Report to the President 

Leveling the Playing Field: Improving Technology Access and Design 

for People with Intellectual Disabilities 

2015 
Concern for man himself and his fate must always constitute the chief 

objective of all technological endeavors...in order that the creations of our 

minds shall be a blessing and not a curse to mankind. 

Albert Einstein 

“Science and Happiness” 

The California Institute of Technology 

February 16, 1931 
DISCLAIMER
	

This document, Report to the President—Leveling the Playing Field: Improving 

Technology Access and Design for People with Intellectual Disabilities, does not 

necessarily reflect the views of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 

(HHS). 

Although some of the information and data contained in this Report were contributed by 

authorities in the fields of emerging technology, disability research, education, public 

policy and other related fields, the personal opinions that such contributors may hold or 

choose to express outside of this Report to the President do not necessarily reflect the 

views of the President’s Committee for People with Intellectual Disabilities (PCPID), 

HHS, or other federal agencies. 

In addition, this Report is not suggesting that the HHS-PCPID endorses any 

organization's product, service, or person. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS
	

COMMITTEE PROFILE ................................................................................................... I
	

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY................................................................................................ III
	

INTRODUCTION AND KEY RECOMMENDATIONS...................................................... 1
	

DEFINITION OF TECHNOLOGY.................................................................................... 2
	

Definition Of Technology Wordle (Word Cloud)........................................................... 3
	

Key Recommendations ............................................................................................ 4
	

Overarching Technology Recommendations across the Four Focus Areas ............ 9
	

Conclusion ............................................................................................................. 11
	

RELEVANT TECHNOLOGIES, TERMINOLOGY AND DEFINITIONS ......................... 12
	

Personal Support Technologies – Mainstream Technology....................................... 12
	

Personal Support Technologies – Specialized Assistive Devices.............................. 13
	

Environmental Support Technologies........................................................................ 14
	

Virtual Technologies .................................................................................................. 15
	

Cognitive Support Technologies ............................................................................ 15
	

General Disability Technology – Cognitively Accessible Technologies: ................. 15
	

ID Specific Technology – Cognitively Specialized Technologies: .......................... 16
	

TECHNOLOGY DISTINCTIONS................................................................................... 16
	

RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................. 18
	

PCPID 2015 ORGANIZATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS: CHALLENGES, 

BARRIERS, AND RESOURCES ............................................................................... 18
	

Focus Area 1: ELEMENTARY, SECONDARY, AND POST-SECONDARY
	

EDUCATION ............................................................................................................. 19
	

Overview ................................................................................................................ 19
	

Barriers to Availability of Educational and Assessment Materials .......................... 20
	

Recommendations: Educational and Assessment Materials.................................. 21
	

Barriers to Online Learning .................................................................................... 23
	

Recommendation: Online Learning........................................................................ 23
	

Barriers to Higher Education Access...................................................................... 23
	

Recommendations: Higher Education Access ....................................................... 24
	

Barriers to Research and Development ................................................................. 25
	

Recommendations: Research and Development................................................... 25
	

Barriers to Family and Student Engagement ......................................................... 26
	

Recommendations: Family and Student Engagement ........................................... 26
	

Barriers to Transition-Age Youth regarding Least Restrictive Work Placement ..... 27
	

Recommendations: Transition-Age Youth.............................................................. 28
	
 

 

 

 

Focus Area 2: COMMUNITY LIVING ........................................................................ 29
	

Overview:................................................................................................................... 29
	

Barriers to Technology Funding, Research and Design......................................... 30
	

Recommendations: Technology Funding and Research........................................ 30
	

Barrier to Accessible Design .................................................................................. 31
	

Recommendations: Accessible Design .................................................................. 31
	

Ben Kim ................................................................................................................. 32
	

Focus Area 3: EMPLOYMENT AND ECONOMIC WELL-BEING .............................. 33
	

Overview: ............................................................................................................... 33
	

Barriers to Employment and Economic Well-Being ................................................ 34
	

Recommendations: Employment and Economic Well-Being ................................. 35
	

Focus Area 4: HEALTH AND WELLNESS ................................................................ 38
	

Back to Key Recommendations................................................................................. 38
	

Overview: ............................................................................................................... 38
	

Barriers to Health and Wellness............................................................................. 39
	

Recommendations: Health and Wellness .............................................................. 41
	

Creating Better Futures: Health Care Visit Satisfaction Survey ............................. 43
	

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES ......................................................................................... 44
	

FREQUENTLY-USED ACRONYMS ............................................................................. 53
	

REFERENCES.............................................................................................................. 54
	

THE PRESIDENT’S COMMITTEE FOR PEOPLE WITH INTELLECTUAL 

DISABILITIES: MEMBERS .............................................................................................. i
	

PCPID CITIZEN MEMBERS......................................................................................... i
	

EX-OFFICIO MEMBERS AND REPRESENTATIVES..................................................ii
	

PCPID STAFF ............................................................................................................. v
	

ADDITIONAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ..................................................................... v
	
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

COMMITTEE PROFILE
	

Americans with intellectual disabilities (ID) experience significant limitations in both 

intellectual functioning and in adaptive behavior, which covers many everyday social 

and practical skills. This disability originates before the age of 18.1 

Intellectual disability and developmental disability (DD) are not the same thing. DD is 

an umbrella term that includes ID but also includes other disabilities that are apparent 

during childhood, like physical, motor, neurological, psychological, or sensory 

disabilities. High quality, inclusive services and supports (including natural, unpaid 

supports) in education, health, employment, family support and other areas often assist 

people with ID and DD to live full lives in their communities. 

A portion of research studies in the United States (U.S.) has focused on the prevalence 

of intellectual disability and the numbers of people affected. However, the findings of 

these research studies are not consistent. Estimates range from one to three percent, 

or from three million to nine million people (B. Bryant, Seok, Ok, & D. Bryant, 2012). 

In 1961, President John F. Kennedy called the nation’s attention to deplorable living 

conditions in institutions and limited opportunities for people with ID in communities 

across the U.S. To ensure the right of a “decent, dignified place in society” for people 

with ID, President Lyndon B. Johnson established the President’s Committee on Mental 

Retardation in 1966. To underscore the importance of respect and facilitate the removal 

of negative labeling, the Committee was renamed on April 25, 2003, as the President’s 

Committee for People with Intellectual Disabilities (PCPID). 

PCPID serves in an advisory capacity to the President of the United States of America 

and the Secretary of Health and Human Services on matters relating to individuals with 

ID. The Committee upholds the right of all people with ID to enjoy a quality of life that 

1 As defined by American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (AAIDD), 

http://aaidd.org/intellectual-disability/definition# 

I
	
 

promotes independence, self-determination, and full participation as productive 

members of society. Executive Order 12994, as amended by Executive Order 13446, 

stipulates that the Committee shall provide advice to the President concerning the 

following: expansion of educational opportunities; promotion of homeownership; 

assurance of workplace integration; improvement of transportation options; expansion 

of full access to community living; and—the focus of this Report—increased access to 

technology. 

The Committee currently consists of 18 citizen members appointed by the President, 

including a Chair who is responsible for planning the PCPID strategic direction, and 13 

ex officio (federal government) members designated by the President. The 13 ex officio 

members are the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Secretary of Education, 

Secretary of Labor, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, Secretary of 

Commerce, Secretary of Transportation, Secretary of the Interior, Secretary of 

Homeland Security, the Attorney General of the United States, the CEO of the 

Corporation for National and Community Service, Chair of the Equal Employment 

Opportunity Commission, Chair of the National Council on Disability, and 

Commissioner of the Social Security Administration. 

PCPID is led by the Commissioner of the Administration on Disabilities (AoD), who also 

serves as the Committee’s Designated Federal Officer, and supported by federal 

employees. Within the AoD, the Administration on Intellectual and Developmental 

Disabilities (AIDD) is the federal agency responsible for implementation and 

administration of the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act of 

2000 (DD Act). Organizationally, AoD is located within the Administration for 

Community Living at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 

II
	
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
	

The President’s Committee for People with Intellectual Disabilities is honored to advise 

the President and the Secretary of Health and Human Services about the role of 

technology in improving the quality of life for people with ID and ensuring their full 

citizenship rights. A new generation of technologies continues to redefine, at an 

accelerated pace, how we all live, grow, and excel. The same should be true for people 

with ID. Access to technology is critical for people with ID to fully engage in the 

everyday life of our society. 

Interacting with technology should no longer be considered optional. Participating in 

education, communicating with friends and family, having access to various forms of 

transportation, working in competitive employment, and performing activities of daily 

living, such as cooking or washing clothes, all typically require the use of keypads, 

touch screens, and other forms of interface with displays and controls. The U.S. 

Department of Commerce (2011) reports that 96% of working Americans use new 

information and communications technologies as part of their daily life, while 62% of 

working Americans use the Internet as an integral part of their jobs. 

People with ID are entitled to inclusion in their communities under current federal laws, 

including the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, the Developmental 

Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act (DD Act) of 2000, the Individuals with 

Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) of 2004, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 

as amended, and under state and local laws. Access to technology is essential for 

people with ID to promote self-determination and to engage meaningfully in their 

communities in all major aspects of life such as education, employment, health care and 

healthy living, recreation, and civic participation. 

New technologies have created opportunities and higher expectations for people with 

disabilities, including people with intellectual and developmental disabilities (I/DD). 

III
	
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

However, mainstream technologies2 are not often enough designed with the needs of 

individuals with ID in mind. Thus, they can create – rather than remove – significant 

obstacles to independent participation in life activities and communities. Many of these 

obstacles can be overcome when cognitive accessibility (as defined in the Cognitive 

Support Technologies) is considered during the design and implementation of new 

technologies. 

The goal of the PCPID 2015 Report to the President is two-fold: 

1. To increase the cognitive accessibility of technology that is part of the fabric of 

everyday lives and strengthen federal policies to ensure that people with ID have 

equal access to everyday technology, and 

2. To increase the availability, quality, and affordability of cognitive support 

technologies through policies, practices, development, and research.
	

This Report was developed by PCPID members, who have substantial expertise in the 

field of I/DD, for the consideration of the President. In addition to several overarching 

recommendations, it identifies specific federal policy recommendations that the 

Committee believes will help improve access to, and the design of, technology used by 

people with ID in four focus areas: 

1. Elementary, Secondary, and Post-Secondary Education 

2. Community Living 

3. Employment and Economic Well-Being 

4. Health and Wellness 

2 The term mainstream technology has no statutory definition or precise technical meaning. As the 

term is used here, it refers to any technology that is intended for general use rather than for use 

entirely or primarily by people with disabilities. 

