i

Advisory Committee on Increasing Competitive Integrated 

Employment for Individuals with Disabilities

Interim Report to:

The Honorable Thomas E. Perez

United States Secretary of Labor

The United States Senate

Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions

The United States House of Representatives

Committee on Education and the Workforce

September 15, 2015
ii

September 15, 2015

Thomas E. Perez

Secretary of Labor

United States Department of Labor

200 Constitution Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20210

Dear Secretary Perez:

The Advisory Committee on Increasing Competitive Integrated Employment for Individuals with 

Disabilities was established under Section 609 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended by 

Section 461 of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) of 2014, to advise in 

three areas:

(1) Ways to increase competitive integrated employment (CIE) opportunities for 

individuals with intellectual or developmental disabilities (I/DD) or other individuals 

with significant disabilities;

(2) The use of certificate program carried out under Section 14(c) of the Fair Labor 

Standards Act (FLSA) for the employment of individuals with I/DD or other 

individuals with significant disabilities; and

(3) Ways to improve oversight of the use of such certificates.

The Committee was established in September 2014 according to the provisions of the Federal 

Advisory Committee Act (FACA), which helps ensure the independent nature of the Committee 

in providing advice and recommendations to the Administration. The full interim report 

represents the collaborative work of the Committee as a whole.

The primary purpose of the work of the Committee is to address issues, and make 

recommendations, to improve the employment participation of people with I/DD and others with 

significant disabilities by ensuring opportunities for CIE.

Attached you will find the Committee’s Interim Report of Preliminary Recommendations. We 

are, as a committee, committed to continue our work in preparing findings, conclusions, and final 

recommendations by September 15, 2016.

Sincerely,

David M. Mank

Chair

Advisory Committee on Increasing Competitive Integrated Employment for Individuals with 

Disabilities
iii

Disclaimer

This report is produced by the Advisory Committee on Increasing Competitive Integrated 

Employment for Individuals with Disabilities (the “Committee”). The Committee is established 

under Section 609 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended by Section 461 of WIOA, to 

advise the Secretary of Labor in three areas:

(1) Ways to increase competitive integrated employment (CIE) opportunities for individuals 

with intellectual or developmental disabilities (I/DD) or other individuals with 

significant disabilities;

(2) The use of certificate program carried act under Section 14(c) of the Fair Labor 

Standards Act (FLSA) for the employment of individuals with I/DD or other individuals 

with significant disabilities; and 

(3) Ways to improve oversight of the use of such certificates. 

In accordance with the statute, this Committee has brought together leaders from numerous

federal agencies with a diverse group of critical stakeholders including individuals with I/DD 

and other significant disabilities, providers of employment services, representatives of national 

disability advocacy organizations, academic experts with expertise on employment and wage 

policy issues for individuals with I/DD or other significant disabilities, representatives of the 

employer community and others with expertise on increasing CIE opportunities for individuals 

with I/DD or other significant disabilities.

The Department of Labor established the Committee on September 15, 2014 for a two year 

period, in accordance with the provision of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), as 

amended, 5 U.S.C. App. 2. FACA helps ensure the independent nature of the body and requires 

that the Department not exercise “inappropriate influence” over the advice and recommendations 

in its report. Consistent with this provision, neither this report, nor the preliminary 

recommendations it contains, have been cleared or approved by the Secretary of Labor, the U.S.

Department of Labor, nor the Administration, and, as such, the views expressed in this report 

should not be regarded as those of the Secretary, the Department, or the Administration. The 

report represents the collaborative work and preliminary recommendations of the Committee as a

whole.
iv

Dedication

In February 2015, shortly after the first meeting of the Advisory Committee, Randee Ellen 

Chafkin passed away. Randee was a long time employee in the U.S. Department of Labor, 

contributing her knowledge and passion first at the President's Committee on Employment of 

People with Disabilities, then the Office of Disability Employment Policy, and most recently the 

Employment and Training Administration. Randee dedicated her life to increasing employment 

of people with disabilities, especially youth and adults who experience the most significant 

barriers to full inclusion in employment and community participation. She will be greatly 

missed. When she died, a note was pinned to the wall near her desk. The sentiment expressed in 

that note reflects Randee's dedication and career, and is fitting for the work of the Advisory 

Committee.

"It's the action, not the fruit of the action that's important. You have to do the right thing. It may 

not be in your power, may not be in your time that there'll be any fruit. But that doesn't mean you 

stop doing the right thing. You may never know what results come from your action. But if you 

do nothing, there will be no result." - Mahatma Ghandi
v

Table of Contents

Members of the Advisory Committee............................................................................................ ix

Abbreviations................................................................................................................................ xii

Executive Summary........................................................................................................................ 1

Introduction: Setting the Context.................................................................................................... 6

Chapter One: The Committee Process to Date ............................................................................... 9

Establishing the Committee ........................................................................................................ 9

Charter Establishing the Committee and Its Duties.................................................................. 12

Committee Meetings and Formation of Subcommittees........................................................... 13

First Meeting: January 22-23, 2015....................................................................................... 13

Subcommittees Established ................................................................................................... 14

Second Meeting: March 23-24, 2015 .................................................................................... 15

Third Meeting: May 11-12, 2015 .......................................................................................... 16

Fourth Meeting: July 13-14, 2015 ......................................................................................... 16

Fifth Meeting: August 10, 2015 ............................................................................................ 17

Chapter Two: Transition to Careers.............................................................................................. 20

Background ............................................................................................................................... 20

Findings and Conclusions ......................................................................................................... 21

Area 1: Early Work Experiences........................................................................................... 22

Area 2: Postsecondary Education .......................................................................................... 23

Area 3: Family Expectations ................................................................................................. 25

Area 4: System Integration/Seamless Transition................................................................... 26

Area 5: Professional Supports and Incentives ....................................................................... 26

Transition to Careers Subcommittee Preliminary Recommendations....................................... 27

Area 1: Early Work Experiences........................................................................................... 27

Area 2: Postsecondary Education .......................................................................................... 29

Area 3: Family Expectations ................................................................................................. 29

Area 4: System Integration/Seamless Transition................................................................... 30
vi

Area 5: Professional Supports and Incentives....................................................................... 30

Chapter Three: Complexity and Needs in Delivering Competitive Integrated Employment....... 35

Overview ................................................................................................................................... 35

Complexity and Needs Subcommittee Members .................................................................. 35

Findings and Conclusions ......................................................................................................... 36

Area 1: Funding..................................................................................................................... 36

Area 2: Data and Outcomes................................................................................................... 41

Area 3: Section 14(c) of the Fair Labor Standards Act ......................................................... 42

Complexity and Needs Subcommittee Preliminary Recommendations ................................... 42

Area 1: Funding..................................................................................................................... 42

Area 2: Data and Outcomes................................................................................................... 46

Area 3: Section 14(c) of the Fair Labor Standards Act ......................................................... 48

Chapter Four: Marketplace Dynamics.......................................................................................... 49

Overview ................................................................................................................................... 49

Marketplace Dynamics Subcommittee Members.................................................................. 49

Changing the Business Narrative .............................................................................................. 50

Creating a Sustainable Culture of Inclusion.............................................................................. 53

Building Business Partnerships While Driving Systems Change ............................................. 55

Addressing Training and Pipeline Issues.................................................................................. 58

Transportation Impacts Business Recruitment of Talent .......................................................... 59

Marketplace Dynamics Subcommittee Preliminary Recommendations................................... 61

Changing the Narrative/Building a Sustainable Culture of Inclusion ................................... 61

Building Better Business Partnerships .................................................................................. 62

Addressing Training and Pipeline Issues............................................................................... 63

Transportation........................................................................................................................ 64

Chapter Five: Building State and Local Capacity......................................................................... 68

Background ............................................................................................................................... 68

Findings and Conclusions ......................................................................................................... 68

Service Culture ...................................................................................................................... 70

Service Delivery System ....................................................................................................... 72
vii

Organizational and Professional Development ..................................................................... 74

Capacity Building Subcommittee Preliminary Recommendations........................................... 75

Chapter Six: Section 14(c) Program ............................................................................................. 78

Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 78

Transitions to Careers Subcommittee ....................................................................................... 78

Findings and Conclusions...................................................................................................... 78

Preliminary Recommendations.............................................................................................. 79

Capacity Building Subcommittee ............................................................................................. 80

Findings and Conclusions...................................................................................................... 80

Preliminary Recommendations.............................................................................................. 80

Complexity and Needs Subcommittee ...................................................................................... 80

Findings and Conclusions...................................................................................................... 80

Preliminary Recommendations.............................................................................................. 83

Marketplace Dynamics Subcommittee...................................................................................... 84

Findings and Conclusions...................................................................................................... 84

Preliminary Recommendations.............................................................................................. 87

Chapter Seven: AbilityOne® Program ......................................................................................... 90

Overview of AbilityOne® Program.......................................................................................... 90

Intersection between AbilityOne® and Use of FLSA Section 14(c) Subminimum Wage 

Certificates............................................................................................................................. 92

Findings and Conclusions ......................................................................................................... 92

Preliminary Recommendations for Consideration by the Full Committee............................... 96

Appendix A: Statutory Language establishing the Committee................................................... 101

Appendix B: Advisory Committee Charter ................................................................................ 104

Appendix C: Committee Member Biographies .......................................................................... 109

Federal Official Members ....................................................................................................... 109

Public Citizen Members.......................................................................................................... 113

Self-Advocate Category ...................................................................................................... 113

Provider Organizations........................................................................................................ 115

National Disability Organizations........................................................................................... 116
viii

Academia/Research................................................................................................................. 118

Employers................................................................................................................................ 120

Other Experts........................................................................................................................... 122

Appendix D: Relevant Statutory and Regulatory Provisions Currently Governing the 

Administration of the Section 14(c) Program............................................................................. 126

Appendix E: Crosswalk of Committee Recommendations ........................................................ 130

Chapter Two: Transition to Careers Subcommittee Recommendations................................. 131

Chapter Three: Complexity and Needs in Delivering Competitive Integrated Employment 

Subcommittee Recommendations........................................................................................... 134

Chapter Four: Marketplace Dynamics Subcommittee Recommendations ............................. 138

Chapter Five: Building State and Local Capacity Subcommittee Recommendations............ 141

Chapter Six: Section 14(c) Program Recommendations......................................................... 142

Chapter Seven: AbilityOne® Program Recommendations..................................................... 145
ix

Members of the Advisory Committee

David Mank, Chair

Director, Indiana Institute on Disability and Community, Indiana University

Bloomington, IN

Alison Barkoff

Director of Advocacy, Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law

Washington, DC

James Brett

President and Chief Executive Officer, New England Council

Dorchester, MA

Appointed May 8, 2015.

Valerie Brooke

Director of Training and Business Connections, Virginia Commonwealth University

Richmond, VA

Cesilee Coulson

Executive Director, Washington Initiative for Supported Employment

Seattle, WA

Sharyn Hancock

Disability Resource Coordinator, Workforce Essentials, Inc.

Clarksville, TN

Patrick Hendry

Vice President, Consumer Advocacy, Mental Health America

Alexandria, VA

Brian Itzkowitz

President and Chief Executive Officer, Goodwill Industries of Arkansas

Little Rock, AK

*Janet LaBreck

Commissioner

Rehabilitation Services Administration, U.S. Department of Education

*Sharon Lewis

Principal Deputy Administrator, Administration for Community Living

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
x

Rita Landgraf

Cabinet Secretary, Delaware Department of Health and Social Services

New Castle, DE

Karen McCulloh

Owner, Karen McCulloh & Associates Consulting

Morton Grove, IL

Christine McMahon

President and Chief Executive Officer, Fedcap

New York, NY

Oswald “Oz” Mondejar

Senior Vice President of Mission and Advocacy

Spaulding Rehabilitation Network and Partners HealthCare at Home

Charlestown, MA

Ruby Moore

Executive Director, Georgia Advocacy Office

Decatur, GA

Ari Ne’eman

President, Autistic Self Advocacy Network (ASAN) 

Washington, DC

Appointed May 8, 2015 to replace Mark Perriello.

*John O’Brien

Senior Policy Advisor and Elderly Health Programs Group

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Steve Pemberton

Chief Diversity Officer and Divisional Vice-President, Walgreen Co.

Deerfield, IL

Santa Perez

Project Co-Coordinator, People First of Nevada

Las Vegas, NV

Mark Perriello

President and CEO, the American Association of People with Disabilities

Washington, DC

Resigned: April 26, 2015.
xi

Lisa Pugh

Public Policy Director, Disability Rights Wisconsin

Madison, WI

Fredric Schroeder

Executive Director, National Rehabilitation Association

Alexandria, VA

*Jennifer Sheehy

Acting Assistant Secretary, Office of Disability Employment Policy

U.S. Department of Labor

*David Weil

Administrator, Wage & Hour Division

U.S. Department of Labor

*Bob Williams 

Senior Advisor to the Deputy Commissioner, Office of Retirement and Disability Policy 

U.S. Social Security Administration; the Social Security Commissioner’s Designee

*Portia Wu

Assistant Secretary, Employment and Training Administration

U.S. Department of Labor

* - denotes Federal Member
xii

Abbreviations

AAPD American Association of People 

with Disabilities 

ABLE Achieving a Better Life Experience

ACA Affordable Care Act

ACICIEID Advisory Committee on Increasing 

Competitive Integrated 

Employment for Individuals with 

Disabilities or the Committee

ACP Academic Career Planning 

ACRE Association of Community 

Rehabilitation Educators

ADA Americans with Disabilities Act

AIDD Administration on Intellectual and 

Developmental Disabilities

AJC American Job Centers 

AMC AMC Theatres

ANPRM Advanced Notice of Preliminary 

Rule Making 

APSE Association of People Supporting 

Employment First

BIP Balancing Incentive Program

Campaign National Educational Campaign

CIE Competitive Integrated 

Employment 

CIL Centers for Independent Living

CMS Centers for Medicare & Medicaid 

Services

CNA Central Nonprofit Agencies 

 

1 On July 7, 2004, the U.S. General Accounting Office 

changed its name to the U.S. Government Accountability 

Com The AbilityOne® Commission

CRP Community Rehabilitation 

Programs

DD Developmental Disabilities

DEI Disability Equality Index 

DFO Designated Federal Officer 

DOJ U.S. Department of Justice

DOL U.S. Department of Labor

DOT U.S. Department of Transportation

DSP Disability Service Professionals 

EBP Evidence Based Practice 

ED U.S. Department of Education

EEOC Equal Employment Opportunity 

Commission

EFSLMP Employment First State Leadership 

Mentoring Program

ERG Employee Resource Groups 

ESEA Elementary Secondary Education 

Act 

ETA Employment and Training 

Administration

FACA Federal Advisory Committee Act 

FFP Federal Financial Participation 

FLSA Fair Labor Standards Act 

FOCUS Furthering Opportunities, Cultivating 

Untapped Strengths

GAO Government Accountability Office1

Office. All in text references refer to reports prior 

to 2004
xiii

HCBS Home and Community-Based 

Services

HGI High Growth Industries

HHS U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services

I/DD Intellectual or Developmental 

Disabilities 

ID Intellectual Disabilities 

IDEA Individuals with Disabilities 

Education Act

IEP Individualized Education Program 

ILP Individualized Learning Planning 

IPE Individual Employment Plan 

IPS Individual Placement and Support

IRS Internal Revenue Service

JWOD Javits-Wagner-O’Day Act

LEA Local Education Agencies

LTSS Long Term Supports and Services 

NCD National Council on Disability 

NIB National Industries for the Blind

NOD National Organization on Disability

NPA Nonprofit Agencies

OCR Office of Civil Rights 

ODEP Office of Disability Employment 

Policy

OFCCP Office of Federal Contract 

Compliance Programs 

OSEP Office of Special Education 

Programs 

OSERS Office of Special Education and 

Rehabilitative Services

PIE Partnerships in Employment

PSE Postsecondary Education

QWE Quality Workplace Environment 

REDI Retail Employees with Disabilities 

Initiative

RSA Rehabilitation Services 

Administration 

SAMHSA Substance Abuse and Mental 

Health Services Administration

SEA State Education Agencies

SME Subject Matter Experts

SSA Social Security Administration

SSDI Social Security Disability 

Insurance

SSI Supplemental Security Income

SVRA State Vocational Rehabilitation 

Agencies

SWEP School Work Experience Programs

USBLN U.S. Business Leadership Network 

VA U.S. Department of Veterans 

Affairs 

VR Vocational Rehabilitation

WDB Workforce Development Boards 

WHD Wage and Hour Division

WIOA Workforce Innovation and 

Opportunity Act
1

Executive Summary

The Advisory Committee on Increasing Competitive Integrated Employment for Individuals with 

Disabilities (the “Committee”) was established under Section 609 of the Rehabilitation Act of 

1973, as amended by Section 461 of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) of 

2014, to advise the Secretary of Labor in three areas:

(1) Ways to increase competitive integrated employment (CIE) opportunities for individuals 

with intellectual or developmental disabilities (I/DD) or other individuals with significant 

disabilities;

(2) The use of certificate program carried out under Section 14(c) of the Fair Labor 

Standards Act (FLSA) for the employment of individuals with I/DD or other individuals 

with significant disabilities; and

(3) Ways to improve oversight of the use of such certificates. 

The Committee was established in September 2014 according to the provisions of the Federal 

Advisory Committee Act (FACA), which helps ensure the independent nature of the Committee 

in providing advice and recommendations to the Administration. The full interim report 

represents the collaborative work of the Committee as a whole.

The primary purpose of the work of the Committee is to address issues, and make 

recommendations, to improve the employment participation of people with I/DD and others with 

significant disabilities by ensuring opportunities for CIE. WIOA1defines “competitive integrated 

employment” as: 

Work performed on a full or part time basis for which an individual is:

(1) Compensated at not less than federal minimum wage requirements or state or local 

minimum wage law (whichever is higher) and not less than the customary rate paid by 

the employer for the same or similar work performed by other individuals without 

disabilities;

(2) At a location where the employee interacts with other persons who are not individuals 

with disabilities (not including supervisory personnel or individuals who are providing 

services to such employee) to the same extent that individuals who are not individuals 

with disabilities and who are in comparable positions interact with other persons; and

(3) Presented, as appropriate, opportunities for advancement that are similar to those for 

other employees who are not individuals with disabilities and who have similar positions.
2

The Committee is comprised of eighteen (18) non-governmental members and seven (7) federal 

official members. The non-governmental members represent: self-advocates, providers of 

employment services, representatives of national disability advocacy organizations, experts with 

a background in academia, employer representatives and others with related expertise on CIE.

In the subsequent Committee Charter (See Appendix B), the charge to the Committee was 

further clarified to include:

 Review existing federal policy and make recommendations to break down barriers to CIE;

 Provide recommendations to modernizing the service delivery system and expanding 

strategies for increasing CIE;

 Recommend system-change strategies to ensure that CIE is the first option for people with 

significant disabilities; and

 Review the use of the certificate program under Section 14(c) (use of subminimum wages) 

and recommend ways to improve oversight and reduce reliance on such certificates.

Highlights of Preliminary Recommendations

The work of the Committee began with its first meeting in January 2015, followed by full 

committee meetings in March, May, and July 2015. The work of the Committee includes 

formation of four subcommittees. These committees are: Transition to Careers; Complexity and 

Needs in Delivering Competitive Integrated Employment; Marketplace Dynamics; Building 

State and Local Capacity; Section 14(c) Subminimum Wage Certificate Program; and 

AbilityOne® Program. Following are highlights of the Preliminary Recommendations of the 

Committee.

The primary focus of the work of the Committee and the formation of preliminary 

recommendations is: (1) to increase opportunities for CIE; (2) to ensure CIE is the first option for 

people with significant disabilities in order to increase the employment participation rate; and (3) 

to significantly reduce the use of FLSA Section 14(c) and the dependence on subminimum 

wages and segregated service placements.

Transition to Careers Subcommittee

The Preliminary Recommendations of the Transition to Careers Subcommittee emphasize: 

 Increasing opportunities for early work experiences for all youth with disabilities, including 

beginning transition at age 14, and conducting research of effective transition practices 

resulting in CIE for youth;

 Increasing nationwide opportunities for postsecondary education for youth with significant 

disabilities which includes competitive integrated work experiences;
3

 Addressing family expectations for CIE at early ages;

 Creating seamless transition and systems integration in policy and funding for transition 

across related federal agencies; and

 Improving professional supports and incentives by improving school and provider 

competencies and providing technical assistance to states.

Complexity and Needs in Delivering Competitive Integrated Employment Subcommittee

The Preliminary Recommendations of the Complexity and Needs Subcommittee emphasize: 

 Aligning policy and practices to prioritize CIE across federal agencies, “including the U.S. 

Department of Labor, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (including the Centers 

for Medicare & Medicaid Services), U.S. Department of Education (including the 

Rehabilitation Services Administration), and Social Security Administration;”

 Aligning across federal agencies the funding rules and payment methodologies to prioritize 

and incentivize CIE and help provide opportunities for CIE to people currently in segregated 

work and non-work day programs;

 Addressing real and perceived disincentives to employment caused by concerns about loss of 

healthcare benefits (Medicaid and/or Medicare) and/or cash benefits (Supplemental Security 

Income and/or Social Security Disability Insurance);

 Addressing systemic low expectations around employment by increasing knowledge of, and 

capacity to provide, effective practices for achieving CIE for people with significant 

disabilities; and

 Improving accountability for achieving CIE and ensuring quality through the development of 

a uniform definition for CIE and requirements for collecting data and outcome measures at 

the federal and state levels.

Marketplace Dynamics Subcommittee

The Preliminary Recommendations of the Marketplace Dynamics Subcommittee are focused on 

employer and business model issues for increasing CIE. These emphasize:

 Changing the narrative about hiring people with significant disabilities to promote hiring 

people with disabilities as good for business outcomes through a national education 

campaign;

 Creating a sustainable culture of inclusion and diversity through business to business 

communications and marketing to businesses of all sizes;
4

 Building better business partnerships between businesses, providers of employment services,

and government programs; 

 Addressing training issues by improving provider competencies and developing national 

training requirements; and

 Addressing the complex issues of transportation in urban, sub-urban and rural America.

Building State and Local Capacity Subcommittee

The Preliminary Recommendations of the Building State and Local Capacity Subcommittee

emphasize:

 Expanded use of Home and Community-Based Services (HCBS) Waiver programs for CIE 

by changing the federal match requirements to states to incentivize CIE;

 Aligning and improving data systems on CIE outcomes;

 Promoting and funding innovations in new and existing provider organizations;

 Creating and funding professional development to improve provider competencies; and

 Providing funding for provider transformation.

Section 14(c) Subminimum Wage Certificate Program

Each of the four initial subcommittees worked on the development of Preliminary 

Recommendations related to the FLSA Section 14(c) certificate program. These Preliminary 

Recommendations include attention to:

 The need for better data on the use of this program and its outcomes;

 Improving monitoring and oversight of the program;

 Aligning use of the program with modern federal disability policies, including the Americans 

with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Supreme Court’s Olmstead decision, WIOA, and recent 

rules and guidance from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS);

 Considering a well-designed phase out of the program as a result of increasing CIE;

 Providing technical assistance to states and providers to reduce the use of the program; and

 Addressing concerns of unintended consequences by ensuring quality alternatives.

AbilityOne® Program

Two of the initial subcommittees addressed issues of the AbilityOne Program. The Preliminary 

Recommendations emphasize:
5

 Amending the Javits-Wagner-O’Day (JWOD) Act to align with modern federal disability 

policies, including the ADA, and change the program to emphasize inclusion of people with 

significant disabilities alongside nondisabled peers in CIE workplaces instead of 

congregating and segregating people with significant disabilities;

 Creating an expectation that the AbilityOne Program establish CIE as the expected and 

priority outcomes;

 Improving oversight of the program; and

 Creating improved data systems on the use and the outcomes of the program.

Conclusion

The primary focus of the work of the Committee, and the formation of preliminary 

recommendations, is to increase opportunities for CIE for individuals with I/DD or other 

significant disabilities. Ensuring that CIE is the first option for people with I/DD or other 

significant disabilities will increase their employment participation rate and lead to a significant 

reduction in their placement in segregated work and non-work programs and in the use of 

Section 14(c) certificates for paying subminimum wages. The work of the Committee will 

continue as it prepares its Final Report to be delivered to the Secretary of Labor and Congress by 

September 15, 2016.
6

Introduction: Setting the Context

The Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA), signed into law by President Obama 

on July 22, 2014, makes significant improvements in federal law for Americans with disabilities, 

including youth with disabilities as they transition from education to employment, by helping to 

ensure these citizens have opportunities to acquire the skills and training they need to maximize 

their potential and enter competitive integrated employment (CIE). Among the many provisions 

in WIOA designed to strengthen and improve employment for all individuals with disabilities is

the establishment of an Advisory Committee on Increasing Competitive Integrated Employment 

for Individuals with Disabilities (the “Committee”) under Section 609 of the Rehabilitation Act 

of 1973, as amended by Section 461 of WIOA.

Unemployment and absence from the national workforce among individuals with significant 

disabilities is a pervasive problem in the United States today. In particular, the drastically low 

unemployment rate and the even lower workforce participation rate for people with intellectual 

or developmental disabilities (I/DD) has been widely documented.

2 While other people with 

disabilities experience extraordinarily low rates of workforce participation and unemployment, 

those with I/DD have the lowest employment rates and the lowest compensation rates.3 Those 

with I/DD are currently the least likely disability group to be participating in CIE. Increasing CIE

for individuals with I/DD as well as those with other significant disabilities is a widely shared 

goal, but one for which a truly comprehensive federal strategy has yet to be defined and 

implemented.

Currently, an estimated 228,600 people with I/DD and other significant disabilities who are 

involved in paid work activity are working for subminimum wage under special certificates 

issued by the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) Wage and Hour Division (WHD).

4 Section 14(c) 

of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) permits the Secretary of Labor to issue certificates to 

employers permitting employment at subminimum wage if the Secretary deems this to be 

necessary to prevent the curtailment of employment opportunities for individuals with 

disabilities covered under these certificates.5 As such, this provision permits employers to pay 

subminimum wages only when an individual’s disability impairs his or her productivity for the 

specific work being performed. DOL last amended the Section 14(c) regulations governing the 

program in 1989. 

Existing data confirms that individuals with I/DD and other significant disabilities who are 

working earn subminimum wage in far greater numbers than those earning competitive wages.6

Further, federal data confirms that most all people currently working under Section 14(c)

subminimum wage certificates are working for sheltered workshops (also called community 

rehabilitation programs (CRPs) or work centers) that typically receive public funding, including 

federal Medicaid and Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) dollars, to provide employment-related 
7

habilitation and rehabilitation services to individuals with disabilities.7 Finally, the data suggests 

that most individuals with disabilities being paid subminimum wage under Section 14(c) are 

working in production facilities operated by these sheltered workshops.

8

Nationally, the focus and attention on increasing the CIE participation rate among individuals 

with disabilities has been growing rapidly over the past decade. Leadership in this area has been 

provided by members of Congress, state governors and legislators, federal and state agencies, the 

business community, and the disability community itself. In determining the most effective 

strategies and comprehensive approach for increasing the participation of individuals with 

disabilities in CIE, consideration of the role and impact of the Section 14(c) program on the 

current CIE participation rate is crucial, especially examining the question of the future role and 

impact of Section 14(c). 

In light of these realities, Congress established the Committee. The purpose of the committee is 

to prepare findings, conclusions and recommendations for the Secretary of Labor on:

 Ways to increase employment opportunities for individuals with I/DD or other individuals 

with significant disabilities in CIE; 

 The use of certificate program carried act under Section 14(c) of the FLSA for the 

employment of individuals with I/DD or other individuals with significant disabilities; and 

 Ways to improve oversight of the use of such certificates. 

Within WIOA,

9

competitive integrated employment generally means work performed on a full or 

part-time basis (including self-employment) for which an individual is:

(1) Compensated at not less than federal minimum wage requirements or state or local 

minimum wage law (whichever is higher) and not less than the customary rate paid by 

the employer for the same or similar work performed by other individuals without 

disabilities; 

(2) At a location where the employee interacts with other persons who are not individuals 

with disabilities (not including supervisory personnel or individuals who are providing 

services to such employee) to the same extent that individuals who are not individuals 

with disabilities and who are in comparable positions interact with other persons; and 

(3) Presented, as appropriate, opportunities for advancement that are similar to those for 

other employees who are not individuals with disabilities and who have similar positions. 

According to DOL Secretary Thomas E. Perez, in his blog10 announcing the formation of this 

Committee, “competitive integrated employment works — for individuals, for employers and for 

society. Models have shown repeatedly that people previously considered “unemployable” can

work, can be productive and can achieve independence. As such, investing in this approach is a 

wise use of public funds.” In light of these truths, finding ways to make CIE accessible for 
8

individuals with I/DD and other significant disabilities should be a shared priority of 

governments and disability community stakeholders. Creating opportunities, removing barriers,

and expecting a substantial improvement in the workforce participation rate of individuals with 

I/DD and other significant disabilities are all essential elements to ensure full economic inclusion 

and self-sufficiency. As the nation celebrates the 25th anniversary of the passage of the 

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), it is indeed fitting that attention is turned to vastly 

improving opportunities for CIE for those individuals with disabilities who have had the least 

opportunity up to now to access this critical aspect of our American way of life.
9

Chapter One: The Committee Process to Date

Establishing the Committee

The Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) directs the Secretary of Labor to 

establish the Advisory Committee on Increasing Competitive Integrated Employment for 

Individuals with Disabilities (the “Committee”) within sixty (60) days of the passage of the law. 

WIOA Section 609 dictates that the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) shall 

appoint the members of the committee, and that the composition of the Committee shall be as 

follows:

(1) The Assistant Secretary for Disability Employment Policy, the Assistant Secretary for 

Employment and Training, and the Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division, of the 

Department of Labor;

(2) The Commissioner of the Administration on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 

or the Commissioner’s designee;

(3) The Director of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services of the Department of 

Health and Human Services, or the Director’s designee;

(4) The Commissioner of Social Security, or the Commissioner’s designee;

(5) The Commissioner of the Rehabilitation Services Administration, or the Commissioner’s 

designee; and

(6) Representatives from constituencies consisting of—

a) Self-advocates for individuals with intellectual or developmental disabilities;

b) Providers of employment services, including those that employ individuals with 

intellectual or developmental disabilities in competitive integrated employment;

c) Representatives of national disability advocacy organizations for adults with 

intellectual or developmental disabilities;

d) Experts with a background in academia or research and expertise in employment and 

wage policy issues for individuals with intellectual or developmental disabilities;

e) Representatives from the employer community or national employer organizations; 

and

f) Other individuals or representatives of organizations with expertise on increasing 

opportunities for competitive integrated employment for individuals with disabilities.

The Department’s Office of Disability Employment Policy (ODEP) is charged with providing 

administrative support to the Committee and coordinating the process of appointing members to 
10

the Committee. The Deputy Assistant Secretary of ODEP is appointed to be the Designated 

Federal Officer (DFO) for the Committee. 

The Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) requires that committee memberships be "fairly 

balanced in terms of the points of view represented and the functions to be performed." Selection 

of committee members is made based on the FACA's requirements and the potential member's 

background and qualifications. Consistent with FACA, ODEP published a Notice in the Federal 

Register on September 12, 2014 announcing establishment of the Committee and inviting 

interested parties to submit nominations of for non-governmental members to represent the six 

constituencies listed in 6(a) through 6(f) above on the Committee. The notice announced the 

Department’s intent to appoint 10-12 members from among these constituencies ensuring at least 

one member represent each of the six types of constituencies. The notice outlined the 

Committee’s obligations to meet at least eight times over a two year period. The notice also 

outlined the required process to nominate someone for the Committee. The deadline for 

submitting nominations was October 14, 2014.

In seeking 10-12 non-governmental members for the Committee, the goal was to ensure broad 

representation and sufficient input from stakeholders in the formation of Committee 

recommendations. To this end, in addition to publishing the notice in the Federal Register, DOL 

also worked closely with other federal agencies represented on the Committee to identify 

potential Committee members. ODEP, on behalf of DOL, also leveraged the full range of 

outreach tools used by the Employment and Training Administration (ETA), ODEP, the Wage 

and Hour Division (WHD), and DOL’s Office of Public Engagement to reach a broad spectrum 

of stakeholders and seek assistance in identifying as many potential candidates as possible. This 

included social media outreach, such as email listings, web postings and other strategies.

Except as otherwise required by Section 609, the goals in appointing the non-governmental 

Committee members included formation of a fairly balanced committee with members coming 

from a cross-section of those directly affected, interested and qualified as appropriate to the 

nature and functions of the Committee, and ensuring consistency with the applicable FACA 

regulations. Thus, the final composition of the Committee depended upon several factors, 

including: (i) the Committee’s objectives; (ii) potential geographic, ethnic, social and 

environmental impact of the Committee’s recommendations; (iii) the types of specific 

perspectives required, as previously outlined; (iv) the need to obtain divergent points of view on 

the issues before the Committee; and (v) the relevance of state, local or tribal governments to the 

development of the Committee’s recommendations.

Through comprehensive outreach, DOL received over 280 nominations for public membership. 

Due to the very large number of individuals nominated to serve on the Committee and the DOL’s 

goal to achieve the greatest impact, scope and credibility among diverse stakeholders, ODEP 

requested to increase the number of non-governmental members of the committee from 10-12 to 
11

15-17, and this was approved by the Secretary in December, 2014. Ultimately, the Secretary of 

Labor appointed 18 non-governmental members to the Committee who include:

Self-advocates for individuals with intellectual, developmental, or other significant disabilities:

 Patrick Hendry, Mental Health America; 

 Karen McCulloh, McCulloh and Associates;

 Santa Perez, People First of Nevada.

Providers of employment services, including those who employ individuals with intellectual or 

developmental disabilities (I/DD) in competitive integrated employment (CIE):

 Brian Itzkowitz, Goodwill Industries of Arkansas, Inc.;

 Christine McMahon, Fedcap.

Representatives of national disability advocacy organizations for adults with I/DD: 

 Alison Barkoff, The Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law; 

 Ruby Moore, National Disability Rights Network; 

 Mark Perriello, American Association of People with Disabilities (resigned April 26, 2015);

 Ari Ne'eman, Autistic Self Advocacy Network (appointed May 8, 2015).

Experts with a background in academia or research and expertise in employment and wage 

policy issues for individuals with I/DD:

 Valerie Brooke, Virginia Commonwealth University;

 David Mank, Indiana Institute on Disability and Community.

Representatives from the employer community or national employer organizations:

 Oswald Mondejar, Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital Network, and Partners Home Care; 

 Steve Pemberton, Walgreens;

 James Brett, The New England Council (appointed May 8, 2015).

Other individuals or representatives of organizations with expertise on increasing opportunities 

for CIE for individuals with disabilities:

 Cesilee Coulson, Washington Initiative for Supported Employment; 

 Sharyn Hancock, Workforce Essentials, Inc.; 

 Rita Landgraf, Delaware Department of Health and Social Services; 

 Lisa Pugh, Disability Rights Wisconsin;

 Fredric Schroeder, Interwork Institute at San Diego State University.

There are also seven federal officials who are members of the committee, as required in statute. 

These include the:

 Jennifer Sheehy, Acting Assistant Secretary of the Office of Disability Employment Policy 

(ODEP);
12

 Portia Wu, Assistant Secretary of the Employment and Training Administration (ETA);

 David Weil, Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division (WHD);

 Sharon Lewis, Commissioner of the Administration on Intellectual and Developmental 

Disabilities (AIDD);

 John O’Brien, Senior Policy Advisor, Disabled and Elderly Programs Group at the Centers 

for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), as the designee for the Director of CMS;

 Bob Williams, Senior Advisor to the Deputy Commissioner for Retirement and Disability 

Policy at the Social Security Administration, as the designee for the Commissioner of Social 

Security;

 Janet LaBreck, Commissioner of the Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA).

Committee members’ biographies can be found in Appendix C of this report.

Charter Establishing the Committee and Its Duties

ODEP submitted an official Charter and membership balance plan, with the assistance of ETA 

and WHD, to the Secretary on September 8, 2014 and the Secretary approved the Charter on 

September 15, 2014. The Charter outlines the description of the Committee’s duties as follows:

The Committee advises the Secretary of Labor on the development and implementation of 

coordinated policies and job-driven strategies across federal agencies to improve 

opportunities for competitive integrated employment and economic advancement for 

individuals with intellectual, developmental or other significant disabilities, including both 

youth and adults. The Committee will evaluate the use of subminimum wages under Section 

14(c) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) in light of the goals outlined for competitive, 

integrated employment and advise the Secretary of Labor on policies and practices that will 

lead to a significant and systematic reduction in the misuse of the 14(c) certification program 

and the dependence on subminimum wages and segregated service placements. In doing this, 

the Committee will: 

(1) Review existing Federal policies to identify and recommend strategies and changes to 

break down barriers that impede pathways to competitive integrated employment 

outcomes for youth and adults with intellectual, developmental or other significant 

disabilities, including recommendations related to employment services, and long-term 

services and supports, family support and transportation as they relate to competitive, 

integrated employment; 

(2) Provide recommendations for modernizing the service delivery system and expanding the 

implementation of job-driven strategies and practices to promote partnerships among 

education, workforce and rehabilitation entities, providers of employment-related longterm services and support, employers, and others that increase the marketable skills and 

competitive integrated employment outcomes of youth and adults with intellectual, 

developmental or other significant disabilities leading to economic self-sufficiency. This 

includes improving the knowledge, skills, and abilities of youth and adults with 

intellectual, developmental or other significant disabilities, educators, service 

professionals and families, building leadership and organizational capacity, increasing 
13

employer engagement, offering work-based learning, and strengthening accountability 

and making better use of data; 

(3) Recommend systems-change strategies needed to ensure that competitive integrated 

employment is the first option for people with intellectual, developmental or other

significant disabilities. This includes aligning policy, practice and funding across 

Federal agencies to support competitive integrated employment and economic 

advancement as the preferred outcomes of job-driven training and related employment 

services through regional collaborations among a variety of public and private partners, 

data sharing, leveraging resources, and employment and earnings outcome measurement 

and evaluation; and

(4) Review the use of the certificate program under Section 14(c) and recommend ways to 

improve oversight of the use of these certificates and reduce the reliance on such 

certificates.

As outlined in the Charter, the Committee reports to both the Secretary of Labor and Congress. 

The Committee is required to prepare and submit this Interim Report to the Secretary of Labor, 

summarizing its progress, along with any interim findings, conclusions, and recommendations 

not later than one year after the date which the Committee is established or September 15, 2015. 

The Committee is also required to prepare and submit a Final Report, with findings, conclusions, 

and recommendations to the Secretary of Labor not later than two years after the date on which 

the Committee is established, or September 15, 2016. The Committee must also provide its 

Interim and Final Reports to the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, 

and the House Committee on Education and the Workforce. As specified in Section 609, the 

Committee shall terminate one day after the date on which it submits its final report. 

The records of the Committee and its formally and informally established subcommittees are 

handled in accordance with FACA requirements. These records are available for public 

inspection and copying subject to the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). 

The Committee’s Charter can be found in Appendix B of this report.

Committee Meetings and Formation of Subcommittees

First Meeting: January 22-23, 2015

On December 24, 2014, ODEP published a Notice in the Federal Register announcing the first 

meeting of the Committee, open to the public, on January 22 and 23, 2015 to be held in-person at 

the U.S. Access Board in Washington, DC. During the first day, the Committee elected a 

chairperson, as required by statute. Dr. David Mank, a public member from the state of Indiana 

and director of Indiana University’s Institute on Disability and Community, was elected 

chairperson.

The first day of the first meeting covered a robust agenda including the opportunity for each 

Committee members to make opening remarks, an overview of the FLSA Section 14(c) program, 
14

and a panel of individuals with disabilities offering their perspectives about CIE. Secretary Perez 

also attended to swear in all of the Committee’s appointed members.

On the second day of the first meeting, each Committee member was given the opportunity to 

share their perspectives on the one thing that the Committee should keep in mind as it started its 

deliberations. The Committee also discussed the subcommittees that were being established to 

support the full Committee’s work and each member of the Committee was encouraged to sign 

up for a subcommittee. The next section of this report provides more detailed information on the 

subcommittees. The Committee then heard from four expert panels who addressed the following 

topics:

 What is Possible: What the Research Tells Us about the Employment of People with 

Disabilities in Competitive Integrated Employment

 Transitioning to Competitive Integrated Employment

 Civil Rights and Competitive Integrated Employment

 The Complexities of Securing Sustained Competitive Integrated Employment 

The second day concluded with public testimony during which ten individuals or organizations 

presented testimony to the Committee.11 Members of the public were invited to give testimony 

and instructed on how to do so in the Notice of the meeting posted in the Federal Register on 

December 24, 2014. The full meeting agenda, materials and minutes can be found at: 

http://www.dol.gov/odep/topics/date/20150120.htm.

Subcommittees Established

At the first meeting, to facilitate the work of the full Committee within its statutory timelines, 

four subcommittees were created, as permitted under the Committee’s charter. The four 

subcommittees identified by ODEP, ETA, and WHD, which reflect key areas for detailed inquiry 

related to the Committee’s charge, include:

 Transition to Careers 

 Complexity and Needs in Delivering Competitive Integrated Employment

 Marketplace Dynamics

 Building Local and State Capacity

Members of the full Committee were provided a handout which described the subcommittees 

and enabled each Committee member to select the subcommittee they wished to serve on. ODEP 

then reviewed and finalized the subcommittee membership, ensuring sufficient expertise and 

balance of perspectives on each committee. Each subcommittee identified a member to act as 

chair of the subcommittee and each subcommittee was also assigned a DFO to support the 

subcommittee’s work. 
15

In carrying out their work, each subcommittee was instructed by the Committee chairperson to 

review relevant materials in their subject matter areas, including the Section 14(c) program, and 

to draft preliminary findings, conclusions and recommendations for the full Committee to 

deliberate upon. The scope of the work of each subcommittee is further described in their 

respective chapters that appear later in this Interim Report.

Because the Committee is operating under FACA, subcommittees did not forward

recommendations directly to DOL or congressional committees. Because Section 14(c) of the 

FLSA is a key area of focus for the Committee and to minimize the possibility that the 

subcommittee recommendations would be communicated directly to the DOL agency

responsible for administering Section 14(c), WHD elected not to participate on any of the 

subcommittees.

Second Meeting: March 23-24, 2015

On March 9, 2014, ODEP published a Notice in the Federal Register announcing the second 

meeting of the Committee, open to the public, on March 23 and 24, 2015 to be held in-person at 

Gallaudet University in Washington, DC. The Notice included information on the planned 

agenda and how members of the public could provide written testimony for this meeting. 

