--------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 233 NFB BLIND NEWS Ref: E3Y00003Date: 03/28/97 From: PETE DONAHUE Time: 09:13pm \/To: ALL (Read 0 times) Subj: Re: Greetings (Forward) From: Pete Donahue Subject: Re: Greetings (Forward) Hello jim and listers, You said that as we lobby the various state legislators concerning the Technology Access bill there could be some changes. Ltt's hope that those changes will be for the better; that someone will think to amend the law to cover areas we may have overlooked. That very thing happened here in texas when we were lobbying our Legislature and gathering support among the blindness field in support of the bill. It was here in Texas that the idea was thought of to require that book publishers make there books available in electronic format if they wanted to do business with the state of Texas. I believe that a number of other states have also adopted our model Braille bill with that provision included. Let's hope that this new bill will get more teeth put in to it and not get watered down as we seek it's passage in the States. Take care and have a happy Easter all. Yours truly, Peter donahue --- * Origin: NFBnet <--> Internet Email Gateway (1:282/1045) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 233 NFB BLIND NEWS Ref: E3Z00000Date: 03/29/97 From: "JEREMIAH B. BEASLEY" Time: 04:17pm \/To: ALL (Read 0 times) Subj: Colorado Student Seminar (Forward) From: "Jeremiah B. Beasley" Subject: Colorado Student Seminar (Forward) Please pass this around to anyone or list that should get it!!! _______________________ The Colorado Association of Blind Students and The Grand Valley Chapter of the National Federation of the Blind are pleased to present LEARNING IN THE REAL WORLD WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW AS A BLIND STUDENT!!! When: April 19, 1997 1:00 PM - 6:00 PM Where: PeachTree Inn 1600 North Ave. Grand Junction, CO 81501 Topics to be discussed: * Readers, how should they be dealt with? * Technology, are blind people using windows? * Rehab, how do I make it work for me? * Social Security, Can I get it? What are my rights? * Jobs, what are blind people doing? * Training, what type of training do I need as a blind person? * and many other topics!!! For more information please call Jeremiah Beasley at (303) 571-2038 or you can E-Mail me at cabs-president@pobox.com. The CABS Web Page is at "HTTP://pobox.com/~cabs" Braille and print copies of this flier are available upon request!!! _________________ Jeremiah B. Beasley Home Page "http://www.geocities.com/Athens/6290" E-Mail: "jbeasley@nfbcal.org" or "cabs-president@pobox.com" President, Colorado Association of Blind Students Home Page "http://pobox.com/~cabs" E-Mail "cabs@pobox.com" Member, National Federation of the Blind Home Page "http://www.nfb.org" "you the members, you who give the Federation its strength and provide its moral right to exist and lead the way in the struggle of the blind to be free. You must stand with me when the battle is hard. You must support me when our efforts on behalf of the blind bring criticism and personal attack. You must reinforce, encourage, and give heart." President Marc Maurer, Annual Convention, National Federation of the Blind, Anaheim, California, July 2, 1996 --- * Origin: NFBnet <--> Internet Email Gateway (1:282/1045) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 233 NFB BLIND NEWS Ref: E3Z00001Date: 03/29/97 From: CHARLES CRAWFORD Time: 04:31pm \/To: ALL (Read 0 times) Subj: NCD issue (Forward) From: Charles.Crawford@f170.n101.z1.nfbnet.org (Charles Crawford) Subject: NCD issue (Forward) 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. --- * Origin: NFBnet <--> Internet Email Gateway (1:282/1045) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 233 NFB BLIND NEWS Ref: E3Z00002Date: 03/29/97 From: CHARLES CRAWFORD Time: 04:31pm \/To: ALL (Read 0 times) Subj: NCD -- House followup (Forward) From: Charles.Crawford@f170.n101.z1.nfbnet.org (Charles Crawford) Subject: NCD -- House followup (Forward) here are the members of the United States House of Representatives Appropriations Committee if you want to get in touch with your Representative in Congress about the National Council on Disability attack on the blindness community. HOUSE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE MAJORITY (Republicans) MINORITY (Democrats) Bob Livingston, Louisiana CHAIRMAN David Obey, Wisconsin RANKING MEMBER Joseph McDade, Pennsylvania Sidney Yates, Illinois Bill Young, Florida Louis Stokes, Ohio Ralph Regula, Ohio John Murtha, Pennsylvania Jerry Lewis, California Norman Dicks, Washington John E. Porter, Illinois Martin Sabo, Minnesota Harold Rogers, Kentucky Julian Dixon, California Joe Skeen, New Mexico Vic Fazio, California Frank Wolf, Virginia Bill Hefner, N. Carolina Tom Delay, Texas Steny Hoyer, Maryland Jim Kolbe, Arizona Alan Mollohan, W. Virginia Ron Packard, California Marcy Kaptur, Ohio Sonny Callahan, Alabama David Skaggs, Colorado James Walsh, New York Nancy Pelosi, California Charles Taylor, North Carolina Peter Visclosky, Indiana David Hobson, Ohio Tom Foglietta,Pennsylvania Ernest Istook, Oklahoma E. Torres, California Henry Bonilla, Texas Nita Lowey, New York Joseph Knollenberg, Michigan Jose Serrano, New York Dan Miller, FLorida Rosa DeLauro, Connecticut Jay Dickey, Arkansas James Moran, Virginia Jack Kingston, Georgia John Olver, Massachusetts Mike Parker, Mississippi Ed Pastor, Arizona Rodney Frelinghuysen, N. Jersey Carrie Meek, Florida Roger Wicker, Mississippi David Price, N. Carolina Michael Forbes, New York Chet Edwards, Texas George Nethercutt, Washington Mark Neumann, Wisconsin Randy Cunningham, California