People with Disabilities in Vermont
Who are they/WE!?!
By Ed Paquin
Here are some FUN FACTS, except that these are actually true!
WE HAVE A POPULATION OF ABOUT 621,270 in Vermont. (estimate for ‘08)
466,000 of those Vermonters are over 18 years old and (according to the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance Survey) of those, 89,000, or 19.1% are people with disabilities.
| People 5 yrs. and older in VT | 582,765 total 93,507 with disabilities or 16% |
| People 5-15 yrs old in VT | 80,992 total 7,227 with disabilities or 8.9% |
| People 16-20 yrs old in VT | 48,283 total 4,841 with disabilities or 10.0% |
| People 21-64 yrs old in VT | 373,129 total 51,417 with disabilities or 13.8% |
| People 65 and older in VT | 80,361 total 30,022 with disabilities or 37.4% |
How can we picture a number like that?
Well, add up the population of the 4 largest cities and towns in Vermont, then throw in a couple of small ones and you get about the right number. In other words the entire populations of:
| Burlington | 38,897 |
| S. Burlington | 17,574 |
| Essex | 19,649 |
| Colchester | 17,237 |
| Landgrove | 137 |
| Buell’s Gore | 12 |
Equals 93,506 people, still one less!
Disability types vary by age but for working aged Vermonters, ages 16-64, (56,258 total) the types of disability, in real general terms break down like this
12,332 sensory or 22%
30,452 physical or 54%
24,439 mental or 43%
The total is 119% because some have multiple disabilities.
Of working age (16-64) Vermonters without disabilities (365,154) 294,388 (or 80.6%) are employed meaning 19.4% are not!!
Of working age (16-64) Vermonters with disabilities (56,258) 25,974 (or 46.2%) are employed meaning 53.85% are not!!
57.2% of working age Vermonters w/sensory disabilities are employed.
40.5% of working age Vermonters w/physical disabilities are employed.
38.9% of working age Vermonters w/mental disabilities are employed.
8% of working age Vermonters without disabilities are living in poverty.
21.7% of working age Vermonters with disabilities are living in poverty.
15% of Vermonters w/sensory disabilities are living in poverty.
21.4% of Vermonters w/physical disabilities are living in poverty.
27.2% of Vermonters w/mental disabilities are living in poverty.
And by the way, Vermonters w/disabilities who are employed are paid only 54.5% of what people w/out disabilities earn.
29.3% Vermonters w/out disabilities aged 18-34 are enrolled in college or graduate school.
21.1% of Vermonters w/disabilities aged 18-34 are enrolled in college or graduate school.
But really, what does this mean? Who are we?
In general “a person with a disability” under the ADA, is an individual who:
- has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities;
- has a record of such an impairment; or
- is regarded as having such an impairment.
This is your grandmother if she can no longer get around in the way that she did when she lived independently!
This is your uncle when he lost his hearing.
This is your brother who came back from Iraq with a head injury.
This is the guy you work with who has been secretly living with what he brought back from Viet Nam 40 years ago.
This is the young woman who is struggling with her school work because her ability to concentrate has been shot since her cousin raped her.
This is that neighbor’s son who went to a hospital instead of college when he started hearing and seeing things that weren’t there.
It also includes folks like the young woman I know who worked at Wyeth with the help of accommodations for her macular degeneration.
This is the six year old who lived near me in Fairfax who couldn’t learn like the other kids, who had one leg that didn’t quite let her run like the other kids and who was staying in a “different” home because she was getting lost in the shuffle as her mother went from place to place following jobs and men.
This is that neighbor down the street who has never heard a sound in her life, didn’t have the opportunity to go to a school like the Austine and was often seen walking around town with people acting like she wasn’t there.
A key thing to remember is that disability is a natural part of life and not a reasonable basis to exclude people from the benefits of our society, which, even in the time of recession, is the richest society that history has ever known.
This is well summed up in this ADA Quote:
individuals with disabilities are a discrete and insular minority who have been faced with restrictions and limitations, subjected to a history of purposeful unequal treatment, and relegated to a position of political powerlessness in our society, based on characteristics that are beyond the control of such individuals and resulting from stereotypic assumptions not truly indicative of the individual ability of such individuals to participate in, and contribute to, society;
The ADA also excludes some:
Who is NOT: A person who currently illegally uses drugs is not protected by the ADA, as an "individual with a disability," when the covered entity acts on the basis of such use. However, an individual who is engaged in or has completed drug rehabilitation and is no longer illegally using drugs is protected under the ADA. Homosexuality and bisexuality are not impairments and therefore are not covered by the ADA. The Act also states that the term "disability" does not include the following sexual and behavioral disorders: transvestitism, transsexualism, pedophilia, exhibitionism, voyeurism, gender identity disorders not resulting from physical impairments, or other sexual behavior disorders; compulsive gambling, kleptomania, or pyromania; or psychoactive substance use disorders resulting from current illegal use of drugs.