IV
	
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

INTRODUCTION AND KEY RECOMMENDATIONS
	

The U.S. Constitution starts with the words “We the people,” and attached to it is a Bill 

of Rights, which sets out individual liberties and states that Americans have equal 

treatment under the law. The Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, reminds us that 

disability is a natural part of human experience and in no way diminishes the rights of 

individuals to live independently, enjoy self-determination, make choices, contribute to 

society, pursue meaningful careers, and enjoy full inclusion and integration in American 

society. It also states that the goals of the nation properly include the goal of providing 

individuals with disabilities the tools they need to do each of these. 

Now more than ever, technology is a crucial tool that supports people with ID to 

experience the benefits of full citizenship and have greater control over their own lives. 

Appropriate and accessible technologies can enhance communication, daily activities 

and independence, education, and competitive employment opportunities. Technology 

can also make it possible for people with ID to participate in and contribute more fully to 

activities in their homes, schools, work environments, and communities. It can assist 

them in having more transportation options to accomplish all these things, and, in doing 

so, it can improve how individuals with ID interact with the greater community. 

Historically, the emphasis on technology for people with disabilities, including people 

with ID, has been specialized, stand-alone assistive technology (AT) devices. These 

devices were often paid for by federal programs and designed specifically for one 

person. This is changing. Today people with ID are using and benefiting from 

mainstream technologies, including mobile technology such as smartphones and tablet 

devices as well as universally designed technologies, that may have specific 

applications (“apps”) for use by people with ID. In addition, software systems are 

becoming more adaptable and personalized. Further, mobile and easy-to-use 

technologies are more affordable than specialized AT devices, so they have significant 

potential for assisting individuals with ID. 

1
	
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Individuals with ID should have an equal right to “fair access” to information and 

communication technologies. Fair access means that people with ID should have 

access to smartphones, tablet devices, and web access and use these technologies to 

make choices and live the kinds of lives they want to lead (O’Hara, 2015). It also 

means that the cost of technology will not be a barrier to getting access to technology 

and using it. 

DEFINITION OF TECHNOLOGY 

In the course of preparing this Report, PCPID members realized there was no precise 

definition of technology relevant to people with ID. They thus developed the following 

definition of technology, which is relevant to people with ID and was agreed upon by the 

members, self-advocates, advocates, and other contributors to this Report. 

The use of advances in science3 to support people and society, to 

reduce barriers, and to make the everyday world more accessible 

3 Science is the study of why and how things happen. It includes everything people do to learn 

about the world, especially about nature. 

2
	
 

 

 

 

Definition Of Technology Wordle (Word Cloud) 

The following Wordle is a conceptual reflection of how technology is defined in this 

Report and conveys the proportional meaning given by those who contributed. 

The top 12 words in the Wordle are: 1) science/scientific, 2) advances, 3) 

application, 4) support, 5) people, 6) reduce, 7) barriers, 8) accessible, 9) 

society, 10) make/use, 11) everyday, and 12) world. 

3
	
 

 

 

 

Key Recommendations 

As the most effective way to communicate the Committee’s concerns related to design, 

access, and implementation of new technologies and illuminate possible solutions, 

PCPID members identified overarching technology challenges and recommendations in 

four focus areas: 1) Elementary, Secondary, and Post-Secondary Education; 2) 

Community Living; 3) Employment and Economic Well-Being; and 4) Health and 

Wellness. 

Focus Area 1: Elementary, Secondary, and Post-Secondary Education 

How can technology be used more effectively to make educational materials, and the 

general education classroom, accessible to students with ID? How can accessibility 

tools developed in K-12 environments be used in post-secondary environments? 

Key Recommendations for Federal Agencies: Elementary, Secondary, and 

Post-Secondary Education 

	 Offices responsible for the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), 

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Higher Education Opportunity 

Act (HEOA), and other federal programs are urged to require accessibility in all 

educational technology they support. 

	 The offices that administer ESEA, IDEA, HEOA, and other federal laws should 

include accessibility requirements in any online learning tools or systems whose 

development they support, and encourage others to do so wherever permissible 

by law. 

	 The U.S. Department of Education (ED) should issue guidance recommending 

that all educational curricula purchased by schools (kindergarten through higher 

4
	
 

 

 

 

education) meet current industry standards for accessibility including cognitive 

accessibility. 

	 Federal offices should support improvements in copyright law and practice 

wherever possible so that people with ID can access free electronic books for 

individuals with a print disability. 

	 The U.S. should ratify the Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published 

Works for Persons Who are Blind, Visually Impaired or Otherwise Print Disabled. 

The treaty will allow sharing of accessible materials, for use by members of the 

beneficiary groups, across international borders, thus increasing the number and 

supplies of materials accessible to persons with disabilities. ED should offer data 

and other support toward achieving the goal of ratification wherever possible. 

Full List of PCPID Recommendations on Elementary, Secondary, and PostSecondary Education 

Focus Area 2: Community Living 

How can the requisite research and funding be acquired to achieve advances in 

accessible technology that will result in greater independent living options and full 

citizenship benefits for people with ID? 

Key Recommendations for Federal Agencies: Community Living 

	 The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) should consider whether 

States are utilizing technology to improve and expand access to integrated 

community living as one aspect of the settings compliance analysis under the 

new Home and Community-Based Services (HCBS) regulation. 

5
	
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

	 Federal agencies should research, fund, and create more technology apps which 

expand the independence and participation of people with ID in everyday living 

situations.4 

	 Federal agencies should incentivize product developers to design software that is 

highly visual and customizable with verbal and non-verbal cues, and that 

contains real-time pictures and videos to orient and engage users with ID. 

Full List of PCPID Recommendations on Community Living 

Focus Area 3: Employment and Economic Well-Being: 

How can people with ID obtain and more effectively use technology in employment and 

to ensure their economic well-being? How can federal agencies incentivize the 

technology industry and employers to develop, promote and use accessible 

technologies that increase employment opportunities and on-the-job success for people 

with ID? 

Key Recommendations for Federal Agencies: Employment and 

Economic Well-Being 

	 ED and HHS should provide guidance on the inclusion of mainstream, accessible 

information and communications technologies (ICT) in the definition of “assistive 

technology” in federal education and vocational rehabilitation policy. 

4 For example, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) created a new housing 

counseling mobile app that allows smartphone and tablet users to locate housing counselors in their 

own area. HUD also unveiled the first housing discrimination mobile application for iPhone and iPad 

in 2013, and made it available on Android smart devices in 2015. Additionally, see information 

regarding the HUD Resource Locator on page 47. 

6
	
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

	 ED and HHS’s National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and 

Rehabilitation Research (NIDILRR) should provide additional information and 

resources to the state vocational rehabilitation programs on the use of 

technology and related technology services, as part of Individualized Plans for 

Employment (IPEs). 

	 HHS-NIDILRR and the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) should continue funding 

research that specifically focuses on the use of technology to increase 

competitive, integrated employment outcomes for youth and adults with ID. 

	 DOL should issue technical guidance to American Job Centers on the use of 

accessible technology in serving One-Stop customers (designed to provide a full 

range of assistance to job seekers under one roof) with ID. This guidance should 

advise contractors about best technology practices and resources to increase the 

hiring and employment of individuals with ID. 

Full List of PCPID Recommendations on Employment and Economic Well-Being 

Focus Area 4: Health and Wellness 

How can product developers, researchers, funders and others use widely available 

technology as a resource to increase the involvement of people with ID in their own 

health care and health care decision-making? 

Key Recommendations for Federal Agencies: Health and Wellness 

	 As a part of the review and approval process for Medicaid State Plan 

Amendments and Waivers, HHS-CMS should allow states to fund personal and 

mainstream technologies (including mobile devices) that can optimize 

participation of people with ID in their own health care and wellness. 

7
	
 

 

 

	 Technology should be used for ongoing training of health care professionals to 

increase their skills, knowledge and understanding of people with ID. 

	 Electronic records should be promoted and shared between health care systems 

and programs furnishing long-term services and supports to improve care for 

individuals with ID, and to provide longitudinal data for systems and planning. 

Full List of PCPID Recommendations on Health and Wellness 

8
	
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Overarching Technology Recommendations across the Four Focus Areas 

Common themes emerged from the four specific focus areas that became relevant 

across them all. The following overarching technology recommendations illuminate 

themes of accessibility, affordability, independence, the enforcement role of federal 

agencies and creating incentives for product development and research. PCPID 

advises the President to: 

1. Recognize and affirm the equal rights of people with cognitive disabilities5 to 

technology and information access by embracing the Declaration of the Rights of 

People with Cognitive Disabilities to Technology and Information Access, among 

other things. 

2. Adopt and incorporate into federal statute, policy and recommended practice 

definitions for the following: 

	 “Cognitively Accessible Technologies” – Usability of technology by 

people with I/DD. 

	 “Cognitive Design” – Ensure that mainstream technologies are designed 

for people with I/DD from the beginning and that the design includes their 

input. Cognitive Design must not only include design, but also access 

functions. 

3. Ensure that technology is accessible, affordable, and widely available to people 

with I/DD, who can benefit from it at home, in their communities, and at work. 

5 Definitions of cognitive disability vary but are generally broad and include difficulties with mental 

tasks and/or processing. Students with cognitive disabilities often are unable to read or to gain 

meaning from standard print materials. They may struggle with reading due to difficulties with 

functional abilities such as problem-solving, memory, attention, and comprehension. They often 

need and can benefit from the use of accessible instructional materials to present the same 

information found in traditional instructional materials in a different format (National Center on 

Accessible Instructional Materials, 2015). ID is far more specific. 

9
	
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4. Direct the U.S. Department of Education Office of Civil Rights to revisit the 

definitions of the terms “otherwise qualified” relative to eligibility for 

accommodations under Section 5046 of the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans 

with Disabilities Act. The emerging benefits of supportive, assistive and also 

prosthetic7 technologies offer a significant extension of individual capabilities that 

were unavailable when these statutes were drafted. 

