In developing input to the process of reauthorizing the Rehabilitation Act, it may be helpful to read the annual report of the primary federal agency that implements the law. Unfortunately, I found that the latest report covers 1993. Still, I am distributing it for the background material it provides about the structure and function of VR programs. Since the report is about 320K in size, I've put "End of Document" at the bottom to indicate whether you received it completely. If not and you want it, let me know and I'll send it on disk. Jamal Mazrui National Council on Disability Email: 74444.1076@compuserve.com ---------- FOREWORD The Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA) continues its strong commitment to leadership and effective administration of the programs and benefits for individuals with disabilities under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended. The Act provides the legislative basis for programs and activities to assist individuals with disabilities in the pursuit of meaningful employment, independence and self-sufficiency, and full integration into community life. This report provides a comprehensive description of the activities of RSA and of the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR), both components of the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, U.S. Department of Education, during FY 1993 and describes our successes in meeting the intent and the mandates of the Act. The report also contains information on activities of the other Federal agencies responsible for administering certain sections of the Act. I would like to acknowledge the contributions by National Council on Disability; the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board; the U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs; and the U.S. Department of Justice, Office for Civil Rights, in making this report a comprehensive summary of Federal accomplishments under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended. RSA, along with the other Federal agencies with responsibilities under the Act, continues to strive for effective and efficient programs that provide opportunities for individuals with disabilities to participate in the mainstream of society through increased employment and independence. In working together, we hope to bring about significant changes in programs and services to enhance the lives of individuals with disabilities in our society. Fredric K. Schroeder Commissioner EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report to the President and to the Congress is required by Section 13 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (the Act). The report describes activities under the Act from October 1, 1992 through September 30, 1993. The report is organized following the titles and sections in the Act. The appendices contain data from various reports required in the Act and regulations. Summaries of the data in the appendices and their impact are included in the body of the report where appropriate. The executive summary contains brief information about the programs reported on and some highlights of what will be found in the various sections of the report. GENERAL PROVISIONS Sections 3 and 12 Office of the Commissioner The Act makes the Commissioner of the Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA) the principal Federal official responsible for administering the State-Federal vocational rehabilitation system. RSA's central and ten regional offices provide technical assistance and leadership to assist States and other grantees in strengthening programs providing services to individuals with disabilities. During FY 1993, the Office of the Commissioner served as a focal point for the implementation of the Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1992 and 1993. This included: o The provision of training on the Amendments; o The establishment of an open process for the development of regulations to implement the Amendments; o The issuance of proposed and final regulations implementing many new and revised provisions of the Amendments; and o The implementation of several new funding authorities established by the Amendments. Section 12(a)(4) American Rehabilitation Magazine Publication of the RSA journal, American Rehabilitation (AR), is an ongoing activity under this section of the Act. Four issues, three focussing on one special area of rehabilitation, and one issue devoted to general rehabilitation subjects, were published in 1993 reaching at least 15,000 readers. It has been estimated that upwards of 45,000 people read articles reproduced from the magazine for training and other purposes. Section 14 Evaluation Federal Funds $1,810,000 Section 14 of the Act requires the Commissioner to evaluate all programs authorized by the Act, their effectiveness in relation to their cost, their impact on related programs, and their structure and mechanisms for delivery of services, using appropriate methodology and evaluative research design. It requires that standards be established and used for the evaluations and that the evaluations be conducted by persons not immediately involved in the administration of the program or project being evaluated. Four evaluation projects were completed in Fiscal Year 1993: 1) Evaluation of Quality Assurance in State Vocational Rehabilitation Agencies; 2) Vocational Rehabilitation Services and Outcomes for Transitional Youth; 3) Evaluation of Procedures to Recruit and Retain Qualified Field Service Personnel in the State-Federal Rehabilitation Program; and, 4) Traumatic Brain Injury Effective Practices Study. Fiscal Year 1993 funds were used to continue three studies, including a major longitudinal study of the vocational rehabilitation program, and to initiate one new evaluation support activity. Section 15 The Clearinghouse on Disability Information The Clearinghouse on Disability Information responds to inquiries from individuals with disabilities, their families, agencies, information providers, and the general public. Major areas of emphasis are information on Federal funding, Federal legislation affecting persons with disabilities, and identification of other information resources. During FY 1993, the Clearinghouse responded to 9,199 written requests and 1,157 telephone inquiries. Section 21 Traditionally Underserved Populations Federal Funds $2,488,025 (one percent of funds authorized for titles II,III, VI, VII and VIII) Under Section 21 of the Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1992 (Act), the Commissioner of the Rehabilitation Services Admini- stration (RSA) is required to develop a policy statement and plan to mobilize the resources of the nation to prepare minorities for careers in vocational rehabilitation, independent living, and related services and to ensure that individuals with disabilities from minority backgrounds have equal access to services provided under these programs. Toward the accomplishment of these goals, RSA staff and representatives from the RCEPs convened numerous meetings with agencies and institutions. Among the kinds of organizations contacted were: State Vocational Rehabilitation Agencies, Centers for Independent Living, Client Assistance Programs, Community Rehabilitation Programs, Research and Training Centers, Regional Offices, Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Hispanic Serving Institutions, Minority Owned Agencies, and American Indian Section 130 Programs. In FY 1993, 1,115 such meetings and contacts took place. TITLE I Sections 100-111 The Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) Services Program Federal Funds $1,873,476,000 The Act authorizes Federal allocations on a formula grant basis, with a State matching requirement. Except for the costs of constructing community rehabilitation programs, where the match is 50 percent, the FY 1993 matching requirements for Title I funds was 78.7 percent Federal and 21.3 percent State. Program emphasis in FY 1993 included: monitoring of all formula and discretionary grantees; continued emphasis on providing services to individuals with the most severe disabilities; and increased opportunities for consumer involvement, both in individual rehabilitation plans and in the administration and implementation of the Statewide rehabilitation programs. Section 103(b) Vending Facilities Program Federal Funds $34,200,000 (Section 110 funds at discretion of States) The purpose of this program is to provide services that promote integration and competitive employment for individuals with the most severe disabilities, notably through the operation of vending facilities on Federal and other property. The Randolph-Sheppard Act provides priority for individuals who are blind who are licensed by a state licensing agency to operate vending facilities, including cafeterias, on any Federal property. Section 112 Client Assistance Program (CAP) Federal Funds $9,296,000 CAP is a formula grant program that was authorized under the Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1984 to provide support for programs that assist clients and client applicants to secure the benefits and services available to them under the Act. Each State is required to have a CAP as a condition for receiving vocational rehabilitation program funds under Title I of the Act. Section 130 American Indians with Disabilities Rehabilitation Services Projects Federal Funds $6,203,000 In FY 1993, RSA funded eleven new and eleven continuation projects. Of the eleven new grants, three were to projects that initiated new programs, and the remaining eight were to projects that had been funded in the past. Two of the three new programs are in geographical areas previously unserved by the Section 130 program. TITLE II Sections 200-204 The National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research Federal Funds $67,238,000 The National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR) provides leadership and support for a national and international program of rehabilitation research and the utilization of the knowledge gained through this program. In addition, the Director of the Institute chairs the Interagency Committee on Disability Research (ICDR), which is charged with coordinating rehabilitation research efforts across the Federal Government. NIDRR also administers the Technology Assistance program and projects to assist in implementing the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). In fiscal year 1993, the NIDRR program budget was $67,238,000. These funds supported peer review of new applications and other support activities, and the following research, demonstration, dissemination, and training projects: 44 Rehabilitation Research and Training Centers ($24,919,000), 15 Rehabilitation Engineering Research Centers ($11,202,000), 60 Field-Initiated Research Projects ($7,708,000), 29 Research and Demonstration Projects ($5,190,000), 28 Knowledge Dissemination and Utilization Programs (including ADA related projects) ($8,658,000), 12 Research Training and Career Development grants ($1,999,000), 10 Outreach to Minority Colleges and Universities Grants ($673,000) 4 Mary E. Switzer Fellowships ($155,000), 7 Small Business Innovative Research grants ($551,000) and; Peer review and other activities ($1,183,000). In addition, NIDRR administers programs funding: 52 Technology Assistance State grants ($34,068,000) Technology Assistance grant funds are appropriated under the Technology Related Assistance for Individuals with Disabilities Act, which is administered by NIDRR. TITLE III Section 302 Rehabilitation Training Federal Funds $39,628,608 Under the Rehabilitation Training program, grants and contracts may be made to States and public or nonprofit agencies and organizations, including institutions of higher education, to pay part of the costs of projects for scholarship/training awards, traineeships, and related activities designed to assist in increasing the numbers of qualified personnel trained in providing services to individuals with disabilities. In FY 1993, funds were awarded to 370 projects. Among the grants awarded were long-term training projects in rehabilitation technology, rehabilitation medicine, rehabilitation nursing, speech pathology and audiology, rehabilitation counseling, and other rehabilitation fields necessary to provide qualified personnel for the Federal-State vocational rehabilitation (VR) program. Other grants were made for continuing education to provide training on implementation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, specialized training in assisting individuals with significant disabilities to secure competitive employment, and training on the improved use of rehabilitation technology. Grants were also made for in-service training and short-term training projects to increase the knowledge and effectiveness of VR professionals. Section 311(a)(1) Special Projects and Demonstrations for Providing Vocational Rehabilitation Services to Individuals with Disabilities. Federal Funds $19,942,000 This program provides financial assistance to States and other public and private agencies and organizations for expanding and improving vocational rehabilitation services to individuals with disabilities (especially those with the most severe disabilities), including individuals who are members of populations that are unserved or underserved, irrespective of age or vocational potential who can benefit from comprehensive services. Under this program, 36 continuation projects and 36 new projects were funded in FY 1993. Section 311(c)(1)(A) Special Projects and Demonstrations for Providing Supported Employment Services to Individuals with the Most Severe Disabilities--(Statewide Demonstration and Community-Based Projects) Federal Funds $10,616,000 Under this authority, funding is provided for statewide demonstration projects and community-based projects. In fiscal year 1993, 16 statewide systems change demonstration projects were awarded their third and final year of funding to stimulate the development and provision of supported employment services on a statewide basis to individuals with the most severe disabilities, including assisting States in addressing the most difficult developmental issues in supported employment. In addition, 14 community-based projects were awarded their second year of funding and 13 awards were made to new community-based projects. All of these community-based projects are funded to stimulate the development of innovative approaches for improving and expanding the provision of supported employment services to individuals with the most severe disabilities and to enhance local capacity to provide these services. Section 312 Projects for Migratory Agricultural Workers and Seasonal Farmworkers with Disabilities Federal Funds $1,171,000 This discretionary grant program authorizes projects to provide vocational rehabilitation services to migratory agricultural workers and seasonal farmworkers with disabilities, including maintenance and transportation for individuals with disabilities and members of their families whether or not such family members are disabled. Project activities are coordinated with other Federal programs serving the target population. In FY 1993, a Federal Interagency Committee on Migrants held two national meetings that provided a forum for participants to share information and coordinate activities in order to improve services to migratory agricultural workers and seasonal farmworkers. With the passage of the Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1992, grants under this authority may now be awarded to nonprofit agencies working in collaboration with State VR agencies, as well as State vocational rehabilitation agencies. In FY 1993, four new projects were awarded and five projects received continuation funding. Section 316 Projects for Initiating Recreational Programs for Individuals with Disabilities Federal Funds $2,596,000 This discretionary grant program authorizes special service projects to initiate recreation programs for individuals with disabilities and related recreational activities designed: (1) to aid in employment; and (2) to maximize mobility, socialization, independence and community integration. To the maximum extent possible, these programs and activities are to be provided in settings with peers who are not individuals with disabilities. In FY 1993, 25 new recreation projects were funded. These projects were located in independent living centers, universities, public and private rehabilitation facilities, county agencies, school districts, and small community-based service organizations in eighteen States across the nation. These projects will serve over 22,346 individuals with disabilities. Seven of the 25 projects are giving special attention to specific populations, including persons with hearing impairments, persons with traumatic brain injury, and persons with mental illness. Among the recreational activities provided by various projects are the following: arts, music, camping, dance, river rafting, scuba diving, scouting, vocational skills development, physical education and sports, leisure education and leisure networking. TITLE IV Section 400 National Council on Disability Federal Funds $1,541,000 The National Council on Disability is an independent Federal agency composed of 15 members appointed by the President of the United States and confirmed by the U.S. Senate. The overall purpose of the National Council is to promote policies, programs, practices, and procedures that guarantee equal opportunity for all individuals with disabilities, regardless of the nature or severity of the disability; and to empower individuals with disabilities to achieve economic self sufficiency, independent living, and inclusion and integration into all aspects of society. Among the activities & accomplishments of the National Council during FY 1993 were: conducting hearings, forums and seminars throughout the country on ADA, culminating in the release of the Council's first- year report on the implementation of ADA; providing studies on the financing of assistive technology, on ensuring access to health insurances and health-related services for persons with disabilities, and other issues. The National Council met on a quarterly basis during FY 1993. TITLE V Section 501 Employment of People with Disabilities in the Federal Government The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has responsibility for enforcing the nondiscrimination and affirmative employment provisions of laws and regulations concerning Federal employment of people with disabilities. During FY 1993, EEOC monitored Federal affirmative employment programs by combining the evaluation of affirmative employment programs for minorities, women, and people with disabilities. As part of EEOC's oversight responsibilities, EEOC staff also conducted onsite reviews of the affirmative employment programs for minorities, women, and people with disabilities at selected field installations of various Federal agencies. The Interagency Committee on Employment of People with Disabilities (ICEPD), has responsibility for cooperating with and assisting the EEOC in its efforts to ensure that Federal agencies in the Executive Branch are in compliance with Federal laws and regulations for the hiring, placement, and advancement of people with disabilities. A subcommittee of ICEPD met several times, conducted a survey among member agencies and recommended special resources be provided to assess smaller agencies in fulfilling their affirmative action goals related to persons with disabilities. Section 502 Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (Access Board) Federal Funds $3,303,000 The Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board is an independent Federal regulatory agency. Under the Architectural Barriers Act (ABA), the Board is responsible for ensuring accessibility of federally funded buildings and transportation facilities to people with disabilities. The agency sets accessibility guidelines for the ABA and the Americans with Disabilities Act and provides technical assistance and information on removal of architectural, transportation, and communication barriers. Section 503 Office of Federal Contracts Compliance Programs The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) in the U.S. Department of Labor is responsible for implementing and enforcing Section 503 of the Act. Section 503 requires employers with Federal contracts in excess of $10,000 to take affirmative action to employ, and advance in employment, qualified individuals with disabilities and to make reasonable accommodations to their physical or mental limitations. Individuals with disabilities, or organizations or representatives on their behalf, may file complaints if they believe they have been discriminated against by Federal contractors or subcontractors. Among the accomplishments of OFCCP during FY 1993 were: performance of 4,456 compliance reviews, and investigation of 676 complaints under Section 503. Section 504 Nondiscrimination in Federally Assisted and Federally Conducted Programs and Activities The Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice coordinates enforcement by Executive agencies of the cross-cutting civil rights statutes, including section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of l973, as amended. Executive Order l2250 charges the Attorney General with this responsibility. The Division reviews proposed civil rights regulations and assists Federal agencies in the development of appropriate regulations. The Division annually reviews the civil rights implementation plans of each Federal agency as required by section l-403 of Executive Order l2250, and offers technical assistance to agencies to improve their civil rights enforcement procedures and programs. The Division promotes interagency information sharing and cooperation through delegation agreements. The Department of Justice enforces the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act in three areas: title I (employment practices by units of State and local government), title II (programs, services, and activities of State and local government), and title III (public accommodations and commercial facilities). Entities covered by each of these titles also may be covered by section 504. The Division is responsible for coordinating the overlapping obligations. Section 507 Interagency Disability Coordinating Council Section 507 of the Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1992 renamed the Interagency Coordinating Council as the Interagency Disability Coordinating Council (IDCC) and added the Secretaries of Housing and Urban Development and Transportation as members. On November 1, 1993, the Attorney General sent letters to the heads of the Federal agencies designated as members of the IDCC, formally notifying them of the new establishment, asking each to designate a representative, and delegating the position of Chairperson to the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights. Section 508 Electronic and Information Technology Accessibility Guidelines Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (Act), requires that the Secretary of the Department of Education, through the Director of the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research and the Administrator of the General Services Administration, develop and establish guidelines to ensure accessibility to electronic office equipment by individuals with disabilities. The language of Section 508, revised in the 1992 Amendments to the Act, changes the focus of accessibility to the access and use of the information rather than to the equipment used to create and obtain information. Because of its long-standing experience in and authority over much of the procurement activity within the Federal government, the General Services Administration has taken the initiative in implementing this section of the Act. During FY 1993, the General Services Administration reviewed 12 agencies under its Delegation of Procurement Authority program, finding that more than half of the agencies adequately addressed accessibility requirements; conducted a broader review of the information resources management systems at another 9 Federal agencies, and found that while most agencies were attempting to satisfy the need for access to information by persons with disabilities, that there were agencies that had not yet established formal, agency wide programs for information accessibility. Finally, in the same fiscal year, GSA conducted a survey of 26 of the agencies with the largest information resource management budgets and 22 of the smaller agencies. More than half of the larger agencies had incorporated accessibility into their five year strategic IRM plans or included information access in draft versions of their strategic plans. Section 509 Protection and Advocacy of Individual Rights (PAIR) Federal Funds $2,480,000 The PAIR program, which was a discretionary grant program in FY 1993, was authorized by the Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1992 to support a system in each State to protect the legal and human rights of individuals with disabilities. These individuals need services that are beyond the scope of services authorized to be provided by the client assistance program under section 112, and are ineligible for protection and advocacy programs under part C of the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act and the Protection and Advocacy for Mentally Ill Individuals Act of 1986. Twelve new PAIR projects were awarded in FY 1993; the average grant award was $96,300. During FY 1993, approximately 5,500 individuals received information/referral or case sevices. Among the activities funded during this fiscal year were education, compliance, and litigation initiatives related to implementation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 in various States. TITLE VI Part B Section 621 Projects With Industry (PWI) Federal Funds $21,571,000 PWI is a partnership between private industry, labor, and the rehabilitation community. The primary goal of this discretionary grant program is to expand job and career advancement opportunities for individuals with disabilities in the competitive labor market. In FY 1993, 127 continuation grants were funded and no new projects were awarded. As required by the Act, 15 percent of the continuation projects were randomly selected for on-site compliance reviews. After one year of funding, projects are required to report compliance indicator data measuring nine critical performance areas. Each project must receive a minimum score of 70 points in order to qualify for continuation funding for the third or any subsequent year of the grant. Part C Sections 631-638 The State Supported Employment Services Program Federal Funds $32,273,000 This formula grant program provides State VR agencies with financial assistance to develop and implement collaborative programs with appropriate public and private nonprofit organizations leading to supported employment for individuals with the most severe disabilities. As a condition for receipt of VR services program funds, State VR agencies must assure that the State has an acceptable plan to provide supported employment services. A total of 25,869 were served in FY 1993 under this program. Title VII Chapter 1, parts B and C The purpose of Chapter 1 of Title VII, parts B and C, is to promote a philosophy of independent living (IL), including a philosophy of consumer control, peer support, self-help, self- determination, equal access, and individual and system advocacy, in order to maximize the leadership, empowerment, independence, and productivity of individuals with significant disabilities, and the integration and full inclusion of individuals with significant disabilities into the mainstream of American society. Sections 711-714 State Independent Living Services Program, Chapter 1, part B of Title VII of the Act Federal Funds $15,376,000 In FY 1993, the Comprehensive Services for Independent Living program in Part A of Title VII of the Act was replaced by the State Independent Living Services program in Chapter 1, new part B of Title VII of the Act by the 1992 Rehabilitation Act Amendments. The State Independent Living Services program authorizes formula grants to designated State units (DSUs). Activities are either conducted by the DSUs or through subgrants or contracts. Sections 721-727 Centers for Independent Living (CIL) program, Chapter 1, part C of Title VII of the Act Federal Funds $31,446,000 Title VII, Chapter 1, part C provides for financial assistance to develop and support statewide networks of centers for independent living. Centers provide independent living services designed to meet the current and future needs of individuals with significant disabilities whose ability to function independently in the family or community or whose ability to obtain, maintain, or advance in employment is substantially limited and for whom the delivery of independent living services will improve the ability to function independently in the family or community or to continue in employment. One VR agency, American Samoa, was funded under section 724 of the Act, which permits funding of State VR agency operated centers when no private non-profit agency submits an application and the State VR agency is currently operating a "center". In FY 1993, there was a total of 153 centers being funded directly by RSA, and 23 new centers were funded for a total of 176. Chapter 2 Sections 751-753 Independent Living Services for Older Individuals who are Blind, Title VII, Chapter 2 Federal Funds $6,944,000 In FY 1993 this program authorized discretionary grants to State VR agencies to provide independent living services for individuals who have severe visual impairments and who are aged 55 and older. In FY 1993, 31 grantees received continuation awards and two new projects were funded for the operation of a wide variety of demonstration programs. Title VIII Section 802(a)and(g) Demonstration Activities Federal Funds $7,607,152 of Title III Special Projects and Demonstrations funds As provided in Title VIII of the Rehabilitation Act, as amended, this program is to provide financial assistance to States and other public and private agencies for implementing specific demonstration projects. In FY 1993, 14 Transportation Services Grants were awarded under Section 802(a) to provide transportation services in geographic areas that do not have fixed-route transportation or comparable paratransit services for individuals who employed or seeking employment, or who are receiving vocational rehabilitation services. Under Section 802(g), seven Demonstration Projects to Increase Client Choice were awarded to provide greater opportunities for individuals with disabilities to exercise choice in their vocational goals, services provided, and in the providers of those services. Section 803(a)(b)(c) Rehabilitation Training Federal Funds $1,880,111 Under Title VIII of the Act, this program is to provide financial assistance to States and other public and private agencies for implementing specific training projects. In FY 1993, awards were made under the following categories: three 36 month awards for Distance Learning through Telecommunications; four 12 month awards for Braille Training; and six 36 month awards for Parent Information and Training. REHABILITATION SERVICES ADMINISTRATION Office of the Commissioner Sections 3 and 12 Office of the Commissioner The Act makes the Commissioner of the Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA) the principal Federal official responsible for administering the State-Federal vocational rehabilitation system, evaluating the programs funded under the Act, and monitoring discretionary grant programs and the State Vocational Rehabilitation agencies' execution of their responsibilities under the Act. RSA's central and ten regional offices provide technical assistance and leadership to assist States and other grantees in strengthening programs providing services to individuals with disabilities, especially individuals with severe disabilities. During FY 1993, the Office of the Commissioner served as a focal point for the implementation of the Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1992 and 1993 (Pub. L. 102-569 and Pub. L. 103-73). The following activities were undertaken to assure full implementation of the Amendments in a timely manner: Training on the Amendments RSA conducted a five-step training effort to increase awareness and understanding of the Amendments to the Rehabilitation Act. The training included: o Training of RSA Central Office staff o Ten regional training sessions for State VR agency staff o Ten regional training sessions for grantees and other interested parties o Training via an interactive satellite broadcast to over 150 locations o Training for Client Assistance Program staff Established an Open Process for the Development of Regulations to Implement the Amendments In order to be responsive to the various constituencies interested in the implementation of the Amendments, RSA instituted an open process for the development of regulations for the various programs under the Act. Activities in this regard included: o Publication of two Notices of Intent to Regulate, one concerning the overall Amendments, and another related to the specific requirements for the establishment of Standards and Indicators for the State VR Services Program o Conduct of two public meetings on the implementation of the Amendments o Meetings with various constituent groups to discuss the development of regulations Issued Final Regulations for Several Programs During FY 1993, RSA promulgated final regulations for two programs significantly revised by the Amendments and for one new program established by the Amendments. The programs are: o Protection and Advocacy of Individual Rights (revised) o Projects for Initiating Recreational Programs for Individuals with Disabilities (revised) o Demonstration Projects to Increase Client Choice (new) Issued Proposed Regulations for Several Programs The process for promulgating regulations is lengthy, given the scope of changes made by the 1992 and 1993 Amendments to the Rehabilitation Act. During FY 1993, RSA published, for public comment, proposed regulations for the following programs and program areas: o Client Assistance Program o Vocational Rehabilitation -- Order of Selection o Centers for Independent Living -- Performance Indicators Implementation of New Funding Authorities The 1992 Amendments contain provisions for many new program authorities. RSA adopted the principles contained in the Amendments, and implemented the following new program funding authorities during FY 1993: o Demonstration Projects to Increase Client Choice o Transportation Demonstration Projects o Braille Training Projects o Distance Learning/Telecommunication Training Projects o Parent Training and Information Projects Contact Person: Beverlee Stafford, (202) 205-5482 Section 12(a)(4) American Rehabilitation Magazine American Rehabilitation (AR), RSA's quarterly professional rehabilitation journal, is designed to disseminate information on rehabilitation programs funded by RSA and other Federal agencies, as well as any material relevant to the performance of professional duties related to RSA interest. Therefore, any topic related to rehabilitation, such as innovative programs, agency administrative practices, research, and technique, is considered. Recently, entire issues have been devoted to one area of disability or to a specific approach to rehabilitation. The ideal article describes a new and successful approach to providing services for people with disabilities that can and should be replicated. AR also uses separate sections, or "departments," of the magazine to feature reviews of books, films, and other resources on disability and rehabilitation; to present materials on what individual states are doing; to announce conferences and events; and to disseminate other items of interest to rehabilitation professionals. In 1993, 31 articles, written by professionals in the field of rehabilitation, were published. The spring 1993 issue, the only recent issue that did not have a central theme but was devoted to general AR rehabilitation subjects, featured 7 articles. These included "Training Programs for Working With Older American Indians Who Are Visually Impaired;" "Who Are They: Some Answers from a Survey of Javits-Wagner-O'Day Employees;" "Screening for Undetected Substance Abuse Among Vocational Rehabilitation Clients;" "Adaptive Driver Training: a Pathway to Transition;" "Careers in Rehabilitation: With an Undergraduate Degree in Rehabilitation;" "Supported Employment: Working Ideals;" and "Rehabilitation in Vermont." The Summer 1993 issue featured 10 articles on "Traumatic Brain Injury." Among the articles in this important issue were an "Introduction to the RSA Regional Brain Injury Centers," "Maximizing the Continuum of Care Through Prevention," "Traumatic Brain Injury: a public policy analysis from a state perspective," "Promoting Self-Direction: Consumer Involvement in RSA Regional Centers," "A Model Systems Approach to the Rehabilitation of People with Traumatic Brain Injury," "Vocational Rehabilitation Following Traumatic Brain Injury," "Outreach from the Regional Centers to Improve Services for Brain Injury Survivors in the Community," "RSA Regional Head Injury Centers: a Resource List" "Mail and Telephone Surveys of Services for People with TBI," and "The Price of Emotion," a reprint from the January-February issue of Mouth. The Autumn issue featured 6 articles on "HIV/AIDS," with the following articles: "Self-Help Groups for HIV Seropositive People," "AIDS: the Physical Therapist's Role in Rehabilitation," "AIDS Policies and Education: What are Vocational and Residential Providers Doing?" "Understanding and Counseling Special Populations with HIV Seropositive Disease," "AIDS: A Continuing Challenge for Rehabilitation Professionals," and "HIV and Rehabilitation Management." The Winter AR contained 9 articles on the various manifestations of "Communicative Disorders." Topics included "Historical Overview of Services to Traditionally Underserved Persons Who Are Deaf," "Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1992: Implications for Consumers with Hearing Loss," "VR and People Who are Hard of Hearing: Where Do We Go From Here," "Aging, Hearing Loss, and Hearing Aids: Myths Revisited," "Meeting the Needs of Late-Deafened Adults," "Computer- Aided Realtime Translation (CART) Technology," "Recognizing and Treating Speech and Language Disorders," "Communication Disorders and Rehabilitation of Persons with Stroke," and "Speech Pathologists and Rehabilitation Services." Future issues of American Rehabilitation will focus on "Independent Living," "Deaf-Blind Rehabilitation," "Special Projects," "Severe Mental Illness," " and others yet to be determined. Authors interested in submitting their manuscripts to AR should contact: Frank Romano, Editor, Room 