Why do you folks in public service need to be concerned with all of this? United States law, as quoted above AND Vermont law recognizes that people with disability have a right to the same opportunity and the same benefits that other non-minorities have access to.
The most significant source of ongoing economic support for folks with disabilities who don’t or can’t support themselves or whose families don’t or can’t support them is from the federal Social Security SSDI or SSI.
In December 2007, 13,920 Vermonters received SSI,
1,117 were aged,
87 were blind and
12,716 were otherwise disabled.
1,732 of these were children under 18.
In December 2007, 20,183 Vermonters received SSDI
17,733 were workers themselves,
2,006 children and
444 widows or widowers.
State services to address the needs of PWDs are broader than they are deep, considering the pressure that the recession has put on State budgets. Think of all our long term care programs. Not just nursing home care or community care under the Choices for Care Program, but the CRT program for people with Serious and Persistent Mental Illness, Developmental Services for people with Developmental Disabilities. We partner with the federal government in most of these programs, as we do with our vocational rehabilitation and services to the blind. We add some to the SSI program through our “AABD” program. We assist people with sensory needs to get help with their telephone equipment. We have programs set up to protect “vulnerable” adults and children from abuse and neglect. And our Medicaid program has many acute care services that are of great import to people with disabilities, particularly children.
Perhaps the most fundamental disability rights program in the State is funded by the State, Local AND Federal governments – that’s Special Education which serves a wider range of students than most people generally picture.
Nationally, in the fall of 2007 11.3% of students aged 6-17 received IDEA, Part B services or “Special Education” (I don’t have the Vermont numbers on this.)
Nationally Special Education students had these disabilities:
| Specific Learning disability | 43% |
| Speech or Language Impairment | 19% |
| Mental Retardation | 8% |
| Emotional Disturbance | 7% |
| Multiple Disabilities | 2.2% |
| Hearing Impairment | 1.2% |
| Orthopedic Disability | 1% |
| Other Health Issue | 11% |
| Visual Impairment | .4% |
| Autism | 4% |
| Deaf/Blind | .02% |
| Developmental Delay | 1.5% |
I will leave you with one other thought: unlike some countries, many of the services for people with disabilities in the United States, and in Vermont, are based on our American conception of civil rights and the right to of all Americans to live independently. In many instances our system, particularly since laws like IDEA and the ADA passed, serves to redress the inherent discrimination people with disabilities have faced throughout history. The choices you make in the next session will show whether you will continue to help with this liberation or will make policy decisions that serve to constrain people to live in poverty and DEpendence.
Initial VCDR Response to the First Challenges Progress Report
Date: April 6, 2010
To: Joint Legislative Government Accountability Committee
From: Vermont Coalition for Disability Rights
Regarding: Initial VCDR Response to the First Challenges Progress Report
VCDR member organizations have prepared more in-depth comments on specific sections of the Challenges Progress Report. This summary provides an overview of our concerns.
General Observations
Many of the administrative goals highlighted by the Administration (better coordination of AHS functions and services, reduction of some of the fragmentation of services, improved use of IT and state funds to better serve individuals and families, and support of real opportunities for Vermonters) make sense. However, we did not see adequate thought given to viable outcomes, methods and financial analysis to support the stated goals of most sections. Many of the administrative goals seem like activities that have significant up-front costs and will not lead to immediate cost savings, though these may occur over time.
There are many ways that state government can better address the needs of individuals with diverse disabilities and their families throughout life and that there are ways that a more coordinated approach can greatly improve service delivery systems and result in more responsive person and family centered support. This is a discussion that needs to be part of a multi-year planning process and cannot be hammered out in a few weeks. Designing a results-based agenda that furthers equity, inclusion and positive social outcomes for individuals and families should lead to better personal and social outcomes for individuals and families, and improved coordination and efficiencies; but many of the efficiencies proposed in this report will actually be detrimental to some individuals and families who look to state government for help.
The need to protect vulnerable groups: We oppose proposals that would use the Challenges initiative to reduce rights protections and financial safeguards for vulnerable groups of Vermonters. We oppose using this initiative to weaken forced treatment protections for individuals with mental health conditions (DMH); oppose the proposal to expand use of estate recovery in long term care services (DAIL); and oppose any proposals in the Challenges progress report that deny Vermonters the right to receive services during an appeal process.
The timing of this process allows too little time for thoughtful consideration of some of the legitimate elements of the Challenges initiative and leaves too many Vermonters out of the discussion. Public hearings and related outreach activities need to be accessible: sign language interpreters, web based and print information and different outreach activities need to be accessible.
Responses to Specific Proposals
Information Technology Improvements- No real cost analysis was provided. Many of the state goals make a great deal of sense but there is too little information to evaluate this initiative in relation to the goals of the Challenges legislation. Costs could be significant and most savings will not be immediate. Any IT work and contracts should include clear guidelines for accessibility in hardware, software and information.
