Communication Tips

For talking to people with disabilities

1. Speak directly to a person with a disability, not through his or her companion. This applies whether the person has a physical disability, mental disability or is blind or deaf and uses an interpreter.

2. Always offer to shake hands. Extend common courtesies to people with disabilities, as you would to anyone else. Shake hands and/or give them your business card. If the person cannot shake your hand or grasp your card, they will tell you. However, do make the attempt, it shows respect.

3. Always identify yourself and others with you when speaking to someone who is blind. Make sure to say good bye or let them know you are leaving when speaking to someone who is blind.

4. If you offer assistance to a person with a disability, wait until your offer is accepted before you help and let them instruct you on how to help them.

5. Treat adults as adults. Do not patronize or treat people with disabilities as children. Presume Competence!

6. Do not lean against or hang on a person's wheelchair. My wheelchair is not a wall or coffee table to be used as a footrest or perch!

7. Listen attentively and let the person with the disability finish before you speak. If the person has a speech impairment and you are having trouble understanding what he or she is saying, ask the person to repeat rather than pretend you understand.

8. Place yourself at eye level when speaking with someone using a, wheelchair. Grab a chair or kneel, it really makes communication easier!

9. Tap a person who is deaf on the shoulder or wave your hand to get their attention, do not put your hand in front of your mouth when speaking.

10. Relax; don't be embarrassed if you use common language that could relate to disability. I don't roll to work, I walk and my friend who is blind doesn't feel a document but will read it!

Respect NOT Political Correctness; the Platinum Rule says Treat others the way They want to be treated.

From The Ten Commandments Video. Produced by Irene M. Ward & Associates

Disability the new welfare?

Update on the NPR article of disability benefits

By Tim Wheat

Over a year ago Planet Money and NPR ran a story about Disability Benefits in the United States.  I know that a lot of people in the disability community had been following the article because it is a unique perspective on disability and thought it would have an impact on our community. The author, Chana Joffe-Walt, is on the Planet Money team at NPR and wrote about the program from its economic impact rather than exclusively as a social-service program. 

The article does not seem to have sent large vibrations through the disability community and advocates for people with disabilities seem unaware or unconvinced about her conclusion that disability is replacing welfare. That generally welfare to work has seen a decrease in the number of American families on welfare, but in that same time, individuals of working age have replaced welfare programs with Social Security Disability.  

“Somewhere around 30 years ago, the economy started changing in some fundamental ways,” reported Chana Joffe-Walt in the piece. “There are now millions of Americans who do not have the skills or education to make it in this country.”

The title on the web is “Unfit for Work: The startling rise of disability in America.” That name seems to leave out all the people with disabilities that are working now and the many programs that help to move people with disabilities out of institutions and backrooms into the community and the workforce. Much of the narrative was about people that used disability as a method of not working, and it gave me the impression that the Social Security Disability Insurance program is loaded with fraud. Of course, I have not examined SSDI from the author’s perspective and it brought out some very clear problems that CPWD and our consumers should pay close attention to.

First, Chana Joffe-Walt calls the application and appeal system of the Social Security system the Disability-Industrial complex. The “industrial” part of her analogy are “disability lawyers;” like Bender and Bender, who are paid out of the “lump-sum” settlement payment. A Center for Independent Living providing the same service gets nothing. It should be clear to our community that IL Centers work with people with disabilities to accomplish inclusive community goals and employment; and it should be clear to CPWD that assisting with the SSDI application is not our job.

For a Center for Independent Living, the job seems to be clear. Since the American’s with Disability Act in 1990 the employment rate for people with disabilities has remained basically unchanged. Despite people with disabilities wanting to work and the ADA providing reasonable accommodations, the overall numbers have not changed in the past 23 years. The article made me think that too often people see disability as a way out of the workforce; Center’s for Independent Living need to change that impression.

The author’s point about federal disability replacing welfare was interesting. Clearly Welfare and Disability are not the same, but she makes a very good case that the many people leaving Welfare are turning to SSDI. This again seems to a type of fraud in the system that is not as clear on a personal basis. Each individual has to make a case that they cannot work because of a disability which is not the same as Welfare.