Todd Tiahrt, Kansas Zach Wamp, Tennessee Tom Latham, Iowa Anne Northup, Kentucky Robert Aderholt, Alabama HOUSE LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AND EDUCATION APPROPRIATION SUBCOMMITTEE MAJORITY (Republicans) MINORITY (Democrats) John Edward Porter, Illinois, CHAIRMAN David Obey, Wisconsin, RANKING MEMBER Bill Young, FLorida Louis Stokes, Ohio Henry Bonilla, Texas Steny Hoyer, Maryland Ernest Istook, Oklahoma Nancy Pelosi, California Dan Miller, Florida Nita Lowey, New York Jay Dickey, Arkansas Rosa DeLauro, Connecticut Roger Wicker, Mississippi Anne Northup, Kentucky --- * Origin: NFBnet <--> Internet Email Gateway (1:282/1045) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 233 NFB BLIND NEWS Ref: E3Z00003Date: 03/29/97 From: CHARLES CRAWFORD Time: 04:32pm \/To: ALL (Read 0 times) Subj: NCD -- Senate followup (Forward) From: Charles.Crawford@f170.n101.z1.nfbnet.org (Charles Crawford) Subject: NCD -- Senate followup (Forward) Here are Senate Appropriations Committee members you can contact if you want to register your concerns about the national Council on Disability attack on the blindness community. THE U.S. SENATE U.S. SENATE COMMITTEE on APPROPRIATIONS MAJORITY (Republicans) MINORITY (Democrats) Ted Stevens, Alaska, CHAIRMAN Thad Cochran, Mississippi Robert C. Byrd, W. Virginia Arlen Specter, Pennsylvania Daniel Inouye, Hawaii Pete V. Domenici, N. Mexico Ernest Hollings, S.Carolina Chris Bond, Missouri Patrick Leahy, Vermont Slade Gorton, Washington Dale Bumpers, Arkansas Mitch McConnell, Kentucky Frank Lautenberg, N. Jersey Conrad Burns, Montana Tom Harkin, Iowa Richard Shelby, Alabama Barbara Mikulski, Maryland Judd Gregg, N. Hampshire Harry Ried, Nevada Robert Bennett, Utah Herbert Kohl, Wisconsin Ben Campbell, Colorado Patty Murray, Washington Larry Craig, Idaho Byron Dorgan, N. Dakota Lauch Faircloth, N. Carolina Barbara Boxer, California Kay B. Hutchison, Texas U.S. SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH/HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION MAJORITY (Republicans) MINORITY (Democrats) Arlen Specter, Pennsylvania, CHAIRMAN Thad Cochran, Mississippi Tom Harkin, Iowa, RANKING Slade Gorton, Washington Ernest Hollings, S.Carolina Chris Bond, Missouri Daniel Inouye, Hawaii Judd Gregg, N. Hampshire Dale Bumpers, Arkansas Lauch Faircloth, N. Carolina Harry Reid, Nevada Larry Craig, Idaho Herb Kohl, Wisconsin Kay B. Hutchison, Texas Patty Murray, Washington --- * Origin: NFBnet <--> Internet Email Gateway (1:282/1045) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 233 NFB BLIND NEWS Ref: E4100000Date: 03/30/97 From: KELLY PIERCE Time: 12:08pm \/To: ALL (Read 0 times) Subj: blind telecommuting From: Kelly Pierce Subject: blind telecommuting The Telecommunications Deregulation Act of 1996 calls for the establishment of a universal service fund to aid low income Americans in obtaining advanced telecommunications services. The Chicago Blind Computer User Network supports efforts underway in the disability community to use proceeds from the fund to pay for long-distance and other charges between an employer and a person with a disability working at home. The position statement is below. Friday, 28 March 1997 Office of the Secretary 1919 M Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20554 Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. In the Matter of Docket No. 96-45 (Universal Service) Dear Mr. Canton: We understand that the Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service has recommended that voice and data line charges incurred between the employee and the company be waived, with the service provider receiving support from universal service support mechanisms. The Blind computer user Network of Chicago is writing in response to your request for comments in the Notice for Proposed Rule making, FCC 96-45, in the above captioned proceeding. The Blind Computer User Network is a consortium of blind and visually impaired people in the Chicago area who want to maintain up-to-date knowledge about computer technology. Network members pool knowledge and resources to help themselves and each other function at their best in this fast-moving electronic age. They pursue technology-related activities that impact on the workplace, research, education and the job market. Network members meet to explore on-line information networks, hear about developments in the industry, examine new adaptations and test new software, exchange consultations and training at all levels of expertise, and repair and refurbish donated computer hardware. The Chicago Blind computer User Network is affiliated with Blind Service Association, which is a "people-to people," not- for-profit agency that supports the independence of blind and visually impaired Chicago area residents, and has done so for more than seven decades. Blind Service is supported solely by contributions from private individuals, foundations and corporations. Eliminating telephone charges as an obstacle for telecommuting employment is an important step in assisting blind persons in obtaining and keeping jobs. The Problem: Nationally, unemployment among the blind exceeds 70 percent. The computer has opened up opportunities and employment possibilities that were previously not possible. Now blind persons can access all written information displayed on a computer screen through a braille display, text enlargement, or speech synthesis, which speaks all the material displayed. This access to information has now permitted blind persons to compete on terms of equality not available before. Further, this revolution in information access has open up new professions and fields