During the first day of this meeting, the Committee reviewed the timeline for its work and heard 

from expert panels on the topics of mental health services and Medicaid issues. In the afternoon, 

the Committee broke into its four subcommittees and each subcommittee met to explore key 

areas of focus and next steps for their work in developing preliminary findings, conclusions, and 

recommendations to bring to the full Committee. The full Committee then reconvened and each 

subcommittee reported out on their discussions regarding their priority areas of focus and agreed 

action steps. The full Committee then heard a follow-up presentation on WHD’s enforcement 

role with regard to Section 14(c) of the FLSA. The Committee finished the day with a discussion 

on the Section 14(c) program and its regulations.

On the second day of the second meeting, the Committee heard a panel presentation on the topic 

of “Leading Systems Change” which offered a cross-systems, state-level perspective. The 

Committee also heard a panel presentation on the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 

(IDEA). The subcommittees met a second time to continue exploring key areas of focus and they 

again reported back on their work to the full Committee. Then, two Committee members 

representing business, Steve Pemberton and Oz Mondejar, made a presentation the Committee. 

Nine individuals or organizations submitted written testimony that was distributed to Committee 

members and included in the public record for this meeting. The full meeting agenda, materials 

and minutes can be found at: http://www.dol.gov/odep/topics/date/20150323.htm.
16

Third Meeting: May 11-12, 2015

On April 22, 2014, ODEP published a Notice in the Federal Register announcing the third 

meeting of the Committee, open to the public, on May 11 and 12, 2015 to be held via webinar. 

The Notice included information on the planned agenda and how members of the public could 

participate in the webinar. The notice also included information on how member of the public 

could provide testimony to the Committee during the webinar or submit written testimony to the 

Committee which would be included in the record of the meeting. 

During the first day of this meeting, the Committee heard reports from two of the 

subcommittees. The Committee also heard testimony from pre-registered members of the public 

and a presentation on Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act, as amended.

On the second day of the second meeting, the Committee heard reports from two of the 

subcommittees. The Committee also heard a presentation on provisions for job seekers with 

disabilities in WIOA. The Committee ended the meeting with a discussion on the various 

subcommittees work and next steps in the Committee’s timeline and work plan for submission of 

the Interim Report. Two individuals or organizations provided verbal testimony to the 

Committee during the meeting. Two individuals or organizations submitted written testimony 

that was distributed to Committee members and included in the public record for this meeting. 

The full meeting agenda, materials and minutes can be found at: 

http://www.dol.gov/odep/topics/date/20150401.htm.

Fourth Meeting: July 13-14, 2015

On June 22, 2015, ODEP published a Notice in the Federal Register announcing the fourth 

meeting of the Committee, open to the public, on July 13 and 14, 2015 to be held in-person at the 

U.S. Access Board in Washington, DC. The Notice included information on the planned agenda 

and how members of the public could provide testimony during the public comment period for 

this meeting or provide written statements to be included in the record of the meeting. 

During the first day of this meeting, the Transition to Careers Subcommittee and the Complexity 

and Needs in Delivering Competitive Integrated Employment Subcommittee reported out to the 

full Committee on their preliminary findings, conclusions and recommendations for the topic 

areas covered under the scope of each subcommittee. The full Committee had an opportunity to 

ask questions and engage in discussion regarding each subcommittee’s report. The Committee

also heard a presentation on ODEP’s Employment First State Leadership Mentoring Program 

(EFSLMP) initiative, including participating states’ accomplishments and challenges with 

respect to Employment First policy, and a presentation from an expert panel that addressed 

experiences with provider transformation to CIE as the priority service option. The Committee 

was joined by DOL Deputy Secretary Christopher Lu and marked the 25th anniversary of the 
17

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and its connection to the Committee’s charge. The 

Committee also heard public testimony.

During the second day of this meeting, the Building State and Local Capacity Subcommittee and 

the Marketplace Dynamics Subcommittee reported out to the full Committee on their preliminary 

findings, conclusions and recommendations for the topic areas covered under the scope of each 

subcommittee. The full Committee had an opportunity to ask questions and engage in discussion 

regarding each subcommittee’s report. Additionally, each subcommittee presented its 

preliminary findings, conclusion and recommendations on the FLSA Section 14(c) program and 

the Committee engaged in discussion on this topic. Finally, the Complexity and Needs in 

Delivering Competitive Integrated Employment Subcommittee and the Marketplace Dynamics 

Subcommittee jointly presented their preliminary findings, conclusions, and recommendations 

on the AbilityOne® Program, followed by questions and discussion with the full Committee. 

The meeting concluded with a discussion regarding next steps for finalizing the Interim Report. 

The full meeting agenda, materials and minutes can be found at: 

http://www.dol.gov/odep/topics/date/20150713.htm.

Fifth Meeting: August 10, 2015

On July 24, 2015, ODEP published a Notice in the Federal Register announcing the fifth meeting 

of the Committee, open to the public, on August 10, 2015 to be held via webinar. The Notice 

included information on the planned agenda and how members of the public could provide 

written statements to be included in the record of the meeting. Statements could be submitted via 

U.S. Mail or as email attachments.

During the webinar, the Committee discussed drafts of each of the chapters of this Interim 

Report. Each subcommittee presented a summary of its process and an overview of its chapter, 

after which they responded to questions from other members of the Committee and heard 

recommendations for edits and clarifications from other members of the Committee. Most 

recommended edits were technical in nature.

Jennifer Sheehy, the Committee’s DFO, announced that the Committee has received over 2,000 

emails up to this point, and in order to facilitate Committee members’ continued access to all 

public comments submitted via email, ODEP is creating an accessible, on-line platform for 

Committee members.

Chairman David Mank thanked the Committee for its intensive work on the development of the 

Interim Report and acknowledged the very tight timelines, established by Congress, under which 

the Committee had to work. 
18

Conclusion and Committee’s Plans for Year Two

The primary focus of the Committee’s work is to increase opportunities for CIE for people with 

I/DD or other significant disabilities. The Committee members share the belief that building 

capacity for CIE is the first priority for increasing the employment participation rate of people 

with I/DD or other significant disabilities. Increasing CIE will also reduce reliance on placement 

in segregated work and non-work programs and in the use of FLSA Section 14(c) certificates.

The Committee’s work in its first year has been both expansive and intensive. With input from 

the public at many points, the Committee has gained extensive knowledge of stakeholder 

perspectives into the many issues and topics within the purview of its charge. Over 2,000 public 

comments via the Committee’s email address have come in thus far, while numerous individuals 

or organizations have provided public testimony to the Committee or have submitted written 

statements to the Committee. Additionally, the Committee has received information from 

numerous expert presenters, which has allowed the Committee as a whole to extend its own 

expertise on the topics it is charged with addressing. What follows here are the preliminary 

findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Committee, based on its work to date.

During the second year of its term, the Committee will continue reviewing, refining and where 

necessary adding to its preliminary findings, conclusions and recommendations in order to 

finalize these for the Final Report due to the Secretary of Labor and Congress on September 15, 

2016.

The Committee is required to meet at least eight times over the course of its two-year term. The 

Committee held five meetings during its first year. At least three additional meetings will be held 

during the second year, including a face-to-face meeting in Washington, DC that has already 

been scheduled for October 14-15, 2015.

The Committee will continue to solicit public input throughout its second year. To this end, there 

continues to be on-going opportunities for members of the public to submit written input via the 

Committee’s email address: IntegratedCompetitiveEmployment@dol.gov. There will also be 

opportunities for public comment and/or submission of written statements for the record at each 

of the Committee’s remaining meetings. At the October 14-15, 2015 meeting, the Committee 

will begin taking public testimony via telephone, as well as in-person, to enable more members 

of the public to provide testimony during Committee meetings. ODEP will also expand the 

timeframe that members of the public have to submit written testimony for this meeting which 

will become part of the official record.

1 See Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Section 7(5) as amended by WIOA.

2 Unfinished Business: Making Employment of People with Disabilities a National Priority. U.S. Senate Health, 

Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. March, 2012. Access at: 

https://www.disability.gov/resource/unfinished-business-making-employment-of-people-with-disabilities-a-

 
19

 

national-priority/

3

Ibid.

4 Verified by the U.S. Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division.

5 See Appendix D for the relevant statutory and regulatory provisions currently governing the administration of the 

Section 14(c) program.

6 Butterworth, J., Smith, F. A., Hall, A. C., Migliore, A., Winsor, J.,& Domin, D. (2014). StateData: The National 

Report on Employment Services and Outcomes. Boston, MA: University of Massachusetts Boston, Institute for 

Community Inclusion.

7 GAO, September 2001, Special Minimum Wage Program, Centers Offer Employment and Support Services to 

Workers with Disabilities, But Labor Should Improve Oversight GAO-01-886, Page 9. 

8

Ibid.

9 Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Section 7(5) as amended by WIOA.

10 To read the full blog by Secretary Perez, see: http://blog.dol.gov/2015/01/05/ensuring-opportunity-extends-to-all/

11 Public testimony can be found at: http://www.dol.gov/odep/topics/date/ACICIEID.htm
20

Chapter Two: Transition to Careers

Background

The Transition to Careers Subcommittee (the Subcommittee) is one of four created by the full 

Advisory Committee on Increasing Competitive Integrated Employment for Individuals with

Disabilities (the “Committee”) to examine and make recommendations concerning the transition 

of youth with intellectual or developmental disabilities (I/DD) and other significant disabilities to

competitive integrated employment (CIE). The charge of the Subcommittee was to examine what 

needs to be done to build or improve transition from school to careers federal/state systems 

performance and services. Committee members determined their preference for working on 

specific subcommittees. This Subcommittee is comprised of the following members:

 Lisa Pugh, Co-Chair, Public Policy Director, Disability Rights Wisconsin

 Valerie Brooke, Co-Chair, Director of Training and Business Connections, Virginia 

Commonwealth University, Rehabilitation Research &Training Center

 Portia Wu, Assistant Secretary, Employment and Training Administration, U.S. 

Department of Labor

 Santa Perez, Project Co-Coordinator, People First of Nevada

 Sharon Lewis, Principal Deputy Administrator of the Administration for Community 

Living, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

 David Berthiaume, Designated Federal Officer of the ACICIEID Subcommittee on 

Transition to Careers, Office of Disability Employment Policy, U.S. Department of Labor

Acknowledgement: This Subcommittee would like to thank Nancy Farnon-Molfenter, Ph.D., for 

her work in finding relevant references for our various findings and conclusions.

After an in-depth review of the literature and practice across the nation, the Subcommittee

organized its work into five thematic areas as a framework for findings and conclusions and 

recommendations to increase CIE for youth with I/DD and other significant disabilities: early

work experiences, postsecondary education (PSE), family expectations, systems 

integration/seamless transition, and professional supports and incentives. Early work

experiences refers to youth discovering personal career interests in authentic, community-based 

employment settings as a part of their secondary education. The section on Postsecondary 

education discusses the inclusion of educational options for youth and young adults with 

disabilities post-high school as an option for these individuals to build knowledge and skills 

alongside their typical peers. Family expectations refer to engagement of families early and 

often in their student’s transition planning and post-school supports. Systems 

integration/seamless transition focus on federal, state, and local level early alignment of
21

funding and service resources to match the services needed by youth to achieve CIE. And finally, 

the last thematic area on professional supports and incentives examines qualifications and 

competencies needed by all professionals across systems to deliver quality transition from school 

to careers services.

The following section of this chapter provides a general overview for which the Subcommittee

has based findings and conclusions related to building and/or improving systems, services, and 

professional capacity needed by youth to transition to CIE. The next section presents findings 

and conclusions focused on each of the five thematic areas described in the above background 

section. The final section of the chapter contains the preliminary recommendations of the 

Subcommittee for increasing CIE for youth with I/DD and other significant disabilities.

Findings and Conclusions

The challenges facing youth with I/DD and other significant disabilities as they prepare for the 

transition from public secondary education to adult employment have been well documented. 

These challenges are reflected in several distinct factors that distinguish youth with disabilities 

from their nondisabled peers. First, they are less likely than their nondisabled peers to finish high 

school.

12,13 Second, they are less likely to pursue PSE that will prepare them for good jobs and 

careers.14,15 Third, they are significantly more likely to be unemployed for much of their adult

life.

16 And fourth, some groups of students who receive special education services will need 

connections to ongoing support to sustain the benefit of public education.

17

Such circumstances are often compounded by several other factors related to transition planning 

and services. These factors include gaps and lack of coordination in employment-related schoolbased services; sporadic availability of integrated work experiences and CIE during the 

secondary school years;

18,19 limited direct participation of youth in their own transition 

planning;

20 inconsistent engagement of families in transition planning and services;21 and, the 

often sporadic, disjointed, or even nonexistent connections to post-school supports that are

necessary to maintain a path toward long-term adult employment.22

Thus, despite more than 25 years of focused federal policy on transition to employment of youth 

with disabilities to address these known barriers, there continues to be a need for the 

identification of proven pathways to college, employment, and careers for youth with I/DD and 

other significant disabilities. Of significance, even though there is strong research support for 

work-based educational services for transitioning youth,

23 opportunities available for integrated 

work experiences and competitive wage jobs vary widely. Available opportunities may be based

on whether the student is on track to receive a diploma or certificate of school completion, 

whether the state education agency and/or local school districts embrace work-based experiences 

as essential adjuncts to the course of study, and whether there is strong collaboration with youth 
22

and adult employment entities which can assist in helping procure and support work 

experience.

24

These barriers must be mitigated to minimize the impact of disjointed service delivery as schools 

and post-school service providers prepare youth for employment and careers. These longstanding 

challenges to effective school-to-career transition for youth with disabilities have led to recent 

attempts to synthesize what works in transition and to suggest approaches to address these 

challenges. In fact, the increasing knowledge base about effective transition practice has resulted 

in an emerging consensus among researchers and professionals about the factors that contribute

to the delivery of optimal transition services.25,26,27 Youth empowerment, family involvement, 

activities that connect transition resources, solid academic preparation in conjunction with 

transition planning, and work experiences have been found to be potentially important 

influencers of post-school employment outcomes. In particular, there is a growing body of

evidence that work experience and CIE during secondary school years predicts successful postschool employment.28,29 Proven demonstration models (e.g., Project Search,

30 Transition Systems

Integration Model,31 Seamless Transition Model,32) illustrate how optimal transition practices 

lead to high levels (60%-70%) of CIE outcomes for students with I/DD and other significant 

disabilities.

The impact of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) on state and local 

practices is yet to be known. However, the intent of WIOA holds the promise of insuring that 

transition from secondary education and/or PSE to CIE is the primary goal for youth in 

transition, including youth with I/DD and other significant disabilities. After a review of research 

and practice evidence, the overall conclusion of the Transitions to Careers Subcommittee is that 

youth should leave their secondary education with integrated work experiences and/or a 

competitive integrated job.

Area 1: Early Work Experiences

Research has proven that early exposure to CIE and/or integrated work experiences during high 

school is the number one predictor of post-school employment success for youth with I/DD and 

other significant disabilities.

33,34,35 Other predictive factors including individualized planning, 

career development activities, and transition programming that support work experiences and 

attainment of individualized transition goals lead to more positive employment outcomes.36

Earlier, timely, and more seamless access to Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) services play an 

important intervention role of guiding students with I/DD and other significant disabilities to CIE. 

The Partnerships in Employment (PIE) Systems Change grant37 reports early connection to VR 

counselors as the most important change in practice that has improved employment outcomes for

youth in their projects. Earlier and more seamless access to VR services can offer youth the

supports that they need to benefit from integrated work experiences. Youth with I/DD and other 

significant disabilities often need additional enhancements to access and benefit from early work 
23

experiences. These enhancements include support provided by professionals with specific skill 

sets, higher success expectations, incentives built into funding and service systems, and extended 

time to secure permanent CIE—longer than the typical expected VR closure of 18 months.38,39

However, it is well documented that youth categorized by IDEA as having I/DD or having other 

“significant disabilities” experience low employment outcomes (31% students with intellectual 

disabilities (ID), 47% with autism, and 33% with multiple disabilities).40 Employment for youth 

with I/DD and other significant disabilities generally falls into low status, low wages jobs.

41

Overall engagement in any category of activity post-school for youth with the most significant 

disabilities is low. Only two-thirds of the students are doing anything four years out of school –

and that includes sheltered employment.

State systems struggle to align policy and practice that prevent the support of integrated work 

experiences for youth with the most significant disabilities.42,43 Secondary education does not 

adequately prepare some youth with disabilities for employment after high school.44,45 Lack of 

dedicated resources (e.g., transition teacher time and specialized skill training) to build 

relationships with local employers, VR, employment service providers, and Medicaid 

DD/Waiver personnel is another barrier for youth to gain access to integrated work 

experiences.46 Some state VR systems deem that youth must have the assurance of long-term 

employment supports; Medicaid DD/Waiver agencies believe they must secure a denial from VR 

before they will provide employment supports.

Area 2: Postsecondary Education

Benefits of youth with I/DD and other significant disabilities engaging in PSE have been widely

documented.

47,48,49 Engagement in any type of PSE (e.g., vocational education classes, college

certificate, two-year and/or one college class) significantly enhances ability for youth with 

disabilities to secure CIE outcomes. Those who engage in PSE and who are clients of VR are 

more likely to secure CIE than those who do not. Students with I/DD and other significant 

disabilities who have even one or two PSE classes can earn up to 70 percent higher wages than 

those who do not participate in PSE.

There are known enhancers that will provide the opportunity for students to have quality PSE 

experiences, and necessitates that secondary and PSE programs/institutions make improvements 

in these areas:

 Self-Determination broadly implemented at the secondary education level so that students 

can self-identify and request accommodations needed to address their own learning

style.50,51

 Community-based functional and individualized assessment is very important within the 

secondary education transition planning process as students with I/DD, like all adolescents, 

clearly possess unique amalgamations of strengths and needs. Assessments across systems 
24

must be aligned to maximize and streamline resources while broadening the opportunity for

stakeholder input.52

 Academic career planning (ACP) for students with I/DD and other significant disabilities 

conducted early in secondary education to ensure their access to coursework and

experiences that are necessary for them to pursue a pathway to a skilled job. Success is

likely when strategies are implemented to ensure that youth are fully included in the 

educational planning process to include Individualized Education Program (IEP) 

meetings, individualized learning planning (ILP), and other ACP activities.53,54

 Student access to the General Education curriculum so that they have the basic academic 

foundation to enter PSE that leads to successful in CIE.

55

 Student secondary education completion rate should be improved.

56

 Data should be used by PSE programs/institutions to understand individual academic

strengths and accommodation needs rather than placement testing to screen students out of 

the system.

 Universal instructional design broadly implemented in PSE institutions to support students 

with a variety of learning and support needs.57

These identified improvements are based on unique challenges faced by students with I/DD and 

other significant disabilities as they attempt to gain access to PSE. “Learned helplessness” 

among students with I/DD and other significant disabilities remains due to their education 

occurring in segregated settings, thus, excluding them from core academic coursework and 

employment preparation through community-based work experiences. As a result, a low 

expectation exists for students with I/DD and other significant disabilities to be successful in 

PSE. Students along with their families, teachers, and counselors have limited opportunity to 

learn about PSE opportunities as well as the education and/or support needed to meet PSE 

requirements. Often students, parents, and teachers misunderstand the accommodations and

support differences between the secondary and postsecondary environments.

Placement testing continues to be used, especially in two-year colleges, and this remains a 

significant barrier to accessing PSE for youth with I/DD and other significant disabilities. Higher 

education institutions have been slow to embrace policy changes that allow their full 

participation. College faculty/instructors lack background and receive little training in learning 

style accommodations and designing coursework aligned with career pathways that will lead to 

skilled jobs.

Some youth with I/DD and other significant disabilities participate in postsecondary programs.

Some of these programs remain largely segregated from the mainstream college campus life.
25

Many of the existing PSE programs are not focused on career pathways that include integrated 

work experiences that lead to skilled jobs.

Area 3: Family Expectations

Family expectations are among the strongest predictor of educational outcomes, including 

college and employment.58 Family expectations start early in a child’s life.59 Expectations about 

self-determination, employment, and valued social roles have a significant impact on adult 

outcomes. Expectations that their child with I/DD would eventually be self-supporting are highly

associated with employment.60 Students, with and without disabilities, are reported to have

higher career expectations when their families are engaged with them in an ACP/ILP approach.61

Pediatricians and health-related professionals, as well as early childhood professionals and K-12 

educators influence family expectations. Beginning early in the student’s education, families of 

children/youth with disabilities need assistance in learning about and creating expectations, 

aspirations, and a vision for the future not just this year’s program/plan, but the long range goal 

that focuses on adult life. Waiting until students are “transition age” to talk about employment is 

too late. Families receive too many negative messages from system personnel. Often they feel 

that the roles and responsibilities of post-school systems are not defined and find transition 

planning puzzling. As a result, many families feel powerless due to their lack of knowledge 

about the systems.62,63

Challenges faced by families of youth with disabilities are compounded greatly by multiple 

variables that must be addressed for youth to achieve successful transition outcomes. Cultural 

and language differences in our diverse society may impede families from getting involved.

64

Many youth with I/DD and their families live in poverty and need basic human needs met before

a job search. Family economic security cannot be ignored and needs to be taken into 

consideration.65 Access to meaningful, individualized work incentive benefits counseling that 

takes into account the informational needs of a youth and their family can support greater family

engagement. Participating in support networks with family peers can be an important influencer 

to improve family expectations for their child to participate in career pathways toward achieving

PSE and/or CIE outcomes.66

Research is needed to explore the ways in which family influencers interact with other 

influencers to shape the skills, services, and supports provided during and after high school for 

transition-age youth with significant disabilities.67 It would be useful to know more broadly the

difficulties that family’s face, which in turn negatively impacts participation.
26

Area 4: System Integration/Seamless Transition

Students with I/DD navigate complex systems in moving from high school into adult life, i.e.,

the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) K-12/transition services, Social Security 

Income/Social Security Disability Insurance (SSI/SSDI) Program, VR, Medicaid/Long Term 

Supports and Services (LTSS), PSE, employment supports, etc. These systems are often poorly

coordinated and do not share aligned outcome goals.68 Despite requirements in IDEA, often 

transition planning for youth is weak and does not incorporate/coordinate all of the services and 

supports.69 Payer of last resort policies result in roadblocks to funding. Medicaid or VR funded

supports and services are either not promoted or not readily available to enable summer, 

weekend, and after-school employment youth experiences.70

Alignment of these multiple system expectations and outcomes is necessary to expedite service 

delivery so that the student acquires, prior to high school exit, community-based work 

experiences and/or a competitive integrated job. Jurisdictions in which there has been 

opportunity to “create a table” for systems collaboration and focus on the coordination and 

sequencing of funding and activities have shown some success in improving employment 

outcomes.71,72,73 WIOA attempts to foster greater collaboration across agencies to facilitate 

increased seamless school-to-work transition strategies, but may fall short in key areas of the

statute where participation of key partners is encouraged, but not mandatory. For example, 

Section 511 of WIOA does not mandate all players to be at the table to coordinate around the 

needs of youth with I/DD and other significant disabilities.

Area 5: Professional Supports and Incentives

Many systems touch and influence youth with I/DD and other significant disabilities as they

transition to adulthood including secondary and PSE, Social Security, Medicaid, Welfare,

Community Rehabilitation Providers (CRP), workforce development (One-Stops), VR, and 

others. Under WIOA, youth with disabilities will receive extensive pre-employment transition 

services. This new direction provides an opportunity for systems to cross-train staff at all levels.

As youth transition from an entitlement system to an eligibility system, the One-Stop Career 

Center staff is available to provide training on labor market information, career exploration and 

career readiness skills to its partners. However, staff in these systems often lacks direct 

experience working with youth with I/DD and other significant disabilities on employment goals, 

knowledge about resources available across the systems, opportunities to learn how other 

systems function, and a strong understanding of what services other agencies in the 

community/state can provide to support CIE for youth between ages 16-24.

National data show that less than half of all special education personnel preparation programs 

address transition standards, and only 45 percent offer a stand-alone course on transition.74,75

Teacher expectations begin in these preparation programs. High expectations of teachers 
27

correlate with better employment outcomes. In a 2010 study, students whose teachers expected 

them to work during the summer were 15 times more likely to work than teachers without that 

expectation.

76 Specifically, special education professionals require better understanding of:

 work incentives and the correlation with benefits programs.

 role of the VR system.

 Medicaid funded supports and services available to youth and families to support 

employment long-term.

 least restrictive environment policies and how the new WIOA regulations apply to work 

experiences.

 supplementary aids/ services and assistive technology available and necessary to facilitate 

CIE for an individual youth.

There is a wide variation in state VR transition statistics suggesting VR could improve its 

services for transition-age youth. Specific standards and guidelines for VR agencies and staff 

serving youth between 16 and 24 could be developed and adopted. In addition, systems could 

encourage and possibly provide incentives for VR and school systems staff to coordinate early in 

a youth’s educational career.

Medicaid Waiver case managers do not have training on evidence-based practices in supported 

employment. Clear state guidelines complemented by the targeted training in evidence-based 

employment practices of direct support professionals across systems should lead to a reduction 

on the high reliance of adult day services with no employment components, and shift to an 

increase in resources that lead to and support CIE.

Transition to Careers Subcommittee Preliminary Recommendations

The Subcommittee has concluded that in order to promote the outcome of CIE for youth with

I/DD and other significant disabilities, the transition from high school to careers process that 

requires active interagency collaboration and coordination, keyed to the outcome of CIE, must be

improved. Recommendations for improvement are as follows.

Area 1: Early Work Experiences

1. The Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA) should analyze policies and practices that 

act as barriers for youth in accessing early VR supports and services (i.e., paperwork and 

application burden, language barriers) and provide such analysis to states with specific 

guidance on improvement in policy and practice.
28

2. The U.S. Department of Education (ED) should provide guidance on a VR referral protocol 

and timeline to State Education Agencies (SEAs). A mechanism should be in place to ensure 

that families have been provided with meaningful information on the benefits of VR services.

3. ED should make a priority to focus on Post-School Outcomes in Results Driven 

Accountability for all states. ED should transition states to a process of using IDEA Indicator 

1477 (post-school outcomes) for annual benchmarking, compliance and quality improvement 

purposes. Indicator 14 should be further enhanced to differentiate sheltered employment

outcomes from CIE outcomes.

4. Any reauthorization of IDEA must:

a. Re-establish the age of transition to no later than when a youth turns 14.

b. Require early connection to and participation in VR services at the earliest stage of 

transition as coordinated in a youth’s IEP.

c. Further define a summary of performance to include a record of a youth’s integrated 

work experiences. Require that the IEP include a description of the integrated work

experiences that will be provided to assist the youth in reaching postsecondary goals.

5. Federal research grant priorities should be expanded to explore the research connection 

related to quality, evidence-based general education inclusion practices, and general

education curriculum that leads to college and workforce skills and improved post- school 

outcomes.

6. ED should increase investment in high quality multivariate correlational research to move 

from promising practices to evidence-based practices, including determining the combination 

of practices that will guide the field to improved outcomes as youth transition from school to 

careers of choice.

7. DOL, ED, and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Center for 

Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) should work together to leverage federal resources 

(including WIOA Title I and Title IV) so funding streams and services can work together to 

focus on strategies that ensure youth with significant disabilities get integrated work 

experiences and related employment-services, including internships, apprenticeships and onthe-job training, along with related career services and counseling, prior to exiting high 

school.
29

Area 2: Postsecondary Education

8. ED and SEAs must act to improve secondary teacher education requirements and 

paraprofessional training on appropriate strategies to prepare students with disabilities for

PSE and include such areas as the value of PSE, setting high expectations, ACP/ILP,

disability support services, universal design, and accommodations based upon learning style.

9. ED, RSA, and SEAs must review policies and issue joint guidance to ensure that prior to 

each student's secondary education graduation, the student's IEP team has identified and 

engaged the responsible agencies, resources, and accommodations required for PSE that 

would include the specific types and levels of supports needed by the student for success.

10. ED must require PSE experiences to involve multiple CIE experiences to include paid

internships in integrated settings to ensure that the entire experience is oriented and 

coordinated to support the student’s identified career of choice.

11. DOL should direct the workforce system to coordinate with other partners to provide youth 

with I/DD who are attending PSE, orientation toward careers through work experience, 

career planning, and career counseling.

Area 3: Family Expectations

12. Federally funded grantees that have early contact with parents of children with I/DD and 

other significant disabilities (i.e., Parent Training and Information Centers, Family-to-Family

Health Centers, IDEA Part B/C, Family Support Programs) should be required to engage

with families earlier to support them in acquiring higher expectations that leads to transition 

long-range planning with self advocates engaged as mentors.

13. ED should prioritize the use of student-led IEPs and best practices promoting selfdetermination at an early age to improve family expectations for positive employment 

outcomes.

14. ED must issue guidance on developing embedded discussions in the IEP process, during the 

pre-transition age, that leads to long-range post-school outcomes planning versus year-toyear planning. With any reauthorization of IDEA, the IEP process must be updated and 

provide funding sources related to a focus on a vision that builds toward long-range, postschool outcomes planning.

15. RSA should issue guidance to states on how to provide Work Incentives Benefits Counseling

and financial literacy that is tailored to individual youth/family household that is tailored to 

individual youth and is considered a service under Pre-Employment Transition Services.
30

Area 4: System Integration/Seamless Transition

16. Interagency alignment of outcome goals, coordination of supports, services, and funding 

oriented toward CIE must be mandated among ED, DOL, RSA, the Social Security 

Administration (SSA), and CMS. A lead federal agency must be designated. These key 

federal agencies must provide implementation guidance to the states and states must provide 

guidance to the local communities to support the following: lowering the age of transition to 

14, specifying practices for braiding of resources, clarifying funder of last resort mandates, 

clearly identifying roles and responsibilities, benchmarking milestones, sharing data 

collection processes and analyses, tracking outcomes of collaboration over time, and having a

plan for dissemination of this information to families and professionals.

17. ED, SSA, RSA, and CMS must work toward presumptive eligibility and a common 

application process across state agencies for youth with I/DD and other significant 

disabilities, to the greatest degree possible with a focus on securing automatic VR eligibility

for waiver eligible youth who desire employment.

18. Federal agencies must coordinate to develop a pilot and seek demonstration authority to

increase flexibility and potentially waive requirements across multiple authorities (IDEA, 

Elementary Secondary Education Act (ESEA), RSA, SSA, DOL, and CMS) so funds may be 

streamlined to support youth achieving successful CIE outcomes.

19. ED’s The Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) should ensure that youth with I/DD 

and other significant disabilities have access to assistive technology. OSEP, RSA, and HHS 

should ensure that policies allow assistive technology devices to transfer to the student’s 

workplace and/or postsecondary environment.

20. ED in collaboration with RSA should issue guidance specifically on ways in which schools 

and state VR can and should fund transportation as a service to support integrated work 

experiences as part of a student’s IEP and/or individual employment plan.

Area 5: Professional Supports and Incentives

21. State Medicaid agencies must tie professional certifications and Medicaid provider

qualifications to specific competencies related to understanding CIE opportunities for

Medicaid beneficiaries.

22. ED, RSA, and DOL must promote and fund pre-service and in-service training for 

professionals and paraprofessionals across the systems that focuses on building high

expectations related to CIE and evidence-based practices to include family engagement 

strategies, use of labor market information, an understanding of career counseling and

pathways, availability of CIE services, person-centered employment services, and employer 

relations.
31

23. Federal agencies must update core competencies, standards and pre-service requirements for 

early childhood and other pediatric medical and social service professions to embed values 

related to high expectations for children with I/DD and other significant disabilities.

24. “Highly Qualified Special Education Teacher” should be redefined to reflect the unique skills 

necessary to effectively plan and provide required transition services that lead to CIE

outcomes; in turn, these qualifications should become competencies that are embedded in all

special education personnel preparation programs.

12 Chapman, C., Laird, J., Ifill, N., and KewalRamani, A. (2011). Trends in high school dropout and completion 

rates in the United States: 1972-2009 (NCES 2012-006). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved 

on 10/9/12 from

http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch.

13 Wagner, M., Newman, L., Cameto, R., Garza, N., & Levine, P. (2005). After high school: A first look at the 

postschool experiences of youth with disabilities. A report from the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 

(NLTS2).

14 Johnson, D. R., Stodden, R. A., Emanuel, E. J., Luecking, R., & Mack, M. (2002). Current challenges facing 

secondary education and transition services: What research tells us. Exceptional Children, 68(4), 519-531.

15 Wagner, M., Newman, L., Cameto, R., Garza, N., & Levine, P. (2005). After high school: A first look at the 

postschool experiences of youth with disabilities. A report from the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 

(NLTS2).

16 Harris, L. & Associates (2010). The N.O.D/Harris survey on employment of people with disabilities. New York, 

NY: Author.

17 Certo, N., Luecking, R., Murphy, S., Brown, L., Courey, S., & Belanger, D. (2009). Seamless transition and longterm support for individuals with severe intellectual disabilities. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe 

Disabilities, 33, 85-95.

18 U.S. Government Accountability Office (2006). Summary of GAO conference: Helping California youth with 

disabilities transition to work or postsecondary education (Publication No. GAO-06-759SP). Washington, DC: 

Author.

19 Luecking, R.G. and Whittenburg, D. (2009). Providing supports to youth with disabilities transitioning to 

adulthood: Case description from the youth transition demonstration. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation.

20 Martin, J. E. & Williams-Diehm, K. (2013). Student engagement and the transition planning process. Career 

Development for Exceptional Individuals, 36. 43-50.

21 Landmark, L., Roberts, E., & Zhang, D. (2013). Educators’ beliefs and practices about parent involvement in 

transition planning. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 36, 114–123.

22 Certo, N., Luecking, R., Murphy, S., Brown, L., Courey, S., & Belanger, D. (2009). Seamless transition and longterm support for individuals with severe intellectual disabilities. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe 

Disabilities, 33, 85-95.

23 Test, D.W., Fowler, C.H., Richter, M.M., White, J., Mazzotti, V., Walker, A.R., Kohler, P.H., & Kortering, L. 

(2009). Evidence-based practices in secondary transition. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 32, 115-

128.

24 Fraker, T., and Rangarajan, A. (2009). The social security administration’s youth transition demonstration 

projects. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 30, 223-241.

25 Cobb, B., & Alwell, M. (2009). Transition planning/coordinating interventions for youth with disabilities: A 

systematic review. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals.

26 National Alliance for Secondary Education and Transition (2005). National standards and quality indicators: 

Transition toolkit for systems improvement. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Secondary 

Education and Transition.

27 National Collaborative on Workforce and Disability for Youth (2005). Guideposts for success.

Washington, DC: Institute on Educational Leadership.

 
32

 

28 Carter, E. W., Austin, D., & Trainor, A. A. (2012). Predictors of postschool employment outcomes for young 

adults with severe disabilities. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 23(1), 50-63.

29 Test, D. W., Mazzotti, V. L., Mustian, A. L., Fowler, C. H., Kortering, L. J., & Kohler, P. H. (2009). Evidencebased secondary transition predictors for improving post-school outcomes for students with disabilities. Career 

Development for Exceptional Individuals,

32, 160–181.

30 Schall, C., Wehman, P., Brooke, V., Graham, C., McDonough, J., Brooke, A., Allen, J. (2015).

Employment interventions for individuals with ASD: The relative efficacy of supported employment with or without 

prior Project SEARCH training. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. Advance online publication. 

doi:10.1007/s10803-015-2426-5.

31 Certo, N., Luecking, R., Murphy, S., Brown, L., Courey, S., & Belanger, D. (2009). Seamless transition and longterm support for individuals with severe intellectual disabilities. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe 

Disabilities, 33, 85-95.

32 Luecking, D.M. and Luecking, R. (2015). Translating research into a seamless transition model.

Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 38; 1, 4-13.

33 Ibid.

34 Carter, E. W., Austin, D., & Trainor, A. A. (2012). Predictors of postschool employment outcomes for young 

adults with severe disabilities. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 23(1), 50-63.

35 Test, D.W., Fowler, C.H., Richter, M.M., White, J., Mazzotti, V., Walker, A.R., Kohler, P.H., & Kortering, L. 

(2009). Evidence-based practices in secondary transition. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 32, 115-

128.

36 Carter, E. W., Brock, M. E., & Trainor, A. A. (2014). Transition assessment and planning for youth with severe 

intellectual and developmental disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 47(4), 245-255.

37For more information on the Partnerships in Employment Systems Change (PIE) grants funded by the U.S. 

Department of Health and Human Services’ Administration for Community Living, see: 

http://www.acl.gov/Programs/AIDD/Programs/PNS/Resources/PartnershipsInEmplSystemsChangeGrants.aspx

38 Luecking, D.M. and Luecking, R. (2015). Translating research into a seamless transition model.

Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 38; 1, 4-13.

39 Schall, C., Wehman, P., Brooke, V., Graham, C., McDonough, J., Brooke, A., Allen, J. (2015).

Employment interventions for individuals with ASD: The relative efficacy of supported employment with or without 

prior Project SEARCH training. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. Advance online publication. 

doi:10.1007/s10803-015-2426-5.

40 Wagner, M., Newman, L., Cameto, R., Garza, N., & Levine, P. (2005). After high school: A first look at the 

postschool experiences of youth with disabilities. A report from the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 

(NLTS2).

41 West, M., Sima, A., Wehman, P., Chan, F., & Luecking, R. (In press). Students at high risk for poor school-towork outcomes: Mitigating factors. Rehabilitation Research, Policy and Education.

42 Oertle, K. M., & Trach, J. S. (2007). Interagency collaboration: The importance of rehabilitation professionals' 

involvement in transition. The Journal of Rehabilitation, 73(3), 36.

43 Plotner, A. J. (2009). Vocational Rehabilitation Professionals' Identified Transition

Competencies: Importance, Frequency, and Preparedness. ProQuest LLC.

44 Carter, E. W., Austin, D., & Trainor, A. A. (2012). Predictors of postschool employment outcomes for young 

adults with severe disabilities. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 23(1), 50-63.

45 Cobb, B., & Alwell, M. (2009). Transition planning/coordinating interventions for youth with disabilities: A 

systematic review. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals.

46 Carter, E., Trainor, A. A., Cakiroglu, O., Cole, O., Swedeen, B., Ditchman, N., & Owens, L. A. (2009). Exploring 

school-employer partnerships to expand career development and early work experiences for youth with disabilities. 

Career Development for Exceptional Individuals.

47 Rojewski, J. W., Lee, I. H., & Gregg, N. (2015). Causal effects of inclusion on postsecondary education outcomes 

of individuals with high-incidence disabilities. Journal of Disability.
33

 

48 Wehman, P. (2013). Life beyond the classroom: Transition strategies for young people with disabilities (5th ed.). 

Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.

49 Getzel, E. E., & Wehman, P. (2005). Going to college: Expanding opportunities for people with disabilities. 

Baltimore MD: Brookes Publishing Company.

50 Berry, H. G., Ward, M., & Caplan, L. (2012). Self-determination and access to postsecondary education in 

transitioning youths receiving supplemental security income benefits. Career Development and Transition for 

Exceptional Individuals, 35, 68–75.

51 Getzel, E. E., & Wehman, P. (2005). Going to college: Expanding opportunities for people with disabilities. 

Baltimore MD: Brookes Publishing Company.

52 Neubert, D.A. and Leconte, P.J. (2013). Age-appropriate transition assessment: The position of the Division on 

Career Development and Transition, Council for Exceptional Children. Career Development and Transition for 

Exceptional Individuals, http://cde.sagepub.com/.

53 Solberg, V.S., Wills, J., Redmond, K., & Skaff, Laura. (2014). Use of individualized learning plans as a 

promising practice for driving college and career readiness efforts: Findings and recommendations from a multimethod, multi-study effort (ISBN: 1-933493-46-1). Washington, DC: National Collaborative on Workforce and 

Disability for Youth, Institute for Educational Leadership.

54 Test, D.W., Fowler, C.H., Richter, M.M., White, J., Mazzotti, V., Walker, A.R., Kohler, P.H., & Kortering, L. 

(2009). Evidence-based practices in secondary transition. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 32, 115-

128.

55 Berry, H. G., Ward, M., & Caplan, L. (2012). Self-determination and access to postsecondary education in 

transitioning youths receiving supplemental security income benefits. Career Development and Transition for 

Exceptional Individuals, 35, 68–75.

56 Wehman, P. (2013). Life beyond the classroom: Transition strategies for young people with disabilities (5th ed.). 

Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.

57 Getzel, E. E., & Wehman, P. (2005). Going to college: Expanding opportunities for people with disabilities. 

Baltimore MD: Brookes Publishing Company.

58 Carter, E. W., Austin, D., & Trainor, A. A. (2012). Predictors of postschool employment outcomes for young 

adults with severe disabilities. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 23(1), 50-63.

59 Bailey, D. B., Bruder, M. B., Hebbeler, K., Carta, J., Defosset, M., Greenwood, C., & Barton, L. (2006). 

Recommended outcomes for families of young children with disabilities. Journal of Early Intervention, 28(4), 227-

251.

60 Wagner, M., Newman, L., Cameto, R., Garza, N., & Levine, P. (2005). After high school: A first look at the 

postschool experiences of youth with disabilities. A report from the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 

(NLTS2).

61 National Collaborative on Workforce and Disability for Youth (2005). Guideposts for success.

Washington, DC: Institute on Educational Leadership.

62 Sitlington, Neubert, & Clark (5th edition, 2010). Transition education and services for students with disabilities. 

Pearson.

63 Blue-Banning, M., Summers, J. A., Frankland, H. C., Nelson, L. L., & Beegle, G. (2004).

Dimensions of family and professional partnerships: Constructive guidelines for collaboration. Exceptional 

Children, 70(2), 167-184.

64 Harry, B. (2008). Collaboration with culturally and linguistically diverse families: Ideal versus reality. 

Exceptional Children, 74(3), 372-388.

65 Turnbull, A. P., Erwin, E., Soodak, L., & Shogren, K. A. (2011). Families, professionals, and exceptionality: 

Positive outcomes through partnerships and trust. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

66 Hastings, R. P., & Beck, A. (2004). Practitioner review: Stress intervention for parents of children with 

intellectual disabilities. Journal of child psychology and psychiatry, 45(8), 1338-1349. 

67 Blue-Banning, M., Summers, J. A., Frankland, H. C., Nelson, L. L., & Beegle, G. (2004).

Dimensions of family and professional partnerships: Constructive guidelines for collaboration. Exceptional 

Children, 70(2), 167-184.

68 Plotner, A., Trach, J., & Shogren, K. (2012). Identifying a transition competency domain structure: Assisting 

transition planning teams to understand roles and responsibilities of community partners. Rehabilitation Research, 
34

 

Policy, and Education, 26(2-3), 255-270.

69 Carter, E. W., Brock, M. E., & Trainor, A. A. (2014). Transition assessment and planning for youth with severe 

intellectual and developmental disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 47(4), 245-255.

70 Wehman, P. (2013). Life beyond the classroom: Transition strategies for young people with disabilities (5th ed.). 

Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.