To make the fraud more evident, Chana Joffe-Walt shows the motive states have to move people off of Welfare, which is paid for mostly by individual US states, onto SSDI paid for by the federal Social Security Administration. States save money by hiring people to move citizens from Welfare to Disability and the overall numbers that the author gives seems to show that trend. In 1993 there were about 5 million Americans on Welfare and under 4.5 million on Disability. In 2011 Welfare had fallen to under 2 million, while people receiving disability payments expanded to over 6.5 million. It is not clear how many people went from Welfare to work and how many went from Welfare to Disability.

I highly recommend this article to everyone because I found it to be such a new perspective and valuable insight into the federal programs. http://apps.npr.org/unfit-for-work/ 

The End of the R-Word

The Federal Register will replace the r-word with "intellectual disability."

By Tim Wheat

Beginning in 2010, especially among young people, the momentum to get rid of the label “retarded” strengthened with boycotts, video and ads. August 1, 2013 saw a new milestone in the effort to update our language as the Federal Register announced that it would replace the term “mental retardation” with “intellectual disability.”

The announcement on the Federal Register website explains about the change and will cause a reverberation in the language people use about people with disabilities. The Federal Register calls itself the daily journal of the United States Government. Many people felt uneasy about the terminology used to describe individuals with intellectual disabilities because the labels sounded insulting and outdated. The Federal Register also explained the reason for the change:

The term “intellectual disability” is gradually replacing the term “mental retardation” nationwide. Advocates for individuals with intellectual disability have rightfully asserted that the term “mental retardation” has negative connotations, has become offensive to many people, and often results in misunderstandings about the nature of the disorder and those who have it.

The Federal Register also notes that this change in terminology has been made already by other major parts of government and in legislation.

In October 2010, Congress passed Rosa's Law, which changed references to “mental retardation” in specified Federal laws to “intellectual disability,” and references to “a mentally retarded individual” to “an individual with an intellectual disability.” [2] Rosa's Law also required the Federal agencies that administer the affected laws to make conforming amendments to their regulations. Rosa's Law did not specifically include titles II and XVI of the Act within its scope, and therefore, did not require any changes in our existing regulations. However, consistent with the concerns expressed by Congress when it enacted Rosa's Law, and in response to numerous inquiries from advocate organizations, we are revising our rules to use the term “intellectual disability” in the name of our current listings and in our other regulations. In so doing, we join other agencies that responded to the spirit of the law, even though Rosa's Law did not require them to change their terminology.

This is not the end of the r-word in common use, but it is a helpful step to people that work to be inclusive and welcoming in our country. It is helpful to know how to correctly and appropriately address others in your community. Please update your lexicon.

Read more about the change on the Federal Register website:

https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2013/08/01/2013-18552/change-in-terminology-mental-retardation-to-intellectual-disability#h-11

People with disabilities face more violent crime

USDOJ Report shows people with disabilities nearly three times more likely to encounter violent crime.

By Tim Wheat

This year the US Department of Justice has released overall crime statistics for the nation that show Individuals with disabilities encountered violent crime at greater rate than those in the general population. For persons ages 12 to 15, the rate of violent victimization was nearly three times higher for persons with disabilities (123 per 1,000) than for persons without disabilities (43 per 1,000) and for persons with disabilities ages 25 to 34 the rate for violent victimization increased from 54 per 1,000 in 2011 to 83 per 1,000 in 2012.

By type of disability, cognitive and vision rank as the highest incident of violent victimization. 

Findings from the USDOJ Report:

• Persons with cognitive disabilities had the highest unadjusted rate of violent victimization from 2009 to 2012 (63.3 per 1000).

• The unadjusted rate of simple assault against persons with cognitive disabilities increased from 27 per 1,000 in 2011 to 40 per 1,000 in 2012.

• Among persons with cognitive disabilities, the rate of serious violent crime doubled across the study period from 12 per 1,000 in 2009 to 24 per 1,000 in 2012.

• No statistically significant difference was found in the 2009 and 2012 rates of violent victimization against persons with hearing or vision disabilities.

• No statistically significant difference was found in the 2012 rates of violent victimization against persons with hearing (20 per 1,000) and vision (25 per 1,000) disabilities.

• The rate of serious violent victimization against persons with self-care disabilities nearly tripled from 2009 (4 per 1,000) to 2012 (11 per 1,000).

It is interesting to note that these numbers include only “noninstitutionalized” persons. I looked briefly for information on people in institutions but I have not been successful in locating statistics on that population yet. Expect that topic in a future blog report.

Please examine the report for yourself at: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/capd0912st.pdf