essentially unavailable to the blind in the past. However, this access is moderated by the problem of not being able to drive to these jobs in suburbia. Employers are leaving the City of Chicago and moving to the suburbs, where access to public transportation is often difficult if not impossible to obtain. The biggest example is that of Sears, which moved from 50 floors in the Sears Tower to Hoffman estates--more than 40 miles from downtown Chicago. Two of the world's leading corporations in information technology are in the Chicago suburbs and difficult to reach by mass transit. Skokie, Illinois based U. S. Robotics is the largest producer of modems. Schaumberg, Illinois based Motorola is a leading producer of pagers, semiconductors, and cellular telephones. That is why we believe that the problem of blind persons and unemployment is based on a combination of factors that include societal attitudes and an urban environment that is designed for the automobile rather than the person, locking blind persons out of opportunities because they cannot travel to them. Proposed Solution: If the FCC were to rule that costs incurred for connecting a blind or homebound disabled individual to an employer via voice or data lines were covered under the Universal Service Fund, then employers, the blind, individuals with disabilities, and society as a whole would reap certain benefits. Such a ruling would reduce or remove the need for the government to provide public assistance benefits to those individuals affected, as they would be able to earn a living. Connecting blind persons to the workforce would also increase productivity, growth and competition within our economy. This is not to imply that an FCC ruling would result in the immediate employment of thousands of blind individuals. The jobs must be available for that to take place, and the telecommuting movement is, at this point in time, still in its infancy. All indications are, however, that the number and variety of full- time telecommuting positions will grow. An FCC ruling is a signal to the private sector that there are no additional costs involved in seeking out homebound individuals to fill their telecommuting positions. As a few employers have already discovered, individuals with disabilities constitute an ideal workforce for companies looking for home based workers. These jobs are valued. Turnover is lower, and the underutilized nature of the homebound disabled population means that it is often easier to find more motivated, better qualified applicants within this group than can be found within the general population. A Proposal To The FCC: Low-income Americans are among those for whom the FCC has pledged assurance that they will receive reasonably priced telephone service. Blind persons and homebound individuals with disabilities can easily fit within this low-income category. As described earlier, the labor department reports that blind persons have an unemployment or underemployment rate that exceeds 70 percent. Most of these individuals are living off Social Security or other forms of public assistance. We propose that the FCC rule in the event that a particular person identifies himself as both low income and in need of home based employment, then an employer who hires such an individual would be able to apply to their long distance provider for a waiver for all voice and data line charges incurred in order to connect the homebound worker to the company. The service providers in turn, would be able to request reimbursement from the Universal Service Fund for these same costs. These charges would include: long distance charges between employer and home-worker; local access charges; local measured service charges outside of a local calling area between the worker and employer; and the monthly maintenance expense of one, or even two, business lines into the home if such lines are required for the telecommuting connections to take place. We must depart substantially from the proposal submitted by the national telecommuting institute and the President's committee for the Employment of People with Disabilities. We do not believe that the FCC should mandate a role for sole reliance on rehabilitation counselors. We propose that blind persons and those with disabilities can demonstrate a low income status by providing a statement of benefits from the Social Security Administration or a copy of the most recent tax return. We also propose that a blind person or an individual with a disability can utilize the services of a licensed medical doctor to certify that the individual's disability presents barriers to travel and can benefit from home-based work. These methods for identifying need and benefit are options in addition to the proposal of certification by a rehabilitation counselor. It is the experience by the vast majority of our members that rehabilitation counselors have low expectations of the blind, lack specific knowledge of our competency, and often prevent blind persons from attaining meaningful employment outcomes. We recognize that oversight must occur and mechanisms should be in place for fraud and abuse to be minimized. However, the commission should consider the history between people with disabilities and the rehabilitation profession and issues of disability culture before permitting that only one entity can make such employment related decisions. We encourage the commission to develop mechanisms like those described above that would allow a person with a disability and his potential employer to establish and set up this accommodation in the most efficient and autonomous manner possible. The commission should also take note of the bias of one of