3212 Switzer Building, 330 C Street, SW, Washington, D.C. 20202-2531. Telephone: (202) 205- 8296. FAX: (202) 205-9874. REHABILITATION SERVICES ADMINISTRATION Planning, Policy and Evaluation Staff Section 14 Evaluation Federal Funds $1,810,000 Section 14 of the Act requires that the Secretary, in consultation with the Commissioner of RSA, evaluate all programs authorized by the Act, their effectiveness in relation to their cost, their impact on related programs, and their structure and mechanisms for delivery of services, using appropriate methodology and evaluative research design. It requires that standards be established and used for the evaluations, and that the evaluations be conducted by persons not immediately involved in the administration of the program or project evaluated. Projects Completed in FY 1993 Evaluation of Quality Assurance (QA) Systems in State Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) Agencies - Completed March 1993. This study's findings included: o State VR agencies seem most motivated by concerns for ensuring compliance with law and regulation (99 percent of respondents) and for ensuring adequately-sized caseloads that included quantitative goals (98%). o As criteria for program quality, two-thirds of respondents identified non-counseling aspects of a counselor's job (eg., networking in the community) as quality criteria, three-fifths cited staff satisfaction criteria, but only two-fifths cited employer satisfaction criteria. o A large majority of respondents (85%) indicated their agencies use customer satisfaction criteria to evaluate program and service quality, but less than half (45%) reported establishing performance standards for staff regarding consumer satisfaction. Comparisons regarding quality assurance systems were made between agencies that had been trained by the Management Control Project (MCP), (a management approach that stresses holding staff accountable for achieving mutually-negotiated, measurable, process and outcome objectives while giving them significant autonomy) and agencies who had not. o MCP agencies included client satisfaction and employer satisfaction among their criteria of quality more frequently than non-MCP agencies but were less likely than non-MCP agencies (51% versus 31%) to establish performance standards for counselors regarding customer satisfaction. o MCP agencies were more likely to establish performance standards for counselors, supervisors and field office managers than non-MCP agencies. o MCP agencies were more likely than non-MCP agencies to provide staff with reports from the agencies' management information systems, client surveys and from meetings with constituents. In addition, the study produced examples of useful quality assurance practices in VR agencies as well as a Quality Assurance Manual that could be used to evaluate, and assist in the improvement of, VR agency QA systems. Contact Person: Harold B. Kay, (202) 205-9883 Vocational Rehabilitation Services and Outcomes for Transitional Youth - Completed June, 1993. This was an RSA substudy of a five- year longitudinal study conduced by the Office of Special Education Programs. This study's findings included: o The criteria schools used to make referrals for VR services tended to be highly consistent with State VR agency eligibility requirements. o Two primary factors tended to influence the likelihood that youth would apply to VR for services: 1) assignment of VR counselors as liaisons to the school, and 2) referral to VR by the school. o Relative to all VR clients, youth clients (students who transitioned from school to VR) were more likely to receive some form of postsecondary education, required a greater proportion of vocational services and were less likely to choose a vocational goal in professional fields, more likely to choose a goal in clerical or sales occupations and about equally likely to choose a goal in service occupations. o A large percentage of youth clients were successfully rehabilitated following receipt of VR services; of youth successfully rehabilitated, the majority worked in full or part-time competitive jobs. o As compared to youth in schools who did not apply for VR services, more youth who received services were working and more were enrolled in two- and four-year college programs. Contact Person: Harold B. Kay, (202) 205-9883 Evaluation of Procedures to Recruit and Retain Qualified Field Service Delivery Personnel in the State-Federal Rehabilitation Program - Completed April, 1993. This study's findings included: o Traditionally underrepresented groups are better represented in State VR service delivery positions than they are in the population at large considering the educational requirements of those positions. o Approximately half of the counselors have a master's degree of some kind, but only a third of all VR counselors have a master's degree in rehabilitation. o Turnover can be greatly reduced by providing staff with significant autonomy and emphasizing the more professional and challenging aspects of the job. o The more highly educated and skilled staff are more difficult to retain. o Hiring VR staff takes considerably longer than is common in the private sector. o State personnel offices often present VR agencies with employment candidates whom the agencies judge to be insufficiently trained and qualified. o Students in RSA-supported preservice training programs were racially and ethnically diverse. o The vast majority of students who receive scholarships from RSA choose employment in VR agencies or organizations. Some recommendations included: o Enhance the autonomy and professionalism of VR staff in order to minimize turnover. o Provide job applicants with a clear, accurate picture of the job. o State VR agencies should work closely with State personnel units to identify procedures and criteria that might speed the hiring of qualified personnel. Contact Person: Harold B. Kay, (202) 205-9883 Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) Effective Practices Study - Completed September 1993. This study's findings included: o Clients with TBI achieve success in the VR system at the same rate as other VR clients, but the duration of their services is longer and the cost is greater. o A majority of former clients with TBI reported improvements in their quality of life as a result of VR services. o While clients with TBI account for less than two percent of all VR case closures, most VR agencies have given special attention to implementing a continuum of rehabilitation services for these individuals. o VR counselors who serve clients with TBI are generally knowledgeable about the nature of TBI and the associated implications for effective rehabilitation practice. o The role of the VR program in the overall treatment and rehabilitation of persons with TBI is, by the nature of the system, narrow in purpose and relatively brief in duration. Some recommendations were: o State VR agencies in association with their Rehabilitation Advisory Councils should ensure that TBI survivors are included in outreach plans. o RSA should revise and improve the codes for identifying clients with TBI so they might be better tracked and services planned for them improved. o RSA should encourage VR agencies to utilize TBI resource counselors wherever specialty TBI caseloads are unfeasible. o Some VR agencies should, when setting quantitative expectations for counselor performance (eg. client time in service, percent of closures that are Status 26), make greater allowances for serving clients with TBI. o RSA should promote interagency collaboration at Federal, State and local levels to develop systematic sources of long-term funding for clients with TBI in supported employment. Projects continued in FY 1993 from prior year An Assessment of Client Information Systems - To be completed April 1994. The purpose of this study is to document and provide a balanced assessment of potential improvements to RSA's R300/R911 client information system including: o data elements obtained from the Ohio Rehabilitation Services Commission (RSC), that exist in a database accompanying the publication, "Excellence Through Information Management, a Decision Support System"; o earnings data from the Social Security Data Link and R911/SSA Interface; and o the Client Employability Index (CEI) and the Economic Environment Index (EEI) that were developed in the RSA Program Performance Indicators project. Contact Person: Harold B. Kay (202) 205-9883 A Longitudinal Study of the Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) Services Program - Expected completion: 1998. The overall purpose of the study is to examine the success of the State-Federal VR Services Program in assisting individuals with disabilities to achieve sustainable improvements in employment, earnings, independence, and quality of life including: o investigating application and acceptance rates; o developing a model of VR client flow from application to closure; o analyzing the costs of eligibility determination and VR services; o developing a comprehensive model of client outcomes to determine the relationships between VR services and rehabilitation success; o analyzing the long-term effects of VR services on client outcomes; o preparing tools to support future research on the VR program; o developing recommendations on appropriate methods for future studies; and o providing information for use in the 1997 reauthorization of the Rehabilitation Act through the release of Interim Reports. Contact Person: Harold B. Kay, (202) 205-9883 Evaluation of the Impact of VR Funding of Purchased Services - Expected completion: early in 1995. The purpose of the study is to identify and evaluate current State VR agency practices regarding purchasing VR services from rehabilitation facilities including: o identifying the types and models of purchase of services (POS) agreements (including their range and scope) that currently exist between State VR agencies and rehabilitation facilities; o documenting the frequency of use and examine the rationale for use of the various types of POS agreements; o determining the impact that various types of POS agreements have on the kinds and extensiveness of services provided to VR clients; o assessing the trends, strengths and weaknesses of current practices relative to POS agreements; and o identifying POS agreements that foster a desirable client flow, and develop recommendations for promoting the wider use of these effective POS agreements. Contact Person: Harold B. Kay, (202) 205-9883 Projects Started in FY 1993 Technical Support for Development of Performance Standards and Indicators for the Vocational Rehabilitation Service Program - Expected completion October, 1994. The purpose of this project is to provide technical support to the Department of Education's Regulations Policy Group (RPG) for developing performance standards and indicators for the VR service program as required by the Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1992. Technical support activities include: o a review and summary of previous work, o development of issue papers, o development of alternative performance levels for consideration by the RPG, and o simulations and other types of analyses based on the RSA data system. Contact Person: Robert Barnes, (202) 401-3630 OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR SPECIAL EDUCATION AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES Section 15 The Clearinghouse on Disability Information The Clearinghouse on Disability Information responds to inquiries from individuals with disabilities, their families, national organizations, Federal and State agencies, information providers, legislators, the news media, and the general public. Major areas of emphasis are information on Federal funding, Federal legislation affecting persons with disabilities, OSERS' programs and policies, and identification of and referral to other information resources. ACTIVITIES During FY 1993, the Clearinghouse responded to 9,199 written requests and 1,157 telephone inquiries and issued the following publications or fact sheets. o OSERS News in Print (four issues published and distributed to 22,000 individuals per issue) o Pocket Guide to Federal Help for Individuals with Disabilities o Summary of Existing Legislation Affecting People with Disabilities o ED Facts: Office of Special Education and Rehabilitation Services o Clearinghouse on Disability Information Fact Sheet o InfoPac (employment guide for people with disabilities) o OSERS News Update (a quarterly newsletter distributed to 700 heads of disability organizations, legislators, chief state school officers, and heads of state special education and vocational rehabilitation) Contact Person: Carolyn Corlett, (202) 205-8241 (Voice and TDD) REHABILITATION SERVICES ADMINISTRATION Office of Developmental Programs Section 21 Traditionally Underserved Populations Federal Funds $2,488,025 (one percent of funds authorized for titles II, III, VI, and VIII) MISSION, PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND Section 21 of the Rehabilitation Act, as amended (Act) cites findings which suggest that the racial profile of America is rapidly changing and the rate of sustaining disabling conditions among racial and ethnic minorities continues to increase at a disproportionately high rate. The Commissioner of the Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA) is required, under Section 21, to develop a policy statement and plan to mobilize the resources of the nation to prepare minorities for careers in vocational rehabilitation, independent living, and related services and to ensure that individuals with disabilities from minority backgrounds have equal access to services provided under these programs. This policy is to focus on the recruitment of minorities into the field of vocational rehabilitation counseling and related disciplines; and, financially assisting Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), Hispanic-serving institutions of higher education, and other institutions of higher education whose minority enrollment is at least 50 percent to prepare students for vocational rehabilitation and related service careers. The plan already stated is to provide outreach services and other related activities to: a) HBCU's, Hispanic-serving institutions of higher education, and other institutions of higher education whose minority student enrollment is at least 50 percent; b) nonprofit and for-profit agencies at least 51 percent owned or controlled by one or more minority individuals; and, c) underrepresented populations in order to enhance their capacity and increase their participation in competitions for grants, contracts, and cooperative agreements. In order to implement this mandate, the Act authorizes the Commissioner to expend one percent (1%) of funds appropriated for fiscal years 1993 through 1997 for programs under Titles II through VIII, with the exception of Titles IV and V, to be used to support these activities. Section 21 further requires that applicants for grants, contracts, and cooperative agreements under Titles I, II, III, VI, VII and VIII demonstrate how they will address the needs of individuals with disabilities from minority backgrounds. Under Title II, the National Institute of Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR) made supplemental grant awards to current NIDRR-funded Rehabilitation Research and Training Centers(RRTCs) and to Rehabilitation Engineering Research Centers (RERCs) for the purpose of conducting collaborative research projects with Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs). Nine projects were funded in fiscal year 1993 whose purpose was two-fold: 1) to increase the research capabilities of HBCUs to participate in and apply for funds available under NIDRR administered programs; 2) to increase the number of minority individuals available with skills and experience in rehabilitation research; and 3) to foster rehabilitation research and training with appropriate relevance to the needs of multi-cultured populations. Implementation Strategy RSA through the Strategic Planning Committee and its Senior Management Team developed and adopted an outreach to minority policy. This policy affirms RSA's commitment to actively promote and support agencies, organizations and institutions of higher education, including community colleges, to create partnerships with minority institutions and organizations to assure accessible services, opportunities for careers and competition for financial supporting programs authorized by the Rehabilitation Act, as amended. As a direct result of the successful implementation of this policy, RSA will: o Increase the number of minority professionals in the rehabilitation service delivery system; o Increase the number of minority institutions of higher education and other minority institutions that successfully compete for grants, contracts, and cooperative agreements in rehabilitation; o Increase the number of minority individuals with disabilities who are served, are employed, and achieve independent living; and, o Promote relevant and useful research and conduct service demonstrations that lead to increased and improved services to minority individuals with disabilities. The RSA FY 1993 Strategic Plan incorporated five major objectives to specifically address section 21. The following objectives represent RSA's broad interpretation of the purpose and intent of the legislation to: o Increase the number of minority individuals with disabilities who are served and rehabilitated into employment; o Increase the number of minority individuals with disabilities who are served by independent living centers and programs, and achieve greater independence in their communities; o Increase the number of minority professionals employed in the rehabilitation service delivery system; o Increase the number of minority institutions of higher education and other minority institutions that successfully compete for grants, contracts and cooperative agreements in rehabilitation; and, o Promote relevant and useful research and conduct service demonstrations that lead to increased and improved services to minority individuals with disabilities. To facilitate the implementation of its strategic plan, RSA decided to supplement the eleven Rehabilitation Continuing Education Programs (RCEPs), one in each region (two in Region IV). San Diego State University (SDSU) RCEP was assigned the administrative responsibility to coordinate the activities related to this effort, particularly since it had been involved in providing training and technical assistance throughout one of the most culturally diverse regions. During this performance period $1,815,645 million was divided among the eleven RCEPs as follows: (1) SDSU RCEP received $265,000 since it had greater administrative and coordination responsibilities than the other RCEPs; and, (2) the other ten RCEPs each received $155,000. The existing cooperative agreements were amended. Each RCEP agreed to assign a lead specialist as a liaison with the SDSU RCEP and to established a (1) Focus Group and (2) National Advisory Committee. Representation on these included minorities who were in business/industry, parents or family members of disabled individuals, consumers, educators, researchers. Accomplishments During the performance period from December 1992 through January 1994 RSA staff and representatives from the RCEPs convened numerous meetings with agencies and institutions. The following list includes by number the organizations and programs contacted throughout the year: Number of Type of Organization Contacts State Agencies 246 Centers for Independent Living 122 Client Assistance Programs 55 Community Rehabilitation Programs 49 Research and Training Centers 54 Regional Offices 191 Historically Black Colleges and Universities 152 Hispanic Serving Institutions 11 Other Minority Institutions of Higher Education 32 51 percent Minority Owned Agencies 36 American Indian Section 130 Programs 37 Other 130 Total 1,115 Highlights of activities completed for organizations participating in the initiative are as follows: a. State Vocational Rehabilitation Agencies: o Conducted orientation and training on cultural diversity state directors, area management teams, and field administrators; o Convened conference calls with regional Human Resource Development Specialists; and, o Conducted a needs assessment and collected base line data. b. Centers for Independent Living (CIL): o Held Bi-Regional meetings of Northeast CIL's and Transition Planning Committee; o Met with State Independent Living Council Chairs seeking their endorsement on cultural diversity initiative for staff, board members and consumers; and, c. Research and Training Centers (R&TC): o Participated in Howard University Mini-Conference and "Rehabilitation and Diversity" satellite teleconference; o Collaborated with the Pacific Basin R&TC on research and training efforts on Asian/Pacific Island Americans; and, o Established liaison with American Indians R&TC. d. Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU): o Established list of minority faculty currently teaching in rehabilitation fields; o Participated in technical assistance "Opportunities in Rehabilitation" Conference for 15 HBCU's and 1 Institute of Higher Education with a minority enrollment of at 50 percent; o Initiated planning activities with HBCU's regarding implementation of Rehabilitation Counseling Education programs; and, o Met with Lincoln University Extension Office to implement a project in minority health in conjunction with the R&TC whose core area of research is Arthritis. e. Minority Owned Agencies: o Met with representatives from the Small Business Administration; o Provided orientation for minority owned business owners; and, o Conducted a data search to determine the number of minority business owners are people with disabilities. f. American Indians with Disabilities Grant Program (section 130 projects): o Developed Native American Disabilities Planning Council to increase involvement of Native Americans in disabilities services including community education and awareness through training; o Served as liaison with New York State Native-American Education Association, American Indian Community House, and Native-American Services Director; o Developed plans for new Native-American (130 projects) in two regions; o Formed a Council of Administrators for Native-American Rehabilitation (CANAR); and, o Served as liaison with Navajo Nations VR and the University of Arizona to develop work study model of rehabilitation education. Regional Accomplishments The following is a compilation of significant activities completed by each regional RCEP during FY 1993: Region I - Assumption College, Worcester, Massachusetts o Provided technical assistance on cultural diversity for Services for the Blind Planning Committee meetings; developed a presentation on cultural diversity as it pertains to services for the Blind; and, o Developed a unit on cultural diversity for the area of assessment entitled "Introduction to Assessment and Appraisal" that was incorporated into a graduate course in rehabilitation counseling. Region II - State University of New York, Buffalo, New York o Co-sponsored a conference entitled "Onkwehonewe: Native American Education and Career Opportunities" to assist Native American teenagers to explore career opportunities, plan for higher education, locate resources available, and discover academic career and financial aid possibilities; o Worked to develop a plan to increase the involvement of Native Americans in rehabilitation as both professionals and clients; o Held an annual Independent Living Conference, in Queens, that was devoted to cultural diversity which discussed minority cultures in both the rehabilitation and corporate worlds; and, o Presented at the Western New York Fall Conference on AIDS, the Counseling People of Hispanic Heritage Conference, AIDS Issues in the Latino Culture, Multi-cultural Issues and the Culture Competence Conference. Region III - George Washington University, Washington, D.C. o Conducted the "Opportunities in Rehabilitation" Conference for 15 HBCU's and minority owned businesses; o Initiated a plan to deliver technical assistance to the University of Maryland, Eastern Shore, to assist them with grant development and preparation for an undergraduate rehabilitation program; o Began a data search on the number of 51 percent minority-owned business owners with disabilities, and conducted a minority- owned business owners orientation; and, o Developed a script for contact with focus groups and conducted three focus groups. Region IV - Georgia State University & The University of Tennessee o Conducted site visits to eight State Rehabilitation Agencies to meet with directors and leadership and management teams to discuss the rehabilitation cultural diversity initiative in the region/state and to develop a list of training needs for the state agency; o Convened and participated in five planning activities with HBCU personnel regarding implementation of Rehabilitation Counselor Education programs; o Initiated meetings with representatives from Clark Atlanta University and Talladega College in Alabama to discuss technical assistance needs related to discretionary grants within RSA; and, Region V - Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, Illinois o Participated in Graduate and Professional Recruitment Day at Atlanta University Center to promote careers in rehabilitation and to recruit master's and doctoral level students for Southern Illinois University; o Participated in bi-regional program sponsored by Howard University Research and Training Center on cultural diversity; and, o Conducted focus groups with representatives from institutions of higher education to provide information about secondary programs (Upward Bound, TRIO, Talent Search) and to market such programs to junior colleges and high schools. Region VI - University of Arkansas, Little Rock, Arkansas o Conducted a focus group session with representatives from RSA, State VR agencies, CIL's, Client Assistance projects, Community Rehabilitation programs, HBCU's, minority owned businesses, rehabilitation and the private sector to outline issues and areas of concern, develop goals, objectives and strategies related to cultural diversity; and, o Conducted numerous training sessions for the Department of Rehabilitation, University of Arkansas; convened the Regional Conference on Careers in Rehabilitation at Southern University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana; the Oklahoma Area Directors meeting; the Region VI Community Rehabilitation Conference, and the Arkansas Office of Deaf & Hearing Impaired Area meeting in Little Rock, Arkansas. Region VII - University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri o Discussed collaboration with Penn Valley Community College; Missouri Rehabilitation Services for the Blind, Mid-Missouri Chapter of the Missouri Rehabilitation Association; Assistive Technology Advisory Committee, Drake University in Des Moines, Iowa; Missouri Division of VR; Iowa Services for the Blind; Haskell University (Indian College); Kansas State VR agency; Kansas State University; Nebraska Indian Community College and the Nebraska State VR agency; and, o Met with two of the four VR training programs in rehabilitation counseling located at an HBCU. Region VIII - University of Northern Colorado, Greeley, Colorado o Established the Consortia of Administrators for Native American Rehabilitation Project (CANAR), with the assistance of Regions IX and X; Region VII assisted in establishing the CANAR organizational by-laws, board members and conducting meetings; o Collaborated with the American Indian Higher Education Council on Rehabilitation regarding a core curriculum for all member institutions; and, received a roster of 29 colleges and community colleges on reservations that are eligible to submit proposals for funding of tribal rehabilitation projects; o Collaborated on rehabilitation education-graduate level training with the University of Montana Rural Rehabilitation Research and Training Center and the Utah State University to establish a Regional Rehabilitation Education Task Force with assistance from the Rehabilitation Information Exchange Project, the University of Northern Arizona Rehabilitation Research and Training Center, and the Region VIII RSA office; and, o Conducted a teleconference with Services De La Raza to develop collaboration strategies that will increase the number of persons from minority groups accessing the rehabilitation system in communities where there are large pockets of underserved persons. Region IX - San Diego State University, San Diego, California o As administrative agent for the combined efforts of all of the RCEPs, SDSU was responsible for coordinating training activities and disseminating reports of diversity initiative activities from all ten RCEPs; o Hosted a Regional Symposium with provider and potential employer participants from state agencies, Projects With Industry grantees, and CIL's from Arizona, Nevada and California; o Worked with the University of Arizona to develop a work study model of rehabilitation education with the Navajo Nation; o Established a Regional Advisory committee and conducted a meeting for all other RCEP's on issues related to baseline data collection, needs assessment and career advancement, developed strategies to involve community programs in embracing cultural diversity; and specific issue identification for Pacific Insular areas; o Initiated a Bachelors of Vocational Education program for Palau; and, o Provided technical assistance to the Office of Civil Rights and the California Department of Rehabilitation Mid-City District in developing interview protocol and conducting interviews with counselors and supervisors regarding disparity of services to persons with disabilities who are members of minority groups. Region X - Western Washington University, Bellevue, Washington o Initiated joint efforts with Regions VIII & IX in establishing the Consortia of Administrators for Native American Rehabilitation (CANAR); o Convened a Native American National Conference for section 130 projects; o Conducted a training workshop and rehabilitation cultural diversity initiative orientation for the Colville Confederated Tribes that yielded a list of eleven agencies and contact persons to identify candidates for a rehabilitation Master's program established for minority individuals. Contact Person: Thomas E. Finch, (202) 205-9796 REHABILITATION SERVICES ADMINISTRATION Office of Program Operations Sections 100-111 The Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) Services Program Federal Funds $1,873,475,876 The purpose of the State VR Services Program is to assist States in operating a comprehensive, coordinated, effective, efficient, and accountable program of vocational rehabilitation that is designed to assess, plan, develop, and provide vocational rehabilitation services for individuals with disabilities consistent with their strengths, resources, priorities, concerns, abilities, and capabilities so that such individuals may prepare for and engage in gainful employment. In FY 1993, States received approximately $1.9 billion in Federal funds under the State VR Services Program. Federal funds were allocated on a formula basis with a State match requirement of 21.3 percent. In FY 1993 States contributed approximately $507 million in State and local funds to the State VR Services Program. See Appendix B, pages B-1 and B-2. VR SERVICES PROGRAM ACTIVITIES Program emphasis for FY 1993 was strongly determined by the amendments to the Rehabilitation Act that were enacted in October 1992. There was continued emphasis on providing services to individuals with the most severe disabilities as well as increased opportunities for consumer involvement, both in individual rehabilitation plans and in the administration and implementation of the statewide rehabilitation programs. In FY 1993, a total of eighty-one State agencies operated VR services programs in fifty States and the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, Republic of Palau, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. Twenty-four States operated two separate agencies, one for individuals in the State who are blind, and one for individuals with all other disabilities. Twenty-six of the 81 agencies were independent vocational rehabilitation agencies responsible to the governor; fourteen were located in a department of education; and forty-one were located in a multi-program agency housing at least two other agencies administering major programs of public health, public welfare, public education, or labor. The 1992 and 1993 Amendments to the Act In 1993, RSA undertook a variety of activities to assist States, community rehabilitation programs, service providers, advocates, consumers and other individuals interested in rehabilitation to become better acquainted with the 1992 and 1993 Amendments. These activities, in addition to the development of implementing regulations, included the: o compilation of the Act integrating both the 1992 and 1993 Amendments; o development of a trainers' manual and a comprehensive summary of the key provisions of the amendments; o conduct of 2 training sessions in each of the 10 RSA Regional Offices; o provision of training and information through an interactive National satellite telecast reaching nearly 15,000 individuals in all of the 50 States; o presentations by RSA staff at National and Regional meetings; o communication through formal RSA issuances of policy requirements, technical assistance guidance, and information; o outreach to the public through meetings, teleconferences and notices in the FEDERAL REGISTER to receive input on implementation issues; and o production of a technical assistance/monitoring guide to assist in the appropriate implementation of the amendments. Monitoring Section 107 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended in 1992, mandates RSA to conduct annual reviews and periodic on-site monitoring of programs administered under Title I. RSA's formula grant monitoring system was revised to reflect additional and/or revised requirements. Monitoring activities continued to be conducted by the ten regional offices and the central office in Washington. The major areas for on-site monitoring reviews include State agency compliance with its State plan, eligibility and casework documentation, and fiscal requirements. RSA's FY 1993 Annual Monitoring Report indicated that approximately twenty-five percent of the State agencies were monitored during the year. RSA reviews of State plan assurances show most State agencies operate their programs within the requirements of the law and regulations. Reviews of casework documentation indicate the State agencies are meeting the minimum standards of compliance for most requirements. The most frequent deficiencies were related to the requirements for individualized written rehabilitation programs especially those concerning client involvement and post-employment assessments. Agencies were required to develop and implement corrective action plans. The corrective action activities typically included additional training for agency staff. The most significant non-compliance findings in the area of financial management concern reporting, time distribution, and program income requirements. Contact Person: David Ziskind, (202) 205-5474 CASELOAD TRENDS I. INTRODUCTION The caseload data demonstrate that the new Rehabilitation Act provisions related to eligibility have accomplished what Congress intended. The eligibility process has been expedited, determinations are made quicker, and more individuals, particularly individuals with severe disabilities, are being accepted into the program. The caseload differences observed in FY 1993 resulted from (a) the requirement, with very limited exceptions, to determine eligibility for rehabilitation services within 60 days and (b) the presumption that individuals with a physical or mental impairment that results in a substantial impedment to employment, can benefit from vocational rehabilitation services in terms of an employment outcome, unless the State rehabilitation agency can demonstrate that there is clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. The 60-day requirement led to a decline in the number of persons held in an applicant status waiting for an eligibility determination or an extended evaluation. The presumption of being able to benefit led to higher numbers and proportions of applicants being accepted for VR services and entering the active statuses. However some of the individuals accepted for VR services may never receive them. Such persons may not meet a State agency's order of selection priorities at a time when the agency does not have sufficient resources to serve all eligible persons. Current reporting practices do not separately identify eligible persons who are served from eligible persons who are waiting to be served. All are presently classified as "served". This means that certain comparisons between FY 1993 and earlier years cannot be made. II. SUMMARY Large increases occurred in the number of applicant cases processed for eligibility, and in the rate at which these individuals were determined to be eligible for services. This meant a rapid expansion in the number of individuals entering the active (eligible) statuses increasing the number of persons served to more than one million (1,048,527), a 10.5 percent increase over FY 1992. The number remaining in the eligible statuses at the end of FY 1993 increased to just under 700,000 (699,991), a 13.3 increase over FY 1992. The increase in the number remaining in eligible statuses and not being served is due to an increase in the number of persons affected by order of selection. The rehabilitation rate among cases closed after acceptance for services showed a decrease to 55.7 percent from 63.0 percent. The rehabilitation rate for persons with severe disabilities (55.1 percent) showed a similar declining pattern during the same period. Two sets of seemingly contradictory patterns were in operation in FY 1993. The number of persons counted as "served" rose considerably by nearly 100,000, yet the total workload of applicants and clients in State agency caseloads expanded by only 20,000. Similarly, despite the very large increase in the carryover of active cases in State agency caseloads at the end of FY 1993 (up 82,000 from the same date a year earlier), the total number of cases at all stages of the VR process actually declined by 13,000. These unusual patterns are explained by the shift of a large number of cases from the applicant status to the statuses where individuals are to receive the full scope of rehabilitation services (the active statuses). The number of persons who were successfully rehabilitated increased slightly from FY 1992 (193,994). Rehabilitations of persons with severe disabilities