5. Amend the functions of the U.S. Access Board (Section 502 of the Rehabilitation 

Act) to include the development of data standards to facilitate promotion of 

cognitive design and guidelines, incorporating solutions that include use of 

cognitively accessible technologies in businesses, communities, and the federal 

government. 

6. Ensure that federal agencies interpret Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act in a 

manner that creates cognitively accessible pathways to information, policies, and 

programs that are useful and available to people with ID. 

7. Direct the U.S. Department of Justice to enforce the Americans with Disabilities 

Act so that public and private entities’ services and programs that are available 

through electronic technology are readily accessible to people with ID. 

8. Promote continued Research and Development funding and longitudinal testing 

of new cognitively accessible technologies, including speech-to-text technologies 

that increase the independence of people with ID. Request creation of a 

research agenda through the demonstration projects of the NIDILRR and the 

CMS. 

6 Section 504 is a civil rights law that prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities. 

Section 504 ensures that the child with a disability has equal access to an education. The child may 

receive accommodations and modifications. 

7 In medicine, “prosthesis" is an artificial device that replaces a missing body part, which may be lost 

through trauma, disease or other conditions. 

10
	
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

9. Direct the U.S. Department of Education and U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services to provide funding opportunities for the creation and support of 

an open access site (i.e., a repository of resources including codes), containing 

resources for developing accessible information and materials for people with 

cognitive disabilities. 

10.Create federal incentives (e.g., tax credits) for the private sector to develop 

cognitively accessible technologies. 

Conclusion 

Technology can enhance participation of people with ID in elementary and secondary 

education, higher education, competitive employment, home ownership, community 

living and all other aspects of society. Public-private partnership can be effective in 

making available technologies and technological innovations accessible and affordable. 

Universally designed technology can benefit all users, including those with ID, and can 

provide a market advantage to developers. Clearly, all civil rights protections apply to 

technology. The President’s Committee believes that technology must be cognitively 

accessible, affordable, and widely available to individuals with ID. 

Federal agencies can encourage, work with, and incentivize both the public and private 

sectors to develop and promote technologies that: 

1. Incorporate universal design principles, 

2. Are flexible and adaptable, and 

3. Can be personalized and used to match the unique needs and preferences of 

individuals with ID. 

11
	
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RELEVANT TECHNOLOGIES, TERMINOLOGY AND DEFINITIONS
	

Technologies, terminology and definitions relevant to this Report are cited below: 

Personal Support Technologies – Mainstream Technology 

Personal Support Technology (PST) is defined as an electronic monitoring device or 

system that supports individuals with I/DD to be independent in the community or in 

their place of residence with limited assistance or supervision by paid staff. The term 

mainstream technology has no statuary definition or precise technical meaning. As the 

term is used here, it refers to any technology that is intended for general use rather than 

for use entirely or primarily by people with disabilities. 

	 Universally Designed Technology – Universally design technology 

ensures that technology products provide an interface that is suitable for 

all potential users, including individuals with disabilities, without the need 

for adaptation or specialized design. 

For information to be accessible to individuals with ID, it must: 

a.		 Decrease the dependence on rote memory as a tool for recalling 

information, 

b. Use as many complementary formats as possible (visual, audio, 

multi-graphic), 

c.		 Reduce the need for the recipient to utilize complex organizational 

skills for comprehension, and 

12
	
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

d. Be presented in a vocabulary or at a reading level that is accessible 

to a full range of abilities. 

More intuitive, user-centered computing interfaces are necessary to 

increase accessibility and empower persons with cognitive disabilities to 

use common technologies such as the Internet and personal computers. 

	 Cloud Technologies – Computing that utilizes a hosted service rather 

than a product, with shared resources, software, and information being 

provided to computers and other devices over a network (typically the 

Internet). Some examples of cloud technology are: email, social 

networking apps, “smart” homes, and online banking services. 

	 Mobile Technologies – Small, portable devices such as smart phones 

and tablets. 

Personal Support Technologies – Specialized Assistive Devices 

	 Assistive Technology (AT) – Any item, equipment, or product system, 

whether acquired commercially off the shelf, modified, or customized, that 

is used to increase, maintain, or improve functional capabilities of 

individuals with disabilities (Assistive Technology Act of 2004, P.L. 108-

364). 

	 Assistive Technology for Cognition (ATC) – Devices that use computer 

technology and are specifically designed to help people compensate for 

cognitive impairments. ATC refers to a range of tools that includes lowtech and mainstream devices, as well as specialized technology 

(Sohlberg, 2011). 

13
	
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

	 Assistive Technology Service (ATS) – Any service that helps individuals 

with disabilities select, acquire, or use AT devices, including evaluating 

technology needs, helping to purchase technology, designing or adapting 

AT devices, training in using technology, and “expanding the availability of 

access to technology, including electronic and information technology” 

(Assistive Technology Act of 2004, P.L. 108-364). 

Environmental Support Technologies 

	 Smart Homes – Technologies that can help individuals with functional 

limitations control their environment (e.g., operate heating and cooling 

systems, electrical appliances, and TVs and stereos, or safety features 

such as locking and unlocking doors). 

	 Innovative Transportation Technology – New technologies that expand 

mobility and navigation options. Many mobile devices already include 

Global Positioning System (GPS) and other apps that help with 

transportation. In addition, more advanced technologies are being 

developed to increase access to more transportation options specifically 

for all individuals with cognitive disabilities. 

	 Robotics – Personal robots, also called “technological assistants,” are 

being studied as a way to supplement the role of educators, direct support 

professionals, and job coaches. 

 Specific Workplace Technologies – Workplace-based technologies that 

are used by companies to employ higher numbers of people with ID in 

integrated, competitive workplaces (e.g., The Walgreen Company or 

Walgreens). 

14
	
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Virtual Technologies 

Virtual Technology – Immersive multimedia or computer simulations that 

replicate an environment simulating places in the real (or imagined) world. 

Researchers are utilizing virtual technologies to provide instruction in daily 

activities such as shopping, work tasks, and social interactions, and are 

finding that skills learned in virtual environments successfully transfer to 

real world situations. 

Cognitive Support Technologies 

Cognitive support technologies are technologies that include cognitive accessibility 

features and are as follows: 

General Disability Technology – Cognitively Accessible (Everyday) Technologies: 

Cognitive support technologies enable individuals with ID to fully access and engage in 

the public/private infrastructure. Examples include: 

	 Smartphones with speech to text, symbol based applications, and/or 

customizable accessibility features 

	 Alternative keyboards with picture options 

	 Touch screens 

	 Sip-and-Puff systems 

	 Wands and Sticks 

	 Joysticks 

15
	
 

 

 

 

 

 Speech or voice recognition devices
	

 Screen readers
	

ID Specific Technology – Cognitively Specialized Technologies: 

Specialized technologies are uniquely designed to address specific needs of individuals 

with ID to maximize independence and self-direction, support interdependence, and 

enable full participation in society. Some examples of such uses include: 

 Cognitive orthotics, such as memory aids
	

 Job coaching video app
	

 Visual modeling and task prompting
	

 Online career interest assessments
	

 Public transportation navigation tools 

TECHNOLOGY DISTINCTIONS 

The four technology-related terms are often transposed and then used interchangeably, 

in a manner that muddles their meaning. There are both useful similarities and 

important distinctions among them. Having the right technology with the right design 

not only enhances usability for people with ID, but often is the difference in whether or 

not technology is truly accessible. The table on page 17 of this Report includes those 

distinctions. 

16
	
 

 

 

 

Table 1 

Four Technology-Related Terms 

Universal Design Cognitive Design* Assistive Technology Cognitive Accessible 

Technology* 

 Ensures design of 

products and 

environments that are 

usable by all people, 

to the greatest extent 

possible, without 

adaptation or 

specialized design 

 Empowers userfriendly approaches 

to designing living 

environments where 

people of any culture, 

age, size, weight, 

race, gender, and 

ability can experience 

an environment that 

promotes their health, 

safety, and welfare 

today and in the 

future 

 Ensures that 

mainstream 

technologies are 

designed for people 

with ID from the 

beginning 

 Includes not only 

design, but also 

access functions 

 Requires participation 

of people with ID in 

the development of 

new technologies and 

systems 

 Is a component or 

subset of Universal 

Design features 

 Increases functional 

capabilities. There is 

nothing in the general 

definition of AT to 

exclude surgically 

implanted devices 

 Uses hardware or 

software, or can stand 

alone 

 Acquired commercially 

or customized 

 Referred to as existing 

along a continuum and 

may be classed as lowtech, medium-tech, or 

high-tech depending on 

the level of 

sophistication 

 Increases usability 

of technology by 

people with ID 

 Empowers people 

with ID to have 

equal access to 

information and 

communication 

technologies 

*Definition suggested by the PCPID Members 

17 
 

 

RECOMMENDATIONS
	

PCPID 2015 ORGANIZATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS: CHALLENGES, 

BARRIERS, AND RESOURCES 

Recommendations in the 2015 PCPID Report to the President are organized to highlight 

the following four focus areas: 

1. Elementary, Secondary, and Post-Secondary Education 

2. Community Living 

3. Employment and Economic Well-Being 

4. Health and Wellness 

The PCPID working groups of self-advocates, experts, leaders, and advocates worked 

diligently to contribute to federal policy recommendations that will advance access, 

design, availability, and innovation to technologies that support full participation of 

people with ID in their respective communities. Text related to each focus area 

identifies an overarching challenge and specific barriers and concludes with 

recommendations and additional resources. 

18
	
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Focus Area 1: ELEMENTARY, SECONDARY, AND POST-SECONDARY 

EDUCATION 

Back to Key Recommendations 

Overview: 

Only 17% of K-12 students with ID in the U.S. are fully included in general education 

classrooms (U.S. Department of Education, 2014), despite extensive research showing 

that students with disabilities who are included in general education have better success 

academically and in post-secondary education, social and employment outcomes. For 

example: 

	 Time spent engaged in the general education curriculum is strongly and
 

positively correlated with math and reading achievement for students with
 

disabilities. (Cosier, Causton-Theoharis, & Theoharis, 2013)
 

	 Students with ID who were fully included in general education classrooms made 

more progress in literacy skills compared to students served in special schools. 

(Dessemontet, Bless, & Morin, 2012) 

Cognitively accessible instructional materials and assessments are pathways to general 

education classrooms and curricula for people with ID – whether in preschool, K-12, 

online learning or higher education. The first nine recommendations in this section 

relate to increasing the accessibility of educational and assessment materials. 

