Speaking out for People with
 Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities

Legislative Voice

Legislative Voice

Our current legislative advocacy.

Get Help

Get Help

Provide better care.

Get Involved

Get Involved

Volunteer with VOR.

What's New


Donate to the Ohio Ball v. Kasich Legal Defense Fund

To Donate to the Ball v. Kasich Legal Defense Fund, please Click Here

VOR has established a fund to receive contributions from Ohioans who wish to donate to a legal defense of individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities (I/DD) whose individual rights, interests and wishes are at risk as a result of claims asserted in the class action suit filed by Disability Rights Ohio (DRO). Monies collected will be used for legal fees relating to representation in connection with the lawsuit.

VOR Comments To CMS' Request For Information

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) recently requested submissions and recommendations for how they might improve service in HCBS Waiver settings. VOR's comments focused on the need to expand and improve services for people not well suited to group homes as a way to imporve the services for people for whom those settings might be deemed appropriate.

We provided links to articles in our archives and from newspapers that illustrate VOR's position on these issues. The resources in this article should prove useful to many of our members in making presentations to their representatives, decision makers, and family groups.

All of the links in the footnotes will work once you download the pdf.

Please read and comment!

VOR's Position on Sheltered Workshops

By Harris Capps and Joan Kelley

Sheltered Workshops are private non-profit, state, or local government entities that provide employment opportunities for individuals with disabilities. Persons served in this environment may include those with developmental, physical, and/or mental impairments, ranging from mild to extreme/profoundly affected individuals. Sheltered workshops:

  • Provide prevocational training, with the goal to prepare for competitive employment for available jobs in the open labor market
  • Emphasize support of individual needs, based on ability to choose work activities that fit with a person’s skills
  • Often include additional training in personal care, living skills and developing social skills
  • Honor the depth and scope of the DD population, recognizing that some individuals may not ever be able to be competitively employed

After completing a rehabilitation program, many individuals are able to leave the workshop environment and enter regular employment, if there is a job available for which they qualify. Individuals unable to obtain regular employment because of the severity of their impairments or unavailability of jobs can remain in the workshop environment. Individuals performing services are paid a fraction of, or up to minimum wage, depending on their capacity to perform the services. [1]

Celebrating the 17th Anniversary of the Olmstead Decision

Opportunities and Choices

Recently, the Department of Justice (DOJ), and the Administration for Community Living (ACL) issued press releases celebrating the 17th Anniversary of the Olmstead decision. VOR shares their view that there is much to celebrate in opening doors to community living for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities (I/DD) who are able and wish to take advantage of such opportunities. Unfortunately, their ideological preoccupation with one key part of Olmstead, community integration, at the expense of the other key part, choice, has reduced options for all people with I/DD. This crimped and, VOR would submit, inaccurate application of the plain language of Olmstead has done significant harm to many of our most disabled citizens.

VOR Position Paper: Guardianship vs. Supported Decision Making

Issues to Consider Regarding Guardianship and Supported Decision Making

By VOR's Issues and Oversight Committee on Guardianship Rights

Individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities (I/DD) and their parents, family members and guardians may have heard about Supported Decision-Making (SDM), an initiative that could affect their decision-making rights. Some see SDM as an alternative to guardianship, while others view it as an attempt to remove the legal instrument that provides a safety net for vulnerable individuals.  

VOR is a national organization that advocates for high quality care and human rights for individuals with I/DD. We understand the valuable role that guardians play in the emotional and physical well-being of their wards. As advocates who appreciate the diversity of the I/DD community and the need for a wide array of supports, we want to ensure that guardians and family members are aware of the issues connected to Supported Decision-Making so that they can make informed decisions about the care of their loved one with disabilities.

Surviving the Inclusion Delusion: Danny at 40

By Jill Barker

My son Danny is forty years old this week. He has multiple disabilities resulting from brain damage acquired during his first few days after birth. He functions at the level of a 6 to 12 month old infant and always will. And, yes, I know he is not really an infant.  We do not love him less because he lives and survives with profound developmental disabilities. 

I’ll spare you the details of his birth and the aftermath. It’s enough to say that while the other mothers whose babies were being discharged from the hospital were learning how to give their babies a bath, I was receiving instructions on how to administer Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation to an infant.  

I first heard the term Inclusion around 1990. Danny was 13 years old and attending High Point School in Ann Arbor. High Point was an outstanding program for Danny, bringing together services, expertise, and a supportive community to accommodate children with the most severe disabilities, including complex medical and behavioral conditions.  

Inclusion, when applied to schooling for disabled children, is the belief that all children, regardless of the severity or nature of their disabilities, can and should be educated in regular classrooms with their non-disabled peers.  Inclusion was promoted by many disability advocates as a “right” for every child. Most discussions of the idea did not include an examination of whether the premise on which the belief is based is true for every child or whether it is required by the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (it is not). In the face of any disagreement with the idea, promoters of inclusion encouraged families to take sides: “Are you for ‘Inclusion’ or against it?” Or as many advocates would have it, “Do you want disabled children isolated and segregated from the rest of society or do you want them to be fully integrated into and embraced by ‘the community’”? This continues to this day.

Download this article here