Bureaucracy and the Individual

Bureaucracy and the Individual

Bureaucracy and the Individual:

The Plan for Rehabilitation in the Twenty-first Century

by Fredric K. Schroeder, Ph.D.

From the Editor: On Wednesday morning, July 8,

Dr. Fredric Schroeder, Commissioner of the Rehabilitation Services Administration of the

U.S. Department of Education, delivered his annual address to the National Federation of

the Blind. This is what he said:

Thank you, President Maurer. I'd like to begin by

adding my congratulations on your re-election as President of the National Federation of

the Blind. I was thinking about what this means as the elections were taking place this

morning. Two months ago, as you all know, President Maurer was presented an honorary

degree by Menlo College in California. I thought: here is a man who has been recognized

for his commitment and his ability and his leadership externally by the academic community

and now reaffirmed this morning by blind people throughout the nation. I would say that

the National Federation of the Blind is very, very fortunate to have a president like Marc

Maurer.

I'd like to begin by recognizing that a number of

my colleagues from the Rehabilitation Services Administration are here with me today. From

our Dallas office Mr. Loran Steever, our regional commissioner, is here. Also from our

Dallas office is Martha Garber. From my office in Washington is Susan Benbow, and also the

Director of the Division for the Blind, Joe Cordova, is with me this morning.

As we discuss rehabilitation programs in the

United States, I think it is important to recognize that the model for

rehabilitation—what has become an enduring and powerful model for

rehabilitation—was brought to us by Dr. Jernigan. He did much more than articulate a

philosophy. Dr. Jernigan took that philosophy and put it into practice and built the most

effective program for the blind that has ever existed in this country. It would behoove

all of us as rehabilitation professionals to learn from the work that he has done.

For blind people and others to attain social and

economic integration, we must find ways to aid the rehabilitation system to work better.

But what is meant by working better? Better than what? And are better services good

services?

To know whether rehabilitation services are good

services and to know whether we are making progress, we must first share a common

understanding, a common belief about the purpose of the rehabilitation program. In my view

the system exists to assist blind people and others with disabilities to achieve

high-quality employment according to their individual interests and

abilities--good-quality employment that can help lift them out of poverty but, beyond

that, afford them the opportunity to live normal lives as integrated members of society.

But what do these words mean? How are words such as "high-quality employment"

any more precise than words like "better services"? What is high-quality

employment?

Agreeing on the meaning of "better

services" and "high-quality employment" speaks to expectations—the

expectations of the client for the system and the expectations of the system for the

client and what it believes he or she might be able to achieve. It speaks to the question

of whether we genuinely believe in the inherent normalcy of blind people or whether we as

a society continue to assume that blind people are forever doomed to lives of nominal

participation.

Today few would argue that blind people cannot be

employed, but the real question is whether we as a society and as a service delivery

system and, for that matter, we as blind people ourselves truly believe that blind people

can achieve equal status in society. We know that blind people can work, but do we believe

that blind people truly have the same full range of talents and abilities as others and,

given training and opportunity, can work competitively alongside the sighted? To expand

employment opportunities for blind people, we must recognize that our real struggle, our

first and most pressing priority, is to reshape society's beliefs and attitudes about

blindness.

As a rehabilitation system we know how to

accommodate an individual's disability. We know about the training and the assistive

technology that can enable the individual to work. But to assist blind people in attaining

true integration, we must seek opportunities for blind people and others to pursue their

individual interests and aspirations. With this principle in mind let me discuss with you

the current status of the reauthorization of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended

(the Act) and how certain proposed changes will better enable state rehabilitation

agencies to support blind people and others in pursuing high-quality employment.

In the House of Representatives amendments to

reauthorize the Act are contained in the Employment, Training, and Literacy Enhancement

Act of 1997 (H.R. 1385), which was passed by the House in May, 1997. The Senate's bill to

extend authorization of the Act is the Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1998 (S. 1579).

This bill was adopted on May 5, 1998, as an amendment to the Workforce Investment

Partnership Act (WIPA, S. 1186). Congress is now working through a conference committee to

resolve differences between the two bills.

The Senate bill contains many more changes and

new provisions than the House proposal. However, when taken together, the bills would

streamline administrative procedures; expand consumer choice; increase opportunities for

high-quality employment; and link the vocational rehabilitation (VR) program to a state's

workforce development system.

For example, to increase access to the system,

the Senate bill takes an important step to simplify eligibility determinations by

establishing presumptive eligibility for people who receive Social Security Supplemental

Income (SSI) or Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) benefits and who are seeking

employment. While the provision does not establish an entitlement to VR services for SSI

recipients and SSDI beneficiaries, it recognizes that they have already been determined by

an agency of the federal government—the Social Security Administration—to have a

disability which impedes their ability to work and accordingly receive cash and medical

benefits.

Concerning informed choice, the Senate and House

proposals expand the choice provisions in the Act in several ways. State VR agencies,

through an open process, will be required to develop and implement policies and procedures

to afford opportunities for applicants for VR services and eligible individuals to

exercise informed choices throughout the rehabilitation process. The policies and

procedures must include the provision of information and support services to assist

applicants and eligible individuals in making informed choices.

Current law requires that VR services be provided

in an integrated setting; however, the Senate and House bills clarify that the requirement

is for the most integrated setting that is appropriate to the service being provided and

consistent with the informed choice of the individual. If a particular program or service

is better suited to a special setting, such as orientation and adjustment training, it may

continue to be provided in a nonintegrated setting. Both bills also incorporate current

regulatory language on informed choice in the selection of the employment goal, services,

service providers, and procurement methods.