This section will also include specific recommendations intended to: 

	 Improve access for students with ID to online learning 

	 Improve access for students with ID to higher education 

	 Accelerate research and development of accessible educational tools and 

resources for learners with ID 

19
	
 

 

 

 

 

	 Increase family and student engagement though technology 

	 Support effective school-to-college/career transition using technology; and 

increase policy research in the use of accommodations in testing by learners with 

ID 

Barriers to Availability of Educational and Assessment Materials 

Most educational instructional and assessment materials are not being designed and 

produced, from the outset, to incorporate accessibility for all students-creating barriers 

to inclusion and grade-level learning, particularly for students with ID. A number of 

factors contribute to this challenge, including: 

	 Lack of production of educational and assessment materials that are designed 

from the start to be accessible. Accessibility that is grafted on at the end (i.e., 

retrofitting) does not typically result in a positive user experience. 

	 Lack of financial incentives for commercial producers of educational material to 

design educational and assessment materials that go far enough to be 

accessible for all students, particularly for students with cognitive and intellectual 

disabilities. 

	 Lack of awareness (at various levels: school, family, policy maker, college, etc.) 

about available accommodations to improve the accessibility of educational 

materials for people with cognitive and intellectual disabilities. 

	 Under §121 U.S. Copyright Law, individuals with ID do not qualify under the 

definition of individuals with a “print disability.”8 

8 See 17 U.S. Code § 121 (d) (2)—Limitations on exclusive rights: Reproduction for blind or other 

people with disabilities. 

20
	
 

 

 

 

 

 

	 Bookshare9 provides free electronic books to hundreds of thousands of 

individuals that qualify with a print disability through a project funded by the ED. 

However, even though a significant percentage of individuals with ID potentially 

could benefit educationally by having access to these same electronic books due 

to not being able to read well, they may be excluded from receiving elementary 

and secondary textbooks sourced from the National Instructional Materials 

Accessibility Center (NIMAC) and many post-secondary resources since they are 

not included as qualifying recipients in the copyright exemption referenced 

above. 

Recommendations: Educational and Assessment Materials 

Recommendation #1: Offices responsible for the Elementary and Secondary 

Education Act, Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Higher Education 

Opportunity Act, and other federal programs are urged to require accessibility in 

all educational technology they support. 

Recommendation #2: Technology-related materials, equipment, and 

accommodations required for students with disabilities to access the general 

education curriculum in the instructional environment should be made available 

in the assessment environment. 

Recommendation #3: Increase access to Science, Technology, Engineering 

and Math (STEM) instruction for students with ID. Engaging students with ID in 

STEM curriculum throughout K-12 will increase meaningful educational 

opportunities in STEM learning, and improve career related outcomes. 

Recommendation #4: Build teacher capacity to use accessible curricula and 

technologies in instruction and assessment. 

9 Bookshare is an accessible online library for people with print disabilities. 

21
	
 

 

 

 

 

 

Recommendation #5: The ED should issue guidance to recommend that all 

educational curriculum being purchased or otherwise acquired by schools (Khigher education) meet current industry standards for cognitive accessibility such 

as EPub3 and EduPub3.10 

Recommendation #6: Schools receiving federal funding (Title I, IDEA, HEOA, 

etc.) that are investing in technology and related resources should be required to 

make acquisitions that are accessible to students with ID. 

Recommendation #7: Federal offices should support improvements in copyright 

law and practice wherever possible so that people with ID can access free 

electronic books for individuals with a print disability. 

Recommendation #8: Expand the funding available for technology that creates 

access in schools for students with ID and create more flexibility within existing 

funding streams. For example, enable textbook-only funds to be used for other 

purposes, such as purchasing accessible instructional materials that originate in 

digital (as opposed to printed) formats. 

Recommendation #9: The U.S. should ratify the Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate 

Access to Published Works for Persons Who Are Blind, Visually Impaired or 

Otherwise Print Disabled. The treaty will allow sharing of accessible materials, 

for use by members of the beneficiary groups, across international borders, thus 

increasing the number and supplies of materials accessible to individuals with 

disabilities. ED should offer data and other support toward achieving the goal of 

ratification wherever possible. 

10 EPUB (electronic publication) is a free and open e-book standard by the International Digital 

Publishing Forum. 

22
	
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Barriers to Online Learning 

Primary, secondary, and post-secondary schools increasingly use online courses and 

distance learning as part of core academic instruction. It is imperative that online 

learning is accessible to students with ID, but major barriers to cognitive accessibility 

exist, including: 

 Lack of cognitive (and other) accessibility design for online and blended courses 

 Lack of awareness about the need for cognitive accessibility in online learning 

 Lack of an infrastructure to support cognitive accessibility in online learning 

Recommendation: Online Learning 

Recommendation #10: The offices that administer ESEA, IDEA and HEOA, 

other federal laws should include accessibility requirements in any online 

learning tools or systems whose development they support, and encourage 

others to do so wherever permissible by law. Intermediate steps might include 

the funding of research on cognitive design principles, personalization and digital 

learning; the funding of prototypes of flexible and responsive online learning 

systems designed to support usability; descriptive research of promising 

practices in online learning for students with ID. 

Barriers to Higher Education Access 

Federally funded initiatives such as Think College and the National Secondary 

Transition Technical Assistance Center have contributed to increased access to higher 

education and other post-secondary and post-certificate options for students with ID. 

But central barriers remain, such as: 

23
	
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

	 Lack of universal design principles and practices (including cognitive 

accessible design) in higher education curricula, for both online and brickand-mortar courses 

	 Attitudinal barriers and lack of awareness about the need for cognitive 

accessibility in higher education 

	 Lack of infrastructure to support cognitive accessibility in higher education 

	 Uncertainty about the technological (and other) supports that students with 

ID are legally entitled to (under, for example, ADA, 508, & 504) within 

higher education. 

Recommendations: Higher Education Access 

Recommendation #11: The Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative 

Services, the Office of Civil Rights, and the Office of Post-Secondary Education 

at ED should issue a clarification on the rights of individuals with ID to postsecondary settings under the civil rights legislation for higher education (such as 

Section 504 of the Rehab Act, the ADA, section 508 of the Rehab Act). This 

would include guidance on the question: to what extent can an accommodation 

(including, but not limited to, technological supports) be allowed if an individual 

wants to engage in a course of study for which they are otherwise qualified? 

Recommendation #12: Maintain and strengthen Part D of HEOA11—Programs 

to Provide Students with Disabilities with a Quality Higher Education and its four 

subsections -- in the upcoming reauthorization of HEOA. 

11 Part D- Programs to Provide Students with Disabilities with a Quality Higher Education (p. 290 of 

HEOA) 

24
	
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Barriers to Research and Development 

There is a lack of research and development around the design and success of 

cognitively accessible educational and assessment materials and, if digital, the systems 

that deliver and/or render them. Additionally: 

	 Longitudinal research funding is not available to scale up, disseminate or 

support the benefits of cognitive support technologies for accessing 

educational and assessment materials. 

	 Research data are needed to empirically demonstrate the quality of life 

benefits and reduced costs to the service delivery system resulting from 

investments in cognitively accessible educational materials. 

Recommendations: Research and Development 

Recommendation #13: Support new federal funding for a Center with the 

specific mission to maintain a repository that would include: a) open-source tools 

used to produce accessible materials and media; b) information on how to 

access tools that are for purchase; and c) track current industry and government 

standards for producing accessible materials and media. The Center will be 

responsible for maintaining existing materials and acquiring new ones, as they 

become available. 

Recommendation #14: Support new federal funding for research, development, 

and implementation projects that increase the availability, variety, and quality of 

materials and technologies for people with ID. Examples may include fieldinitiated research grants, research and development projects, model 

demonstration projects that focus on research-based curricula, interventions and 

training modules, outreach projects to test the portability and validity of training or 

interventions, and evaluation research to determine the efficiency and 

25
	
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

effectiveness of the development and implementation of interventions and 

products. 

Recommendation #15: Award a cooperative agreement that would fund a 

technical assistance Center to support collaboration across all funded projects 

and programs (above), support communication across all projects, and develop 

and implement a standard evaluation that includes like measures and outcomes 

across all federally funded projects. The Center will develop more efficient and 

effective methods of producing and delivering accessible technologies and 

materials to people with ID. 

Barriers to Family and Student Engagement 

Many individuals with ID and their families, educators, and employers are unfamiliar 

with the wide range of devices, software, and apps that are currently available and do 

not have the knowledge or expertise to effectively use them. Consequently, families 

and learners are unable to easily access technology that supports their engagement in 

a learner’s educational experience. 

Recommendations: Family and Student Engagement 

Recommendation #16: Develop parent engagement guidelines for IDEA/Part 

C/Education, best practices and definitions that include innovative uses of 

technology for families of children with ID to incorporate person-centered 

planning and to support better understanding of the general education 

curriculum. 

Recommendation #17: Support the coordination of new projects with existing 

projects and programs that assist families and students to access technology. 

For example, coordination should be supported and promoted between the 

26
	
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Parent Information and Resource Centers (at Office of Special Education 

Programs and at Rehabilitation Services Administration); Health and Career 

Centers (at HHS); Independent Living State Grants; Centers for Independent 

Living; Assistive Technology State Grant Program; and Protection and Advocacy 

for Assistive Technology. 

Barriers to Transition-Age Youth regarding Least Restrictive Work Placement 

Federal law (ADA and the Rehab Act) requires the full integration of people with ID into 

the U.S. job market, and calls for supported employment. However, transition-age 

youth will require appropriate, accessible technology in order to take advantage of the 

least restrictive work placement available to them. 

	 The June 22, 2012, Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) letter that 

provided an opinion on the application of least restrictive environment (LRE) to 

transition-age youth has been a helpful resource to states and educators. 

However, additional OSEP clarification is needed to help answer questions about 

the types of supplementary technological aids and services that an IEP team 

may consider when determining a least restrictive work placement. 

	 Supplementary technological aids and services available to students with 

disabilities are defined generally in the law as “aids, services, and other 

supports”. These aids and services are intended to help a student meet goals, 

make progress, and participate with peers without disabilities. The National 

Secondary and Transition Technical Assistance Center (NSTTAC) analyzed 

evidence-based practices to teach job skills. The NSTTAC’s list of reviewed 

practices includes such things as job coaching to teach employment skills, video 

modeling, picture cues, and other AT. These supports could be provided through 

a variety of funding mechanisms, including vocational rehabilitation. 