71 Fleming, A. R., Del Valle, R., Kim, M., & Leahy, M. J. (2012). Best practice models of effective vocational 

rehabilitation service delivery in the public rehabilitation program: A review and synthesis of the empirical 

literature. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 56, 146-159.

72 Landmark, L. J., Ju, S., & Zhang, D. (2010). Substantiated best practices in transition: Fifteen plus years later. 

Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 33, 165-176.

73 Test, D.W., Fowler, C.H., Richter, M.M., White, J., Mazzotti, V., Walker, A.R., Kohler, P.H., & Kortering, L. 

(2009). Evidence-based practices in secondary transition. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 32, 115-

128.

74 Morningstar, M. E., Kim, K. H., & Clark, G. M. (2008). Evaluating a transition personnel preparation program: 

Identifying transition competencies of practitioners. Teacher Education and Special Education, 31, 47–58.

75 Miller, P. S., & Stayton, V. D. (2006). Interdisciplinary teaming in teacher preparation. Teacher

Education and Special Education, 29, 56-68.

76 Carter, E. W., Ditchman, N., Sun, Y., Trainor, A. A., Swedeen, B., & Owens, L. (2010). Summer employment and 

community experiences of transition-age youth with severe disabilities. Exceptional Children, 76, 194-212.

77 In their IDEA Annual Performance Reports (APRs), States are currently required to report postsecondary outcome 

data on students who received IDEA services. In response to Indicator 14, States report on the percent of youth who 

are no longer in secondary school, had IEPs in effect at the time they left school, and were: (a) enrolled in higher 

education within one year of leaving high school; (b) enrolled in higher education or competitively employed within 

one year of leaving high school; [and] (c) enrolled in higher education or in some other postsecondary education or 

training program; or competitively employed or in some other employment within one year of leaving high school. 

(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B)). The following Web site provides more information on the APRs and Indicator 14: 

http://www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/bapr/2015/index.html
35

Chapter Three: Complexity and Needs in Delivering 

Competitive Integrated Employment

Overview

Complexity and Needs Subcommittee Members

 Alison Barkoff, Subcommittee Chair, Director of Advocacy, Bazelon Center for Mental 

Health Law

 Patrick Hendry, Vice President, Consumer Advocacy, Mental Health America

 Ruby Moore, Executive Director, Georgia Advocacy Office 

 Ari Ne’eman, President, Autistic Self Advocacy Network

 John O’Brien, Senior Policy Advisor, Disabled and Elderly Health Programs Group, 

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services

 Fred Schroeder, Executive Director, National Rehabilitation Association

 Bob Williams, Senior Advisor to the Deputy Commissioner, Office of Retirement and 

Disability Policy, Social Security Administration

 Bryan Ballmann, Designated Federal Officer, Office of Disability Employment Policy, 

Department of Labor

The charge to the Complexity and Needs Subcommittee (the Subcommittee) is broad in scope 

and potential impact. It includes financing, eligibility, group and individualized approaches, case 

management roles and structure, civil rights, employment and family support, and incentives. It 

also includes exploration of current and future use of certificates issued under Section 14(c) of 

the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). For the Interim Report due to the Secretary of Labor and 

Congress in September 2015, the Subcommittee identified three primary areas of focus: (1) 

funding, (2) data and outcomes, and (3) Section 14(c).

In its work on funding, the Subcommittee considered available state and federal funding sources 

that could help increase competitive integrated employment (CIE) and reduce reliance on

sheltered employment and other segregated service models. The Subcommittee explored the 

alignment between funding sources and federal rules and policies prioritizing employment of 

people with disabilities; the complexity of using multiple funding streams; eligibility for funding;

and the expectations of funding systems for employment.

The Subcommittee also considered the data and information available at the state and federal 

levels regarding funding for CIE versus segregated day services (such as sheltered employment, 

day habilitation, or day treatment) and the number of people with disabilities in each. The 
36

Subcommittee also discussed how to measure the quality and impact of CIE through outcome 

measures and fidelity to evidence-based best practices for employing people with significant 

disabilities.

The Subcommittee also explored the use of Section 14(c) certificates. It studied the history of 

Section 14(c) and discussed its alignment with modern disability policy and federal law. It 

considered federal oversight and enforcement of Section 14(c), as well as state level activities 

regarding the use of subminimum wage. Finally, the Subcommittee explored the future of 

Section 14(c). The work of the Subcommittee on Section 14(c) is incorporated into a separate 

chapter with findings, conclusions, and recommendations on this issue.

In addition, the Subcommittee considered the AbilityOne® Program (which operates pursuant to 

the Javits-Wagner O'Day Act (JWOD)) as part of its work on funding and Section 14(c). Since

the Marketplace Dynamics Subcommittee also studied the AbilityOne Program, the two 

subcommittees worked together to write a joint chapter. 

Finally, the Subcommittee identified several areas that it plans to explore during the next year to 

include in the Final Report due September 2016. These issues include: non-employment services 

and supports for people with disabilities who are working and their families (including 

wraparound supports, family supports, transportation, and case management); the roles of the 

educational and workforce investment systems in helping people with significant disabilities 

achieve CIE; and unique issues facing people with different types of disabilities.

Findings and Conclusions

Area 1: Funding

Federal Rules and Policies

Federal rules and policies – including the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA), 

the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 

(IDEA), guidance from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), and the 

Achieving a Better Life Experience (ABLE) Act – make CIE a priority for people with 

significant disabilities.

 WIOA defines and explicitly prioritizes CIE for people with disabilities, particularly 

transition age youth. It requires a robust collaboration between Vocational Rehabilitation 

(VR) and high school transition programs. Collaboration should result in increased 

employment experiences while students with significant disabilities are still in high school. 

Students with employment experiences are more likely to be successfully employed as 

adults. WIOA also provides a set of powerful tools to increase economic opportunities for 

people with significant disabilities. These tools help job seekers with significant disabilities 

gain access to employment, education, training, and the support services needed to succeed in 
37

the labor market. They match employers with the skilled workers they need to successfully 

compete in the global economy.

 The ADA’s integration mandate, as interpreted by the Supreme Court’s decision in Olmstead 

v. L.C., requires states to prioritize and expand opportunities for CIE for people with 

significant disabilities and reduce their reliance on sheltered employment and other 

segregated service models. 

 IDEA requires post-school employment plans for students with disabilities; transition 

programs that focus on the goal of employment; and follow-up one year after students leave 

transition programs to see the result in the student’s life.

 CMS has provided guidance to states about funding supported employment (a service for 

which, by definition, CIE is the expected outcome) by using 1915(c) Waivers. In addition, a

new rule from CMS (the Home and Community-Based Services (HCBS) Settings Rule) 

establishes requirements for settings funded through HCBS programs and underscores the 

opportunity for HCBS participants to work in CIE. Therefore, implementation of these rules 

creates an opportunity for states to expand CIE78 and make it a priority. 

 The recently-enacted ABLE Act allows people with disabilities and their families to save 

money for disability-related expenses (including employment training and supports) without 

impacting their eligibility for benefits, including long term services and supports through 

Medicaid. For individuals eligible for the ABLE Act, it will incentivize employment and help 

address concerns that working could lead to a loss of needed benefits.

All of these federal rules and policies are supported by studies showing that CIE promotes the 

health and welfare of people with significant disabilities. People with significant disabilities who 

work in CIE have improved health, fewer hospital stays, stronger connections to family and 

friends, and more confidence in daily activities and routines.

Multiple Funding Resources

Numerous federal agencies provide funding to support CIE for people with significant 

disabilities, including: CMS; the Social Security Administration (SSA); the Substance Abuse and 

Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA); the Department of Education’s (ED) Office 

of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS) and Rehabilitation Services 

Administration (RSA); the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA); and the U.S. Department 

of Labor (DOL).

Rules governing each agency’s funding vary. Agencies do not offer clear guidelines on how to 

individually and collectively encourage CIE outcomes, including ways for states to braid or 

blend different funding sources or to create payment structures to incentivize CIE. Each state 

must independently learn the different rules in order to use the money effectively to achieve CIE.
38

CMS has provided detailed guidance to states on how to support CIE under 1915(c) Waivers. It 

has not provided similar guidance on how to use other Medicaid authorities to provide services 

to support employment. In particular, states lack clarity about how various Medicaid authorities 

(especially 1905(a) state plan services) can be used to fund supported employment for people 

with serious mental illness.79

CMS’ HCBS Settings Rule increases opportunities for HCBS participants to work in CIE. 

However, the Rule prohibits using HCBS funding to provide services (including supported 

employment) to people who do not live in residences that comply with the Rule, even if the 

residence is not HCBS-funded. The impact may have the unintended consequence of limiting the

ability of people with disabilities to get jobs, thereby also limiting their ability to move to more 

integrated housing.

The federal match rate for states’ Medicaid programs (Federal Financial Participation or FFP) is 

generally the same for all services. As a result, there is no financial incentive for states to expand 

opportunities for CIE and help transition people who are participating in other day programs who 

want to work. While there are a few programs (such as the Balancing Incentive Program or BIP) 

that states could use to increase FFP for supported employment services, those programs do not 

require a focus on employment and, in the case of BIP, are time-limited.

Although federal rules and policy initiatives may encourage and promote CIE, only a small 

percentage of federal funding for day services is used for CIE. Most funding is used for nonwork day programs that are either partially or fully segregated, such as day habilitation or day 

treatment. States may establish different reimbursement methodologies for day services. Yet, few 

states use them to encourage CIE over other day programs. 

Many states are challenged by the complexities in funding, as described above. However, some 

states have developed strategies to address these complexities and have created employment 

programs that use best and proven practices to achieve CIE. For example, Maryland’s VR and 

mental health agencies share an electronic integrated system for enrolling people into Individual 

Placement and Support (IPS) services, an evidence-based practice for achieving CIE. It ensures 

that VR applicants with mental health diagnoses are referred for IPS supported employment 

programs.

The complexity of funding sources, absence of clear guidelines and lack of collaboration by 

federal partners on braiding and blending funding combine to effectively counter the federal 

emphasis on encouraging and promoting CIE. In addition, states generally do not use all 

available strategies to develop and increase CIE opportunities. The result is poor or no 

employment outcomes for people with significant disabilities.
39

Eligibility

Many people with significant disabilities rely on support through federal benefit programs, 

including Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI). 

Once eligible, SSI and SSDI beneficiaries can access healthcare, particularly long term services 

and supports, through Medicaid (for SSI beneficiaries) and Medicare (for SSDI beneficiaries).

SSI and SSDI eligibility rules present barriers to employment for people with significant 

disabilities. SSA applies a strict eligibility definition for SSI and SSDI benefits. To be eligible, 

people must prove that they are not able to earn more than a limited amount due to a permanent 

disability that is expected to last 12 months or more. In contrast, once they prove they have no or 

a limited ability to work, then they are encouraged to work by other federal initiatives.

There are various “work incentive” programs that allow disability beneficiaries to retain more of 

their earning and their healthcare benefits while employed. However, these work incentives vary 

for SSDI and SSI beneficiaries and are complex and difficult to understand. Many beneficiaries 

believe they are too risky to use.

One example of a “work incentive” program is SSA’s Ticket to Work Program. The Ticket to 

Work Program’s purpose is to enable employment providers to assist SSI and SSDI beneficiaries 

to return to work. To date, the program has had mixed results. One challenge the program faces 

is that by law “Tickets” are only available to adults aged 18 to 64 who have completed the 

disability determination process and proven they cannot earn over a limited amount. This 

requirement often results in the belief that the adult is “unemployable.” It also poses a significant 

barrier to youth with disabilities who want access to employment experiences during their 

transition years that will increase their opportunities for work as adults.

Two recent landmark laws, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and the ABLE Act, have provisions 

that expand options for people with significant disabilities to save money and keep healthcare 

benefits while working. In addition, SSA has initiated several demonstrations (including the 

Benefits Offset National Demonstration and the Accelerated Benefits and Youth Transition 

Demonstrations) to improve employment and economic prospects for people with significant 

disabilities.

Despite these work incentive programs, as well as other state and federal efforts to provide 

accurate information about the importance of work and ways of retaining or returning to benefits 

when needed, people with significant disabilities still regard SSDI and SSI rules as penalizing 

rather than encouraging employment. As a result, federal payouts in the aggregate are in the 

billions of dollars, yet people with significant disabilities who rely on benefits often live in 

poverty.

Finally, a number of employment-related programs prioritize resources for people with the “most 

significant disability,” most notably the VR system. Yet there is no agreement among federal 
40

agencies or in federal law on how to define most significant disability. WIOA references “most 

significant disability,” but does not define it. RSA requires states to develop criteria for making a 

determination of most significant disability, but states vary widely in the definition they use. 

Lack of Expectation

The last and crucial barrier to CIE for people with significant disabilities is a lack of 

expectations. People with serious mental illness, intellectual, developmental and other significant 

disabilities are stigmatized and experience widespread bias about their prospects for 

employment.

Often many employment professionals, educators and people in general have low expectations 

about people with disabilities and employment. People with significant disabilities may 

internalize these low expectations. The result is often delays, discouragement or denials of 

employment support.

Counselors and other professionals responsible for assisting people with significant disabilities to

obtain employment are hampered by a lack of knowledge about effective practices in achieving 

CIE, including Supported Employment, IPS, Customized Employment, and Discovery.

According to data provided by RSA, 25.4 percent of the people who apply for services from VR 

have their cases closed before services are initiated. Approximately 45 percent of all persons that 

sign an individual employment plan (IPE)—meaning they are eligible and have established a 

vocational goal based on their strengths, resources, priorities, concerns, abilities, capabilities, 

interests and informed choice and have received services—exit the VR system without getting a 

job. 

While the VR program no longer allows placement in segregated employment settings (including 

compensation at subminimum wages), far too many people with significant disabilities end up in 

segregated work or non-work programs because there is a determination made that the person is

“too significantly disabled to benefit” from VR services. This determination, combined with a 

lack of knowledge about services that would effectively secure CIE for people with the most 

significant disabilities, results in no services or acceptance of segregated employment or other 

day services.

In employment programs funded by VR, the Community Rehabilitation Program (CRP) (who 

often is the “employer”) decides whether a person is capable of engaging in typical competitive 

employment. The same CRP determines the person's productivity level and how many hours the 

person works each week. There is a conflict of interest in these decisions. There is also limited 

oversight of these determinations. If the CRP has low expectations, people with significant 

disabilities either do not get access to good jobs and are referred to day services or end up in

sheltered employment working for subminimum wages.

AbilityOne® Program
41

The Complexity and Needs Subcommittee’s findings and conclusions regarding funding through 

the AbilityOne Program are contained in a separate chapter co-authored with the Marketplace 

Dynamics Subcommittee. 

Area 2: Data and Outcomes

The numerous federal agencies that fund services for people with significant disabilities: (a) have 

different definitions for CIE; (b) provide different levels of support for federal agency and state 

data collection; and (c) have different expectations (if any) for what outcome measures should be 

collected. They generally do not track the number of people in CIE and other day services (such 

as day habilitation, day treatment, adult day care, and psychosocial rehabilitation), particularly 

across disability systems (for example, intellectual or developmental disability (I/DD), mental 

health, physical disability and aging systems). In addition, spending on these services is not 

consistently reported.

The federal government has not developed a uniform set of outcomes to measure progress 

towards the goal of quality CIE for people with significant disabilities.

 Federal agencies prioritize enabling people with significant disabilities to become 

competitive wage earners in typical work settings. Reporting on outcome measures would 

emphasize this priority.

 Getting a job is not the only important outcome, however. There are factors associated with a 

job that are important to people with and without disabilities, including typical work 

schedules, opportunities to increase and learn new skills, and opportunities for career 

advancement that result in better wages and greater responsibility.

 Tracking all of these outcomes through data collection at the state and federal levels and 

disseminating the results of progress toward competitive wages and benefits, work hours, and 

career paths helps assess the quality of the effort and what must change to improve results.

Similarly, state governments have not identified and are not collecting consistent data for CIE 

(such as wages and benefits paid, hours worked, type of job/occupational classification, group 

versus individual employment, formal versus natural supports, and average wage increase over 

time). They are not tracking outcomes measuring the impact of CIE on people with disabilities 

(such as income, use of healthcare services, housing stability, reliance on cash benefits, taxes 

paid, community inclusion, social capital, independent living, and cost benefits of wages earned 

versus support funding expended).

Most states lack robust data systems to collect information on the number of people in or 

spending on CIE or other day services, particularly across all disability systems. To the extent 

states keep data on CIE, it usually does not include regularly obtaining and analyzing the 

outcome measures described above.
42

While some people with significant disabilities are in CIE, many others are on wait lists with no 

opportunities; in non-employment programs that do not recognize their work potential, skills and 

abilities; or in low, subminimum, or no wage jobs with few hours and no career path. Outcome 

measures must be designed and implemented in order to hold systems accountable to these 

people too.

There are a number of national initiatives on outcome measures that may be relevant to 

employment and other day services, including the National Quality Forum’s work on 

Performance Measures in Home and Community-Based Services that Support Community 

Living and the National Core Indicators.

Research and practice show that innovation combined with accurate data (fidelity) on what 

works and what does not work leads to better outcomes. For example, the evidence-based IPS 

model for CIE of people with mental illness requires gathering data and measuring outcomes as 

part of implementation.

Area 3: Section 14(c) of the Fair Labor Standards Act 

The Complexity and Needs Subcommittee’s findings and conclusions related to the current and 

future use of FLSA Section 14(c) are contained in a separate chapter co-authored by all of the 

subcommittees. 

Complexity and Needs Subcommittee Preliminary Recommendations

These recommendations represent the Subcommittee’s current work. All assigned topics will

continue to be addressed through the Final Report in September 2016.

Area 1: Funding

Federal Rules and Policy

1. DOL should lead a collaboration of federal agencies to identify, align, and develop clear 

policies and practices across all federal agencies that make CIE outcomes a priority and 

guide states in applying these policies and practices. The federal agencies should include 

those participating in the Committee and other relevant agencies in ED and the U.S. 

Department of Justice (DOJ). DOL and other Committee member agencies should report on 

progress at each full Committee meeting.

2. ED, in implementing WIOA, should require:

a. Intervention for youth beginning prior to age 14;

b. Opportunities for integrated work experience for all youth, with access to needed 

assistive technology, job coaching and other supports, for a period of not less than 24 

months; and 
43

c. Presumed eligibility for VR services for any youth considering sheltered employment.

3. RSA, in implementing WIOA, should:

a. Clarify that youth with disabilities must first apply for VR services and, if eligible, 

work toward a CIE goal, which can include supported employment for a “reasonable” 

period of time. A “reasonable” period of time should be at least 24 months, regardless 

of whether the youth has a supported employment IPE or a regular IPE; and

b. Clarify that extending the time limit of Supported Employment Services from 18 to 24 

months refers to ongoing support services provided after a person has been successfully 

placed in a job that meets the WIOA definition of Supported Employment. This is 

consistent with the definition of Supported Employment Services in WIOA.

4. ED should direct state education and VR agencies to include blueprints for designing and 

implementing local working agreements in existing state inter-agency agreements. The local 

agreements should identify how much VR and school financial support is available to 

implement best practice transition programs that include integrated work experience after age 

18 through internships, apprenticeships and similar experiences. These strategies will help 

students leave transition programs with a job, a solid portfolio of work, and/or an effective 

plan for additional education leading to a job. State education and rehabilitation agencies 

should report results of state and local efforts to ED.

Multiple Funding Resources

5. CMS should lead a collaboration of federal agencies, including those participating in the 

Committee and relevant agencies in ED, to issue federal guidance to states on how to use, 

braid and/or blend their respective funds to support best practices and/or evidence-based 

models that result in CIE. In the interim, information should be published about states that 

are successfully using federal funds to support best practice and evidence-based CIE.

6. DOL, in partnership with CMS and SSA, should lead a collaboration of federal agencies

participating in the Committee and relevant agencies in ED, to issue guidance on models and 

payment methodologies that make CIE outcomes the priority.

7. CMS should issue guidance on how states can use the range of Medicaid authorities to fund 

services resulting in and supporting CIE for people with significant disabilities, including the 

use of 1905(a) state plan services to fund supported employment for people with serious 

mental illness.

8. DOL should collaborate with CMS and other relevant federal agencies, to identify and make 

available financial support and incentives to help people move from segregated programs 

(such as sheltered employment, day habilitation and day treatment) to CIE. Such support 

could be modeled after programs like the Medicaid Infrastructure Grants, Money Follows the 

Person or Balancing Incentive Programs. Such funds should help build capacity to transition 
44

people from sheltered employment or segregated day programs to CIE or to provide for 

enhanced FFP to encourage expanding CIE. These efforts should be tied to specific, 

measurable outcomes such as decreases in the number of people in sheltered employment or 

other segregated day programs and increases in CIE. DOL, CMS and other Committee

members should report back to the full committee by January 2016 about resources in 

existing federal programs and recommendations for Congressional authorization of 

additional resources and/or programs.

9. CMS should provide technical assistance to states and managed care organizations on the 

importance of CIE and how to support CIE for people with significant disabilities through 

Medicaid.

10. CMS should mitigate the policy that prohibits individuals from receiving CIE services if they 

do not live in settings that meet the HCBS Settings Rule requirements.

11. DOL should lead a collaboration of federal agencies, including those participating in the 

Committee and relevant agencies in ED, to ensure technical assistance resources are 

available to increase the competence and capacity of professionals serving people with 

disabilities to find and connect people to jobs and careers. This technical assistance 

partnership of federal agencies should encourage states to participate in providing such

supports. Technical assistance is essential to build capacity in current and new programs and 

to improve the system’s ability to deliver best practice and evidence-based models of 

employment support.

Eligibility

12. SSA should collaborate with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and 

other relevant federal agencies to identify and carry out immediate and long- term steps to 

eliminate the fear that people with disabilities will lose benefits by working. These steps may 

include wide dissemination of information about work incentives that has been reviewed for 

clarity by people with disabilities; ready access to benefits counselors; and developing best 

practices for all counselors to present information and options in ways that are clear, simple,

and feel safe to beneficiaries so they can make decisions regarding employment based on 

accurate information.

13. SSA should provide a report to the Committee about strategies that have proven successful in

alleviating concerns about loss of benefits. The report will help the Committee develop 

recommendations for the Final Report due September 2016. The SSA report should include 

information from all relevant federal agencies and results of the different SSA demonstration 

projects pertaining to employment and loss of benefits. The report should include 

recommendations made by people who participated in the projects.
45

14. Congress should authorize expanding the Ticket to Work program to the children’s SSI 

program. While many youth receiving SSI go on to receive SSI as adults, access to the Ticket 

is not available until after an adult redetermination process has already taken place, resulting 

in lost time. Expansion will enable school districts and other organizations that support youth 

employment to become employment networks and increase the likelihood that young people 

with disabilities will have access to employment experiences that are typical of young people 

without disabilities. These experiences will improve the likelihood of successful employment 

as adults. 

15. RSA should clearly define “most significant disability” by:

a. Issuing an Advanced Notice of Preliminary Rule Making (ANPRM) to solicit feedback 

on how to define “most significant disability.” The Subcommittee recommends that 

RSA consider including in the definition (a) people working in segregated settings 

and/or being paid below the minimum wage, (b) people receiving SSDI or SSI or at 

substantial risk of receiving these benefits in the future, and (c) transition age youth 

who have or have had an Individualized Education Program (IEP) or Section 504 Plan 

in school.

b. Require state VR agencies to establish specific practices for contacting and encouraging

SSI and SSDI recipients (who are presumed eligible) to use VR services. 

c. Encourage state VR agencies to engage in outreach to transition age youth and 

individuals currently in sheltered employment or other segregated settings about VR 

services.

Lack of Expectation

16. DOL should lead a should lead a collaboration of federal agencies, including Committee

member agencies and relevant agencies in ED, to inform and educate their headquarters and 

regional personnel and related state agencies (such as VR, I/DD services, and mental health 

services) staff about use of best practices and evidence-based employment programs to 

obtain jobs for people with significant disabilities. Knowledge of successful closures and 

access to best practices in CIE will improve the ability of employment professionals to link 

people to good jobs and improve employment outcomes.

17. OSERS should disseminate information about effective transition programs that help students 

leave school with jobs or have effective post-school employment plans that lead to jobs.

18. DOL should lead a collaboration of federal agencies, including those participating in the 

Committee and relevant agencies in ED, to review states or programs that are effectively 

moving people to CIE from sheltered employment and other segregated settings and/or who 

are being paid below the minimum or prevailing wage. Information about these states or 

programs should be widely disseminated.
46

19. RSA should analyze the data it collects on individuals whose cases are closed before services 

are rendered and the reasons for closure. RSA should use its analysis of the data to determine 

how to reduce the number of eligible individuals that do not receive services.

20. RSA should develop conflict of interest policies requiring the determination of individuals’ 

capacity for CIE be made by an entity separate from the CRP serving the person. There 

should be more oversight of these decisions by RSA to ensure CIE is widely available.

21. DOL should lead an effort to engage the business community as a major stakeholder in the 

employment of persons with disabilities. As partners, the business community can provide 

on-site resources such as options for employment and advice on best practice marketing of 

employment. They can provide business-to-business leadership in presenting the case for 

employing, retaining and promoting persons with significant disabilities.

22. DOL should lead a collaboration of federal agencies, including those participating in the 

Committee and relevant agencies in ED, to ensure that resources are available to states to 

convey the message of why CIE is important to people with disabilities. People with 

disabilities, their families and state level advocates should direct educational campaigns 

about employment and its importance.

AbilityOne® Program

The Complexity and Needs Subcommittee’s preliminary recommendations regarding funding 

through the AbilityOne Program are contained in a separate chapter co-authored with the 

Marketplace Dynamics Subcommittee

Area 2: Data and Outcomes

23. DOL should lead a collaboration of federal agencies, including those participating in the 

Committee and relevant agencies in ED, to develop and use a standard definition for CIE 

across federal agencies. The definition should be based on HCBS definitions and the WIOA 

definition. The standard definition of CIE should be consistent with the goals of WIOA and 

the ADA.

24. DOL should lead a collaboration of federal agencies, including those participating in the 

Committee and relevant agencies in the ED, to develop consistent CIE outcome measures 

based on the standard definition of CIE recommended above for use at the federal and state 

levels. DOL should consider the data and outcome measures described in the Findings and 

Conclusion above regarding employment outcomes (such as wages and benefits paid, hours 

worked, type of job/occupational classification, group versus individual employment, formal 

versus natural supports, and average wage increase over time) and the impact of CIE (such as 

income level, use of healthcare services, housing stability, reliance on cash benefits, taxes 

paid, community inclusion, social capital, independent living, and cost benefits of wages 

earned versus support funding expended). Information from the national initiatives on 
47

outcome measures, other labor force surveys and WIOA implementation activities should

inform this effort.

25. Each federal agency that funds CIE (including DOL, RSA, and CMS) should require that 

states collect outcome data at a state, local and agency/provider level. These measures should 

include comparative hospitalizations, emergency room use, impact on homelessness, taxes 

paid, reduction in cash benefits, and cost benefit (wages earned versus support funding 

expended). Each agency should require states to report to it these data on a regular basis. 

Recognizing that state data systems are expensive to create and vary in sophistication across 

states, the Committee will attempt to explore best practice and cost effective models of 

employment data collection for the Final Report due in September 2016.

26. DOL should collaborate with other federal agencies to ensure that outcome data is widely 

disseminated so that people with disabilities, their families and other stakeholders can make 

informed decisions about employment, including such information as: where work is

available; and which agencies are most effective in supporting people to obtain CIE.

27. CMS should provide guidance and technical assistance to states using Medicaid funding for 

employment and day services to make it easier for them to incorporate, implement, and track

quality and outcome measures for CIE and other day services. Quality measures should be

included as a state requirement in HCBS programs, managed care, and other waiver 

authorities. Quality and outcome measures for any employment service should be based on 

recommendations made above. 

28. DOL should collaborate with other federal agencies that fund CIE to make state and national 

spending and outcome data widely available. The data should include, at minimum, the 

number of people employed in CIE at minimum wage or higher, the number of people 

employed at a subminimum wage, the number using other day services, and spending on 

employment versus other day services. The federal government should also collect and 

publish state outcome data (see recommendation above) as well as information regarding the 

benefits of employment and its positive impact on healthcare costs and social services for 

people with significant disabilities.

29. CIE programs should participate in fidelity processes to improve practice in connecting job 

seekers with good jobs that fit their abilities and interests and result in good wages, benefits 

and working hours. The Committee will review current practice with regard to fidelity in CIE 

and recommend best practices in the Final Report due in September 2016.
48

Area 3: Section 14(c) of the Fair Labor Standards Act 

The Complexity and Needs Subcommittee’s preliminary recommendations related to the current 

and future use of Section 14(c) of the FLSA are contained in a separate chapter co-authored by 

all of the subcommittees.

78 Also see the discussion on the HCBS Settings Rule in the Section 14(c) chapter.

79 Some consumers and disability advocates prefer the term psychiatric disability to serious mental illness (SMI). 

This Report uses SMI because it is the terminology typically used in state and federal systems.

 
49

Chapter Four: Marketplace Dynamics

Overview

Marketplace Dynamics Subcommittee Members

 Karen McCulloh, Subcommittee Chair, Self-Advocate, McCulloh & Associates Consulting

 James Brett, President and CEO, The New England Council

 Sharyn Hancock, Disability Resource Coordinator, Workforce Essentials, Inc.

 Oswald Mondejar, Senior Vice President of Mission and Advocacy, Partners Continuing 

Care

 Steve Pemberton, Divisional Vice President and Chief Diversity Officer, Walgreens

 Jennifer Sheehy, Acting Assistant Secretary, Office of Disability Employment Policy, 

Department of Labor-Designated Federal Officer of ACICIEID

 David Berthiaume, Designated Federal Officer of the ACICIEID Subcommittee on 

Marketplace Dynamics, Office of Disability Employment Policy, Department of Labor

The Marketplace Dynamics Subcommittee (the Subcommittee) is charged with exploring the 

demand-side perspective related to increasing competitive integrated employment (CIE)

outcomes for individuals with intellectual or developmental disabilities (I/DD) and other 

significant disabilities, focusing primarily on the opportunities and issues as identified from the 

employer perspective. In representing the demand-side perspective, the Subcommittee seeks 

to address two fundamental questions: 

1. What do employers need to help them be successful in meeting their diversity goals and 

increase the hiring, onboarding, and retention of workers with significant disabilities and 

2. How can a different business model be supported that allows businesses to succeed with CIE

without relying on the subminimum wage certificates authorized by the Fair Labor Standards 

Act (FLSA) Section 14(c)? 

The Subcommittee’s efforts to date have included exploring effective practices among diverse 

employers and federal contractors, reviewing written public testimonies, and hearing directly 

from business owners or representatives on critical business issues such as: training of 

employees, sustainable models that can lead to real culture change within an organization, 

pipeline issues, other systems change, and transportation. Additionally, the Subcommittee 

continues to explore broader systems issues, including training professional staff within the OneStop Career Centers and Workforce Development Boards (WDBs) on effective practices for 

successful employer engagement. The Subcommittee also received presentations and participated 

in an informational dialogue with representatives from the following entities: AbilityOne®, the 
50

U.S. Business Leadership Network (USBLN), Ad Astra Business Solutions, the National 

Association of Workforce Boards, SourceAmerica, The National Council on Disability, 

Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, and Association of Programs for Rural 

Independent Living. In addition, Subcommittee members have acted as subject matter experts 

(SMEs), bringing their perspectives, professional experiences and knowledge to the forefront to 

further inform the exploratory work of the Subcommittee specifically and the full Advisory 

Committee generally.

For this Interim Report, the Subcommittee addresses the following primary topic areas:

1. Changing the Business Narrative

2. Creating a Sustainable Culture of Inclusion 

3. Building Business Partnerships While Driving Systems Change

4. Addressing Training and Pipeline Issues

5. Transportation Impact on Business Recruitment of Talent

6. Preliminary Recommendations

Initial findings and conclusions are detailed for all topic areas, followed by preliminary 

recommendations as appropriate. Future topics to be explored and included in the final report 

include: Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) 503 Rules; state use

programs; high growth industries (HGIs) such as technology, healthcare, and retail; more 

effective employer engagement with WDBs and Vocational Rehabilitation (VR); selfemployment for people with I/DD and other significant disabilities; and Internal Revenue 

Service (IRS) Tax Incentives for businesses in order to encourage the hiring of people with 

disabilities and remove architectural barrier. Additionally, ongoing research and further 

exploration continues for the topics covered in this Interim Report.

Changing the Business Narrative

Currently, the predominant business narrative for hiring individuals with disabilities in America 

is that it is simply “the right thing to do,” thus appearing to be a patriarchal appeal, rather than an 

identification of the opportunities and benefits associated with developing an inclusive 

workforce. Further, such a pervasive message can perpetuate negative perceptions and low 

expectations for employees with I/DD and other significant disabilities. The Subcommittee 

believes that pushing business to employ workers with disabilities out of a sense of duty or 

corporate social responsibility may unintentionally undermine the identities and worth of job

seekers with disabilities, and eclipse the reality that individuals with I/DD or other significant 

disabilities are essential, capable, and efficient members of the community workforce. “Doing 

the right thing” runs contrary to why businesses hire employees in the first place – to fill a 

need and to support the company’s business model to enhance their bottom line.
51

The Subcommittee’s findings, conclusions, and recommendations focus on the critical need to 

change this narrative and to help educate employers that hiring people with disabilities can 

be good for any business’s bottom line. Businesses with workforces that include employees 

with I/DD or other significant disabilities consistently report that these employees’ performance 

equals or exceeds that of their coworkers without disabilities.80 As such, hiring persons with 

disabilities must be recognized as a cost-effective way to build an inclusive workforce that is 

representative of the business’s customer base, and individuals with significant disabilities must 

be perceived and portrayed as an asset to the company, not a risk.

The Subcommittee recommends that the business narrative move from one of corrective 

action to one of competitive advantage. Business leaders must understand that hiring 

individuals with I/DD or other significant disabilities will allow them to increase revenue or 

better meet other targets specific to their business models. Business decision-making is based 

upon data. At the same time, research has shown that exposure to people with disabilities may be 

more effective at reducing employer discrimination than demonstrating substantial cost-benefits; 

thus, efforts to directly engage employers in an ongoing dialogue with prospective workers with 

disabilities also plays an important role in changing the business narrative.81,82 As employers 

recognize that developing a more inclusive workforce results in competitive differentiation 

within their industry, they adopt this as a continuous, standard component of their human 

resource process. 

To effectively change the current narrative, employers need evidence and examples that persons 

with significant disabilities both want to work and are qualified and dedicated employees. 

Success stories from businesses that have strategically developed a more inclusive 

workforce model can be promoted to illustrate the benefits from a business perspective. 

While the specific benefits may vary across businesses, results from these strategic initiatives 

point to a wide array of positive outcomes, from increased productivity to reduced turn-over and 

lower absenteeism rates.

83,84,85

 In 2007, Walgreens launched an initiative to hire more individuals with disabilities in the 

first of a new generation of distribution centers. Emphasizing their theme of “Training versus 

Abilities” as a high priority, training facilities were embedded inside the distribution centers 

in South Carolina and Connecticut. Inside each distribution center, workstation computer 

screens were changed from text-based information data entry to touchscreens using icons, 

adjustable workstations were installed, and processes were simplified and centralized to 

better support a diverse workforce. The results thus far have been powerful: the new 

distribution centers have increased efficiency by 20 percent overall. Investments to 

streamline the technology and processes paid off by improving the efficiency of all 

employees, not just those with disabilities. Walgreens reports that in the distribution centers, 

employees with disabilities perform as well or better than other employees as a whole.86 In 
52

2012, Walgreens expanded this initiative into their retail stores through the Retail Employees 

with Disabilities Initiative (REDI). REDI provides in-store training to help people with 

disabilities develop the skills required for retail and customer service jobs and includes 

partnerships with local employment service agencies and state VR agencies to provide the 

necessary funding and support. Externs trained in the four to six week program are evaluated, 

and those scoring high enough are recommended for hire and invited to apply for jobs. Of the 

784 REDI externs who completed the training, 67 percent were recommended for hire, and 

165 were hired by Walgreens. Those not hired by Walgreens received valuable skills training 

that can serve as the foundation for other community employment, though Walgreens does 

not track these outcomes. 

 AMC Theater’s (AMC) Furthering Opportunities, Cultivating Untapped Strengths (FOCUS) 

Program incorporates intentional outreach to recruit youth with significant disabilities for 

entry-level positions, with competitive pay and benefits. Changes to standard business 

practices in support of the FOCUS program included changing the interview process from 

“sit down” interview to “traveling” interviews, where managers walk through the theaters 

with potential employees; revision of training materials to make them more visual; and 

including parents or job coaches in performance feedback sessions where appropriate. In an 

effort to address the performance variability across job coaches, AMC created guidance and 

standards detailing the company’s expectations for all job coaches working with AMC 

employees. AMC reports that employees with significant disabilities consistently perform as 

well as or better than their peers without disabilities and consistently exceed their own job 

performance expectations along with the expectations of their family members. As a result 

the changes made through the FOCUS program, AMC has improved policy and practices 

system-wide and positively impacted their corporate culture as a whole. 

 Approximately 75 percent of the employees at Habitat International, Inc. 

(www.habitatinc.com), a Chattanooga-based supplier of artificial-grass and carpet products, 

experience a disability. Habitat cites an impressive list of business data, including: zero back 

orders in 24 years, a product defect rate of less than one percent, very low turn-over and 

absenteeism, a reduced number of supervisors, and lower administrative costs. These 

successes highlight the myriad of ways in which supporting a more inclusive workforce 

contributes to a better bottom line. Savings from developing a reliable workforce are 

profound and can be realized by assessing the costs of the vacancy including advertising, lost 

productivity, and training time for a new employee.

Many of the better-known business success stories come from large businesses with full-scale 

initiatives to include more people with disabilities within their workforce. Yet the vast majority 

of businesses in the United States are those employing fewer than 100 people, so small and 

medium-sized businesses must be part of the dialogue on how to improve CIE opportunities for 

workers with significant disabilities. Smaller businesses are less likely to have strategic plans 
53

targeting the recruitment of people with disabilities, including individuals with I/DD and other 

significant disabilities.87,88 Positive impacts on the business bottom line can occur at 

businesses of all sizes and in all locations; however, evidence and examples from a variety 

of businesses and industries – small, mid-size, and large – are needed to advance the 

narrative and keep it relevant for a greater number of businesses throughout both rural 

and urban communities.

Creating a Sustainable Culture of Inclusion

There has never been a greater need for creating a sustainable culture of inclusion within both 

public and private sector workplaces throughout the United States than there is today. For too 

long, the presumption that people with I/DD and other significant disabilities will not be able to 

meet the job requirements of competitive, integrated work environments has resulted in limited 

access to innovative training opportunities and very few individuals achieving economic selfsufficiency. Data from the 2013 SSI Annual Statistical report shows that of the almost five

million individuals with disabilities between the ages of 18 and 64, less than 300,000 (5.9%) 

were working.89 Monthly earnings averaged less than $1,400: not even $17,000 per year. 

Employees with disabilities earn less on average, are more likely to work part-time or in 

temporary positions, and are less likely to work in technical or managerial positions than their 

peers without disabilities.90,91

From the Subcommittee’s point of view, there are many companies that are proving that 

employees with significant disabilities are highly valued in their workforce, which dispels myths 

and stereotypes directed to this disability population. More needs to be accomplished, however. 

Creating a sustainable culture of inclusion requires a dedicated effort, and companies, 

regardless of size, need a tactical, executable plan supported by middle management, 

executive leadership, and their Board of Directors in order to recruit, train, retain and 

promote individuals with I/DD and other significant disabilities into their workforce.

Companies with targeted diversity plans are significantly more likely to hire individuals with 

disabilities, yet a large number of employers, particularly small employers, do not have either 

formal staffing or diversity plans.92,93 Public and private employment services staff should be 

prepared to help businesses develop targeted plans as the first step to increasing 

employment opportunities for individuals with I/DD or other significant disabilities. Plans 

must be both internally and externally focused, and predicated on the assumption that building an 

inclusive workforce results in a more flexible, responsive corporate culture that better meets the 

needs of all employees, not just those with disabilities. Workplace flexibility strategies are linked 

to enhanced performance, productivity, and retention company-wide, thus again ensuring a 

synergy to businesses’ bottom line.94,95,96
54

Companies that prioritize diversity or disability are much more likely to employ individuals with 

disabilities, and yet the number of companies with disability plans in place declined between 

1995 and 2010.97 Many applicants are reluctant to self-identify as a person with a disability for 

fear of discrimination. Indeed, research shows that employers are less likely to hire applicants 

who have self-identified as having a disability.98,99

However, it is important for individuals with disabilities to self-identify their disability to federal 

contractors and subcontractors associated with the OFCCP and the Section 503 Rules. These 

rules require federal contractors and subcontractors subject to the Section 503 rules to establish a 

seven percent utilization goal for the employment of people with disabilities, therefore creating 

important hiring opportunities for individuals with I/DD or other significant disabilities.100

Businesses need access to support and guidance to develop more inclusive hiring practices, 

eliminate barriers, and encourage more individuals with significant disabilities to apply 

and self-identify. The Disability Equality Index (DEI) may offer a starting point for community 

businesses. A collaborative initiative through USBLN and the American Association of People 

with Disabilities (AAPD), the DEI is an online tool that provides businesses with an objective 

assessment of their current disability inclusion practices and helps companies to identify 

opportunities for building a more inclusive company culture (www.disabilityequalityindex.org).

Effective recruitment requires targeted outreach to potential employees with I/DD and other 

significant disabilities, but many companies may not know how to effectively find qualified 

candidates with disabilities.

101 Developing accessible online recruitment announcements and 

applications and establishing relationships with employment service providers or public system 

services such as One-Stop Career Centers, now called American Job Centers (AJCs), or VR 

agencies can help connect employers with potential applicants.102 As part of the FOCUS 

program, AMC revamped the online application process to make it more accessible for potential 

employees with disabilities. Through the Bridges to Business program, the National 

Organization on Disability (NOD)103 serves an intermediary between businesses and public and 

private employment service agencies to address this gap.104 The program has been so successful 

with one of its sites, Lowe’s Home Improvement, that Lowe’s ultimately created a position 

within its diversity team to fulfill the role previously performed by the NOD intermediary.105

Additionally, departmental silos that exist within larger corporate entities may present barriers to 

inclusive hiring. Department managers are frequently aware of job vacancies only within their 

purview and do not have a “bird’s eye view” of all possible unmet needs within their 

organization that could lead to customized employment designs and better job matching. 

Mitigating strategies may include dedicating a position or part of a position to recruiting and 

hiring individuals with disabilities company-wide, working with an external consultant to 

identify unmet needs, and establishing public-private partnerships to identify and fill available 

positions. For example, the in-house position created by Lowe’s following the success of the 
55

Bridges to Business project allows for enhanced coordination of potential employment 

opportunities for individuals with disabilities.

