Readers Write (Nov. 15): Responses to the 'A Matter of Dignity' series, affordable housing, the Paris attacks

The Nov. 8 article "How Minnesota fails the disabled" (Part 1 of the Nov. 8-12 series "A Matter of Dignity") provided painful insight into the challenges people with disabilities face in obtaining meaningful employment. The article poignantly described the discouragement of people who feel trapped in dead-end, sub-minimum-wage jobs at sheltered workshops.

There are alternatives. Organizations such as Community Involvement Programs (CIP) support people with disabilities in market-rate community employment. Yes, adequate government funding to provide this support is essential. But that is only part of the solution. Businesses must be willing to hire people with disabilities.

Hiring a worker with a disability may be perceived as "risky." This assumption is based on bias rather than fact. Imagine the excitement of a new worker who has looked for employment for months or even years. This worker may well be the most motivated employee in the entire business. In addition, workers supported by an organization such as CIP will have a coach to help them learn the job and who will be available as an ongoing resource to help solve any challenges posed by a disability.

Help-wanted signs are posted throughout the metro area. When will businesses realize there is an untapped pool of eager workers who just happen to have a disability?

• • •

As someone who works in a so-called "sheltered workshop," I found the Nov. 8 article to be misleading. We strive greatly to find people independent jobs in regular business, but this is simply not a viable option, since it is incredibly difficult to find businesses willing to take on developmentally disabled adults. Also, a graphic accompanying the article showed that Minnesota has the fourth-highest percentage of developmentally disabled adults in "sheltered workshops," making us look worse than states such as Alabama. It is true that we have more people in workshops than Alabama — simply because Alabama offers virtually no services to the developmentally disabled population. Such people have no work or outside life at all in many states.

As far as pay, the articles was additionally misleading. Yes, many developmentally disabled people are paid $4.50 an hour, but there are many reasons. First, if someone is paid the same as another person for doing only 10 percent of the work, this creates resentment and anger among employees and is simply uneconomical for most businesses. Also, the $4.50-an-hour pay is not the whole story when this person has housing, transportation and food paid for. If you took those three expenses out of my pay, I can guarantee that I do not make $4.50 an hour to simply spend on luxuries.

During my three years as a direct-support professional, I worked with a woman (whom I'll refer to as Jessica) who attended a sheltered workshop. Jessica is nonvocal, utilizes a wheelchair, has limited use of her hands, and requires constant supervision for safety and support. At her workshop, Jessica received the support she needed, while taking part in social activities and participating in music classes. Her excitement before work made it clear that she enjoyed her program.

Unfortunately, an elimination of sheltered workshops could leave individuals like Jessica without structured opportunities. The Nov. 8 article mentioned that 80 percent of employees in Vermont's sheltered workshops were employed in inclusion-based settings after the elimination of the workshops. However, it is likely that individuals like Jessica, who require constant assistance, comprise the 20 percent who were not employed in the new system.

Sheltered workshops are not right for all individuals with disabilities. However, rather than eliminating them, Minnesota should individualize adult employment support so that programs meet the needs of both individuals who can verbalize their opinions in this discussion and those who cannot.

The writer is executive director of A Global Voice for Autism.

• • •

It's long past time for new residential models to be enacted by the Department of Human Services. The oft-repeated adage that "anything larger than four beds is a mental health ghetto" has clearly been wrong-headed and carries enormous costs to consumers and taxpayers alike. There are wonderful supportive housing models out there now — e.g., Touchstone Mental Health's Rising Cedars program — that provide far better lives for people at a lower overall price. We should be embracing them.

The writer is a psychiatrist for Touchstone Mental Health.

• • •

Things that work rarely make the news. In the zeal to condemn group homes, let's not forget two things: First, there are group homes for people with developmental disabilities that are genuinely caring in the truest sense of the word — they are places where residents are treated with respect and dignity. Second, some people with developmental disabilities thrive in such settings. Our son is one of them.

The language I read in "House rentals surge in suburbs" (Nov. 8) reminded me of the same kind of talk used to justify "redlining." Redlining — a method of denying services either directly or through selective policies — was used historically to keep African-Americans from moving into white neighborhoods because residents feared property values would go down. They would say, "You know 'those people' don't take care of their property." This sounds all too familiar. Is Brooklyn Center redlining by putting a moratorium on new rental houses? When officials talk about keeping a "balance" in the neighborhood, do they really mean keeping out people who might not fit in because they are a different ethnic group? Because they are "outsiders?"

• • •

I was disappointed that the article made no mention of the demographics with regard to who rents single-family homes in suburban neighborhoods. The article reports that Brooklyn Center "started a rigorous licensing program in 2010." I, along with many other readers, want to know how many of these renters are eligible for Section 8 vouchers or whether the units are considered to be affordable housing. Given the high concentration of affordable-housing units in Brooklyn Center, would it be hard to believe many renters in the city do not have the means to buy a home? Brooklyn Center's City Council has blasted suburbs such as Eden Prairie and Minnetonka in recent years over their lack of action in building affordable-housing units. Is this Brooklyn Center's way of trying to bolster the number of affordable housing in these areas? Maybe.