ID into a supported employment 

position without impacting the full-time 

employment allowance for the state.

In Washington . . .

State agencies in Washington may use 

savings in their budgets to hire a person with 

ID/DD into a supported employment position 

without impacting the full-time employment 

allowance for the state.

Subminimum Wage and Supported Employment 33
The Committee interviewed two adults 

with disabilities on this visit. The first person 

was an older man with significant and multiple 

disabilities. He serves on the county advisory 

board. He does not have traditional employment 

(he is retired, is in his early 70s, and is beyond 

the traditional employment phase of his life), but 

instead works as a graphic design artist. He has 

art shows and sells his work to earn money.

The other person was in his early 30s and was 

accompanied by his mother. He works at a local 

hospital Monday through Thursday, four to five 

hours per day. He sterilizes surgical equipment, 

and makes more than minimum wage. He is 

proud of his work, and credits the job he has to 

his prior work at a grocery store. He said learning 

to manage the carts was a skill that he was able 

to use in his new, more challenging role at the 

hospital. He enjoys his work and reports that he 

spends his lunch break with the surgical nursing 

staff who include him in their conversations and 

social activities. He likes to use the money he 

earns to pay his bills, take trips, and pay for drum 

lessons.

Important findings from the Oregon/

Washington experience include:

1. Some people with DD/ID who live in 

Washington are being placed into integrated, 

competitive work opportunities in Portland, 

Oregon. This raises questions about the 

argument that competitive jobs in private 

sector employment are not available. 

Perhaps it is about job development and 

outreach activities.

2. Oregon does not technically have a waiting 

list for services for Medicaid-eligible adults 

with DD/ID. However, Washington has a 

long waiting list. Although Clark County is 

not serving people with DD/ID in sheltered 

workshop environments for employment, 

there are people who are not getting any 

support at all. If the Committee were to 

do further work, it may be useful to circle 

back to each state and find out more about 

the characteristics of individuals not being 

served, and why they are not receiving any 

support.

Pierre, South Dakota

Purpose of Visit: South Dakota was selected 

for a site visit because it reflects a rural site and 

seems to have a relatively large percentage 

of people with ID/DD working in sheltered 

workshops. The Committee visited the state 

capital of Pierre, which reflects the state: Pierre 

has about 15,000 residents; the government is 

the largest employer, followed by the regional 

hospital; and the city is 30 miles away from 

the closest interstate. The host was the South 

Dakota Coalition of Persons with Disabilities.

Summary of Activities: The Committee first 

visited the OAHE, Inc., a nationally accredited 

private, nonprofit community-based agency, 

which has been providing supports and services 

to people with developmental disabilities 

since 1982. The agency started as a group of 

concerned parents and guardians searching out 

available services for those people in their care. 

Today, the agency provides a wide range of 

supports in the areas of employment services, 

living services, professional services, support 

services, and total service coordination.

OAHE indicated that the primary employer of 

people with ID/DD in South Dakota is the Federal 

Government, specifically the General Services 

Administration (GSA), which has a $2.8 million 

contract for services, primarily custodial, in the 

34 National Council on Disability
seven GSA offices in South Dakota. OAHE also 

operates several businesses, including a thrift 

store and shredding business. The main focus 

of employment is community employment, 

although the state seems to be struggling with 

work in integrated employment.

At OAHE, the Committee met with four 

front-line staff, consisting of two job coaches, an 

employment specialist, as well as a staff member 

who worked as the coordinator for training for 

the Ability One contract. The Ability One Program 

uses the purchasing power of the Federal 

Government to buy products and services 

from participating, community-based nonprofit 

agencies nationwide dedicated to training and 

employing people with disabilities.

The significant role of the Federal Government 

through the Ability One programs was reiterated. 

One person estimated that, without the 14(c) 

certificate, about 30 percent of the people 

currently working in competitive employment 

would not be able to maintain their jobs. One 

comment made was that finding easier ways to 

obtain the certificates would be of assistance to 

the people at OAHE.

OAHE struggles to balance the day habilitation 

programs, sheltered work, and competitive 

employment. Many of the OAHE participants 

worked one or two hours a day in competitive, 

integrated employment—paid by the employer.

The Committee met with six people with 

disabilities who are employed in the competitive 

job sites available through OAHE. Their jobs 

were with FedEx, Slumberland (a mattress/bed 

store), a paper route, and in custodial positions. 