Employee Resource Groups (ERGs) enhance efforts to establish a sustainable culture of 

inclusion by providing a structured forum for employees with similar backgrounds to 

discuss common issues and provide feedback and recommendations to organizational 

management.

106,107 Some corporate ERGs include any employee that is interested in a specific 

area such as family members, caregivers, employees with disabilities, and others to come 

together to receive information and to discuss issues associated with work, accessibility, the 

community and resources available. Feedback and guidance from ERGs can enhance outreach 

and recruitment efforts, as well as ensure that the work culture remains flexible, accepting, and 

responsive to employees with disabilities. 

Another reason companies cite as a reason for a lack of hiring individuals with disabilities is a 

lack of understanding and fear of the laws and policies around employing individuals with 

disabilities. Many companies express concerns about perceived risks that they may be subject to 

litigation for taking disciplinary action against or terminating employees with disabilities. 

Additionally, companies may be confused about what accommodations are required by the 

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the potential costs involved. These concerns are 

most effectively alleviated not through the dissemination of written information, but 

through more direct conversation with employment professionals as part of broader 

employer engagement initiatives. Employment services professionals must be prepared to work 

with companies one-on-one to provide the necessary supports as they transition to a more 

inclusive workforce.

Establishing business-to-business peer connections are critical to assisting companies in 

learning more about employing people with I/DD and other significant disabilities.

108

Businesses can learn from the examples of other companies and use them as a model when 

revising policies and practices. There is no “one size fits all” model, but incorporating practices 

that have already succeeded and adjusting to each company’s individual needs supports more 

efficient movement toward the development of a sustainable, inclusive work culture.

Building Business Partnerships While Driving Systems Change

The critical need to build effective partnerships with businesses in order to increase employment 

opportunities for individuals with intellectual, development, and other significant disabilities 

cannot be overstated. The success of Walgreens, AMC, Partners Continuing Care, and the 

businesses participating in the Bridges to Business project showcase the rich job training and 

employment outcomes possible through such partnerships. Businesses can clearly benefit from 

developing relationships with government, service providers, secondary and postsecondary 

educational institutions and other businesses within their local communities. However, many 
56

businesses are either not aware of or do not use the supports and services already available 

through public resources such as AJCs, state VR agencies, or local service providers.

109,110

Outreach efforts must therefore be fluid and tailored for attracting employers, and public system 

personnel and nonprofit service providers must have the skills and experience to support 

businesses with the development of customized plans and strategies that address the unique 

needs and opportunities of each specific business.

AJCs, state VR agencies, and employment service provider agencies all provide an array of 

services designed to support individuals with I/DD and other significant disabilities to achieve 

CIE outcomes; however, deficits continue to exist in these public and private systems with 

regard to business outreach and communication, particularly as it relates to the 

employment of people with significant disabilities.

111

Recent legislation affirms the importance of establishing partnerships between these public 

systems and the local business communities. The Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act 

(WIOA) mandates that VR agencies collaborate with employers in order to maximize CIE 

opportunities for individuals, including those with the most significant disabilities and authorizes 

the use of funds to support work-based learning experiences, training for employees with 

disabilities, and delivering awareness building activities for the business community. Moreover, 

WIOA specifically requires that AJCs deliver effective business services to engage employers of 

all sizes within their local regions and cautions against “burdening employers, for example with 

multiple uncoordinated points of contact.”

112

Local WDBs provide oversight of AJCs. As such, workforce boards need to be educated about 

the employment of people with significant disabilities so they may act as advocates and support 

CIE within the AJCs. WIOA requires that a representative from VR serve on WDBs, yet there is 

no requirement that boards include a representative specifically from the I/DD network.

WIOA requires that state and local WDBs use a standard set of performance metrics to review 

regularly how effective their programs are at serving job seekers. Business leaders can provide 

expert advice to state and local WDBs on how to establish and use these performance 

metrics to improve the WDBs. Additionally, businesses can help develop performance 

metrics related to service expectations for employers to ensure that both job seekers and 

employers are effectively served by workforce development programs. Performance 

standards under WIOA allow for performance adjustments based on a number of characteristics, 

including disability status, and include tracking participation in training programs, both of which 

can lead to more flexibility in the design and delivery of services for individuals with 

disabilities.

113

Despite the pivotal need to expand and improve business partnerships, AJCs lack 

continuity in their outreach to companies and are inconsistent in the quality of services 
57

provided to businesses. AJCs are not using the same language as businesses, and as a result, are 

not as effective as they could be when connecting employers with individuals with disabilities.114

AJC staff has questions about standards relating to provision of services (e.g., ADA Title II, 

Section 504), and standards relating to employment (e.g., ADA Title I, and specific parts of 

Section 504). Further, AJC staff appears to be confused on what they can legally communicate to 

businesses regarding candidates with disabilities who are seeking employment.115

AJC staff and WDBs need ongoing education on “Disability Awareness” and how to provide 

quality services to people with I/DD and other significant disabilities. Under WIOA, AJCs are 

tasked with meeting the needs of both job seekers and regional businesses. To do so requires 

staff to be equally adept at navigating both the supply-side and the demand-side of the 

employment equation, and a skills gap currently exists on both of these sides. Public system 

personnel who lack understanding of business acumen and needs are likely to approach 

businesses with a standard list of available services- a practice that is largely ineffective if 

businesses do not see a fit between the services offered and their own needs.

AJC and VR staff must have the requisite skills to help businesses explore and identify 

opportunities to address their unique workforce needs and to identify the best possible 

options available for meeting them. For example, Partners Healthcare located in Boston, MA, 

provides office space for a VR counselor to spend 20 hours a week on-site. This model allows 

the VR counselor to thoroughly learn about all the offices within the company, and identify and 

explore vacancies throughout the hospital to identify possible CIE opportunities for individuals 

with disabilities.

Outreach and innovation efforts directed to businesses must include the recognition and 

importance of developing relationships with businesses of all sizes. Of the 28 million small 

businesses in 2014, over 22 million of them were non-employer firms, with one person serving 

as the sole owner and operator.116 Small business employed half of the nation’s workforce, 

and these numbers tend to under-reflect the employment picture in rural communities 

where small business tends to play an even more significant role. Moreover, creating flexible, 

customized job positions is often easier in small businesses, which tend to lack the formal job 

descriptions found in larger companies.117 Overlooking small business imposes artificial limits 

on the employment opportunities available to job seekers with I/DD and other significant 

disabilities.118 Despite the employment opportunities small businesses can provide, employer 

research surveys and studies to date have focused almost exclusively on medium- and large-sized 

businesses. It is critical to expand research efforts to include small businesses, including nonemployer firms. One size does not fit all when it comes to employers and public system staff 

need guidance and support on effective practices for bringing small businesses to the table 

and customizing initiatives to meet the needs of businesses of any size. 
58

Addressing Training and Pipeline Issues

Society’s chronically low expectations of individuals with significant disabilities have 

contributed to a mindset that ignores, underserves, and undermines them across all areas of their 

lives. This mindset has also severely constricted the development of innovative, out-of-the-box 

training opportunities. Current training options are often dictated by service professionals, 

not individual choice, and lead many people with disabilities down the path to a predictable 

and restricted array of subminimum wage or entry-level employment outcomes. 

Productivity analysis as conducted in segregated work centers trap many people with significant 

disabilities in a vicious cycle. Low productivity evaluations based on antiquated methodologies 

reinforce the perception of limited capability and close the door to more advanced training 

opportunities as evidenced by the fact that only approximately five percent of employees earning 

subminimum wages ever leave sheltered work for CIE.

119 However, access to better training and 

different job tasks is often the very thing needed to positively impact job performance.

The net impact of this is that few individuals with significant disabilities think about building 

careers and achieving economic self-sufficiency.120 Given the limited opportunities for people 

with significant disabilities to receive quality education, access innovative training, secure 

higher-level employment, and live in the communities of their choice, employers specifically and 

society as a whole may have a very limited view of what individuals with I/DD and other 

significant disabilities can contribute as employees. Individuals with significant disabilities 

must receive innovative, out-of-the-box training along with all necessary accommodations 

in order to achieve higher-level, better paying, and more secure employment.

Employers that want to hire individuals with disabilities identify challenges with finding 

qualified applicants as a major barrier.

121 When employers reach out to AJCs, staff may not 

know applicants who live in the area or who have the necessary skill set, and the conversation 

stops there. Follow-up with these businesses must be prioritized as they open the door to 

business partnerships and reveal critical industry information. Businesses want to have potential 

employees in their human resource pipeline. A lack of applicants with relevant skills in any 

demand area may create the foundation for work-based learning experiences or paid internships 

within regional businesses that both provide training opportunities for job seekers in high-need 

area as well as help businesses build their potential employee base. Public and private 

employment systems personnel need training to establish business partnerships and to support 

employers to develop these initiatives.122,123 Additionally, standards must be established that give 

individuals with significant disabilities priority access to these training opportunities.

Businesses also need support from competent and professional employment service providers 

that understand how businesses work and can support them to identify and address employment 

needs. Doing so requires extensive knowledge of both the business needs and the job seeker’s 

skill sets and capacities. More traditional vocational evaluations tend to be ineffective for 
59

individuals with I/DD or other significant disabilities; Discovery and other person-centered 

assessment processes allow employment service providers to identify and showcase to 

businesses what potential employees with I/DD or other significant disabilities can do.124

Walgreens identified that many potential employees with disabilities are unprepared for 

interviews and may emphasize what they cannot do versus what they can do. Employment 

services personnel require training and technical assistance on all aspects of creating the job 

match as well as on providing quality job coaching onsite. AMC believes that the services 

provided by job coaches are so significant that they can “make or break” an employee’s 

ability to succeed on the job yet found such significant variation in the quality of the job 

coaches working with employees in the FOCUS program that it began requiring all job coaches 

to sign a standard performance agreement. 

Students with I/DD and other significant disabilities can greatly benefit from internships and 

mentoring experiences as well in order to prepare them for employment. WIOA allows AJCs and 

state VR agencies to allocate funds to create pathways to employment within local businesses 

through work-based learning experiences, paid internships, and on-the-job training. However, at 

the present time, youth and young adults with I/DD and other significant disabilities are less 

likely to be offered these opportunities and more likely to participate in a standard job sampling 

of lower-skilled entry-level positions such as wiping tables, stocking shelves, and processing 

clothing. 

The importance of high-quality training opportunities focused on teaching higher-level 

skills cannot be overstated. A key part of Walgreen’s success came from the company’s 

decision to focus on “Training Not Abilities” and to teach supervisors to manage the work 

instead of the employee’s disability. Focusing on the worker as a whole and the job that needed 

to be done enabled supervisors to more accurately pinpoint and address training and 

accommodation needs that might otherwise have been misinterpreted as disability-related 

performance issues. Walgreens also took a proactive and unprecedented approach by embedding 

training facilities within their South Carolina and Connecticut distribution centers. The training 

facilities were designed to replicate the actual work environment so that new employees were 

better able to transfer the skills learned during training. While this strategy would not work for 

all businesses, it does showcase the dual-benefit of creating training programs that allow job 

seekers to build skills while simultaneously creating a pipeline of qualified applicants.

Transportation Impacts Business Recruitment of Talent

Businesses face limitations in recruiting talent with I/DD or other significant disabilities 

when potential employees cannot travel to a worksite because they do not drive, lack public 

accessible transportation, or must deal with long commutes or very complicated routes. 

Urban areas tend to have more public and private transportation options available, yet may not 

offer accessible or affordable options. Paratransit transportation services are designed to 
60

supplement other fixed-route transportation services for people with disabilities, but the focus on 

pick-up time versus drop-off time creates challenges for businesses that require employees or 

potential employees to arrive at specific times for job interviews or work.125 Transportation 

barriers must be addressed as a part of comprehensive plans to increase employment options for 

individuals with disabilities, and sufficient resources must be allocated to develop and implement 

transportation initiatives.

The lack of accessible and affordable transportation restricts employment opportunities 

and limits access to CIE for many people with significant disabilities. In addition to the more 

commonly cited issues, such as accessibility and limited routes or hours of operation, individuals 

with I/DD or other significant disabilities and their family members cite additional concerns 

related to safety and appropriate treatment and communication. Research documents the 

devastating reality that individuals with significant disabilities can be subject to abuse and 

mistreatment when using public and private transportation, which underscores the legitimacy and 

validity of these concerns.

126,127

As policies, regulations, and grassroots efforts drive supports and services away from 

segregated settings and into the community, safe, accessible, and reliable transportation 

must become a priority. Dedicated initiatives and funds to ensure transportation to other 

community locations, including CIE, must be seen as a critical part of all capacity building plans 

or efforts to support individuals through this transition will be severely undermined. In 2001, the 

Government Accountability Office (GAO, formerly known as the General Accounting Office)

found that 97 percent of the employers holding special wage certificates offered or helped to 

coordinate transportation for workshop employees.128 In fact, one of the greatest marketing 

points provided by nonprofits that administer sheltered workshops is the provision of door-todoor transportation. Family members highly value these services because safety and treatment 

are less of concern. The reality remains that these programs provide a stability of transport 

that is not guaranteed in the public transportation systems, and any initiatives to increase 

access to transportation must include measures for meeting these concerns head-on.

Although large cities such as New York City, Los Angeles, and Chicago have major initiatives to 

improve inclusive transportation, including accessible taxis, midsize and rural communities have 

far more limited options for individuals with significant disabilities needing transportation for 

work. Consequently, rural areas within the United States have had to be creative in 

developing transportation models such as the transportation voucher models, where 

individuals receive vouchers to subsidize the cost of transportation services.

129 Project sites 

created new options for transportation, such as creating systems of volunteer drivers, as well as 

build upon existing systems, e.g., negotiating trip rates or available hours.130,131 Over the first 

three years of the project, 117 people in rural communities obtained employment, and 85

percent of the rides provided were for work.

132
61

Changes to funding options reduced or ended many voucher programs because local government 

entities and services providers in rural areas had to decide where funds will be used when 

voucher funds were merged in with other options, reducing or eliminating transportation options 

for many.133

Obtaining funding to create or maintain transportation in rural areas is complicated and time 

consuming. The process for funding must be streamlined so that a faster process can occur 

for grant review and decision-making, particularly within government funding entities. The 

funding issues are critical. The National Council on Disability (NCD) Report 2015 stresses the 

extreme lack of public transit in most rural communities along with the inequitable allocation of 

resources between urban and rural areas and recommends that Congress and federal agencies 

place heightened emphasis on planning and funding rural transit options.134

For many individuals with I/DD or other significant disabilities, family members, neighbors, or 

friends provide transportation to and from work, but transportation systems available to the nondisabled population should also be readily available to people with significant disabilities. 

Access to transportation not only supports greater employment options, but also promotes and 

enhances independence – a highly valued outcome in its own right.

Partnerships with businesses can play an important role in transportation initiatives as 

well. Walgreens, for example, petitioned to have bus stops located near their distribution centers 

so that employees with I/DD and significant disabilities can travel to work with less trepidation. 

Employers, particularly large employers, have power within smaller communities, and advocates 

should not be afraid to invite them to the table during transportation negotiations. The bus stops 

near Walgreens ultimately benefited all employees and the company as a whole. In other 

examples, local businesses have provided shuttle buses for transportation from train stations and 

from other venues, but very few of these shuttles are accessible. Employers must be considered 

an ally in the transportation conversation, as ensuring reliable, accessible transportation benefits 

is a key part of building a reliable, consistent workforce.

Marketplace Dynamics Subcommittee Preliminary Recommendations

Please note that the Subcommittee is continuing to address all topic areas and will develop 

additional recommendations to include in the Final Report.

Changing the Narrative/Building a Sustainable Culture of Inclusion

1. Congress shall appropriate funds for the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) in collaboration 

with the U.S. Department of Education (ED) and the U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services (HHS) to conduct a National Educational Campaign (the Campaign) to educate the 

public, the public workforce system, and businesses on the types of jobs individuals with 

I/DD or other significant disabilities hold in CIE settings.
62

a. One of the Campaign’s top priorities must be to include a business-to-business 

component where successful businesses share their “workforce diversity” models 

with other businesses that have not begun to hire individuals with I/DD and other 

significant disabilities. Business-to-business communications need to focus beyond 

policy to demystify the hiring process and take the fear out of hiring people with 

disabilities. 

b. The Campaign should focus on the development and dissemination of marketing 

materials that highlight the competitive advantage that stems from building a more 

inclusive workforce and showcases examples of businesses that have successfully 

integrated individuals with I/DD or other significant disabilities into their company 

culture. In particular, marketing materials should represent and target businesses of 

all sizes and include both written communication as well as short, promotional videos 

that may include videos or news releases that have already been developed. 

c. The Campaign should target Chambers of Commerce, human resource organizations, 

various industry trade organizations, healthcare institutions and healthcare industries, 

hospitality, retail, and other high-growth industries to dispel the negative myths and 

stereotypes directed to people with significant disabilities and to emphasize their 

abilities to perform within the competitive integrated workforce. The Campaign 

should include funding for the development of new business-based resources and 

materials, including Public Service Announcements, as well as the dissemination of 

existing resources. 

Building Better Business Partnerships

2. The Employment and Training Administration (ETA) should create an educational module 

available to AJC and WDB staff and board members on “Disability Awareness” that 

highlights the communication skills and techniques necessary to most effectively work with 

people with significant disabilities. The educational module should be provided in one online 

centralized location.

3. ETA should issue guidance to state level AJC staff and WDBs on developing partnerships 

with other key stakeholders.

4. HHS shall fund and work in collaboration with the DOL to set up a program for Centers for 

Independent Living (CILs) to establish partnerships with AJCs/WDBs in their local areas. 

HHS and DOL should issue guidance to AJCs and WDBs on how to partner with CILs 

located in areas near AJCs. CILs that hold expertise in employment of individuals with I/DD 

and other significant disabilities can assist AJC staff onsite to reinforce education on 

“Disability Awareness” and appropriate communication with people with significant 

disabilities and provide technical assistance on community supports and accommodations.
63

5. Congress shall appropriate funding to DOL, ED, HHS, and business organizations to conduct 

a nation-wide educational campaign. The educational campaign must assist AJCs, WDBs, 

VR agencies, and service providers on how to communicate with businesses in order to 

provide quality services and address the needs of individual businesses of all sizes. The 

educational campaign should include information on the services provided by each agency 

within the public workforce systems in order to enhance cross-agency communication and 

reduce service duplication.

6. ETA should issue guidance to WDBs that representatives from Developmental Disabilities 

(DD) networks, such as state DD Councils, Protection and Advocacy agencies, or state DD 

agencies, should be appointed to each WDB at both the state and local levels across the 

United States.

Addressing Training and Pipeline Issues

7. Congress should authorize DOL, ED, and HHS to coordinate and establish national training 

requirements for all Disability Service Professionals (DSPs), including employment 

specialists, job coaches, job developers, and service provider organizations, to ensure that 

DSPs develop the knowledge and skills required to support all individuals with significant 

disabilities to achieve CIE. 

a. The Commissioners of the Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA) and HHS 

should provide guidance to states outlining these national training requirements for 

DSPs. At a minimum training requirements must cover topics related to the provision 

of high-quality employment services for individuals with significant disabilities, 

including: identifying potential employees’ skills and strengths, facilitating 

connections with potential employers, preparing potential employees for interviews, 

assisting employers to identify possible high-quality job matches, and providing the 

necessary training and coaching once jobs are secured in a career that the employee 

wants to pursue. 

b. Training requirements must also include specific business-related information 

including a general overview of different markets and industries as well as 

recommendations and guidance from businesses that have successfully included 

individuals with I/DD or other significant disabilities into their workforce. 

8. Congress should authorize DOL, ED, and HHS to coordinate and establish national 

performance standards for all DSPs. DSPs must be held accountable for quality provision of 

services across the spectrum of employment supports. The Commissioners of RSA and HHS 

should provide guidance that DSPs who do not meet performance standards should face 

funding cuts and/or suspension or discontinuation of services.
64

9. DOL and HHS should collaborate to develop templates for formal agreements between 

businesses and DSPs/job coaches. Templates must be accessible and available online in one 

centralized location.

10. Congress should amend WIOA and other applicable laws to ensure that individuals with 

I/DD and other significant disabilities receive priority access to training and internship 

opportunities, available through AJCs, state VR agencies, and the school system while 

utilizing all possible funding resources, including Pell Grants, to ensure that such training 

opportunities and internships occur.

Transportation

11. Congress should appropriate funding so that the Secretary of the U.S. Department of 

Transportation (DOT) and allied state programs ensure that public transportation systems 

planning in both urban and rural areas of the United States are developed and implemented to 

meet the needs of individuals with significant disabilities. This includes providing resources 

for travel training, safety mandate requirements, and training to transportation vendors on 

appropriate communication, treatment and respect to individuals with significant disabilities. 

Businesses that offer their own transportation services or supports must ensure that their 

transportation vendors are included in all training and educational information opportunities.

12. The Secretary of DOT should provide financial incentives to plan and implement 

collaborative and innovative approaches to resolve transportation deficits. Work with local 

governments, chambers of commerce business representatives and other organizations 

representing people with significant disabilities to create individualized transit options that 

identify specific needs of individual communities and their population of people with 

significant disabilities. Seek guidance from key stakeholders knowledgeable of transportation 

deficits within both urban and rural public transportation systems while including individuals 

with significant disabilities and family members in this planning and implementation process.

13. Congress should appropriate funding to ensure that the DOT enforces that public transit 

systems of all types meet the ADA accessibility requirements while ensuring the accessibility 

needs of rural transportation systems is addressed and resolved.

14. Congress should appropriate funds to ensure that DOT develops para-transit systems and 

other transit system options throughout rural America. Incentivize building accessible allrider public transportation systems to minimize rider expenses.

15. DOT should develop plans and implement those plans to ensure that cross-jurisdictional 

transportation in larger geographic areas in rural America across the United States so that 

transportation for people with I/DD and other significant disabilities is seamless and 

uninterrupted.
65

16. DOT and allied state programs should prioritize access to public transportation for people 

with significant disabilities that apply for or hold jobs in competitive integrated workplaces. 

Additionally, paratransit transportation providers should guarantee drop-off times within 15

minutes of employment start times unless there are extenuating circumstances such as severe 

weather conditions or accidents. 

80 Kessler Foundation and National Organization on Disability. (2010). Kessler Foundation/NOD survey of 

employment of Americans with disabilities. New York, NY: Harris Interactive.

81 U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Disability Employment Policy. (2015). Employer engagement strategy final 

report. Retrieved June 5, 2015 from http://www.dol.gov/odep/topics/Employers.htm

82 Social Dynamics, LLC. (2014). Employer engagement strategy: workforce inclusion. Retrieved June 14, 2015 

from http://www.dol.gov/odep/topics/Employers.htm

83 Matos, K. & Galinsky, E. (2014). 2014 National study of employers. New York, NY: Families and Work Institute.

84 Matos, K. (2014). 2014 National study of employers: Including the talents of employees with disabilities. New 

York, NY: Families and Work Institute.

85 Kessler Foundation and National Organization on Disability. (2010). Kessler Foundation/NOD survey of 

employment of Americans with disabilities. New York, NY: Harris Interactive.

86 Pemberton, S. (2015, March). Competitive Integrated Employment for Individuals with Disabilities. Speech 

presented at the Advisory Committee on Increasing Competitive Integrated Employment for Individuals with 

Disabilities (ACICIEID). Washington, DC.

87 Matos, K. (2014). 2014 National study of employers: Including the talents of employees with disabilities. New 

York, NY: Families and Work Institute.

88 Kessler Foundation and National Organization on Disability. (2010). Kessler Foundation/NOD survey of 

employment of Americans with disabilities. New York, NY: Harris Interactive.

89 Social Security Administration. (2014). SSI annual statistical report, 2013: Recipients who work. (SSA 

Publication No. 13-11827). Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved June 13, 2015 from 

http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/ssi_asr/2013/index.html

90 U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2014). Persons with a Disability: Labor Force 

Characteristics Summary. Retrieved June 16, 2015 from http://www.dol.gov/odep/newsletter/

91 Shur, L., Kruse, D., Blasi, J., & Black, P. (2009). Is disability disabling in all workplaces? Workplace disparities 

and corporate culture. Industrial Relations, 48(3), 381-410.

92 Matos, K. (2014). 2014 National study of employers: Including the talents of employees with disabilities. New 

York, NY: Families and Work Institute.

93 Kessler Foundation and National Organization on Disability. (2010). Kessler Foundation/NOD survey of 

employment of Americans with disabilities. New York, NY: Harris Interactive.

94 Matos, K. & Galinsky, E. (2014). 2014 National study of employers. New York, NY: Families and Work Institute.

95 Matos, K. (2014). 2014 National study of employers: Including the talents of employees with disabilities. New 

York, NY: Families and Work Institute.

96 U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Disability Employment Policy. (2015). Employer engagement strategy final 

report. Retrieved June 5, 2015 from http://www.dol.gov/odep/topics/Employers.htm

97 Kessler Foundation and National Organization on Disability. (2010). Kessler Foundation/NOD survey of 

employment of Americans with disabilities. New York, NY: Harris Interactive.

98 Pearson, V., Yip, N., Ip, F., Lo, E. M. K., Ho, K. K., & Hui, H. (2003). To tell or not to tell. The Journal of 

Rehabilitation, 69(4), 35–38.

99 Ravaud, J., Madiot, B., & Ville, I. (1992). Discrimination towards disabled people seeking employment. Social 

Science & Medicine, 35(8), 951–958.

100 Utilization Goals. 41 CFR 60.741.45 (2015).

101 Kessler Foundation and National Organization on Disability. (2010). Kessler Foundation/NOD survey of 

employment of Americans with disabilities. New York, NY: Harris Interactive.

 
66

 

102 U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Disability Employment Policy. (2012). Business strategies that work. 

Retrieved June 12, 2015 from http://www.dol.gov/odep/topics/Employers.htm

103 National Organization on Disability. (2013). Bridges to business: New Jersey discoverability project. New York, 

NY: National Organization on Disability.

104 Katz, E., O’Connell, M., & Nicholas, R. (2012). Strategies to support employer driven initiatives to recruit and 

retain employees with disabilities. Retrieved on June 12, 2015 from 

http://kesslerfoundation.org/media/Kessler%20Foundation%20and%20Heldrich%20Center%20Issue%20Brief%20o

n%20Strategies%20for%20Hiring%20Employees%20with%20Disabilities

105 Ibid.

106 Matos, K. (2014). 2014 National study of employers: Including the talents of employees with disabilities. New 

York, NY: Families and Work Institute.

107 Matos, K. & Galinsky, E. (2014). 2014 National study of employers. New York, NY: Families and Work 

Institute.

108 U.S. Business Leadership Network. (2012). Leading practices on disability inclusion. Retrieved June 12, 2105 

from http://www.usbln.org/publications.html

109 Kessler Foundation and National Organization on Disability. (2010). Kessler Foundation/NOD survey of 

employment of Americans with disabilities. New York, NY: Harris Interactive.

110 Katz, E., O’Connell, M., & Nicholas, R. (2012). Strategies to support employer driven initiatives to recruit and 

retain employees with disabilities. Retrieved on June 12, 2015 from 

http://kesslerfoundation.org/media/Kessler%20Foundation%20and%20Heldrich%20Center%20Issue%20Brief%20o

n%20Strategies%20for%20Hiring%20Employees%20with%20Disabilities

111 Ibid.

112 “What are the business services provided through the one-stop delivery system, and how are they provided?” 80 

Federal Register 73 (16 April 2015), pp. 20601.

113 Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act. Sec 116.b. Pub. L. No.: 113-128.

114 Katz, E., O’Connell, M., & Nicholas, R. (2012). Strategies to support employer driven initiatives to recruit and 

retain employees with disabilities. Retrieved on June 12, 2015 from 

http://kesslerfoundation.org/media/Kessler%20Foundation%20and%20Heldrich%20Center%20Issue%20Brief%20o

n%20Strategies%20for%20Hiring%20Employees%20with%20Disabilities

115 National Collaborative on Workforce and Disability. (2004). Disability inquiries in the workforce development 

system. Retrieved from: http://www.ncwd-youth.info/type/brief

116 Small Business Administration. (2014). Small business profile: United States. Retrieved June 5, 2012 from 

https://www.sba.gov/advocacy/small-business-profiles-states-and-territories-2014

117 Griffin, C.C., Hammis, D., & Geary, T. (2007). The job developer’s handbook: Practical tactics for customized 

employment. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.

118 Ibid.

119 U.S. General Accounting Office. (2001). Special minimum wage program: Centers offer employment and 

support services to workers with disabilities but labor should improve oversight. (GAO Publication No. GAO-01-

886).

120 Shur, L., Kruse, D., Blasi, J., & Black, P. (2009). Is disability disabling in all workplaces? Workplace disparities 

and corporate culture. Industrial Relations, 48(3), 381-410.

121 Kessler Foundation and National Organization on Disability. (2010). Kessler Foundation/NOD survey of 

employment of Americans with disabilities. New York, NY: Harris Interactive.

122 Ibid.

123 Katz, E., O’Connell, M., & Nicholas, R. (2012). Strategies to support employer driven initiatives to recruit and 

retain employees with disabilities. Retrieved on June 12, 2015 from 

http://kesslerfoundation.org/media/Kessler%20Foundation%20and%20Heldrich%20Center%20Issue%20Brief%20o

n%20Strategies%20for%20Hiring%20Employees%20with%20Disabilities

124 Griffin, C.C., Hammis, D., & Geary, T. (2007). The job developer’s handbook: Practical tactics for customized 

employment. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.

125 National Council on Disability. (2015). Transportation update: Where we’ve gone and what we’ve learned. 

Washington, DC: National Council on Disability.
67

 

126 The Telegraph. (2011, June 11). Disabled passengers face ‘rising level of abuse on public transit’. Retrieved 

June 19, 2015 from: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/8569632/Disabled-passengers-face-rising-level-ofabuse-on-public-transport.html

127 Davis, L.A. (2011). People with intellectual disabilities and sexual violence. Washington, DC: The ARC. 

Retrieved from http://www.thearc.org/document.doc?id=3657

128 U.S. General Accounting Office. (2001). Special minimum wage program: Centers offer employment and 

support services to workers with disabilities but labor should improve oversight. (GAO Publication No. GAO-01-

886). 

129 National Council on Disability. (2015). Transportation update: Where we’ve gone and what we’ve learned. 

Washington, DC: National Council on Disability.

130 Association of Programs for Rural Independent Living. (2004). Rural transportation for people with disabilities 

generating renewal, opportunity and work with accelerated mobility, efficiency and rebuilding of infrastructure and 

communities throughout America (GROW AMERICA) Act. Retrieved June 6, 2015 from http://www.aprilrural.org/index.php/advocacy/rural-transportation

131 National Rural Assembly. (2011). Principles for sound rural transportation policy. Retrieved June 6, 2015 from 

http://www.april-rural.org/index.php/advocacy/rural-transportation

132 Association of Programs for Rural Independent Living. (2004). Rural transportation for people with disabilities 

generating renewal, opportunity and work with accelerated mobility, efficiency and rebuilding of infrastructure and 

communities throughout America (GROW AMERICA) Act. Retrieved June 6, 2015 from http://www.aprilrural.org/index.php/advocacy/rural-transportation

133 National Council on Disability. (2015). Transportation update: Where we’ve gone and what we’ve learned. 

Washington, DC: National Council on Disability.

134 Ibid.
68

Chapter Five: Building State and Local Capacity

Background

The Capacity Building Subcommittee (the Subcommittee) is one of four created by the full 

Advisory Committee on Increasing Competitive Integrated Employment for Individuals with 

Disabilities (the “Committee”) to examine and make recommendations concerning competitive 

integrated employment (CIE). The charge of the Subcommittee was to focus on what needs to be 

done to build systemic and professional capacity for increasing CIE for individuals with 

intellectual or developmental disabilities (I/DD) and other significant disabilities. Participation in 

each Subcommittee was by member preference. This Subcommittee was thus constituted by 

those who chose to work on this issue and included Cesilee Coulson (Subcommittee Chair), 

Janet LaBreck, Rita Landgraf, Christine McMahon, and Brian Itzkowitz. 

The Subcommittee, during several working sessions, subsequently organized its work around 

three sub-themes: service culture, service delivery, and organizational and professional 

development.135 Service culture refers to how the service system is structured, the expectations it 

creates, and how it helps or hinders the pursuit of CIE. Service delivery is the resultant impact of 

state and federal policies related to employment services for individuals with significant 

disabilities. Organizational and professional development refers to what happens or needs to 

happen to create local capacity for the delivery of services that feature CIE. The Subcommittee 

also identified the use of data to inform and drive optimum service delivery as an important 

theme that is interwoven into the three selected main sub-themes.

The next section of this chapter provides a summary of the findings and conclusions related to 

building systemic capacity for delivering services which result in CIE. Following a general 

overview, the section presents the findings and conclusions for each sub-theme identified above. 

The final section of the chapter contains the Subcommittee’s resultant recommendations for 

increasing services leading to, and outcomes for, CIE for individuals with significant disabilities.

Findings and Conclusions

Participation in CIE has historically been low and remains so for individuals with significant 

disability. For example, the most recent comprehensive report on employment services and 

outcomes indicates that only about 18 percent of individuals served through programs funded by 

state I/DD service systems are participating in integrated employment.

136 The remainder is 

primarily served in either sheltered employment or in facility-based non-work programs, with a 

growing percentage in community-based, non-work programs. According to this report, the 

employment participation rate is relatively unchanged over the past decade as sheltered 

employment and non-work activity remain the predominant service option for individuals with 

I/DD. In fact, in recent years the rate of entry into sheltered work exceeds that of integrated 
69

employment. Further, more often than not, those who are employed work limited hours, earning 

low wages.137

A recent study, analyzing the National Longitudinal Transition Study two data base that included 

a large percentage of students with intellectual and multiple disabilities, found that only 26

percent of these youth and young adults were reported to be employed two years after high 

school.138 This report does not differentiate the type of employment achieved by these 

individuals and therefore includes those employed in congregate settings earning below the 

minimum wage. State Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) systems have similarly achieved variable 

results for individuals with I/DD served by those programs. Although individuals with I/DD 

achieve a rehabilitation rate (i.e., the percent who apply for services who achieve employment as 

a result of the services) comparable to people with other disabilities, they work fewer hours and 

earn lower wages.

139 Further, this rate varies greatly from state to state, suggesting a less than 

uniform approach to facilitating employment for this group. 

Although individuals with I/DD as a group have the lowest employment participation rates 

compared to other disabilities, the employment participation rates of individuals with other 

significant disabilities is also considered unacceptably low. For example, individuals served by 

public mental health systems are reported to be unemployed at three times that of the general 

population140 and are the largest and fastest growing group of public disability income 

beneficiaries.141

For people with I/DD or other significant disabilities, sheltered workshops have widely been 

used as a place where alternative vocational services could be available for those deemed as 

either unemployable in CIE, or as needing training to prepare them for eventual CIE in their 

communities. For the past several decades, sheltered workshops have continued to operate as 

facility-based vocational service programs attended by adults with disabilities thought to be 

unable to achieve CIE outcomes. Sheltered employment characteristically offer opportunities for 

simple work activities such as assembling, packaging, and light manufacturing for which 

individuals are paid a wage meant to be commensurate with productivity. The commensurate 

wage for most sheltered employment workers is substantially below minimum wage,

142 as 

currently allowable under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) (PL 75-718), Section 14(c). 

Based on data from the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) Wage and Hour Division (WHD), as of 

April 2015, there were 2,820 entities in the United States that hold Section 14(c) certificates 

(www.dol.gov/whd/specialemployment). WHD determined, in FY 2013, that there were an 

estimated 228,600 individuals being paid subminimum wage under these certificates. 

These circumstances have created a service culture characterized by low employment 

expectations and a service delivery system that often perpetuates these expectations. However, a 

significant number of people want to work in CIE, but lack the opportunity as the current service 

structure does not readily support it.143 Poverty and limited financial resources are the result. 
70

Changing the conditions under which more CIE is both expected and supported by education and 

by the employment service delivery system will require a particular focus on re-building capacity 

at several levels. There needs to be a change in the service culture, the way services are provided, 

and the development and preparation of those agencies and professionals who deliver these 

services. Each of these will be addressed in the subsequent sections.

Service Culture

The current circumstances are an indication that the existing service culture can be a contributing 

factor to historically low employment expectations as well as simultaneous, and perhaps 

inadvertently, a perpetuator of these low expectations. In other words, the fact, for example, that 

most of the individuals with I/DD and other significant disabilities who are served by the I/DD 

system are in some type of sheltered or facility-based environment suggests a systemic belief that 

not much else is possible, except for a relatively small minority of persons served. At the same 

time, these services, which primarily offer an accompanying subminimum wage when work is 

available, have often led to the conclusion that this type of work and/or productivity is the most 

that can be expected. In fact, less than four percent of individuals served in sheltered workshops 

move into jobs in the regular labor market.144 Consequently, sheltered workshops represent 

places that, at best, only promote a state of “perpetual readiness” for work, but rarely lead to 

actual employment in workplaces outside of the workshop.145,146

In order to alter these circumstances, the service culture will need to emphasize the expectation 

of employment, and its ability to create independence and financial self-sufficiency, throughout 

the life span. The presumption of employability is a prominent underpinning of current 

“Employment First” initiatives. These are grassroots initiatives to promote the adoption by states 

of community-based CIE as the first option for employment services for youth and adults with 

significant disabilities. However, the Employment First movement does not impose any mandate 

about CIE. Nor does it require any specific action to invest in building community employment 

services or minimize the use of sheltered employment. States and employment service providers 

can adopt its tenets, or not, at their choosing. However, at its core, this movement represents an 

emerging catalyst for further promoting the notion of presumed employability and 

complementing the push for ever stronger legislative and policy support of integrated 

employment. In some cases, these policies focus exclusively on individuals with I/DD. In others, 

they are cross-disability. What they all have in common is an overt recognition that CIE is a 

worthwhile, and achievable, goal for individuals considered to have significant disability.

Significantly, presumed employability of individuals with significant disabilities has received 

progressively strong emphasis in federal legislation over the years. For example, since 1973 the 

various Rehabilitation Act Amendments, including those contained in the Workforce Investment 

Act of 1998 have emphasized service priority in the state VR system to those considered to have 

“severe” disabilities and prohibited the use of disability severity as a disqualifier for services. 
71

Most recently, provisions included in the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) 

make access to sheltered employment and receipt of subminimum wages more difficult for youth 

and adults with significant disabilities.

147 Likewise, the Individuals with Disabilities Education 

Act of 2004 reflects an increasing emphasis on planning for post-school life and on education 

services that lead to optimal post-school outcomes, including employment. However, services 

have been historically funded and structured for youth and adults with significant disabilities, 

albeit unintentionally, to do much the opposite. For example, the Medicaid system allocates $7.8 

billion to services that primarily support segregated non-work service options, compared to the 

$3.1 billion (with an additional $27.5 million in supported employment state grant funding) that 

is allocated to the entire national VR system.148 The resulting current system is heavily 

entrenched and weighted in favor of segregated services, creating a longstanding service culture 

of low expectations for the achievement of CIE.

Compounding this situation is the fact that disability-specific service delivery systems have 

historically functioned in a manner separate from other, generic, systems such as American Job 

Centers (AJCs) organized through the WIOA and administered through DOL. There have been 

initiatives to increase the participation of people with disabilities in AJCs such as the Disability 

Employment Initiative (jointly administered by the Employment and Training Administration 

and the Office of Disability Employment Policy (ODEP)) and the ODEP-administered 

Customized Employment grants. They represent a policy intent to increase available integrated 

employment services, and therefore expectations, for individuals with disabilities. The ultimate 

impact of AJCs services on systemic improvement of CIE is hopeful, but as yet not determined.

There are additional pockets of activity that reflect changing expectations. For example, New 

Hampshire House of Representatives passed SB 47 on April 15, 2015, becoming the first state in 

the country to prohibit employers from paying persons with disabilities less than the state 

minimum wage simply because they have a disability. Vermont closed all of its sheltered 

workshops by 2002. There are also no small group enclaves in the state, and the average wage 

for a person with I/DD is above minimum wage. In Rhode Island, a settlement with the U.S. 

Department of Justice (DOJ) intends to end segregated service options for individuals with I/DD 

by 2022. Similarly, a 2011 Settlement Agreement between the state of Delaware and the U.S. 

DOJ highlights the advancement of access to employment for individuals with serious persistent 

mental illness. Other states are in various stages of similar activities to insure access to CIE by 

individuals with significant disabilities.

Although these activities reflect changing expectations for the impact of service delivery, the 

longstanding heavy investment in sheltered programs and facilities will be difficult to dismantle 

without service system alignment and considerable technical assistance to those organizations 

and professionals involved in current service delivery. There is a need to align multiple service 
72

systems so that resources can be applied to maximize impact on CIE outcomes as discussed in 

the next topic area.

Service Delivery System

Despite the fact that presumed employability is implicit in relevant federal legislation, the 

delivery of services and the associated policy still make it difficult to implement services across 

the board that will support this notion. Since there is no universal legislative mandate to require 

integrated over segregated employment or non-employment activities, only a handful of states 

currently prioritize their funding for CIE.

149 State and federal policy and funding realignment 

will be necessary to help people with disabilities achieve CIE because states do not have 

consistent policies about promoting CIE.

The service delivery systems in question include not only disability-specific systems, but also the 

mainstream systems that are increasingly opening their doors to individuals with the full range of 

disabilities. Thus, the needed alignment and capacity building cuts across not only disabilityspecific systems such as early intervention, special education, VR, mental health and Medicaid, 

but also the public Workforce Development System through AJCs, the mainstream education 

and higher education systems, programs funded through activities of the U.S. Department of 

Commerce and Small Business Administration, and others.

In effect, CIE has not become a public policy/funding priority despite research that sheltered 

workshops cost more and produce poorer outcomes that CIE.

150 Recognizing that there is 

considerable inconsistency in how data is collected, existing data nevertheless documents wide 

variability among states in services resulting in any type of non-segregated employment, ranging 

from 10 percent of those in one state receiving these services who earn wages from a competitive 

integrated job (however differently “integrated” is defined among states – see below for 

discussion on service definitions) to over 60 percent in another state.151

These results reflect local and state funding structures that are widely inconsistent. Rates that 

cover various forms of “vocational” service categories under the Center for Medicare &

Medicaid Services (CMS) Home and Community-Based Services (HCBS) Waiver vary across 

states. The disability-specific systems often align their policy and funding in ways that may 

unintentionally support segregation over integration. For example, a provider may be reimbursed 

at a higher rate for a group-based placement than for individualized supported or customized 

employment, thus encouraging group-based outcomes such as sheltered workshops. Typically, 

service in segregated settings is funded at a higher rate than services intended to result in CIE. 

