Sorry this is so long.
It is important, though.
David Andrews
LEGISLATIVE ALERT
This is an updated version of a notice distributed last week
on the same subject. It concerns a bill--H. R. 1617--which is
now moving toward critical votes in the U. S. House of
Representatives. The bill would take the place of the existing
vocational rehabilitation services structure. State agencies
(including separate agencies for the blind) would, for all
practical purposes, be eliminated. This notice contains the
actual language of relevant portions of the bill and several
other documents related to it.
Many people who read this notice will be present, former, or
future clients of the vocational rehabilitation program. Just
imagine what it would be like if you were told to go down to the
"unemployment office" (or something like it) to ask for personal
adjustment training and other blindness-related services. What
kind of response do you think you would get from the caseworker
when an authorization for more than just a few thousand dollars
is requested to purchase training services and specialized
technology?
This would be the situation for blind people if H. R. 1617
is enacted in Congress. At that point, all specialized services
for the blind, along with all other forms of rehabilitation
service, would be available only through specified, local work
force development offices. It would be the responsibility of the
people in these offices to help anyone (disabled or not) who is
looking for work. The state vocational rehabilitation agency
might still exist in name, but it would not include a significant
service program.
Remember the individualized written rehabilitation program
(IWRP)? It contains the commitments made by the state agency to
provide service. If the new legislation passes, the IWRP would
not exist, at least with the content presently required. Perhaps
it would not exist at all.
This suggests that a serious challenge is immediately before
us. The legislation in question is designed to consolidate job
training, education, and employment service programs so that all
services must be sought at the local level through so-called
"one-stop" offices. The leading proponents are William Goodling
of Pennsylvania, in the House, and Nancy Kassebaum of Kansas, in
the Senate. The earliest version of this same bill in the Senate
was S. 143, but that bill will probably be replaced sometime soon
with a revised version and a different number.
Under either bill Title I of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973,
the basic state/federal program of vocational rehabilitation
services, would be absorbed completely into the generic job-
training, education, and employment service programs which serve
anyone (disabled or not) who is out of work and in need of help.
The House bill, known as the "CAREERS" Act, is expected to be
considered first, as early as May 17, in a subcommittee "markup"
session.
The text of H. R. 1617 is available in "ALERT2.TXT" or
"ALERT2.ZIP" from NFB NET and other on-line sources including
Library 7 (rights/legislation) of the Disabilities Forum, "go
disfor" on CompuServe. See the end of this section for
instructions. A fact sheet, describing the bill and its impact
upon the vocational rehabilitation program, appears before the
draft. Agencies and organizations in the blindness field have
issued a "joint statement" in opposition to inclusion of the
Rehabilitation Act in the consolidation measure. The text of
this statement is also presented below.
The rehabilitation program is certainly not perfect, but the
consolidation bills are not intended to improve it. If saving
money is the goal, that will most definitely not occur for
several reasons. Our only and best option under the
circumstances is to seek the removal of vocational rehabilitation
from the consolidation measures.
All members of the House and Senate should be advised that
legislation which would virtually annihilate specialized
rehabilitation services is bound to cost more money because of
lost jobs and lost opportunities. Lists of the relevant Senate
and House committees, followed by the appropriate subcommittee in
each case, are presented in the complete package, but are not
included with this message. Two other letters which could be
used for sample text are also presented.
FACT SHEET
JOB TRAINING PROGRAM CONSOLIDATION:
AT WHAT PRICE FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND
BACKGROUND: Legislation (including block grants) to consolidate
education, job training, and employment programs is being
considered by the 104th Congress. Under the block grants most
of the federal funds would go directly to states for required
redistribution to local work force development areas. Services
provided with the funds would come from one-stop offices which
would be responsible for meeting the education, training, and
employment needs of virtually anyone who is unemployed.
Blind persons and others with physical or mental
disabilities would apply to receive services, including
rehabilitation, adjustment training, and other disability-related
services, through the one-stop offices. If found eligible they
would receive assistance of an unspecified nature or extent.
Also, the legislation does not specify any particular planning or
authorization mechanism to be used in assuring service delivery
or quality in individual cases. In accessing services from the
one-stop offices, all applicants for service, regardless of
disability or the lack thereof, would compete for the time,
attention, knowledge, and funding available.
DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING LAW: Under existing law, Title I of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 provides all states with a dedicated
block of federal funding for the sole purpose of assisting people
with disabilities to achieve individualized rehabilitation goals.