All were interested in working more hours and 

being paid more money. The Committee also met 

with four parents of young adults with ID/DD; 

four advocates, including one from the Protection 

& Advocacy for People with Developmental 

Disabilities. We also met with three employers 

who are currently hiring people with ID/DD. 

One employer was the Slumberland bed store 

mentioned above, as well as a craft shop in town.

The Committee ended the day in a 

discussion with major policymakers including 

representatives from the state DD, VR, HHS, and 

Medicaid agencies.

Observations: There is strong interest 

by front-line staff, their supervisors, and 

policymakers to have additional training available 

to service providers. Well-meaning people 

begin to create their own programs when there 

is not training on competitive employment, 

job supports, and coaching/assessment. The 

development of combination day habilitation, 

sheltered, and competitive employment 

programs for people speaks more to the program 

design than the needs of specific individuals.

One person works a few hours a week for 

FedEx scanning packages. But, since these 

are the only hours available in the competitive 

setting, she works the rest of the week in 

sheltered employment or in volunteer positions.

Federal programs such as the Medicaid 

Infrastructure Grants and the Social Security 

Navigator programs have resulted in improved 

services and are appreciated by everyone the 

Committee spoke with while in South Dakota. 

The people with disabilities and the parents 

interviewed seemed very aware of benefits 

available to them and were interested in pursuing 

maximum employment.

Several parents and policymakers commented 

on the need to have a holistic approach to 

employment, which they considered as having all 

options available to them including subminimum 

wage and sheltered workshops, along with 

Subminimum Wage and Supported Employment 35
supported, integrated, community-based 

employment. It was mentioned that the sheltered 

workshop for people who are blind and people 

with vision disabilities had been closed, taking 

away a choice for people seeking employment.

Several people in the different groups 

mentioned stigma as a major issue in the 

development of job opportunities for people 

with ID/DD. They indicated there was still a bias 

against hiring people with disabilities, especially 

those with ID/DD.

Several of the service providers and 

policymakers commented on the disparity 

between Medicaid waiver funding for sheltered 

versus competitive employment. Increasing the 

FMAP rate was also seen as a potential change 

to improve the opportunities for employment.

Baton Rouge, Louisiana

Purpose of Visit: Baton Rouge was selected 

to represent a medium-size city in the South. It 

represents a city that has undergone significant 

change in the past few years. Louisiana has a 

diverse population of both urban and rural that 

creates challenges to state officials in locating 

employment opportunities for people with 

intellectual/development disabilities.

Summary of Activities: The agenda consisted 

of meeting with a worker and family member. 

This was followed by an interview with Barry 

Meyer, The Arc Executive Director and a tour 

of the facility Metro Enterprises; and meetings 

with the executive directors of Vocational 

Rehabilitation; Medicaid & Developmental 

Disabilities; and Louisiana Rehabilitation Services, 

Regional Office.

The day began with a conversation with a 

sheltered workshop participant and his mother. 

Prior to coming to the workshop, he had a job 

in Virginia as a janitor in a state library. The job 

was in a competitive situation with competitive 

wages. He left that job after many years. He 

stated he left because he could not handle the 

pressure from supervisors. It appeared he had 

more than one supervisor and they were giving 

him mixed directions on how to do his job. He is 

now working in the workshop with the shredder, 

four hours a day. He is making around $50 dollars 

every two weeks. He would like to earn more 

money, but was not sure at what job. He did not 

want a job with pressure. He said there was no 

one at the other job he could have talked to about 

the problems he was having with his supervisor.

The Committee then spoke to Barry Meyer, 

The Arc Executive Director, about his ideas 

regarding competitive, integrated employment. 

After the discussion, the Committee toured the 

workshop. Work included shredding, recycling 

coat hangers, and cleaning remote controls. The 

enterprise also had another section that makes 

survey stakes, covers for large pipes, as well as a 

gardening endeavor.

Observations: The director said he had a 

60/40 mix of people who earned subminimum 

wage (60 percent in supported employment and 

40 percent in workshops). He also said he has 

people with disabilities working in the community 

in integrated worksites. He said he had about 100 

employees. He, along with Rosemary Morales 

from the Office for Citizens with Developmental 

Disabilities, indicated that CMS barriers (such as 

definitions) were limiting access to competitive, 

integrated employment. Also limiting access are 

students with disabilities dropping out of high 

school and not receiving transition services. They 

stressed that more benefits planning is needed, 

along with the need for activities after work hours.