Some states pay service providers for a unit of service by the hour, others by the day. Some 

states pay by service benchmarks, e.g., completing a job development plan, and others pay a flat 

rate for any service delivered in a time increment such as an hour or a day. Finally, as previously 

indicated, in many states the reimbursement rates make it more economically advantageous for 
73

service providers to serve people in groups rather than individually, even though the service is 

counted as integrated employment.

A major part of the service picture is that Medicaid, the biggest funder of services for people 

with significant disabilities, pays for a service, and rarely the outcome. Under the HCBS Waiver 

program, each state submits a plan for how it will provide long-term care services in home and 

community settings rather than in institutional settings. States do not include in their plans a 

strategy to pay for services that focus exclusively on the outcome of integrated employment. 

Although day services and supported employment are among those services allowable under the 

CMS Medicaid Waiver program, there is not a requirement that these services will result in 

specific quantifiable employment outcomes.

In the HCBS Waiver program, data that is collected by each state Medicaid agency is not 

necessarily compatible with one another. Each state Medicaid agency, through its state HCBS 

Waiver Program, tracks services differently. For example, some states track aggregate 

employment data based on reported monthly earnings, others aggregate and report bi-weekly 

earnings. In addition, there are inconsistencies in the way states define and track integrated 

employment. Some count individual competitive jobs, group integrated jobs, self-employment, 

and contract employment as “integrated employment.” Others define these categories differently 

and/or count various combinations of them as “integrated employment.” Consequently, CMS 

does not have a standard data collection system to track employment services rendered to 

Medicaid beneficiaries participating in its HCBS Waiver program.

Conversely, the federal VR system requires states to collect and manage service and outcome 

data so that it can be documented into the Federal RSA 911 system. In this way, it is possible to 

identify and compare the specific outcomes generated by the VR systems in each state. However, 

this does not align with how data is collected by CMS, which does not include universal data 

collection on employment outcomes, making it difficult to jointly align these federal agencies to 

jointly promote CIE. Among other things, the different Medicaid and VR accountability systems 

make collaboration difficult for achieving common outcomes for jointly served individuals.

Accurate, concise, and quality data is necessary to determine both system effectiveness and 

policy/practice development. Without it, service is less driven by the use of good data than it is 

by suppositions and myths about what works and what does not. A consistent data system does 

not currently exist that provides longitudinal information across systems and that tracks 

participation in CIE services and the result of that service.

The resulting service system is a mix of different services that include sheltered employment, 

facility based day services, non-facility based day services, supported or customized 

employment, and group employment under the AbilityOne® Program. Some people exclusively 
74

receive one of these services, others receive various combinations of these services. Too often, 

CIE is significantly less available than segregated service options.

Even when services are provided which are intended to result in CIE, Evidence Based Practice 

(EBP) is not always the basis for how service delivery is designed and implemented. For 

example, there is considerable research support for experience in community-based workplaces 

performing actual work tasks as a tool for exposing individuals to career and employment 

options and as a way of determining work preferences and teaching work skills.152,153 However, 

this EBP strategy is inconsistently applied, or alternative and ineffective strategies are employed, 

compounding the particular ongoing challenge for service providers to successfully engage 

employers who might hire individuals with significant disabilities.154 These circumstances point 

to an obvious need to elevate the skills of practitioners in the field who are supporting 

individuals with significant disabilities to seek and obtain integrated employment. 

There is already evidence that lack of system capacity to provide services that lead to CIE will 

result in more people enrolled in non-work day activity programs if sheltered workshops are 

closed.155 In order to move the service delivery system so that it more universally promotes CIE, 

the Subcommittee felt that federal, state, and local policy should be underpinned by presumed 

employability for youth and adults with significant disabilities and needs to be aligned with the 

following general goals: 1) build leadership in systems and organizations committed to CIE, 2) 

create, enhance and/or realign existing infrastructure funding across systems to favor CIE, 3) 

prioritize, measure and reimburse for service strategies that result in CIE, such as supported and 

customized employment, and 4) prioritize and fund both staff development (pre-service and inservice) and technical assistance.

Organizational and Professional Development

Changing the circumstances that currently favor segregated services over integrated services and 

outcomes will require not only a significant change in the management and delivery of a service, 

but also the way in which organizations are staffed and structured. For staff, there are currently 

few postsecondary education offerings that emphasize development of disability employment 

program support professionals, and there are no universally applied standards regarding the 

hiring and training of staff. There are certifications available, such as through the Association of 

People Supporting Employment First (APSE) and the Association of Community Rehabilitation 

Educators (ACRE). There is also a comprehensive Customized Employment Competency Model 

that identifies knowledge, skills and abilities relevant to practitioners who are in a position to 

support individuals with significant disabilities pursue customized jobs in competitive integrated 

work settings (see www.dol.gov/odep/topics/CustomizedEmployment). There are also multiple 

in-service training opportunities on related topics provided by private and public entities, 

including, but not limited to, certifications offered through Marc Gold and Associates and 

Griffin-Hammis & Associates. No entities that fund employment services requires that staff, 
75

hired to support individuals with significant disabilities to secure and maintain CIE, obtain

specific credentials related to their capacity to provide this support. While states often require 

organizational certification that includes licensure, certification and training standards, and VR 

counselors have available formal pre- and in-service professional development on a host of 

topics related to VR services and practice, specific training in CIE is not universally available. 

Further, the training for special education professionals preparing students with significant 

disabilities for the transition from school to adult life does not typically include training in CIE

strategies.156 As a result, local and state capacity is currently insufficient to meet an increased 

demand for CIE.

Likewise, the community organizations which employ these practitioners and which are 

contractors for Medicaid waiver, VR, and other public funds reflect a range of capacity to 

provide CIE157 report that there are pockets in many states where there are organizations only 

providing CIE. There are an unknown, but likely a relatively small number of organizations that 

have transformed their services from entirely sheltered, non-integrated employment to entirely 

CIE. However, the service system is represented by a large number of providers which either 

exclusively provide sheltered, non-integrated employment services or provide primarily 

sheltered, non-integrated employment, services along with a smaller CIE service component. For 

these latter organizations, a major shift to CIE services would require considerable technical 

assistance and re-directed funding streams to transform their operational structures.

Thus, assuming funding and policy support of increased CIE, several major areas of focus would 

be required to build the capacity of local service providers and practitioners: 

1. Structural transformation of organizations which provide employment services, including 

leadership development, business management models, and staff training and deployment 

strategies. Especially for the over 3,000 organizations which are heavily invested in

providing subminimum wage employment, they would essentially need to learn how to 

manage and deliver a whole different set of services

2. Training and technical assistance needs to be made more readily available for local field staff 

who are responsible for supporting individuals to pursue CIE, including how to recruit and 

negotiate with employers.

3. Both pre-service and in-service training of teachers must result in understanding and 

strategies that lead to youth transitioning from school into post-school activities that 

ultimately lead to CIE.

Capacity Building Subcommittee Preliminary Recommendations

The Subcommittee has concluded that in order to promote increased CIE there need to be new 

ways to pay for services, new ways to account for and track these services and, new ways of 
76

preparing organizations and staff to provide these services. To that end, these specific 

recommendations are offered:

1. Congress should direct CMS to expand the use of the HCBS Waiver program funds, now 

used for facility-based services, for CIE services by changing the state match rate to be the 

same as that for the state VR program, thus providing an incentive for states to prioritize CIE

outcomes.

2. CMS should adopt a standard system of publicly reporting employment outcomes, including 

CIE, using a clear definition for CIE that also includes hours worked, wages and level of 

integration.

3. Federal agencies that have programs related to providing employment services to individuals 

with significant disabilities, including CMS and the six core programs covered under WIOA 

(including VR), should identify common data collection points across federal agencies and 

establish systems to share data across programs. 

4. Working with service providers, federal, state, and local service infrastructures should

promote and fund innovative projects that result in the modernization and standardization of 

services that result in CIE, new programs within existing organizations, and new 

organizations that provide only services leading to CIE.

5. CMS and VR, and the designated I/DD and VR agencies in each state, should support 

professional development that includes the development of organizational leaders, program 

managers, and professional employment staff who focus on CIE.

6. Designated state VR and I/DD agencies should develop state/local standards or adopt 

national standards of professional competence in providing services leading to CIE.

7. Designated state VR and I/DD agencies should support program transition away from 

sheltered employment settings and into CIE settings.

135 The Subcommittee met a total of seven times: April 14, May 1, May 8, May 20, May 26, June 8, and June 18, 

2015.

136 Butterworth, J., Smith, F. A., Hall, A. C., Migliore, A., Winsor, J.,& Domin, D. (2014). StateData: The National 

Report on Employment Services and Outcomes. Boston, MA: University of Massachusetts Boston, Institute for 

Community Inclusion.

137 Human Services Research Institute (2012). Working in the community: The status and outcomes of people with 

intellectual and developmental disabilities in integrated employment. NCI Data Brief, October 2012. Cambridge, 

MA: Human Services Research Institute.

138 Wagner, M., Newman, L., Cameto, R., Garza, N., & Levine, P. (2005). After high school: A first look at the 

postschool experiences of youth with disabilities. A report from the National Longitudinal Transition Study 2 

(NLTS2). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.

139 Butterworth et al., op. cit.

140 Lutterman, T. (2013). Uniform reporting systems results and national outcome measures (NOM) trends. 

NASMHPD/NRI.

141 Drake, R., Skinner, J., bond, G., & Goldman, H. (2009). Social Security and mental illness: Reducing disability 

with supported employment. Health Affairs, 28, 76-770.

142 Cimera, R.E. (2011). Does Being in Sheltered Workshops Improve the Employment Outcomes of Supported 

Employees with Intellectual Disabilities? Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 35, 21-27.

 
77

 

143 Migliori, A., Grossi, T., Mank, D., & Rogan, P. (2008). Why do adults with intellectual disabilities work in 

sheltered workshops. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 28, 29-40.

144 Rogan, P., & Rinne, S. (2011). National call for organizational change from sheltered to integrated employment. 

Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 49, 248-0264.

145 Murphy, S.T., & Rogan, P.M. (1995). Closing the shop: Conversion from sheltered to integrated work. 

Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.

146 Wehman,P., Inge, K., Revell, G.,& Brooke, V.. (2006). Real work for real pay. Baltimore: Brookes Publishing 

Company,

147 Section 511 of WIOA requires a series of steps before an individual under the age of 24 can be placed in a job 

paying less than minimum wage. It also prohibits schools from contracting with a subminimum wage provider.

148 Department of Education Budget Tables, FY 2015 Congressional Action, 

http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/budget15/15action.pdf.

149 Kiernan, W., Hoff, D., Freeze, S., & Mank (2011). Employment First: A beginning, not an end. Intellectual and 

Developmental Disabilities, 49, 300-304.

150 Cimera, R.E., op. cit., 115, 19-29.

151 Butterworth et al., op. cit.

152 Carter, E. W., Austin, D., & Trainor, A. A. (2012). Predictors of postschool employment outcomes for young 

adults with severe disabilities. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 23, 1–14.

153 Gold, P., Fabian, E., & Luecking, R. (2013). Job acquisition by urban youth with disabilities transitioning from 

school to work. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 57, 31-45.

154 Luecking, R. (2011). Connecting employers with people who have intellectual disability. Intellectual and 

Developmental Disabilities, 49, 261-273.

155 Butterworth et al., op. cit.

156 Morningstar, M. E., & Benitez, D. (2013). Teacher training matters: The results of a multi-state survey of 

secondary special educators regarding transition from school to adulthood. Teacher Education and Special 

Education, 36(1), 51-64.

157 Butterworth et al., op. cit.
78

Chapter Six: Section 14(c) Program

Introduction

While the Wage and Hour Division (WHD) makes it clear that the Fair Labor Standards Act

(FLSA) Section 14(c) Subminimum Wage Certificate Program (the Section 14(c) program) 

should not be the first or primary option for employment of people with disabilities,

158 the 

Section 14(c) program continues to be used in the employment of roughly 228,600 people with 

disabilities across the country.159 Each subcommittee of the Advisory Committee on Increasing 

Competitive Integrated Employment for Individuals with Disabilities (the “Committee”) 

discussed the Section 14(c) program. This chapter reports the findings, conclusions, and 

recommendations of each subcommittee.

Transitions to Careers Subcommittee

Findings and Conclusions

Section 511 of the Rehabilitation Act, as added by the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity 

Act (WIOA), provides limitations on the use of Section 14(c) subminimum wage certificates for 

youth transitioning from secondary education and limitations on schools regarding contracts with 

Section 14(c) certificate holder. The intent of Section 511, and WIOA more broadly, is to insure 

that transition from secondary education and/or postsecondary education (PSE) to competitive 

integrated employment (CIE) is the primary goal for youth in transition, including youth with 

significant disabilities.

School Work Experience Programs (SWEPs) are a type of Section 14(c) subminimum wage 

certificate that are typically issued to schools, but work may occur in a variety of locations, 

including in the community. According to WHD, there are 95 active SWEP certificates 

nationally.160 WHD currently reports that they are unsure of the number of students associated 

with each of these certificates. Sixty-two percent of the current SWEP certificates are issued in 

California (CA). As of spring 2014, California’s Department of Education is preventing the use 

of SWEP certificates in majority of its transition programs, specifically in the Workability 

Program. It is expected that this policy change will virtually eliminate the use of subminimum 

wage certificates issued to CA schools. There is no evidence that use of SWEP certificates 

improves postsecondary outcomes for youth with disabilities.

Further, there is varied information about the capacity for increasing CIE opportunities for youth 

with significant disabilities in regions that have historically been dependent upon sheltered 

workshops and other Section 14(c) certificate holders. Youth have greater likelihood of exiting 

school with integrated jobs at competitive wages when their transition programming focuses on 
79

ensuring that work experiences are based on their interests and are in community-based, 

integrated employment settings, with workplace supports provided as needed.

Preliminary Recommendations

1. The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) must immediately discontinue issuance of SWEP 

certificates. 

2. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Indicator 13 must disallow a 

placement in subminimum wage Section 14(c) employment as an acceptable post-school 

transition goal or transition service on the transition plan. 

3. The U.S. Department of Education (ED) should promulgate regulations, in part based upon 

WIOA requirements as well as the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) integration 

mandate, to prevent the use of Federal IDEA funds for transition services provided in nonintegrated settings, including a prohibition on services supporting subminimum wage activity 

regardless of the setting in which these services occur.

4. Any reauthorization of IDEA must explicitly disallow, as an authorized transition service, 

any service that involves facility-based employment or service that involves the use of 

Section 14(c). 

5. ED should coordinate with DOL to identify Local Education Agencies (LEAs) that are 

Section 14(c) certificate holders and assist these LEAs to transform to other proven transition 

models for youth that include community-based integrated internships and other types of 

community-based integrated work experiences that lead to CIE.

6. Federal agencies to include ED, the Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA), the Social 

Security Administration (SSA), and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) 

should collaborate to design a method, including appropriate data collection, to track and 

report the post-school status of youth with disabilities in areas where a sheltered workshop 

utilizing Section 14(c) closes or is downsized.

7. The Subcommittee finds that critical data are lacking from WHD regarding the number of 

youth using Section 14(c) certificates, their ages, disability-type, wages, work hours, down 

time,

161 and other information. Having access to these data is imperative to making future 

recommendations and identifying trends – both positive and negative. The Subcommittee

recommends that WHD develop a secure, web-based application and data collection system 

that is mandatory for all Section 14(c) certificate holders. The WHD should also issue 

guidance to states that encourages them to more closely monitor the use of Section 14(c) 

certificates for youth and all individuals with disabilities. Such data could be modeled upon 

the system utilized currently in Wisconsin.
80

Capacity Building Subcommittee

Findings and Conclusions

Based on April, 2015 data from WHD, there are 2,820 entities in the United States which hold 

Section 14(c) subminimum wage certificates.162 Eighty-nine percent of these entities are 

Community Rehabilitation Programs (CRPs) while only four percent are businesses, four percent 

are employers of patient workers, and three percent are schools. According to WHD, the actual 

number of individuals being paid subminimum wage is roughly 228,600.163

The fact that 75 percent of individuals with intellectual or developmental disabilities (I/DD)

receiving day or employment services through a state I/DD system are in a sheltered or facilitybased environment164 suggests a systemic belief that not much else is possible, except for a 

relatively small minority of persons served. At the same time, these services, which primarily 

offer an accompanying subminimum wage when work is available, have often led to the 

conclusion that this type of work and/or productivity is the most that can be expected. Thus, one 

by-product of subminimum wage employment is a service culture with a consequent low 

expectation for CIE. 

Preliminary Recommendations

8. The President and/or Congress should appropriate sufficient funding to WHD to ensure 

adequate staffing resources for monitoring and oversight of the Section 14(c) certificate 

program and to support on-going collection of data regarding the number of individuals 

earning subminimum wage, the number of individuals moving from subminimum wage to 

CIE, the number of individuals who work at subminimum wage levels for multiple years 

(and primary reasons why – e.g., discouraged or opposed by family/legal guardian, fear of 

losing other benefits, lack of access to, or denial of, services to obtain CIE, etc.), and the 

number of individuals who exit Section 14(c) employment, but do not enter CIE. This 

information can inform the time frame for phasing out the Section 14(c) certificate program.

9. The Secretary of Labor, in consultation with the RSA and the CMS should propose a time 

frame for phasing out the Section 14(c) certificate program. 

Complexity and Needs Subcommittee

Findings and Conclusions

FLSA, as adopted into law in 1938, provides that the Secretary of Labor “to the extent necessary 

to prevent curtailment of opportunities for employment, shall by regulation or order provide for 

the employment, under special certificates, of individuals . . . whose earning or productive 

capacity is impaired by age, physical or mental deficiency, or injury” to be paid below the 

minimum wage.

165 In 1986, Congress amended Section 14(c) of the FLSA to require that 

individuals with disabilities who are “not entitled to earn the minimum wage” must earn a wage 
81

commensurate with what “non-handicapped” workers employed in the vicinity earn for the same 

type, quality, and quantity of work, factoring in productivity.

166

The Secretary of Labor, by regulation, has delegated responsibility for implementation of Section 

14(c) to the WHD Administrator. Employers seeking to apply for or to renew special minimum 

wage certificates must apply to the WHD, which determines whether the certificate is necessary 

to prevent the “curtailment of opportunities for employment.”167

A 2001 report from the DOL Inspector General168 found problems in DOL/WHD oversight of 

Section 14(c) with a pattern of noncompliance by employers that failed to properly review and 

maintain certificates.

Many states have laws that establish local minimum wage standards. An agency (typically a state 

Department of Labor) is usually appointed to monitor and enforce the standards and to enforce 

the rules that govern permission to pay subminimum wage. State efforts to monitor the payment 

of subminimum wages vary in quality.

Across the nation there are thousands of employers that hire people with disabilities. Any 

employer that hires a person with a disability may apply for a Section 14(c) certificate to pay 

subminimum wage. However, according to the Government Accountability Office (GAO

formerly known as the General Accounting Office), 95 percent of all workers with disabilities 

being paid less than minimum wage under Section 14(c) certificates were employed by sheltered 

workshops, not typical employers.169

The sheltered workshop model was originally designed to provide general training and 

experience for people to help them move into competitive jobs. The model has not worked for 

people with disabilities. The same GAO report regarding the Section 14(c) program estimates 

that less than five percent of workers leave sheltered workshops for competitive employment in 

the community.

Research shows that people with significant disabilities are successfully employed in much the 

same way as people without disabilities. The person’s skills, abilities and interests are identified 

and matched to available jobs. Training, if needed, is tailored to the job.

Most people in sheltered workshops or pre-vocational services remain for years and often 

decades in those programs and do not move on to CIE. For example, according to a recent U.S. 

Department of Justice (DOJ) Findings Letter, nearly half (46.2%) of the people in sheltered 

workshops in Rhode Island had been there for a decade or longer and over a third (34.2%) were 

there for 15 or more years.170 Similarly, the DOJ found that the average stay in sheltered 

workshops in Oregon was more than a decade (11.72 years) while some people reported staying 

for 30 years or more.171
82

The International Encyclopedia of Rehabilitation172 reports that from a 2008 survey that U.S. 

citizens working in sheltered workshops earned about $101/month. They work an average of 74 

hours a month and earn about $1.36/hour.

Current experience demonstrates that people with significant disabilities with access to needed 

supports can work at typical jobs in regular workplaces at minimum wage or higher. While 

Section 14(c) of the FLSA may have been regarded as necessary and even progressive in 1938, it 

is incompatible with current knowledge, practice and experience.

Section 511 of the Rehabilitation Act, as added by WIOA, provides limitations on the use of 

Section 14(c) of the FLSA including:

 Places limitations on the payment of subminimum wages by any employer holding a Section 

14(c) special wage certificate. 

 Requires people with disabilities working under Section 14(c) certificates to have access to 

CIE services, including vocational rehabilitation (VR) services.

 Prohibits anyone age 24 or younger from starting work at subminimum wage unless it is 

documented that the person received transition services under IDEA; has applied for VR 

services and was unsuccessful; and has been provided counseling and referral to other 

resources with the goal of CIE.

 Section 14(c) certificate holders may not continue to employ any person at subminimum 

wage unless the person has received career counseling; access to the VR agency; and 

information about self-advocacy, self-determination, and peer mentoring opportunities from 

an entity without a financial interest in the person’s employment outcome.

While Section 511 attempts to limit the use of Section 14(c) certificates, it also permits pathways 

to subminimum wage placements under Section 14(c) certificates by incorporating Section 14(c)

language into WIOA; by offering Section 14(c) placements as an option for people older than 24; 

and by offering Section 14(c) programs as an employment training option despite data showing 

that people usually do not leave Section 14(c) programs for CIE.

There are federal agencies other than DOL that are having an impact on states’ use of Section 

14(c) certificates and on increasing access to CIE, including DOJ and CMS. Olmstead 

enforcement activities by DOJ and private plaintiffs are leading states to closely examine 

whether people with disabilities have an opportunity to participate in CIE or whether they are 

unnecessarily segregated in traditional day programs, including sheltered work programs that 

hold Section 14(c) certificates.

Similarly, states are currently transforming their day support systems as part of the “transition 

planning” process to comply with the new Home and Community-Based Services (HCBS) 

Settings Rule from the CMS. The Rule, among other things, requires that HCBS programs offer 
83

more opportunities for CIE, control over daily life and access to the broader community. Some 

settings, including sheltered workshops, may not be able to comply. In addition, the Rule 

requires that all people be offered opportunities to receive services and supports in “nondisability specific settings” (settings that are not exclusively or primarily for people with 

disabilities). These provisions will require most states to expand CIE options.

Due, in part, to the policy changes described above, a number of states have taken steps to limit 

or phase out the use of Section 14(c) certificates and/or sheltered workshops. Recently, New 

Hampshire, with the support of its Section 14(c) certificate holders, passed a law that prohibits 

paying any workers, including workers with disabilities, less than minimum wage. Maine and 

Vermont phased out funding and provided support for the closure of all of their sheltered 

workshops. Several other states recently issued transition plans to phase out workshops as they 

come into compliance with the HCBS Settings rule. Other states are considering minimum wage 

laws similar to New Hampshire.

The National Council on Disability recommended gradual phase-out of the Section 14(c)

program after completing a six-state investigation of Section 14(c) and the feasibility of 

replacing the program with investments in supported employment.173

Preliminary Recommendations

10. Congress should amend Section 14(c) of the FLSA to allow for implementation of a welldesigned phase-out of the Section 14(c) program that results in people with disabilities 

entering CIE. Payment of subminimum wages is inconsistent with current knowledge of the 

skills and talents of people with significant disabilities. Recognizing that thousands of people 

with disabilities and their families will be affected by a phase-out, the Committee will 

recommend a phase-out plan with specific implementation steps in its Final Report due 

September 15, 2016. This plan will emphasize that CIE is the primary role of all working age 

people. It will consider strategies to expand CIE capacity and the potential role of other 

wraparound services (such as mainstream community activities and formal integrated day 

services) to address the concern that individuals leaving or who otherwise would have been 

in Section 14(c) programs will be left without meaningful and productive ways to spend their 

time. 

11. WHD should develop and enforce criteria for assuring that the Section 14(c) certificate is 

only permitted when “necessary... to prevent the curtailment of opportunities for 

employment.”

12. WHD should develop an interagency process to coordinate issuance/renewals of Section 

14(c) certificates with enforcement of the ADA by the DOJ, the U.S. Department of Health 

and Human Services’ Office of Civil Rights (HHS’ OCR), and the Equal Employment 
84

Opportunity Commission (EEOC), and with implementation of the HCBS Settings Rule by 

CMS.

13. WHD should require any state that allows the use of Section 14(c) certificates to address why 

the certificate is “necessary” and to describe the state’s plan for remedying the “lack of 

employment opportunities.” The state may respond with its Olmstead plan; its plan for 

implementing the HCBS Settings Rule; or its WIOA unified plan. Each of these state plans 

requires addressing how supports will be provided in more integrated settings. The state 

should ensure that the plan on which it relies to justify the time-limited use of Section 14(c)

certificates includes specific steps on how it will address lack of employment opportunities to 

make the future use of Section 14(c) certificates unnecessary.

14. WHD should collaborate with state-level wage and hour monitoring agencies to increase the 

overall effectiveness of monitoring Section 14(c) certificates and enforcing wage and hour 

requirements.

15. DOL and ED should make enforcement of the law and spirit of Section 511 of the 

Rehabilitation Act, as amended by WIOA, a priority. The Departments should work with 

agency field offices and state advocates, including Protection and Advocacy organizations, to 

identify enforcement actions that will help end the practice of paying people subminimum 

wages and expand CIE with full wages and benefits.

16. In enforcing the ADA and Olmstead, DOJ and HHS’ OCR should provide technical 

assistance to states that are engaging in affirmative Olmstead planning to increase 

opportunities for CIE and reduce the need for enforcement.

17. CMS should enforce the guidance provided in the September 16, 2011 CMS Informational 

Bulletin regarding the time-limited nature of pre-vocational services. Enforcement should 

emphasize that the goal is to move into CIE, not other segregated day services.

18. In their efforts to enforce the HCBS Settings Rule, CMS should offer technical assistance 

resources and funding to states that want to use it as an opportunity to move toward CIE 

options for people receiving HCBS services in sheltered workshops. Such technical 

assistance should include supports to Section 14(c) certificate holders that desire to change 

business models to provide CIE.

Marketplace Dynamics Subcommittee

Findings and Conclusions

FLSA Section 14(c) provides for the payment of subminimum wages to workers whose “earning 

or productive capacity is impaired by age, physical or mental deficiency, or injury... to the 

extent necessary to prevent curtailment of opportunities for employment.”

174 To address the 

issues related to FLSA Section 14(c) and evaluate options for improved oversight, the 
85

Marketplace Dynamics Subcommittee: reviewed written public testimonies, research directed to 

subminimum wage, and WHD employer certificate application; invited SourceAmerica staff to 

expand on their January public testimony to the Committee regarding improved oversight of 

Section 14(c) via conference call; and gave thoughtful and careful consideration to the charge 

directed to the WIOA Advisory Committee. The Marketplace Dynamics Subcommittee members 

posed the following question: “From a business perspective, is Section 14(c) necessary ‘to 

prevent the curtailment of opportunities for employment’ for people with I/DD and other 

significant disabilities?” All findings, conclusions, and recommendations are intended to respond 

to this question as viewed through a business lens and are summarized below. 

In 2001, the GAO report on Section 14(c) stated that DOL historically placed a low-priority on 

the program and lacked the information required to effectively manage it, including accurate 

information on the number of Section 14(c) employers and workers or on DOL’s own 

compliance efforts. The report concluded that the DOL did not effectively manage the special 

minimum wage program or adequately ensure employer compliance with Section 14(c)

requirements.175

Since then, DOL has instituted methods to improve the Section 14(c) program; however, 

challenges remain because Section 14(c) certificates are attached to the employer and not the 

worker with a disability making it difficult to accurately know the numbers of workers receiving 

subminimum wages. Additionally, resource and authority constraints limit WHD’s capacity to 

adequately monitor each nonprofit or business utilizing the employer certificate with the existing 

WHD data collection system. Settlement agreements resulting from FLSA violations in two 

different cases in Rhode Island secured the repayment of over $550,000 to workers whose 

subminimum wages were incorrectly calculated.176,177 These cases highlight the significant 

impact FLSA violations and miscalculations can have on some of the country’s poorest workers 

as well as raise concerns about the system’s overall susceptibility to abuse.

Consequently, the Marketplace Dynamics Subcommittee believes even with suggestions on 

improved oversight, the employer certificate program remains highly vulnerable to abuse. 

Moreover, while the Marketplace Dynamics Subcommittee assumes that employer certificate 

holders will abide by federal disability policies, given that the current FLSA Section 14(c)

regulations have not been updated since 1989, there is no specific language in the regulations 

that requires assurance of compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act or other more 

recently enacted laws.

178

The Marketplace Dynamics Subcommittee researched previous initiatives to eliminate 

subminimum wage as part of its effort to examine Section 14(c) more broadly. For example, a 

2007 study found that legislative policies focused solely on eliminating subminimum wages in 

Arizona, British Columbia, and New Zealand resulted in unintended negative consequences for 

employees with disabilities. In order to comply with policies prohibiting the payment of 
86

subminimum wage, sheltered work programs converted to training or non-work programs. 

Following the conversion, workers either lost employment altogether or were paid “training 

stipends” that were even less than the subminimum wages had been. Ironically, policies designed 

to lead to increased earnings resulted instead in the loss of the minimal protections assured 

through FLSA Section 14(c).

179

In sum, the study concluded that in order to effectively eliminate the subminimum wage, there 

had to be simultaneous efforts to build capacity in sheltered work programs while ensuring that 

all employees receive high-quality services to secure CIE opportunities. The same study found 

that of the over 5,000 employers who hold subminimum wage employer certificates, less than 

one percent of these employers are private businesses.180

Capacity building efforts must be directed towards helping programs that currently hold special 

wage certificates to navigate any changes to subminimum wage regulations. Care must be taken 

to ensure that regulatory changes to Section 14(c) do not lead to a superficial reclassification of 

the services provided with no net increase in CIE outcomes for individuals with intellectual, 

developmental, or other significant disabilities. Capacity building at all levels is critically 

important to increasing CIE outcomes. Service providers, educators, and government agency 

personnel need training and technical assistance to learn and consistently utilize best practices 

for identifying employment goals, addressing barriers, and securing CIE outcomes for 

individuals with significant disabilities.

Subminimum wage provisions essentially make the argument that a worker’s value can and 

should be evaluated solely on the basis of his or her productivity. Opponents of the FLSA 

Section 14(c) policy argue that most businesses consider a broader range of characteristics than 

productivity alone when characterizing a “quality” employee, including factors such as reliability 

and accuracy.181,182 Additionally, productivity levels are not static, but rather are the product of a 

variety of factors, most significantly the quality of the match between the employee’s skills, the 

accommodations provided if needed, and the specific job tasks. Tasks that better align with the 

employee’s skills tend to enhance productivity. Employees who exhibit low productivity for 

months or years likely are not being assigned job tasks that align well with their skill sets. 

Training of individuals with significant disabilities is imperative and many individuals on 

subminimum wage have not received sufficient training to increase their skill sets and 

productivity.

In spite of the arguments in support of subminimum wage, the overwhelming majority of forprofit businesses currently employing individuals with I/DD or other significant disabilities offer 

competitive wages. Beyond this, some businesses reportedly raised the concern that paying 

subminimum wages offered an unfair competitive advantage to companies holding employer 

certificates.183
87

Individuals who want to earn more money may still experience trepidation about leaving friends 

and familiar environments behind. Changing jobs is commonly considered on lists of “major life 

stressors” and it should not be considered any less so for individuals with disabilities 

transitioning out of segregated employment in spite of the belief that making the change will 

ultimately be in their own best interest.

Segregated service program staff adept at managing workshop activities or overseeing 

production contracts may not have the requisite skills necessary to support individuals with 

intellectual, developmental, or other significant disabilities to navigate the transition to CIE. 

Similarly, other employment service programs may need additional training or staffing to 

appropriately meet the needs of individuals transitioning out of segregated employment. 

Sufficient funding must be allocated to guarantee every person making the transition to CIE has 

access to all necessary services and supports, including but not limited to: discovery and 

customized employment services, benefits planning, and assistive technology or other 

accommodations.

Capacity building initiatives targeting community businesses as well as service systems might 

yield a wider variety of employment outcomes for individuals with I/DD and other significant 

disabilities. Resource allocation for staff time to work on inclusive employment initiatives, 

support business expansion, or fund job creation strategies would allow for greater innovation 

between public and private entities.

Preliminary Recommendations

The Marketplace Dynamics Subcommittee believes a gradual phase-out is a more prudent way to 

reduce the reliance on subminimum wages without engendering the unintended consequences 

that resulted from previous efforts mandating their immediate elimination. Specific 

recommendations related to phase-out and elimination are as follows:

19. Congress should pass legislation that directs the Secretary of Labor, through WHD, to work 

with the appropriate Departments across the federal government for a gradual phase-out of 

FLSA Section 14(c) subminimum wage provision over a period of 8-10 years. 

a. The legislation must consist of a combination of targeted, strategic capacity building 

initiatives. Congress should fund initiatives that will provide sufficient financial 

resources to effect this change.

b. The phase-out legislation should direct DOL to develop a careful, detailed plan that 

recognizes the multi-faceted, complicated process required to successfully phase out 

FLSA Section 14(c). The plan should include a chronological sequence for meeting all 

capacity building needs along with detailed steps for addressing corollary areas that will 

be impacted when FLSA Section 14(c) has ended. 
88

c. As part of the phase out of Section 14(c), Congress should provide that WHD cease 

accepting new employer applications to the certificate program one year after the passage 

of the phase-out legislation.

d. Congress should also direct the WHD to monitor and ensure that no new participants may 

be added by employers to applications for the certificate program one year after the 

passage of the phase-out plan.

e. The phase out legislation ensuring for an orderly phase-out of Section 14(c) should direct 

WHD to cease the renewal of employer certificates one year prior to the phase-out of 

FLSA Section 14(c). 

20. Congress should allocate financial resources so that DOL can establish and help states 

develop new systems before individuals with significant disabilities, if they choose, begin the 

transition to CIE.

a. In order to avoid any unintended harm to individuals with significant disabilities, it is 

critical that infrastructure is developed prior to the phase out of Section 14(c). 

b. In particular, Congress should direct the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) to 

ensure that public transit systems are in place, particularly in rural areas of the United 

States prior to individuals with disabilities beginning the transition out of segregated 

employment. 

c. Congressional resources must also be allocated and directed to support individuals with 

disabilities who do not choose community employment to explore other individualized 

options for integrated day services. 

d. Congress should direct the Secretary of Labor to establish an operational advisory 

committee, not subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), to oversee the 

plans for Section 14(c). The committee should include business representatives, subject 

matter experts from federal agencies as well as appointees from outside the federal 

government who can help implement and monitor the phase out. 

e. The Secretary of Labor should hire subject matter experts to oversee and support the 

plans for the implementation of the phase-out and to ensure all critical actions are taken, 

funding is allocated, and all state and local systems are up and running before the 

complete phase-out of Section 14(c).

As part of the phase-out, Congress must direct the DOL to emphasize training. The training must 

be based on the assumption that all individuals with significant disabilities can learn and perform 

higher-level job duties that align with and build their skill sets and interests given the opportunity 

and appropriate accommodations. The training should align with capacity building opportunities 

for individuals as well as for systems, such as programs offered by community colleges, in order 
89

to maximize and address the limited opportunities that individuals with I/DD or other significant 

disabilities have had to access innovative training opportunities.

158 U.S. Department of Labor Wage and Hour Division Presentation to the Committee. January 22, 2015.

159 Verified by U.S. Department of Labor Wage and Hour Division.

160 http://www.dol.gov/whd/specialemployment/SWEPlist.htm

161 Time spent in a Section 14(c) employment setting where no paid work is available.

162 See: http://www.dol.gov/whd/specialemployment/

163 Verified by U.S. Department of Labor Wage and Hour Division.

164 Butterworth, J., Smith, F. A., Hall, A. C., Migliore, A., Winsor, J.,& Domin, D. (2014). StateData: The National 

Report on Employment Services and Outcomes. Boston, MA: University of Massachusetts Boston, Institute for 

Community Inclusion.

165 42 U.S.C. § 214(c)(1)

166 42 U.S.C. § 214(c)(1)(B)

167 29 C.F.R. § 525

168Report available at: http://www.oig.dol.gov/public/reports/oa/2001/05-01-002-04-420.pdf

169 U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO), September 2001, Special Minimum Wage Program, Centers Offer 

Employment and Support Services to Workers with Disabilities, But Labor Should Improve Oversight GAO-01-886, 

Page 4.

170 Findings letter available at: http://www.ada.gov/olmstead/documents/ri_lof.pdf

171 Findings letter available at: http://www.ada.gov/olmstead/documents/oregon_findings_letter.pdf

172 Migliore A. 2010. Sheltered Workshops. In: JH Stone, M Blouin, editors. International Encyclopedia of 

Rehabilitation. Available online: http://cirrie.buffalo.edu/encyclopedia/en/article/136/

173 The report can be found at: http://www.ncd.gov/publications/2012/August232012/

174 Employment Under Special Certificates, 29 U.S.C. § 214(c)(1)

175 U.S. General Accounting Office. (2001). Special minimum wage program: Centers offer employment and 

support services to workers with disabilities but labor should improve oversight. (GAO Publication No. GAO-01-

886).

176 U.S. Department of Labor. (2014, January 28). U.S. Department of Labor secures more than $250,000 in back 

wages for student workers with disabilities in Providence, RI. [WHD News Release No. 13-2358-BOS]. Retrieved 

August 19, 2015 from http://www.dol.gov/opa/media/press/whd/WHD20132358.htm

177 U.S. Department of Labor. (2014, November 26). U.S. Labor Department secures $300K in back wages for staff 

and workers with disabilities at Training Thru Placement Inc. [WHD News Release No. 14-2904-BOS]. Retrieved 

August 19, 2015 from http://www.dol.gov/opa/media/press/whd/WHD20142904.htm

178 Relation to Other Laws. 29 CFR 525.20 (2015).

179 Butterworth, J., Hall, A., Hoff, D., & Migliore, A. (2007). State and international efforts to reform or eliminate 

the use of subminimum wage for persons with disabilities. Boston: University of Massachusetts, Institute for 

Community Inclusion.

180 Ibid.

181 Ibid.

182 DiLeo, D. (2007). Pennies for pay? Minimum wage should be for everyone. Retrieved June 15, 2015, from 

http://daledileo.com/2011/08/pennies-for-pay-must-end.html

183 Butterworth et al., op. cit., 2007.

 
90

Chapter Seven: AbilityOne® Program

The development of this chapter on the AbilityOne® Program is a result of a joint collaboration 

between two subcommittees of the Advisory Committee on Increasing Competitive Integrated 

Employment for Individuals with Disabilities (the “Committee”): the Complexity and Needs in 

Delivering Competitive Integrated Employment Subcommittee and the Marketplace Dynamics 

Subcommittee. Both subcommittees identified the AbilityOne Program as being within their 

respective purviews. After each subcommittee presented their initial findings, conclusions, and 

recommendations to the full Committee at its May 2015 meeting, the two subcommittees met 

jointly to create and reach consensus on this interim report chapter. While the process allowed 

for the inclusion of recommendations in this chapter that are supported by one but not both 

subcommittees, discussions resulted in consensus being achieved for all of the preliminary 

recommendations included in this chapter.

The AbilityOne Program is a federal initiative to help people who are blind or have other 

significant disabilities find employment by working within a national network of over 600 

nonprofit agencies that sell products and services to the U.S. government. The Committee for 

Purchase from People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, referred to as the AbilityOne 

Commission in this chapter, is the federal agency authorized to administer the AbilityOne 

Program.184 Below is an overview of the AbilityOne Program, findings and conclusions, and 

recommendations, considered in light of the program’s history and purpose.

Overview of AbilityOne® Program

The Javits-Wagner-O'Day (JWOD) Act is a federal law passed in 1971 that requires all federal 

agencies to purchase specified supplies and services from nonprofit agencies employing persons 

who are blind or have other significant disabilities. JWOD expanded upon a much older federal 

law – the Wagner-O’Day Act – which was passed in 1938, the same year that the Fair Labor 

Standards Act (FLSA) was passed, with provisions permitting people with disabilities to be paid 

subminimum wages under Section 14(c) of the FLSA. This was done because in the midst of the 

Great Depression it was thought to be the only way to create any employment opportunities at 

all.

The AbilityOne Program permits only a limited pool of federal contractors to compete for the 

contracts set aside for the Program. Those eligible must be Qualified Nonprofit Agencies (NPAs) 

formally affiliated with the AbilityOne Program.185 NPAs provide specified products and 

services to agencies of the federal government. The specified supplies and services are 

determined by the AbilityOne Commission, the federal agency charged with administering the 

JWOD Act. The qualified NPAs must ensure at least 75 percent of the labor hours necessary to 

complete AbilityOne contracts are done by people who are blind or have other significant 
91

disabilities. The NPAs that participate in AbilityOne may pay subminimum wages to individuals 

with disabilities working on these contracts using authority granted through Section 14(c) of the 

FLSA. 

In Fiscal Year 2014, AbilityOne awarded approximately $2.8 billion in noncompetitive federal 

contracts to NPAs that employ people who are blind or have other significant disabilities.186 This 

represents a major federal investment intended to create employment opportunities for 

individuals who are blind or have significant disabilities. 

SourceAmerica and the National Industries for the Blind (NIB) are the Central Nonprofit 

Agencies (CNAs) that work with AbilityOne NPAs. NIB oversees approximately 94 NPAs that 

are eligible to receive contracts through AbilityOne,

187 while SourceAmerica oversees 

approximately 550 NPAs that are eligible receive these contracts.188 In 2014, the overall income 

from sales of goods and services to the federal government was $612.8 million by NIB’s NPAs 

and $2.269 billion by SourceAmerica’s NPAs. SourceAmerica and NIB receive a fee from each 

of their own NPAs for being involved in the negotiation of contracts with federal customers.

Fifteen Presidential appointee members, eleven of whom represent government agencies 

(including U.S. Departments of Agriculture, Air Force, Army, Commerce, Defense, Education, 

Justice, Labor, Navy, and Veterans Affairs, and the General Services Administration) vote on the 

Procurement List additions. The remaining four members are private citizens knowledgeable 

about the employment challenges of people who are blind or have significant disabilities, 

including those employed by nonprofit agencies affiliated with the AbilityOne Program. The 

Presidential Appointees who are private citizens serve five-year terms and may be reappointed. 

federal government appointees serve for the period of time designated by their agency.189

Because the AbilityOne Commission’s primary statutory responsibility is to make decisions 

about the suitability of products and services for the Procurement List, and to ensure federal 

procurement policy supports the AbilityOne Program, most of the federal agency appointees are 

not experts in either disability policy or evidence-based practices that shape our nation’s modernday thinking directed to competitive integrated employment (CIE) and economic self-sufficiency 

for Americans with disabilities. Typically, only the federal appointees from the U.S. Department 

of Education (ED) (Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA)) and the U.S. Department of 

Labor (DOL) (Office of Disability Employment Policy (ODEP)) bring that kind of expertise. It is 

worth noting however that while the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has traditionally been 

represented on the Commission by a senior procurement specialist from the Bureau of Prisons, 

attorneys from the Civil Rights Division have recently provided the Commission with expert 

advice related to CIE.