Title I is essentially the only source of funding for these
services. Moreover, Title I is the principal resource for
funding of several activities, including establishment of vending
facilities operated by the blind in public buildings. Unlike
some services to persons with disabilities, which may often be of
a medical nature, programs for the blind cannot avail themselves
of third-party reimbursement in most instances.
PROPOSED CHANGES: With the consolidation of Title I into the
generic job training and employment service system, most if not
all of the dedicated resources now available under Title I would
be gone. The consolidation or block grant approaches are based on
the theory that virtually everyone who is unemployed for whatever
reason can be served best under one central authority. According
to this view the administration and delivery of services to
persons with disabilities are essentially the same as those for
services to dislocated workers or unemployed welfare recipients.
Both the dedicated funding and the resulting specialized services
would be diminished through consolidation. It is a matter of
historical fact that state agency organization and service
delivery patterns tend to mirror the pattern of federal financial
assistance. Moreover, the combination of programs will
inevitably favor the largest and best-understood needs to be met.
Unique services for persons with disabilities will suffer.
NEED FOR SPECIALIZED SERVICES TO THE BLIND: Since the needs of a
person who is newly blinded or who has not received effective
rehabilitation services are drastically different from those of
the typical unemployed worker, the consolidation plan will not
work. For example, essential services like (1) travel training
in using the long white cane or the guide dog; (2) instruction in
adaptive methods of reading, writing, and information access like
Braille; (3) provision of assistive technology like synthetic
speech for devices for computers, screen enlargement programs,
Braille computer terminals, closed-circuit television or other
magnification devices, reading machines, or scanners; and (4)
training in alternative skills of daily living--all essential to
blind individuals seeking employment--are not available from, and
are completely unrelated to, generic job training and employment
programs. Most telling, such programs are--and will be--
unequipped to offer skilled counseling in adjustment to blindness
essential to an individual's eventual success in seeking and
holding a job. Effective rehabilitation counseling helps blind
and visually impaired persons overcome fears and develop
confidence in their newfound skills. They learn to understand
employer attitudes about blindness and how to deal with them
effectively.
The theory of including rehabilitation services to persons
with disabilities in one-stop generic service centers is
seriously flawed. Blind persons seeking often time-consuming
training and adjustment-to-blindness assistance already typically
find themselves at the end of the line for service because they
cannot be quickly processed as successful closures in a
bureaucratic numbers game; the one-stop approach requiring them
to scramble with more easily trained unemployed will only serve
to exacerbate delays for the blind in obtaining services which
will be vastly diminished in utility. The result will be
increased numbers of blind persons relying on government services
like Social Security Disability Insurance or Supplemental
Security Income, with increased--not decreased--cost to the
taxpayers.
ACTION REQUESTED: The blind urge that changes in Title I of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 not be made at this time and that
vocational rehabilitation not be consolidated with the other
programs in the Work Force Development legislation. We support
continued federal leadership in a partnership with the states for
targeted programs to assist persons with disabilities, including
specialized services for individuals who are blind or visually
impaired.
Title I of the Rehabilitation Act, as currently structured,
provides an effective mechanism for full integration of blind and
visually impaired persons into the nation's workforce. The
public and private programs funded under it possess the
knowledge, technical expertise, and financial resources which are
essential to make this integration possible.
JOINT STATEMENT OF ORGANIZATIONS OF AND FOR THE BLIND
Bills to consolidate employment and training programs being
considered by the 104th Congress are so far-reaching that
rehabilitation services for blind and visually impaired
individuals could be absorbed into the generic job training and
employment service system. This would mean that both
responsibility and funding for specialized services needed by
people who are blind or visually impaired--a comparatively small
population--would be merged with much larger, generic programs
for millions of people who are unemployed. It would also mean a
merger of unrelated programs--rehabilitation for persons with
disabilities, on the one hand, and training and employment
services for the unemployed, on the other.
Under existing law, Title I of the Rehabilitation Act of
1973 provides all states with a dedicated block of federal
funding for the sole purpose of assisting people with
disabilities to achieve individualized rehabilitation goals.
However, both the dedicated funding and the resulting specialized
services would be diminished through consolidation. It is a
matter of historical fact that state agency organization and
service delivery patterns tend to mirror the pattern of federal
financial assistance. Moreover, the combination of programs will
inevitably favor the largest and best-understood needs to be met.
Unique services for persons with disabilities will suffer.
