NCSAB
National Council of State Agencies for the Blind, Inc.
4733 Bethesda Ave., Suite 330
Bethesda, Maryland 20814
www.NCSAB.org
Telephone: 301-654-4485
Fax: 301-654-5542
Greg Trapp, President
September 25, 2007
National Council of State Agencies for the Blind Comments to Senate Draft
Reauthorizing the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended
Section 7(7) Defining "customized employment services" and Section 7(39),
modifying the current definition of supported employment services to include
customized employment services:
The NCSAB is supportive of this change. The ODEP concept of customized
employment is very broad. It includes job carving, job sharing, and other
modifications to a job or work schedule to accommodate an individual with a
most significant disability. The Committee is proposing expanding the
definition of supported employment services to include customized employment
services. As drafted by the Committee, the definition of customized
employment services expands the definition of Supported Employment services,
but does not change the definition of Supported Employment.
Section 7(37) Defining student with a disability as not younger than 16:
The NCSAB urges the committee to clarify that the definition of student with
a disability is not intended to limit or prohibit VR agencies from providing
services to eligible individuals younger than age 16.
Section 7(39) Defining supported employment services and removing the 18
month limitation, on VR paying for these services:
As drafted, the NCSAB cannot support this change. As it currently stands, VR
must identify a source for extended services at the time the individual is
placed in a supported employment setting. If the Committee intends the VR
program to use Title I funds to pay for ongoing support services
indefinitely, it will quickly deplete VR funds and limit the program’s
ability to serve additional eligible individuals.
Section 7(41) Defining transition services expansion year:
The NCSAB supports expanded transition services provided that the $100
million dollar trigger represents new money above and beyond the automatic
CPIU increase. As written, the CPIU cost-of-living adjustment will exceed
the $100 million trigger within a year or two. If the intent of the
Committee is to link expanded transition services to $100 million of new
money, it needs to be better specified, otherwise the impact will be to
divert funds from one category of service to another. While increasing
services to one population, it will diminish availability of services to
other eligible individuals.
Section 2(b)(3) Adding to the purpose section the statement “to provide
opportunities for employers and VR service providers to provide meaningful
input at all levels of government to ensure successful employment of
individuals with disabilities”:
The NCSAB opposes this change. We believe that the purpose of the
rehabilitation program is to assist eligible individuals in securing or
retaining employment according to their interests and abilities. Employers
and service providers are partners in this process. However, it is
inappropriate to characterize the purpose of the Rehabilitation Act as being
one affording opportunities to employers and providers to influence the
direction of the VR program. Both have vested, albeit complementary
interests-- employers to meet their need for skilled workers and service
providers to increase services supported by public funds. The purpose of the
program must continue to focus on the eligible individual with a disability
and his or her needs rather than the needs of employers for labor and
private providers for contracts.
Section 3(a) Specifying that the RSA Commissioner reports through the OSERS
Assistant Secretary:
The NCSAB opposes this change. From a functional standpoint, this change
appears to make little difference. Currently, the RSA Commissioner must seek
the approval of the OSERS Assistant Secretary in all matters of budget and
policy—essentially all major decisions. With that said, this language
downgrades the authority of the RSA Commissioner for no apparent reason. It
lessens the role of the RSA Commissioner and, by so doing, lessens the
importance of the VR program. In the past, the functions of the Commissioner
could not be delegated to anyone not directly responsible to the
Commissioner. Now, the functions of the Commissioner can be delegated to
anyone who is responsible to the Asst. Secretary of OSERS. As an
alternative, the NCSAB recommends separating RSA from OSERS and establishing
it as a standalone agency within the Department of Education headed by the
Commissioner reporting directly to the Secretary of Education.
Section 101(a)(1)(D) Making Section 121 grantees a state agency for Social
Security reimbursement purposes:
The NCSAB supports this change. The change will provide additional resources
to American Indian Vocational Rehabilitation Programs.
Section 101(a)(5)(c) Making students with disabilities on SSI equal to
individuals with the Most Significant Disabilities for purposes of order of
selection:
NCSAB supports this change and sees this proposal as positive since it
targets a population of individuals who are young and are by current statute
already defined as having a significant disability for priority under an
Order of Selection. This change has caused many people to react badly,
believing that students with disabilities receiving SSI will be placed above
all others in receiving services when an agency is under an Order of
Selection. We do not read the change in this way. It appears to us that
students receiving SSI are simply defined as equal to individuals determined
to have the most significant disabilities as defined by the VR agency. The
only downside we see is that it makes the pool of people who are first in
line to receive VR services bigger and therefore, more funds will be needed
to serve the expanded pool of individuals first in line under the order of
selection.
Section 101(a)(10) Additional Data for Annual reporting purposes:
The NCSAB supports this change. The Committee’s proposal simplifies the
collection and reporting of performance data and appears to be a much more
reasonable set of measures than measures previously listed.
Section 101(a)(20) Information on Assistance for Beneficiaries of SSI and
SSDI:
The NCSAB supports this change. VR counselors already provide significant
information concerning various work incentives. This change clarifies the
role of the State VR agency in providing eligible individuals with
information concerning resources that may assist them in understanding the
impact of work on their benefits.
Section 102(b)(1)(A) Requiring the VR agency to provide “a listing of all
the community resources” to assist an individual in the development of his
or her IPE:
The NCSAB supports the concept of making eligible individuals with
disabilities aware of resources to assist in the development of the IPE;
however, we do not believe that potential providers of services should be
included in the list of available resources. Including service providers
creates a potential conflict of interest and may result in eligible
individuals being directed to a plan of service that relies heavily on
training and other services from the community provider. We recommend
inserting the following parenthetical statement after the words “a listing
of all the community resources” (excluding potential service providers) to
the requirement.
Section 102(b)(2)(F) Requiring that IPEs be completed within 90 days of
eligibility determination:
The NCSAB is supportive of the policy of ensuring that eligible individuals
receive timely services, including efficient development of the
Individualized Plan for Employment. However, there is a need to clarify this
new requirement. The proposed change refers to the completion of the plan
within 90 days following a determination of eligibility. Presumably the
Committee intends this provision to require that the plan be written and
agreed to within 90 days, not that the plan of services be completed and the
individual placed in employment within 90 days following a determination of
eligibility.
Section 303(e) Authorizing a Training and Technical Assistance Center to
Promote High-Quality Employment Outcomes for Individuals Receiving Services
from Designated State Agencies and AIVRS Grantees:
The NCSAB supports this change, however, we recommend establishing a
separate TA authority for American Indian Vocational Rehabilitation Service
Grants funded by a set-aside from monies allocated to support tribal VR
programs. Under current law, a set-aside is used to fund technical
assistance activities for Independent Living services under Title VII,
Chapter 1. The Committee draft establishes a TA authority for Older Blind
Services and Supported Employment Services. A TA authority to support tribal
VR programs should follow this established model. While operating much as do
State VR agencies, tribal programs serve a specialized function and
therefore, require technical assistance from an entity experienced in
addressing the employment related needs of American Indian individuals with
disabilities.