increased to a total of 139,088, the first increase in four years. Persons with severe disabilities who were served increased to the highest number ever (766,628), while those accepted to receive VR services exceeded 300,000 for the first time (325,222). Also, persons with severe disabilities accounted for more than seventy percent of all persons in State agency caseloads, setting new record highs (e.g., 73.1 percent of all persons served). The foregoing trends are described more fully in the analysis below containing references to the 13 tables in Appendix C. All figures cited are a National summary of caseloads in the State- Federal Program. As such, they represent the net effects of differing trends in the various State VR agencies in operation in FY 1993. III. REHABILITATIONS All Persons Rehabilitated (Tables 1, 2 and 6) State agencies rehabilitated 193,994 persons in FY 1993, a 1.1 percent increase from the number rehabilitated in FY 1992 (191,890). The number of non-rehabilitations in FY 1993 was 154,542 persons, an increase of 11.1 percent from FY 1992. The Rehabilitation Rate (Table 2) The rehabilitation rate was 55.7 percent in FY 1993 as compared to 58.0 percent in the previous year. The rehabilitation rate was calculated by dividing the number of rehabilitations (193,994) by the sum of rehabilitations and non-rehabilitations (348,536) and multiplying the result by 100. FY 1993's rehabilitation rate was influenced by an increase in rehabilitations of only 2,100 persons from FY 1992 compared to an increase in persons not rehabilitated of 15,400. Nearly two-thirds of the rise in non-rehabilitations were accounted for by eligible persons not receiving any services beyond assessment, a group that traditionally accounts for only 20 percent of all individuals who cannot be rehabilitated. This finding may reflect the closure of cases of individuals who previously would not have been deemed eligible for services. Of those individuals whose cases were closed in 1993 after receiving services, 62.6 percent were successfully rehabilitated compared to 63.5 percent in the previous year. Severely Disabled Persons Rehabilitated (Tables 3, 4 and 12) Successful rehabilitations among persons with severe disabilities totaled 138,290 in FY 1993, 3.4 percent more than in FY 1992. Overall, 71.7 percent of all persons rehabilitated in FY 1993 were severely disabled, the highest percentage ever observed. The FY 1992 percentage was 69.7 percent. The Rehabilitation Rate: Persons with Severe Disabilities (Table 4) The rehabilitation rate for persons with severe disabilities in FY 1993 was 55.1 percent, i.e., 55.1 percent of individuals with severe disabilities whose cases were closed from the active statuses were rehabilitated and 44.9 percent were not. This was a decrease from the 57.3 percent rate that occurred in FY 1992. The rehabilitation rate among individuals classified as non- severely disabled was 57.0 percent in FY 1993 compared to 59.6 percent in FY 1992. It would appear that factors making it more difficult for State agencies to effect successful rehabilitations have impacted about equally on clients, regardless of the severity of their disabilities. IV. PERSONS SERVED All Persons Served (Tables 1, 5, 6 and 11) The number of persons served increased dramatically in FY 1993 to 1,048,527 persons, a 10.5 percent increase from the 949,053 persons served one year earlier. "Persons served" is defined as the number of persons eligible for VR services whose cases were open at some time during the year. However, the definition includes eligible individuals whose delivery of services will be delayed because the State agency is on an order of selection and those individuals do not meet the selection priorities of the approved State plan. By October 1995, the number of eligible persons whose services have been delayed will be separately identified in agency caseload data. A major problem of comparability arose in FY 1993 because of the new presumption of benefit provision. As a result of this provision, a sizable number of applicants, who previously would not have been accepted into the program, were determined to be eligible and had to be counted as "served" under the RSA reporting system. "Persons served" is the sum of clients recorded as being in the service statuses on the last day of the fiscal year (September 30), and the number whose cases were closed out as rehabilitated or not rehabilitated that year. The largest segment of persons served in any year is represented by those whose cases remain open, i.e. persons still in the service statuses when the fiscal year ends instead of ones whose cases were closed out in that year. In FY 1993, as of September 30, 1993, those individuals totaled 699,991, or 66.8 percent of all 1,048,527 persons counted as served. For FY 1992, persons remaining in the service statuses, as of September 30, 1992, totaled 65.1 percent of all persons served. Persons with Severe Disabilities Served (Tables 7 and 12) The number of persons with severe disabilities who received VR services at some time during FY 1993 (as defined above) was 762,218, or 14.0 percent more than the 668,487 persons served in FY 1992. The proportion of all persons served who were severely disabled reached its highest level in FY 1993, 73.1 percent. This percentage continues to increase annually. The increase in the number of individuals with severe disabilities served since FY 1989 has been substantial, nearly 138,000 persons. In the same interval, over 18,000 fewer persons with non-severe disabilities were served. V. NEW ACCEPTANCES All Persons Accepted for Services (Tables 6, 8 and 10) The number of applicants accepted for services, (i.e., determined eligible), in FY 1993 increased dramatically. In the previous four years, the number of individuals accepted for services was approximately 350,000 each year. In FY 1993, however, the number of applicants determined eligible, soared to 430,269 persons, an increase of 24.2 percent from the 346,325 acceptances in FY 1992. This was the highest influx of new acceptances since FY 1977 and is a direct result of the changes in the eligibility process made by the 1992 Amendments. The Acceptance Rate (Table 8) There was a large increase (24.2 percent) in the number of applicants accepted for services in FY 1993 and a small increase (5.7 percent) in those not accepted. Those accepted for services accounted for 60.4 percent of all applicants whose eligibility was decided upon. This is the acceptance rate, and it represented a sharp gain of nearly four percentage points in a single year (from 56.5 percent in FY 1992). It was also the highest acceptance rate in 19 years. Such a steep incline may have been anticipated given the new presumption of benefit requirement. Persons with Severe Disabilities Accepted for Services (Tables 9 and 12) State agencies accepted 323,339 persons with a severe disability for services in FY 1993, a surge of 29.4 percent from 249,791 in FY 1992. This gain represented the highest number of new acceptances among persons with severe disabilities yet recorded. It is anticipated that the large majority of these newly accepted individuals are in a position to receive rehabilitation services without delay because of the severity of their disabilities. The number of persons with non-severe disabilities accepted for services (106,930) also increased (by 10.8 percent) in FY 1993. This brought the proportion of all persons accepted for VR in FY 1993 who had severe disabilities to 75.1 percent, an all-time high. VI. NEW APPLICANTS (Tables 6, 10 and 11) The number of individuals applying for vocational rehabilitation services in FY 1993 totaled 617,463, a slight decline (0.5 percent) from the number applying in FY 1992 (620,332). This was the fourth small decrease in as many years. While the statistic for new applicants was apparently not affected by the 1992 Amendments, the number of applicant cases awaiting eligibility determination on September 30, 1993, was heavily impacted. The latter stood at 184,162 persons, about 96,500 persons less than on the same date one year earlier (280,690 on September 30, 1992). This 34.4 percent decrease reversed the trend of annual increases in the end-of-year backlog. Since FY 1989, consecutive annual increases slowly rose by 11,500 cases to September 30, 1992. In FY 1993, the four-year rise had been eliminated and another 85,028 applicants were removed from the carryover. The FY 1993 total of 184,162 was the smallest number of applicants awaiting eligibility determination on the last day of a fiscal year in 26 years. This would seem to reflect State agency compliance with the new requirement of the 1992 Amendments that eligibility generally be determined within 60 days of client application. VII. TOTAL AGENCY WORKLOAD (Tables 5, 10 and 11) The total agency workload of cases, made up of both applicants and clients in all stages of the rehabilitation process, increased to 1,534,254, or 1.3 percent more than the FY 1992 total of 1,514,477. This was the highest workload count since FY 1981. Total workload can be calculated in either of two ways, and each method is instructive in revealing what contributes to the quantitative changes in State agency caseloads. First, total workload is the sum of (a) all case closures during a fiscal year, regardless of the type of closure, and (b) the number of cases in various stages of the rehabilitation process on September 30, the last day of the fiscal year. Using these components, the workload increase in FY 1993 of approximately 19,600 is seen as a function of the increase in the number of cases closed in FY 1993 to 630,124, a rise of nearly 33,000 cases from FY 1992, or 5.5 percent. Most of the closures, in turn, were accounted for by applicants not accepted for services (up 13,900) and closures not rehabilitated before any services were delivered (up 9,600). A decline was noted in the end-of-year total of cases in all stages of the VR process, down about 13,000 to 904,130, or 1.4 percent. Total workload is also determined by summing (a) the number of new applications for rehabilitation services in a fiscal year and (b) the number of cases in various stages of the rehabilitation process on October 1, the first day of the same fiscal year. In examining these variables, the workload increase of about 19,600 in FY 1993 is seen to have been driven by the larger number of cases in agency caseloads on October 1, 1992, than on the same date in the previous year. These carried over cases totaled 916,791, about 22,600 more than on October 1, 1991, or 2.5 percent. New applications for services were 617,463 in FY 1993, a decrease of 2,900 cases, or 0.5 percent from FY 1992. In summation, workloads in State agencies rose slightly in FY 1993 with each of the four broadest components of total workload-- cases on hand at the beginning and at the end of the fiscal year and new applications and closures throughout the year--increasing or decreasing to a modest degree. While these broad caseload measurements for FY 1993 were similar to recent trends, smaller caseload segments veered strikingly up or down as a result of a very large shift of applicant cases into the active, or eligible, statuses. This sudden diversion of cases from one part of the caseload to another is a result of the changed eligibility requirements. For a summary of all the major caseload indicators, including those for persons with severe disabilities, discussed in this analysis, see Table 13 of Appendix C. Contact: Larry Mars, (202) 205-9404 COMPARISON OF ECONOMIC GAINS ACHIEVED BY PERSONS WITH SEVERE AND NON-SEVERE DISABILITIES REHABILITATED IN FISCAL YEAR 1992 Introduction The 1986 amendments to the Rehabilitation Act included a provision calling for "an evaluation of the status of individuals with severe handicaps ..." to be made part of the Annual Report. This section provides information on the economic gains of persons who are classified as severely disabled and persons who are classified as non-severely disabled, based on data obtained under the Case Service Report System (RSA-911). Persons who are classified as severely disabled are, in general terms, those (a) having stated types of major disabling conditions such as blindness, deafness and orthopedic impairments involving three or more limbs; or (b) having disabilities as qualified in some instances such as hearing impairments with a certain degree of decibel loss; or (c) being so impaired so that they were receiving Social Security Disability Insurance benefits or Supplemental Security Income payments at some time while undergoing rehabilitation services; or (d) having a documented loss in functioning such as the inability to perform sustained work activity for six hours or more a day and requiring multiple vocational rehabilitation services over an extended period of time. Data The data presented are those from the RSA's Case Service Report System (RSA-911), which is a prescribed set of information for cases closed in a fiscal year and is annually provided to RSA by the State VR agencies after the end of a fiscal year. The data presented here are for FY 1992. Data for FY 1993 are not yet available for analytical purposes. The FY 1992 data provided to RSA by each of the State agencies was examined in detail to identify errors, inconsistencies, or other problems identified. The results of this analysis were sent to each agency as a feedback and to resolve any problems identified. Agencies were requested to submit their corrected data within a specified time if there were problems with their data. All agencies had some problems to resolve. Of the total (81 agencies), 66 agencies resubmitted their data, resolving almost all of the problems identified. Of the remaining 15 agencies, 11 resubmitted their data without resolving many of the problems identified, while the rest did not resubmit their data at all. Although additional efforts are being made to obtain corrected data from these agencies, the available data were used for the purpose of this report, because it was impractical to try to obtain from every agency corrected data within a reasonable time. Therefore, the FY 1992 data presented here are qualified as preliminary. Comparison of Economic Gains Overall, both groups of persons, i.e., those with severe disabilities and those with non-severe disabilities, made appreciable gains in work status from application to closure; the latter made somewhat higher gains than the former, but the gain for both groups can be attributed largely to the vocational rehabilitation services provided. See Appendix H for all the Tables referred to in this section. Age (Tables 1 and 2) Age is one of the factors that influence one's economic activity, and therefore it is useful to see how the two groups (i.e., those with severe and non-severe disabilities) compare in this respect. At application, persons with severe disabilities were on the average older than those with non-severe disabilities (Mean age: 34.7 vs. 32.9; Median age: 32.1 vs. 31.4). Although the percentage of persons under 18 was nearly the same in the two groups (7.3 percent vs. 8.0 percent), the percentage of persons 65 and above was substantially higher for those with severe disabilities (4.5 percent vs. 1.6 percent). A similar pattern of difference between the two groups was observed at closure (Mean age: 36.7 vs. 34.7); Median age: 33.9 vs. 33.1). Work Status (Tables 3, 4, and 5) At application, a substantially smaller proportion of the severely disabled group was in competitive labor market or self- employed (16.6 percent vs. 24.0 percent). The proportion of nonworkers was comparatively high among the severely disabled group (75.8 percent vs. 73.3 percent). At closure, the percentage in competitive labor market or self-employed was substantially higher for both groups (79.6 percent vs. 94.7 percent), although the pattern of difference between the two groups persisted. A comparison of the work status at application with work status at closure for each group is helpful in assessing the gains in this regard; these gains can largely be attributed to the vocational rehabilitation services. Among those with severe disabilities, an overwhelming majority (93.2 percent) of those who were in competitive labor market at application remained in that status at closure, while a small proportion (1.9 percent) became self-employed, and a slightly higher proportion (2.7 percent) became homemakers. A little over two-thirds (67.3 percent) of the sheltered workshop workers at application were in competitive labor market at closure, while a little over a fourth (27.1 percent) remained in that status. Less than half (43.2 percent) of the self-employed entered the competitive labor market and 49.4 percent remained in that status at closure. A large majority of the three categories of nonworkers at application went into competitive labor market at closure (nonworker-student: 84.6 percent; nonworker-other: 77.0 percent, and nonworker-trainee: 79.6 percent). Slightly over half (51.6 percent) of the unpaid family workers at application were in competitive labor market at closure, while about a fourth (24.8 percent remained in that status, and about a seventh (15.1 percent became homemakers), about a ninth (11.3 percent) of those individuals who were homemakers at application were in competitive labor market at closure, while an overwhelming majority (85.4 percent) remained as homemakers at closure. Persons with non-severe disabilities made seemingly higher gains in work status than those with severe disabilities. Nearly all who were in competitive labor market at application either remained in the same status (96.5 percent) or became self-employed (2.0 percent) at closure. About three-fourths (75.6 percent) of those who were sheltered workshop workers at application were in competitive labor market at closure, while a small proportion (2.4 percent) became self-employed. A little over half (51.9 percent) of the self-employed at application remained in that status at closure, while close to half (46.7 percent) were in competitive labor market. The three categories of nonworkers made substantial gains in work status from application to closure, as 95 to 97 percent of them were either in competitive labor market or were self-employed at closure. Slightly over half (52.0 percent) of the unpaid family workers at application were in competitive labor market at closure, while nearly a tenth (9.3 percent) of them became self-employed. Nearly a quarter (24.0 percent) of the unpaid family workers, however, remained in that status at closure while about a seventh (14.7 percent) became homemakers. A large majority (71.0 percent) of the homemakers at application remained in that status at closure, while about a fourth (24.8 percent) were in competitive labor market. Earnings (Tables 6, 7, and 8) Another set of information available in the case service data system that can be used to assess approximately the economic gains from application to closure of persons rehabilitated consists of the earnings in the week prior to application and the earning in the week prior to closure. Mean earnings both at application and at closure were higher for those with non-severe disabilities than for those with severe disabilities (non-severe: $45.01 and $236.79; severe: $33.88 and $181.76). And for both groups, the mean earnings at closure were substantially higher than the mean earnings at application; the increase was slightly over five-fold for both groups. A more specific account of change than what these averages provide is the distribution of the differences in the weekly earnings (i.e., earnings at closure minus earnings at application). It should be noted that differentials in earnings observed are not necessarily associated with actual wage gain or loss as achieved during a period of vocational rehabilitation. Change in wage rates over time may be attributed to inflation and other factors unrelated to the provision of vocational rehabilitation services. Nevertheless, the differences observed may be viewed as a crude measure of change in earnings. Nearly six out of ten (59.1 percent) of those with severe disabilities had gains ranging from $50 - $299, while a little over six out of ten (63.3 percent) among those with non-severe group had gains in the range of $300-$499. Mean gain in earnings for those with non-severe disabilities is appreciably higher than that for those with severe disabilities ($191.70 vs. $147.79). Hours Worked (Tables 9 and 10) A larger proportion of those with severe disabilities than those with non-severe disabilities reported zero hours worked in the week prior to application (81.3 percent vs. 76.5 percent). The mean hours worked in the week prior to application was lower for those with severe disabilities than those with non-severe disabilities (5.67 vs. 7.48). In the week prior to closure, the proportion reporting zero hours worked was lower for both groups, the non- severe disabilities group at 12.5 percent and the severe disability group at 4.4 percent. This represented an increase in hours worked of 85 percent for the severely disabled group and 94 percent for the non-severely disabled group. The mean hours worked was much higher in the week prior to closure, compared to that in the week prior to application, for both groups (29.63 percent for severe group and 35.45 for the non-severe group, which was a 5.2 fold increase for the severe group and 4.7 fold increase for the non- severe group). Wage Rate (Tables 11 and 12) The mean hourly wage rate in the week prior to application was lower for the group with severe disabilities than for the group with non-severe disabilities ($1.11 vs. $1.41). The rate increased for both groups by the week prior to closure; the group with severe disabilities maintaining a lower rate ($5.24 vs. $6.38). The magnitude of gain for the non-severe group is greater than that for the severe group. Contact Person: Neal Nair, (202) 205-5514 POST-EMPLOYMENT SERVICES The report on Post-Employment Services and Annual Reviews (Form RSA-62) submitted each year by State VR agencies contains statistical information on three separate activities conducted under Title I of the Act. These activities are (a) the delivery of post-employment services to previously rehabilitated persons; (b) the conduct of ineligibility determination reviews; and (c) the conduct of reviews of placements into extended employment, especially sheltered workshops. A decade-long summary of activity in these three areas at the national level is presented below and in four tables in Appendix E. Post-employment services (Appendix E, Tables 1 and 2) Section 103(a) of the Act identifies the many types of VR services which can be provided to individuals with disabilities. Included among these services are post-employment services necessary to assist previously rehabilitated clients to maintain or regain employment. State agencies can provide these minor services, such as medical treatment and transportation assistance, without having to re-open the recipient's case. The number of rehabilitated persons receiving post-employment services (PES) has continued to increase steadily. Of those who received PES in FY 1993 (21,642), 82 percent were severely disabled. The primary goal of post-employment services-- maintaining or regaining employment--was met by 75 percent of all individuals for whom the services were completed or terminated. In FY 1993, a total of 10,712 cases were terminated of whom 8,852 were severely disabled. The utilization rate, or the number of persons getting post- employment services as a percent of the number rehabilitated in the previous fiscal year, increased in FY 1993. Individuals receiving post-employment services in FY 1993 (21,642) were 11.3 percent of all individuals rehabilitated in FY 1992 (191,854). The utilization rate was 13.3 percent for individuals with severe disabilities and 6.5 percent for those with non-severe disabilities. Looking by type of agency, the rates were 28.1 percent for agencies for the blind and 10.4 percent for the general/combined agencies. Review of ineligibility determinations (Appendix E, Table 3) State agencies are required by Section 101(a)(9)(D) of the Act to review each determination of ineligibility no later than 12 months following such determination, and report this information to the Commissioner. The review makes it possible for some individuals to be accepted for rehabilitation services after previously being declared ineligible for such services. There were 22,835 reviews of ineligibility determinations conducted during FY 1993. This was 7.4 percent fewer than the number of reviews in FY 1992. The decrease in the number of such reviews is due in part to the decrease in the number of applicants determined to be ineligible in FY 1992. Only 2.5 percent of the individuals whose reviews were completed in FY 1993 were accepted for services, while 2.4 percent were not accepted for services and 1.7 percent had re-entered the rehabilitation process, but their eligibility for services had not been determined. An overwhelming majority, 93.4 percent, of the reviews completed required no further consideration from the State agency, i.e., the review took place, but no further consideration was required for reasons such as the person moved, was not interested in services, died, or was institutionalized. Reviews of extended employment in rehabilitation facilities (including workshops) (Appendix E, Table 4) Section 101(a)(16) of the Act requires State agencies to conduct periodic reviews and reevaluations of the status of rehabilitated persons placed into extended employment in rehabilitation facilities (including sheltered workshops) to determine the interests, priorities, and needs of the individual for employment or training for competitive employment in an integrated setting in the labor market. There were 40,663 reviews of non-competitive employment placement conducted by State VR agencies in FY 1993, a 2.7 percent decrease from FY 1992. Of the 38,837 reviews/reevaluations completed in FY 1993, 5.4 percent resulted in placements into competitive or self-employment. Over four out of five individuals (83.6 percent) were maintained in non-competitive employment (i.e., in workshops). Most of the remaining individuals were not available for a review (8.0 percent) while a few (3.0 percent) had re-entered the VR process. Contact Person: Neal Nair, (202) 205-5514 CHARACTERISTICS OF REHABILITATED CLIENTS-FISCAL YEAR 1992 (Appendix D, Table 1) Introduction Section 13 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, requires the Commissioner of the Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA) to submit a report to the President and the Congress covering the rehabilitation services provided to individuals, along with their characteristics, who were closed from the vocational rehabilitation (VR) services program during the previous fiscal year. In partial fulfillment of this requirement, the characteristics of individuals closed as rehabilitated in FY 1992 are briefly discussed here (Refer to later section for discussion of the reason for closure of the not accepted and non- rehabilitated individuals, and refer to earlier section for discussion of the comparison of economic gains of individuals with severe disability and those with non-severe disability). The tabulated data are presented in Appendix D, with similar data for FY 1991 and FY 1990. The data presented are those from the RSA's Case Service Report System (RSA-911). Selected Characteristics There were a total of 191,821 rehabilitated cases in FY 1992. However, the numbers reporting different items of data are typically less than this number and also vary by item. Age at application for Vocational Rehabilitation Services Although there is no established legal upper or lower age limit for applications, approximately half (50.3 percent) of the rehabilitated individuals were between 25 and 44 years of age and over 83 percent were between the ages 18 and 54. These are typically the working ages for most people, and the fact that an overwhelming majority of the individuals with disabilities came from this broad age group is thus expected. The average age at application of the rehabilitated individuals was 34.2 years and the median age was about 32 years. Gender Males outnumber females (56 percent versus 44 percent) among the rehabilitated cases in FY 1992. Race Whites constitute 80 percent of persons rehabilitated in FY 1992, blacks 18 percent, American Indian/Alaskan Natives 0.7 percent, and Asian and Pacific Islanders 1.3 percent. Hispanic Approximately 8 percent of the rehabilitated individuals identified themselves as Hispanic, regardless of their racial characteristics. Highest grade completed The highest grade of school completed was reported in terms of number of years. Over three-quarters (76.3 percent) of individuals who were rehabilitated reported that they had completed 9 or more grades. Only 2.6 percent reported no completed grades. About 14 percent reported no specific grade or grade equivalent. The mean number of grades completed for rehabilitated individuals who reported a specific grade was 11.3 years. Marital status Nearly half (48.5 percent) of the individuals rehabilitated in FY 1992 were never married, while a little over a quarter (27.5 percent) were currently married. The remaining (24.0 percent) were widowed, divorced, or separated. Type of institution at application Nine out of ten individuals (90.5 percent) were not in any type of institution for special care at the time of application. The remaining were in a number of different types of institutions. Source of referral A little less than a quarter (23.5 percent) of the rehabilitated individuals came to the VR program on their own (self-referred), while about a 20.4 percent were referred by other individuals, including physicians. Nearly 16 percent were referred by educational institutions, 13.1 percent by health organizations, 13.4 percent by other public sources, and the remaining 13.7 percent by other sources including hospitals and sanatoriums (5.8 percent). Major disabling condition The major disabling condition is reported as the physical or mental condition, impairment, or disease most responsible for an individual's work limitation. A number of specific disabling conditions were reported by each State agency with respect to the individuals it rehabilitated in FY 1992. For the purpose of this report, they have been grouped into separate major categories. orthopedic impairments (21.0 percent), mental illness (16.3 percent), mental retardation (13.4 percent), and substance abuse (11.5 percent) were the four major categories of disabling conditions reported, followed by visual impairments (9.6 percent), hearing impairments (8.4 percent) and learning disabilities (6.7 percent). Secondary disabling condition This is a disability that is next in importance to the major disability discussed above for the work limitation. The percentage of rehabilitated individuals having a secondary disability has gradually increased each year. Severely disabled Seven out of ten (70.6 percent) individuals rehabilitated in FY 1992 were classified as severely disabled. Given the statutory requirement that individuals with severe disabilities must be given priority for VR services, the phenomenon that such a large majority of individuals who were rehabilitated were individuals with severe disabilities is to be expected. Public support At the time of application, a little over a fifth (22.1 percent) were receiving public assistance. One in ten (10.1 percent) were receiving SSDI during VR, while about one in eight (12.9 percent) were receiving SSI. Time in the VR Program The majority (87.5 percent) of rehabilitated individuals were in the VR Program for more than six months. The average time in the VR program for these rehabilitated individuals was 23.1 months. Cost of purchased services VR agencies were required to report the total cost of services they purchased from outside sources for each rehabilitated individual. This cost does not include an agency's own administrative or counselor costs, nor does it include the cost of rehabilitation services, if any, that the agency provided directly to the individual. Some of the VR agencies operate their own facilities for providing rehabilitation services. For this latter group, the cost reported may be comparatively lower. The cost of purchased services for individuals rehabilitated in FY 1993 varied widely. The cost of purchased services for a third (33.4 percent) of these individuals was between $100 and $999, for a little over a quarter (27.2 percent), the cost was between $1,000 and $2,999, and for over another quarter (28.0 percent) the cost was $3,000 and above. For approximately a seventh (15.1 percent), of these individuals the cost of purchased services was $5,000 or more. The mean cost of purchased services was $2,740, which represented an 8.8 percent increase from the mean cost for FY 1991. Types of services provided Nearly everyone (94.4 percent) received diagnosis and evaluation services and four in ten (40.1 percent) received restoration (physical or mental) services. Well over half (56.4 percent) received one or more kinds of training: personal and vocational adjustment (23.0 percent), miscellaneous (16.8 percent), business and vocational (13.8 percent), and college and university (12.9 percent). Well over a third (37.0 percent) received a job placement service, more than four out of ten (42.5 percent) received a job referral service, and over a third (35.3 percent) received transportation services. Type of facilities or agency providing services Private individuals are the single most common provider of services, having provided services for nearly half (48.5 percent) of all individuals rehabilitated in FY 1993. The next most common provider is a community rehabilitation program (33.3 percent), and is followed by private organizations and agencies (26.1 percent), academic institutions (20.0 percent), health organizations (17.4 percent), hospitals (15.9 percent), and business and vocational schools (14.3 percent). Work status and earnings At application, a little less than a fifth of the individuals who were rehabilitated in 1993 (18.1 percent) were in the competitive labor market. Nearly three-fourths (74.9 percent) were non-workers. Homemakers constituted a small fraction (4.0 percent), while sheltered workshop workers constituted an even smaller fraction (2.0 percent). The remaining individuals (1.0 percent) were either self-employed or unpaid family workers. At closure, more than eight out of ten rehabilitated individuals (81.3 percent) were in the competitive labor market. Nearly one in ten (9.5 percent) were homemakers, while about one in twenty (5.4 percent) were sheltered workshop workers. Individuals who were self-employed or working in State agency-managed business enterprises constituted only a small fraction (3.3 percent), while the remaining individuals (0.4 percent) were unpaid family workers. As for weekly earnings, well over three-fourths (79.2 percent) had no earnings at application, while nearly a seventh (13.5 percent) had earnings ranging from $1 to $199. The remaining (7.3 percent) had earnings of $200 or more. The mean earnings at application was $37.35. At closure, only less than a tenth (9.5 percent) had no weekly earnings, a little less than half (44.3 percent) had $1 to $199, and the remaining (46.4 percent) had $200 or more in earnings. The mean earnings at closure was $198.27. Thus, as should be expected, the economic status of the rehabilitated individuals, as measured by work status and weekly earnings, improved considerably from application to closure. Most, if not all, of this improvement can be attributed to the VR program. Primary source of support Another indicator of the improvement in economic status of the rehabilitated individuals is the change in their primary source of support from application to closure. At application less than a fifth (17.8 percent) had current earnings (their own earnings) as their primary source of support, while at closure nearly three- fourths (74.9 percent) had current earnings as their primary source of support. Close to half (44.6 percent) had family and friends as their primary source of support at application, while only less than a tenth (9.9 percent) had that situation at closure. Occupation at closure The type of occupation of individuals at closure was classified according to the system in the Dictionary of Occupational Titles. This classification system gives additional specification of the nature of work at closure of these individuals. About half were in the services (24.2 percent) or industrial (25.6 percent) fields. Another quarter were either holding professional, technical, or managerial occupations (14.4 percent) or clerical positions (13.6 percent). The remaining quarter were reported as homemakers or in sales, agricultural, and other occupations. REASONS FOR CLOSURE (Appendix D, Table 2) As part of the RSA-911 system, the State VR agencies were required to provide the reason for closure of each individual whose case was closed as not accepted or not rehabilitated. There were a total of 266,205 not accepted cases, and 139,044 not rehabilitated cases in FY 1992. The reason for closure of these cases are presented below. Not accepted cases Nearly three out of ten applicants (29.6 percent) were not accepted because they refused services, and about a fifth (19.6 percent) were not accepted because they failed to cooperate. A little over a sixth (17.4 percent) were not accepted because they could not be located (after application). The remaining applicants were not accepted for a variety of other reasons, including no disabling condition (4.3 percent), disability too severe (6.2 percent), and no impediment to employment (6.0 percent). Not rehabilitated cases A little over a quarter of eligible individuals (26.6 percent) were closed as not rehabilitated because they could not be located, and about the same proportion (26.2 percent) were closed for the reason that they refused services. A fifth (20.2 percent) were closed because they failed to cooperate. The remaining eligible individuals (27.0 percent) were closed for a variety of other reasons, including 7.2 percent whose disability was later determined to be too severe. Contact Person: Neal Nair, (202) 205-5514 REHABILITATION SERVICES ADMINISTRATION Office of Program Operations Section 103(b) See also 20 U.S.C. 107 et seq. (Randolph-Sheppard Act) Vending Facilities Program Federal Funds $34,200,000 (Section 110 funds) MISSION, PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND Section 103(b)(1) of the Rehabilitation Act provides that vocational rehabilitation (VR) services, can include management and supervision and other services to improve small businesses operated by individuals with severe disabilities. The Vending Facility program, authorized by the Randolph- Sheppard Act and funded at the discretion of State VR agencies with the use of VR