According to the AbilityOne presentation to the Committee, during fiscal year 2014, there were 

46,630 workers across 565 agencies engaged in contract work under AbilityOne.

190 According to 

a recent AbilityOne Commission memo citing data from the last five year period, participating 

NPAs place an average of 23,600 individuals who are blind or have significant disabilities into 
92

competitive employment or supported employment annually – which works out to an average of 

just 40 individuals placed each year by each NPA.191 These placement numbers include people 

who did not previously work on AbilityOne so it is impossible to determine how many of these 

placements involved transitions to CIE from AbilityOne employment. However, during fiscal 

year 2014, 1,936 individuals (4%) were transitioned to community employment.192

Intersection between AbilityOne® and Use of FLSA Section 14(c) Subminimum Wage 

Certificates

With regard to workers being paid subminimum wage under FLSA Section 14(c), data presented 

by AbilityOne staff to the Advisory Committee in January of 2015 shows that 4,426 individuals 

(9.5%) of the 46,630 individuals working on AbilityOne contracts are paid less than minimum 

wage.193

AbilityOne® Workers paid less than $5.00/hour:

 A total of 2,599 individuals who have significant disabilities worked on AbilityOne contracts 

and were paid less than $5.00 per hour.

 Forty-six (46) participating NPAs employed 2,473 people at subminimum wage on product 

contracts. These individuals averaged 5.88 hours of work per week on these AbilityOne 

contracts. 

 Four (4) participating NPAs employed 126 people at subminimum wage on service contracts. 

These individuals averaged 7.46 hours of work per week on these AbilityOne contracts.

AbilityOne® Workers paid $5.01-$7.24/hour:

 A total of 1,827 individuals who have significant disabilities worked on AbilityOne contracts 

and were paid between $5.01 and $7.24 per hour.

 Thirty (30) participating NPAs employed 1,402 people at subminimum wage on product 

contracts. These individuals averaged 8.12 hours of work per week on these AbilityOne 

contracts. 

 Fourteen (14) participating NPAs employed 425 people at subminimum wage on service 

contracts. These individuals averaged 16.50 hours of work per week on these AbilityOne 

contracts.

Findings and Conclusions

JWOD was Passed in 1971 and has not been Substantially Updated Since Its Passage

The roots of JWOD go back 77 years to the Wagner-O’Day Act of 1938. Much has changed 

since that time in terms of federal policy regarding individuals with disabilities. Our country has 

largely left behind this era where children with significant disabilities were barred from public 

schools, people with significant disabilities were institutionalized for their lives, and society 

assumed that people with significant disabilities were unable to learn, contribute, work, and 

make decisions about their own lives. Modern disability policy – as reflected in the Americans 
93

with Disabilities Act (ADA) and other federal laws – embraces high expectations and full 

inclusion of people with disabilities in all aspects of life, including the workplace. CIE, as part of 

the mainstream workforce, is now the expected and priority outcome that the federal government 

and many states are embracing. AbilityOne has not evolved far enough and does not fully reflect 

modern disability policy goals, including those enshrined in the ADA and the Supreme Court’s 

decision in Olmstead v. L.C.

AbilityOne® Perpetuates People with Significant Disabilities Working for Community 

Rehabilitation Programs rather than Mainstream American Businesses 

Although transitions of AbilityOne participants into CIE outside the program are occurring at a 

very modest rate, the program’s primary business model still involves community rehabilitation 

programs (CRPs) functioning as the employer of record for AbilityOne participants. The 

AbilityOne Program currently places no obligation on participating CRPs to facilitate CIE

outside the program for individuals eligible for or working on AbilityOne contracts. Therefore, 

rather than using the purchasing power of the federal government to stimulate a partnership with 

business to create CIE opportunities for individuals with significant disabilities, AbilityOne does 

not engage the business community and instead contracts exclusively with CRPs. Consequently, 

up to this point, AbilityOne has not been an effective springboard to permanent CIE in the 

general workforce for individuals who are blind or have significant disabilities.

AbilityOne® Does Not Focus on Providing Training and Experience for the Achievement of 

Competitive Integrated Employment outside the Program

Over 600 NPAs currently are eligible to receive set-aside contracts through the AbilityOne 

Program. None are required to achieve, on an annual or biennial basis, a certain number or 

percentage of transitions of AbilityOne workers to CIE outside of the program in order to 

maintain their eligibility to receive contracts through in AbilityOne Program. According to data 

provided by the AbilityOne Commission, for FY 2014, 565 NPA contractors, who collectively

received over $2.8 billion in federal contracts, each averaged less than four (4) transitions of 

individuals who are blind or have significant disabilities into CIE.

194

AbilityOne® Program Contracts Perpetuate Congregation and Segregation 

Because the JWOD Act continues to require 75 percent of contract hours to be accomplished by 

individuals who are blind or have significant disabilities, this has led to the segregation and 

congregation of these individuals. The JWOD Act of 1971 and its predecessor, the WagnerO’Day Act of 1938, historically were strongly rooted in providing employment opportunities in 

sheltered workshops for individuals who are blind or have significant disabilities.195 Indeed, 

sheltered workshop employment was long regarded as the only type of work in which such 

individuals could engage. Since the mid-1970’s, however, such workers have proven this and 

many similar assumptions wrong. Nonetheless, most AbilityOne contracts for products, which 
94

employ 28 percent of all individuals working on AbilityOne contracts, continue to be completed 

in sheltered workshop settings. According to the AbilityOne Fiscal Year 2013 report,

196

AbilityOne production contracts account for 24 percent of all hours worked by individuals who 

are blind or have significant disabilities. A total of 13,292 individuals worked over 11.2 million 

hours on production contracts.

While AbilityOne contracts for services, as opposed to products, may provide opportunities to do 

work outside of sheltered workshops, those opportunities typically, but not exclusively, involve 

individuals with disabilities doing this contract work in enclave or work crew models (also 

sometimes called group supported employment) and/or separated from individuals without 

disabilities – either because they are completing the service contracts in separate work areas or at 

times when other employees at the location are not working. AbilityOne service contracts 

account for 76 percent of all hours worked by individuals who are blind or have significant 

disabilities. A total of 35,524 individuals—72 percent of all individuals working on AbilityOne

contracts—worked over 36.4 million hours on service contracts.

Programs that lead to the segregation and congregation of people with disabilities instead of 

providing them opportunities for CIE are inconsistent with the goals of the ADA and the 

Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA). 

AbilityOne® Participates in the Continued Use of Section 14(c) Subminimum Wage Certificate 

Program

According to the Deputy Executive Director of AbilityOne, 428 of the approximately 500 

SourceAmerica NPAs currently hold FLSA Section 14(c) certificates.197 In contrast, according to 

the President and CEO of National Industries for the Blind (NIB), many NPAs associated with 

NIB have never utilized special minimum wage certificates. All but two (2) of those that had in 

the past have discontinued the practice. The two (2) NPAs associated with NIB that still use a 

Section 14(c) certificate employ a total of 57 individuals with disabilities at sub minimum 

wages. Ten additional NIB NPAs still hold Section 14(c) certificates, but are not using them.

In FY 2014, 4,426 (9.4%) out of 46,621 individuals with disabilities working on AbilityOne 

contracts were paid subminimum wages under Section 14(c) certificates held by the participating 

NPAs.198 Data suggests there may also be a strong correlation between being paid subminimum 

wage and working very low hours. According to the data presented by AbilityOne staff to the 

Advisory Committee in January 2015, 90 percent of individual paid subminimum wage worked 

less than nine hours a week.199 The number of work hours may be artificially limited based on a 

misunderstanding regarding work incentives associated with Social Security disability benefits 

received under Supplemental Security Income (SSI) or Social Security Disability Insurance 

(SSDI), or a focus on maintaining rather than reducing individuals’ reliance on other public 

subsidies.
95

AbilityOne® Program Based on Requirement that Participants are Deemed Incapable of 

Competitive Integrated Employment

To be eligible to work on an AbilityOne contract, an individual with a disability must be legally 

blind or must have a physical or mental disability that "constitutes a substantial handicap to 

employment and is of such a nature as to prevent the individual under such disability from 

currently engaging in normal competitive employment.”200 The determination of an individual’s 

inability to engage in CIE in the general workforce (referred to as “normal” competitive 

employment in the statute) is delegated to the NPA and does not require any evidence of 

unsuccessful, good faith effort to secure competitive employment in the general workforce for 

the individual. Indeed, for an NPA focused on assuring that a sufficient number of eligible 

individuals who are blind or have other significant disabilities are available to perform at least 75

percent of the work hours on AbilityOne contracts, there may be little incentive to recognize—

and help individuals realize—their potential to work in CIE. The AbilityOne Program currently 

does not include sufficient requirements to ensure that CIE is truly not possible as a condition of 

participation in AbilityOne, and more particularly as a condition of on-going participation in 

AbilityOne. Nor does the AbilityOne Program currently encourage and reward an NPA for 

assisting individuals otherwise eligible for AbilityOne to obtain CIE outside of the NPA.

Additional Conflicts of Interest for NPAs Participating in AbilityOne® Program

Currently, in addition to NPAs being given authority to decide whether an individual is incapable 

of engaging in “normal competitive employment,” NPAs are also given authority to determine 

the individual's productivity level for the purposes of paying a subminimum wage for work 

performed on AbilityOne contracts. There is limited oversight of the methods and procedures 

used by NPAs to make the determination of the individual’s productivity. That results in an 

inherent conflict of interest. The NPA makes decisions regarding whether an individual should 

be paid a subminimum wage even though the NPA is the entity that stands to benefit financially 

from the payment of subminimum wages. As a result, the program has been subject to instances 

of abuse.201

AbilityOne® Commission Functions Are Not Well Aligned with Ensuring Effective Oversight 

of the Program and Alignment with Modern Federal Disability Policy

The AbilityOne Commission was not designed to ensure that the AbilityOne Program is well 

aligned with, and supportive of, federal disability policy as it has evolved over time. The 

Commission relies on its federal agency members for their procurement expertise. While this is 

consistent with the legislative history of the JWOD Act, it now means that the Commission is not 

designed to function as an effective oversight body directed to federal policy of the 21st Century. 

Additionally, AbilityOne does not currently have its own dedicated Office of the Inspector 

General to provide oversight of the entire program.
96

Preliminary Recommendations for Consideration by the Full Committee

1. Congress should amend the JWOD Act to: 

a. Fully align the Act with modern federal disability policy goals, including those 

enshrined in the ADA and the Supreme Court’s Olmstead decision;

b. Clearly establish CIE, in the mainstream workforce as the expected and priority 

outcome of the AbilityOne Program so that individuals who are blind or have 

significant disabilities may receive the supports they need to enter into competitive 

employment within their communities;

c. Ensure all AbilityOne Program contract work is accomplished in fully integrated work 

settings where individuals with disabilities work, on an individualized basis, alongside 

of their non-disabled peers, consistent with the goals of the ADA and Olmstead;

d. Ensure the federal government’s purchasing power is used to effectively engage all 

federal contractors in creating CIE opportunities for job seekers and workers who are 

blind or have significant disabilities;

e. Establish new criteria for who is eligible to work on AbilityOne contracts, with changes 

made to ensure that:

i. The requirement that a person eligible for AbilityOne must have a disability that 

“prevents the individual from currently engaging in normal competitive 

employment” is eliminated; and 

ii. NPAs are not given discretion to determine who is and is not qualified to work on 

AbilityOne contracts.

2. The Committee should consider, and make recommendations in its final report, regarding 

what changes may be needed to the structure, make up and role of the AbilityOne 

Commission in order to ensure that the program is well aligned with, and fully supportive of, 

federal disability policy in general, and employment policy in particular, as it evolves over 

time.

3. The President should issue an Executive Order outlining a plan to phase-out expeditiously 

the use of FLSA Section 14(c) certificates within the AbilityOne Program. As part of this 

Executive Order:

a. All AbilityOne NPAs, who currently employ workers at subminimum wage on 

AbilityOne contracts, must be required to develop a plan that addresses the expectation 

to retain those workers at no less hours than they are currently working and to be paid at 

least federal minimum wage; and
97

b. The AbilityOne Commission should be expected to develop a collaborative initiative 

with the Social Security Administration, RSA, and the Centers for Medicare &

Medicaid Services to ensure the provision of work incentives benefits analysis and 

counseling to all AbilityOne workers directly impacted by the phase out of 

subminimum wage in the AbilityOne Program so that the full benefits of earning 

minimum wage accrue to every individual.

4. Congress should appropriate funding to provide a dedicated Inspector General to provide 

direct oversight of the entire AbilityOne Program. 

5. RSA should update and reissue guidance to state Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) programs 

clarifying that AbilityOne placements shall not be considered CIE unless all criteria for what 

constitutes a competitive wage and an integrated setting are met. It should be noted that 

enclaves or work crews (regardless of size, wage and benefits provided to workers) do not 

meet RSA’s standards for CIE.

6. The AbilityOne Commission, in collaboration with RSA and DOL (ODEP), should update 

JWOD regulations to require all NPAs participating in the AbilityOne Program to:

a. Provide highly qualified staff that are certified through one or more nationally 

recognized credentialing bodies to assist in the placement of individuals working under 

the AbilityOne Program, and those who have been determined eligible for AbilityOne, 

into CIE;

b. Maintain contracts as qualified vendors of CIE services purchased by the state VR

program and the local Workforce Development Boards;

c. Achieve, on an annual basis, a certain number or percentage of transitions of 

AbilityOne workers to CIE outside of the program—in order to maintain their eligibility 

to receive contracts through the AbilityOne Program— so the program functions as a 

springboard to CIE in the general workforce and can, over time, benefit many more 

individuals who are blind or have significant disabilities; and

d. Demonstrate on an annual basis, a certain minimum percentage of AbilityOne workers 

who transitioned to CIE have successfully retained their employment, as evidenced by 

data from NPAs following-up with all AbilityOne workers transitioned into CIE and 

their employers on a quarterly basis after placements have occurred to confirm: 

i. Job retention has occurred

ii. The skill sets and performance of the workers continue to be well-matched with 

employers’ needs and expectations

iii. The worker is satisfied with his/her job.
98

7. The AbilityOne Commission should implement the following through sub-regulatory 

guidance or as necessary, through regulation: 

a. For Central Nonprofit Agencies (CNAs), sub-regulatory guidance or regulation that 

ensures the AbilityOne Commission assumes a stronger role in oversight of CNAs, 

including their processes and procedures, including but not limited to:

i. Requiring CNAs to invest a certain percentage of revenues received from 

administrative fees in the AbilityOne Program on providing training and technical 

assistance to NPAs about effective practices for helping people with significant 

disabilities achieve CIE;

ii. Requiring the collection and annual reporting of data on placement rates of workers 

with disabilities on AbilityOne contracts (wages, hours, and type of setting);

iii. Requiring CNAs to meet specific governance standards as articulated in the 2004 

draft Notice of Proposed Rule Making issued by the AbilityOne Commission.

b. For NPAs, sub-regulatory guidance or regulation that: 

i. Requires the annual reporting of data on:

1. Number of individuals on AbilityOne contracts that are eligible for/receiving 

any of the following: IDEA-funded transition supports; VR-funded 

employment supports; Medicaid-funded services that can be used to obtain 

and maintain CIE (e.g., supported employment services)); 

2. Wages, hours worked and type of setting (e.g., integrated; group supported 

employment; or facility-based) for workers with disabilities employed on 

AbilityOne contracts;

3. Types of services offered, number served and funds expended in the

provision of services to AbilityOne employees with disabilities to assist 

them in transitioning from AbilityOne work to CIE.

ii. Requires establishment of conflict-of-interest policies to delineate the role of an 

NPA as an AbilityOne contractor from the same entity’s role as a communityrehabilitation provider that is required to provide supports in the most integrated 

setting to clients receiving federally-funded services;

iii. Requires documented assurances that prior to hiring an eligible individual onto an 

AbilityOne contract, the NPA has:

1. Assisted the individual to apply for VR services; and

2. If the individual is determined eligible for VR services, the NPA has 

committed to providing services, funded by VR, to enable the individual to 
99

obtain CIE in the broader community if the individual selects the NPA as 

his/her provider; or

3. If the individual is determined ineligible for VR services, the NPA has 

further determined if the individual is eligible for Medicaid-funded services 

that can be used to obtain and maintain CIE (e.g., supported employment 

services) and, if so, the NPA has, in partnership with the individual, sought 

authorization from the state Medicaid agency for these services and the NPA 

has further committed to providing these Medicaid-funded services if the 

individual selects the NPA as his/her provider.

iv. Requires the NPA to meet specific governance standards as articulated in the 2004 

draft Notice of Proposed Rule Making issued by the AbilityOne Commission;

v. Requires the NPA to engage in the Quality Workplace Environment (QWE) 

initiative at AbilityOne and will finalize a plan and take action as a result within 

two years of signing up for QWE. For those NPAs that have already signed up to be 

involved in the QWE, they will be considered in compliance if their participation 

results in a plan and action is taken within two years.

184 http://www.abilityone.org/about_us/index.html

185 Within JWOD, a qualified nonprofit agency is defined as follows: (6) QUALIFIED NONPROFIT AGENCY 

FOR OTHER SEVERELY DISABLED.— The term ‘‘qualified nonprofit agency for other severely disabled’’ 

means an agency—(A) (i) organized under the laws of the United States or a State; (ii) operated in the interest of 

severely disabled individuals who are not blind; and (iii) of which no part of the net income of the agency inures to 

the benefit of a shareholder or other individual; (B) that complies with any applicable occupational health and safety 

standard prescribed by the Secretary of Labor; and (C) that in the production of products and in the provision of 

services (whether or not the products or services are procured under this chapter) during the fiscal year employs 

blind or other severely disabled individuals for at least 75 percent of the hours of direct labor required for the 

production or provision of the products or services. [See 

http://www.abilityone.gov/laws_and_regulations/jwod.html]

186 AbilityOne Fiscal Year 2014 Annual Report. See: 

http://www.jwod.gov/media_room/documents/Commission_AnnualReport_Final_040815_nocropmarks_508v2_FI

NAL.pdf

187 According to the official web site of the National Industries for the Blind, “NIB and its network of 94 associated 

nonprofit agencies nationwide serve as the largest employer of people who are blind through the sale of 

SKILCRAFT® and other products and services provided by the AbilityOne Program, established by the JavitsWagner-O’Day Act.” [See http://www.nib.org/about-us/mission]

188 The official SourceAmerica website describes itself as a “nationwide network of more than 550 community 

nonprofit agency partners”. [See http://www.sourceamerica.org/about-us]

189 http://www.abilityone.gov/commission/commission.html.

190 http://www.dol.gov/odep/topics/date/KimberlyZeich.pdf [Slides 7, 11]

191 AbilityOne Commission memo to Jennifer C. Sheehy, Designated Federal Officer for the Advisory Committee 

on Increasing Competitive Integrated Employment for Individuals with Disabilities. May 11, 2015.

192 http://www.dol.gov/odep/topics/date/KimberlyZeich.pdf [Slide 11]

193 http://www.dol.gov/odep/topics/date/KimberlyZeich.pdf [Slide 13]

194 http://www.dol.gov/odep/topics/date/KimberlyZeich.pdf [Slides 7, 11]

195 http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=36033

 
100

 

196 AbilityOne Fiscal Year 2013 Report. See: 

http://www.abilityone.gov/media_room/documents/AbilityOne_AR_Pages_final_508_Repl_coverV3.pdf

197Information provided by the AbilityOne Deputy Executive Director to the ACICIEID Marketplace Dynamics 

Subcommittee and incorporated into the Marketplace Dynamics Subcommittee’s presentation at the May, 2015 

ACICIEID meeting which can be accessed at: 

http://www.dol.gov/odep/pdf/MarketplaceDynamicsSubcommitteePresentation.pdf

198 It is important to note that the data presented by AbilityOne is from the SourceAmerica ERS data system, and 

thus only contains data on 28,400 of the total 46,630 workers under the AbilityOne Program. See 

http://www.dol.gov/odep/topics/date/KimberlyZeich.pdf Slides 11-12.

199 See http://www.dol.gov/odep/topics/date/KimberlyZeich.pdf Slides 11-12.

200 41 U.S.C. §8501

201 For example, 2012 case involving National Center for the Employment of the Disabled (NCED). See 

http://www.fbi.gov/elpaso/press-releases/2011/ep021711.htm and http://www.kvia.com/539342
101

Appendix A: Statutory Language establishing the 

Committee

‘‘SEC. 609. ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INCREASING COMPETITIVE 

INTEGRATED EMPLOYMENT FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES.

‘‘(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—Not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of the Workforce 

Innovation and Opportunity Act, the Secretary of Labor shall establish an Advisory Committee 

on Deadline.

29 USC 795n.

29 USC 795m.

29 USC 795l.ROD with PUBLAWS

PUBLIC LAW 113–128—JULY 22, 2014 128 STAT. 1683

Increasing Competitive Integrated Employment for Individuals with Disabilities (referred to in 

this section as the ‘Committee’).

‘‘(b) APPOINTMENT AND VACANCIES.—

‘‘(1) APPOINTMENT.—The Secretary of Labor shall appoint the members of the Committee 

described in subsection (c)(6), in accordance with subsection (c).

‘‘(2) VACANCIES.—Any vacancy in the Committee shall not affect its powers, but shall be 

filled in the same manner,

in accordance with the same paragraph of subsection (c), as the original appointment or 

designation was made.

‘‘(c) COMPOSITION.—The Committee shall be composed of—

‘‘(1) the Assistant Secretary for Disability Employment Policy, the Assistant Secretary for 

Employment and Training, and the Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division, of the 

Department of Labor;

‘‘(2) the Commissioner of the Administration on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, or 

the Commissioner’s designee;

‘‘(3) the Director of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services of the Department of Health 

and Human Services, or the Director’s designee;

‘‘(4) the Commissioner of Social Security, or the Commissioner’s designee;
102

‘‘(5) the Commissioner of the Rehabilitation Services Administration, or the Commissioner’s 

designee; and

‘‘(6) representatives from constituencies consisting of—

‘‘(A) self-advocates for individuals with intellectual or developmental disabilities;

‘‘(B) providers of employment services, including those that employ individuals with intellectual 

or developmental disabilities in competitive integrated employment;

‘‘(C) representatives of national disability advocacy organizations for adults with intellectual or 

developmental disabilities;

‘‘(D) experts with a background in academia or research and expertise in employment and wage 

policy issues for individuals with intellectual or developmental disabilities; 

‘‘(E) representatives from the employer community or national employer organizations; and

‘‘(F) other individuals or representatives of organizations with expertise on increasing 

opportunities for competitive integrated employment for individuals with disabilities.

‘‘(d) CHAIRPERSON.—The Committee shall elect a Chairperson of the Committee from 

among the appointed members of the Committee.

‘‘(e) MEETINGS.—The Committee shall meet at the call of the Chairperson, but not less than 8 

times.

‘‘(f) DUTIES.—The Committee shall study, and prepare findings, conclusions, and 

recommendations for the Secretary of Labor on—

‘‘(1) ways to increase the employment opportunities for individuals with intellectual or 

developmental disabilities or other individuals with significant disabilities in competitive 

integrated employment;

‘‘(2) the use of the certificate program carried out under Section 14(c) of the Fair Labor 

Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 214(c));

Recommendations.

128 STAT. 1684 PUBLIC LAW 113–128—JULY 22, 2014

U.S.C. 214(c)) for the employment of individuals with intellectual or developmental disabilities, 

or other individuals with significant disabilities; and

‘‘(3) ways to improve oversight of the use of such certificates.

‘‘(g) COMMITTEE PERSONNEL MATTERS.—
103

‘‘(1) TRAVEL EXPENSES.—The members of the Committee shall not receive compensation 

for the performance of services for the Committee, but shall be allowed reasonable travel 

expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, at rates authorized for employees of agencies 

under subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, United States Code, while away from their homes or 

regular places of business in the performance of services for the Committee. Notwithstanding 

section 1342 of title 31, United States Code, the Secretary may accept the voluntary and 

uncompensated services of members of the Committee.

‘‘(2) STAFF.—The Secretary of Labor may designate such personnel as may be necessary to 

enable the Committee to perform its duties. 

‘‘(3) DETAIL OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES.—Any Federal Government employee, with 

the approval of the head of the appropriate Federal agency, may be detailed to the Committee 

without reimbursement, and such detail shall be without interruption or loss of civil service 

status or privilege.

‘‘(4) FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT, AND SERVICES.—The Secretary of Labor shall make 

available to the Committee, under such arrangements as may be appropriate, necessary 

equipment, supplies, and services.

‘‘(h) REPORTS.—

‘‘(1) INTERIM AND FINAL REPORTS.—The Committee shall prepare and submit to the 

Secretary of Labor, as well as the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions of the 

Senate and the Committee on Education and the Workforce of the House of Representatives—

‘‘(A) an interim report that summarizes the progress of the Committee, along with any interim 

findings, conclusions, and recommendations as described in subsection (f); and

‘‘(B) a final report that states final findings, conclusions, and recommendations as described in 

subsection (f).

‘‘(2) PREPARATION AND SUBMISSION.—The reports shall be prepared and submitted—

‘‘(A) in the case of the interim report, not later than 1 year after the date on which the Committee 

is established under subsection (a); and

‘‘(B) in the case of the final report, not later than 2 years after the date on which the Committee 

is established under subsection (a).

‘‘(i) TERMINATION.—The Committee shall terminate on the day after the date on which the 

Committee submits the final report
104

Appendix B: Advisory Committee Charter

U.S. Department of Labor

ADVISORY COMMITTEE CHARTER

Advisory Committee on Increasing Competitive 

Integrated Employment for Individuals with Disabilities

Purpose 

The Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) makes significant 

improvements for individuals with disabilities, including youth with disabilities as they transition 

from education to employment, by helping to ensure these individuals have opportunities to

acquire the skills and training they need to maximize their potential and enter competitive, 

integrated employment. Among the many new provisions designed to strengthen and improve 

employment for all individuals with disabilities is the establishment of an Advisory Committee 

on Increasing Competitive Integrated Employment for Individuals with Disabilities.

Committee's Official Designation (Title) 

Advisory Committee on Increasing Competitive Integrated Employment for 

Individuals with Disabilities (the Committee).

Authority

The Committee is authorized under section 609 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as 

amended by section 461 of WIOA. It is established in accordance with the provision of the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), as amended, 5 U.S.C. App. 2. The Committee will 

act in accordance with FACA and its implementing regulations.

Objectives and Scope of Activities 

The Committee shall study and prepare findings, conclusions, and recommendations 

for the Secretary of Labor on:

(1) Ways to increase the employment opportunities for individuals with intellectual 

or developmental disabilities or other individuals with significant disabilities in 

competitive integrated employment;

(2) The use of the certificate program carried out under section 14(c) of the Fair 

Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 214(c)) for the employment of 

individuals with intellectual or developmental disabilities, or other individuals 

with significant disabilities; and

(3) Ways to improve oversight of the use of such certificates.
105

Description of Duties 

The Committee advises the Secretary of Labor on the development and implementation of 

coordinated policies and job-driven strategies across federal agencies to improve opportunities 

for competitive integrated employment and economic advancement for individuals with 

intellectual, developmental or other significant disabilities, including both youth and adults. The 

Committee will evaluate the use of subminimum wages under section 14(c) of the Fair Labor 

Standards Act (FLSA) in light of the goals outlined for competitive, integrated employment and 

advise the Secretary of Labor on policies and practices that will lead to a significant 

andsystematic reduction in the misuse of the 14(c) certification program and the dependence on 

subminimum wages and segregated service placements. In doing this, the Committee will:

(1) review existing Federal policies to identify and recommend strategies and changes to 

break down barriers that impede pathways to competitive integrated employment 

outcomes for youth and adults with intellectual, developmental or other significant 

disabilities, including recommendations related to employment services, and longterm services and supports, family support and transportation as they relate to 

competitive, integrated employment;

(2) provide recommendations for modernizing the service delivery system and expanding 

the implementation of job-driven strategies and practices to promote partnerships 

among education, workforce and rehabilitation entities, providers of employmentrelated longterm services and support, employers, and others that increase the 

marketable skills and competitive integrated employment outcomes of youth and adults 

with intellectual, developmental or other significant disabilities leading to economic 

self-sufficiency. This includes improving the knowledge, skills, and abilities of youth 

and adults with intellectual, developmental or other significant disabilities, educators, 

service professionals and families, building leadership and organizational capacity, 

increasing employer engagement, offering work-based learning, and strengthening 

accountability and making better use of data;

(3) recommend systems-change strategies needed to ensure that competitive integrated 

employment is the first option for people with intellectual, developmental or other 

significant disabilities. This includes aligning policy, practice and funding across 

Federal agencies to support competitive integrated employment and economic 

advancement as the preferred outcomes of job-driven training and related employment 

services through regional collaborations among a variety of public and private 

partners, data sharing, leveraging resources, and employment and earnings outcome 

measurement and evaluation; and

(4) review the use of the certificate program under section 14(c) and recommend ways 

to improve oversight of the use of these certificates and reduce the reliance on such 

certificates.

Agency or Official to Whom the Committee Reports 

The Committee makes recommendations and reports to the Secretary of Labor. The 

Committee will prepare and submit an interim report to the Secretary of Labor, summarizing 

its progress, along with any interim findings, conclusions, and recommendations not later than 

one year after the date which the Committee is established. The Committee will prepare and 
106

submit a final report, with findings, conclusions, and recommendations to the Secretary of 

Labor not later than two years after the date on which the Committee is established.

The Committee will provide interim and final reports to the Senate Committee on 

Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, and the House Committee on Education and the 

Workforce.

Support

The Department of Labor's Office of Disability Employment Policy (ODEP) will 

provide support to the Committee to enable it to carry out its duties. Other Department of Labor

agencies, including the Wage and Hour Division (WHD) and the Employment and 

Training Administration (ETA), will contribute resources to support the Committee.

Estimated Annual Operating Costs and Staff 

Years $400,000; 2.5 staff years

Designated Federal Officer (DFO) 

The Deputy Assistant Secretary of ODEP, a permanent employee, appointed in 

accordance with agency procedures, will serve as the DFO. The DFO will approve or call all 

advisory committee and subcommittee meetings, prepare and approve all meeting agendas, 

attend all committee meetings, and adjourn any meeting when the DFO determines 

adjournment to be in the public interest.

Estimated Number and Frequency of Committee Meetings 

The Committee is required to meet at the call of the Chairperson, but not less than eight

times.

Duration 

The Committee shall terminate one day after the date on which it submits its final 

report. The final report is to be prepared and submitted not later than two years after the date on 

which the Committee is established.

Termination 

As specified in Section 609, the Committee shall terminate one day after the date on 

which it submits its final report. The final report is to be prepared and submitted not later than 

two years after the date on which the Committee is established.

Membership and Designation 

Membership shall consist of seven ex officio members: the Assistant Secretary of 

Disability Employment Policy, the Assistant Secretary for Employment and Training 

Administration, and the Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division of the Department of 

Labor; the Commissioner of the Administration on Intellectual and Developmental 
107

Disabilities, or the Commissioner's designee; the Director of the Centers for Medicare and 

Medicaid Services, or the Director's designee; the Commissioner of Social Security, or the 

Commissioner's designee; the Commissioner of the Rehabilitation Services Administration, 

or the Commissioner's designee.

It shall further consist of approximately 15-17 representatives, appointed by 

the Secretary, with at least one from each of the following constituencies consisting 

of:

 Self-advocates for individuals with intellectual or developmental disabilities;

 Providers of employment services, including those that employ individuals 

with intellectual or developmental disabilities in competitive integrated 

employment;

 Representatives of national disability advocacy organizations for adults 

with intellectual or developmental disabilities;

 Experts with a background in academia or research and expertise in 

employment and wage policy issues for individuals with intellectual or 

developmental disabilities;

 Representatives from the employer community or national 

employer organizations; and

 Other individuals or representatives of organizations with expertise on 

increasing opportunities for competitive integrated employment for individuals 

with disabilities.

The Committee shall elect a Chairperson of the Committee from among the 

appointed members of the Committee.

Except as otherwise required by Section 609, the Committee's membership will be 

consistent with the applicable FACA regulations. Membership on the Committee will be fairly 

balanced, and members will come from a cross-section of those directly affected, interested, 

and qualified as appropriate to the nature and functions of the Committee. The composition of 

the Committee will depend upon several factors, including: (i) the Committee's objectives; (ii) 

potential geographic, ethnic, social and environmental impact of the Committee's 

recommendations; (iii) the types of specific perspectives required, as previously outlined; (iv) 

the need to obtain divergent points of view on the issues before the Committee; and (v) the 

relevance of state, local or tribal governments to the development of the Committee's 

recommendations.

To the extent permitted by FACA and other laws, Committee membership also should 

be consistent with achieving the greatest impact, scope and credibility among diverse 

stakeholders. The diversity in such membership includes, but is not limited to, race, gender, 

disability, sexual orientation and gender identity.
108

Subcommittees

The Secretary, through ODEP, may create subcommittees which must report back to 

the Committee. Subcommittees must not provide advice or work products directly to the 

Secretary or to Congress.

Recordkeeping

The records of the Committee, formally and informally established subcommittees, 

shall be handled in accordance with General Records Schedule 26, Item 2, "Records Created by 

Advisory Commissions, Committee, Councils, Boards and Other Groups Established under the 

FACA." These records shall be available for public inspection and copying subject to the 

Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552).

Date

This charter is amended on the date indicated below and expires on September 15, 2016.

DEC 2 2014

THOMAS E. PEREZ Date

Secretary of Labor
109

Appendix C: Committee Member Biographies

Federal Official Members

David Weil, Administrator 

Wage & Hour Division 

U.S. Department of Labor

Dr. David Weil was sworn in as the Administrator of the Wage 

and Hour Division on May 5, 2014. Dr. Weil is an 

internationally recognized expert in public and labor market 

policy; regulatory performance; industrial and labor relations; 

transparency policy; and supply-chain restructuring and its 

effects.

Prior to this appointment, Dr. Weil served as professor of 

economics and the Peter and Deborah Wexler Professor of Management at Boston University 

School of Management. He also served as co-director of the Transparency Policy Project at the 

Ash Institute at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government. He has written three books on labor 

market policy, including the recently published The Fissured Workplace. He has authored 

numerous articles and publications in a variety of economics, public policy, management, and 

industrial relations journals and books, as well as numerous publications in non-academic 

outlets. 

No stranger to the Department’s mission or its work, Dr. Weil has served as an adviser to both 

the Wage and Hour Division and to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, as well 

as to a number of other government agencies. He also has served as mediator and adviser in a 

range of labor/union and labor/management settings across the globe. In addition to his work for 

the Department, his research has been supported by the National Science Foundation, the 

National Institutes of Health, the Russell Sage Foundation, the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, and 

the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, among others. Dr. Weil received his 

B.S. at Cornell University and M.A. and Ph.D. in public policy at Harvard University.
110

Jennifer Sheehy, Acting Assistant Secretary

Office of Disability Employment Policy

U.S. Department of Labor

Jennifer Sheehy is the Acting Assistant Secretary in the Office of 

Disability Employment Policy, U.S. Department of Labor. Prior to 

her current position, Jennifer spent ten years at the U.S.

Department of Education in many roles, including Director of 

Policy and Planning in the Office of Special Education and 

Rehabilitative Services (OSERS), acting Director of the National 

Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR), 

acting Deputy Commissioner of the Rehabilitation Services Administration and Special Assistant 

to the Assistant Secretary of OSERS. Jennifer came to the Department of Education from the 

Presidential Task Force on Employment of Adults with Disabilities where she was Senior Policy 

Advisor and served a detail as Associate Director in the White House Domestic Policy Council. 

Before she joined the task force staff, Jennifer was Vice President of the National Organization 

on Disability and Director of its CEO Council. Jennifer earned a B.A. from Cornell University 

and graduated with honors from Georgetown University, where she received her M.B.A.

Portia Wu, Assistant Secretary

Employment & Training Administration

U.S. Department of Labor

As the Assistant Secretary of Labor for Employment and 

Training, Portia Wu works to advance job-driven skills training. 

Previously, she served as Special Assistant to the President for 

Labor and Workforce Policy at the White House Domestic Policy 

Council (DPC). From 2011 to 2012, she served as the Senior 

Policy Advisor for Mobility and Opportunity at DPC. Prior to 

joining the Administration, she was the Vice President at the 

National Partnership for Women and Families from 2010 to 

2011. From 2003 to 2010, Ms. Wu worked at the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

(HELP) Committee in a number of roles, including Labor and Pensions Counsel, Chief Labor 

and Pensions Counsel, and Labor Policy Director and General Counsel. 

Prior to working in the U.S. Senate, Ms. Wu was an attorney at Bredhoff & Kaiser, PLLC, 

and clerked for Judge Richard A. Paez in the United States District Court for the Central District 

of California. Ms. Wu received a B.A. from Yale College, an M.A. from Cornell University, and 

a J.D. from Yale Law School.
111

Sharon Lewis, Principal Deputy Administrator

Administration on Intellectual & Developmental Disabilities

Administration on Community Living

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Sharon Lewis serves in the dual roles of Principal Deputy 

Administrator of the Administration for Community Living, as well 

as HHS Secretary Burwell’s Senior Advisor on Disability.

From March 2010 to November 2013, Ms. Lewis served as the 

Commissioner of the Administration on Intellectual and 

Developmental Disabilities. Prior to her appointment as 

Commissioner, she served as the Senior Disability Policy Advisor to 

the U.S. House Committee on Education & Labor, advising members of the Committee on 

legislative strategy and disability-related policy issues in education, employment and healthcare, 

and as a Kennedy Public Policy Fellow for the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Children & 

Families. Sharon is the recipient of numerous awards, including the 2010 Distinguished 

Leadership in National Disability Policy Award and the Consortium for Citizens with 

Disabilities Chairman’s Award.

In Oregon, Sharon worked on public policy for the Oregon Developmental Disabilities Coalition 

and for the Arc. She served as the co-chair of the Oregon Family Action Coalition Team, 

founded DisabilityCompass.org and managed the Oregon Partners in Policymaking Program, 

working with individuals with disabilities and family members to participate in policy decisions 

at all levels. Sharon is a parent to three daughters, including one with disability. She is a native 

of Michigan and a graduate of Washington University in St. Louis.

John O'Brien, Senior Policy Advisor and Elderly Health Programs Group

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

U.S. Department of Health and Services 

John O'Brien is the Senior Policy Advisor for the Disabled and Elderly Health Programs Group 

at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Previously, John was the Senior Advisor to the 

Administrator on Health Care Reform at the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services 

Administration (SAMHSA). John O’Brien was the Director of several national projects funded 

by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation to develop strategies for coordinating funding for 

human services from federal, state and local dollars. Prior to his work at SAMHSA, Mr. O’Brien 

worked with the Technical Assistance Collaborative for fifteen years as a Senior Consultant. He 

has provided consultation to over 30 states and local human services authorities. He has worked 

with Medicaid, state mental health and substance abuse authorities. He has worked with states to 

develop federal Medicaid Waivers, Medicaid state plan amendments, and federal grant 

applications (e.g., children’s system of care).
112

Mr. O’Brien has also been a manager at KPMG Peat Marwick and worked for the Eunice 

Kennedy Shriver Center, the Massachusetts Developmental Disability Council, the Illinois 

Governor’s Office, and the Illinois Legislative Commission on Mental Health, Mental 

Retardation and Substance Abuse. He was a program staff at Thresholds, Inc. in Chicago.

Janet LaBreck, Commissioner

Rehabilitation Services Administration

U.S. Department of Education

As commissioner of the Rehabilitation Services Administration, 

Janet LaBreck oversees programs that help people with 

disabilities find employment and live more independently. Prior 

to that role within the U.S. Department of Education, she was 

the Commissioner of the Massachusetts Commission for the 

Blind (MCB), a position she held since 2007. 

Ms. LaBreck joined the MCB in 1985 as Consumer Advocate. 

She has served in a number of positions at the MCB since then, 

including Independent Living Coordinator, Vocational 

Rehabilitation Counselor, and Regional Director of Central Massachusetts. Since 2005, she has 

worked as an Adjunct Professor at Assumption College, where she teaches courses in 

rehabilitation of the blind and case management in rehabilitation. She was awarded an honorary 

Doctorate of Humane Letters from the New England College of Optometry. She received a B.A. 

from the University of Massachusetts and an M.Ed. from Springfield College. 

Bob Williams

Senior Advisor to the Deputy Commissioner

Office of Retirement and Disability Policy

U.S. Social Security Administration

Bob Williams is a Senior Advisor to the Deputy Commissioner 

for Retirement and Disability Policy in the Social Security 

Administration’s Office of Retirement and Disability Policy. 

Mr. Williams formerly served as a Senior Advisor to the Acting 

Associate Commissioner of the Social Security 

Administration’s Office of Employment Support Programs. 

Immediately prior to this, he was the Special Assistant to the Director of the Washington, DC 

Department on Disability Services. He has also advised the Kaiser Foundation, the 

Commonwealth Fund and others on policy issues affecting the health, independence and 

economic well-being of Americans with disabilities of all ages. 
113

From 1993-2000, Williams served as Commissioner on Developmental Disabilities and then as 

the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Disability, Aging and Long Term Care Policy in the U.S. 

Department of Health and Human Services. In 1990, he worked on enacting the Americans with 

Disabilities Act and began his career serving on a court appointed monitoring team charged with 

closing Forest Haven, the District of Columbia’s institution for people with developmental 

disabilities.

Public Citizen Members

Self-Advocate Category

Patrick Hendry – Mental Health America

Patrick has worked as a mental health advocate for the past 

twenty-four years. His areas of expertise include social inclusion, 

self-directed care, recovery-based trainings, peer workforce 

development and peer-run programs. In his capacity at Mental 

Health America he is currently developing the first national 

certification program for employing people living with 

psychiatric disabilities in private behavioral health care. In 1992 

he co-founded the first peer-run organization in Florida to 

contract directly with the State for the provision of services and 

has, since that time, assisted with the development of numerous 

peer-run programs. He is a strong supporter of the inclusion of mental health consumers in all 

aspects of the mental health system.

