---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 1997 14:37:34 -0500 (EST)
From: Curtis Chong <Chong99@concentric.net>
Reply-To: Multiple recipients of NFBnet NFB-Talk Mailing List
<NFB-Talk@NFBnet.org>
To: Multiple recipients of NFBnet NFB-Talk Mailing List
<NFB-Talk@NFBnet.org>
Subject: Please distribute to blindness listservs. (fwd)
This is most interesting and worrisome.
Curtis Chong
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 97 10:18:00 -0700
From: CHARLES CRAWFORD <charles.crawford@mcb-bbs.pn.com>
To: Chong99@cris.com
Subject: Please distribute to blindness listservs.
There are tragically times when agencies of government in
Washington lose perspective on what their missions are and in
fact act in direct opposition to the interests of the people they
have been set up to assist. The following demonstrates how the
National Council on Disability has launched what can only be
portrayed as a blatantly offensive attack on the blindness
community even though the agency has fully known that blind
people themselves have long since repudiated and rejected what
NCD is about to recommend.
What did they do? When they could not get through the front
door to do in separate state agency plans for the blind at the
federal level; they went to the back door and will prod for a
General Accounting office study of the blindness service system.
They will also recommend expansion of the elderly blind program
to include all disabilities. We all know what happens when you
dilute a program for the blind in favor of the generic model.
Who did they talk to about all of this? Themselves of
course. Why did they not ask blind folks about this before
preparing to recommend a major change in the service system?
Why? It's simple, they knew that they would be told to get a life
and go find something that really is broken to fix.
Its not rocket science for anyone to figure out that when a
group of people have needs that are sufficiently unique to
warrant specialized and separate services, that they should
receive those services from an agency dedicated to servicing that
group. Even while there exists publicly available data and
position papers to show that folks being serviced by separate and
identifiable agencies for the blind do substantially better than
under generic models; NCD has recklessly and irresponsibly chosen
to never properly solicit that information, and simply ignore
what little it may have heard through coincidence rather than
design.
Why is there opinion so backward? Well, beyond the common
sense reality that any agency with multiple groups to worry about
is not hardly able to properly address the unique needs of blind
persons, and beyond the strongly held public positions of all
major national consumer organizations; There are data from the
U.S. Rehabilitation Services Administration which make the point
clearly. these data show that separate agencies for the blind
during the period of federal fiscal year 1994 were able to close
47 percent of all eligible consumers successfully as contrasted
to 34 percent in non-blindness specific agencies. In fact, when
successful closures were applied against consumers who were
eligible and actually receiving services; the blindness agencies
closed 75 percent successfully as contrasted to 63 percent for
the non-blindness agencies. We won' even get into the great deal
of evidence to prove the benefit of the elderly blind program!
In conclusion, the following questions must be asked:
Why are they doing this? they have become servants of
the
extremist views within the Independent Living Movement that would
rather have every person with a disability be seen as the same
than recognize the real differences and self-determination of
various groups and honor them.
Given the outright lack of good judgement, real data, and
responsiveness to the blindness community; Should the agency be
taken to task for it's irresponsibility? The answer is yes.
Should this holding them accountable be done by blind people
talking with Congress and the Administration? The answer is yes.
Should NCD retract it's recommendations? The answer is
again yes and they should do it before it's too late with the
injury to blind people already done.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Dec 02 2012 - 01:30:04 PST