Services program funds for groups, provides persons who are blind with remunerative employment and self-support through the operation of vending facilities on Federal and other property. The program, enacted into law in 1936, was intended to enhance employment opportunities for trained, licensed blind persons to operate facilities. At the outset, sundry stands were placed in the lobbies of Federal office buildings and post offices. The law was amended in 1954 and again in 1974 to assure individuals who are blind a "priority" in the operation of vending facilities on Federal property, which include cafeterias, snack bars, and automatic vending machines. More than 22,000 blind persons have been employed in this program since its inception. The program has broadened considerably from Federal locations to also include State, county, municipal, and private installations. HIGHLIGHTS Facilities, Vendors and Other Personnel Reports from 51 State licensing agencies show: o In FY 1993, there were 3,389 vending facilities compared to 3,344 in FY 1992, an increase of 45 locations; in FY 1993 1,078 were located on Federal property and 2,311 on non-Federal property; o Employment was provided for 3,486 blind vendors in FY 1993, compared to 3,487 the previous year. In FY 1993, 1,121 vendors were on Federal property and 2,365 were on non-Federal property; o In Fy 1993, 377 blind persons were trained to become vendors compared to 406 the previous year, a decrease of 29 persons; 169 or 45 percent were placed as licensed operators. In addition, in FY 1993, 47 trainees were placed as employees in facilities operated by blind vendors and in allied food service programs compared to 67 similar placements in the previous year; o In FY 1993, 523 blind individuals received upward mobility training, compared to 636 in FY 1992; of the 523 receiving upward mobility training, 147, or 28 percent, were promoted to a more lucrative job in the program; o State licensing agencies surveyed 831 potential sites for new facilities and 360, or 43 percent, were accepted; o The General Services Administration had the largest number of Randolph-Sheppard facilities on its property, with 537. This was followed by the U.S. Postal Service, with 260 facilities and the U.S. Department of Defense, with 116 facilities; and o In addition to the 3,486 licensed blind operators employed in vending facilities, the vending facility program employed 419 individuals with visual impairments and 477 with other disabilities. Program Income The program gross income (including gross sales, vending machine and other income) from all facilities totaled $401.0 million, an increase of $3.5 million over FY 1992 ($397.5 million). This produced total vendor earnings of $80.9 million -- an increase of $2.2 million over FY 1992 ($78.7 million). The national average annual earnings of all vendors was $25,832 in FY 1993, an increase of $1,049 over FY 1992. Program Expenditures The total program expenditures for administering the Vending Facility program by the State licensing agencies were $66.4 million in FY 1993. The funding for those expenditures came from the following sources of support: vending machine income -- $11.4 million; levied set-aside from vendors - $14.7 million; State appropriations - $6.1 million; and Federal (Section 110 funds) -- $34.2 million. Types of Facilities This report identifies differences in data on the following specific types of facilities: snack bars and other facilities, vending machines, and cafeterias. In FY 1993, of the total of 3,389 vending facilities, 2,022, or 59.7 percent, were snack bars and other facilities, 504, or 14.9 percent, were cafeterias, and 863, or 25.5 percent, were vending machines. Snack Bars and Other Facilities There were 2,022 snack bars and other facilities in operation in FY 1993, with 662 on Federal property and 1,360 on non-Federal property. The gross sales for this type of facility were $206.5 million, or 53.0 percent, of the total program gross ($389.9 million). The average vendor earnings were $21,941. Cafeterias There were 504 cafeteria-type facilities, with 111 located on Federal property and 393 located on non-Federal property. The gross sales from cafeterias were $100.5 million, 25.8 percent of the total. The average vendor earnings for this category were $30,149. Vending Machine Facilities There were 863 vending machine facilities, 305 on Federal property and 558 on non-Federal property. The gross sales from vending machines were $82.9 million or 21.3 percent of the total gross sales. The average vendor earnings for this category were $33,722. Contact Person: George Arsnow, (202) 205-9317 REHABILITATION SERVICES ADMINISTRATION Office of Program Operations Section 112 Client Assistance Program (CAP) Federal Funds: $9,296,000 MISSION AND PURPOSE This formula grant program provides assistance and advocacy to individuals seeking or receiving services under the Act, and information and referral services to individuals with disabilities concerning benefits and services under the Act and Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act. ACTIVITIES AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS In FY 1993, 57 States and territories were awarded CAP grants, which ranged from $45,000 to $917,595. See Appendix B, pages B-3, B-4. States must operate a CAP in order to receive Vocational Rehabilitation State Grant funds. Grants are administered by agencies designated by the Governors. Generally, these agencies must be independent of any agency that provides rehabilitation services under the Act. Proposed regulations implementing the 1992 Amendments were published in 1993. These regulations will address requirements under the 1992 and 1993 Amendments that CAPs facilitate access to services funded under the Rehabilitation Act through individual and systemic advocacy and provide information on the available services and benefits under the Rehabilitation Act and Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act. CAPs work with State vocational rehabilitation agencies and other rehabilitation programs that receive funds under the Rehabilitation Act. In FY 1993, information/referral and advisory interpretation strategies were used in 34 percent of the CAP cases, compared with 47.3 percent of the FY 1992 CAP cases. Mediation and negotiation strategies were used in 24.4 percent of the cases, up from 20 percent in FY 1992. CAP used legal advocacy or formal appeals in 1.2 percent of the time, for a total of 279 cases nationally. In FY 1992, in contrast, litigation or formal appeals were used in .2 percent of CAP cases. In addition, CAPs engaged in systemic advocacy through a variety of means, including meeting with State policy directors, commenting on proposed policies and regulations relating to individuals with disabilities, and outreach and training activities. In FY 1993, 88 percent of CAP cases dealt solely with concerns about the State vocational rehabilitation (VR) agency. Three percent of the cases dealt only with other Rehabilitation Act programs and activities, including independent living. The remaining cases involved both the VR agency and other programs or activities funded under the Rehabilitation Act. The majority of cases handled by CAPs were service-related, accounting for 31 percent of the CAP workload in FY 1993. Other CAP problem areas included client-staff conflict (13 percent), communication-related (14 percent), and eligibility (14 percent), with 4 percent "other." Twenty-one percent of the cases involved information provision. Contact Person: Parma Yarkin, (313) 930-6809 REHABILITATION SERVICES ADMINISTRATION Office of Program Operations Section 130 American Indians with Disabilities Rehabilitation Services Projects Federal Funds $6,203,000 The purpose of this program is to support projects providing vocational rehabilitation services to American Indians with disabilities who live on Federal or State reservations. Only American Indian tribes or consortia of such tribes may apply for support under this program. The projects funded under Section 130 are required to provide a broad scope of vocational rehabilitation services in a manner and at a level of quality at least comparable to those services provided by State vocational rehabilitation agencies. ACTIVITIES AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS In FY 1993, eleven projects received continuation funding for the second or third year of a project period and eleven new projects were funded for a total of 22 projects. Eight of the eleven new grants were awarded to projects that had previously been funded. These eight projects include: the Mississippi Band of Choctaw (Mississippi), the Pueblo of Zuni (New Mexico), the Yakima Tribal Council (Washington), the Turtle Mountain Community College (North Dakota), Northwest Washington Intertribal Education and Training Board (Washington), the South Puget Intertribal Planning Board (Washington), the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs (Oregon), and the Bristol Bay Native Association (Alaska). Three new projects were also funded as a result of this grant competition. These projects are the Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians (Minnesota), the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians (North Carolina), and the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma. The first two are located in geographical areas previously unserved by the Section 130 program. The quality of applications submitted under this program in the past few years has improved notably so that an increasing number of projects have been approved for funding. Technical assistance has been provided by RSA, the State vocational rehabilitation agencies, the American Indian Research and Training Centers in Flagstaff and Tucson, Arizona, and through the Regional Rehabilitation Continuing Education Programs under the RSA Cultural Diversity Initiative to improve the quality of applications. Examples of notable projects operating in FY 1993 are as follows: o Standing Rock Sioux Tribe (South and North Dakota) provides comprehensive individualized rehabilitation services including complete vocational evaluation services to American Indians with disabilities residing on the Sioux Reservation. FY 1993 was the first year of a three year project. This project is under the direction of a disabled member of the Sioux Tribe with an experiential and educational background in services to Native Americans with disabilities. In the first year of operation, the project, which serves a reservation of 2.3 million acres, began accepting applications for services in January 1993. As of March 1993, twelve applications had been received and three individuals had been determined eligible for services. During the remainder of the fiscal year, the project substantially increased the number of individuals accepted for and receiving services. One of the major objectives accomplished by the project was to establish working relationships with both the North and South Dakota State vocational rehabilitation (VR) agencies. As a result, mutual training of State VR and project staff was made available and services to Native Americans on and off the reservations improved. In addition, the Project Director was appointed to the North Dakota Independent Living Council and has been able to access Independent Living (IL) Services for tribal members through the State program (IL services are not available through the project). o Mississippi Band of Choctaw (Mississippi) provides a broad range of vocational rehabilitation services to members of their Tribe including counseling and guidance, work adjustment training, training including college, restoration services, placement, and post-employment services as needed. First funded in 1987, the project has successfully trained and placed individuals with disabilities in the main industries on the reservation including Chahta Enterprise, Choctaw Manufacturing Enterprise, and Choctaw Electronics. The project has also encouraged Tribal members with disabilities to seek higher education in such institutions as East Central Community College, Meridian Community College, Jones Community College, Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute, and Haskell Indian School. Although cultural and financial barriers still exist for Tribal members with disabilities pursuing higher education as preparation for employment, the program staff have been persistent in working with families, other Tribal programs, and the individuals so that the numbers seeking this training are increasing. During the second quarter of FY 1993, the project reported in its continuation application that 190 individuals were receiving services and that 50 client case files were closed as successful rehabilitations. Contact Person: Barbara Sweeney, (202) 205-9544 Sections 200-204 The National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research Federal Funds $67,238,000 The National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR) provides leadership and support for a national and international program of rehabilitation research and the utilization of the information acquired through this program. In addition, the Director of the Institute serves as Chairman of the Interagency Committee on Disability Research (ICDR), which is charged with coordinating rehabilitation research efforts throughout the Federal Government. NIDRR also administers the Technology Assistance program whose funds are provided through the Technology-Related Assistance for Individuals with Disabilities Act. In FY 93, the NIDRR program budget was $67,238,000. These funds supported: 44 Rehabilitation Research and Training Centers $24,919,000 15 Rehabilitation Engineering Research Centers $11,202,000 60 Field-Initiated Research Projects $ 7,708,000 29 Research and Demonstration Projects $ 5,190,000 28 Knowledge Dissemination & Utilization Projects $ 8,658,000 13 Spinal Cord Injury Projects $ 5,000,000 12 Research Training grants $ 1,999,000 10 Outreach to Minority Colleges and Universities Grants $ 672,000 4 Mary E. Switzer Fellowships $ 155,000 7 Small Business Innovative Research grants $ 551,000 Peer review and other activities $ 1,183,000 Rehabilitation Research and Training Centers Federal Funds $24,919,000 Each of the 44 Rehabilitation Research and Training Centers (RRTCs) supported with FY 1993 funds focuses on a particular aspect of the medical, psychosocial, or vocational rehabilitation of persons with disabilities. For some centers, this means concentrating on a specific disabling condition, such as traumatic brain injury, deafness, low vision, spinal cord injury, arthritis, long-term mental illness, or neuromuscular disorders. Others study activities and services that affect the lives of disabled people. These include independent living, housing, service delivery, rehabilitation strategies, and information systems. Knowledge contributed by the RRTCs has influenced the fields of rehabilitation medicine, vocational counseling, social work, and, to some extent, architecture. The project period for RRTCs is typically five years. Examples of activities to be conducted by two of the new RRTCs funded in FY 1993 are provided below. The RRTC on Rehabilitation of American Indians with Disabilities plans to study the rehabilitation needs of Native Americans with disabilities and to design and implement programs that meet these needs; to design and conduct culturally sensitive needs assessments and evaluations as determined by or in cooperation with people with disabilities; to conduct rehabilitation workshops that identify and evaluate rehabilitation training needs, and to provide training to rehabilitation service providers, researchers, managers, policy makers, and Native Americans with disabilities; to analyze successful VR outcomes for Native Americans and to facilitate implementation of similar programs nationally; to establish a model rehabilitation program for Native Americans entering the VR system; and to establish a model independent living program for Native Americans with disabilities that leads to goals of self-sufficiency and independence. The RRTC on Personal Assistance Services (PAS) will explore the availability and configuration of PAS for independent and interdependent living for the diverse population of people who need the assistance of another person to perform their daily tasks. The center will examine cost-effectiveness of programs, select the best programs for people with physical disabilities and people with mental retardation, develop new models of programs for people not well served by the current PAS system, evaluate the consumer-driven nature of home care agency models, and explore the incidence of effectiveness factors among PAS programs in the United States. The RRTC will also explore effective models of PAS at the worksite for the diverse population of PAS users. The project will also report on the "state of the States" in PAS and analyze the impact of proposed changes in financing and policy on PAS users in their homes, communities, and work lives. This research will serve as tools for training consumers, state agency staff, advocates, and policy makers in what effective PAS programs for diverse groups of people look like and how states can evaluate the cost and effectiveness of their PAS systems. The RTC will conduct a broad training, technical assistance, and dissemination agenda designed to reach a wide audience that includes individuals with disabilities, their families, rehabilitation professionals, researchers, educators, students, and policy makers. All materials developed will be in accessible formats. Rehabilitation Engineering Research Centers Federal Funds $11,202,000 NIDRR funded 15 Rehabilitation Engineering Research Centers (RERCs) in FY 1993. These centers seek solutions to disability- related problems through the application of technological advances. Areas of interest include sensory loss, mobility impairment, chronic pain, communication difficulties, technology transfer, and the evaluation and adaptation of assistive devices. The project period for RERCs is typically five years. Examples of activities to be conducted by two RERCs are provided below. The RERC on Rehabilitation Technology Services in Vocational Rehabilitation (initiated with FY 1992 funds) will conduct eight research studies, including six investigative and two intervention studies. All VR agencies will be involved in four of the studies and selected agencies will be involved in the other four studies. The investigative studies will gather information about the various aspects of technology service delivery within VR agencies, including vocational evaluation/technology assessment, rehabilitation engineer job responsibilities, linkages with other agencies to provide rehabilitation technology services, job success and longevity for employees using assistive technology in the workplace, and efficacy of various rehabilitation technology service delivery approaches. Two studies will propose and test interventions. One intervention will focus on involving consumers in identifying and meeting appropriate technology needs. The other intervention study will focus on implementing a strategy for integrating technology in the VR process. The Rehabilitation Engineering Center on Access to Computer and Electronic Equipment at the University of Wisconsin (initiated with FY 1993 funds) is identifying and describing the access problems faced by persons with varying types and degrees of disability. It is also collecting and summarizing information on all known solutions and disseminating it to other researchers, manufacturers and individuals with disabilities. Further, the center will work with specialty and standard manufacturers in their efforts to improve accessibility to computers and electronic equipment. The center will produce the "Trace ResourceBook," HyperABLEDATA (a CD- ROM or multi-disk database on assistive technology) and ZZ products. Field-Initiated Research Federal Funds $7,708,000 This program category allows NIDRR to fund activities that blend well with its overall research mandate but which fall outside the usual range of priorities. Institutions of higher education, non- profit organizations, and profit-making businesses are eligible to apply for this type of grant. HIGHLIGHTS LITERAAC: Literacy Interventions to Enhance Reading and Writing through Augmentative and Alternative Communication--This project will have three phases of operation. In the Preliminary Phase (Year 1), the project will identify through qualitative research the variables that appear to facilitate or inhibit literacy learning in school-aged AAC users. In the Experimental Phase (Year 2), the project will conduct a series of controlled studies to determine the effects of AAC devices on literacy learning. In the Validation Phase (Phase 3), the project will replicate the findings of these studies. The University of Montana will conduct a study titled: American Indian Disability Legislation: Toward the Development of a Process that Respects Sovereignty and Cultural Diversity. The project is planned in three phases: (1) survey of tribal governments to assess awareness of disability issues and the status of tribal disability policies; (2) five to seven focus groups drawn from regional and cultural groups will review the results of the first phase and each title of the ADA (this review will be designed to develop a menu of cultural considerations and potential responses to each ADA title, including acceptability, obstacles to implementation, and culturally acceptable alternatives); and (3) development and field testing of a replicable method for facilitating the development of culturally appropriate and relevant disability policy by interested tribal governments. One model, for example, may involve the Native Self-Actualization model (Brown, 1986) of tribal decision making. Research and Demonstration Programs Federal Funds $5,190,000 To augment the work of the RRTCs and RERCs, NIDRR funds Research and Demonstration programs that focus on specific problems encountered by individuals with disabilities and the rehabilitation and other professionals who serve them. NIDRR supported 29 such programs in FY 1993. HIGHLIGHTS The project at the Trace Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison will develop a graphical user-interface modification technology that applies new technologies in display magnification, display modification, speech augmentation, and alternative navigation systems to enhance the ability of people with low vision, visual/perceptual disabilities and blindness to operate computers and to read text. This modification will provide radically new ways to customize displays to fit specific needs and uses and will provide cost-effective tools for research on the human interface, the psychophysics of reading, and access technology for special populations. The project will conduct laboratory research to evaluate the effects of display modifications, including word spot-lighting, masking, speech and auditory augmentation, enlargement, letter separation and enhancement, color contrasting, alternative navigation control systems, and alternative modes of presentation, including tracking, unfolding, teleprompting, streaming, and rapid serial visual presentation. The project will apply results to software prototypes for eventual distribution as commercial products. The potential applications extend to populations with learning and cognitive disabilities, head injury rehabilitation, reading and language disorder remediation and compensation, literacy programs, and ESL and foreign language training. The University of Washington Burn Rehabilitation Model System has seven objectives: (1) to develop a model system providing complete burn care from injury to discharge; (2) to conduct a research program in burn rehabilitation through a protocol to study the effects of pressure garments on burn wound healing; (3) to study the effect of various interventions on burn rehabilitation through a self-care system, a provider system, and a research protocol designed to improve the compliance with splints and pressure garments; (4) to study the effect of various interventions on independent living and vocational rehabilitation through two interventions, including a case manager and reentry protocols; (5) to follow longitudinal data on burn survivors; (6) to participate in a national database; and (7) to disseminate the information obtained from this research and demonstration project to burn survivors, their families, and health care providers. Mary E. Switzer Fellowships Federal Funds $155,000 The purpose of this program is to build research capacity by providing two levels of Fellowship awards. In FY 1993, Distinguished Fellowships were given to persons of doctoral or comparable academic status who have had seven or more years experience relevant to rehabilitation research. Other individuals, in earlier stages of their research careers, received Merit Fellowships. The four awarded projects included research related to: Aging and cerebral palsy, school-related stress in children with disabilities, and rehabilitation of individuals with traumatic brain injury through utilization of an attention training program. Knowledge Dissemination and Utilization Federal Funds $8,658,000 NIDRR's mission includes not only research but the effective use of that research. Through the 28 grants awarded under the Knowledge Dissemination and Utilization (D & U) program in FY 1993, the agency is disseminating the results of Successful activities of other programs to rehabilitation professionals, educators, technology developers, and individuals with disabilities for wider utilization. Included under this program are projects that provide technical assistance and training on the Americans with Disabilities Act. The National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research supported 16 projects to provide technical assistance and training to those with rights and duties under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Projects carried out under the Dissemination and Utilization program include: 10 Regional Disability and Business Technical Assistance Centers; 3 Materials Development Projects; and 2 National Training Projects. NIDRR has also awarded a contract to coordinate the activities of these grantees. Approximately $5,200,000 was spent on ADA-related projects in FY 1993. The 10 regional centers are funded for five years. They work closely with the disability and business communities to provide information and referral services, training and technical assistance in all areas covered by the ADA. The Materials Development Projects are funded for two years. They produce specialized materials in the areas of employment, communications, public accommodations, and accessibility. The National Training Projects are funded for three years. One is working with the leaders, staff and associates in independent living centers. The other concentrates on parent, peer and family networks. Two examples of other projects supported under the D & U program are provided below. The International Disability Exchange and Studies (IDEAS) project of the World Institute on Disability, which received its final year of 4 year funding in FY 1993, created a network of U.S. and foreign researchers on key issues and subjects to increase the amount, quality and impact of information flowing between these groups. Other results of the network are closer collaboration among researchers and leaders who have disabilities, and those who do not, and the identification and importation of the best foreign innovations and ideas regarding rehabilitation practices. The project publishes fellowship reports and a newsletter, IDEAS Portfolio. Under contract to NIDRR, Conwal, Inc., is producing an updated Summary of Data on Children and Youth. The former publication, Summary of Data on Handicapped Children and Youth (1985), is being revised and renamed Summary of Data on Children and Youth with Disabilities. The purpose of this publication is to summarize existing data on children and youth with disabilities in the United States. The publication will also serve as a data reference for a target population, including persons with disabilities and their families, policy makers, administrators, vendors, and the general public. Conwal is providing the research and production team needed for this bibliographic data and statistical analysis. This effort includes literature and data searches, secondary analysis, and table preparation for the revised Summary. Research Training and Career Development Grants Federal Funds $1,999,000 These grants are designed to acquaint professionals in rehabilitation-related disciplines with research methods and statistical analysis. Psychiatrists and other physicians, speech therapists, rehabilitation engineers, physical therapists, neurophysiologists, and others receive training for periods of one to three years. In FY 1993 a total of 12 grants were awarded under this program to institutions of higher education and affilited programs. Spinal Cord Injury Program Federal Funds $5,000,000 In FY 1993 NIDRR continued support for 13 SCI projects that conduct research and evaluation of a comprehensive coordinated service delivery system from point of injury, through acute medical rehabilitation, community reintegration and long-term follow-up care. Nine projects are concentrating on collaborative prevention of costly secondary complications and testing new medical and rehabilitative therapies. A major thrust of this program is the continued demonstration and refinement of the model service delivery system and its application to other severe disabling conditions, such as traumatic brain injury, severe burns and coronary disease. Small Business Innovative Research Grants Federal Funds $551,000 This program encourages research into and the development of new products and ideas in rehabilitation through a uniform three-phase process. NIDRR made 7 awards in fiscal year 1993. The following are two examples of projects funded in 1993. VME Technologies, Inc. developed a Motorized Vertical File System (MVFS) which will allow persons with upper body impairment to place books, magazines, and files on their desks in the workplace. With the touch of a button, the user may select one of ten files or books for placement on the desk. The TiNi Alloy Company constructed functional prototypes of a refreshable braille system to make screen and page-formatted information accessible to users who are blind. These prototypes will be evaluated by users. Mechanical tactile stimuli are presented to individual fingers, representing dots of braille-coded characters, so that reading is the inverse of writing with a braille keyboard. The keyboard, normally an input device, is enhanced to serve both input and output functions. Pointing and page-location information will be provided to give the user a sense of movement from place to place over a virtual page. Outreach to Minority Colleges and Universities Federal Funds $673,380 For fiscal year 1993, NIDRR made supplemental grant awards to current NIDRR funded Rehabilitation Research and Training Centers (RRTCs) and Rehabilitation Engineering Research Centers (RERCs) for the purpose of conducting collaborative research projects with Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs). This initiative was begun in 1991 and is designed to increase the research capabilities of HBCUs to participate in and apply for funds available under NIDRR administered programs. It is further intended that this effort increase the number of minorities available with skills and experience in rehabilitation research and foster the conduct of rehabilitation research and training with appropriate relevance to the needs and concerns of multi-cultured populations. As part of these collaborative efforts, the RRTCs and RERCs serve as mentors and providers of technical assistance and faculty and students while the HBCUs assume the major role in implementing the research activities. Nine projects were funded in fiscal year 1993 for a total of $672,380 and averaged $75,000 each. Interagency Agreements The Interagency Committee on Disability Research (ICDR), chaired by the Director of NIDRR, is a forum and resource for Federal Agencies conducting or supporting rehabilitation research. Areas of cooperative effort include: NIDRR will transfer funds to the Public Health Service to add them to an existing contract for purposes of expanding that contract to meet NIDRR statutory needs for accommodations, travel, conferencing, and interpretation for invited foreign officials to the United States. Maternal and Child Health and NIDRR jointly supported the biennial National Training Institute of ZERO TO THREE/National Center for Clinical Infant Programs held December 2-5, 1993. The 1994 Training Institute theme, "Joining Forces with Infants and Toddlers and their Families," recognizes the powerful alliances for healthy growth and development that are built when parents, professionals, and communities work together to support every infant's unique capacities. Plenary sessions examine the experience of typically and atypically developing infants and toddlers in group care; new guidelines for the developmental assessment of infants and young children, with implications for training and public policy, belonging as a dimension of development; and the process of change in parents, practitioners, service systems, and communities. Seventeen pre-Institute seminars offer practical applications of new information on failure to thrive, supporting parents in high-risk communities, funding sources, infant mental health, crosscultural practice, effective training and technical assistance strategies. Two one-day workshops, a new feature of the Training Institute, address the emotional development of toddlers and the diagnostic classification of emotional problems in infants and young children. The Institute also features symposia, case presentations, poster presentations, and conversations with colleagues, selected from a nationwide call for proposals. International Programs NIDRR has had substantial involvement in the development of rehabilitation models and research in India for the last twenty years. Under the Indo-U.S. collaboration, NIDRR funded a landmark rehabilitation development and support system which, after its first five years, was evaluated and adopted by the Government of India. It is now moving into a second, large-scale replication phase which will include modification suggested by the Phase I evaluation. The cost of the second phase over the five-year period is approximately 76,000,000 Rupees. In addition to these model projects and their support systems in which NIDRR is involved, complementary projects are being planned and initiated to develop rural vocational programs for Indians with mental retardation. Planning and negotiations are underway to initiate a high-level program of medical rehabilitation research between NIDRR and the Government of India at the Indian Spinal Injuries Centre, a spinal injuries and emergency treatment center under construction which will have international funding and has the potential to become the premier research and treatment center for Asia. A database of professionals volunteering for consultantships in India is maintained and used by NIDRR. NIDRR is represented in India by the Science Office of the U.S. Embassy, New Delhi. Technology Assistance Federal Funds $34,068,000 NIDRR administers funds for this program under Titles I and II of PL 100-407, the Technology-Related Assistance for Individuals with Disabilities Act (Technology Act) which was enacted August 19, 1988. Title I of the Technology Act established a program of grants, with a minimum of $500,000, to assist states in developing statewide, consumer-responsive service delivery systems for technology-related assistance. This assistance will cover all ages and all disabilities. During FY 1993, NIDRR awarded new three-year grants to seven states, the District of Columbia and two territories bringing the total of funded states to 49, plus the three other awardees. Title II-C of the Technology Act provides support for projects in technology training and public awareness. Eight such grants were awarded in FY 1991. Contact person: For additional information about any particular program administered by NIDRR, please contact the Office of the Director, 202-205-8134 (voice) or 202-205-5479 (TDD). REHABILITATION SERVICES ADMINISTRATION Office of Developmental Programs Section 302 Rehabilitation Training Federal Funds $39,628,608 MISSION AND PURPOSE The Rehabilitation Training Program is designed to: (1) increase the supply of qualified personnel available for employment in public and private agencies and institutions involved in the vocational rehabilitation and independent living of individuals with physical and mental disabilities, especially those individuals with the most severe disabilities; and (2) maintain and upgrade basic skills and knowledge of personnel employed as providers of vocational, medical, social, or psychological rehabilitation services. The Rehabilitation Training Program is authorized under Section 302 of the Act, which permits grants and contracts to be made to States and public or non-profit agencies and organizations, including institutions of higher education, to pay part of the costs of activities. Additional training activities are also authorized under Title VIII of the Act. Grants may be made for long-term and short-term training, in-service training of employees in State rehabilitation agencies and public and private community rehabilitation programs, rehabilitation continuing education, training of interpreters for individuals who are deaf or deaf- blind, and special training projects of an experimental and innovative nature. ACTIVITIES AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS In FY 1993, funds were awarded to 370 projects as follows: (In thousands) Rehabilitation Long-Term Training $24,297.00 Rehabilitation Short-Term Training 340.00 Rehabilitation Continuing Education 4,410.00 State Vocational Rehabilitation Unit In-Service Training 5,674.00 Experimental and Innovative Training 821.00 Interpreter Training for Deaf and Deaf-Blind Individuals 1,510.00 Title VIII Training 1,880.00 As authorized by Section 16(b) of the Act, $111,798 in Rehabilitation Training Program funds was used for expenses related to peer review of applications. In addition to peer review expenses, training funds were used as follows: Institute on Rehabilitation Issues - $65,000; training on the Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1992 - $81,568, and one percent of the total training appropriation ($396,286) was reserved for programs under Section 21 of the Act. Section 21 requires one percent of the funds appropriated to implement a plan to enhance the capacity and increase the participation of the Historically Black Colleges and Universities and other minority institutions of higher education and agencies to compete for grants and contracts under the Rehabilitation Act. Grants awarded included: o long-term training in rehabilitation technology, rehabilitation medicine, rehabilitation nursing, speech pathology and audiology, rehabilitation counseling, prosthetics and orthotics, community rehabilitation program administration, rehabilitation of individuals who are blind, rehabilitation of individuals who are deaf, vocational evaluation and work adjustment, occupational therapy, physical therapy, specialized training in supported employment services, rehabilitation of individuals who are mentally ill, rehabilitation job development/job placement, community rehabilitation program personnel, rehabilitation psychology, independent living, and undergraduate education in the rehabilitation services; o short-term training in functional assessment of individuals with cognitive disabilities and training for rehabilitation personnel on provisions of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act; o continuing education programs to upgrade and maintain the skills of rehabilitation personnel employed in both public and private rehabilitation agencies; o in-service training for the development of State vocational rehabilitation unit personnel; and o special training projects of an experimental and innovative nature that are designed to train new types of rehabilitation personnel or to demonstrate innovative training techniques. NOTE: Please see the section of this report on Title VIII for information on training projects awarded under Section 803. EXAMPLES OF NEW REHABILITATION LONG-TERM TRAINING PROJECTS FUNDED California State University, Dominguez Hills The university is increasing the supply of orthotic - prosthetic practitioners by training 12 highly skilled and competent baccalaureate level graduates. These practitioners will be available to agencies which provide rehabilitation services to individuals with neuro-muscular and orthopedic disabilities. Training will include design, development, fitting, and use of orthoses and prostheses. Inter-American University, San Juan, Puerto Rico Inter-American University in Puerto Rico is providing graduate training toward a master's degree in special education with a major in vocational evaluation and work adjustment. Graduates of the program will become certified by the National Council on Certification of Work Adjustment and Vocational Evaluation Specialists (CCWAVES). Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio This project is providing opportunities for university training for direct service personnel in supported employment, as well as expanding university offerings for those individuals needing additional learning experiences for administrative or management positions in the field of supported employment. The Ohio State University is working collaboratively with the Ohio Department of Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities and the Ohio Rehabilitation Commission. Approximately 150 persons will receive training. Hunter College, New York, NY The master's degree training program at Hunter College is a collaborative effort by the Hunter College Department of Special Education and the Hunter College graduate program in rehabilitation counselor education to train rehabilitation teachers to serve individuals who are blind and visually impaired including those of transition age and those with multiple impairments. Priority will be given to applicants for underrepresented populations, including individuals with disabilities and those from diverse cultural backgrounds. The project will graduate 30 rehabilitation teachers during the three year grant. Contact Person: Richard Melia, Ph.D., (202) 205-9400 Rehabilitation Continuing Education Program Rehabilitation Continuing Education Programs (RCEPs) train newly employed personnel in basic rehabilitation service delivery knowledge and skills and assist experienced rehabilitation personnel to upgrade their skills and master new developments and technological advances in rehabilitation service delivery. RCEPs provide training for State rehabilitation agencies, independent living centers, client assistance programs, and community rehabilitation programs staff. Training provided under these programs focuses on meeting needs common to several States in a geographic area. In fiscal year 1993, seven new grants and four continuation grants were awarded for rehabilitation continuing education programs that emphasized training as follows: o 1992 Amendments to the Rehabilitation Act; o Randolph-Sheppard Act; o Americans with Disabilities Act; o improved utilization of supported employment concepts and procedures and specialized training in implementing supported employment programs; o training on the Human Resource Development/Human Resource Management HRD/HRM) concepts; o specialized training in implementing competitive employment for individuals with severe disabilities; o training for rehabilitation counselors in the application and implications of Section 504 as related to job placement; o coordinated service delivery to facilitate the transition of youth with disabilities from school to employment; o training on the vocational rehabilitation of young former drug users. o improved management in the areas of program planning and monitoring, including case reviews and application of standards in program evaluation; o rehabilitation of individuals who have learning disabilities, individuals with mental illness, and individuals who are deaf- blind; o improved use of rehabilitation technology; and o technical assistance to community rehabilitation programs. Contact Person: Ellen Chesley, (202) 205-9481 State Vocational Rehabilitation Unit In-Service Training Activities supported under the State Vocational Rehabilitation Unit In-Service Training Program focus primarily on program areas relevant to each unit's immediate operation, including training to resolve deficiencies identified in audits and other reviews of the State program. Eighty-one in-service training projects were funded in FY 1993. Consistent with the State unit's own determination of training needs, those projects emphasized: o specialized training in the implementation of supported employment programs; o specialized training in implementation of a competitive employment program for individuals with severe disabilities in non-segregated environments; o training to improve personnel skills in job identification, job development, and job placement for individuals with severe disabilities, including placement of individuals who are deaf, individuals who are blind (under the Randolph-Sheppard Vending Facility program), and individuals who are deaf-blind; o training to implement coordinated activities between State VR units and State education agencies, including coordinated activities to facilitate the transition of youth with disabilities from school to employment; o training to improve management skills in the areas of program planning, monitoring, and evaluation; o training to improve personnel use of preliminary and thorough diagnostic information in order to determine eligibility for services and the nature and scope of services to be provided, especially for individuals with learning disabilities, individuals who are deaf-blind, individuals with traumatic- brain-injury and individuals with long-term mental illness; and o training to improve use of rehabilitation technology, including rehabilitation engineering services. Contact Person: Robert Werner, (202) 205-8291 Rehabilitation Short-Term Training Behavioral Neuropsychology Associates, Pittsburgh, PA The overall goal of this project is to train rehabilitation providers in specific competencies for identifying, selecting, implementing and interpreting effective functional assessment approaches for individuals with severe cognitive disabilities. This will be accomplished through a specialized training curriculum that uses interactive video conferences. Training materials will be developed and disseminated nationally after the video conference broadcasts. San Diego University, San Diego, CA This project is developing and demonstrating a comprehensive training model that will cover provisions of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Emphasis is on the relationship of IDEA provisions to services for individuals with disabilities under the Rehabilitation Act. The expected outcomes of this project are: (1) a comprehensive set of training and resources materials, and (2) a cadre of trainers proficient in the provisions of IDEA and rehabilitation services. An estimated 325 people, including rehabilitation professionals, special educators, consumers with disabilities, parents, and university educators will be trained and over 500 training packages will be disseminated. Contact Person: Robert Werner, (202) 205-8291 Interpreter Training For Deaf and Deaf-Blind Individuals The Interpreter Training Program, authorized by Section 302(f) of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, is designed to increase the supply of skilled manual and oral interpreters and to ensure maintenance of basic interpreter skills. The 1992 Amendments to the Rehabilitation Act expanded the scope of the program to require training of interpreters to help meet the communication needs of individuals who are deaf-blind. Since FY 1991, 10 regional interpreter training projects were funded, one in each of the Department of Education regions. In addition, two national projects were funded which focus on training in the areas of educational and rehabilitation interpreting. In FY 1993, the projects trained 900 employment-ready interpreters and conducted 600 workshops. Approximately 19,000 persons participated in some aspect of the training offered. The five-year projects involve a variety of training programs such as workshops, short courses in specialized areas of interpreting, A.A. or B.A. degree programs and other types of training. The curricula include areas such as: o tactile interpreting for deaf-blind individuals; o oral interpreting for persons who are hard of hearing or deaf who rely on speechreading; o voicing for people who do not speak for themselves; o interpreting for low-functioning deaf individuals or persons with limited English language skills; and o interpreting in legal or in medical situations. Contact Person: Victor Galloway, (202) 205-9152, (202) 205-8352 TDD REHABILITATION SERVICES ADMINISTRATION Office of Developmental Programs Section 311 Special Projects and Demonstrations for Providing Vocational Rehabilitation Services to Individuals with Disabilities. Federal Funds $ 19,942,000 MISSION AND PURPOSE The purpose of this program is to provide financial assistance to States and other public and private agencies and organizations for expanding and improving vocational rehabilitation services to individuals with disabilities (especially those with the most severe disabilities), including individuals who are members of populations that are unserved or underserved, irrespective of age or vocational potential, who can benefit from comprehensive services. This is accomplished through the support of projects, for up to 36 months, that will demonstrate new procedures or desirable employment outcomes. It is expected that successful project results will be replicated, in whole or in part, to resolve or alleviate rehabilitation problems that are nationally significant or common to several States. Under Section 311, 35 continuation projects and 36 new projects were funded during FY 1993. Continuation projects currently funded by the program address the following priority categories: Specific Learning Disabilities (8 projects); Long Term Mental Illness (3 projects); Non-Priority (14 projects); Traumatic Brain Injury (6 projects); Chronic, Progressive Diseases (4 projects) and 2 projects serving Deaf and Hard of Hearing People Who are Low Functioning. New projects funded in FY 1993 served individuals who abuse drugs other than alcohol (8 projects); individuals with cognitive disabilities (5 projects); and individuals with severe mental illness (4 projects). Thirteen new projects were also funded in a "Non-Priority" category that allowed applicants to propose services that met the needs of individuals with disabilities even though they were not responsive to the absolute priorities. In addition, 6 new projects were funded to provide transitional rehabilitation services for youths with special needs. The 14 Transportation Services Grants and 7 Demonstration Projects To Increase Client Choice were authorized under Title VIII of the Act and are discussed in that section of this document. ACTIVITIES AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS EXAMPLES OF PROJECTS FUNDED IN PRIORITY CATEGORIES: Training & Placement of Individuals Who Abuse Drugs Other Than Alcohol o Vocational Guidance Services (VGS) and MetroHealth Clement Center (MHCC) provide training and placement services for 80 individuals who abuse drugs other than alcohol. This collaboration provides testing, basic medical care, counseling and group support, vocational assessment, job success workshops, community-based training sites, job placement services, and intense follow-up. MHCC has experience in treating drug abuse disabilities, and VGS draws from their experience as a Projects With Industry grantee. Functional Assessment of Individuals with Cognitive Disabilities o Mount Sinai School of Medicine-Department of Psychiatry utilizes an intensive functional assessment model to improve the vocational outcomes of individuals with cognitive disabilities due to mental illness. Identifying work-related cognitive deficits and developing remedial and cognitive strategies will improve consumers' abilities to obtain and maintain competitive employment. The functional assessment has been added to the program phases of goal development and assessment, transitional employment, job-seeking and assisted employment for 20 consumers with characteristic and pervasive problems in attention and concentration, learning and memory, reasoning, organizational and problem solving skills. Coping and compensatory strategies, remedial intervention, and job modification enhance consumer independence in living, working, and social/recreational environments. Linkages Between State Vocational Rehabilitation Agencies and Consumer-Run Programs for Individuals with Severe Mental Illness o Personal Empowerment of the Psychiatrically Labeled (PEOPL) is a statewide consumer-run support network. In this demonstration project, the Arkansas Department of Rehabilitation Services provides the full range of services necessary to place consumers employment settings, and PEOPL provides the support systems needed to maintain and enhance the work experience and the personal lives of persons with severe mental illness. Services offered include a clearinghouse of information, referrals, basic support groups in 20 communities, case management and liaisons to local agencies, education and referral, workshops, job clubs, peer support, and newsletters. These activities will increase the number of consumers seeking, gaining and maintaining employment and achieving economic independence and increasing the successful outcomes of DRS services. EXAMPLES OF PROJECTS FUNDED IN NON-PRIORITY CATEGORIES: Services to Persons with HIV/AIDS o World Institute On Disability, in collaboration with the State rehabilitation agencies in the four states with the heaviest incidence of HIV/AIDS (California, New York, New Jersey and Florida) provides services and system changes to improve the rehabilitation services and options for persons with HIV/AIDS. HIV/AIDS Specialists are being trained in each of the four State VR agencies to train rehabilitation counselors and collaborate with AIDS consumers, service providers and others in the community to develop needed resources. The project is also working with the specialists to design, initiate and sustain rehabilitation services for persons with HIV/AIDS- related disabilities. The project will disseminate information about effective rehabilitation services to other State VR agencies, other community-based HIV/AIDS programs, and Independent Living Centers. Transitional Rehabilitation Services for Youths With Special Needs o National Center for Disability Service provides rehabilitation services for youths with severe physical and cognitive disabilities. While the youth is still in school, the project provides job-training experiences which will improve productivity, improve job performance, increase endurance and stamina, and develop the social, vocational and academic skills needed for the world of work. Student evaluations, parent training, teacher training, functional task identification, community-based job creation, supported community-based placements, behavioral monitoring of job performance, inter-agency linkages, and follow-along services prepare youths with multiple disabilities for independence, entry into competitive employment, and community integration. o Virginia Commonwealth University Natural Support Transition Project develops innovative approaches for the transition and employment of young adults who have severe disabilities. The "natural supports" approach is being pilot-tested in one local community. Natural supports include co-worker trainers/mentors, employer assistance programs, consumer purchased services and other resources. During the first year of the project 6-9 individuals with severe disabilities (Mental Retardation, Developmental Disabilities, Long-Term Mental Illness, Traumatic Brain Injury, Cerebral Palsy, and other physical disabilities) are being placed. During the second year the project expands to two additional sites to place 40-60 individuals. The project is also designing training materials and disseminating information to appropriate agencies for replication. Contact Person: Pamela Martin, (202) 205-8494 SUPPORTED EMPLOYMENT SERVICES PROJECTS Section 311(c)(1)(A) Special Projects and Demonstrations for Providing Supported Employment Services to Individuals with the Most Severe Disabilities--(Statewide Demonstration and Community-Based Projects) Federal Funds $10,616,000 (including peer review costs and mandatory set-aside for minority outreach) MISSION AND PURPOSE The mission and purpose of this program is to provide grants for special projects and demonstrations to expand or otherwise improve the provision of supported employment services to individuals with the most severe disabilities, including projects that demonstrate the effectiveness of natural supports or other alternative approaches to providing extended services for supporting and maintaining individuals in supported employment. In FY 93, funds provided under this authority supported statewide systems change demonstration projects and community-based projects. The statewide "systems change" demonstration projects are intended to stimulate the development and provision of supported employment services on a statewide basis to individuals with the most severe disabilities. These projects assist States to address the most difficult developmental issues in supported employment including: establishing or improving a statewide infrastructure for supported employment; providing supported employment training; providing technical assistance and training to provider agencies, employers, families and consumers; promoting statewide community awareness and advocacy focused on supported employment as a viable vocational rehabilitation option for individuals with the most severe disabilities; conducting statewide needs assessments; assisting in the conversion of existing segregated programs to provide supported employment services; and promoting interagency collaboration and agreements to support the provision of supported employment services. The community-based projects stimulate the development of innovative approaches for expanding and providing supported employment services to individuals with the most severe disabilities. Authorized activities include job search assistance; job development and placement; work site modification; use of advanced learning technology for skills training; provision of intensive on-the-job skills training to program participants by skilled job coaches or trainers, co-workers, or other qualified individuals; and development of cooperative agreements for the provision of extended services. ACTIVITIES AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS In fiscal year 1993, 16 statewide systems change projects received their final year of funding. The total amount of grant awards was $7,099,314. These projects were located in: California, the District of Columbia, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Tennessee, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. Highlights of program activities and accomplishments are: interagency cooperative agreements were established; technical assistance and training on supported employment and conversion strategies from sheltered to integrated employment options were provided; statewide conferences and training workshops to provider agencies, employers, families and consumers on supported employment were held; and dissemination of project results through conferences, workshops, and publications occurred. One example of the impact of a statewide system change grant is the accomplishments reported by the Indiana vocational rehabilitation agency. The agency reported that: the number of program participants served in supported employment increased by 26 percent; technical assistance and training was provided to employers and civic groups regarding supported employment options; a successful statewide marketing plan for supported employment was conducted; a publication was produced entitled Indiana Supported Employment Resource Guide; and a training module on supported employment for vocational rehabilitation counselors was completed. In fiscal year 1993, 13 new community-based projects were also funded providing supported employment services to individuals with the most severe disabilities. The total amount of funds awarded was $1,607,598. The projects are located in: Hawaii, Kentucky, Massachusetts (2), Minnesota, Mississippi, New Mexico, New York, Texas, Washington, Illinois, Maryland, and Kansas. In addition, 14 community-based supported employment projects received their second year of funding in fiscal year 1993. The total amount of grant awards for these continuation grants was $1,760,105. These projects are located in: Alaska, Arizona, California, District of Columbia, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Utah, Virginia, and Mississippi. The funding priorities included: three projects to serve individuals with severe disabilities in rural areas; six projects to serve individuals with long-term mental illness; and five projects to serve unserved and underserved populations including individuals with traumatic brain injuries, severe physical disabilities, or blindness with at least one other disabling condition. Examples of specific project accomplishments under the community-based program include: o The Mississippi Coalition for Rural Supported Employment developed a system to provide supported employment services to public school students transitioning from school to work in rural Mississippi. The coalition was comprised of representatives from the Social Security Administration, the State vocational rehabilitation agency, the Special Education agency, family members, consumers, employers, and project staff. The project placed 15 participants in competitive "rural employment" using natural supports; redesigned the high school curriculum to employment awareness for junior and senior students with the most severe disabilities; and provided training on supported employment principles. o The Project Employ Plus located at the University of Arizona, Health Sciences Center, in Tucson, Arizona, focussed on providing innovative educational supports for individuals with severe mental illness. The project placed 22 program participants in competitive employment working an average of 19 hours per week and earning an average hourly wage of $4.50. o The Virginia Commonwealth University Consumer Initiated Supported Employment Project located in Richmond, Virginia, focused on demonstrating a model for full consumer inclusion and placement of individuals with traumatic brain injury and physical disabilities in competitive employment in community- based work settings. Accomplishments included: development of a consumer initiated model; strong case management follow- along services; and placement of 18 program participants in competitive employment using the consumer driven model. Placement data reported revealed that participants worked an average of 20 hours per week with average hourly wages of $5.35. Contact Person: Ted Gonzales, (202) 205-8321 Section 312 Vocational Rehabilitation Service Projects for Migratory Agricultural Workers and Seasonal Farmworkers with Disabilities Federal Funds: $1,171,000 MISSION AND PURPOSE This program is designed to support projects for providing vocational rehabilitation services to migratory agricultural workers and seasonal farmworkers (MSFWs) with disabilities, including maintenance and transportation for individuals with disabilities and members of their families, where necessary to the rehabilitation of such members, whether or not such family members are individuals with disabilities. With the passage of the Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1992, and subject to the provisions of section 306 of the Act, grants may be awarded to State agencies and to nonprofit agencies that collaborate with such a State agency, or to any local agency participating in the administration of such a plan. A State agency may, if it chooses, enter into an agreement with the State vocational rehabilitation agencies of one or more other States to develop a cooperative program for the provision of vocational rehabilitation services under this program. ACTIVITIES AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS In FY 1993, four new project were awarded and five projects received continuation funding. All nine projects coordinated many of their project activities with other Federal programs including the Departments of Labor, Commerce, Health and Human Services, Agriculture, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Office of Migrant Education. RSA participated as a member of the Federal Interagency Committee on Migrants that held two national meetings that provided forums to share information and develop strategies to improve coordination of services to migrant populations. Specific agenda items were: developing a national data base for the collection, storage and dissemination of information; homelessness and the migrant population; housing; and health care. The following are some examples of successful projects funded in fY 1993: o The Center for Employment Training (CET) in San Jose, California is the first agency funded under the new legislation permitting nonprofit organizations to apply for a Federal grant under this program. Operationally, CET works closely with the California Department of Rehabilitation in the provision and coordination of a full range of vocational rehabilitation services. Services include the provision of situational assessments for disabled migratory workers who are in need of vocational training and career guidance. Additionally, the CET training program has been recognized nationally as exemplary. The design emphasizes training for all individuals regardless of educational skill level. Participants are offered a self-paced, competency-based course structure focused on high-demand occupations. In terms of placement efforts, full-time job developers are responsible for identifying employment opportunities for program trainees and linking those individuals with prospective employers. The project's job developers refer program participants to jobs that match the training provided. The project's goal is to train and place 70 individuals competitive employment by the end of the project period. o The Oklahoma Department of Human Services (DHS) served 44 MSFWs during Fiscal Year 1993 while the project expanded services in the State of Oklahoma to include the counties of Harmon, Greer, and Kiowa. In terms of project services, individuals are provided: emergency cash, transportation, personal adjustment training, short-term training, day care for dependents, adaptive aids, physical restoration services, and non-medical services such as licenses, tools, and work uniforms. In addition, the project succeeded in establishing a number of working agreements with various agencies, organizations, health care providers, vocational training centers, and business establishments. As a result, program participants and their families benefitted from supportive services including housing assistance and other non-medical services. o The Montana Department of Social and Rehabilitative Services (DSRS) contracts with the Montana Migrant and Seasonal Farmworkers' Council, Inc. (MMC) for: (1) outreach to potential clients; and (2) referral of potential clients to DSRS for vocational rehabilitation services. Nearly 40 MSFWs per year are referred to DSRS. In addition, program participants, as well as their families, are referred for support services such as the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA), migrant education, and legal services. As individuals migrate from the State, referrals are made to out-of-state agencies to assure the continuation of rehabilitation services. In addition, the project provided approximately 30 individuals with six to eight weeks of Skills Enhancement Training to improve their reading and writing skills. As appropriate, participants were assessed for substance abuse and provided substance abuse education and/or referral, as necessary. Individuals in need of and eligible for health services were referred to health care providers. Contact Person: Tony Cavataio, (202) 205-8206 Section 316 Projects for Initiating Recreational Programs for Individuals with Disabilities Federal Funds: $2,596,000 MISSION AND PURPOSE The purpose of this program is to initiate projects for recreational services and related experiences for individuals with disabilities. Activities carried out under this program may include, but are not limited to, arts, music, handicrafts, homemaking, camping, dance, 4-H activities, scouting, physical education and sports, vocational skills development, leisure education, leisure networking, leisure resource development, and related recreational activities designed: (1) To aid in employment; and (2) To maximize mobility, socialization, independence and community integration. To the maximum extent possible, these programs and activities are to be provided in settings with peers who are not individuals with disabilities. Each grantee is required to provide sufficient information on how the project will sustain itself after the termination of Federal grant support; and how the project will meet its matching requirement to increase its share of project costs during the second and third year of operation, including an identification of the sources and amounts of matching funds. The Federal share of the costs of the recreation projects shall be 100 percent for the first year of the grant, 75 percent for the second year and 50 percent for the third year. ACTIVITIES AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS In FY 1993, 25 new recreation projects were awarded funding. These projects were located in independent living centers, universities, public and private rehabilitation facilities, county agencies, school districts and small community-based service organizations in eighteen States across the nation. These projects will serve over 22,346 individuals with disabilities. Seven of the 25 projects will give special attention to specific populations including persons with hearing impairments, persons with traumatic brain injury, and persons with mental illness. Among the recreational activities provided by various projects were the following: arts, music, camping, dance, river rafting, scuba diving, scouting, vocational skills development, physical education and sports, leisure education and leisure networking. Some highlights of projects funded in FY 1993 are as follows: o THE NEW YORK PUBLIC LIBRARY (ASTOR, LENOX AND TILDEN FOUNDATIONS) in New York, New York, is to enable the library to develop activities to expand and enhance programs, services, and collections for persons with disabilities who live and/or work in New York City as well as in the surrounding suburbs of Nassau, Suffolk and Westchester counties. The project will help create a library environment that fosters integration and interaction between individuals with and without disabilities; develop and expand children's and adult programs and collections; acquire non-print formats and assistive devices; and prepare brochures on library programs, collections and services for persons with disabilities. o WILDERNESS INQUIRY, INC. in Minneapolis, Minnesota will provide opportunities for individuals with disabilities through extended wilderness adventures; this project further expands opportunities for people with disabilities to enjoy the benefits of integrated outdoor recreation and education. The project plans to serve 1,590 persons through a series of 18 integrated outdoor events conducted by persons with disabilities throughout the State. The project is a collaborative effort with the University of Minnesota, the Minnesota Centers for Independent Living, and other agencies. The project will help open new markets of job opportunities to program participants; teach new skills applicable to employment; provide skills training for 90 individuals with disabilities to become Integration Specialists; and establish a network matching Integration Specialists with recreation service providers seeking to better integrate their programs and services. o PARTNERS (PROMOTE ACCESSIBLE RECREATION THROUGH NETWORKING,EDUCATION, RESOURCES AND SERVICES) in Durham, New Hampshire, is designed to promote socialization, mobility, independence, and community integration while introducing individuals with severe physical disabilities to the opportunities for employment in the leisure service industry. There are four programs that will be implemented in the project to serve over 1500 individuals with disabilities. These programs are: AIM for independence which involves modules for entry level instruction in various sports and recreation activities such as skiing, scuba diving, canoeing, kayaking, conditioning, tennis, stunt kite flying, horseback riding and others; an Equipment Loan Program; an Education and Advocacy Program; and a Sports Development Program which includes a one-week summer program for 20 young adults with mobility impairments, ages 14-20, to introduce them to competitive sports. Contact person: Tony Cavataio, (202) 205-8206 NATIONAL COUNCIL ON DISABILITY Section 400 National Council on Disability Federal Funds $1,541,000 OVERVIEW AND PURPOSE The National Council on Disability is an independent Federal agency composed of 15 members appointed by the President of the United States and confirmed by the U.S. Senate. The National Council was initially established in 1978 as an advisory board within the Department of Education (Public Law 95-602). The Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1984 (Public Law 98-221) transformed the National Council into an independent agency. The overall purpose of the National Council is to promote policies, programs, practices, and procedures that guarantee equal opportunity for all individuals with disabilities, regardless of the nature or severity of the disability; and to empower individuals with disabilities to achieve economic self-sufficiency, independent living, and inclusion and integration into all aspects of society. The current statutory mandate of the National Council includes the following: Specific Duties o Reviewing and evaluating, on a continuing basis, policies, programs, practices, and procedures concerning individuals with disabilities conducted or assisted by Federal departments and agencies, including programs established or assisted under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, or under the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act; and all statutes and regulations pertaining to Federal programs which assist individuals with disabilities in order to assess the effectiveness of such policies, programs, practices, procedures, statutes, and regulations in meeting the needs of individuals with disabilities; o Reviewing and evaluating, on a continuing basis, new and emerging intergovernmental and private-sector policy issues affecting individuals with disabilities, including the need for and coordination of adult services, access to personal assistance services, school reform efforts, access to health care, and policies that operate as disincentives for the individuals to seek and retain employment. o Making recommendations to the President, the Congress, the Secretary of Education, the Director of the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research, and other officials of Federal agencies, on ways to better promote equal opportunity, economic self-sufficiency, independent living, and inclusion and integration into all aspects of society for Americans with disabilities. o Providing the Congress, on a continuing basis, advice, recommendations, legislative proposals, and any additional information which the Council or the Congress deems appropriate; o Gathering information about the implementation, effectiveness, and impact of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.); o Advising the President, the Congress, the Commissioner of the Rehabilitation Services Administration, the Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services within the Department of Education, and the Director of the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research on the development of the programs to be carried out under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended; o Providing advice to the Commissioner with respect to the policies and conduct of the Rehabilitation Services Administration; o Making recommendations to the Director of the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research on ways to improve research, service, administration, and the collection, dissemination, and implementation of research findings affecting persons with disabilities; o Providing advice regarding priorities for the activities of the Interagency Disability Coordinating Council and reviewing the recommendations of such Council for legislative and administrative changes to ensure that such recommendations are consistent with the purposes of the Council to promote the full integration, independence, and productivity of individuals with disabilities; o Preparing and submitting to the President and the Congress a report entitled "National Disability