the filers on this issue. The National Telecommuting Institute works primarily with rehabilitation counselors and state vocational rehabilitation agencies, rather than individuals with disabilities themselves. We believe that this bias inclines NTI to force rehabilitation counselors into the private employer- employee relationship even if the person with a disability does not want the services or assistance of a rehabilitation professional. Should training via the telephone be necessary to prepare a blind person or travel-limited person with a disability for a telecommuting position, then it is further proposed that the cost of connecting the homebound trainee to the trainer via the telephone lines also be covered by the Universal Service Fund. Only training institutions accredited by regional or national accreditation organizations and approved by the U. S. department of Education should be eligible to provide training under this program. These institutions would apply to their long distance service provider for a waiver of connection charges between the instructor and the certified trainee. The long distance provider would, in turn, submit their request for reimbursement to the Universal Service Fund. Our proposal differs dramatically from the proposal submitted by the National Telecommuting Institute and the President's Committee on the Employment of People with Disabilities on this topic. It is the experience of our members, more than 150 blind computer users in the Chicago area, that training institutions that are authorized or promoted by state rehabilitation agencies are segregated, slow to provide service with poorly trained staff with low expectations about the ability of blind persons and the technology that is used. Typically, people are steered to agencies for the blind with staffs that have little understanding of the competencies or skills needed for mainstream, competitive employment settings. Consequently, the training is inferior and inadequate for the person with a disability. Homebound persons with disabilities should be able to choose between local community colleges, regional state universities, and private organizations, some of which may not be on a referral list of a state rehabilitation agency. Further, some states, such as Illinois and Wisconsin, require the person with a disability to prove that a training institution out-of-state is far superior to that of an instate institution before training can be approved at the out-of-state institution. Policies and practices such as these negate the advantages that training through telecommunications services offer: principally, the ability to select the best training regardless of geography. When geography does matter, such as requiring telecommuting students to make some visits to a campus for testing or in-depth seminars or instruction, travel limited people with disabilities on border communities are disadvantaged. We have enclosed the Illinois regulation. We believe that restrictive policies such as this decrease the likelihood that a homebound individual with a disability would receive adequate training for a telecommuting position. Further, training programs for the blind and disabled promoted by state vocational rehabilitation agencies often are able to avoid the scrutiny and expectation for quality that is realized in many mainstream programs. This is because that the persons who advise state rehabilitation agencies on how training funds should be allocated to benefit people with disabilities are the main beneficiaries of that spending. For example, Joe Mileczarek, the director of the Visually Impaired Program at North Central College in Wausau, Wisconsin is the Chairman of Wisconsin's Governor's Committee for People with Disabilities. The program trains blind adults to adjust to their blindness through vocational skills such as braille and travel. We accept the need to minimize fraud and abuse and ensure that at least minimally qualified persons be eligible for this program. However, we urge the commission to use mechanisms that build upon already established means in identifying legitimate educational institutions. for example the commission could allow persons to use schools that receive federal financial aid in addition to those utilized by the state rehabilitation agency. This would meet the needs of simplifying the process, minimizing fraud and abuse, and allow people with disabilities maximum independence and choice in choosing training that meets their needs. Finally, while we support the proposed rule, we remain concerned about the long-term effects of such a policy. We recognize that the transportation priorities of the nation are heightening the emphasis on road construction and the automobile and funding shared transportation services less and less. We have witnessed the trend here in Chicago where the Northeast Illinois Planning Commission reported in 1992 that the developed area in the region expanded by 55 percent between 1970 and 1990 while the population grew by only four percent. The newly developed area is where the new jobs are--nearly unreachable for those who don't drive. At the same time, we remain concerned that blind persons and those with disabilities will be encouraged and steered to work at home rather then in the office setting with other employees. We fear that the subsidy might be an incentive for employers with stereotypical attitudes about disability to engage in this kind of behavior. further, the highly sought after "soft skills" sought by today's employers are developed and refined by working in close physical proximity with other workers. However, we believe that such behavior will not