Integrated Children and Family Services: The problem statements represent real concerns and have been the focus of several planning groups and policy reports. The broad vision of this initiative is appropriate. However, the outcomes chart in the Challenges Progress Report does not reflect input from families and the actual action steps proposed are incremental and in some cases counter to achieving comprehensive change. The Integrated Family Services Progress Report lacks health-related disability perspective, and lacks steps to integrate services provided in schools.
The planning process and structure of committees instituted by AHS a few weeks ago seem like a thoughtful planning process, but we are just now being invited to participate in the planning and there are significant concerns and unresolved issues. The focus needs to be expanded to include the concerns of individuals with disabilities moving toward adulthood and not just early childhood issues and services. The intent of both the IFS and Integrated Child Development Initiative (CIS) should be to promote a developmentally appropriate lifespan approach in the planning and provision of services to children and families.
Blueprint for Health and Related MH Initiatives: We believe that integrating the health concerns of individuals with disabilities into the blueprint medical home initiative should lead to better health outcomes and related savings. We are glad to see that the DMH is looking at ways to promote wellness and healthy living support for individuals with mental health conditions as this has been an important element of Vermont's peer support and recovery work. For people to be well served by the Blueprint for Health, partnering with primary care practices, specialists and local community organizations needs to integrate individuals with disabilities into their Blueprint initiatives and the State needs to be providing the systemic leadership and support to ensure that the health needs of Vermonters with disabilities are not left out of Blueprint planning, implementation and development as they repeatedly have been in past Blueprint initiatives. The system needs to plan for accessibility in information and services and providers need education and ways to work with disability and senior programs to integrate social as well as medical supports. A great deal of money is being committed to the Blueprint infrastructure and related outreach. Grants and contracts should be clear about accessibility needs and requirements so that individuals with disabilities benefit along with other Vermonters. This makes sense and will result in significant savings in health care costs in the future.
DAIL
Services for Adults with Physical Disabilities and Older Vermonters: VCDR supports a renewed commitment to funding alternatives to expensive nursing home care and creating related incentives for this to happen. For this to work, a sufficient amount of the savings from when people leave nursing homes needs to be protected and reinvested in other community based options. We appreciate DAIL's interest in creating more flexible funding and services options for those who want them and believe that it makes sense for the needs and preferences of individuals to shape services. DAIL hopes to reduce funding for direct services but better serve people in CFC and other programs through greater flexibility. We are very concerned about finding Challenges savings through reductions in services and would like to see more specific proposals so we can assess their impact. The CFC program, the Attendant Service Program, and other DAIL services for seniors and individuals with disabilities have had significant funding taken away over the last few years. DAIL's long term care and independent living services need to be adequately funded or people's health, safety and independence will suffer, as has already happened over the last few years. Moving to presumptive eligibility makes sense and saves time as well as administrative costs.
Many of DAIL's proposed activities have merit but lack the necessary analysis for us to assess their viability at this time. VCDR members are very concerned about structural changes being approved too quickly without adequate care - and consideration of the impact on rights and services.
Developmental Services: Many of the proposals DAIL has made to improve management of the Choices for Care Program build on some of the best features of the DS system and individuals and families served by the DS system are very concerned that challenges initiatives not be used to erode the very approaches that have been developed over years. Joan Senecal has said that the only way she sees to reach Challenges saving objectives is to continue to cut services. VCDR members would prefer not to see cuts to DS services - or other DAIL services - as these programs have already taken repeated cuts. Individuals and families have told VCDR member organizations that they would rather have 5% cuts made in their individual services than in program budgets for targeted case management and flexible family funding. This way they would at least maintain some control and authority in how cuts are made and can make choices that support the most important goals and outcomes for them. Hopefully there will be a more thoughtful process for assessing other administrative savings that might be possible in DS system's administrative practices that could reduce or take the place of service cuts.
Creative Workforce Solutions: We were pleased to get clarification from VR that some earlier proposals that would have changed DS services are no longer part of the proposed employment initiative and that DS supportive employment and community support funding will remain intact and independent, though DS providers will be an important part of the regional initiatives. VR has done some very successful work with Reach Up and TANF recipients in the past and there is a lot in this proposal that makes sense. Again, additional financing and cost benefit information and analysis is needed. We also want to make sure that an expanded role for VR does not reduce their ability to serve current recipients of VR, those who meet the federal definition of eligibility for their services.
Thank you.
Deborah Lisi-Baker, President
Vermont Coalition for Disability Rights
Contact VCDR
To Contact VCDR by mail:
VCDR
11 East State St., Suite 2
Montpelier, VT 05602
VCDR can be contacted by phone via VCIL at:
Phone: 1-800-639-1522