Both bills rename the Individualized Written

Rehabilitation Program (IWRP) to focus on employment and expand the client's role in

developing it. Clients (or their representatives) will have the new option of developing

their own plans for approval by state VR agencies, or they may jointly develop their plans

with rehabilitation counselors in the traditional fashion.

To encourage new opportunities for high-quality

employment, both the House and Senate bills include new provisions that emphasize

self-employment and small business operation. The Senate bill adds to the scope of VR

services, technical assistance, and other consultation services for eligible individuals

who are pursuing self-employment or small business operation. Both bills introduce new

authorities to fund special service projects to assist individuals in pursuing

self-employment, and the Senate bill includes authority for special projects in the area

of telecommuting.

While the Rehabilitation Services Administration

(RSA) does not administer Title V of the Act, I would like to give you an update on

proposed changes to section 508. The Senate version of section 508 would strengthen

current law by requiring every federal department or agency to procure, maintain, and use

electronic and information technology that is accessible to people with disabilities,

unless not practicable. An important change in the Senate proposal is a requirement that,

within eighteen months after the date of enactment, the Access Board must issue standards

that set forth the technical and functional performance criteria necessary to implement

the requirements of section 508. Another important proposed change is a provision which

would allow any individual with a disability to file a complaint alleging that a

procurement action is inconsistent with the established standards.

Turning to another matter, you may be aware that

on March 13, 1998, President Clinton issued an Executive Order on the Employment of Adults

with Disabilities. The Executive Order articulates the belief that people with

disabilities in the United States should be employed to the same extent as the general

population. It calls for the creation of a national Task Force made up of the Secretaries

of most domestic policy Federal departments, including the Departments of Labor,

Education, Commerce, Health and Human Services, and Justice. The Task Force is chaired by

Labor Secretary Alexis Herman with Tony Coelho, the Chairman of the President's Committee

on Employment of People with Disabilities serving as Vice Chair. The Task Force will

examine Federal disability policy to determine what changes can be made in a coordinated,

interagency effort to remove barriers to employment facing people with disabilities.

As the rehabilitation system seeks ways of

increasing employment opportunities, we must begin by recognizing the importance of

education in acquiring high-quality jobs. We know that there is a strong correlation

between education and earnings. The more education an individual has, the more money he or

she is likely to make. Conversely, people with little education on average earn less than

more highly educated workers, and are more apt to live in poverty.

RSA is in the fourth year of a longitudinal study

of the VR Services program. Preliminary findings indicate that competitively employed

individuals with disabilities with less than a high school diploma or GED equivalency earn

an average of $6.30 per hour. Those with more than a high school education average

slightly over $9 per hour, or over 40% greater earnings, due to higher academic

achievement. Unfortunately, of all people competitively employed in the longitudinal

study, only 18 percent had earned any kind of degree beyond a high school diploma or GED

equivalency. Less than 3 percent held an advanced degree.

Achievement levels in reading and mathematics

also correlate strongly with earnings. Competitively employed workers with disabilities

who read at less than the fourth-grade level barely earned the federal minimum wage, while

those who read above the twelfth-grade level averaged $7.52 per hour, over 36 percent more

than the poor readers.

The disparity in earnings by math achievement

levels is even more dramatic. People with math achievement levels at less than fourth

grade earn an average of $5.56 an hour. Those with achievement levels above the twelfth

grade earn an average hourly wage of $8.54, over 50 percent more.

An important measure of high-quality employment

is access to health insurance. Only 36 percent of all disabled workers in the VR

longitudinal study received medical benefits through their employers. Not surprisingly,

better paying jobs were also more likely to include health benefits.

The staggering unemployment rate among blind

people and others with disabilities can be significantly reduced through more jobs, but

high-quality jobs are the key to true economic independence. High-quality jobs mean

higher-paying jobs that include critical benefits such as health insurance and retirement

plans. High-quality jobs mean jobs that are not dead end but have opportunities for career

advancement. And, most important, high-quality jobs mean jobs which the individual finds

challenging and rewarding. In many instances access to high-quality jobs will require

better-qualified candidates, and therein lies the challenge.

It is unconscionable to train people for

entry-level, low-paying jobs with few or no benefits when additional training or education

would qualify them for better jobs with better benefits and economic independence. We

serve no one well when we assist an individual in becoming underemployed.

We know that higher academic achievement leads to

higher earnings, and higher earnings lead to health insurance and other important

benefits. Blind people must be encouraged to seek out high-quality employment, not simply

stereotypic jobs or the most readily available jobs. To prepare blind people for

high-quality jobs, blind people must first be literate. We must be able to read and write

Braille if we are to pursue advanced academic or technical training. Consequently, the

rehabilitation system must encourage and support blind people in pursuing training in the

skills of blindness as well as the academic or technical credentials necessary to compete

successfully for good jobs. And the system must also encourage and assist those who are

underemployed to acquire the additional skills or education they need to achieve true

social and economic integration. Service providers and blind people must share a common

belief in the fundamental equality of blind people. We must forge partnerships between

blind people and the rehabilitation system growing out of the shared belief in the

capacity of blind people to work competitively and to live normal productive lives.

In short, we must continue to struggle to break

free from the bonds of minimal expectations. We must continue to struggle to create

opportunities for blind people to achieve academically and to pursue their individual

interests and abilities. We must continue to struggle for high-quality employment, but not

simply to lift ourselves out of poverty. We must continue to struggle for high-quality

employment as a symbol of true social and economic integration. We must continue to

struggle for high-quality employment as the tangible expression of our fundamental

normalcy. And we must continue to struggle for high-quality employment as evidence that we

have the capacity and right to assume the challenges and opportunities of first-class

status.