27
	
 

 

 

 

 

Recommendations: Transition-Age Youth 

Recommendation #18: ED should issue additional guidance and clarification 

related to the least restrictive environment in work placements for transition-age 

youth that includes access to new technology support. 

Recommendation #19: Guidance should address and provide examples of 

appropriate supplementary aids and services in the least restrictive environment, 

including access to technologies that can qualify as appropriate supplementary 

aids and services in work placements prior to determining that a more restrictive 

setting is more appropriate. (Discussion of a more restrictive work placement 

would be allowed by law only after use of supplementary aids is discussed and 

considered by an IEP team.) 

28
	
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Focus Area 2: COMMUNITY LIVING 

Back to Key Recommendations 

Overview: 

Individuals with ID have the right to full inclusion in the social, economic and political life 

of their communities (affirmed by the Olmstead Decision). They have the right to a 

quality education, world-class health care, and fulfilling employment. Like other U.S. 

citizens, they have the right to worship where and when they please, to be mobile, 

engaged in the arts and interact with other cultural aspects of life. They have the right 

to contribute to their communities and be engaged in community discourse and 

decision-making. Individuals with ID also have the right to live in peace and safety, free 

from neglect, exclusion and discrimination, and free from financial, legal, physical and 

human rights abuses. 

Each successive decade affords more individuals with ID greater opportunities to 

exercise these rights. Still, too many individuals with ID and their families remain 

underserved by services available to other U.S. citizens, or lack of access to life 

changing technology that could minimize their exposure to health, economic, social or 

personal risks. 

Technology can exponentially leverage the capacity of individuals with ID to experience 

a full life of independence in their communities, immersed in the mainstream. It can 

improve communication and relationship-building with others, while enhancing personal 

safety. Technology can assist with connectivity to jobs, health services, housing, 

education, places of worship, travel, entertainment, and other facets of daily life. For 

example, technology now exists that can ensure all appliances are turned off after 

leaving home. Home thermostats can now be monitored from an application, and 

notices from landlords, medical providers and others can be delivered and received 

electronically. Technology has expanded the modalities by which business and 

personal communication with others can occur. 

Technology that enhances the design of accessible transportation is a priority. The 

Accessible Transportation Technologies Research Initiative (ATTRI) is a multi-agency 

29
	
 

 

 

 

 

 

initiative, led by the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), that researches, 

develops, and implements transformative technology solutions for travelers with 

disabilities to effectively plan and executive their travel. ATTRI research focuses on the 

needs of three stakeholder groups: 1) people with disabilities, 2) veterans with 

disabilities, and 3) older adults. It proposes areas of technology development on: 

Information and Technology Services and AT; automation and robotics; data integration; 

wayfinding and navigation; and enhanced human service transportation. Cloud-based 

navigational systems, wearable devices and interactive pedestrian crossing supports 

are also proposed for future development. 

Innovations in transportation technology will greatly advance connectivity for individuals 

with ID in so many other functional areas of their daily lives. However, availability and 

accessibility are not enough. Training in the use of the technology is essential. 

Whether technological innovations are created to increase accessibility to 

transportation, education, job searches, health access, community engagement or other 

aspects of life, a strong training component must be a companion to any new 

technology design. 

Barriers to Technology Funding, Research and Design 

New technological applications frequently enter the marketplace, offering wonderful lifeenhancing options for millions of U.S. citizens. Making these options available to 

people with ID, however, requires research and funding to ensure the designs are 

accessible. Yet, limited research and funding impede the production of technological 

apps designed to dramatically improve independence and the overall quality of life for 

people with ID. It is a significant challenge to acquire the requisite research and funding 

that can optimize the independent living of people with ID. 

Recommendations: Technology Funding and Research 

Recommendation #1: CMS should consider whether States are utilizing 

technology to improve and expand access to integrated community living as one 

30
	
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

aspect of the settings compliance analysis under the new HCBS regulation. 

Recommendation #2: CMS should recognize cognitively accessible 

equipment/supports as fundable under Medicaid to increase the quality of life, 

which will decrease costs for long-term services and supports. These 

investments require capacity-building and ongoing maintenance in order to 

ensure their efficiency. 

Recommendation #3: CMS should issue new guidance on the coverage of 

mainstream technologies that provide the same functional assistance as covered 

assistive technology devices. 

Recommendation #4: Pilot projects, funded by CMS, should investigate the 

cost-effectiveness of cognitively accessible technologies for people with ID in 

improving HCBS and other health-related services, supports and equipment. 

Barrier to Accessible Design 

The inability to keep pace with the technological advances of everyday living continues 

to distance people with ID from the rest of the U.S. population. Research and 

accessible product design can help close that gap. 

Recommendations: Accessible Design 

Recommendation #5: Expand federal funding for interfaces that are easy to use 

by all ages and that are accessible on mobile devices, such as tablets and smartphones. 

Recommendation #6: Expand federal funding for the design of a universal 

payment mechanism for all transit systems that would automatically pay for 

transportation, whether the individual uses a bus, train, plane, cab or real-time 

31
	
 

ridesharing vehicles. The ability to have a support professional or the individual 

preload, ideally on a device that could be used across all agencies and 

organizations is encouraged. 

Ben Kim (Student) uses a travel training app around the Washington metropolitan area: 

www.youtube.com/embed/nMVL4MuvN3Q
	

32
	
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Focus Area 3: EMPLOYMENT AND ECONOMIC WELL-BEING 

Back to Key Recommendations 

Overview: 

For most Americans employment is an important part of economic well-being and for 

people with ID in particular, working also has many benefits that go beyond the money 

they earn. It contributes to self-confidence and independence, and connects them to 

their communities by fostering inclusion and social connections. 

Technology has become increasingly important in all workplaces and in all aspects of 

employment. For example, job applications are usually done online now – which means 

navigating the Internet has become more important for everyone. Everything from 

performing successfully on the job to filling out a timesheet can require use of 

information and communications technology. Thus, equal access to web content and 

technologies that are universally designed and usable by people with ID are key to 

competitive employment and vital for independence and full participation in the 

economy. 

Assistive and universally designed mainstream technologies have significant potential 

for increasing the numbers of people with ID that are employed in competitive, 

integrated jobs. These technologies are contributing greatly to on-the-job productivity 

and success by helping work performance, enhancing communication with colleagues, 

and improving other job-related skills such as time management, planning and 

scheduling, and arranging transportation to and from work. 

Today, use of technology is becoming an essential part of job skill development and job 

supports for people with ID. For example, the 2014 Workforce Innovation and 

Opportunity Act (WIOA) is designed to help all job seekers receive access to 

employment, education, and the support services they need to succeed at work. The 

law emphasizes that American Job Centers (also called One-Stop Centers) must be 

physically and programmatically accessible to individuals with disabilities, and says that 

33
	
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

both assistive and accessible technologies are part of ensuring that these employment 

programs and systems are available to people with disabilities that choose to work. 

Barriers to Employment and Economic Well-Being 

Technology can be a tremendous asset for making competitive employment and 

successful performance possible for people with ID. In particular, it can allow for the 

adaptation of workplace environments, processes, functions, tools, equipment and 

supports, that make it possible for people with ID to be productive and thrive in the 

workplace. However, financial and attitudinal barriers still exist to promoting 

technologies that can assist individuals with ID in obtaining and maintaining meaningful 

employment. These are some of the issues that need to be addressed to make sure 

that technology helps people with ID get hired and are able to succeed in competitive 

work opportunities: 

	 Accessible Design – Technology programs and tools need to be designed so that 

they are more accessible to and usable by people with ID. 

	 Affordable and Available Technologies – States need to enforce federal policies 

that support acquiring assistive technology devices and accessible mainstream 

technologies (such as mobile phones) by individuals with ID for job and economic 

success. 

	 Knowledgeable Employers and Human Resources Staff – Employers need to 

encourage and welcome the use of accessible technologies and technology 

supports that increase the hiring, employment, and successful job performance 

of people with ID. 

	 More Education on How to Use Technology – “Digital Literacy” resources need to 

be expanded greatly to people with ID and their support systems so that they can 

become more skilled at navigating the Internet and job-related online tools. 

34
	
 

 

 

 

 

 

Recommendations: Employment and Economic Well-Being 

Recommendation #1: The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) should issue 

technical guidance on accessible technology to state Workforce Development 

Boards and the American Job Centers, with information that specifically relates to 

serving customers with ID. 

Recommendation #2: DOL should issue guidance to federal contractors on best 

practices and resources related to accessible technologies in order to expand 

employment opportunities for people with ID. 

Recommendation #3: The Social Security Administration (SSA) should issue 

guidance clarifying that its work incentive provisions (such as Plans for Achieving 

Self Support and Impairment-Related Work Expenses) allow inclusion/coverage 

of both mainstream and assistive technologies that people with disabilities, 

including people with ID, use for employment-related purposes. 

Recommendation #4: The U.S. Departments of Health and Human Services 

(HHS) and Education (ED) should clarify that the term “assistive technology” (as 

used in all relevant vocational rehabilitation contexts and funding guidelines) 

includes mainstream information and communications technology, such as 

technologies that are universally designed and mobile technologies that can 

utilize apps to facilitate the employment of people with ID. 

Recommendation #5: HHS should issue new guidance providing for Medicaid 

and Medicare coverage of universally designed mobile and mainstream 

technologies that provide the same functional assistance as currently-covered 

assistive technology devices. 

Recommendation #6: HHS’s National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, 

and Rehabilitation Research should continue funding research that specifically 

35
	
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

focuses on the use of technology to increase competitive, integrated employment 

outcomes for youth and adults with ID. 

Recommendation #7: DOL and ED should provide additional guidance, 

information, and resources to state vocational rehabilitation programs on the use 

of technology and related services in Individualized Plans for Employment (IPEs). 

Recommendation #8: DOL’s Office of Disability Employment Policy (ODEP) 

should strengthen its efforts to increase the employment of individuals with ID 

through development, promotion, and use of accessible technologies. This effort 

should include the review and addition of technology resources offered through 

ODEP’s Partnership on Employment and Accessible Technology (PEAT), Job 

Accommodation Network, Disability.gov, the National Center on Leadership for 

the Employment and Economic Advancement of People with Disabilities (LEAD 

Center), and the National Employer Policy, Research and Technical Assistance 

Center for Employers on the Employment of People with Disabilities (Employer 

TA Center). 