The consolidation or block grant approaches are based on the
theory that virtually everyone who is unemployed for whatever
reason can be served best under one central authority. According
to this view the administration and delivery of services to
assist persons with disabilities are essentially the same as
services to dislocated workers or unemployed welfare recipients.
This plan simply would not work. The needs of a person who
is newly blinded or who has not received effective rehabilitation
services are drastically different from those of the typical
unemployed worker. For example, the following essential
rehabilitation services needed by blind individuals are not
available from, and are completely unrelated to, generic job
training and employment programs:
1. Travel training in using the white cane or the guide
dog is essential for success in vocational training or
employment. This training must encompass how to assess
the environment without seeing one's surroundings.
2. Adaptive methods of reading, writing, and information
access are prerequisites for success in the workplace.
Braille, for example, is a system of reading and
writing which depends upon the tactile identification
of raised dots. The extent of training needed will
vary in complexity from learning the basic Braille code
(including almost 200 contractions or special symbols
commonly in use) to specialized notations for
computers, foreign languages, music, math and other
disciplines.
3. Assistive technology is an essential tool for blind
persons in employment. High- or low-tech adaptations
include use of specially adapted synthetic speech
devices for computers, screen enlargement programs,
Braille computer terminals, closed-circuit television
or other magnification devices, reading machines, or
scanners. These services must include identification
of the appropriate technology to meet the needs of the
individual and the employer and provision of training
in its use. Title I is the only funding source for
this service.
4. Daily living skills training is directly related to
employment, inasmuch as blind and visually impaired
persons without these skills will not be able to
function effectively in an employment setting. Such
training includes alternative skills for personal and
home management such as grooming, cooking, shopping,
getting to work, and many other ordinary things that
sighted persons take for granted.
5. Adjustment to blindness is essential to an individual's
eventual success in seeking and holding a job.
Effective rehabilitation counseling helps blind and
visually impaired persons overcome fears and develop
confidence in their newfound skills. They learn to
understand employer attitudes about blindness and how
to deal with them effectively.
Title I of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 is essentially the
only source of funding for these services. Moreover, Title I is
the principal resource for funding to establish vending
facilities operated by the blind in public buildings. Unlike
some services to persons with disabilities, which may often be of
a medical nature, programs for the blind cannot avail themselves
of third-party reimbursement in most instances. With the
consolidation of Title I into the generic job training and
employment service system, most if not all of the dedicated
resources now available under Title I would be gone.
We support consolidation of generic job training and
placement programs and would like to see effective collaboration
between them and the existing public rehabilitation program.
Title I of the Rehabilitation Act, as currently structured,
provides an effective mechanism for full integration of blind and
visually impaired persons into the nation's workforce. The
public and private programs funded under it possess the
knowledge, technical expertise, and financial resources which are
essential to make this integration possible.
For the reasons set forth in this statement, the undersigned
agencies and organizations urge that changes in Title I of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 not be made at this time. We support
continued federal leadership in a partnership with the states for
targeted programs to assist persons with disabilities, including
specialized services for individuals who are blind or visually
impaired.
Concurring Agencies/Organizations
American Council of the Blind (ACB)
American Foundation for the Blind (AFB)
Association for Education and Rehabilitation of the Blind and
Visually Impaired (AER)
Blinded Veterans Association (BVA)
General Council of Workshops for the Blind (GCWB)
Helen Keller National Center for Deaf-Blind Youths and Adults,
(HKNC), including National Family Association for the Deaf-Blind
(NFADB)
National Association for Parents of the Visually Impaired (NAPVI)
National Council of State Agencies for the Blind (NCSAB)
National Federation of the Blind (NFB)
National Industries for the Blind (NIB)
Sample Letters
May 16, 1995
The Honorable William Goodling, Chairman
Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities
2181 Rayburn House Office Building
United States House of Representatives
Washington, D. C. 20515-6100
Dear Chairman Goodling:
This is in response to the "Dear Friend" letter from
yourself and Mr. McKeon, requesting comments/suggestions in
regard to the CAREERS legislation, now introduced as H. R. 1617.
A subcommittee markup on this bill will be held on May 17, with
the full committee markup scheduled for May 24. Although draft
language became available on May 4, the bill in its completed
form was not released until May 12, giving precious little time
for reaction prior to the markup.