Policy: A Progress Report" on an annual basis; and o Preparing and submitting to the Congress and the President a report containing a summary of the activities and accomplishments of the Council on an annual basis. Population Served and Current Activities While many government agencies deal with issues and programs affecting people with disabilities, the National Council is the only Federal agency charged with addressing, analyzing, and making recommendations on issues of public policy which affect people with disabilities regardless of age, disability type, perceived employment potential, economic need, specific functional ability, veteran status, or other individual circumstance. The National Council recognizes its unique opportunity to facilitate independent living, community integration, and employment opportunities for people with disabilities by assuring an informed and coordinated approach to addressing the concerns of persons with disabilities and eliminating barriers to their active participation in community and family life. The National Council plays a major role in developing disability policy in America. In fact, it was the Council that originally proposed what eventually became the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Our present list of key issues includes personal assistance services, health care reform, the inclusion of students with disabilities in high quality programs in typical neighborhood schools, equal employment opportunity, community housing, monitoring the implementation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, improving assistive technology, and ensuring that persons with disabilities who are members of minority groups fully participate in society. MAJOR ACTIVITIES AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS DURING 1993 In its effort to provide leadership in the identification, development, and evaluation of disability policy, the National Council on Disability undertook a wide variety of activities in Fiscal Year 1993. The National Council's Fiscal Year 1993 activities included continued support of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), Public Law 101-336, which was initially proposed by the National Council. The Council was able to achieve this goal with the release and dissemination of its first-year report on "ADA Watch," a project designed to monitor the implementation of the ADA. The Council also identified the overall needs and concerns of individuals with disabilities by conducting hearings, forums, and seminars throughout the country, and by responding to thousands of telephone and written inquiries on the ADA and other issues. Among the highlights of FY 1993, the Council released studies on financing assistive technology; ensuring access to health insurance and health-related services; assessing the impact of elementary and secondary education programs and special education for children with disabilities; and wilderness accessibility (as mandated by Section 507 of the ADA). It held a hearing on inclusionary education and a seminar on the Americans with Disabilities Act. In addition, President Clinton nominated five new members to the National Council: Marca Bristo (Chairperson), Chicago, Illinois; Michele Alioto, San Francisco, California; Bonnie O'Day, Boston, Massachusetts; Hughey Walker, Georgetown, South Carolina; and Kate Pew Wolters, Grand Rapids, Michigan. Two current Members were renominated. They are: John A. Gannon, Washington, DC, and Cleveland, Ohio; and Larry Brown, Jr., Potomac, Maryland. LIAISON WITH THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON DISABILITY AND REHABILITATION RESEARCH The National Council held regular meetings with the Director and the staff of NIDRR to discuss the continued development of the NIDRR five-year plan and to coordinate the efforts of the Council and NIDRR in other research areas of mutual concern. In addition, the National Council made recommendations to NIDRR on public policy issues that affect the wide range of people with disabilities, including individuals of different ages, conditions, perceived employment potential, economic needs, specific functional abilities, or other individual circumstances. LIAISON WITH THE PRESIDENT'S COMMITTEE ON EMPLOYMENT OF PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES In accordance with its authorizing statute, the National Council continued to provide guidance to the President's Committee on Employment of People with Disabilities. During the fiscal year, the National Council and the President's Committee worked cooperatively to identify key employment issues that deserve the attention and resources of the President's Committee. Members of the National Council and the President's Committee attend each others' quarterly/annual meetings. INFORMATION DISSEMINATION Throughout the fiscal year, the National Council received thousands of telephone calls and letters from concerned individuals and organizations about disability issues. The Council also continued to increase its communication of important information to persons with disabilities and their families, the Administration, the Congress, and the public through its FOCUS newsletter, special reports, annual reports, and ongoing interaction with the news media. QUARTERLY MEETINGS OF THE NATIONAL COUNCIL As required by Section 400(c) of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, the full Council met on four occasions during the fiscal year. The following are the dates and locations of these meetings: November 4-6, 1992; Arlington, Virginia January 25-26, 1993; Tucson, Arizona April 26-28, 1993; New York, New York August 2-3, 1993; Chicago, Illinois Contact Person: Mark S. Quigley, 202-272-2004, TT 202-272-2074 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Section 501 Employment of People with Disabilities in the Federal Government The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has responsibility for enforcing the nondiscrimination and affirmative employment provisions of laws and regulations concerning the employment of people with disabilities. Each year Federal agencies submit annual accomplishment reports and plan updates to the EEOC. The EEOC in turn reviews and evaluates these accomplishment reports to determine the progress being made by Federal agencies in the hiring, placement, and advancement of people with disabilities. From this information, the EEOC prepares an annual report to the President of the United States and the Congress regarding employment of people with disabilities in the Federal Government. Recent data available to EEOC indicates that employees with disabilities continued to comprise a much smaller proportion of the Federal work force than in the U.S. population as a whole. Over the last decade, persons with disabilities in the Federal work force only increased from 0.82 percent in 1982 to 1.22 percent in 1992. Targeted disabilities are those severe disabilities that are targeted for employment emphasis in affirmative employment program planning. As part of EEOC's oversight responsibilities, it is empowered to conduct on-site reviews of Federal agency affirmative employment programs. During FY 1993, such reviews were conducted by the staff in EEOC's district offices in Atlanta, Chicago, Dallas, Denver, New York, Philadelphia, San Francisco and Seattle, as well as the staff in EEOC's Washington, DC Headquarters. These reviews resulted in findings and recommendations for each site visited. The EEOC will monitor the implementation of these findings by performing follow-up on-site reviews. As part of the Federal Government's efforts to carry out the Congressional mandate for federal employment of people with disabilities, the Interagency Committee on Employment of People with Disabilities (ICEPD) was established under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, at Section 501. The Committee has the responsibility for: o providing a focus on the employment of people with disabilities in the Federal Government and reviewing, in cooperation with the EEOC, the adequacy of hiring, placement, and advancement practices with respect to people with disabilities in the Executive Branch agencies; o increasing employment opportunities for people with disabilities and ensuring an equitable, suitable, and functional work environment in the Federal service; and o making recommendations for policy, procedural, regulatory, and legislative changes designed to improve employment opportunities for people with disabilities. The ICEPD makes recommendations to State agencies on policies and procedures to increase employment opportunities for people with disabilities. The ICEPD also provides consultation on employment of disabled veterans as required of the Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974 as amended, at Section 403. The ICEPD is comprised of principals who are designated by the President of the United States and are Executive Level IV or higher. There is a permanent standing committee of the ICEPD whose members are selected by the principals. The ICEPD is co-chaired by the Chairman of the EEOC and the Director of the Office of Personnel Management. The principals met in October 1992, to discuss the status of employment for people with disabilities in the Federal Government. A subcommittee, appointed by the co-chairmen, met several times during the year and conducted a survey in the ICEPD agencies to determine what resources were available to employees with disabilities. The subcommittee analyzed the information from the survey and reported that the smaller agencies have a need for the resources and assistance which a centralized resource center would provide. Contact Person: Frank Fritts, Jr., (202) 663-4560 voice or (202) 663-4593 TDD ARCHITECTURAL AND TRANSPORTATION BARRIERS COMPLIANCE BOARD (ACCESS BOARD) Section 502 Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board Federal Funds $3,303,000 The Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (Access Board) is an independent Federal agency charged with ensuring that certain facilities designed, constructed, leased or altered with Federal funds since September 1969 are accessible to and usable by persons with disabilities. The Access Board has a governing board of 25 members. The President appoints 13 public members (a majority must be persons with disabilities) to four-year terms, and the other 12 are the heads (or designees) of the Departments of Commerce, Defense, Education, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, Justice, Labor, Transportation, Veterans Affairs, the General Services Administration, and the U.S. Postal Service. The Access Board has responsibility for those portions of both the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 that relate to accessibility. Rehabilitation Act of 1973 Created by the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Access Board is charged with ensuring that certain facilities designed, constructed, leased, or altered with Federal funds since September 1969 are accessible to and usable by persons with disabilities. Specific legislative responsibilities are to: (1) ensure compliance with standards prescribed under the Architectural Barriers Act of 1968 (Public Law 90-480); (2) establish minimum guidelines and requirements for standards issued under the Architectural Barriers Act; (3) develop standards and provide technical assistance to any entity affected by regulations issued under Title V of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; (4) provide technical assistance on the removal of barriers and answer other questions on architectural, transportation, communication, and attitudinal barriers affecting persons with disabilities; and Americans with Disabilities Act Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (Public Law 101-336), signed into law in July 1990, the Access Board acquired additional responsibilities to: (1) develop accessibility guidelines for transit facilities, transit vehicles, commercial facilities and public accommodations, children's environments, and recreational facilities; (2) implement a technical assistance plan on the Board guidelines for entities covered under the transportation and public accommodations titles of ADA; and (3) develop and publish technical assistance manuals for those entities covered under Titles II and III (transportation and public accommodations) of ADA. Enforcing The Architectural Barriers Act As the agency's 26th year of enforcing the Architectural Barriers Act (ABA) begins, there are positive factors. The Access Board is: o closing a higher percentage of complaints for removal of barriers o resolving nearly all cases amicably, avoiding the need for formal legal citations o eliminating a backlog of unresolved cases o continuing to make its complaint process more efficient OVERVIEW The Board has processed over 2,700 ABA complaints since its first full year of keeping records in fiscal year 1977. About 96 percent of these cases have been closed. In 51 percent of the closed cases, the Board had no jurisdiction. Usually this was because the Federal funds used did not trigger the Barriers Act or the facility was designed, built or altered before the Act. However, in 42 percent of the cases, changes made the facility accessible to persons with disabilities. This corrective action figure has increased steadily over the years as more agencies and organizations recognize the need and practical value of making their facilities usable by all people. In the rest of the closed cases, there was no violation of the standards. 1993 Cases The agency received 101 new ABA complaints during fiscal year 1993, involving facilities in 28 states and the District of Columbia. In addition, one case focused on a World War II-era American cemetery in Cambridge, England. Because it pre-dated the 1968 Barriers Act, this site did not fall within the Board's jurisdiction. However, the responding agency indicated plans to make the buildings at this cemetery accessible. A geographical survey of the United States shows that the complaints received across the northeast and southeast parts of the country led in the number of complaints with 30 each. The midwest followed closely with 27 cases. Western states, including Alaska and Hawaii, had about half this number. The 1993 cases involved many different types of facilities. Post offices were mentioned in 38 percent of the cases, State and local government facilities in 28 percent, and Federal buildings in 13 percent. Prisons and correctional buildings were cited in 8 percent of the cases, transportation facilities in 7 percent with recreational, residential, and health care facilities making up the rest of this year's cases. ADA Referrals Although the Access Board does not enforce the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), it provides information to both complainants and agencies or organizations. After verifying that a facility does not receive Federal funds, the Access Board provides ADA contact information. In addition, when a Barriers Act case is closed for lack of jurisdiction, but the facility may fall under the ADA, the agency is sent an ADA fact sheet which lists the Act's requirements and appropriate agencies to contact for help. Lead Agency In Outreach As the only Federal agency exclusively involved with accessibility, the Access Board strives to reach out to various agencies and organizations to educate them about accessibility. Many activities and programs each year are directed toward enhancing public awareness of accessibility issues. Some activities in fiscal year 1993 were: October o Held a public forum in Chicago on transportation, model codes, and implementing the Americans with Disabilities Act accessibility guidelines (ADAAG). ADAAG and accessibility training were provided to 460 people in seven training sessions. November o Met with senior officials from the Netherlands government, which is spearheading efforts to develop a unified accessibility standard to be used by the European Community. A total of 575 persons received ADAAG training during six sessions. December o Mailed 500 copies of the proposed accessibility guidelines for State and local government facilities to national, State, and local groups affected by the rulemaking. Sent press releases on the proposed guidelines to disability-related media and architecture magazines and prepared materials to promote public participation in the five public hearings to be held. ADAAG training was given to 300 people in three sessions. January o Contacted more than 30 national organizations whose members would be affected by the proposed State and local government guidelines. Four ADAAG training sessions reached 350 persons. February o Convened a meeting of the four standard-setting agencies under the Architectural Barriers Act and the Department of Justice to discuss making the ADA Accessibility Guidelines the accessibility standard for Federal facilities. Met with the Administrative Office of the United States Courts to discuss accessibility laws and the pending rulemaking on judicial facilities. ADAAG training was provided for 640 people in eight sessions. March o Briefed a delegation from Asian countries on the Board's programs. Completed public hearings on the proposed accessibility guidelines for State and local government facilities. The hearings were held in St. Louis; Washington, D.C.; San Francisco; Charlotte, North Carolina; and Chicago. Training in ADAAG requirements was given to 85 persons. April o Held a training program with Parsons De Leuw, Inc., one of the world's largest designers of airports and transit facilities. Met with representatives of Austria, El Salvador, and Australia. ADAAG training in five sessions reached 220 people. May o Appointed a Recreation Access Advisory Committee to develop recommendations for the Board as it prepared to write accessibility guidelines for recreation facilities and outdoor developed areas. Training in ADAAG was given to 380 persons in seven training sessions. June o Delivered briefings on board programs to staff of the U.S. House of Representatives Education and Labor Committee and officials of the National Institute of Art and Disabilities. Three training sessions reached 150. July o Mailed 500 copies of three Federal Register notices issued by the Board in July to disability organizations, the building and construction industry, code officials, and other interested persons. The three notices were: proposed suspension of detectable warnings provisions; final rule on automated teller machines; research priorities for fiscal years 1993-94. Talked with USA Today, Cable News Network, WRC-Channel 4 of Washington, D.C., and the Baltimore Sun. ADAAG training in three sessions was given to 155. August o Issued two news releases. Developed a fact sheet narrative about the Board. Briefed reporters from US News and World Report, Visual Merchandising and Store Design, Medical Economics Magazine, Newark (NJ) Star-Ledger, ADA Update (newsletter), Western RV Magazine, York (PA) Daily Record, Lawyers' Weekly USA, Wagener News Service, Inc., a cable television network, and radio news. Three training sessions reached 90 people. September o Distributed a news release on the Recreation Access Advisory Committee. Interviewed former Board members, staff, and members of Congress to prepare a commemorative newsletter for the Board's 20th anniversary and the 25th anniversary of the Architectural Barriers Act. Briefed reporters from National Public Radio; WXXI Radio, Rochester, New York; Washington Times; New York Times; Trenton (NJ) Times; Bureau of National Affairs; Building Operating Management Magazine; Legi-Slate (ADA Newsletter); Teen Rehab Magazine; and American Industrial Hygiene Association Newsletter. Created a news menu that is updated monthly on the Board's new telephone system. MAJOR ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF FISCAL YEAR 1993 o Adopted a resolution urging the Federal government to adopt a policy to use ADAAG rather than the Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards as the accessibility standards for Federal facilities; o Published in the December 21, 1992, Federal Register, a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Accessibility Guidelines for State and local governments under Title II of the Act; o Held five public hearings on the proposed ADA State and local government facilities guidelines. Received more than 574 comments totaling nearly 7,000 pages; o Published in the February 3, 1993, Federal Register an advance notice of proposed rulemaking for children's environments; o Formed a 27-member Recreation Access Advisory Committee, a new approach to fact-gathering in the early stages of the rulemaking process. Committee members, reflecting diversity of issues and interests, will draft accessibility guidelines for recreational facilities; o Published jointly with the Departments of Transportation and Justice a notice of proposed ADA rulemaking on detectable warnings in the July 9, 1993, Federal Register; o Published jointly with the Department of Transportation a final rule for automated teller machines and fare vending machines in the July 15, 1993, Federal Register; o Responded to approximately 18,500 phone calls for the year on the ADA Accessibility Guidelines. Distributed more than 13,000 packets of technical information and more than 17,000 copies of the ADA Accessibility Guidelines; o Published ADA Accessibility Guidelines Checklist: Mailed nearly 60,000 copies of 32 Access Board publications. In addition, two Access America newsletters were published and distributed to nearly 17,000 individuals, businesses, and organizations o Developed technical bulletins on text telephones, surfaces, and using ADAAG o Trained more than 7,000 people in ADA Accessibility Guidelines or Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards. The sessions were sponsored primarily by professional, industry, and trade organizations o Participated in meetings to explain or discuss specific provisions of the ADA Accessibility Guidelines. Among the groups were the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, American Society of Civil Engineers, National Association of Counties, Institutional and Municipal Parking Congress, American Public Transit Association, U.S. Olympic Committee, the American Association of Airport Executives, and others; o Closed 127 Architectural Barriers Act complaints between October 1, 1992, and September 30, 1993. Received 101 new cases during the year. The Access Board has processed more than 2,700 complaints and closed 96 percent of them since the agency's first full year of keeping records in 1977. Contact Person: Larry Allison, Voice, (202) 272-5434, Ext. 38 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Federal Contracts Compliance Programs Section 503 Federal Contracts Compliance Programs for Individuals with Disabilities The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) in the U.S. Department of Labor has the sole responsibility for implementing and enforcing Section 503 of the Act. Section 503 requires most employers doing business with the Federal government to take affirmative action to employ individuals with disabilities. OFCCP also prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of disability. The day-to-day enforcement activities which protect the employment rights of persons with disabilities are carried out by a network of ten regional offices, located in the standard Federal regions and the national office. Affirmative Action and Reasonable Accommodation Every employer doing business with the Federal government under a contract in excess of $10,000 must take affirmative action in employment with respect to individuals with disabilities. These measures cover the full range of employment and personnel practices, such as recruitment, hiring, rates of pay, upgrading, demotion, and selection for training. Federal contractors are also required to make reasonable accommodations to the physical or mental limitations of qualified individuals with disabilities. This applies to contracts awarded by Federal agencies and subcontracts awarded by prime contractors. Employers with Federal contracts of $50,000 or more, and 50 or more employees must prepare, implement, and maintain a written affirmative action program for each establishment. The programs must be reviewed and updated annually. Right to File a Complaint Individuals with disabilities who are protected by the contract compliance programs may file complaints if they believe they have been discriminated against by Federal contractors or subcontractors. Complaints may also be filed by organizations or other individuals on behalf of the person or persons affected. A contractor's failure to make reasonable accommodation for the disability of a qualified disabled employee may be the basis for administrative sanctions and the possible loss of Federal contracts. MISSION AND PURPOSE OFCCP's mission continues to be the enforcement of regulations requiring Federal contractors to take affirmative action and eliminate discrimination from the workplace, and to obtain redress for victims of discrimination. Emphasis will continue to be devoted to: (1) encouraging government contractors to examine their EEO performance with respect to minorities and women in nontraditional jobs and in mid- and upper-level corporate positions; (2) encouraging contractor outreach and training through increased liaison with, and technical assistance to contractors, Tribal Employment Rights Officers (TEROS), and other interested groups; (3) linking recruitment and training sources with specific contractor job opportunities; (4) promoting voluntary affirmative action in contractor organizations through our Exemplary Voluntary Efforts (EVE) and Opportunity 2000 Awards; (5) ensuring timely administrative enforcement actions through increased coordinated efforts with the Office of the Solicitor; (6) strengthening the quality of compliance activities and enhancing professionalism through training and other developmental efforts for the staff; and (7) continuing the integration of microcomputer technology into the compliance review and complaint investigation process to enhance the efficiency and quality of the agency's performance. HIGHLIGHTS The following is a summary of OFCCP's activities under Section 503 of the Act during FY 1993: o Compliance Reviews 4,456 (Combined Executive Order 11246, Sections 503/4212, formerly 2012) o 503 Complaint Investigations 676 o Total 503 Complaint/Case Inventory 343 at End of FY 1993 o Workers in Facilities Reviewed 1,933,362 (all programs) o Individuals Receiving Cash Benefits 381 o Total 503 Cash Benefits Agreements $8,438,351 (Total 503 Backpay) ($2,913,193) o Amount of Other 503 Financial $1,962,706 Agreements OFCCP Compliance Officers monitor Federal government contractors' compliance with Section 503 as part of the regular compliance review process. When a compliance review identifies problems which cannot be easily resolved, OFCCP attempts to conciliate with the employer. When conciliation efforts fail, OFCCP may recommend the administrative enforcement process. Federal rules and regulations set forth administrative procedures to be followed when enforcement actions are necessary. Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 Under new coordination regulations, complaints filed with OFCCP under Section 503, that also fall within the jurisdiction of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), will be investigated under both laws by OFCCP. EEOC has designated OFCCP as its agent for ADA complaint investigations and authorizes OFCCP to issue right-to-sue letters. OFCCP and EEOC will follow the same substantive rules for determining discrimination on the basis of disability. Contact Person: Annie Blackwell, 202-219-9430 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Civil Rights Division Section 504 Nondiscrimination in Federally Assisted and Federally Conducted Programs and Activities The Civil Rights Division (CRD) of the Department of Justice (DOJ) is responsible for the consistent and effective enforcement by Executive agencies of the "cross-cutting" civil rights statutes, including Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of l973, as amended. Executive Order 12250 charges the Attorney General with this responsibility, which has been delegated to the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights. Under Executive Order l2250, CRD undertakes a diverse array of regulatory and administrative initiatives. CRD reviews civil rights regulations for consistency, adequacy, and clarity and assists Federal agencies in the development of appropriate regulations. CRD issues interpretations of these regulations in individual administrative matters and provides guidance on new civil rights issues. CRD annually reviews the civil rights implementation plans of each Federal agency as required by section l-403 of Executive Order l2250, offers technical assistance to improve their civil rights enforcement programs, and promotes interagency information sharing and cooperation through delegation agreements. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 may apply simultaneously to a particular entity depending on its status and the nature of the alleged discrimination. Title II prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in all services, programs, and activities of state and local governments. The regulation implementing Title II created eight designated agencies with responsibility for enforcement of Title II in various aspects of the operation of state and local governments. The Title II regulation also requires that Section 504/Title II complaints be processed in the same manner that Section 504 complaints are currently processed. The Division has established procedures to coordinate the processing of Section 504/Title II complaints in order to avoid duplication of effort and prevent the imposition of inconsistent or conflicting standards. When the CRD receives a Title II complaint that is not within its own designated area, it refers the complaint to the appropriate agency designated as responsible for the subject matter. CRD monitors the investigations of these referrals to ensure compliance with the standards of Title II and advises the designated agencies on substantive and procedural issues for processing complaints referred to or filed directly with them. Employment discrimination is prohibited by both Titles I and II of the ADA. Title I is enforced both by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (private entities) and by the division (State and local government entities). The division meets regularly with EEOC and Executive agencies on the issues related to employment discrimination that arise from concurrent coverage by Title I, Section 504, and other ADA provisions and regulatory requirements. Title III of the ADA, which covers public accommodations and commercial facilities, is enforced by DOJ. Because Section 504 recipients frequently are simultaneously covered by title III, the division coordinates with the Section 504 enforcement agencies and broadly disseminates policy interpretations applicable to both statutes. Regulations for Federally Conducted Programs CRD continued to guide agencies required to issue regulations implementing Section 504 in federally conducted programs. Use of the Division's prototype regulation was encouraged, as was issuance of regulations by joint publication. Joint publication eliminates most of the paperwork and administrative burdens for agencies issuing regulations. More than 50 agencies published final Section 504 federally conducted regulations using the joint publication process. This has meant savings of approximately $550,000 to the Federal Government in printing costs alone. Progress continued during FY l993 by CRD to assist agencies to develop their own notices of proposed rulemaking implementing Section 504 in federally conducted programs or to participate in a joint publication that CRD prepared. On October 26, 1993, six Federal Executive agencies (USDA, Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board, United States Institute of Peace, National Council on Disability, Arctic Research Commission, and the James Madison Memorial Fellowship Foundation) jointly published a final regulation to implement Section 504 for their federally conducted programs. This was the fourth joint publication of final rules implementing Section 504 that we have coordinated. They were based on the regulations adopted by more than 90 other Federal Executive agencies, including the Department, for their federally conducted programs and activities. These, in turn, were based on the Department's prototype regulation implementing Section 504 for federally conducted programs. Each of the six agencies participating in the fourth joint publication individually received and analyzed comments on the proposed rules and CRD prepared the draft final rule. COORDINATION INITIATIVES In addition to direct liaison with individual agencies, the Division conducts a number of projects that cut across all Executive agencies. These initiatives are intended to eliminate duplicative requirements, introduce more cost-effective procedures to reduce burdens on Federal agencies and on their recipients, and provide technical assistance to Federal agencies, section 504 recipients, and the public. Examples of accomplishments in this area are highlighted. o The Division continued to implement the ADA, coordinating areas where it overlaps CRD's authority under Executive Order l2250 and section 504, both directly and indirectly. In FY 1993, CRD expanded its substantial outreach and public education program by completing several direct mailings of ADA information to 15,000 architects and contractors with active projects, 9,000 public libraries, 500 AIDS service providers, and 5.9 million businesses. It expanded the ADA Telephone Information Line to a 24-hour service period when callers can listen to recorded information or request technical assistance materials. Operators can be reached using both voice and telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD's), from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. (EST) five days per week, to answer questions on the requirements of the ADA and section 504. The hot-line work and distribution of ADA fact sheets and brochures continued at a brisk pace. Through FY 1993, CRD has mailed millions of copies of ADA-related literature, provided speakers for hundreds of conferences and seminars, handled thousands of calls through its information line, and awarded $6.5 million in grant funds for ADA technical assistance projects. In addition, the program expanded its efforts in its role as lead coordinator of ADA technical assistance government-wide. o Since January 26, 1992, the ADA's effective date, the Division has implemented the compliance program under Titles II and III of the statute. This responsibility includes the coordination of the Federal Government's overall Title II enforcement effort by referral of complaints to the other seven Federal agencies that enforce section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and that also are "designated" to investigate Title II complaints. The Division monitors the investigations of these referrals to ensure compliance with the standards of Title II. The designated agencies, other than the Department of Justice, are the Departments of Agriculture, Education, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, Labor, and Transportation. The designation depends on the particular State or local government program, service, or activity that is the focus of the complaint. For example, if a complaint concerns a local school district, CRD refers the matter to the Office for Civil Rights of the Department of Education for investigation. The Division also investigates the complaints in its own designated areas, which include law enforcement and public safety. During FY 1993, the Division routinely continued to contact and meet with the designated and other Federal agencies to advise on the substantive and procedural issues related to the processing of Title II/Section 504 complaints. o From January 26, 1992, to September 30, 1993, the Division received 1,669 complaints alleging violations of title II. Of this number, 910 were referred to the appropriate designated agencies, and 759 have been retained by the Division for investigation, 458 of which were received in FY 1993. The Division investigates complaints involving public safety and the administration of justice (e.g., prisons, courts, police departments, fire departments) and other general government functions not assigned to other Federal agencies (e.g., personnel offices, election boards, municipal stadiums). The complaints allege a wide variety of violations, including physical inaccessibility, discriminatory policies, employment discrimination, and failure to provide auxiliary aids such as sign language interpreters and written materials in alternate formats. Title II complaint investigations follow the administrative enforcement model used by Federal agencies to enforce section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the forerunner to Title II. These enforcement procedures are familiar to many State and local governments that receive Federal financial assistance. o During FY 1993, CRD continued to coordinate with Interior's Bureau of Reclamation on development of the Accessibility Data Management System (ADMS), a data management system to record and track information on accessible outdoor recreational facilities under the control and development of the Bureau. The Bureau is working with all Federal providers of outdoor recreation to ensure a comprehensive data collection effort. A proposed interdepartmental agreement will establish the policies and procedures for Federal agencies to input and retrieve data from the system. The data base eventually will be made available to the public to provide directories of accessible recreational sites. A more short-term benefit will be the generation of section 504 compliance reports to fulfill agency obligations under existing regulations. AGENCY LIAISON Review Agency Implementation Plans/Collect Agency Workload and Performance Data CRD received and reviewed civil rights implementation plan updates from approximately 25 agencies that administered programs of Federal financial assistance in FY l993. These plans were updates to the FY 1990 base-year documents, covering FY 1990-1993, and established the long-range civil rights enforcement goals and priorities along with the short-term fiscal year activities undertaken to achieve them. The plan updates included projected FY l993 activities to enforce section 504 and the other cross-cutting civil rights statutes, and addressed major compliance and enforcement functions such as complaint investigations, compliance reviews, legal and administrative enforcement, technical assistance, regulatory and policy development, and implementation