Recommendation #9: All federal agencies with Small Business Innovation 

Research (SBIR) programs should incentivize, through the SBIR and 

entrepreneurial initiatives, everyday technologies that are cognitively accessible, 

widely available, and supportive of employment for people with ID, including instore job application kiosks with cognitively accessible interfaces. 

Recommendation #10: Federal agencies with SBIR programs should create an 

award for the development of new technologies that promote, contribute to, and 

increase the employment of individuals with ID. 

Recommendation #11: The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) 

should continue to expand and publicize its Lifeline Broadband Pilot Program, so 

36
	
that low-income Americans with ID and their families can access affordable 

broadband services that support job-seeking and employment. 

37
	
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Focus Area 4: HEALTH AND WELLNESS 

Back to Key Recommendations 

Overview: 

To ensure that people with ID receive the full range of health care benefits available to 

all U.S. citizens through the Affordable Care Act (ACA), increased access to technology 

and new technologies are needed. The ACA, the public policy foundation for health 

care, administered by HHS ensures that individuals with pre-existing conditions can no 

longer be excluded from coverage by health insurers, lifetime limits in health coverage 

are prohibited, and coverage can no longer be retroactively cancelled. Rehabilitative 

and habilitative services are mandated in the ACA, as well as parity for behavioral 

health services. 

Under the ACA, many people with ID will now have improved access to medical 

diagnosis equipment and medically relevant data collection. Advances in technology 

are needed to enable health care systems to provide coordinated, interoperable12, 

community-based health care and long-term care services, as described in the ACA. 

Access to technology and the development of new technologies are also needed to 

support and expand possibilities for people with ID to participate in their own health 

care, health maintenance, and wellness. Technology can facilitate many elements of 

coordination between people with ID, their long-term support providers and health care 

professionals, as well as product developers. As an example, possibilities now exist for 

accessing telemedicine, which is making health care more affordable and available. 

Technology which is accelerating the availability of digital health literacy for the 

population at large, contributing to expanded health care knowledge and empowering 

individuals about their health and their healthcare information has not been as available 

12 Interoperability describes the extent to which systems and devices can exchange data, and 

interpret that shared data. For two systems to be interoperable, they must be able to exchange data 

and subsequently present that data such that it can be understood by a user. 

38
	
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

or accessible to people with ID. People with ID need increased digital literacy and 

digital literacy resources to access their electronic health information and be able to 

comment on their own health information. Emerging technologies should be available 

for individuals with ID to send and receive health information in order to self-manage, 

enhance wellness and health care needs, and if they chose, involve their direct support 

professionals or families in their health care and health decisions. Providers and 

industry should increasingly offer digital literacy resources to people with ID to help shift 

the paradigm in how health care is often delivered, which will allow more coordination 

between providers, other health professionals, individuals with ID, their support teams 

and product developers: this will require a paradigm shift. 

It is essential that health professionals, technology product developers, researchers and 

others are properly incentivized and engaged with people with ID, so that opportunities 

presented by advances in technology can be realized for people with ID and embedded 

in public health policy. 

Barriers to Health and Wellness 

Accessible technology is essential to support people with ID to make informed health 

care decisions, and receive the care they need. How can wide-scale availability of 

technology designed to meet their needs become crucial to product developers, 

researchers, funders and other individuals and organizations that are resourced to 

impact change? Some barriers that affect access to health and wellness include: 

	 Health data and related privacy laws (i.e., Health Insurance Portability and 

Accountability Act, and Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act) protect health 

and other confidential information for the public at large. People with ID need 

their health information protected, but may also have unique needs for health 

information to be shared to achieve effective coordination of care. Privacy laws, 

as currently written or interpreted may inhibit coordination between multiple 

providers, other health professionals, and support people important to the 

person, such as family or health advocates. 

39
	
 

 

 

 

 

 

	 Medical specialists may not be located across all geographic locations, a barrier 

increasingly being addressed through telemedicine. 

	 Appropriate and accessible technology that can result in more independence is 

needed. Technology can expand opportunities for individuals with ID to interact 

and communicate directly and expeditiously with health care professionals and 

be more engaged in their own decision-making. Technology can also offer 

advances in managing one’s own daily health and wellness, which can 

dramatically ease the required efforts and time commitments of support team and 

family members. 

	 A nationwide analysis of HCBS Waiver services and spending (2014-2015) 

reported that Waiver spending across states totaled only one percent for 

assistive and medical technologies (Braddock et al., 2015, p. 38). 

	 CMS’ Final Decision Memorandum on Speech Generating Devices (July 29, 

2015), while speech generating devices (SGDs) are considered durable medical 

equipment (DME) under Medicare, there was a 2001 National Coverage Decision 

(NCD) that restricted Medicare coverage to those dedicated devices that were 

used solely for speech generation and excluded from coverage more mainstream 

and normalized technologies, such as computers and tablets with speech 

generating applications that included other functions as they “are not primarily 

medical in nature” and therefore do not meet the definition of DME. CMS 

recently updated this definition of SGD in the 2001 NCD under a new NCD issued 

on July 29, 2015 that expanded the definition of SGDs to allow for coverage of 

devices that perform other functions as long as they are used solely by the patient 

with severe speech impairment and are used for the generation of speech. In 

addition, the capacity of the device to generate other forms of speech such as 

phone, e-mail, and text messages would be covered under Medicare DME 

benefit. 

40
	
 

 

 

 

Recommendations: Health and Wellness 

Recommendation #1: Ensure that the benefits of the ACA are available to 

people with ID, including access to technology that can improve overall health 

care and decision-making, health maintenance and independence. 

Recommendation #2: Make health-related technology accessible to all people 

with ID to enhance health outcomes, ensure access to preventive care, improve 

health literacy, and assist them to participate in their own health care, as 

provided under the ACA. Accessible, available, and affordable technology can 

advance the tools and equipment needed to improve the health care and 

preventive needs of people with ID. Such equipment includes, but is not 

necessarily limited to, accessible mammography, and exam tables. 

Recommendation #3: HHS should support available technologies that can 

improve access to primary care for individuals with ID, which may include 

advances in telemedicine when geographic distance is challenging. The 

supported technologies should also improve access to crucial treatment 

information for primary care providers of people with ID. The agency should 

explore uses of telemedicine to provide access to and expand the pool of 

specialty care for individuals with ID when specialists are not geographically 

available. 

Recommendation #4: Promote the recognition and awareness that technology 

which promotes health behaviors and independence (e.g., access to pictures of 

medications; smartphones to remind individuals about their medical 

appointments and medication times; support for healthy eating habits) is an 

important support for people with ID. 

Recommendation #5: In funding demonstration and other projects, HHS should 

41
	
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

encourage that Electronic Health Records (EHRs) and other data systems 

address compatibility across delivery systems. 

Recommendation #6: Create a communication link between EHRs and other 

service systems to provide long-term services and supports (also see the PCPID 

2012 Report to the President) that improve care and supports for people with ID. 

This would include longitudinal data for systems and planning. 

Example: Use EHRs to help individuals with ID navigate the sharing 

of health information with providers, while protecting privacy and 

confidentiality. 

Recommendation #7: Encourage the University Centers for Excellence in 

Developmental Disabilities (UCEDDs) Education, Research and Services; and 

Leadership Education in Neurodevelopmental Disabilities (LEND) programs to 

train health professionals about the importance of technology supports for people 

with ID to increase health literacy, participation in health care and wellness. 

Ensure the availability of technology supports for ongoing training of health care 

professionals to increase their skills, knowledge and understanding of people 

with ID. 

Recommendation #8: CMS should ensure the availability of appropriate 

cognitive accessible technology in the web-based processes for beneficiaries 

with ID related to the application for, and benefits and coverage information 

within, health insurance marketplace, Medicaid and Medicare programs. 

Recommendation #9: Promote stakeholder input to CMS nationally, and within 

each state on the Medicaid State Plan and Waivers, to raise the awareness of 

personal and mainstream technologies (including mobile devices) that are less 

costly and more socially integrative than traditional forms of durable medical 

equipment to optimize participation of people with ID in their own health care and 

wellness. 

42
	
 

 

 

 

 

Recommendation #10: Encourage and incentivize providers to seek technology 

that can unleash and advance the capacity to practice interoperable coordination 

of care for the person with ID, their support team, other health care professionals 

and technology product developers. 

Recommendation #11: HHS should use technology to enhance the participation 

and quality of individuals with ID in patient satisfaction surveys, such as voice 

activated surveys. 

Creating Better Futures: Health Care Visit Satisfaction Survey 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USIcXJUs32U&index=15&list=ULiNYfFpzjqyU
	

43
	
 

 

 

 

 

 

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES
	

The list below includes current public and private sector initiatives, projects, and 

resources that share the goals of the PCPID 2015 Report to the President: 

1.		 AbleLink Technologies: Focuses on research and development of innovative 

cognitive support technologies that enable people with cognitive limitations to live 

more independent and self-determined lives. (http://www.ablelinktech.com) 

Products include the Accessible Testing Learning and Assessment System 

(ATLAS), a research-based, cognitively accessible survey system that enables 

individuals with cognitive disabilities to complete tests and surveys, and 

independently share their responses using an iPad or Android tablet. 

(http://www.ablelinktech.com/index.php?id=141) 

2.		 Accessible Transportation Technologies Research Initiative (ATTRI): Leads 

research, development, and implementation of transformative solutions and 

applications so that all Americans, including those with disabilities, can effectively 

plan their travel. (http://www.its.dot.gov/attri/) 

3.		 Assistive Technology to Support Individuals with Intellectual Disabilities in 

Employment: Workshop presentation by Scott Renner and Michael Papp 

covering assistive devices and apps that can be used by people with cognitive 

disabilities in the workplace; presented at Assistive Technology, The Great 

Equalizer: 2014 Alabama Assistive Technology Expo and Conference, October 

2014. 