The Committee also met with state officials, 

including Mark Martin, the Director of Vocational 

Rehabilitation; Laura Bracken, the Director of the 

36 National Council on Disability
Developmental Disability office; Don Gregory, 

the Director of Medicaid; and his Deputy Stacey 

Gidrey. Don Gregory indicated that the Medicaid 

Buy-in program in Louisiana allowed 2,600 people 

with disabilities to be employed; but of that 

number, only 300 pay a premium, meaning that 

earnings for the population is low. He also stated 

that employment is an outcome valued by the 

agency. Mark Martin indicated that the supported 

employment system needed significant 

improvement. This included more training of 

staff. Laura Bracken was encouraged that there 

were many who could work in the community, 

but they needed a stronger system to support 

them. She was also concerned that there are 

not enough jobs with flexibility for customized 

employment, including 

microenterprises. She 

thought that families 

needed the security 

of supports for their 

family members, such 

as respite. The state 

was developing an 

Employment First 

initiative. All the 

departments said they 

worked well together.

We also spoke to a person who worked at 

McDonald’s for 18 years, and his sister. He 

enjoyed the work and he was getting there on 

his own. He took pride in his work, declaring that 

it was “his hobby.” He worked the lunch shift. 

After work, he would come home and enjoy 

music. He had been living with his mother and 

now was with his sister. When asked whether 

he would like another job, he indicated he would 

not and did not know where he would get a 

job. He was making more than minimum wage. 

His sister indicated he was due for a change so 

that he could earn higher wages and work more 

hours—something that his shift work would not 

allow since he cleans during the peak afternoon 

lunch rush. She also indicated that the job helped 

her brother branch out as an independent human 

being. She identified transportation as an issue, 

as well as the need for employers to learn about 

the benefits of hiring people with disabilities.

Columbus, Ohio

Purpose of Visit: Ohio was chosen as a state 

visit site for several reasons. Ohio is one of the 

few states where counties fund more of the cost 

of ID/DD services than does the state. In the 

most recent survey from the Coleman Institute, 

the funding break-out for ID/DD services was 

46 percent federal, 

30 percent county, and 

17 percent state. The 

local funds are generated 

by a robust county 

levy system. It is also 

a state that has (by the 

most recent Institute for 

Community Inclusion 

State Data Report) a 

very high percentage of 

its ID/DD population in 

facility-based work. In 2009, more than 14,000 

people in Ohio were in facility-based work.

Summary of Activities: The Committee 

interviewed or met with more than 40 people 

during our site visit. We met with parents and 

siblings, some of whom had been involved years 

ago when workshops were first set up in Ohio. 

These older parents were quite protective of the 

benefits of sheltered workshops and were not 

concerned about the issue of wages. One couple 

volunteered the information that they have 

willed their home to the local county program 

[O]lder parents were quite protective 

of the benefits of sheltered 

workshops and were not concerned 

about the issue of wages . . . Younger 

parents, especially those whose 

children have been in integrated 

educational environments, had very 

different perspectives.

Subminimum Wage and Supported Employment 37
as a “thank you” for the services provided to 

their child.

Younger parents, especially those whose 

children have been in integrated educational 

environments, had very different perspectives. 

They did not want their children directed to 

segregated environments and had expectations 

of wages at minimum wage levels or above. 

None of the parents expressed a strong desire 

to close sheltered workshops; however, the 

younger parents definitely did not want their 

children working in a segregated environment.

Siblings present a unique perspective of 

expectations for adults with ID/DD. Although the 

Committee did not interview many siblings, they 

were additionally looking for settings where the 

person is accepted and happy as much as one 

with higher wages.

The Committee met with people with ID/DD 

who currently are situated in the workshops. 

They had expectations to someday work outside 

of the workshop but were concerned that they 

would not have friends in the worksite or be 

invited to participate in work activities. They 

were all disappointed in the low wages that they 

are currently being paid. The Committee toured 

a large sheltered workshop and had informal 

conversations with people working at the site.

