Texas Commission for the Blind Consumer News CONSUMER NEWS Texas Commission for the Blind May 11, 1995 Vol. III, No. 9 Advocates for people who are blind say there is good news and bad news from Washington. The good news is a bill was introduced yesterday that demonstrates Congress is listening to consumers and wants to address their concerns about consolidation of federal job training programs. The bad news is that some critical issues still need to be addressed. The bill (H.R. 1617), cosponsored by Rep. Bill Goodling, Chairman of the House Economic and Educational Opportunities Committee, and Rep. Buck McKeon, would divide the state into Local Workforce Development Areas. A Local Workforce Development Board would create and monitor a system of One-Stop Career Centers within the Local Area. The Board would have at least one individual with a disability, but would always maintain a majority of members representing business and industry. The one-stop centers would deliver services to all individuals, including VR services to persons with disabilities. Any organization within a Local Area could apply to be a one- stop center as long as it delivers a list of core services, which include VR. Advocates say: The bill would allow Governors to designate a fiscal agent to receive and monitor VR funds earmarked for services to people who are blind. However, the fiscal agent would not be required to know anything about VR programs or issues related to blindness and work. The proposal significantly amends, but retains Title I of the Rehab Act, including requirements for eligibility determination, qualified staff, and priority for persons with the most severe disabilities. The amendments to Title I, however, would not ensure the same scope of services that are guaranteed under the current Rehab Act: specific services such as adaptive technology, physical restoration, reader services, orientation and mobility, or training in independent living skills. The bill includes provisions to increase an individuals personal responsibility in the rehab process by making the IWRP optional and creating a voucher system for purchasing VR services. The scope of VR services in each Local Area would be negotiated by the Local Workforce Development Board and the organizations applying to become one-stop centers. Advocates fear services would be significantly different from area to area. Consumer control and involvement in the states overall VR program would be traded for increased choice and responsibility in the individuals rehab process. Final discussion (markup) by the subcommittee will take place on May 17. Advocates say that if you are concerned about consumer control and involvement in the VR system or access to specific services for people who are blind, contact your local representative and those listed below. Advocates say any consolidation proposal must guarantee: that the scope of VR services shall include specific services for people who are blind, as guaranteed in the current Rehab Act, and that the designated agent to receive VR funds be knowledgeable about VR programs, as required in the current Rehab Act. Write to Representatives at: Hon. (Representative's name) U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Bill Goodling, Chairman House Economic and Educational Opportunities Committee (202) 225-5836 (202) 226-1000 Gene Green (202) 225-1688 (voice) (202) 225-9903 (fax ) Howard P. "Buck" McKeon Chairman, Subcommittee on Postsecondary Education, Training and Life-long Learning (202) 225-1956 (voice) (202) 226-0683 (fax) tellbuck@hr.house.gov Sam Johnson (202) 225-4201 (voice) (202) 225-1485 (fax) samtx03@hr.house.gov 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)