(http://www.auburn.edu/outreach/opce/alatec/documents/2014presentationkeynotes/AT%20to%20Support%20IID%20in%20Employment_Scott%20Renner 

%20&%20Michael%20Papp.pdf) 

4.		 Association on Higher Education and Disability® (AHEAD): Focuses on full 

participation of people with disabilities in postsecondary education, facilitating 

44
	
 

 

 

 

collaboration and connections for those working on accessible technology 

through its Special Interest Group (SIG) on Technology and its 2015 Accessible 

Instructional Materials and Technology Summit. (http://ahead.org) 

5.		 Bookshare: An accessible online library for people with print disabilities. 

(https://www.bookshare.org/cms) 

6.		 Center on Online Learning and Students with Disabilities (COLSD): Focuses 

on making online learning more accessible, engaging, and effective for learners 

with disabilities. (http://centerononlinelearning.org/) 

7.		 Center on Technology and Disability (CTD): Works to increase the capacity of 

families and providers to advocate for, acquire, and implement assistive and 

instructional technology supporting learners with disabilities. 

(http://www.ctdinstitute.org/) 

8.		 Cognitive and Learning Disabilities Accessibility Task Force of the 

Worldwide Web Consortium (W3C): Focuses on improving web accessibility 

for people with cognitive and learning disabilities. 

(http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/cognitive-a11y-tf/) 

9.		 Cognitive Disability and Technology-Universal Design Considerations: 

Workshop presentation by Clayton Lewis with tips for developers to make 

technology easier to use for people with cognitive disabilities; presented at the 

Association of University Centers on Disability (AUCD) Training Symposium, 

November 2008. (http://www.aucd.org/docs/ClaytonLewis.pdf) 

10.Coleman Institute for Cognitive Disabilities-Declaration on the Rights of 

People with Cognitive Disabilities to Technology and Information Access: A 

statement of principles on the rights of all people to inclusion and choice in 

relation to technology and information access, building on the recognition of the 

45
	
 

 

 

 

 

rights of people with intellectual and developmental disabilities to be integrated 

into the community. (http://www.colemaninstitute.org/declaration) 

11.Collaborative Innovation Center on Accessibility: Partnership between IBM 

and the University of Massachusetts’ Institute for Community Inclusion, working 

to advance accessible technology solutions for people with disabilities, the 

elderly, people with low literacy, and novice technology users. 

(http://www.umb.edu/editor_uploads/images/ocp/14.355_OCP_Newsletter_Fall_ 

2014(spreads).pdf and 

http://m.ibm.com/http/www.research.ibm.com/university/cic/index.shtml) 

12.Diagram Center – Digital Image and Graphic Resources for Accessible 

Materials: Works to change the way image and graphic content for accessible 

electronic media is produced and accessed, so that students with print disabilities 

have equal access to educational materials. (http://diagramcenter.org/) 

13.Digital Literacy Portal: Provides resources for individuals and organizations 

who deliver literacy training and services in their communities. 

(http://www.digitalliteracy.gov) 

14.Employment and Training Administration Disabilities Programs: Provides 

information on policy and program initiatives addressing employment challenges 

of people with disabilities and resources for the public workforce system on how 

to better serve customers with disabilities (http://www.doleta.gov/disability/), and 

Includes links to employment resources/tools and help for finding the nearest 

American Job Center. (www.servicelocator.org) 

15.EPUB3 Accessibility Guidelines on Specification for Multimedia Publishing: 

Guidance from the International Digital Publishing Forum on producing 

accessible ebooks. (http://www.idpf.org/accessibility/guidelines/) 

46
	
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

16.Flexible Learning for Open Education (FLOE) Project: Provides resources to 

personalize how individuals learn and to address barriers to learning. 

(http://www.floeproject.org/) 

17.Help Make Online Job Tools More Accessible to People with Intellectual 

Disabilities: U.S. Department of Labor Blog, “Promoting and Protecting 

Opportunity.” (December 16, 2013) (http://blog.dol.gov/2013/12/16/help-makeonline-job-tools-more-accessible-to-people-with-intellectual-disabilities/) 

18.HUD Resource Locator: The Locator is a mobile and web application developed 

by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) with the 

functionality to connect HUD’s many customers to affordable housing resources 

in their community. The tool utilizes plain language and a simple, clean interface 

allowing users to access relevant housing contact information utilizing 

geolocation to visualize nearby resources. The HUD Resource Locator is 

available on HUD’s website as well as iPhone and Android mobile devices, 

making this tool highly visible and accessible to people with ID and the 

professionals who help them. (http://resources.hud.gov/#&ui-state=dialog) 

19.Improvements in Closed Captioning: Over the past few years, the FCC has 

adopted rules governing closed captioning to ensure that viewers who are deaf 

or hard of hearing have full access to video programming. First, in February 

2014, the FCC adopted quality standards for the accuracy, timing, completeness, 

and on-screen placement of TV closed captioning, along with best practices for 

video programmers and captioning 

vendors. (http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-14-12A1.pdf) 

20.Implementation of the Communications and Video Accessibility Act 

(CVAA): On October 8, 2010, President Barack Obama signed the Twenty-First 

Century CVAA into law to ensure that individuals with disabilities are able to fully 

utilize advanced communications services and equipment and better access 

47
	
 

 

video programming. (https://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/twenty-first-centurycommunications-and-video-accessibility-act-0) 

21.Inclusive Design Research Centre: Community of open source developers, 

designers, researchers, and advocates working together to ensure that emerging 

information technology and practices are designed 

inclusively.(http://idrc.ocad.ca/) 

22.Journal of Special Education Technology (JSET): Presents information and 

opinions about issues, research, policy, and practice related to the use of 

technology in special education. (http://www.tamcec.org/jset/) 

23.Learning Is for Everyone – Higher Education Programs for Students with 

Intellectual Disabilities: Article appearing in The Mentor, An Academic Advising 

Journal (May 31, 2011) providing information about the types of post-secondary 

education programs currently available for students with intellectual disabilities. 

(https://dus.psu.edu/mentor/2011/05/intellectual-disability-programs/) 

24.National Center on Accessible Educational Materials: Supports the use of 

accessible educational materials in early learning, higher education, and 

workplace settings. (http://aem.cast.org/) 

25.National Center on Universal Design for Learning: Works to implement 

universal design in learning by connecting interested stakeholders and providing 

resources and information on universal design. (http://www.udlcenter.org/) 

26.National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation 

Research: Sponsors grantees focused on generating new disability knowledge, 

including the Wireless Rehabilitation Engineering Research Center 

(www.wirelessrerc.org), a leader on issues and solutions related to the 

accessibility and usability of mobile wireless products and services by people 

48
	
 

 

 

 

with disabilities, and the Rehabilitation Engineering Research Center for the 

Advancement of Cognitive Technologies (www.rerc-act.org), the nation’s first 

center to conduct research and development on assistive technologies for people 

with cognitive disabilities. (http://www.acl.gov/programs/NIDILRR/) 

27.Office of Educational Technology (OET) Initiatives: Provides leadership for 

transforming education through the power of technology and promoting equal 

access to the Internet by all learners. (http://tech.ed.gov/) 

28.Open Professionals Education Network (OPEN): Provides support and 

technical assistance to Department of Labor grantees under the Trade 

Adjustment Assistance Community College and Career Training (TAACCCT) 

grant program on accessibility and universal design for learning. 

(https://open4us.org/) 

29.Partnership on Employment and Accessible Technology: Tools and 

resources for promoting the employment, retention, and career advancement of 

people with disabilities through the development, adoption, and promotion of 

accessible technology (www.peatworks.org), including 2014 webinar “Expanding 

What It Means to Be Accessible: Addressing the Workplace Technology Needs 

of Users with Cognitive Disabilities.” 

(http://peatworks.org/webinars/2014/12/expanding-what-it-means-cognitive) 

30.Promise Project: Works to ensure that children with learning disabilities get the 

technology supports they need to learn. (http://www.promise-project.org/) 

31.Quality Indicators for Assistive Technology (QIAT) Community: Works to 

identify, disseminate, and implement a set of widely-applicable quality indicators 

for assistive technology services in school settings. (Website: www.qiat.org; 

Listserv: http://lsv.uky.edu/scripts/wa.exe?SUBED1=qiat&A=1) 

49
	
 

 

 

32.Raising the Floor (RtF): Works to make the web and mobile technologies 

accessible to everyone with disability, literacy, and aging-related barriers, 

regardless of their economic status. (http://raisingthefloor.org/) 

33. Rehabilitation Engineering and Assistive Technology Society of North 

America (RESNA): Works to promote the health and well-being of people with 

disabilities through increasing access to technology solutions. 

(http://www.resna.org/) 

34. School-Wide Integrated Framework for Transformation (SWIFT): A national 

initiative that includes processes, tools, and resources for creating “powerful, 

unified teaching and learning environments for ALL students and educators.” 

(www.swiftschools.org/) 

35.Lifeline Program: Provides discounts on phone service for qualifying lowincome consumers, and conducted broadband pilot program, to ensure that all 

Americans have the opportunities and security that phone service brings, 

including being able to connect to jobs, family and emergency services. 

(www.fcc.gov/lifeline) 

36.The Power of Digital Inclusion – Technology’s Impact on Employment and 

Opportunities for People with Disabilities: National Council on Disability 

report examining how six key digital technologies enhance social engagement, 

increase workplace participation, improve employment prospects and create 

employment opportunities for people with disabilities. 

(http://www.ncd.gov/publications/2011/Oct042011) 

37.The Struggle for Web eQuality by Persons with Cognitive Disabilities: 

Article based on the book eQuality: The Struggle for Web Accessibility by 

Persons with Cognitive Disabilities (2014) by Peter Blanck stating that the rights 

of individuals with cognitive disabilities to equal access to web content are 

50
	
 

 

 

 

protected under the law and can be supported by current technologies. 

(http://bbi.syr.edu/news_events/news/2014/02/BlanckWebAccessibility2014BSL 

Online.pdf) 

38.Think College: National organization dedicated to developing, expanding, and 

improving inclusive higher education options for people with intellectual 

disabilities. (www.thinkcollege.net/) 

39.Tech Toolbox: The Arc’s Tech Toolbox is a place to find, share, rate, and review 

technology for people with intellectual or developmental disabilities. 

(https://toolbox.thearc.org) 

40.UNDERSTOOD – For Learning & Attention Issues: Collaboration between 15 

nonprofits working to support parents on issues related to learning; includes 

Universal Design for Learning (UDL) videos and resources. 

(http://www.understood.org) 

41.United States Access Board: An independent federal agency promoting 

equality for people with disabilities through leadership in accessible design and 

the development of accessibility guidelines and standards, including standards 

for information and communications technologies. 