Your letter states that the motivation for this bill is to
improve employment and training prospects for people with
disabilities. If that is so, I am unaware of any research
studies or policy analyses that would support the approach being
taken. While I am not unmindful of the provisions for a
vocational rehabilitation block grant, the bill in its present
form would virtually eliminate the state/federal vocational
rehabilitation program as a distinct service component.
Staffing, funding, and virtually all other resources of the
vocational rehabilitation program would be merged almost totally
into the generic job training and employment system. Given what
we know about that system and the compelling needs of the
population to be served, the idea that vocational rehabilitation
for people with disabilities will be improved by a merger is
insupportable on its face.
You have stated that 70 to 80 percent of people with
disabilities remain unemployed. If this is a reason for
eliminating the specialized service delivery system, I do not
believe that the connection has been made. As you know, there is
absolutely no assurance that the unemployment numbers will not be
increased significantly by diminishing specialized service
capabilities.
Saving taxpayer dollars is certainly one of the most
important public policy goals of employment and training
programs. It is predictable, however, that the consolidation of
vocational rehabilitation into the generic work force development
system will actually result in substantially greater, not less,
expense to the taxpayers. This is particularly so with respect
to blind people. In our case the declining emphasis on
specialized, blindness-related skills and adjustment training
will mean more and longer reliance upon income maintenance
programs such as Social Security, Supplemental Security Income,
Medicare, Medicaid, and other subsistence support programs.
Your letter states that you have been working with the
"disability community" to design the present legislation. While
you can say this, the fact is that members of your staff have
talked with some service provider and government agency
representatives but with relatively few people who represent
consumer constituencies. In the case of the National Federation
of the Blind, I have attempted to communicate (both by telephone
and in writing) our interest in being a part of the discussions
but to no avail, other than the provision of the CAREERS bill on
computer disk. This is not "input," and it is not participatory
democracy.
Mr. Goodling, we are unquestionably interested in being a
part of any effort that genuinely seeks to improve training and
employment services for blind people and others with
disabilities. However, given the fact that an entire national
service delivery pattern could be sacrificed to fulfill unrelated
goals, it is hard for us to accept that the present legislation
is genuinely meant to be an improvement of the vocational
rehabilitation system. This is especially true since the CAREERS
bill is being moved forward without one day of hearings on its
specific components.
Please consider carefully the consequences of what you are
doing before it is too late. The consolidation of job training
and employment services may be a very desirable undertaking in
order to eliminate waste and duplication. HOWEVER, there is no
compelling need to merge vocational rehabilitation into the other
programs which have unrelated missions.
Very truly yours,
James Gashel
Director of Governmental Affairs
NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND
May 16, 1995
The Honorable Tom Petri
United States House of Representatives
Washington, D. C. 20515-4906
Dear Representative Petri:
Please find enclosed a copy of a letter which I have sent
today to Mr. McKeon. It presents a brief analysis of the CAREERS
bill from the viewpoint of its impact upon the vocational
rehabilitation system.
In the letter I have indicated that consolidation of
vocational rehabilitation into the generic job training and
employment service system is being proposed without broad
participation by representatives of the consumer populations most
affected. There has not even been one day of hearings on the
specifics of the consolidation bill.
If the CAREERS bill is enacted in its present form, it will
mean the complete merger of vocational rehabilitation into a far
larger program which is designed for populations with
significantly different needs. This is a step which should not
be taken without a great deal of understanding as to the
implications. Therefore, please take seriously the consequences
of this legislation before it is too late.
The consolidation of job training and employment services
may be a very desirable undertaking in order to eliminate waste
and duplication. HOWEVER, there is no compelling need to merge
vocational rehabilitation into the other programs. I hope that
you will take these facts into account during the markup.
Removing the vocational rehabilitation program from the present
bill would be far preferable to sacrificing it as the bill now
proposes to do.
Very truly yours,
James Gashel
Director of Governmental Affairs
NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND
You can obtain the Legislative Alert package under the file
names "ALERT2.TXT" and "ALERT2.ZIP" from NFB NET. NFB NET
can be reached by calling (410) 752-5011. We accept modem speeds
from 300 baud up through and including 28.8K baud. You can
download the package on your first call. It is located in File
Area 1, (New Files.)
The archive is also available on CompuServe in the
Disabilities Forum, Library 7, (Rights/Legislation,) "go disfor."
It is also available on a number of other BBS's that serve the
blind and disabled.
We need your help, so please write!!!
David Andrews
David Andrews, director
International Braille and Technology Center
for the Blind
National Federation of the Blind
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Dec 02 2012 - 01:30:03 PST