serve the productivity needs of employers in the long run. further, we forecast that transportation options to the new jobs being created in today's economy will continue to constrict. that is why we make this proposal to the commission and urge it to consider blind persons as homebound individuals with disabilities. Kelly Pierce Chicago Blind Computer User Network 89 ILLINOIS ADMINISTRATIVE CODE CH. IV,  590.250 --- * Origin: NFBnet <--> Internet Email Gateway (1:282/1045) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 233 NFB BLIND NEWS Ref: E4100001Date: 03/30/97 From: KELLY PIERCE Time: 12:08pm \/To: ALL (Read 0 times) Subj: 02:blind telecommuting From: Kelly Pierce Subject: blind telecommuting SUBCHAPTER b SUBPART C: TRAINING AND RELATED SERVICES Section 590.250 Choice of Training Facility/Institution a) To the maximum extent possible, the customer shall have the choice of the training facility/institution he/she will attend in completion of his/her IWRP (89 Ill. Adm. Code 572). However, facilities within the State of Illinois shall be given preference and State operated institutions of higher education shall be given preference over private and out-of-state institutions. b) Although in-state, State operated facilities and local community college must be given preference, a customer's choice to attend a private or out-of-state facility/institution may be approved if: 1) there is no comparable training at a State operated facility, in-state facility, or the customer's local community college as verified by the counselor based on information regarding curriculum, recommendation of colleagues, and past experience with facilities/institutions offering training in the area of the customer's employment objective; 2) the cost of the training at the private or out-of- state facility/institution is less than that of the same or similar training at a State operated facility/institution, in-state facility/institution or local community college; 3) because of the customer's particular impediments to employment, no State operated facility/ institution, in-state facility/institution or the local community college is accessible for the customer. Whether an in-state facility's/ institution's training is accessible to the customer shall be determined by the counselor based on information regarding curriculum, recommendations of colleagues and past experience with facilities/institutions offering training in the area of the customer's employment objective. 89 ILLINOIS ADMINISTRATIVE CODE CH. IV,  590.250 SUBCHAPTER b c) If none of the circumstances listed in Section 590.250 (b) above is met, DORS shall only authorize the total cost of tuition, fees and maintenance up to the cost of attending the most expensive state operated facility (89 Ill. Adm. Code 590, Subpart J), less scholarships, other comparable benefits (89 Ill. Adm. Code 567) and required customer financial participation (89 Ill. Adm. Code 562). If one or more of the criteria is met, DORS may authorize up to the total cost of the training, less scholarship, comparable benefits and customer financial participation. (Source: Amended at 19 Ill. Reg. 10153, effective June 29, 1995) --- * Origin: NFBnet <--> Internet Email Gateway (1:282/1045) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 233 NFB BLIND NEWS Ref: E4100002Date: 03/30/97 From: JAMAL MAZRUI Time: 09:40pm \/To: ALL (Read 0 times) Subj: An NCD statement on some rehab issues (F21:40:3503/30/97 From: Jamal Mazrui <74444.1076@COMPUSERVE.COM> Subject: An NCD statement on some rehab issues (Forward) Unfortunately, some misleading information about the National Council on Disability and rehabilitation policy issues has been broadly circulated over the Internet. Be assured that there is another side to these issues that deserves your attention if this is a subject of interest. We welcome any questions and appreciate your support in helping to correct misconceptions that others may have inadvertently acquired. Jamal Mazrui National Council on Disability Email: 74444.1076@compuserve.com Phone: (202) 272-2004 TTY: (202) 272-2074 Fax: (202) 272-2022 ---------- A STATEMENT BY THE NATIONAL COUNCIL ON DISABILITY EXPLAINING ITS PROCESS AND ACTIONS ON THE REHABILITATION ACT ISSUE OF "SEPARATE AGENCIES FOR THE BLIND" AND THE REHABILITATION ACT PROGRAM OF "INDEPENDENT LIVING SERVICES TO OLDER BLIND INDIVIDUALS" March 28, 1997 INTRODUCTION The statutory mandate of the National Council on Disability is to advise Congress and the President on disability-related policy. In its analysis of federal policies and programs, the NCD brings several principles to its deliberations: consumer control and empowerment; equity for people with different disabilities; a cross-disability perspective; a preference for integration; effectiveness and efficiency of service delivery systems. In some cases, the values we hold dear are in conflict, and the course of action we should take is not clear. Such is the case with government administrative structures that serve individuals who are blind or visually impaired, where separate may not mean equal or constructive. Since we have learned that some misleading information has been circulated that raises questions about our deliberations in this area, we have prepared this document to explain the rationale for the Council's recommendations and the steps we took to obtain consumer input in their development. SEPARATE VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION AGENCIES FOR THE BLIND Background In the public vocational rehabilitation (VR) program, the federal government makes a significant administrative distinction between visual disabilities and all other disabilities. Each