The Committee also met with about 20 

policymakers over lunch. Those attending 

included the Director of the Ohio Department 

of Developmental Disabilities, as well as the VR 

Director. The counties were represented by the 

Ohio Superintendents of the County Boards of 

Developmental Disabilities, the Ohio Association 

of County Boards of Developmental Disabilities, 

and the Ohio Association of Adult Services. 

Several representatives of self-advocacy groups 

and community rehabilitation providers were also 

at the luncheon. The Committee engaged in a 

wide-ranging conversation that addressed issues 

such as the disparity in funding for supported 

employment, the recession, and lack of 

community jobs, especially in certain parts of the 

state. The governor had just issued an Executive 

Order declaring Ohio an Employment First state 

and established a diverse committee, including 

people with ID/DD, to improve the opportunities 

for community-integrated employment at 

minimum wage or higher. All in attendance 

saw the Executive Order as a new emphasis 

on increasing opportunities for employment for 

people with ID/DD.

The Committee also had the opportunity to 

visit two people with ID/DD who are working 

in competitive, integrated employment. The 

Committee interviewed them at their respective 

worksites. One gentleman, who was blind, had 

moved from a sheltered workshop to his current 

position as a box folder at a mail order contact 

lens firm. The second gentleman works from his 

home and is self-employed. He reviews radio 

program transcripts to ascertain that purchased 

advertising is actually aired on the radio as 

contracted.

Observations: Generally, the workers the 

Committee interviewed were not satisfied 

with their wages. They did not feel they were 

being paid for the work they are doing. The two 

men mentioned earlier, who were working in 

competitive, integrated employment, are good 

examples. Neither of these men was satisfied 

with their current employment. One of them had 

actually made more in the sheltered workshop on 

a piece rate basis than he was currently earning 

at minimum wage in a competitive, integrated 

job. The second man, because of the extent of 

his disability, took so much time to do the job 

38 National Council on Disability
that he actually was working for less than a dollar 

an hour as a self-employed contractor.

It was clear in our interviews that people 

with ID/DD are interested in working in the 

community and are very concerned about 

making so little money. One woman related a 

story about how, after she got her job in the 

sheltered workshop, she promised her family 

that when she got her first paycheck she would 

take them out to dinner. In her words, “nothing 

too fancy.” She related how surprised and sad 

she was when she received that first check . . . 

for 38 cents. All of the people we interviewed 

were fully aware of piece rate wages compared 

to hourly wages.

At the same time, people working in 

sheltered workshops were quite content with 

their relationships with coworkers and staff 

in the sheltered workshops. They did not feel 

that they would be as accepted in integrated 

environments and related personal stories about 

people returning back to the workshop because 

of dissatisfaction with relationships within 

integrated work environments. Several of the 

trained self-advocates were especially frustrated 

with low wages.

Most of the people and their families were 

aware of benefits planning or at least knew 

where they could go to get such information. 

Ohio has had several benefits planning grants 

from DOL and SSA, so it is likely this is the 

means by which people were aware of the work 

incentive programs.

Training for employment was discussed quite 

a bit in several of the sessions. Several workers 

had certifications (human resources, child care) 

from private employment programs and/or the 

local community college. Programs like Project 

Search and the Ohio State University TOPPS 

program, both of which provide internships 

or work experiences, were mentioned as 

models for pathways to employment. The Ohio 

Rehabilitation Services Commission and the 

Ohio Department of Developmental Disabilities 

have a long history of written agreements using 

state or local funds as a VR match. Currently, 

this relationship is demonstrated with the 

Bridges program, which serves young people 

with ID/DD who are transitioning from school 

to work.

Training for providers of supported 

employment services was also discussed. In this 

area there seemed to be little communication 

between traditional DD service providers and the 

VR community rehabilitation programs. Instead, 

a parallel service delivery system seemed to be 

developing.

All of the people interviewed clearly desire 

moving toward a more supported employment 

model. The challenges will be major in doing so, 

but the clear message from people with ID/DD 

and their families was to do so with all choices 

available, but at a fair wage.

Piece Rate Wages in Ohio

After one woman got her job in a sheltered 

workshop, she promised her family that when 

she got her first paycheck, she would take 

them out to dinner. In her words, “nothing 

too fancy.” She was surprised and sad when 

she received her first check—for 38 cents.