of section 504's 1978 amendments requiring nondiscrimination on the basis of disability in federally conducted programs and activities. CRD collected and analyzed civil rights workload and performance data from agencies administering programs of Federal financial assistance. This data, which is submitted concurrently with each agency's implementation plan, addressed activities in the major components of a civil rights compliance program, such as complaint investigations, compliance reviews, and legal and administrative enforcement. The Division issued guidelines on September 7, 1993 for updated FY 1994 implementation plans including the submission by November 5, 1993 of FY l993 civil rights enforcement workload and performance data. Maintain Assistance Network and Respond to Training Needs CRD maintained its liaison activities with civil rights and other appropriate program and legal staff of the more than 25 agencies that administer Federal financial assistance programs and the more than 95 Federal Executive agencies that operate federally conducted programs. These continuing liaison activities help to identify technical assistance needs and opportunities of individual agencies to improve their compliance programs. They also serve to assess the compliance status and effectiveness of each agency in enforcing civil rights laws. During FY 1993, CRD continued to expand its electronic bulletin board (BBS) for the ADA, section 504, and other civil rights information. The BBS was established as an alternate means of providing information on CRD's mission and responsibilities, general civil rights enforcement information, proposed and final regulations, and answers to frequently asked questions. The provision of resource information by the BBS is a popular feature, especially for persons with vision impairments and persons requiring rapid access to ADA/section 504 documents. The BBS is operated 24 hours per day, seven days per week and is available to anyone with a computer and a modem. Since its inception, more than 4,050 individuals have registered as users. One of the BBS's functions is to allow users to communicate with each other about access problems and solutions. Because nearly all of CRD's printed ADA/Section 504 material is available electronically, a primary function of the BBS has been to dispense widely this information and to provide an alternate format delivery method. Many of the national electronic information services have obtained their ADA/Section 504 files from the BBS. Provide Legal Assistance and Policy Interpretations CRD continued to provide information, assistance, and policy guidance on the legal requirements of the civil rights statutes covered by Executive Order l2250. Guidance was frequently in response to requests on section 504 matters. For example, on July 20, 1993, CRD and General Counsel staff at the National Endowments for the Arts and for the Humanities (NEA and NEH) met and discussed section 504 and the ADA complaints against recipients of NEA and NEH funding in Maryland. A complainant alleged that the Maryland State Arts Agency (SAA) and 24 of its subrecipients were inaccessible. We advised NEA to work intensively with the SAA, write to the current subrecipients about their 504 obligations and to the prior subrecipients about compliance with respect to future funding. We also suggested that NEA scrutinize grantees more carefully in the future regarding disability issues because of the increased attention generated by the ADA. The complaint to NEH concerned a grant to the Jewish Museum of New York to develop an exhibit that later was loaned to Baltimore's Eubie Blake Center. At issue was whether the section 504 and ADA nondiscrimination obligations travelled with the exhibit. Assist Agencies to Conduct Section 504 Self-Evaluations During FY 1993, CRD continued to assist and assess the efforts of Federal agencies to carry out the self-evaluation requirement contained in their final section 504 regulations for federally conducted programs. Having guided the regulatory development process nearly to completion, CRD has focused its attention on coordinating the enforcement of these nondiscrimination requirements in the ongoing operation of the Federal Government's programs and activities. Through the self-evaluation, each agency identifies and changes any of its policies or practices that discriminate against qualified individuals with disabilities. This requirement parallels the self-evaluation required and found useful by recipients of Federal financial assistance. Section 504 regulations for federally conducted programs also require each agency to develop a transition plan when structural changes are necessary to make one or more of its programs accessible to individuals with disabilities. The effect of these requirements is to cause Federal agencies to review their facilities, programs, policies, and practices and to make changes required to permit qualified individuals with disabilities to participate fully in the agency's programs and activities. Division staff frequently consulted with representatives of agencies that have published final regulations. These agencies ranged from the cabinet-level departments to the smaller agencies of the executive branch. For example, on September 28, 1993, CRD staff briefed the Central Intelligence Agency's (CIA) General Counsel staff and provided resource information and technical assistance guides on section 504 subjects. CIA's General Counsel has been assigned responsibility to spearhead the agency's section 504 required self-evaluation and systematic facility survey to determine access for persons with disabilities to CIA's federally conducted programs and activities. Contact person: Ms. Merrily A. Friedlander, (202) 307-2222, (202) 307-2678 (TDD) INTERAGENCY DISABILITY COORDINATING COUNCIL Section 507 Interagency Disability Coordinating Council Section 507 of the 1992 amendments to the Rehabilitation Act renamed the Interagency Coordinating Council as the Interagency Disability Coordinating Council (IDCC) and added the Secretaries of Housing and Urban Development and Transportation as members. The scope of the IDCC now includes coordinating the implementation of the Americans with Disabilities Act under the broad mandate to monitor and coordinate all efforts of Federal agencies concerning the rights of individuals with disabilities. The Council was originally established by the 1978 amendments to coordinate and facilitate the effective Federal implementation of Title V of the Act. Membership currently includes: the Departments of Justice, Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, Housing and Urban Development, Transportation, and Interior; the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board; the Office of Personnel Management; and, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The National Council on Disability also is to provide advice and recommendations to the IDCC. The Council is chaired by the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights. On November 1, 1993, the Attorney General sent letters to the heads of the Federal agencies designated as members of the IDCC, formally notifying them of the new establishment, asking each to designate a representative, and delegating the position of Chairperson to the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights. Contact person: Ms. Merrily A. Friedlander, (202) 307-2222, (202) 307-2678 (TDD) GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION Section 508 Electronic and Information Technology Accessibility Guidelines OVERVIEW AND PURPOSE Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, (Act) requires that the Secretary of the Department of Education, through the Director of the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research and the Administrator of the General Services Administration (GSA), develop and establish Federal procurement guidelines that would ensure accessibility to electronic office equipment by individuals with disabilities. The language of Section 508, revised in the 1992 Amendments to the Act, changes the focus of accessibility to the access and use of the information rather than to the equipment used to create and obtain information. Because of its long-standing experience in and authority over much of the procurement activity within the Federal government, the General Services Administration has taken the initiative in implementing this section of the Act. GSA's Office of Federal Information Resources Management (OFIRM) has policy and oversight authority for the acquisition, management and use of most computer and telecommunications equipment and services in Federal agencies. OFIRM's accessibility activities primarily focus on four areas: 1) Issuing regulations and guidance on accessibility; 2) Monitoring the procurement of information resources by Federal agencies to ensure adherence to the regulations on accessibility; 3) Reviewing Federal agency information resource management program to ensure proper implementation of accessibility regulations; 4) Promoting awareness of Federal Information Resources Management (FIRM) regulations through training programs, conferences and forums throughout the government. Review under Delegation of Procurement Authority Since 1990, OFIRM has emphasized adherence to its accessibility regulations and guidelines in its Delegation of Procurement Authority (DPA) program. As part of its oversight responsibilities for the purchase of computers and telecommunications by Federal agencies, OFIRM delegates procurement authority to an agency when the agency's proposed procurement meets certain requirements. One of these requirements is adherence to the accessibility regulations. Over a previous two-year period, OFIRM conducted a review on whether Federal agencies are including information technology accessibility requirements for persons with disabilities in major Federal information processing (FIP) acquisitions. This year's review assessed Federal agency efforts to meet accessibility requirements in acquisitions under DPAs granted by GSA from July 1, 1992 through June 20, 1993. The study focused on Federal agencies inclusion of accessibility when developing requirements for Requests for Proposals (RFPs) as well as in later acquisition stages, and finally, inclusion of information accessibility in the corresponding contract awards. 12 DPAs were reviewed in which accessibility was directly relevant. Seven had adequately addressed accessibility requirements. The remaining five DPAs had applications under review or in process and were to address accessibility in their final solicitation documents. GSA continues to provide review of the procurement to ensure continued inclusion of accessibility requirements. Agencies have been advised of the availability of resources such as GSA's Clearinghouse on Computer Accommodation (COCA) for inclusion of accessibility requirements in their procurement. Reviewing Agency IRM Programs OFIRM also conducts comprehensive IRM reviews of major Federal agencies to ensure that their IRM programs are properly managed. One of the areas reviewed by GSA is the agency's implementation of the Federal Information Resource Management accessibility regulations. When necessary, OFIRM can restrict an agency's authority to conduct Federal information procurement by reducing its procurement authority. During FY 93, GSA conducted Information Resources Procurement and Management Reviews at nine Federal agencies: the Agency for International Development, the Department of the Air Force, the Department of Education, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the General Services Administration, the Department of Labor, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Tennessee Valley Authority, and the Department of Veterans Affairs. These reviews included an assessment of the agencies' compliance with GSA requirements regarding information technology accessibility for users with disabilities. GSA found that all of the agencies reviewed were aware of the need to improve information technology accessibility for people with disabilities. Most of the agencies reviewed were attempting to satisfy the identified need in some fashion. For example, most agencies had a way to acquire special equipment to meet the needs of employees with disabilities. However, some agencies had not established formal, agency wide programs, and depended on informal programs to assess and respond to the needs of individual employees. These agencies typically handle accessibility considerations on a case-by-case basis as specific needs are identified. Office of GSA Information Resources Management (OGIRM) The Office of GSA Information Resources Management provides leadership by demonstrating through its own business practices how to provide customers with disabilities with the most recent information technology advances. Increasingly, businesses and State governments are looking to the Federal government, and programs such as the Clearinghouse on Computer Accommodation (COCA), for examples of good practice. As a model for information policies and practices for serving customer with disabilities, COCA also supports a network of Federal employees with disabilities that provides early feedback on new service delivery technologies and practices. The Clearinghouse is also the executive agent for the Administrator's Council on Accessible Technology (COAT). The Council, comprised of senior executives from 30 agencies, was established in 1985 to promote the adoption of electronic information technologies and services that accommodate all users, including persons with disabilities. During FY 1993, the council, together with the clearinghouse and the network of Federal employees with disabilities, was able to expand capacity-building activities and share best practices needed to meet customer requirements. Highlights of these actions and accomplishments are cited below. Actions and Accomplishments o Provided information in response to demand for technology that is fully accessible and convenient. Piloted use of public information kiosks on technology options for customers with vision, hearing, or mobility limitations. Presentation of "best practices" through on-site demonstrations, articles and conferences. o Made early identification of customer requirements through direct phone, on-site consultations, and monthly interagency meetings with customer network. In FY 1993, direct communications were expanded through use of a bulletin board and Internet. o Supported educational outreach and customer services to government agencies, universities and businesses. In FY 1993, GSA piloted a university/government partnership by placing university students involved in computer studies in accessibility training positions at the Clearinghouse on Computer Accommodation. Sections from the clearinghouse handbook were adopted as training materials by the Electronic Industries Foundation to educate members about the Americans with Disabilities Act. In FY 1993, the clearinghouse conducted 222 agency demonstrations/consultations, gave 90 presentations, and responded to 2,600 phone requests for information and guidance on accessible technology in the workplace. 1993 GSA Accessibility Survey In FY 1993, GSA's Office of Federal Information Resources Management conducted a survey on what actions Federal agencies had taken to incorporate accessibility requirements into their information resource management (IRM) planning and procedural policy documents. GSA sent a letter to the Senior IRM official at each agency surveyed, requesting that the the agency forward to GSA a copy of the sections of their IRM strategic plan, and internal directives, policies, and procedures that address information technology accessibility. GSA also asked for information on how agency public access programs were being made accessible to citizens with disabilities. GSA selected six agencies from the top 26 agencies with the largest IRM budgets for a more detailed review of their IRM accessibility policies, procedures, and practices. The six agencies selected were the: Department of Agriculture, Department of Energy, Department of State, Department of Veterans Affairs, Environmental Protection Agency, and the Office of Personnel Management. Each of the 26 largest agencies and 22 of the smaller agencies responded to the survey. Within the group of the 26 largest agencies, 15 had incorporated accessibility requirements into their internal information resource management (IRM) operating procedures, policies, and/or directives. An additional two agencies had drafted policies incorporating accessibility. Within four of the agencies that did not have IRM policies addressing accessibility, there were requirements for information technology accessibility incorporated into non-IRM policies. Eight agencies had specifically incorporated accessibility into their five year strategic IRM plans. Three other agencies had included accessibility in draft versions of their strategic IRM plans. Integrating accessibility into the strategic plan is an indication that an agency considers accessibility to be a key mainstream component of its IRM program. For example, the Department of the Treasury in its 1994-1998 Executive Summary of Information Systems Plans states that "the Department's desire to provide reasonable accommodation extends beyond the requirements set down in the Rehabilitation Act Amendments. . ." Contact Person: Susan A. Brummel, (202) 501-4906 (voice) (202) 501-2010 (TDD) REHABILITATION SERVICES ADMINISTRATION Office of Program Operations Section 509 Protection and Advocacy of Individual Rights (PAIR) Federal Funds: $2,480,000 MISSION AND PURPOSE This program, which was a discretionary grant program in FY 1993, provides funds to State protection and advocacy systems (P&As) to protect the legal and human rights of individuals with disabilities. PAIR is intended to serve individuals with disabilities who need services beyond the scope of the Client Assistance Program (CAP) authorized under Section 112 of the Act, and who are ineligible for advocacy programs under Part C of the Developmental Asssistance and Bill of Rights Act (DDA) and the Protection and Advocacy for Individuals with Mental Illness (PAIMI) Act. Grant-making authority for this program falls into two categories. If the amount of the appropriation is less than $5.5 million, the Secretary may make competitive grant awards to eligible P&As within States (but not outlying areas). If the appropriation is equal to or exceeds $5.5 million, the Secretary must first set aside not less than 1.8 percent and not more than 2.2 percent of the amount appropriated for training and technical assistance to eligible systems under the program. The Secretary then distributes the remainder to the eligible systems within the States and outlying areas on a population basis after satisfying minimum allocations. The Act establishes a minimum allotment of $100,000 or 1/3 of 1 percent of the remainder, whichever is greater. ACTIVITIES AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS The first year of funding for these grants was FY 1991. That year, grants were made to 11 States for a period of up to 12 months. Eleven new projects were awarded in the FY 1992 competition on the basis of the statute in effect prior to the enactment of the Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1992. Twelve new awards, based on the 1992 Amendments, were made in FY 1993. The average grant was $96,300. Approximately 5,500 received PAIR information and referral or case services in FY 1993, up from 5,000 in FY 1992. Final regulations implementing the PAIR program were published on August 12, 1993. The final regulations implemented program changes in the 1992 Amendments, which broadened PAIR eligibility and established PAIR as a component of the P&A system authorized to carry out the same types of activities as those allowed under the DDA. PAIR program activities during FY 1993 included the following: o Using PAIR funding, the Texas P&A successfully completed Phase I of its Americans with Disabilities Litigation Campaign in the Fall of 1993. This campaign was intended to improve compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act's (ADA) accessibility and employment provisions by businesses and State and local government agencies in Texas. Phase I of the campaign, which began in June 1993, involved filing 53 lawsuits against retail stores, health care providers, theaters, restaurants, banks, and government agencies. A majority of the suits were setttled without litigation. o Through a similar initiative, the Arizona P&A used PAIR funds to familiarize State and local government agencies with ADA requirements. The project included a self-evaluation component, which will be reiviewed by the P&A to evaluate compliance with the Act and determine whether additional steps to obtain compliance, including negotiation or litigation, will be needed. o The Alabama P&A filed an ADA complaint with the U.S. Department of Justice alleging that the Alabama Department of Public Safety has engaged in discriminatory practices in violation of the ADA related to the issuance of drivers' licenses to people with disabilities. o The Arkansas P&A filed an ADA employment complaint with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on behalf of a woman with a learning disability who was subjected to disability-based harassment by her employer. The P&A negotiated a settlement with the employer requiring the employer to develop a plan to accommodate the woman. The EEOC accepted the settlement agreement. o The Massachusetts P&A filed a discrimination complaint with the State human rights commission on behalf of a man with HIV whose employer harassed him based on that disability. After trial, the commission awarded damages to the individual's estate and ordered the employer to provide sensitivity training to its supervisory personnel on dealing with HIV-infected individuals. o The Oklahoma P&A initiated a project to ensure that persons with hearing impairments have timely appointments of qualified sign language interpreters in court proceedings. As a result of the project, the Administrator for the Oklahoma Supreme Court issued a directive to all State judges requiring that they appoint interpreters. Contact Person: Parma Yarkin, (313) 930-6809 REHABILITATION SERVICES ADMINISTRATION Office of Developmental Programs Section 621 Projects With Industry (PWI) Federal Funds $21,571,000 MISSION AND PURPOSE The purpose of the PWI program is to create and expand job and career opportunities for individuals with disabilities in the competitive labor market by engaging the talent and leadership of private industry as partners in the rehabilitation process, to identify competitive job and career opportunities and the skills needed to perform such jobs, to create practical job and career readiness and training programs, and to provide job placements and career advancement. In order to support the purpose of the program, all PWI projects are required to have a Business Advisory Council comprised of representatives of private industry, organized labor and individuals with disabilities and their representatives, as appropriate. ACTIVITIES AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS In FY 1993, 119 continuation and 8 new projects were funded. Two projects did not request continuation funding based upon operational difficulties. Activities and accomplishments under the program include: RSA held the yearly Project Directors' National Forum in November of 1993 and addressed such issues as fiscal accountability, appropriate case record documentation, relationship-building between PWI projects and State vocational rehabilitation agencies, developing linkages with the Hispanic community for improved services to that population, as well as addressing significant developmental issues identified through RSA's monitoring activities. The 8 new awards were made to the Employers Association of Minnesota, the National Association of Rehabilitation Facilities in Washington, DC, Integrated Resources Institute of Irvine, California, Joseph Bulova School of Woodside, New York, the National Council on Aging in Washington, DC, Goodwill Industries of America in Bethesda, Maryland and Sears Roebuck & Company in Boise, Idaho. Overall Program Outcomes Program Performance Data for FY 1990-1993. FY 1990 FY 1991 FY 1992 FY 1993 Persons Served 24,190 23,915 17,791 18,267 Program Performance Data (continued) FY 1990 FY 1991 FY 1992 FY 1993 Persons Served who are severely 16,862 17,219 13,105 14,153 disabled (70%) (72%) (74%) (77%) Persons Served who were unemployed 6 mos. 16,364 15,656 12,472 12,989 (68%) (65%) (70%) (71%) Persons Placed 15,359 13,577 9,994 11,486 (63%) (57%) (56%) (63%) Cost/placement $1,123 $1,381 $2,038 $1,726 Persons Placed who are severely 10,641 9,612 7,335 8,821 disabled (63%) (56%) (56%) (62%) Persons placed who were unemployed 6 mos. 10,066 8,957 9,874 7,962 (62%) (57%) (79%) (62%) Program Accountability The evaluation of program effectiveness continued in FY 1993 through on-site monitoring reviews and analysis of the reported compliance indicator data. After one year, a project is required to report indicator data measuring nine critical performance areas. The maximum possible score is 150; a grantee must receive a minimum score of at least 70 points to meet the evaluation standards and qualify for continuation funding for the third or any subsequent year of a grant. In FY 1993, 118 grantees were required to submit indicator data. The data show the average cost per placement across the program decreased from $2,048 to $1,726; 18,267 persons were served and 11,486 placed, an increase from the FY 1992 data with totals of 17,791 and 9,994, respectively. There was also an increase in program accomplishments in terms of increased successes regarding individuals with severe disabilities. Of this population, in FY 1993, the total number of individuals served was 14,153 with 8,821 placed in competitive employment while in FY 1992, the total was 13,105 served and 7,334 placed. However, the data for persons placed who were unemployed 6 months decreased from 9,874 in FY 1992 to 7,962 in FY 1993. Performance Indicators Patterns in project performance indicate that during FY 1993, the majority (97 percent) of projects successfully met their performance objectives and attained the minimum composite score of 70 points. Consistent with the FY 1992 results, grantees scored particularly high on five performance indicators including change in earnings, percent of persons with severe disabilities served and placed, and percent of persons unemployed served and placed. Two of the projects achieved fewer than 70 points. One project's failure to meet the minimum score was discovered through an on-site monitoring visit. As noted above, two other projects did not request continuation funding and therefore did not submit compliance indicator data. In accordance with program regulations, the low scoring projects were provided the opportunity to demonstrate improvement in their performance by submitting data for the first six months of FY 1994. Both projects succeeded in achieving a passing score. On-Site Compliance Reviews In FY 93, as required by the Rehabilitation Act, as amended, RSA selected 15% of the PWI projects for on-site compliance reviews using a stratified random selection process. Sites were visited representing all of the ten RSA regions. These projects were: Projects With Industry, Inc., Providence, Rhode Island; Aging In America, New York, New York; Vocational Rehabilitation Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Electronic Industry Foundation, Washington, DC; United Cerebral Palsy Association, Washington, DC; The Development Team, Inc., Baltimore, Maryland; J. Clifford MacDonald Project With Industry (also known as Hillsborough County PWI), Tampa, Florida; Jackson Community Workshop Project With Industry, Murphysboro, Illinois; Stout Vocational Rehabilitation Institute Project With Industry Program, Menomonie, Wisconsin; Career Services, Albuquerque, New Mexico; Advent Enterprises, Columbia, Missouri; Salt Lake Community College Skills Center, Salt Lake City, Utah; Southern California Projects With Industry, Downey, California; Southwest Business, Industry and Rehabilitation Association, Scottsdale, Arizona; and the University of Washington, Neurological Surgery Department, Seattle, Washington. Findings and Conclusions from the Site Visits Specific strengths and weaknesses of the PWI program were identified through these on-site compliance reviews. The general strengths of the PWI program included: many projects demonstrated strong participation by Business Advisory Councils; projects were found to have extensive marketing and placement efforts to secure competitive employment opportunities for individuals with disabilities; many projects collaborate exceptionally well with business; relationships with State vocational rehabilitation agencies were often strong; and client satisfaction is high. The major problem areas identified in FY 1993 requiring ongoing technical assistance included: the lack of documentation of the required 20 percent match; weak case record organization and case services documentation; at times, weak collaboration with State vocational rehabilitation agencies in determining program participant eligibility; and weak development of business advisory councils (although as identified above, many projects were strong in this area). Selected profiles of various projects are provided below: VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION CENTER PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA The Vocational Rehabilitation Center (VRC) is a non profit United Way Agency founded in 1927. VRC provides a range of services including vocational counseling, psychological evaluation and counseling, work evaluation, work adjustment, job coaching, skills training, job placement, and transitional and sheltered employment. The organization is CARF accredited in seven program areas. VRC has a fourteen year history of participation in RSA-funded PWI programs. The current project provides placement as its core service that includes components of job readiness training, job development and technical assistance after placement. CAREER SERVICES ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO The mission of Career Services PWI is to assist Albuquerque Public School students with disabilities to transition from public school to adult life. This transition involves a collaborative effort between Career Services, the public school system and the University of New Mexico Special Education Department. In accomplishing the mission of the PWI program, project activities have focused on planning, developing, implementing, and evaluating a comprehensive system for the school-to-work transition of students within the greater Albuquerque metropolitan area. UNITED CEREBRAL PALSY ASSOCIATION WASHINGTON, DC The United Cerebral Palsy Association (UCPA) is a national organization that includes 175 affiliates, 43 of which were identified in the original application as participating affiliates of the UCPA/PWI located in twenty States. The major programmatic components of the project include a network of small businesses (generally defined as fewer than 500 employees), represented by 100 trade associations, that are accessed through the Small Business Research and Education Council, a principal collaborator in the project. UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON NEUROLOGICAL SURGERY DEPARTMENT SEATTLE, WASHINGTON The Neurological Rehabilitation Project With Industry is housed within the University of Washington, Department of Neurological Surgery. The Project With Industry is a part of the Regional Epilepsy Center, also housed with the Department of Neurological Surgery. The purpose of this grant is to provide comprehensive placement and training services for severely neurologically disabled individuals in the Western University of Washington Vocational Rehabilitation Services, the Marriott Corporation, and other major area employers. Contact person: Fred C. Isbister (202) 205-9297 REHABILITATION SERVICES ADMINISTRATION Office of Program Operations Sections 631-638 The State Supported Employment Services Program Federal Funds $32,059,000 In FY 1993 States received approximately $32.0 million in Federal funds under the State Supported Employment Service Program. See Appendix B, pages B-5 and B-6. This formula grant program (Title VI, Part C) assists States to develop collaborative supported employment (SE) programs with appropriate public and private nonprofit organizations. The program is intended to enable State VR agencies to provide individuals with the most severe disabilities time-limited services that lead to SE. The State VR agency is responsible for the administration of the program and for establishing cooperative agreements or letters of understanding with private sources or other public agencies in which the commitment for extended services for long-term job support is secured. Funds for the program are distributed on the basis of population, with no State receiving less than $300,000, or one- third of one percent of the sums appropriated for the fiscal year for which the allotment is made, whichever is greater. Historically, SE developed as an alternative service delivery model to traditional rehabilitation programs that had difficulty assisting individuals with severe disabilities achieve mainstream, integrated employment. The 1992 Amendments to the Rehabilitation Act specified that individuals served under this program must be those with the most severe disabilities. SE has demonstrated that these individuals can engage in real work for competitive pay as part of America's work force. Final Regulations for the State Supported Employment Services Program, which anticipated the changes in the Act made by the 1992 Amendments, became effective on August 13, 1992. These regulations received strong support from SE constituents because they made the program more responsive to the needs of individuals with the most severe disabilities. Major changes were: in order to receive services, an individual must have a most severe disability; the 20-hour work requirement was deleted; individuals are now allowed to receive more than 18 months of time-limited VR/SE services if justification is documented in the Individualized Written Rehabilitation Program (IWRP); discrete post-employment services may now be provided to individuals in SE; individuals in SE must receive, at a minimum, twice per month monitoring at the work site unless off site monitoring is specified and justified in the IWRP; and individuals who receive off site monitoring are required to have face-to-face meetings with SE providers at least twice per month and an employer contact once per month to ensure job stability continues. The Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA) has two sources of data for the Title VI, Part C, State Supported Employment Services Program. They are (a) the RSA-911 Individual Case Service Report which provides many personal and program-related characteristics of persons whose cases are closed each year and (b) Form RSA-636, the Annual Supported Employment Caseload Report, which provides information on numbers served, numbers closed, outcome of the cases, and numbers of cases remaining active at the end of the fiscal year (FY). Both data systems collect data on all individuals who have had a goal of supported employment regardless of the funding source for the services provided. This information can be extracted for those individuals whose services were, at least in part, paid for with Title VI-C funding. For reporting purposes, the expenditure of any amount of VI-C funds qualifies the individual to be counted as a VI-C case. Both data systems also report cases in which all criteria for closure as a successful SE rehabilitation are met and those for which some of the criteria are not met. Neither data system collects data on which criteria are not met. The criteria for closure of an individual as a successful SE rehabilitation are that the individual is appropriately identified as a supported employment client, that the individual has been placed into the competitive labor market, in a integrated work setting, and is in receipt of ongoing support services at closure. RSA-636 data is available for FYs 1992 and 1993; RSA-911 data is available for FY 1992. Both of these data systems will assist in evaluating the effectiveness of the program, improve planning, monitoring, and technical assistance, and provide a basis for consideration of future policy making. RSA-636 data shows that 25,869 individuals were served with Title VI-C funding in FY 1993, an increase of 2,858 (12.4 percent) over the number of individuals served in FY 1992. A total of 10,805 of these individuals' cases were closed in FY 1993 compared to 9,636 in FY 1992 (a gain of 12.1 percent). There were 15,064 individuals whose cases were still active at the end of FY 1993 compared to 13,375 at the end of FY 1992 (12.6 percent more). Of the 10,805 cases closed in FY 1993, 6,310 met all the SE rehabilitation criteria (58.4 percent). Of the 9,636 cases closed in FY 1992, 5,726 met all the criteria (59.4 perceent). The number of closures that met some of the criteria was 937 in FY 1993 (8.7 percent) and 816 in FY 1992 (8.5 percent). The remainder of the individuals whose cases were closed in FY 1993 were rehabilitated into non-competitive employment (4.9 percent) or were not rehabilitated (28 percent). The FY 1992 data from the RSA-911 system show the following personal and program-related characteristics of rehabilitated persons meeting all of the SE criteria who were served with VI-C funds; the mean age at application was 29.7 and the mean age at closure was 31.3 reflecting the 18-month limitation on services effective from 1986 through 1991. Males accounted for 60.4 percent of these persons; by race, whites were 79.9 percent of the total compared to 17.0 percent for blacks; well over 80 percent had never married; and the chief major disabling conditions were mental illness (21.4 percent) and mental retardation (61.9 percent). The major occupational category in which SE clients were employed at closure was the services industry (55.8 percent). Employment in this industry consisted chiefly of food and beverage preparation and building services positions (25.2 percent and 19.6 percent of the total individuals rehabilitated, respectively); 23.3 percent in industrial occupations; and 9.3 percent in clerical or related jobs. The mean weekly earnings for VI-C clients closed as meeting all the successful rehabilitation criteria was $121; the mean weekly hours worked was 27; and the mean hourly rate was $4.45. Contact Person: Barbara Sweeney, (202) 205-9544 REHABILITATION SERVICES ADMINISTRATION Office of Program Operations Sections 711-714 State Independent Living Services (SILS) Program, Chapter 