year, about half the states submit two VR grant applications for the 80% federal matching funds: one to serve individuals with disabilities in general and one to serve blind persons in particular. For several years, it has been a matter of public debate in the disability community whether these separate service delivery structures actually perform better or worse for blind people and whether they are equitable to people with other disabilities. As part of its legal mandate to improve enlightened, coordinated approaches to disability policy, NCD sought to develop recommendations on this as well as other issues during the current process of reauthorizing the Rehabilitation Act. We did this as part of a series of recommendations on the Rehabilitation Act, following public hearings held jointly with the Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA) of the U.S. Department of Education. The Council knew that controversial issues would arise, which might be politically easier to avoid altogether. Yet with present Congressional emphasis on federal accountability for results and elimination of duplication, and considering our desire to provide meaningful guidance to Congress on thorny issues, we felt a responsibility to proceed as objectively as possible in conveying our answers to difficult, persistent policy questions. Community Input and Deliberations In various ways, we solicited and received substantial input from consumers and professionals with an interest in this subject, including discussion of the particular recommendations we were considering. It should be noted that the Council has, within its board and staff, individuals having both professional and personal familiarity with relevant rehabilitation issues. Our communication channels included a November meeting with the Director of Public Policy at National Industries for the Blind, who also serves as treasurer of the American Council of the Blind; email correspondence with the Director of Governmental Affairs at the National Federation of the Blind; a review of position statements by various organizations of and for blind persons; published and unpublished research on the subject; and communications with research directors at the American Foundation for the Blind and the Mississippi Research and Training Center on Blindness and Low Vision. We also had numerous dialogues with the President of the National Council on State Agencies for the Blind, and reviewed statistics he provided. Additionally, we reviewed the rehabilitation position paper of the National Council on Independent Living, and spoke with officials of the organization to clarify their position. The extensive process of gathering and analyzing input from various sources led the NCD Public Policy Committee to conclude that, on the whole, research to date neither justifies nor invalidates the claim that separate VR agencies result in superior employment outcomes for individuals with visual disabilities, especially when the emphasis is on placements in the competitive labor market. Published research on the issue supports this conclusion, as well as some frank statements by blindness leaders. Without guidance from empirical research, the decision about separate agencies is based primarily on management and philosophical reasons. Without enumerating here the multiple reasons on both sides of the issue, the Public Policy Committee concluded that, on balance, the argument for a single VR administration was more persuasive, at least at the federal level. In deliberating this topic, NCD was aware that some professionals who work for separate agencies (or who have contracts with them) might understandably feel concerned about the possibility of administrative consolidation. Such dilemmas naturally arise when significant policy change is being considered. Still, we believed that our policy recommendations should be motivated mainly by what is best for the intended beneficiaries of the public VR program: people with disabilities who need help preparing for the world of work. Although the value of separate administration based on disability type was being questioned, the need for separate direct services according to disability was never in doubt. Such services, e.g., instruction in braille or cane travel, are often provided by specialized nonprofit organizations that contract with state VR agencies. Under the "client choice" provisions of the Rehabilitation Act, consumers can choose among competing qualified providers with funding supporting that choice, irrespective of whether the state has a separate or combined VR administrative structure. Mindful of the need for specialized services to blind and other disability constituencies, our proposal on the Rehabilitation Act explicitly required the federal government to assure that funding for direct services to blind consumers was not reduced if a state combined its blind and other disability administrations. We further made it clear that states were not mandated to combine agencies: a single VR application would be accepted from each state, but each state could configure its administration however it wished to best meet the needs of its citizens, just as it does with other programs. During the RSA public hearing process, we heard extensive testimony that the specialized needs of various underserved disability groups were not being met. To strengthen the commitment to specialized disability based services, our proposal added a requirement that states include specialized service plans within their VR grant applications to the federal government, including but not limited to, plans to meet the particular needs of blind and visually impaired