Karen McCulloh – McCulloh & Associates Consulting

Karen McCulloh understands firsthand the opportunities and 

challenges in the workforce development system for the 

disability community. A professional registered nurse (RN) 

specializing in neurosurgical intensive care who also worked in 

community health nursing, as a nurse executive and as a nurse 

entrepreneur, McCulloh was initially informed that she was 

being considered for sheltered employment after developing 

multiple disabilities before her first in-person meeting with her 

vocational rehabilitation counselor. McCulloh’s personal 

experience spurred her in a new professional direction. Unable to 

find employment as a healthcare professional after becoming 

disabled, McCulloh became the first RN in the state of Illinois who has multiple disabilities to 

set up a for-profit practice while creating her own specialty in nursing, Community Health 
114

Disability Education. She also co-founded the National Organization of Nurses with Disabilities, 

NOND, www.nond.org in 2003. She has worked for the past 24 years in the workforce 

development arena for and with people representing cross-disabilities. She has worked with 

local, state, national and global corporations focusing on CEO education. McCulloh’s work 

extends to the promotion of healthcare careers for qualified veterans and civilians with 

disabilities and to the development of supports and best practices for healthcare professionals 

who are mature workers that become disabled after licensure.

In 2005, McCulloh accepted the founding Executive Director position of disabilityworks, an 

initiative set up at the Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce where she focused her work in the 

Northeast Region of Illinois on the employment of people with disabilities, an initiative that went 

statewide in 2007. In 2006, McCulloh accepted a federal appointment from the U.S. Secretary of 

the Department of Labor to the National Job Corps Advisory Committee and was appointed as 

the Chair of the Disability Subcommittee. She was the only person with a disability to serve on 

this advisory committee.

In 2008, McCulloh resigned from her federal appointment to serve on President-elect Barack 

Obama and Vice President-elect Joe Biden’s Transition Team in Washington, DC while 

continuing as executive director for disabilityworks. In 2010, she resigned as the executive 

director of disabilityworks to reestablish her own independent contracting business, Karen 

McCulloh & Associates Consulting. She received a Presidential Appointment from President 

Obama to the U.S. AbilityOne® Commission in 2011. In October 2012, McCulloh joined 

National Disability Institute as the founding Project Director for the LEAD Center while 

telecommuting, a position she held until resigning in October 2013. Karen is a graduate of 

Loyola University of Chicago and Grant Hospital School of Nursing in Columbus, Ohio.

Santa Perez – People First of Nevada

Statewide President, People First of Nevada Live, Laugh, Love, 

Advocate Santa Perez – Advocate Co-coordinator for the People 

First of Nevada Project funded by the Nevada Governor’s 

Council on Developmental Disabilities (NGCDD) Santa Perez is 

from Southern California where she was very active in the selfadvocacy movement. She earned her Bachelors of Arts degree in 

Psychology from Cal State Northridge. When Santa moved to 

Las Vegas in the mid-1990s, she discovered that there were no 

advocacy groups for people with disabilities. This was 

unacceptable for Santa and she started her quest to bring a selfadvocacy group to Nevada. Santa completed the Partners in Policy Making program in 1999 at 

The University of Nevada, Reno. Their UCEDD had just started a new project, AmeriCorps 
115

Vista (Volunteers in Services to America), and she was informed that they wanted her to become 

a member. This became her golden opportunity to fulfill her goal of bringing a self-advocacy 

group to Nevada. Through this project, Santa co-founded People First of Nevada and her dream 

is now a reality with 7 chapters all around the state. Santa is a very proud and active President of 

the People First of Nevada. She has testified before the state legislation and was instrumental in 

getting the Signature Stamp Law and the People First Respectful Language Law passed. Santa is 

currently working for Community Chest of Nevada, reporting through the NGCDD as an 

Advocate Co-Coordinator for the People First of Nevada Project. She has given many 

presentations at national conferences around the country. In her personal life Santa has 

accomplished many things. She has her own home and is a part of her community, but in her 

eyes, her greatest accomplishment is her son Noah.

Provider Organizations

Brian Itzkowitz – Goodwill Industries of Arkansas

Brian Itzkowitz, President and CEO of Goodwill Industries of 

Arkansas, a nonprofit organization whose mission is to help build 

lives, families and communities by assisting people with 

disabilities and other special needs reach their highest potential 

through training, education and employment services. Itzkowitz 

joined the agency in August 2008, and has over 16 years of 

experience in the Goodwill network. Since his arrival, Goodwill 

has seen the people served increase by over 500%, people placed 

in employment increase 40 fold, and has created more than 500 

jobs internally. Currently, he oversees more than 700 employees 

and 38 retail and donation locations across the state.

Prior to Goodwill Industries of Arkansas, Itzkowitz served as Vice President of Retail Operations 

at Goodwill Industries of Southwest Florida. He began his nonprofit career at Goodwill 

Industries of the Chesapeake in Baltimore, Maryland as director of retail operations. 

Collectively, Itzkowitz has over 20 years of senior management experience. Itzkowitz maintains 

active involvement in several professional and community service organizations. 

Currently, he serves on both the Arkansas Workforce Investment Board and the Little Rock 

Workforce Investment Board, Arkansas State Rehabilitation Council and Goodwill Industries 

International’s board of directors. He is also involved in other local nonprofit organizations, 

serving on the Boards of the CARTI Foundation, Arkansas Society of Association Executives, 

University of Miami Alumni Board of Directors, University of Arkansas – Little Rock College 

of Business Advisory Board and serves on the leadership team for Arkansas Walk Now for 

Autism Speaks. Itzkowitz is also an active member of the Rotary Club of Little Rock. He holds a 
116

bachelor’s degree in international finance and marketing from the University of Miami. 

Additionally, he has been certified as Chief Executive Officer, and is a graduate of Goodwill’s 

Executive Development program.

Christine McMahon – Fedcap

Christine McMahon joined Fedcap in 2009 and has 

championed the organization’s strategic growth, 

significantly increasing the nonprofit’s size as well as its 

service delivery and reach among people in need throughout 

the Northeast.

Ms. McMahon has more than 25 years’ experience in social 

and mental-health services in New York and New England. 

She is nationally recognized for the breadth of her strategic 

vision and her expertise across a wide range of social programs, for the implementation of 

numerous social-service-delivery and community-based initiatives, and for influencing state and 

local healthcare and social policy. She previously served as Senior Vice President and COO of 

an Easter Seals region that encompassed New Hampshire, Vermont, Maine, Rhode Island, New 

York and Massachusetts.

Ms. McMahon received her Master of Health Administration from the University of New 

Hampshire and her BA in Psychology from New England College. Her numerous honors include 

the New Hampshire Business Review-Outstanding Women in Business Award, the National 

Easter Seals – Lou Lowenkron Award for Program Innovation, the Division for Children, Youth 

and Families – Director’s Choice Award, and the Riverbend Community Mental Health –

Rainbow Award.

National Disability Organizations

Alison Barkoff – Bazelon Center

Alison Barkoff is the Director of Advocacy at the Bazelon Center. 

She works on policy and litigation related to community integration 

and inclusion of people with disabilities, including Olmstead, 

Medicaid, employment, housing, and education. From 2010 to 

2014, she served as Special Counsel for Olmstead Enforcement in 

the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice. In that 

position, she led the Division’s efforts to enforce the right of 

individuals with disabilities to live, work and receive services in the 

community. Under her leadership, the Division issued its first 
117

Olmstead guidance and was actively involved in Olmstead litigation across the country, 

including numerous cases culminating in statewide system reform settlement agreements. 

During her time with the federal government, Ms. Barkoff also worked with the Centers for 

Medicare & Medicaid Services on finalizing rules governing Medicaid-funded community-based 

services and with the Department of Labor on implementation of its new home care rule in 

Medicaid-funded disability service systems. Prior to her time with the government, she worked 

at the Bazelon Center and at other public interest organizations on Olmstead enforcement, 

disability discrimination, Medicaid, employment, and education cases. She clerked for U.S. 

Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor when she was on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 

Second Circuit, and for Judge William Pauley of the United States District Court for the 

Southern District of New York. She is a graduate of Cornell University and Emory University 

School of Law. Ms. Barkoff also is a sibling of an adult brother with a developmental disability.

Ruby Moore – National Disability Rights Network

Ruby Moore is the Executive Director of the Georgia Advocacy 

Office, the designated Protection and Advocacy System for People 

with Disabilities in Georgia. Moore is nationally known for her 

work in the disability field over the past 39 years, particularly in the 

areas of employment, augmentative communication, and the design 

and implementation of supports necessary for people with 

significant disabilities to live, work, play, and go to school in the 

community. Her experience includes growing up with family 

members with disabilities, working in both institutional and 

community settings, running provider organizations, working within 

and outside government bureaucracies, individual and systemic advocacy, directly supporting 

individuals to obtain employment, housing, and other supports necessary to live in the 

community, and working to improve local, state and national disability policy.

Moore has over 30 years of experience helping people wrongly considered “unemployable” due 

to type or level of disability, to get jobs and build careers. She was one of the original architects 

of the national supported employment initiative and was one of a small group of people working 

on early national technical assistance grants to the states for their statewide systems change 

initiatives. She ran an employment institute in MA, and was an employment provider for 16 

years. She helped to set up statewide employment institutes and technical assistance centers in 

NH and CT. Moore also ran a federally-funded model demonstration program securing high 

quality employment for people with dual sensory impairments (“deaf-blindness”) in New 

England, replicated the project in California. She has provided technical assistance across the 
118

United States and in several other countries. Moore hosts a statewide employment initiative in 

GA.

Ari Ne’eman – Autistic Self Advocacy Network

Ari Ne’eman is the President and co-founder of the Autistic 

Self Advocacy Network, an advocacy organization run by and 

for Autistic adults seeking to increase the representation of 

Autistic people across society. In 2009, President Obama 

nominated Ari to the National Council on Disability, a federal 

agency charged with advising Congress and the President on

disability policy issues. He was confirmed by the Senate in 

July 2010 and currently chairs the Council’s Entitlements 

Committee. From 2010 to 2012, he served as a public member 

to the Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee, a Federal advisory committee that 

coordinates all efforts within the Department of Health and Human Services concerning autism. 

Ari also served as an adviser to the DSM-5 Neurodevelopmental Disorders Workgroup convened 

by the American Psychiatric Association.

Appointed by Governor Jon Corzine, Ari served as Vice Chair of the New Jersey Adults with 

Autism Task Force, where he represented autistic adults in reviewing the state’s autism services. 

He also previously served on the New Jersey Special Education Review Commission, where he 

authored a minority report on the topic of aversives, restraint and seclusion. He is also a board 

member of TASH, an advocacy organization focusing on advancing social justice for people 

with significant disabilities. In addition, he was named by the New York Jewish Week as one of 

their “36 by 36′′ in 2010. He has a bachelor’s degree from the University of Maryland-Baltimore 

County, where he studied political science in the Sondheim Public Affairs Scholars Program.

Academia/Research

Vicki (Valerie) Brooke, M.Ed. – Virginia Commonwealth 

University

Ms. Brooke has been with Virginia Commonwealth University 

since 1979 earning a M.Ed. in Special Education with an 

emphasis on employment for people with disabilities. Ms. 

Brooke was one of our country’s original job coaches and has 

served as the Center’s Director of Training for over 20 years. In 

addition to these responsibilities, in the last several years she 

has also managed an employment services program as a vendor 

with Virginia Department of Aging and Rehabilitative Services 
119

and Virginia Medicaid Waiver program, serving individuals with intellectual disabilities, autism, 

brain injury and spinal cord injury. Ms. Brooke has served as the Project Director/Principal 

Investigator for multiple national and state grants all related to employment of people with 

significant disabilities and has gained close working relationships with vocational rehabilitation 

managers, public school systems, and community businesses both through the vendorship and as 

a Board member of the Virginia Business Leadership Network. 

Ms. Brooke has served on the editorial board for Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation since 2000 

and is a frequent speaker, consultant and contributor to the literature with numerous book 

chapters, journal articles, newsletters, and briefing papers. She is committed to creating 

opportunities that support the full partnership of people with disabilities that are achieved 

through community integrated competitive employment.

David Mank, Ph.D. – Indiana Institute on Disability and 

Community; Committee Chair

David Mank, Ph.D., is the Director of the Indiana Institute on 

Disability and Community at Indiana University, Indiana’s 

University Center for Excellence on Disabilities, and Full 

Professor in the School of Education.

As a writer and researcher, Dr. Mank has an extensive background 

in the education and employment for persons with disabilities. He 

has authored or coauthored numerous articles and book chapters. 

His interest also includes a focus on the transition of persons with 

disabilities from school to employment and community living. 

Mank holds a Bachelor’s Degree in Psychology and English from Rockhurst College in Kansas 

City (1975), a Master’s from Portland State University in Special Education (1977), and a 

Doctorate in Special Education and Rehabilitation from the University of Oregon, Eugene 

(1985).

Mank is a member of the editorial boards of the Research and Practice for Persons with Severe 

Disabilities (TASH), the Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, the Journal of Disability Policy 

Studies, Siglo Cero, and Associate Editor for the journal on Intellectual and Developmental 

Disabilities. 

He has served on the Board of Directors of the American Association on Intellectual and 

Developmental Disabilities. He is Past President of the Association of University Centers on 

Disabilities. He was a founding board member of APSE, The Network on Employment. He was 

recipient of the Franklin Smith Award for National Distinguished Service from The Arc of the 

United States.
120

Employers

Jim Brett – President and Chief Executive Officer, The New 

England Council 

James T. Brett, President and Chief Executive Officer of The 

New England Council, was appointed to those positions by the 

Council's board of directors in October 1996. Mr. Brett has 

been a leading voice in advocating for public policy issues such 

as health care, education, financial services and energy 

throughout New England and Washington, DC.

Before joining the Council, Mr. Brett served for more than 

fifteen years as a member of the Massachusetts House of 

Representatives. He held a succession of important leadership 

positions, including the chairmanship of two of the most significant committees in the 

Massachusetts legislature, Banking and the Committee on Taxation. In these positions, he 

brought together various constituencies to create economic opportunity for the Commonwealth's 

citizens and businesses. He previously served as Chairman of the Joint Committee on Banks and 

Banking, the Joint Committee on Criminal Justice, the Joint Committee on Congressional 

Redistricting, the Joint Committee on Counties, and the House Committee on Legislative 

Redistricting.

Mr. Brett recently served as the Chairman of The President’s Committee for People with 

Intellectual Disabilities and continues to serve as a member, as well as serving as Chairman of 

the Governor’s Commission on Intellectual Disability. Mr. Brett is Past President of the Board of 

Directors of the Massachusetts Association for Mental Health. 

In addition to a Bachelor's degree from American University, Mr. Brett holds Master's degrees in 

Public Administration from both Suffolk University and the John F. Kennedy School of 

Government at Harvard University.
121

Oswald (“Oz”) Mondejar – Partners Continuing Care

Oz Mondejar is the Senior Vice President of Mission and Advocacy 

for Partners Continuing Care (PCC). Comprised of the Spaulding 

Rehabilitation Network and Partners HealthCare at Home, PCC is a 

member of Partners HealthCare and one the largest not-for-profit 

post-acute providers in the country. In his role, Mr. Mondejar 

touches on many areas from community outreach to workforce 

development as well as implementation of key initiatives such as 

“Working Partners”, recognized as a first of its kind public/private 

partnership between Spaulding Rehabilitation Network and the 

Massachusetts Rehabilitation Commission that works to break 

down barriers to employment for people with disabilities. 

Over his distinguished career in the private and public sector, Mr. Mondejar has served in 

numerous leadership positions with a focus on human resources and community relations. A 

significant focus for him has been on work force development opportunities for the community 

with disabilities and employer education by striving to demystify the obstacles both real or 

perceived, to considering qualified candidates with disabilities. 

With a practical result based approach, he has continually demonstrated the significant economic 

value to businesses and society as a whole of engaging this largely untapped talent pool. Mr. 

Mondejar has worked with a wide variety of businesses from small local employers to large 

global corporations to develop models and processes to enhance their recruitment and retention 

programs by incorporating the community with disabilities. He has been recognized numerous 

times by public and private organizations for his work in this arena as well as for a lifetime of 

mentorship and youth development.

Steve Pemberton – Divisional Vice President and Chief 

Diversity Officer, Walgreens

Fortune 50 Executive, Author of “A Chance in the World” & 

Voice of Change for Youth. A ward of the state for much of his 

childhood, Steve Pemberton has made opportunity, access, and 

equality pillars of his personal and professional life. One of 

America's most inspiring executives, he is recognized as a leader 

on matters of diversity and inclusion and their importance to the 

growth of the American industrial complex. 

Overcoming seemingly insurmountable odds, Pemberton has 

gone from being a forgotten ward of the Commonwealth of 

Massachusetts to becoming a trailblazing Divisional Vice 
122

President at Walgreens and the first Chief Diversity Officer for the 113 year old company. As 

such, he directs activities to help serve diverse markets and populations, including customers in 

medically underserved areas, food deserts, and urban areas, as well as strengthens relationships 

with diverse suppliers and communities. Prior to that, he made history as the first Chief Diversity 

Officer and Vice-President of Diversity and Inclusion for an Internet start-up while at 

Monster.com. 

His memoir, A Chance in the World: An Orphan Boy, a Mysterious Past, and How He Found a 

Place Called Home, chronicles his difficult path through foster care and his determined search 

for his family. Pemberton’s story has garnered nationwide attention and has been captured in 

major media outlets such as People Magazine, The Steve Harvey Show and multiple news 

networks. 

Hollywood has taken notice and is currently adapting A Chance in the World into a screenplay. 

In the corporate world, Pemberton is recognized as an enlightened executive driven by his 

commitment to diversity and the capacity to lead through adversity. As founder of the non-profit 

A Chance in the World, he focuses on connecting people who are in need of a chance with 

people willing to give them one that will help move them in their desired direction in life. He 

also serves on several boards including The Home for Little Wanderers where The Pemberton 

Fund for the Future has been established in his name. Furthermore, as a board member of 

UCAN, he assists in providing guidance and offering inspiration to children in need.

Other Experts

Cesilee Coulson – Washington Initiative for Supported Employment

Ces brings 20 years of experience in training and development to her 

position, including, leadership development, Employment First strategy 

development and non-profit management. She designs, implements and 

manages employment training and technical assistance projects that 

increase employment opportunities and outcomes. She holds 

certifications as an Executive Coach by the Hudson Institute and a 

Somatic Executive and Leadership Coach by the Strozzi Institute. She is a past board member for 

National APSE, the National APSE Foundation and is a current board member with the 

Community Employment Alliance (a WA State Association of Employment Agencies). She 

holds a Master’s Degree in Social Psychology/Exercise and Movement Science from the 

University of Oregon. Ces lives in Bellingham, WA where she enjoys sailing in the San Juan 

Islands, golfing, camping and gardening with her family and two dogs.
123

Sharyn Hancock – Workforce Essentials Inc.

Sharyn Hancock is assigned as the Disability Resource 

Coordinator at Workforce Essentials, Inc. a non-traditional, 

private, non-profit organization delivering workforce development 

services for Tennessee Department of Labor and Workforce 

Development in middle Tennessee overseeing the Tennessee 

Career Center System and delivery of Adult, Dislocated and Youth 

programs to Job Seekers and Employers. 

Sharyn Hancock has been charged with addressing accessibility 

issues or other barriers preventing individuals with disabilities 

from fully utilizing Career Center services at the 9 county career centers, as well as managing 

their Workforce Investment Board Employment Network through the Social Security 

Administrations Ticket to Work Program. Her 20 years’ experience in the public workforce 

system has led Sharyn to obtain strong expertise in working with job seekers, employees, 

employers and youth of all levels and backgrounds. Sharyn holds a Bachelor of Science in 

Business Administration from Everest University, in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.

Rita M. Landgraf – Delaware State Department of Health & 

Social Services 

Rita M. Landgraf was sworn in as Secretary of the Department of 

Health and Social Services on Jan. 22, 2009. As Secretary, she 

leads the principal agency charged with keeping Delawareans 

healthy, advancing initiatives that promote self-sufficiency while 

ensuring that those citizens who are most vulnerable receive the 

appropriate services and supports that produce quality of life 

outcomes. She oversees one of the largest departments in the 

Delaware government, with an annual state budget of more than 

$1 billion. 

Landgraf, who has spent more than 30 years of her career in support of individuals with 

disabilities, served as a key adviser to Gov. Jack Markell during his yearlong initiative as Chair 

of the National Governors Association to increase employment opportunities for people with 

disabilities. The Governor’s 2012-2013 initiative, “A Better Bottom Line: Employing People 

with Disabilities,” culminated with the release of a blueprint for his fellow governors specifically 

focused on the role that state governments and businesses can play in creating more employment 

opportunities for people with disabilities and on improving employment outcomes. Landgraf

continues to work with the Governor to increase employment opportunities for individuals with 

disabilities in Delaware’s private, nonprofit and public sectors.
124

Secretary Landgraf has been a leader on health care, disabilities, and senior issues, including

formerly as executive director of The Arc of Delaware, where she was instrumental in creating a 

community based job development and placement program, and during her tenure at The Arc 

provided guidance to self-advocates in creating Delaware People First. Landgraf also served as 

the Executive Director of the National Alliance on Mental Illness in Delaware, and president of 

AARP Delaware. For her efforts, the University of Delaware inducted her into the University Of 

Delaware Alumni Wall Of Fame in June 2011, and she will be inducted into the Delaware 

Women’s Hall of Fame this March.

Lisa Pugh – Disability Rights Wisconsin

Lisa Pugh is the Public Policy Coordinator for Wisconsin's 

Disability Policy Partnership and Policy Director for the state's 

Protection and Advocacy agency, Disability Rights Wisconsin. 

In this role she educates policymakers at the state and federal 

level and coordinates and informs the work of other advocates, 

coalitions and organizations that support people with disabilities 

in Wisconsin. The policy partnership is a unique collaboration of 

Disability Rights Wisconsin, the Board for People with 

Developmental Disabilities and People First Wisconsin. As a Joseph P. Kennedy, Jr. Foundation 

Public Policy Fellow in 2009-2010, served as a disability policy advisor in the U.S. House of 

Representatives Committee on Education and Labor and in the Office of the Under Secretary at 

the U.S. Department of Education.

Lisa has worked to advance initiatives and train advocates, including people with disabilities, on 

a variety of issues. In the past year she was instrumental in coordinating support for significant 

investments in integrated, competitive wage employment initiatives for people with disabilities 

and extending access to long-term care programs throughout Wisconsin. She is currently the 

policy lead on Wisconsin's youth Partnerships in Employment systems change grant - Let's Get 

to Work - funded through the Administration on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities and 

serves as Education Issue Team Lead for the statewide Survival Coalition of Wisconsin 

Disability Organizations. In May 2014 Lisa was appointed by President Obama to serve on the 

President's Committee for People with Intellectual Disabilities. Lisa lives in Madison, 

Wisconsin. She has three children, one of whom as a developmental disability.
125

Fredric Schroeder – Interwork Institute at San Diego State 

University

Dr. Fredric K. Schroeder was born in Lima, Peru, in 1957. He and 

his brother Steve were adopted and moved to the United States when 

he was nineteen months old. Born with normal vision, Dr. Schroeder 

became blind at the age of seven after suffering a severe allergic 

reaction known as Stephens-Johnson's Syndrome. As a result, his 

vision deteriorated over a nine-year period, leaving him totally blind 

at the age of sixteen.

Following graduation from high school, Dr. Schroeder attended the 

Orientation Center for the Blind in Albany, California. There he joined the National Federation 

of the Blind, and his involvement in the disability consumer movement has been central to his 

life and work ever since. His professional achievements are impressive. In 1980, Dr. Schroeder 

returned to New Mexico to work as a teacher of blind children for the Albuquerque Public 

Schools. Six years later, Dr. Schroeder was appointed the New Mexico Commission for the 

Blind’s first executive director. In 1994, President Bill Clinton appointed Schroeder to serve as 

the ninth commissioner of the Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA) within the U.S.

Department of Education. As RSA commissioner he administered a $2.5 billion dollar program 

providing services to more than one million people with disabilities each year. He focused on 

high-quality employment—better jobs, jobs with a future, jobs enabling people to achieve a good 

and equitable standard of living. His crowning achievement as RSA commissioner was ending 

the practice of having state vocational rehabilitation agencies place people with disabilities in 

segregated employment settings, often at subminimum wages.

Following his service as RSA commissioner, he joined the faculty of the Interwork Institute at 

San Diego State University. He now works as a research professor specializing in leadership and 

public policy in vocational rehabilitation. He also serves as the Executive Director of the 

National Rehabilitation Association, a grassroots organization of rehabilitation professionals. His 

involvement in the National Federation of the Blind also continues. On July 5, 2006, Dr. 

Schroeder was unanimously elected first vice president of the National Federation of the Blind, 

and he often represents the Federation at national and international meetings and conferences. 

Dr. Schroeder has also held a number of leadership positions internationally. He was the 

founding president of the International Council on English Braille and presently serves as the 

first vice president of the World Blind Union.

Dr. Schroeder attended San Francisco State University, earning a Bachelor’s Degree in 

Psychology in 1977; a master's degree in Special Education in 1978; and a Ph.D. in Education 

Administration from the University of New Mexico in May 1994.
126

Appendix D: Relevant Statutory and Regulatory Provisions 

Currently Governing the Administration of the Section 14(c) 

Program

29 U.S.C. § 214 is entitled “Employment under special certificates.” The entirety of 29 

U.S.C. § 214(c) reads:

(c) Handicapped workers

(1) The Secretary, to the extent necessary to prevent curtailment of opportunities for 

employment, shall by regulation or order provide for the employment, under special 

certificates, of individuals (including individuals employed in agriculture) whose earning 

or productive capacity is impaired by age, physical or mental deficiency, or injury, at 

wages which are—

(A) lower than the minimum wage applicable under section 206 of this title,202

(B) commensurate with those paid to nonhandicapped workers, employed in the 

vicinity in which the individuals under the certificates are employed, for 

essentially the same type, quality, and quantity of work, and

(C) related to the individual's productivity.

(2) The Secretary shall not issue a certificate under paragraph (1) unless the employer 

provides written assurances to the Secretary that—

(A) in the case of individuals paid on an hourly rate basis, wages paid in accordance 

with paragraph (1) will be reviewed by the employer at periodic intervals at least 

once every six months, and

(B) wages paid in accordance with paragraph (1) will be adjusted by the employer at 

periodic intervals, at least once each year, to reflect changes in the prevailing 

wage paid to experienced nonhandicapped individuals employed in the locality 

for essentially the same type of work.

(3) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), no employer shall be permitted to reduce the hourly wage 

rate prescribed by certificate under this subsection in effect on June 1, 1986, of any 

handicapped individual for a period of two years from such date without prior 

authorization of the Secretary.

(4) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to prohibit an employer from maintaining or 

establishing work activities centers to provide therapeutic activities for handicapped 

clients.

(A)Notwithstanding any other provision of this subsection, any employee receiving a 

special minimum wage at a rate specified pursuant to this subsection or the parent or 

guardian of such an employee may petition the Secretary to obtain a review of such 

special minimum wage rate. An employee or the employee’s parent or guardian may 
127

file such a petition for and in behalf of the employee or in behalf of the employee and 

other employees similarly situated. No employee may be a party to any such action 

unless the employee or the employee’s parent or guardian gives consent in writing to 

become such a party and such consent is filed with the Secretary.

(B) Upon receipt of a petition filed in accordance with subparagraph (A), the 

Secretary within ten days shall assign the petition to an administrative law judge 

appointed pursuant to section 3105 of Title 5.203 The administrative law judge 

shall conduct a hearing on the record in accordance with section 554 of Title 5204

with respect to such petition within thirty days after assignment.

(C) In any such proceeding, the employer shall have the burden of demonstrating that 

the special minimum wage rate is justified as necessary in order to prevent 

curtailment of opportunities for employment.

The relevant provisions of 29 C.F.R. § 525, et seq., entitled “Employment of Workers with 

Disabilities Under Special Certificates” are excerpted below:

These provisions “[p]rovide for the employment [1] under certificates [2] of individuals with 

disabilities [3] at special minimum wage rates [4] which are commensurate with those paid to 

workers not disabled for the work to be performed [5] employed in the vicinity [6] for essentially 

the same type, quality, and quantity of work.” Id. at § 525.1. 

A “worker with a disability” is “an individual whose earning or productive capacity is impaired 

by a physical or mental disability, including those relating to age or injury, for the work to be 

performed.” Id. at § 525.3. 

Employers seeking a special minimum wage certificate must submit an application to the Wage 

and Hour Division (WHD) of the Department of Labor. See id. at § 525.7. In reviewing such 

applications, WHD is seeking to determine whether issuance of the certificate is “necessary in 

order to prevent the curtailment of opportunities for employment” of workers with disabilities. 

Id. at § 525.9. Certificates are issued for a particular period of time, designated by the 

Administrator of WHD. Id. at § 525.12. When a certificate is due to expire, the employer can 

submit an application to renew. Id. at § 525.13. 

The employer derives the “commensurate wage” of a worker with a disability for purposes of the 

certificate by comparing the individual productivity of the worker with “the wage and 

productivity of experienced nondisabled workers performing essentially the same type, quality, 

and quantity of work in the vicinity in which the individual under certificate is employed. For 

example, the commensurate wage of a worker with a disability who is 75% as productive as the 

average experienced nondisabled worker, taking into consideration the type, quality, and quantity 

of work of the disabled worker, would be set at 75% of the wage paid to the nondisabled 

worker.” Id. at § 525.3. The prevailing wage must be based upon work utilizing similar methods 

and equipment. Id. at § 525.10. An experienced nondisabled worker is one “who has learned the 
128

basic elements or requirements of the work to be performed, ordinarily by completion of a 

probationary or training period. Typically, such a worker will have received at least one pay raise 

after successful completion of the probationary or training period.” Id. at § 525.3. 

An employer that primarily employs nondisabled workers may use those employees’ 

productivity and wages for comparison purposes; an employer that primarily employs people 

with disabilities may conduct a survey of wages paid to nondisabled workers at a comparable 

employer “in the vicinity.” Id. at § 525.10. Employers may also use sources such as the Bureau 

of Labor Statistics or private or state employment services. Id. “[T]here is no prescribed method 

for tabulating the results of a prevailing wage survey.” Id. Where an employer cannot figure out 

the prevailing wage for a specific job, “such as [a job that involves] collating documents,” it can 

use “the wage paid to experienced individuals employed in similar jobs such as file clerk or 

general office clerk.” Id. Employers must be able to “demonstrate [to WHD] that the rate being 

used as prevailing for determining a commensurate wage was objectively determined according 

to [the guidelines described in this and the preceding paragraphs].” Id.

The initial evaluation of a worker’s productivity, in order to determine the worker’s 

commensurate wage, must be conducted within the first month after employment begins. Id. at § 

525.12. However, “evaluations should not be conducted before a worker has had an opportunity 

to become familiar with the job or at a time when the worker is fatigued or subject to conditions 

that result in less than normal productivity.” Id. The employer must compensate the employee if 

it determines that the rate paid prior to the evaluation was lower than the commensurate wage 

rate. Id. 

After the initial application for a Special Certificate, employers must have available to WHD 

“written assurances” that wage rates of individuals paid on an hourly rate basis (not those doing 

piece work) under the Certificate are being “reviewed” at least every six months, and that the 

wages of all employees (including those doing piece work) are being reviewed at least annually. 

See id. at §§ 525.1, 525.9, 525.12 (“Conducting reviews at six-month intervals should be viewed 

as a minimum requirement... Reviews must be conducted in a manner and frequency to insure 

payment of commensurate wages”). Employers must also “maintain and have available for 

inspection” records providing “verification” of each worker’s disability, evidence of the 

productivity of each worker with a disability, the prevailing wages paid workers not disabled for 

the job, and the production standards and supporting documentation used. Id. at § 525.16. 

WHD can revoke a certificate “if it is found that the certificate is no longer necessary in order to 

prevent curtailment of opportunities for employment” of workers with disabilities. Id. at § 

525.17. However, “[e]xcept in cases of willfulness or those in which the public interest requires 

otherwise, before any certificate shall be revoked, facts or conduct which may warrant such 

action shall be called to the attention of the employer in writing and such employer shall be 

afforded an opportunity to demonstrate or achieve compliance with all legal requirements.” Id. 
129

“Any person aggrieved by any action of the Administrator taken pursuant to this part” can file a 

“petition for review.” Id. at § 525.18. “Other interested persons, to the extent it is deemed 

appropriate, may be afforded an opportunity to present data and views” regarding the petition. Id. 

The Administrator can conduct an investigation in response, and hold a hearing if “deemed 

appropriate.” Id. at § 525.19. 

An employee receiving a special minimum wage or the parent or guardian of such an employee 

may petition the Secretary to review their special minimum wage rate. Id. at § 525.22. Such a 

petition may be filed on behalf of other employees “similarly situated” if those employees 

consent to participate in writings filed with the Secretary.205 The petitioner(s) and the employer 

are entitled to a hearing before an ALJ, review by the Secretary, and judicial review pursuant to 

5 U.S.C. Chapter 7.206,207

The regulations also create an “Advisory Committee on Special Minimum Wages.” See id. at § 

525.24. 

“No provision of [the] regulations, or of any special minimum wage certificate issued 

thereunder, shall excuse noncompliance with any other Federal or State law or municipal 

ordinance establishing higher standards.” Id. at § 525.20. 

* * *

202 29 U.S.C.A. § 206 (“Every employer shall pay to each of his employees who in any workweek is engaged in 

commerce or in the production of goods for commerce, or is employed in an enterprise engaged in commerce or in 

the production of goods for commerce, wages at the following rates: (1) except as otherwise provided in this section, 

not less than -- (A) $5.85 an hour, beginning on the 60th day after May 25, 2007; (B) $6.55 an hour, beginning 12 

months after that 60th day; and (C) $7.25 an hour, beginning 24 months after that 60th day...”).

203 5 U.S.C. § 3105 (“Each agency shall appoint as many administrative law judges as are necessary...”). 

204 5 U.S.C. § 554 (“This section applies, according to the provisions thereof, in every case of adjudication required 

by statute to be determined on the record after opportunity for an agency hearing...”). 

205 29 U.S.C. § 214(c)(5)(A)

206

 Governing review of a final agency action. 

207 29 C.F.R. § 525.22

 
130

Appendix E: Crosswalk of Committee Recommendations

This section of the report provides a list of all subcommittee recommendations and the targeted 

agency or organization. Below is the list of abbreviations for each of the agencies and programs 

that have been targeted by a recommendations followed by a cross tab for each chapter of the

Interim Report.

Abbreviations

Agency or Program Abbreviation

President President of the United States of America

Congress United States Congress

All Federal Agencies All Federal Agencies

DOL U.S. Department of Labor

 WHD Wage and Hour Division

 ETA Employment and Training Administration

ED U.S. Department of Education

 RSA Rehabilitation Services Administration 

 OSERS Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services

DOT U.S. Department of Transportation

SSA Social Security Administration

HHS U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

 CMS Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

 OCR Office of Civil Rights 

DOJ U.S. Department of Justice

SEA State Education Agencies

LEA Local Education Agencies

ACICIEID Advisory Committee on Increasing Competitive Integrated Employment for 

Individuals with Disabilities

AbilityOne®-Com The AbilityOne® Commission

AbilityOne®-NPA AbilityOne® Nonprofit Agencies

AbilityOne®-CNA Central Nonprofit Agencies (SourceAmerica and National Industries for the Blind)

CIE Programs Competitive Integrated Employment Programs

SVRA State Vocational Rehabilitation Agencies

SIDD State Intellectual or Developmental Disability Agencies

IDEA The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
131

Chapter Two: Transition to Careers Subcommittee Recommendations

Page

No. Recommendation Number and DescriptionPresidentCongressAll Federal Agencies

U.S. 

Dep.

of Labor

U.S.

Dep.

of 

Education

DOTSecretary of TransportationSSA

U.S. 

Dep. of 

Health 

and 

Human 

Services

DOJSEALEAACICIEIDAbilityOne®-ComAbilityOne®-NPAAbilityOne®-CNADOLSecretary 

of Labor

WHDETAEDRSAOSERSHHSCMSOCRCIE ProgramsSVRASIDDIDEA

Area 1: Early Work Experience

27 1 The Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA) should analyze policies and practices that act as barriers for youth in 

accessing early VR supports and services (i.e., paperwork and application burden, language barriers) and provide such 

analysis to states with specific guidance on improvement in policy and practice.

X

28 2 The U.S. Department of Education (ED) should provide guidance on a vocational rehabilitation (VR) referral protocol and 

timeline to State Education Agencies (SEAs). A mechanism should be in place to ensure that families have been provided 

with meaningful information on the benefits of VR services.

X

28 3 ED should make a priority to focus on Post-School Outcomes in Results Driven Accountability for all States. ED should 

transition states to a process of using Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Indicator 14 (post-school 

outcomes) for annual benchmarking, compliance and quality improvement purposes. Indicator 14 should be further 

enhanced to differentiate sheltered employment outcomes from competitive integrated employment outcomes.

X

28 4 Any reauthorization of IDEA must:

28 4a. Re-establish the age of transition to no later than when a youth turns 14. X

28 4b. Require early connection to and participation in VR services at the earliest stage of transition as coordinated in a 

youth’s Individual Education Plan (IEP).

X

28 4c. Further define a summary of performance to include a record of a youth’s integrated work experiences. Require that the 

IEP include a description of the integrated work experiences that will be provided to assist the youth in reaching 

postsecondary goals.

X

28 5 Federal research grant priorities should be expanded to explore the research connection related to quality, evidence-based 

general education inclusion practices, and general education curriculum that leads to college and workforce skills and 

improved post- school outcomes.

28 6 ED should increase investment in high quality multivariate correlational research to move from promising practices to 

evidence-based practices, including determining the combination of practices that will guide the field to improved 

outcomes as youth transition from school to careers of choice.

X

28 7 DOL, ED, and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) 

should work together to leverage federal resources (including WIOA Title I and Title IV) so funding streams and services 

can work together to focus on strategies that ensure youth with significant disabilities get integrated work experiences and 

related employment-services, including internships, apprenticeships and on-the-job training, along with related career 

services and counseling, prior to exiting high school.

X X X X

Area 2: Postsecondary Education

29 8 ED and SEAs must act to improve secondary teacher education requirements and paraprofessional training on appropriate 

strategies to prepare students with disabilities for postsecondary education (PSE) and include such areas as the value of 

PSE, setting high expectations, academic career planning / individualized learning planning, disability support services, 

universal design, and accommodations based upon learning style.

X X
132

Page

No. Recommendation Number and DescriptionPresidentCongressAll Federal Agencies

U.S. 

Dep.

of Labor

U.S.

Dep.

of 

Education

DOTSecretary of TransportationSSA

U.S. 

Dep. of 

Health 

and 

Human 

Services

DOJSEALEAACICIEIDAbilityOne®-ComAbilityOne®-NPAAbilityOne®-CNADOLSecretary 

of Labor

WHDETAEDRSAOSERSHHSCMSOCRCIE ProgramsSVRASIDDIDEA

29 9 ED, RSA, and SEAs must review policies and issue joint guidance to ensure that prior to each student's secondary 

education graduation, the student's IEP team has identified and engaged the responsible agencies, resources, and 

accommodations required for PSE that would include the specific types and levels of supports needed by the student for 

success.

X X X

29 10 ED must require PSE experiences to involve multiple competitive integrated employment experiences to include paid 

internships in integrated settings to ensure that the entire experience is oriented and coordinated to support the student’s 

identified career of choice.

X

29 11 DOL should direct the workforce system to coordinate with other partners to provide youth with I/DD who are attending 

PSE, orientation toward careers through work experience, career planning, and career counseling.

X

Area 3: Family Expectations

29 12 Federally funded grantees that have early contact with parents of children with I/DD and other significant disabilities (i.e., 

Parent Training and Information Centers, Family-to-Family Health Centers, IDEA Part B/C, Family Support Programs) 

should be required to engage with families earlier to support them in acquiring higher expectations that leads to transition 

long-range planning with self advocates engaged as mentors.

29 13 ED should prioritize the use of student-led IEPs and best practices promoting self-determination at an early age to improve 

family expectations for positive employment outcomes.

X

29 14 ED must issue guidance on developing embedded discussions in the IEP process, during the pre-transition age, that leads to 

long-range post-school outcomes planning versus year-to-year planning. With any reauthorization of IDEA, the IEP 

process must be updated and provide funding sources related to a focus on a vision that builds toward long-range, postschool outcomes planning.

X

29 15 RSA should issue guidance to states on how to provide Work Incentives Benefits Counseling and financial literacy that is 

tailored to individual youth/family household that is tailored to individual youth and is considered a service under PreEmployment Transition Services.

X

Area 4: System Integration/Seamless Transition

30 16 Interagency alignment of outcome goals, coordination of supports, services, and funding oriented toward competitive 

integrated employment must be mandated among ED, DOL, RSA, the Social Security Administration (SSA), and CMS. A 

lead federal agency must be designated. These key federal agencies must provide implementation guidance to the states 

and states must provide guidance to the local communities to support the following: lowering the age of transition to 14, 

specifying practices for braiding of resources, clarifying funder of last resort mandates, clearly identifying roles and 

responsibilities, benchmarking milestones, sharing data collection processes and analyses, tracking outcomes of 

collaboration over time, and having a plan for dissemination of this information to families and professionals.

X X X X X

30 17 ED, SSA, RSA, and CMS must work toward presumptive eligibility and a common application process across state 

agencies for youth with I/DD and other significant disabilities, to the greatest degree possible with a focus on securing 

automatic VR eligibility for waiver eligible youth who desire employment.

X X X X

30 18 Federal agencies must coordinate to develop a pilot and seek demonstration authority to increase flexibility and potentially 

waive requirements across multiple authorities (IDEA, Elementary Secondary Education Act (ESEA), RSA, SSA, DOL, 

and CMS) so funds may be streamlined to support youth achieving successful competitive integrated employment 

outcomes.

X

30 19 ED’s The Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) should ensure that youth with I/DD and other significant 

disabilities have access to assistive technology. OSEP, RSA, and HHS should ensure that policies allow assistive 

technology devices to transfer to the student’s workplace and/or postsecondary environment.

X X X
133

Page

No. Recommendation Number and DescriptionPresidentCongressAll Federal Agencies

U.S. 

Dep.

of Labor

U.S.

Dep.

of 

Education

DOTSecretary of TransportationSSA

U.S. 

Dep. of 

Health 

and 

Human 

Services

DOJSEALEAACICIEIDAbilityOne®-ComAbilityOne®-NPAAbilityOne®-CNADOLSecretary 

of Labor

WHDETAEDRSAOSERSHHSCMSOCRCIE ProgramsSVRASIDDIDEA

30 20 ED in collaboration with RSA should issue guidance specifically on ways in which schools and state VR can and should 

fund transportation as a service to support integrated work experiences as part of a student’s IEP and/or individual 

employment plan.

X X

Area 5: Professional Supports and Incentives

30 21 State Medicaid agencies must tie professional certifications and Medicaid provider qualifications to specific competencies 

related to understanding competitive integrated employment opportunities for Medicaid beneficiaries.