Subminimum Wage and Supported Employment 39
40 National Council on Disability
APPENDIX Implementation Plan for Subminimum 

Wage Recommendations

NCD recognizes that its recommendations 

impact thousands of people and their 

families. NCD further recognizes that 

it will take support from many stakeholders to 

eliminate the discriminatory practices of the 

14(c) program and build a sustainable, supported 

employment infrastructure along with other 

supports. This fall, to accomplish these goals 

and make the system change effort necessary, 

NCD plans to draft proposed legislation. In 

addition, NCD will educate interested parties on 

the recommendations and proposed legislation 

through a variety of mechanisms, including 

presentations at national or regional conferences, 

webinars, newsletter articles, and other media. 

This effort will focus on the goal of introducing 

the legislation in the next Congress.

Proposed Council Vote (July 26, 2012)

On the 22nd anniversary of the Americans 

with Disabilities Act, the National Council on 

Disability votes for final adoption of this report, 

and to develop model legislation implementing 

the recommendations contained herein.

Subminimum Wage and Supported Employment 41
42 National Council on Disability
Endnotes

1 General Accounting Office (GAO), Special Minimum Wage Program, Centers Offer Employment and Support 

Services to Workers with Disabilities, But Labor Should Improve Oversight (Washington, DC: U.S. General 

Accounting Office, GAO-01-886, September 2001), 4.

2 Id.

3 Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Center for Medicaid, CHIP and Survey & Certification, (), “Updates 

to the Section 1915(c) Waiver Instructions and Technical Guide regarding Employment and Employment-Related 

Services,” CMCS Informational Bulletin (September 16, 2011): 2.

4 Robert Evert Cimera, Paul Wehman, Michael West, and Sloane Burgess, “Do Sheltered Workshops Enhance 

Employment Outcomes for Adults with Autism Spectrum Disorder?” Autism (May 24, 2011), http://aut.sagepub

.com/content/early/2011/05/19/1362361311408129

5 Robert Evert Cimera, “Does Being in Sheltered Workshops Improve the Employment Outcomes of Supported 

Employees with Intellectual Disabilities?” Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation (March, 2011): 8–9.

6 GAO, Special Minimum Wage Program, Centers Offer Employment and Support Services to Workers 

with Disabilities, But Labor Should Improve Oversight (Washington, DC: U.S. General Accounting Office, 

GAO-01-886, September 2001), 9.

7 Robert Evert Cimera, “The Cost-trends of Supported Employment Versus Sheltered Employment,” Journal of 

Vocational Rehabilitation (2008): 15–20.

8 M. West, J. Hill, G. Revell, G. Smith, J. Kregel, and L. Campbell, “Medicaid HCBS Waivers and Supported 

Employment Pre- and Post-Balanced Budget Act of 1997,” MR Journal 40 (2002): 142–147.

9 D. Braddock, M. C. Rizzolo, and R. Hemp, “Most Employment Services Growth in Developmental Disabilities 

During 1988–2002 Was in Segregated Settings,” MR Journal 42(4) (2004): 317–320.

10 M. West, J. Hill, G. Revell, G. Smith, J. Kregel, and L. Campbell, “Medicaid HCBS Waivers and Supported 

Employment Pre- and Post-Balanced Budget Act of 1997,” MR Journal 40 (2002): 142–147.

11 J. Butterworth, F. A. Smith, A. C. Hall, A. Migliore, J. Winsor, D. Domin, and J. C. Timmons, StateData: The 

National Report on Employment Services and Outcomes (Boston, MA: University of Massachusetts Boston, 

Institute for Community Inclusion, 2012).

12 A. C. Hall, S. Freeze, J. Butterworth, and D. Hoff, “Employment Funding for Intellectual/Developmental 

Disability Systems.” Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation 34(1) (2011): 1–15.

13 Id.

14 J. Butterworth, A. C. Hall, F. A. Smith, A. Migliore, J. Winsor, J. C. Timmons, and D. Domin, StateData: The 

National Report on Employment Services and Outcomes (Boston, MA: University of Massachusetts Boston, 

Institute for Community Inclusion, 2011).

15 Olmstead v. L.C. (98-536), 527 U.S. 581 (1999), 138 F.3d 893, affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded.

Subminimum Wage and Supported Employment 43
44 National Council on Disability
National Council on Disability 

1331 F Street, NW, Suite 850 

Washington, DC 20004