persons, deaf persons, people with multiple chemical sensitivities, and individuals with mental illness. Since the field generally agrees that a majority of blind persons have secondary disabilities, it seemed sensible to address the specialized needs of consumers by encouraging an integrated approach that responds to each particular need, rather than separating a person's rehabilitation processes based on a single trait. Since the unemployment rate of blind people remains at 70% after decades of separate administrative structures, NCD was convinced that alternatives should be considered. It should be noted that as citizens of America, not just persons with disabilities, we were also concerned about the need to balance the budget for the sake of future generations, including future generations of individuals with disabilities. Recommendations Although we discussed these recommendations by phone and email with blindness advocates over a period of months, their organizations remained united and vocal in their opposition to the risk of policy change. Although we ultimately agreed that the research data was inconclusive, an effort to reach a compromise position with the blindness organizations proved unproductive. After public testimony at our board meeting, the Council voted to withdraw its original proposal in favor of the following recommendation: The National Council on Disability recommends to Congress that it ask the General Accounting Office to conduct a study evaluating the performance, benefits, and costs of separate versus combined vocational rehabilitation agency structures for individuals who are blind or visually impaired. The study should include meaningful input from people with disabilities, especially persons with visual disabilities. The final report should be published in sufficient time to permit consideration of its recommendations during the next process of reauthorizing the Rehabilitation Act, scheduled for the year 2002. This report should describe its methodology and recommendations as a matter of public record. We believe that a study would be especially timely during this current period of reexamining government service delivery structures and weighing alternatives. Whatever conclusions GAO may reach, they would inform policy planning that affects individuals with disabilities, and would allow public officials who have questions about service delivery structures to guide their thinking by outcome-oriented research. The results would also permit much advocacy resources of consumer and professional organizations to be spent on debates other than this one, year after year. Of course, traditional government approaches in other disability areas should be similarly analyzed during their reauthorization processes. INDEPENDENT LIVING SERVICES FOR OLDER INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE BLIND Background Title VII of the Rehabilitation Act provides guidelines and funding for programs to provide independent living services to individuals with disabilities. Most of this title reflects the perspectives of consumer control, systems change, and cross-disability delivery of services. The title also contains Chapter 2, which provides services to older blind persons with visual impairments. In contrast to most of this Title, these services are generally provided and administered by the state rehabilitation agency, with advisory, but not controlling input by consumers. Community Input and Deliberations In addition to the input described previously, NCD has heard through numerous sources about the lack of independent living services for older people with disabilities. As the population of people with disabilities ages, e.g., polio survivors or persons with spinal cord injuries, its needs change for services and support. Additionally, as the entire population ages and the majority of people over 65 experience some type of long term disability, the need for home-based services grows. Clearly, there is a need for expanded services to older individuals with disabilities, not limited to those with visual impairments. Independent living centers have the capacity to meet needs for long term services by leveraging existing resources oriented toward acute care. Their approach, which combines systems advocacy with service delivery, has been shown to broaden and augment services to people with disabilities by making mainstream public services accessible, such as senior citizen centers. In contrast to the traditional rehabilitation model, consumers of independent living centers are empowered to make changes in their lives as they interact with peers at every level of center structure. Recommendations Considering the philosophy of consumer control and empowerment in service delivery systems, equity and fairness to other disability groups, and the need for expanded services to older individuals with disabilities, the Council adopted the following recommendation: The National Council on Disability recommends to Congress and the President that the federally-funded program for older blind individuals under the Rehabilitation Act be expanded to become a cross-disability grant offered to qualified centers for independent living, as defined elsewhere in the Act, and that its funding be increased in order to effectively meet the needs of older Americans for independent living services. CLOSING REMARKS The National Council on Disability takes seriously its mandate to hear consumer views and to promote the values of inclusion, independence, and empowerment in public policy. We remain committed to improving outcomes and processes experienced by persons who are blind or visually impaired. Some