X

30 22 ED, RSA, and DOL must promote and fund pre-service and in-service training for professionals and paraprofessionals 

across the systems that focuses on building high expectations related to CIE and evidence-based practices to include family 

engagement strategies, use of labor market information, an understanding of career counseling and pathways, availability 

of CIE services, person-centered employment services, and employer relations.

X X X

31 23 Federal agencies must update core competencies, standards and pre-service requirements for early childhood and other 

pediatric medical and social service professions to embed values related to high expectations for children with I/DD and 

other significant disabilities.

X

31 24 “Highly Qualified Special Education Teacher” should be redefined to reflect the unique skills necessary to effectively plan 

and provide required transition services that lead to competitive integrated employment outcomes; in turn, these 

qualifications should become competencies that are embedded in all special education personnel preparation programs.
134

Chapter Three: Complexity and Needs in Delivering Competitive Integrated Employment Subcommittee Recommendations

Page

No. Recommendation Number and DescriptionPresidentCongressAll Federal Agencies

U.S. 

Dep.

of Labor

U.S.

Dep.

of 

Education

DOTSecretary of TransportationSSA

U.S. 

Dep. of 

Health 

and 

Human 

Services

DOJSEALEAACICIEIDAbilityOne®-ComAbilityOne®-NPAAbilityOne®-CNADOLSecretary 

of Labor

WHDETAEDRSAOSERSHHSCMSOCRCIE ProgramsSVRASIDDIDEA

Area 1: Funding

42 1 DOL should lead a collaboration of federal agencies to identify, align, and develop clear policies and practices across all 

federal agencies that make CIE outcomes a priority and guide states in applying these policies and practices. The federal 

agencies should include those participating in the Committee and other relevant agencies in ED and the U.S. Department 

of Justice (DOJ). DOL and other Committee member agencies should report on progress at each full Committee meeting.

X X

42 2 ED, in implementing WIOA, should require:

42 2a. Intervention for youth beginning prior to age 14; X

42 2b. Opportunities for integrated work experience for all youth, with access to needed assistive technology, job coaching 

and other supports, for a period of not less than 24 months; and

X

43 2c. Presumed eligibility for VR services for any youth considering sheltered employment. X

43 3 RSA, in implementing WIOA, should:

43 3a. Clarify that youth with disabilities must first apply for VR services and, if eligible, work toward a CIE goal, which can

include supported employment for a “reasonable” period of time. A “reasonable” period of time should be at least 24 

months, regardless of whether the youth has a supported employment IPE or a regular IPE; and

X

43 3b. Clarify that extending the time limit of Supported Employment Services from 18 to 24 months refers to ongoing 

support services provided after a person has been successfully placed in a job that meets the WIOA definition of 

Supported Employment. This is consistent with the definition of Supported Employment Services in WIOA.

X

43 4 ED should direct state education and vocational rehabilitation agencies to include blueprints for designing and 

implementing local working agreements in existing state inter-agency agreements. The local agreements should identify 

how much VR and school financial support is available to implement best practice transition programs that include 

integrated work experience after age 18 through internships, apprenticeships and similar experiences. These strategies will 

help students leave transition programs with a job, a solid portfolio of work, and/or an effective plan for additional 

education leading to a job. State education and rehabilitation agencies should report results of state and local efforts to 

ED.

X

43 5 CMS should lead a collaboration of federal agencies, including those participating in the Committee and relevant agencies 

in ED, to issue federal guidance to states on how to use, braid and/or blend their respective funds to support best practices

and/or evidence-based models that result in CIE. In the interim, information should be published about states that are 

successfully using federal funds to support best practice and evidence-based CIE.

X X X

43 6 DOL, in partnership with CMS and SSA, should lead a collaboration of federal agencies participating in the Committee 

and relevant agencies in ED, to issue guidance on models and payment methodologies that make CIE outcomes the 

priority.

X X X

43 7 CMS should issue guidance on how states can use the range of Medicaid authorities to fund services resulting in and 

supporting CIE for people with significant disabilities, including the use of 1905(a) state plan services to fund supported 

employment for people with serious mental illness.

X
135

Page

No. Recommendation Number and DescriptionPresidentCongressAll Federal Agencies

U.S. 

Dep.

of Labor

U.S.

Dep.

of 

Education

DOTSecretary of TransportationSSA

U.S. 

Dep. of 

Health 

and 

Human 

Services

DOJSEALEAACICIEIDAbilityOne®-ComAbilityOne®-NPAAbilityOne®-CNADOLSecretary 

of Labor

WHDETAEDRSAOSERSHHSCMSOCRCIE ProgramsSVRASIDDIDEA

43 8 DOL should collaborate with CMS and other relevant federal agencies, to identify and make available financial support 

and incentives to help people move from segregated programs (such as sheltered employment, day habilitation and day 

treatment) to CIE. Such support could be modeled after programs like the Medicaid Infrastructure Grants, Money Follows 

the Person or Balancing Incentive Programs. Such funds should help build capacity to transition people from sheltered 

employment or segregated day programs to CIE or to provide for enhanced FFP to encourage expanding CIE. These 

efforts should be tied to specific, measurable outcomes such as decreases in the number of people in sheltered 

employment or other segregated day programs and increases in CIE. DOL, CMS and other Committee members should 

report back to the full committee by January 2016 about resources in existing federal programs and recommendations for 

Congressional authorization of additional resources and/or programs.

X X

44 9 CMS should provide technical assistance to states and managed care organizations on the importance of CIE and how to 

support CIE for people with significant disabilities through Medicaid.

X

44 10 CMS should mitigate the policy that prohibits individuals from receiving CIE services if they do not live in settings that 

meet the HCBS Settings Rule requirements.

X

44 11 DOL should lead a collaboration of federal agencies, including those participating in the Committee and relevant agencies 

in ED, to ensure technical assistance resources are available to increase the competence and capacity of professionals 

serving people with disabilities to find and connect people to jobs and careers. This technical assistance partnership of 

federal agencies should encourage states to participate in providing such supports. Technical assistance is essential to 

build capacity in current and new programs and to improve the system’s ability to deliver best practice and evidencebased models of employment support.

X X

44 12 SSA should collaborate with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and other relevant federal 

agencies to identify and carry out immediate and long- term steps to eliminate the fear that people with disabilities will 

lose benefits by working. These steps may include wide dissemination of information about work incentives that has been 

reviewed for clarity by people with disabilities; ready access to benefits counselors; and developing best practices for all 

counselors to present information and options in ways that are clear, simple, and feel safe to beneficiaries so they can 

make decisions regarding employment based on accurate information.

X X X

44 13 SSA should provide a report to the Committee about strategies that have proven successful in alleviating concerns about 

loss of benefits. The report will help the Committee develop recommendations for the Final Report due September 2016. 

The SSA report should include information from all relevant federal agencies and results of the different SSA 

demonstration projects pertaining to employment and loss of benefits. The report should include recommendations made 

by people who participated in the projects.

X

45 14 Congress should authorize expanding the Ticket to Work program to the children’s SSI program. While many youth 

receiving SSI go on to receive SSI as adults, access to the Ticket is not available until after an adult redetermination 

process has already taken place, resulting in lost time. Expansion will enable school districts and other organizations that 

support youth employment to become employment networks and increase the likelihood that young people with 

disabilities will have access to employment experiences that are typical of young people without disabilities. These 

experiences will improve the likelihood of successful employment as adults.

X

45 15 RSA should clearly define “most significant disability” by:
136

Page

No. Recommendation Number and DescriptionPresidentCongressAll Federal Agencies

U.S. 

Dep.

of Labor

U.S.

Dep.

of 

Education

DOTSecretary of TransportationSSA

U.S. 

Dep. of 

Health 

and 

Human 

Services

DOJSEALEAACICIEIDAbilityOne®-ComAbilityOne®-NPAAbilityOne®-CNADOLSecretary 

of Labor

WHDETAEDRSAOSERSHHSCMSOCRCIE ProgramsSVRASIDDIDEA

45 15a. Issuing an Advanced Notice of Preliminary Rule Making (ANPRM) to solicit feedback on how to define “most 

significant disability.” The Subcommittee recommends that RSA consider including in the definition (a) people working 

in segregated settings and/or being paid below the minimum wage, (b) people receiving SSDI or SSI or at substantial risk 

of receiving these benefits in the future, and (c) transition age youth who have or have had an Individualized Education 

Program (IEP) or Section 504 Plan in school.

X

45 15b. Require state VR agencies to establish specific practices for contacting and encouraging SSI and SSDI recipients 

(who are presumed eligible) to use VR services.

X

45 15c. Encourage state VR agencies to engage in outreach to transition age youth and individuals currently in sheltered 

employment or other segregated settings about VR services.

X

45 16 DOL should lead a should lead a collaboration of federal agencies, including Committee member agencies and relevant 

agencies in ED, to inform and educate their headquarters and regional personnel and related state agencies (such as VR, 

intellectual or developmental disabilities services, and mental health services) staff about use of best practices and 

evidence-based employment programs to obtain jobs for people with significant disabilities. Knowledge of successful 

closures and access to best practices in CIE will improve the ability of employment professionals to link people to good 

jobs and improve employment outcomes.

X

45 17 OSERS should disseminate information about effective transition programs that help students leave school with jobs or 

have effective post-school employment plans that lead to jobs.

X

45 18 DOL should lead a collaboration of federal agencies, including those participating in the Committee and relevant agencies 

in ED, to review states or programs that are effectively moving people to CIE from sheltered employment and other 

segregated settings and/or who are being paid below the minimum or prevailing wage. Information about these states or 

programs should be widely disseminated.

X

46 19 RSA should analyze the data it collects on individuals whose cases are closed before services are rendered and the reasons 

for closure. RSA should use its analysis of the data to determine how to reduce the number of eligible individuals that do 

not receive services.

X

46 20 RSA should develop conflict of interest policies requiring the determination of individuals’ capacity for CIE be made by 

an entity separate from the CRP serving the person. There should be more oversight of these decisions by RSA to ensure 

CIE is widely available.

X

46 21 DOL should lead an effort to engage the business community as a major stakeholder in the employment of persons with 

disabilities. As partners, the business community can provide on-site resources such as options for employment and 

advice on best practice marketing of employment. They can provide business-to-business leadership in presenting the case 

for employing, retaining and promoting persons with significant disabilities.

X

46 22 DOL should lead a collaboration of federal agencies, including those participating in the Committee and relevant agencies 

in ED, to ensure that resources are available to states to convey the message of why CIE is important to people with 

disabilities. People with disabilities, their families and state level advocates should direct educational campaigns about 

employment and its importance.

X

Area 2: Data and Outcomes

46 23 DOL should lead a collaboration of federal agencies, including those participating in the Committee and relevant agencies 

in ED, to develop and use a standard definition for CIE across federal agencies. The definition should be based on HCBS 

definitions and the WIOA definition. The standard definition of CIE should be consistent with the goals of WIOA and the 

ADA.

X
137

Page

No. Recommendation Number and DescriptionPresidentCongressAll Federal Agencies

U.S. 

Dep.

of Labor

U.S.

Dep.

of 

Education

DOTSecretary of TransportationSSA

U.S. 

Dep. of 

Health 

and 

Human 

Services

DOJSEALEAACICIEIDAbilityOne®-ComAbilityOne®-NPAAbilityOne®-CNADOLSecretary 

of Labor

WHDETAEDRSAOSERSHHSCMSOCRCIE ProgramsSVRASIDDIDEA

46 24 DOL should lead a collaboration of federal agencies, including those participating in the Committee and relevant agencies 

in the ED, to develop consistent CIE outcome measures based on the standard definition of CIE recommended above for 

use at the federal and state levels. DOL should consider the data and outcome measures described in the Findings and 

Conclusion above regarding employment outcomes (such as wages and benefits paid, hours worked, type of 

job/occupational classification, group versus individual employment, formal versus natural supports, and average wage 

increase over time) and the impact of CIE (such as income level, use of healthcare services, housing stability, reliance on 

cash benefits, taxes paid, community inclusion, social capital, independent living, and cost benefits of wages earned 

versus support funding expended). Information from the national initiatives on outcome measures, other labor force 

surveys and WIOA implementation activities should inform this effort.

X

47 25 Each federal agency that funds CIE (including DOL, RSA, and CMS) should require that states collect outcome data at a 

state, local and agency/provider level. These measures should include comparative hospitalizations, emergency room use, 

impact on homelessness, taxes paid, reduction in cash benefits, and cost benefit (wages earned versus support funding 

expended). Each agency should require states to report to it these data on a regular basis. Recognizing that state data 

systems are expensive to create and vary in sophistication across states, the Committee will attempt to explore best 

practice and cost effective models of employment data collection for the Final Report due in September 2016.

X X X

47 26 DOL should collaborate with other federal agencies to ensure that outcome data is widely disseminated so that people 

with disabilities, their families and other stakeholders can make informed decisions about employment, including such 

information as: where work is available; and which agencies are most effective in supporting people to obtain CIE.

X X

47 27 CMS should provide guidance and technical assistance to states using Medicaid funding for employment and day services 

to make it easier for them to incorporate, implement, and track quality and outcome measures for CIE and other day 

services. Quality measures should be included as a state requirement in HCBS programs, managed care, and other waiver 

authorities. Quality and outcome measures for any employment service should be based on recommendations made above.

X

47 28 DOL should collaborate with other federal agencies that fund CIE to make state and national spending and outcome data 

widely available. The data should include, at minimum, the number of people employed in competitive integrated 

employment at minimum wage or higher, the number of people employed at a subminimum wage, the number using other 

day services, and spending on employment versus other day services. The federal government should also collect and 

publish state outcome data (see recommendation above) as well as information regarding the benefits of employment and 

its positive impact on healthcare costs and social services for people with significant disabilities.

X X

47 29 CIE programs should participate in fidelity processes to improve practice in connecting job seekers with good jobs that fit 

their abilities and interests and result in good wages, benefits and working hours. The Committee will review current 

practice with regard to fidelity in CIE and recommend best practices in the Final Report due in September 2016.

X
138

Chapter Four: Marketplace Dynamics Subcommittee Recommendations

Page

No. Recommendation Number and DescriptionPresidentCongressAll Federal Agencies

U.S. 

Dep.

of Labor

U.S.

Dep.

of 

Education

DOTSecretary of TransportationSSA

U.S. 

Dep. of 

Health 

and 

Human 

Services

DOJSEALEAACICIEIDAbilityOne®-ComAbilityOne®-NPAAbilityOne®-CNADOLSecretary 

of Labor

WHDETAEDRSAOSERSHHSCMSOCRCIE ProgramsSVRASIDDIDEA

Changing the Narrative/Building a Sustainable Culture of Inclusion

61 1 Congress shall appropriate funds for the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) in collaboration with the U.S. Department of 

Education (ED) and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to conduct a National Educational 

Campaign (the Campaign) to educate the public, the public workforce system, and businesses on the types of jobs 

individuals with I/DD or other significant disabilities hold in competitive integrated employment settings.

X

62 1a. One of the Campaign’s top priorities must be to include a business-to-business component where successful 

businesses share their “workforce diversity” models with other businesses that have not begun to hire individuals with 

I/DD and other significant disabilities. Business-to-business communications need to focus beyond policy to demystify 

the hiring process and take the fear out of hiring people with disabilities.

X

62 1b. The Campaign should focus on the development and dissemination of marketing materials that highlight the 

competitive advantage that stems from building a more inclusive workforce and showcases examples of businesses that 

have successfully integrated individuals with I/DD or other significant disabilities into their company culture. In 

particular, marketing materials should represent and target businesses of all sizes and include both written communication 

as well as short, promotional videos that may include videos or news releases that have already been developed.

X

62 1c. The Campaign should target Chambers of Commerce, human resource organizations, various industry trade 

organizations, healthcare institutions and healthcare industries, hospitality, retail, and other high-growth industries to 

dispel the negative myths and stereotypes directed to people with significant disabilities and to emphasize their abilities to 

perform within the competitive integrated workforce. The Campaign should include funding for the development of new 

business-based resources and materials, including Public Service Announcements, as well as the dissemination of existing 

resources.

Building Better Business Partnerships

62 2 The Employment and Training Administration (ETA) should create an educational module available to AJC and WDB 

staff and board members on “Disability Awareness” that highlights the communication skills and techniques necessary to 

most effectively work with people with significant disabilities. The educational module should be provided in one online 

centralized location.

X X

62 3 ETA should issue guidance to state level AJC staff and WDBs on developing partnerships with other key stakeholders. X

62 4 HHS shall fund and work in collaboration with the DOL to set up a program for Centers for Independent Living (CILs) to 

establish partnerships with AJCs/WDBs in their local areas. HHS and DOL should issue guidance to AJCs and WDBs on 

how to partner with CILs located in areas near AJCs. CILs that hold expertise in employment of individuals with I/DD 

and other significant disabilities can assist AJC staff onsite to reinforce education on “Disability Awareness” and 

appropriate communication with people with significant disabilities and provide technical assistance on community 

supports and accommodations.

X X X

63 5 Congress shall appropriate funding to DOL, ED, HHS, and business organizations to conduct a nation-wide educational 

campaign. The educational campaign must assist AJCs, WDBs, VR agencies, and service providers on how to 

communicate with businesses in order to provide quality services and address the needs of individual businesses of all 

sizes. The educational campaign should include information on the services provided by each agency within the public 

workforce systems in order to enhance cross-agency communication and reduce service duplication.

X
139

Page

No. Recommendation Number and DescriptionPresidentCongressAll Federal Agencies

U.S. 

Dep.

of Labor

U.S.

Dep.

of 

Education

DOTSecretary of TransportationSSA

U.S. 

Dep. of 

Health 

and 

Human 

Services

DOJSEALEAACICIEIDAbilityOne®-ComAbilityOne®-NPAAbilityOne®-CNADOLSecretary 

of Labor

WHDETAEDRSAOSERSHHSCMSOCRCIE ProgramsSVRASIDDIDEA

63 6 ETA should issue guidance to WDBs that representatives from Developmental Disabilities (DD) networks, such as state 

DD Councils, Protection and Advocacy agencies, or state DD agencies, should be appointed to each WDB at both the 

state and local levels across the United States.

X

Addressing Training and Pipeline Issues

63 7 Congress should authorize DOL, ED, and HHS to coordinate and establish national training requirements for all 

Disability Service Professionals (DSPs), including employment specialists, job coaches, job developers, and service 

provider organizations, to ensure that DSPs develop the knowledge and skills required to support all individuals with 

significant disabilities to achieve competitive integrated employment.

X X X X

63 7a. The Commissioners of the Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA) and HHS should provide guidance to states 

outlining these national training requirements for DSPs. At a minimum training requirements must cover topics related to 

the provision of high-quality employment services for individuals with significant disabilities, including: identifying 

potential employees’ skills and strengths, facilitating connections with potential employers, preparing potential 

employees for interviews, assisting employers to identify possible high-quality job matches, and providing the necessary 

training and coaching once jobs are secured in a career that the employee wants to pursue.

X X X

63 7b. Training requirements must also include specific business-related information including a general overview of 

different markets and industries as well as recommendations and guidance from businesses that have successfully 

included individuals with I/DD or other significant disabilities into their workforce.

63 8 Congress should authorize DOL, ED, and HHS to coordinate and establish national performance standards for all DSPs. 

DSPs must be held accountable for quality provision of services across the spectrum of employment supports. The 

Commissioners of RSA and HHS should provide guidance that DSPs who do not meet performance standards should face 

funding cuts and/or suspension or discontinuation of services.

X X X X X X

64 9 DOL and HHS should collaborate to develop templates for formal agreements between businesses and DSPs/job coaches. 

Templates must be accessible and available online in one centralized location.

X X X

64 10 Congress should amend WIOA and other applicable laws to ensure that individuals with I/DD and other significant 

disabilities receive priority access to training and internship opportunities, available through AJCs, state VR agencies, and 

the school system while utilizing all possible funding resources, including Pell Grants, to ensure that such training 

opportunities and internships occur.

X

Transportation

64 11 Congress should appropriate funding so that the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) and allied 

state programs ensure that public transportation systems planning in both urban and rural areas of the United States are 

developed and implemented to meet the needs of individuals with significant disabilities. This includes providing 

resources for travel training, safety mandate requirements, and training to transportation vendors on appropriate 

communication, treatment and respect to individuals with significant disabilities. Businesses that offer their own 

transportation services or supports must ensure that their transportation vendors are included in all training and 

educational information opportunities.

X

64 12 The Secretary of DOT should provide financial incentives to plan and implement collaborative and innovative approaches 

to resolve transportation deficits. Work with local governments, chambers of commerce business representatives and 

other organizations representing people with significant disabilities to create individualized transit options that identify 

specific needs of individual communities and their population of people with significant disabilities. Seek guidance from 

key stakeholders knowledgeable of transportation deficits within both urban and rural public transportation systems while 

including individuals with significant disabilities and family members in this planning and implementation process.

X
140

Page

No. Recommendation Number and DescriptionPresidentCongressAll Federal Agencies

U.S. 

Dep.

of Labor

U.S.

Dep.

of 

Education

DOTSecretary of TransportationSSA

U.S. 

Dep. of 

Health 

and 

Human 

Services

DOJSEALEAACICIEIDAbilityOne®-ComAbilityOne®-NPAAbilityOne®-CNADOLSecretary 

of Labor

WHDETAEDRSAOSERSHHSCMSOCRCIE ProgramsSVRASIDDIDEA

64 13 Congress should appropriate funding to ensure that the DOT enforces that public transit systems of all types meet the 

ADA accessibility requirements while ensuring the accessibility needs of rural transportation systems is addressed and 

resolved.

X

64 14 Congress should appropriate funds to ensure that DOT develops para-transit systems and other transit system options 

throughout rural America. Incentivize building accessible all-rider public transportation systems to minimize rider 

expenses.

X

64 15 DOT should develop plans and implement those plans to ensure that cross-jurisdictional transportation in larger 

geographic areas in rural America across the United States so that transportation for people with I/DD and other 

significant disabilities is seamless and uninterrupted.

X

65 16 DOT and allied state programs should prioritize access to public transportation for people with significant disabilities that

apply for or hold jobs in competitive integrated workplaces. Additionally, paratransit transportation providers should 

guarantee drop-off times within 15 minutes of employment start times unless there are extenuating circumstances such as 

severe weather conditions or accidents.

X
141

Chapter Five: Building State and Local Capacity Subcommittee Recommendations

Page

No. Recommendation Number and DescriptionPresidentCongressAll Federal Agencies

U.S. 

Dep.

of Labor

U.S.

Dep.

of 

Education

DOTSecretary of TransportationSSA

U.S. 

Dep. of 

Health 

and 

Human 

Services

DOJSEALEAACICIEIDAbilityOne®-ComAbilityOne®-NPAAbilityOne®-CNADOLSecretary 

of Labor

WHDETAEDRSAOSERSHHSCMSOCRCIE ProgramsSVRASIDDIDEA

76 1 Congress should direct CMS to expand the use of the HCBS Waiver program funds, now used for facility-based services, 

for competitive integrated employment services by changing the state match rate to be the same as that for the state VR 

program, thus providing an incentive for states to prioritize competitive integrated employment outcomes.

X X

76 2 CMS should adopt a standard system of publicly reporting employment outcomes, including competitive integrated 

employment, using a clear definition for competitive integrated employment that also includes hours worked, wages and 

level of integration.

X

76 3 Federal agencies that have programs related to providing employment services to individuals with significant disabilities, 

including CMS and the six core programs covered under WIOA (including VR), should identify common data collection 

points across federal agencies and establish systems to share data across programs.

X X

76 4 Working with service providers, federal, state and local service infrastructures should promote and fund innovative 

projects that result in the modernization and standardization of services that result in competitive integrated employment, 

new programs within existing organizations, and new organizations that provide only services leading to competitive 

integrated employment.

X

76 5 CMS and VR, and the designated I/DD and VR agencies in each state, should support professional development that 

includes the development of organizational leaders, program managers, and professional employment staff who focus on 

competitive integrated employment.

X X X

76 6 Designated state VR and I/DD agencies should develop state/local standards or adopt national standards of professional 

competence in providing services leading to competitive integrated employment.

X X

76 7 Designated state VR and I/DD agencies should support program transition away from sheltered employment settings and 

into competitive integrated employment settings.

X X
142

Chapter Six: Section 14(c) Program Recommendations

Page

No. Recommendation Number and DescriptionPresidentCongressAll Federal Agencies

U.S. 

Dep.

of Labor

U.S.

Dep.

of 

Education

DOTSecretary of TransportationSSA

U.S. 

Dep. of 

Health 

and 

Human 

Services

DOJSEALEAACICIEIDAbilityOne®-ComAbilityOne®-NPAAbilityOne®-CNADOLSecretary 

of Labor

WHDETAEDRSAOSERSHHCIE ProgramsSVRASIDDIDEA

S

CMSOCR

Chapter Six: 14(c) Transitions

79 1 The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) must immediately discontinue issuance of SWEP certificates. X

79 2 The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Indicator 13 must disallow a placement in subminimum wage 

Section 14(c) employment as an acceptable post-school transition goal or transition service on the transition plan.

X

79 3 The U.S. Department of Education (ED) should promulgate regulations, in part based upon WIOA requirements as well as 

the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) integration mandate, to prevent the use of federal IDEA funds for transition 

services provided in non-integrated settings, including a prohibition on services supporting subminimum wage activity 

regardless of the setting in which these services occur.

X

79 4 Any reauthorization of IDEA must explicitly disallow, as an authorized transition service, any service that involves 

facility-based employment or service that involves the use of Section 14(c).

X

79 5 ED should coordinate with DOL to identify Local Education Agencies (LEAs) that are Section 14(c) certificate holders 

and assist these LEAs to transform to other proven transition models for youth that include community-based integrated 

internships and other types of community-based integrated work experiences that lead to competitive integrated 

employment.

X X X

79 6 Federal agencies to include ED, the Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA), the Social Security Administration 

(SSA) and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) should collaborate to design a method, including 

appropriate data collection, to track and report the post-school status of youth with disabilities in areas where a sheltered 

workshop utilizing Section 14(c) closes or is downsized.

X X X X

79 7 The Subcommittee finds that critical data are lacking from WHD regarding the number of youth using Section 14(c) 

certificates, their ages, disability-type, wages, work hours, down time and other information. Having access to these data 

is imperative to making future recommendations and identifying trends – both positive and negative. The Subcommittee 

recommends that WHD develop a secure, web-based application and data collection system that is mandatory for all 

Section 14(c) certificate holders. The WHD should also issue guidance to states that encourages them to more closely 

monitor the use of Section 14(c) certificates for youth and all individuals with disabilities. Such data could be modeled 

upon the system utilized currently in Wisconsin.

X

Chapter Six: 14(c) Capacity Building

80 8 The President and/or Congress should appropriate sufficient funding to WHD to ensure adequate staffing resources for 

monitoring and oversight of the Section 14(c) certificate program and to support on-going collection of data regarding the 

number of individuals earning subminimum wage, the number of individuals moving from subminimum wage to 

competitive integrated employment, the number of individuals who work at subminimum wage levels for multiple years 

(and primary reasons why – e.g., discouraged or opposed by family/legal guardian, fear of losing other benefits, lack of 

access to, or denial of, services to obtain competitive integrated employment, etc.), and the number of individuals who 

exit Section 14(c) employment, but do not enter competitive integrated employment. This information can inform the time 

frame for phasing out the Section 14(c) certificate program.

X X

80 9 The Secretary of Labor, in consultation with the RSA and the CMS should propose a time frame for phasing out the 

Section 14(c) certificate program.

X X X
143

Page

No. Recommendation Number and DescriptionPresidentCongressAll Federal Agencies

U.S. 

Dep.

of Labor

U.S.

Dep.

of 

Education

DOTSecretary of TransportationSSA

U.S. 

Dep. of 

Health 

and 

Human 

Services

DOJSEALEAACICIEIDAbilityOne®-ComAbilityOne®-NPAAbilityOne®-CNADOLSecretary 

of Labor

WHDETAEDRSAOSERSHHCIE ProgramsSVRASIDDIDEA

S

CMSOCR

Chapter Six: 14(c) Complexity & Needs

83 10 Congress should amend Section 14(c) of the FLSA to allow for implementation of a well-designed phase-out of the 

Section 14(c) program that results in people with disabilities entering CIE. Payment of subminimum wages is inconsistent 

with current knowledge of the skills and talents of people with significant disabilities. Recognizing that thousands of 

people with disabilities and their families will be affected by a phase-out, the Committee will recommend a phase-out plan 

with specific implementation steps in its Final Report due September 15, 2016. This plan will emphasize that CIE is the 

primary role of all working age people. It will consider strategies to expand CIE capacity and the potential role of other 

wraparound services (such as mainstream community activities and formal integrated day services) to address the concern 

that individuals leaving or who otherwise would have been in Section 14(c) programs will be left without meaningful and 

productive ways to spend their time.

X

83 11 WHD should develop and enforce criteria for assuring that the Section 14(c) certificate is only permitted when 

“necessary... to prevent the curtailment of opportunities for employment.”

X

83 12 WHD should develop an interagency process to coordinate issuance/renewals of Section 14(c) certificates with 

enforcement of the ADA by the DOJ, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Civil Rights (HHS’ 

OCR), and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), and with implementation of the HCBS Settings 

Rule by CMS.

X

84 13 WHD should require any state that allows the use of Section 14(c) certificates to address why the certificate is “necessary” 

and to describe the state’s plan for remedying the “lack of employment opportunities.” The state may respond with its 

Olmstead plan; its plan for implementing the HCBS Settings Rule; or its WIOA unified plan. Each of these state plans 

requires addressing how supports will be provided in more integrated settings. The state should ensure that the plan on 

which it relies to justify the time-limited use of Section 14(c) certificates includes specific steps on how it will address 

lack of employment opportunities to make the future use of Section 14(c) certificates unnecessary.

X

84 14 WHD should collaborate with state-level wage and hour monitoring agencies to increase the overall effectiveness of 

monitoring Section 14(c) certificates and enforcing wage and hour requirements.

X

84 15 The Departments of Labor and Education should make enforcement of the law and spirit of Section 511 of the 

Rehabilitation Act, as amended by WIOA, a priority. The Departments should work with agency field offices and state 

advocates, including Protection and Advocacy organizations, to identify enforcement actions that will help end the 

practice of paying people subminimum wages and expand competitive integrated employment with full wages and 

benefits.

X X

84 16 In enforcing the ADA and Olmstead, DOJ and HHS’ OCR should provide technical assistance to states that are engaging 

in affirmative Olmstead planning to increase opportunities for CIE and reduce the need for enforcement.

X X

84 17 CMS should enforce the guidance provided in the September 16, 2011 CMS Informational Bulletin regarding the timelimited nature of pre-vocational services. Enforcement should emphasize that the goal is to move into CIE, not other 

segregated day services.

X

84 18 In their efforts to enforce the HCBS Settings Rule, CMS should offer technical assistance resources and funding to states 

that want to use it as an opportunity to move toward CIE options for people receiving HCBS services in sheltered 

workshops. Such technical assistance should include supports to Section 14(c) certificate holders that desire to change 

business models to provide competitive integrated employment.

X

Chapter Six: 14(c) Marketplace Dynamics
144

Page

No. Recommendation Number and DescriptionPresidentCongressAll Federal Agencies

U.S. 

Dep.

of Labor

U.S.

Dep.

of 

Education

DOTSecretary of TransportationSSA

U.S. 

Dep. of 

Health 

and 

Human 

Services

DOJSEALEAACICIEIDAbilityOne®-ComAbilityOne®-NPAAbilityOne®-CNADOLSecretary 

of Labor

WHDETAEDRSAOSERSHHCIE ProgramsSVRASIDDIDEA

S

CMSOCR

87 19 Congress should pass legislation that directs the Secretary of Labor, through WHD, to work with the appropriate 

Departments across the federal government for a gradual phase-out of FLSA Section 14(c) subminimum wage provision 

over a period of 8-10 years.

X X X

87 19a. The legislation must consist of a combination of targeted, strategic capacity building initiatives. Congress should 

fund initiatives that will provide sufficient financial resources to effect this change.

X

87 19b. The phase-out legislation should direct DOL to develop a careful, detailed plan that recognizes the multi-faceted, 

complicated process required to successfully phase out FLSA Section 14(c). The plan should include a chronological 

sequence for meeting all capacity building needs along with detailed steps for addressing corollary areas that will be 

impacted when FLSA Section 14(c) has ended.

X

88 19c. As part of the phase out of Section 14(c), Congress should provide that WHD cease accepting new employer 

applications to the certificate program one year after the passage of the phase-out legislation.

X X

88 19d. Congress should also direct the WHD to monitor and ensure that no new participants may be added by employers to 

applications for the certificate program one year after the passage of the phase-out plan.

X X

88 19e. The phase out legislation ensuring for an orderly phase-out of Section 14(c) should direct WHD to cease the renewal 

of employer certificates one year prior to the phase-out of FLSA Section 14(c).

X

88 20 Congress should allocate financial resources so that DOL can establish and help states develop new systems before 

individuals with significant disabilities, if they choose, begin the transition to competitive integrated employment.

X X

88 20a. In order to avoid any unintended harm to individuals with significant disabilities, it is critical that infrastructure is 

developed prior to the phase out of Section 14(c).

88 20b. In particular, Congress should direct the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) to ensure that public transit 

systems are in place, particularly in rural areas of the United States prior to individuals with disabilities beginning the 

transition out of segregated employment.

X X

88 20c. Congressional resources must also be allocated and directed to support individuals with disabilities who do not 

choose community employment to explore other individualized options for integrated day services.

X

88 20d. Congress should direct the Secretary of Labor to establish an operational advisory committee, not subject to the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), to oversee the plans for Section 14(c). The committee should include business 

representatives, subject matter experts from federal agencies as well as appointees from outside the federal government 

who can help implement and monitor the phase out.

X X

88 20e. The Secretary of Labor should hire subject matter experts to oversee and support the plans for the implementation of 

the phase-out and to ensure all critical actions are taken, funding is allocated, and all state and local systems are up and 

running before the complete phase-out of Section 14(c).

X
145

Chapter Seven: AbilityOne® Program Recommendations

Page

No. Recommendation Number and DescriptionPresidentCongressAll Federal Agencies

U.S. 

Dep.

of Labor

U.S.

Dep.

of 

Education

DOTSecretary of TransportationSSA

U.S. 

Dep. of 

Health 

and 

Human 

Services

DOJSEALEAACICIEIDAbilityOne®-ComAbilityOne®-NPAAbilityOne®-CNADOLSecretary 

of Labor

WHDETAEDRSAOSERSHHSCMSOCRCIE ProgramsSVRASIDDIDEA

96 1 Congress should amend the Javits-Wagner-O'Day (JWOD) act to:

96 1a. Fully align the Act with modern federal disability policy goals, including those enshrined in the ADA and the Supreme 

Court’s Olmstead decision;

X

96 1b. Clearly establish competitive integrated employment, in the mainstream workforce as the expected and priority 

outcome of the AbilityOne Program so that individuals who are blind or have significant disabilities may receive the 

supports they need to enter into competitive employment within their communities;

X X

96 1c. Ensure all AbilityOne Program contract work is accomplished in fully integrated work settings where individuals with 

disabilities work, on an individualized basis, alongside of their non-disabled peers, consistent with the goals of the ADA 

and Olmstead;

X

96 1d. Ensure the federal government’s purchasing power is used to effectively engage all federal contractors in creating 

competitive integrated employment opportunities for job seekers and workers who are blind or have significant 

disabilities;

X X

96 1e. Establish new criteria for who is eligible to work on AbilityOne contracts, with changes made to ensure that:

96 1ei. The requirement that a person eligible for AbilityOne must have a disability that “prevents the individual from 

currently engaging in normal competitive employment” is eliminated; and

X

96 1eii. NPAs are not given discretion to determine who is and is not qualified to work on AbilityOne contracts. X

96 2 The Committee should consider, and make recommendations in its final report, regarding what changes may be needed to 

the structure, make up and role of the AbilityOne Commission in order to ensure that the program is well aligned with, 

and fully supportive of, Federal disability policy in general, and employment policy in particular, as it evolves over time.

X

96 3 The President should issue an Executive Order outlining a plan to phase-out expeditiously the use of FLSA Section 14(c) 

certificates within the AbilityOne Program. As part of this Executive Order:

X

96 3a. All AbilityOne NPAs, who currently employ workers at subminimum wage on AbilityOne contracts, must be required 

to develop a plan that addresses the expectation to retain those workers at no less hours than they are currently working 

and to be paid at least federal minimum wage; and

X

97 3b. The AbilityOne Commission should be expected to develop a collaborative initiative with the Social Security 

Administration, RSA, and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to ensure the provision of work incentives 

benefits analysis and counseling to all AbilityOne workers directly impacted by the phase out of subminimum wage in the 

AbilityOne Program so that the full benefits of earning minimum wage accrue to every individual.

X X X X

97 4 Congress should appropriate funding to provide a dedicated Inspector General to provide direct oversight of the entire 

AbilityOne Program.

X

97 5 RSA should update and reissue guidance to state Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) programs clarifying that AbilityOne 

placements shall not be considered competitive integrated employment unless all criteria for what constitutes a 

competitive wage and an integrated setting are met. It should be noted that enclaves or work crews (regardless of size, 

wage and benefits provided to workers) do not meet RSA’s standards for competitive integrated employment.

X
146

Page

No. Recommendation Number and DescriptionPresidentCongressAll Federal Agencies

U.S. 

Dep.

of Labor

U.S.

Dep.

of 

Education

DOTSecretary of TransportationSSA

U.S. 

Dep. of 

Health 

and 

Human 

Services

DOJSEALEAACICIEIDAbilityOne®-ComAbilityOne®-NPAAbilityOne®-CNADOLSecretary 

of Labor

WHDETAEDRSAOSERSHHSCMSOCRCIE ProgramsSVRASIDDIDEA

97 6 The AbilityOne Commission, in collaboration with RSA and DOL (ODEP), should update JWOD regulations to require 

all NPAs participating in the AbilityOne Program to:

X X X

97 6a. Provide highly qualified staff that are certified through one or more nationally recognized credentialing bodies to assist 

in the placement of individuals working under the AbilityOne Program, and those who have been determined eligible for 

AbilityOne, into competitive integrated employment;

X

97 6b. Maintain contracts as qualified vendors of competitive integrated employment services purchased by the state VR 

program and the local Workforce Development Boards;

X X

97 6c. Achieve, on an annual basis, a certain number or percentage of transitions of AbilityOne workers to competitive 

integrated employment outside of the program—in order to maintain their eligibility to receive contracts through the 

AbilityOne Program— so the program functions as a springboard to competitive integrated employment in the general 

workforce and can, over time, benefit many more individuals who are blind or have significant disabilities; and

X

97 6d. Demonstrate on an annual basis, a certain minimum percentage of AbilityOne workers who transitioned to competitive 

integrated employment have successfully retained their employment, as evidenced by data from NPAs following-up with 

all AbilityOne workers transitioned into competitive integrated employment and their employers on a quarterly basis after 

placements have occurred to confirm:

X

97 6di. Job retention has occurred

97 6dii. The skill sets and performance of the workers continue to be well-matched with employers’ needs and expectations

97 6diii. The worker is satisfied with his/her job.

98 7 The AbilityOne-Com should implement the following through sub-regulatory guidance or as necessary, through 

regulation:

X

98 7a. For Central Nonprofit Agencies (CNAs), sub-regulatory guidance or regulation that ensures the AbilityOne 

Commission assumes a stronger role in oversight of CNAs, including their processes and procedures, including but not 

limited to:

X

98 7ai. Requiring CNAs to invest a certain percentage of revenues received from administrative fees in the AbilityOne 

Program on providing training and technical assistance to NPAs about effective practices for helping people with 

significant disabilities achieve competitive integrated employment;

X

98 7aii. Requiring the collection and annual reporting of data on placement rates of workers with disabilities on AbilityOne 

contracts (wages, hours, and type of setting);

X

98 7aiii. Requiring CNAs to meet specific governance standards as articulated in the 2004 draft Notice of Proposed Rule 

Making issued by the AbilityOne Commission.

X

98 7b. For AbilityOne-NPAs, sub-regulatory guidance or regulation that:

98 7bi. Requires the annual reporting of data on:

98 7bi1. Number of individuals on AbilityOne contracts that are eligible for/receiving any of the following: IDEA-funded 

transition supports; VR-funded employment supports; Medicaid-funded services that can be used to obtain and 

maintain competitive integrated employment (e.g., supported employment services);

X

98 7bi2. Wages, hours worked and type of setting (e.g., integrated; group supported employment; or facility-based) for 

workers with disabilities employed on AbilityOne contracts;

X
147

Page

No. Recommendation Number and DescriptionPresidentCongressAll Federal Agencies

U.S. 

Dep.

of Labor

U.S.

Dep.

of 

Education

DOTSecretary of TransportationSSA

U.S. 

Dep. of 

Health 

and 

Human 

Services

DOJSEALEAACICIEIDAbilityOne®-ComAbilityOne®-NPAAbilityOne®-CNADOLSecretary 

of Labor

WHDETAEDRSAOSERSHHSCMSOCRCIE ProgramsSVRASIDDIDEA

98 7bi3. Types of services offered, number served and funds expended in the provision of services to AbilityOne 

employees with disabilities to assist them in transitioning from AbilityOne work to competitive integrated employment.

X

98 7bii. Requires establishment of conflict-of-interest policies to delineate the role of an NPA as an AbilityOne contractor 

from the same entity’s role as a community-rehabilitation provider that is required to provide supports in the most 

integrated setting to clients receiving federally-funded services;

X

98 7biii. Requires documented assurances that prior to hiring an eligible individual onto an AbilityOne contract, the NPA 

has:

X

98 7biii1. Assisted the individual to apply for VR services; and X

98 7biii2. If the individual is determined eligible for VR services, the NPA has committed to providing services, funded by 

VR, to enable the individual to obtain competitive integrated employment in the broader community if the individual 

selects the NPA as his/her provider; or

X

99 7biii3. If the individual is determined ineligible for VR services, the NPA has further determined if the individual is 

eligible for Medicaid-funded services that can be used to obtain and maintain competitive integrated employment (e.g., 

supported employment services) and, if so, the NPA has, in partnership with the individual, sought authorization from 

the state Medicaid agency for these services and the NPA has further committed to providing these Medicaid-funded 

services if the individual selects the NPA as his/her provider.

X

99 7biv. Requires the NPA to meet specific governance standards as articulated in the 2004 draft Notice of Proposed Rule 

Making issued by the AbilityOne Commission;

X

99 7bv. Requires the NPA to engage in the Quality Workplace Environment (QWE) initiative at AbilityOne and will 

finalize a plan and take action as a result within two years of signing up for QWE. For those NPAs that have already 

signed up to be involved in the QWE, they will be considered in compliance if their participation results in a plan and 

action is taken within two years.

X