1, part B of Title VII of the Act Federal Funds $15,376,000 The purpose of Chapter 1 of Title VII is to promote a philosophy of independent living (IL), including a philosophy of consumer control, peer support, self-help, self-determination, equal access, and individual and system advocacy, in order to maximize the leadership, empowerment, independence, and productivity of individuals with disabilities, and integrate individuals with disabilities into the mainstream of American society. In FY 1993 States received $15.2 million in Federal funds under the State Independent Living Services Program. See Appendix B, pages B-7 and B-8. In FY 1993, the Comprehensive Services for Independent Living program in Part A of Title VII of the Act was replaced by the State Independent Living Services program in the new Part B of Title VII of the Act by the Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1992. The State Independent Living Services program authorized formula grants to designated State units (DSUs). Activities are conducted either by the DSUs or through subgrants or contracts. Under Title VII, Chapter 1, part B of the Act, the State Independent Living Services program, funds may be used: (1) to support the Statewide Independent Living Council; (2) to provide independent living services to individuals with significant disabilities; (3) to demonstrate ways to expand and improve independent living services; (4) to support the operation of centers for independent living that are in compliance with the standards and assurances set forth in subsections (b) and (c) of section 725; (5) to support activities to increase the capacities of public or nonprofit agencies and organizations and other entities to develop comprehensive approaches or systems for providing independent living services; (6) to conduct studies and analyses; gather information; develop model policies and procedures; and present information, approaches, strategies, findings, conclusions, and recommendations to Federal, State, and local policy makers in order to enhance independent living services for individuals with significant disabilities; (7) to train individuals with significant disabilities, and individuals providing services to individuals with significant disabilities, and other persons regarding the independent living philosophy; and (8) to provide outreach to populations that are unserved or underserved by programs under this title, including minority groups and urban and rural populations. Projects under this program operate under a State Plan for Independent Living (SPIL) that is jointly developed and signed by the director of the designated State unit and the Chairperson of the Statewide Independent Living Council (SILC) acting on behalf of and at the direction of the SILC. The SILC is an independent entity whose members are appointed by the governor. Seventy-nine (79) State DSUs participated in the State Independent Living Services (SILS) program in FY 1993. State DSUs reported FY 1993 program data on the revised Form ED-RSA-7A. A statistical summary of this data in the form of tables and charts is presented in Appendix I. Narrative reports from State DSUs indicate that most States used the SILS program in conjunction with services provided through the community-based centers for independent living (CILs) to providing a comprehensive network of services. Data are available from 70 of the 79 DSUs participating in this program. For FY 93, there are 11,614 new applicants, an increase of 5.4 percent from FY 92; total individuals served in FY 1993 are 19,681, a 14 percent increase from the 17,327 served in FY 1992. Some accomplishments of the SILS program, in addition to the traditional direct client services, include: o Support of statewide Independent Living Councils. These councils have changed from being advisory in nature to being equal with the DSU(s) in the development and signing of SPILs. They also have responsibility for monitoring, reviewing, and evaluating the implementation of the SPIL; coordinating activities with the State Rehabilitation Advisory Council and councils that address the needs of specific disability populations and issues under other Federal law; ensuring that all regularly scheduled meetings of the Council are open to the public and sufficient advance notice is provided; and submitting periodic reports to the Commissioner. o Hearings conducted by the SILC, the DSUs and jointly by SILCs and DSUs to identify statewide independent living needs and plan for future SPILs. o Interagency activities that identify and coordinate services for individuals with significant disabilities within States. o Planning programs to address the needs of children and youth with the transition from school to independent living. Youth services have been established in many States. This program has been successful in attracting funds from other sources to support its goals. Reported data indicate that State and local support totalled $17,748,695; private funds totalled $218,794; other federal grants totalled $2,494,953; and projects earning program income of $715,017. Contact Person: John Nelson, (202) 205-9362 REHABILITATION SERVICES ADMINISTRATION Office of Developmental Programs Sections 721-727 Centers for Independent Living (CIL) program, Chapter 1, part C, of Title VII of the Act Federal Funds $31,446,000 MISSION AND PURPOSE The purpose of Chapter 1 of Title VII is to promote a philosophy of independent living (IL), including a philosophy of consumer control, peer support, self-help, self-determination, equal access, and individual and system advocacy, in order to maximize the leadership, empowerment, independence, and productivity of individuals with significant disabilities, and the integration and full inclusion of individuals with significant disabilities into the mainstream of American society. Chapter 1, part C provides financial assistance to develop and support statewide networks of centers for independent living. Centers provide independent living services designed to meet the current and future needs of individuals with significant disabilities whose ability to function independently in the family or community or whose ability to obtain, maintain, or advance in employment is substantially limited and for whom the delivery of independent living services will improve their ability to function independently in the family or community or to continue in employment. The CIL program is an important part of the National Education Goals. This program supports National Education Goal 5 of the Goals 2000: Educate America Act: Every adult American will be literate and will possess the knowledge and skills necessary to compete in a global economy and exercise the rights and responsibilities of citizenship. ACTIVITIES AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS Centers for Independent Living In FY 1993, all continuation applications were carefully reviewed for consistency with the Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1992 and 1993 (Amendments). The Amendments required centers to be consumer-controlled, cross-disability, private non-profit agencies that provided the core IL services and a combination of other IL services, as appropriate, to individuals with significant disabilities. The nonresidential requirement was delayed until October 1, 1994, to provide affected centers the time necessary to divest ownership of residential facilities. The Amendments also permitted centers that had received funds directly and indirectly to submit continuation applications for direct funding from RSA. The changes in funding requirements caused a substantial change in the continuation grantee pattern funded by RSA. In FY 1992, 94 of the 144 grants were made to State vocational rehabilitation (VR) agencies and there was only a total of 44 centers directly funded. In FY 1993, there was a total of 153 centers funded directly by RSA. One VR agency, American Samoa, was funded under section 724 of the Act, which permits funding of State VR agency-operated centers if no private non-profit agency submits an application and the State VR agency is currently operating a "center". In FY 1993, 22 new centers were funded, making a total of 175 private non-profit centers and one State VR agency center. Data received from the centers funded by RSA in fiscal year 1993 indicate that approximately 60,000 individuals received direct services, beyond information and referral (I & R) services, through centers. More than 23,000 new consumers received services from centers. For various reasons, about 6,300 individuals left the program, resulting in a net increase of 38.6 percent in active cases at the end of the year. Consumers served were about equally divided between males and females. Seventy-one point four percent were Caucasian, 16.4 percent African American, 10.2 percent Hispanic, 1.3 percent Native Americans, and the remainder (.7) Asian or Pacific Islanders. The core services each center makes available are: information and referral services, independent living skills training, peer counseling (including cross-disability peer counseling), and individual and systems advocacy. In addition, each center is required to make available, as appropriate, a combination of any other independent living services, which may include but are not limited to: counseling; access directories; services related to securing housing or shelter; rehabilitation technology; mobility training; services and training for individuals with cognitive and sensory disabilities; personal assistance services; education and training for community living; supported living; physical rehabilitation; therapeutic treatment; provision of needed prostheses; individual and group social and recreational services; services for children; and any other services as may be necessary and not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act. The FY 1993 data show that approximately 555,000 hours were expended during the year in providing community services, which include information and referral, outreach to unserved and underserved populations, publications, accessibility, community education, and maintaining registries. Numerous individual services were provided. Although information and referral (I & R) was the most frequently provided individual service (87,824 individuals received I & R services), other services were also extensively utilized. For instance, independent living skills training was provided to over 20,000 individuals; peer counseling, 24,000; children and youth services, 22,559; transportation, 16,000; personal assistance services, 13,122; housing services, 11,189; communication services, 20,355; and self and individual advocacy, 20,429. Technical Assistance, Training, and Transition Assistance Part C of Title VII of the Act authorizes an entity to provide technical assistance, training and transition assistance to centers and SILCs; program funding allocation formulas for States; transition-year procedures; methods for grants administration of the CIL program for both Federal and State governments, depending on which has responsibility for program administration; procedures for the State operation of centers; standards and assurances for centers; and a definition of an eligible agency for part C funds. A competition for one award was conducted. The competition funded a combined application from the Independent Living Research Utilization Program (ILRU) of The Institute for Rehabilitation and Research and the National Council on Independent Living (NCIL). By mutual agreement, the start date of the project was delayed until January 1, 1994; therefore, no data are available to report at this time. The ILRU and NCIL application offered broad technical expertise and a substantial network of local consumer-controlled centers as training and technical assistance resources. Mandatory On-Site Visits All monitoring was conducted under the Act and regulations in effect prior to the Amendments. Section 711(f)(3) of the Act, as it was prior to the Amendments, required RSA subsequent to 1991 to annually conduct on-site compliance reviews of at least 15 percent of the grantees receiving funding. The purposes of the site visits included: o assessing compliance with the reporting requirements of section 711(c)(3) of the Act, as in effect prior to the Amendments; o studying the program operation, organizational structure, and administration of the grantees and centers; o verifying that the grantees and centers are managed in accordance with Federal requirements contained in the Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) and 34 CFR Part 366; o assessing the projects, compliance with the goals, objectives, outcomes, activities, and conditions of the approved application; o identifying areas needing improvements; and o identifying areas requiring technical assistance to make necessary improvements. In FY 1993, site visits were conducted at the following centers for independent living: The Center for Independent Living of Central Pennsylvania, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania; Easter Seal Society of Del-Mar, Inc. CIL, New Castle, Delaware; Memphis Center for Independent Living, Memphis, Tennessee; Tri-State Advocacy Resources, Inc., Chattanooga, Tennessee; Mobile Independent Living Center, Mobile, Alabama; Center for Independent Living, Grand Island, Nebraska; Disabled Citizens Alliance for Independence, Inc., Viburnum, Missouri; Access for Idaho, Pocatello, Idaho; Living Independence Network Corporation, Boise, Idaho; Disability Resource Center Independent Living Center, Las Cruces, New Mexico; California Department of Rehabilitation (CDR) and Modesto Independent Living Center, Modesto, California; Ocean State Center for Independent Living, Warwick, Rhode Island; Atlantis Community, Inc., Denver, Colorado; Center for Independence, Grand Junction, Colorado; The Utah Independent Living Center, Inc., Salt Lake City, Utah. Overview of Selected Centers Visited The Center for Independent Living of Central Pennsylvania (CILCPA) Camp Hill, Pennsylvania The cities of Camp Hill and Harrisburg are located in the CILCPA's catchment area. The remainder of the service area is primarily suburban and rural in nature. There is public transportation in the cities and suburban areas surrounding those cities but in the rural areas there is no scheduled public transportation. The CILCPA has a transportation committee that addresses the transportation needs of individuals with disabilities in the service area. The center serves Cumberland, Dauphin, Perry, Lebanon, Juaniata and Mifflin counties. Beyond core services, the CILCPA provides: service coordination, housing and shelter assistance, interpreter referral, personal assistance services and training, benefits counseling, referral and assistance for transportation, community awareness recreational and social activities. Easter Seal Society of Del-Mar, Inc. (ESSD-M) Center for Independent Living New Castle, Delaware The ESSD-M center was established in 1980. The ESSD-M/center was not consumer-controlled at the time of the on-site visit because it was an operating component of the ESSD-M, but that situation was corrected by September 30, 1993, when the Center was incorporated as an entity completely independent from the ESSD-M. Beyond core services the ESSD-M/center provides: rehabilitation technology, speech therapy, physical therapy, occupational therapy, interpreter service and referral, personal assistance services and training, specialized transportation services, community awareness programs associated with the ADA, recreational, and social activities. Memphis Center for Independent Living Memphis, Tennessee The Memphis center was the sole contractor of the Tennessee Division of Rehabilitation Services until September 30, 1993. Core services offered by the center are information and referral services, independent living skills training, peer counseling and individual and systems advocacy. While the center was found to be in compliance during the review, it had significant deficits in both program and fiscal management. Center staff categorized consumers by "level" of severity: severe, moderate, or mild. The "labeling" was arbitrarily assigned by individual staff. The center provided no clearly defined services and after considerable review of materials and interviews of staff and board, the reviewers concluded that the center provided information and referral and conducted support group meetings. The center has had a history of board problems. Despite all of the operational difficulties, the center does have a grassroots base with a strong commitment to the philosophy of independent living. RSA provided extensive recommendations to the center and provided resources to assist the center in strengthening its overall operations. Under a corrective action plan, the center is in the process of implementing these recommendations. Tri-State Advocacy Resources, Inc. Chattanooga, Tennessee The on-site review surfaced significant deficits in program and fiscal accountability. In accordance with EDGAR 34 CFR Section 74.7, "Special Grant Conditions," RSA designated Tri-State a high- risk grantee. Excessive staff turnover and long-standing vacancies had a negative impact on the stability of the center and its programming. The governing board had not been fulfilling its responsibilities. Currently the center is operating under a corrective action plan developed in conjunction with the RSA Regional Office. The corrective action plan addresses deficit areas identified in the review with specific time frames for action. Mobile Independent Living Center Mobile, Alabama At the time of the review, the Mobile ILC was a contractor of the Alabama Division of Rehabilitation Services. The review provided an opportunity to assist the center in its transition period as it was making preparations to become an RSA directly funded grantee. The center provided core services to a diverse population of individuals with significant disabilities in the Mobile area. The center was in the process of making changes in policy in accordance with the Amendments. The center did not have a governing board composed of a majority of individuals with severe disabilities and was therefore found to be out of compliance with this requirement in Title VII of the Act. The center was required to submit a corrective action plan to bring the program into compliance. Compliance was achieved prior to September 30, 1993. Center for Independent Living Grand Island, Nebraska The center is located in the south central part of Nebraska in a town with a population of approximately 39,000. The center provides a full range of core services to consumers. An exemplary activity performed by the center is the operation of their Assistive Technology Resource Center which provides consumers access to a database of over 18,000 commercial products specifically designed for persons with disabilities. Through this database, information on vendors, evaluation of their products, and training on the use of the products are made available to consumers. Maintenance and repair services are also provided. Disabled Citizens Alliance for Independence, Inc. Viburnum, Missouri This center serves Viburnum and a rural area of several thousand square miles. Of the eleven staff employed by the center, seven are persons with disabilities. The center has developed a volunteer network to build ramps to improve home accessibility. Mill owners are encouraged to donate lumber and materials, and center volunteers build the ramps to specifications identified by ADA. The center has found that the total retail cost of a 14-foot ramp averages $411; with the donated material the center can offer the same ramp for approximately $120.00. Disability Resource Center Independent Living Center Las Cruces, New Mexico The records and activities of the center for FY 1992 were the primary focus of the review, but current program and fiscal operations were also examined. A short time prior to the review the center director and two key staff had resigned. The board of directors had just realized that they were not providing enough oversight over the operation of the center and submitted a report to the center with specific recommendations. A corrective action plan was developed with RSA following the review, and as of March 1994, most of the compliance issues had been resolved. A new director was hired, the board of directors began to exercise their oversight responsibilities, and the program was moved to a more accessible location. California Department of Rehabilitation (CDR) and Modesto Independent Living Center Modesto, California A review was conducted of the California Department of Rehabilitation's (CDR) Independent Living Center grant and one of its contract centers, the Modesto Independent Living Center. In regard to the programmatic aspects of the CDR review, there were no major issues or problems. Findings typically dealt with the need for relatively minor clarification/refinement of polices and procedures, e.g., ensuring that a vita is submitted for proposed staffing changes, the need to adopt formally the revised standards for ensuring confidentiality. In the fiscal/financial management area, the results were similar. There was a need to become more familiar with some of the EDGAR requirements regarding certain allowable costs, when to request approval in advance, and when to issue funds to centers via contracts instead of grants. For the center review there were no major programmatic issues or problems. The findings and recommendations generally dealt with relatively minor matters, e.g., identifying the referral source on the intake form, slight clarification of policies and procedures regarding confidentiality. The most significant finding was the absence of an affirmative action plan. Relative to fiscal/financial management areas, there were no major issues or problems. Findings dealt with such matters as improving efficiency by maintaining files by category rather than vendors, and more complete justification for travel expenses. Atlantis Community Inc. Denver, Colorado The review revealed an extraordinary center that is in compliance with the spirit and letter of the Act. In the more than fifteen years since it was founded, this center has been able to assist over 400 adults with disabilities move from sheltered settings and maintain independent lives. The Atlantis Community staff specializes in assistance for people with very severe, multiple disabilities, to carry out their belief that any person with a disability can live outside an institution if she or he is willing to accept the risks and inconveniences in order to enjoy self-determination and liberty. To that end, the staff and consumers are experts in helping with everything from finding an accessible, affordable apartment to applying for benefits, from grocery shopping to weddings, and from cooking to camping trips. The assistance with daily living activities and the basic skills training and reinforcement offered are complemented by the trained and state-certified staff of home health aides and their supervisors who visit the consumers at home as often as needed - usually several times a day. In its many years of operation, Atlantis has developed a sound service base and outstanding reputation. Center for Independence Grand Junction, Colorado The Center for Independence began as the Helen Campbell Center for the Blind in 1982 and evolved into the Center for Independence which serves individuals with all significant disabilities. It employs five full-time and five part-time staff. The center serves a thirteen-county area and assists approximately 1,200 consumers annually. In addition to core services, the center provides outreach services, assessment, case management including the development of individualized independent living plans, assistance with housing and transportation, peer counseling and support groups, classes in braille, sign language, pre-vocational training, job development, placement and follow-up, counseling and support groups; social and recreational activities; consultation for accessibility; and technical assistance to individuals and the community. The Utah Independent Living Center, Inc. Salt Lake City, Utah The Utah Independent Living Center (UILC) was established in 1981 when it received its first Title VII grant. The board of directors of the center is a strong policy-setting body. It is composed of a majority (75 percent) of people with severe disabilities. UILC provides services that include information, referral, counseling, training, education, advocacy, IL skills and services that increased functional independence in major life areas such as social, family, community, leisure, and vocational. Each on-site review team was comprised of Regional RSA program and fiscal staff, in addition to at least one non-federal reviewer. In instances where RSA was reviewing a center for independent living that was supported by a grant to a State agency, a representative of the State agency was also a member of the review team. RSA headquarters Independent Living Branch staff participated in five of the 17 reviews. Review instruments for State grantees and center grantees/subcontractors were developed by RSA staff. These instruments were used to guide the reviews and subsequent reports. Contact Person: John Nelson, (202) 205-9362 REHABILITATION SERVICES ADMINISTRATION Office of Developmental Programs Sections 751-753 Independent Living Services For Older Individuals Who Are Blind, Chapter 2 of Title VII Federal Funds $6,944,000 MISSION AND PURPOSE Section 752 of the Act, as amended, authorizes discretionary grants to State VR agencies for projects that provide independent living services for persons who have severe visual impairments and who are aged 55 and older. Each designated State unit that is authorized to provide rehabilitation services to blind individuals may either directly provide independent living services or it may make subgrants to other public agencies or private non-profit organizations to provide these services. ACTIVITIES AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS In FY 1993, 31 continuation awards were made to State agencies. The average award was $209,000. Two new projects, averaging $190,000, were awarded one-year grants to begin in FY 1994. In FY 1993, approximately 12,000 individuals received one or more IL core services through funded projects. Approximately sixty percent of the clients served were age 76 or older and many had a secondary disability in addition to visual impairment. Services frequently provided by this program include orientation and mobility skills training, communication skills training, communication aids, daily living skills training, low vision services, peer and family counseling, and community integration. Approximately 100 volunteers were recruited and trained to help project staff provide these services. Funded projects provide a wide variety of service options and have a number of different focuses. Examples of activities conducted under these grants follow: EXAMPLES OF PROJECT ACTIVITIES o Some State projects have established liaisons with area aging agencies in order to integrate older individuals who are blind into existing community services and activities, such as transportation, home-delivered meals, housing, and senior center activities. o Staff of projects have assisted in setting up peer-support groups which are important in the development of an individual's self-esteem and adjustment to blindness. Some projects assist with transportation to meetings and provide leadership training to group leaders. o Mini-grants were sometimes provided to local agencies and organizations which serve senior citizens to improve their service capacity to include blind persons, and purchase items such as large print calendars and large numbered clocks. Such mini-grants helped to recognize and reward local agencies and organizations which demonstrated initiative in meeting the needs of senior citizens with visual impairments. o One of the States that subgrants to private agencies provides counseling and teaching services to Native American Indians in their homes. Through this project, a variety of aids and appliances for cooking and performing other household chores are demonstrated and made available to clients. One elderly blind woman received training that will enable her to continue rug weaving, quilting, and other hand work. o One grantee provided visual acuity and glaucoma screening to 1,953 individuals. Of that total, 84 persons were referred for follow-up professional eye examination and treatment, and 143 were referred to low vision clinics. Many of the 143 clients were provided special low vision aids that allowed them to read and perform other activities they had previously enjoyed. o Some projects address the needs of older individuals who are blind by providing specialized equipment on loan for those individuals to try out and use in their homes. Such adaptive equipment includes magnifiers for reading, telle-braille, blood glucose meters, and braillers. In some instances magnifiers for reading and large print Readers Digest magazines were placed in senior citizen centers. Contact Person: Raymond G. Melhoff, (202) 205-9320 REHABILITATION SERVICES ADMINISTRATION Office of Developmental Programs Section 802 Demonstration Activities Federal Funds $ 7,607,152 MISSION AND PURPOSE The purpose of the program is to provide financial assistance to States and other public and private agencies and organizations for implementing specific demonstration projects, as provided in Title VIII of the 1992 amendments to the Rehabilitation Act, to provide and improve vocational rehabilitation services to individuals with disabilities. This is accomplished through the support of projects, for 36 to 60 months, that will demonstrate new procedures, services and desirable employment outcomes. It is expected that successful project results will be replicated, in whole or in part, to resolve or alleviate rehabilitation problems that are nationally significant. Under Section 802(a), 14 Transportation Services Grants were awarded in FY 1993, using funds authorized for Title III Service and demonstration projects: Special demonstrations programs. These projects will provide transportation services in geographic areas that do not have fixed-route transportation or comparable paratransit services for individuals who are employed or seeking employment, or who are receiving vocational rehabilitation services. Transportation grants were provided to agencies in Charlottesville, VA; Pablo, MT; Fort Worth, TX; Port Tobacco, MD; Holland, MI; Dublin, GA; Lisbon, OH; Trenton, NJ; Annapolis, MD; Galveston, TX; Washington, PA; South Portland, ME; Denver, CO; and, Jackson, MS. Under Section 802(g), 7 Demonstration Projects to Increase Client Choice were awarded in FY 1993. The program is authorized to provide greater opportunities for individuals with disabilities to exercise choice in terms of their vocational goals, the services they wish to receive, and the providers of those services. In FY 1993, the Department funded a contract to monitor and assist the implementation of the seven choice demonstration projects, in accordance with the 802(g)(7) requirement that the Department conduct an evaluation of these projects. This contractor provided technical assistance to projects, established a uniform data reporting system, documented problems encountered during implementation, and assessed each project's progress. This contractor's work will serve as a foundation for an overall evaluation of the choice demonstration projects, which will determine the effectiveness of the choice approach in improving rehabilitation processes and outcomes. ACTIVITIES AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS Transportation Services Grants o Salish Kootenai College transportation project will empower individuals with disabilities to maximize their employment options, economic self-sufficiency, independence and inclusion and integration in society by providing transportation on the Flathead Indian Reservation and the metropolitan centers of Kalispell and Missoula, Montana. Prior to this grant, the only fixed-route transportation was the InterMountain Bus Line, and only very limited transportation services for senior citizens and Headstart participants. A minimum of 100 persons with disabilities will be provided transportation during the first year, and the transportation system will be continued after the conclusion of federal funding. o Middle Georgia Easter Seal Society will create a transportation system in a rural county that has no fixed- route or comparable paratransit services. The need for effective and reliable transportation services has been identified as the single greatest obstacle to employment, training and self-determination for individuals with disabilities who reside in this geographical area. The system will operate around the clock, seven days a week to meet the employment/training needs of the consumers. Extensive outreach activities will inform consumers, including those who are members of minority groups, of the services available. A transfer plan will be developed for those consumers who are capable of independent transportation. Approximately 178-188 unduplicated consumers will be provided with effective transportation during the three years of the grant. o City of Jackson Transportation Authority will provide effective, reliable paratransit services to meet the employment and rehabilitation-related needs of consumers and the employers who wish to hire them. Transportation services will be available 18 hours per day, seven days a week. There is a high level of community involvement, support and ownership in its successful outcome. Fiscal resources and alternative funding sources are being developed to ensure that the services will be continued after the conclusion of Federal support. Demonstration Projects To Increase Client Choice The following projects are representative of the seven Client Choice projects funded in FY 1993: o Southwest Business, Industry and Rehabilitation Association's "Client Choice Project" will provide increased client involvement and decision making in the rehabilitation process, including choice of vocational goals, services, and service providers. There are 643 eligible individuals with disabilities who are receiving self-directed rehabilitation services during the 5-year period of Federal support. It is expected that during this grant period, 80% of the consumers with a vocational plan will achieve successful employment outcomes. Outreach activities will identify potential project participants. The project has a goal to build a network of at least 50 rehabilitation service providers to address a comprehensive array of rehabilitation needs. o Arkansas Rehabilitation Services' "Commitment to Client Choice Project" will enhance opportunities for informed client choice and empowerment in the selection of vocational rehabilitation goals, objectives and service providers for 300 eligible individuals with disabilities who reside in the Mississippi River Counties in the Arkansas Delta. This population experiences a high incidence of poverty, unemployment and under-employment. The project will increase the participation in vocational services of persons with significant disabilities from traditionally underserved, culturally diverse populations. o Center for Independent Living in Berkeley, California, and Berkeley Planning Associates will serve individuals who traditionally have been underserved, including ethnic minorities and people with limited English-language skills who have significant disabilities. An intensive outreach program will locate eligible participants in the target populations. "Empowerment Workshops" will teach participants about their rights under the ADA and other laws, build self-esteem among participants, and provide information needed to make informed choices about rehabilitation and vocational options. All materials associated with the project will be made available in a variety of languages, and the project will serve 120 participants during the first year of operation. Contact Person: Pamela Martin, (202) 205-8494 REHABILITATION SERVICES ADMINISTRATION Office of Developmental Programs Section 803 Rehabilitation Training Federal Funds $1,880,111 Distance Learning through Telecommunications Grants in Distance learning through Telecommunications are authorized under Section 803(a) of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, to support awards to eligible institutions of higher education, to support the formation of regional partnerships with other public or private entities for the purpose of developing and implementing in-service training programs, including certificate or degree granting programs concerning vocational rehabilitation services and related services, for vocational rehabilitation professionals through the use of telecommunications. In FY 1993, three 36 month awards were made for a total of $861,000. The new projects are located at: o Utah State University o San Diego State University o University of Northern Colorado Contact Person: Beverly Brightly, Telephone (202) 205-9561 Braille Training Grants in Braille Training are authorized under Section 803(b) of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, to support awards to States and public or nonprofit agencies and organizations, including institutions of higher education, to pay all or part of the cost of training in the use of Braille for personnel providing vocational rehabilitation services or educational services to youth and adults who are blind. In FY 1993, four 12-month awards were made for a total of $450,111. The new projects are located at: o American Foundation for the Blind, New York, NY o Research and Development Institute, Sycamore, IL o San Francisco State University, CA o Texas Commission for the Blind, Austin, TX Contact Person: Robert Werner, (202) 205-8291 Parent Information and Training Grants in Parent Information and Training are authorized under Section 803(c) of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, to support awards to eligible private nonprofit organizations for the purpose of establishing programs to provide training and information to enable individuals with disabilities, and the parent, family members, guardians, advocates, or other authorized representatives of the individuals to participate more effectively with professionals in meeting the vocational and rehabilitation needs of individuals with disabilities. In FY 1993, six 36 month awards were made for a total of $569,000. The new projects are located at: o Oregon Cope Project, inc., Salem, OR o Advocacy Center for the Elderly and Disabled, New Orleans, LA o Family Resource Center on Disability, Chicago, IL o Utah Parent Center, Salt Lake City, UT o PACER Center, Inc., Minneapolis, MN o Washington PAVE, Tacoma, WA Contact Person: Beverly Brightly, (202) 205-9561 ---------- End of Document