examples of this commitment include our support for access to the graphical user interface, detectable warnings on subway platforms, tactually identifiable currency, better work incentives for Social Security beneficiaries, and useable information on federal programs and processes. The Council has a broad mandate to weigh the interests of a wide variety of constituencies in the context of policy planning guided by principles of inclusion, independence, and empowerment. We believe we have wrestled responsibly with current rehabilitation questions and contributed sound proposals to the policy making process. Often, such challenges are not easy. Let us all protect, however, the independent role of the National Council on Disability in developing recommendations on public policy, holistically considering people of all disabilities, ages, and backgrounds. ---------- End of Document --- * Origin: NFBnet <--> Internet Email Gateway (1:282/1045) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 233 NFB BLIND NEWS Ref: E4100003Date: 03/31/97 From: BRETT K WINCHESTER Time: 12:42pm \/To: ALL (Read 0 times) Subj: IDAHO JOB From: Brett_WINCHESTER@icbvi.state.id.us (BRETT K WINCHESTER) Subject: IDAHO JOB I appologise for cross posting but seeking wide distribution. RELEASED: April 2, 1997 P L E A S E P O S T CLOSING DATE: May 2, 1997 AN# 97-E-5 STATE OF IDAHO ANNOUNCES ADMINISTRATOR IDAHO COMMISSION FOR THE BLIND AND VISUALLY IMPAIRED CURRENT OPENING - BOISE Salary Range: $47,798.40 - $70,283.20 (annually) Depending on Experience SPECIAL NOTIFICATION: This position is exempt from state classified service and the Rules of the Idaho Personnel Commission. The Commissioners of the Idaho Commission for the Blind and Visually Impaired (ICBVI) have requested the Idaho Personnel Commission's assistance in recruiting for this position. PRINCIPAL RESPONSIBILITIES: Implements policies and procedures in compliance with federal and state laws and regulations for providing services to the blind, as developed by the Commissioners of the ICBVI; develops state plans for vocational rehabilitation and other service programs for the blind; monitors program effectiveness; develops and controls the operations of the agency budget; is the final authority on the hiring and training of staff and evaluation of their performance; is the approving authority for all contractual agreements; acts as agency liaison to the executive and legislative branches of government. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION: The Administrator is appointed by and responsible to the Commissioners of the ICBVI. Idaho Code Section 67-5409 reads in part: "The administrator of the commission shall be experienced in work for the blind and preference shall be given to equally qualified blind persons in filling the position of administrator of the commission." MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS: Usually includes: a minimum of a Master's Degree in Management or related field or an equivalent of demonstrated experience; a minimum of 5 years successful experience in management of vocational rehabilitation programs of medium to large organizations. Considerable knowledge of: federal and state laws and regulations governing the provision of services to the blind; alternative techniques of blindness; demonstrated proficiency in effective administrative and management skills. Ability to: develop and control the operation of a program budget; interpret complex materials such as laws and regulations; prepare reports; supervise professional staff; communicate effectively orally and in writing; and establish and maintain effective working relations with staff and outside interests. REQUIREMENTS: Submit your employment history and resume, along with a description of your philosophy of working with the blind, and a specific description of how you meet the minimum qualifications stated to the address shown below. For a detailed job description contact Maggie Starkovich at (208) 3343220. Alternative format available upon request. SELECTION PROCESS: The most highly qualified candidates will be selected for an oral interview. FINAL SELECTION WILL BE MADE BY THE COMMISSIONERS OF THE IDAHO COMMISSION FOR THE BLIND AND VISUALLY Impaired. SUBMIT YOUR RESPONSE TO: Paul Sharrai, Chairman c/o Maggie Starkovich Idaho Commission for the Blind and Visually Impaired P.O. Box 83720 Boise, ID 83720-0012 Telephone: (208) 334-3220; Toll free in Idaho: 1-800-542-8688; Fax: (208) 334-2963 Hiring is done without regard to race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, or disability. Appropriate consideration shall be given to veterans in accordance with applicable state and federal laws and regulations. Thank you! Oh wad some power the giftie gie us To see oursel's as others see us! It wad frae monie a blunder free us, And foolish notion. BRETT K WINCHESTER READING SERVICES IDAHO COMMISSION f/t BLIND & VISUALLY IMPAIRED BOISE IDAHO voice 208-334-3220 email bwinches@icbvi.state.id.us brett_winchester@icbvi.state.id.us home tob1ask1@interplus.net --- * Origin: NFBnet <--> Internet Email Gateway (1:282/1045) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 233 NFB BLIND NEWS Ref: E4100004Date: 03/31/97 From: "MELVIN LUMBARDY" Time: 11:12am \/To: ALL (Read 0 times) Subj: Is there a talking food thermometer? From: "Melvin Lumbardy" Subject: Is there a talking food thermometer? Hi all, I was wondering if anyone knows of a "talking Food thermometer"? I know there are tactual food thermometers, I have bought one and have not found it easy to use nor accurate. Thanks, Mel Lumbardy at chief@crown.net --- * Origin: NFBnet <--> Internet Email Gateway (1:282/1045)