(http://www.access-board.gov/guidelines-and-standards/communications-and-it) 

42.Universal Design for Learning (UDL) on Campus: A collection of resources 

on UDL in higher education (including teaching approaches and tips for selecting 

media and technology) geared to postsecondary institutions, including faculty, 

administrators, and policymakers. (http://udloncampus.cast.org) 

43.WebAIM (Web Accessibility in Mind): Works to expand the potential of the web 

for people with disabilities by providing the knowledge, technical skills, tools, 

organizational leadership strategies, and vision that empower organizations to 

51
	
make their own content accessible to people with disabilities. 

(http://webaim.org/articles/evaluatingcognitive/) 

52
	
 

FREQUENTLY-USED ACRONYMS
	

Abbreviation		 Acronym 

ACL		 Administration for Community Living 

ADA		 Americans with Disabilities Act 

AIDD		 Administration on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities 

AT		 Assistive Technology 

ATTRI		 Accessible Transportation Technologies Research Initiative 

CMS		 Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services 

DOL		 U.S. Department of Labor 

DOT		 U.S. Department of Transportation 

ED		 U.S. Department of Education 

ESEA		 Elementary and Secondary Education Act 

HCBS		 Home and Community-Based Services 

HHS		 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 

HEOA		 Higher Education Opportunity Act 

HUD		 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 

IDEA		 Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 

ID		 Intellectual Disabilities 

I/DD		 Intellectual and/or Developmental Disabilities 

IEP		 Individualized Education Program 

IPE		 Individualized Plan for Employment 

NIDILRR		 National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and 

Rehabilitation Research 

ODEP		 Office of Disability Employment Policy (a DOL agency) 

OSEP		 Office of Special Education Programs (an ED agency) 

PCPID		 President’s Committee for People with Intellectual Disabilities 

SSA		 U.S. Social Security Administration 

SBIR		 Small Business Innovation Research 

WIOA		 Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act of 2014 

53
	
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

REFERENCES
	

Braddock, D., Hemp, R., Rizzolo, M. C., Tanis, E.S., Haffer, L., & Wu, J. (2015). The 

state of the states in developmental disabilities: Emerging from the great 

recession. Boulder, CO and Chicago, IL: University of Colorado School of 

Medicine, Department of Psychiatry and University of Illinois at Chicago, 

Department of Disability and Human Development. 

Bryant, B.R., Seok, S., Ok, M., & Bryant, D.P. (2012). Individuals with intellectual 

and/or developmental disabilities use of assistive technology devices in support 

provision. Journal of Special Education Technology, 27(2), 41–58. 

Cosier, M., Causton-Theoharis, J., & Theoharis, G. (2013). Does access matter? Time 

in general education and achievement for students with disabilities. Remedial 

and Special Education, 34(6), 323-332. 

Davies, D.K., Stock, S.E., King, L.R., Wehmeyer, M.L., & Shogren, K.A. (2015). An 

interface to support independent use of Facebook by people with intellectual 

disability. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 53(1), 30-41. 

Dessemontet, R. S., Bless, G., & Morin, D. (2012). Effects of inclusion on the academic 

achievement and adaptive behaviour of children with intellectual disabilities. 

Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 56(6), 579-587. 

Leddy, M. (2010). Technology to advance high school and undergraduate students with 

disabilities in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Journal of 

Special Education Technology, 25(3), 3-8. 

O’Hara, D. (2015). Innovative Information, Communication, and Social 

Networking Technologies to Promote the Participation of Individuals with I/DD 

and their Families and to Address Critical Heath, Developmental, and Family 

54
	
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Support Issues. Presented at the meeting of the President’s Committee for 

People with Intellectual Disabilities, February 19, 2015, Washington, D.C.
	

Schwartz, S., & Stewart, J. (March 22, 2015). The labour market experience of 

postsecondary graduates with disabilities. Onepagepolicy Blog. Retrieved, 

June 1, 2015, from http://saulschwartz.com/. 

Sohelberg, M.M. (2011). Assistive technology for cognition. The American SpeechLanguage-hearing Association Leader, Vol. 16, 14-17. 

Stock, S.E., Davies, D.K., & Gillespie, T. (2013). The state of the field in applied 

cognitive technologies. Inclusion, 1 (2), 103-120. 

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, 

Office of Special Education Programs, 36th Annual Report to Congress on the 

Implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 2014, 

Washington, D.C. 2014. 

U.S. Department of Commerce (2011). Fact sheet: Digital literacy. Retrieved June 1, 

2015, from http://2010-2014.commerce.gov/news/fact-sheets/2011/05/13/factsheet-digital-literacy 

55
	
 

 

 

 

THE PRESIDENT’S COMMITTEE FOR PEOPLE WITH INTELLECTUAL 

DISABILITIES: MEMBERS 

PCPID CITIZEN MEMBERS 

Susan Axelrod 

Chicago, Illinois 

Peter V. Berns 

Washington, D.C. 

Jack Martin Brandt 

Richmond, Virginia 

James T. Brett 

Boston, Massachusetts 

Kenneth Capone 

Elkridge, Maryland 

Micah Fialka-Feldman 

Syracuse, New York 

Dan Habib 

Concord, New Hampshire 

Zachary W. Holler 

Clayton, Ohio 

Stacey Milbern 

Berkeley, California 

Julie Ann Petty, Chair 

Fayetteville, Arkansas 

Lisa M. Pugh 

Madison, Wisconsin 

Susan Ramirez* 

Eugene, Oregon 

Michelle “Sheli” Reynolds, PhD 

Prairie Village, Kansas 

Deborah Spitalnik, PhD 

New Brunswick, New Jersey 

Michael Strautmanis 

Glendale, California 

Ricardo T. Thornton, Sr. 

Washington, D.C. 

Elizabeth Weintraub 

Rockville, Maryland 

Sheryl White-Scott, MD 

New York, New York 

Betty Williams 

Richmond, Indiana 

* No longer serving on the Committee at the time of publication 

i
	
 

 

 

 

 

 

EX-OFFICIO MEMBERS AND REPRESENTATIVES 

The Honorable Loretta E. Lynch 

Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice 

Represented by: 

Mark Gross 

Deputy Chief, Appellate Section, Civil Rights Division 

U.S. Department of Justice 

The Honorable Sally Jewell 

Secretary, U.S. Department of the Interior 

Represented by: 

Mary Pletcher 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Human Capital and Diversity 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

The Honorable Penny Pritzker 

Secretary, U.S. Department of Commerce 

Represented by: 

Laura Tronge 

Senior Disability Policy Advisor, Office of Civil Rights 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

The Honorable Thomas E. Perez 

Secretary, U.S. Department of Labor 

Represented by: 

Jennifer Sheehy 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Disability Employment Policy 

U.S. Department of Labor 

Alternate Contact: 

Michael Reardon 

Supervisory Policy Advisor, Office of Disability Employment Policy 

U.S. Department of Labor 

ii
	
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Honorable Sylvia M. Burwell 

Secretary, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 

Represented by: 

Sharon Lewis
	

Principal Deputy Administrator
	

Administration for Community Living
	

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 

The Honorable Julián Castro 

Secretary, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 

Represented by: 

Michelle Aronowitz 

Deputy General Counsel for Enforcement and Fair Housing 

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 

The Honorable Anthony Foxx 

Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation 

Represented by: 

Stephanie Jones
	

Deputy Chief of Staff, Office of the Secretary
	

Acting Director, Departmental Office of Civil Rights
	

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Alternate Contact: 

Yvette Rivera 

Associate Director, Equal Employment Opportunity Programs Division 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

The Honorable Arne Duncan 

Secretary, U.S. Department of Education 

Represented by: 

Sue Swenson
	

Deputy Assistant Secretary
	

Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services
	

U.S. Department of Education 

iii
	
 

 

 

 

 

 

The Honorable Jeh Johnson 

Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security 

Represented by: 

Brian S. Parsons 

Senior Policy Advisor, Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 

The Honorable Wendy Spencer 

Chief Executive Officer, Corporation for National and Community Service 

Represented by: 

Stephanie Enyart 

Disability and Inclusion Advisor
	

Corporation for National and Community Service
	

The Honorable Carolyn W. Colvin 

Commissioner, U.S. Social Security Administration 

Represented by: 

Leola Brooks
	

Senior Advisor for Disability Program Outreach
	

Office of Retirement &
	

Disability Policy
	

U.S. Social Security Administration 

The Honorable Jenny R. Yang 

Chair, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 

Represented by: 

Mary Kay Mauren
	

Senior Attorney/Advisor
	

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 

The Honorable Jeff Rosen 

Chairperson, National Council on Disability 

Represented by: 

Gary Blumenthal
	

Council Member
	

National Council on Disability
	

iv
	
 

 

 

PCPID STAFF 

Aaron Bishop, MSSW 

Commissioner, Administration on Disabilities
	

PCPID, Designated Federal Officer
	

Loretta M. Hobbs, PhD 

Consultant 

Madjid “MJ” Karimi, PhD, CPH 

Team Lead and Report Project Manager 

Sheila Whittaker 

Program Assistant 

ADDITIONAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

The President’s Committee for People with Intellectual Disabilities wishes to thank the 

following individuals for their assistance, contributions, and review of this Report: 

Julie Clark, JD 

Senior Policy Advisor
	

Office of Disability Employment Policy, U.S. Department of Labor
	

Daniel K. Davies 

Founder and President
	

AbleLink Technologies, Inc.
	

Glinda Foster Hill 

Education Program Specialist
	

Office of Special Education Programs, U.S. Department of Education
	

David O’Hara, PhD 

Chief Executive Officer
	

Westchester Institute for Human Development
	

v
	
Rick Rader, MD 

Director
	

Habilitation Center, Orange Grove Center
	

Abe Rafi 

Director
	

Digital Strategy and Online Services, The Arc of the United States 

Charlene S. Wills 

Trial Attorney
	

Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
	

PCPID also wishes to thank Benetech® and Bookshare® for making this Report 

electronically accessible to people with disabilities. 

vi
	
 

The Administration for Community Living
	

The Administration on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities
	

The President’s Committee for People with Intellectual Disabilities
	

One Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.
	

Washington, D.C. 20001
	

Phone: (202) 619-0634
	

Website: http://www.acl.gov/programs/aidd/Programs/PCPID/