34226 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 120 /Tuesday, June 23, 1998 / Notices

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

National Institute on Disability and

Rehabilitation Research

AGENCY: Department of Education.

ACTION: Notice of Final Funding

Priorities for Fiscal Years 1998–1999 for

Certain Centers and Projects.

SUMMARY: The Secretary announces final

funding priorities for five Rehabilitation

Research and Training Centers (RRTCs)

under the National Institute on

Disability and Rehabilitation Research

(NIDRR) for fiscal years 1998–1999. The

Secretary takes this action to focus

research attention on areas of national

need. These priorities are intended to

improve rehabilitation services and

outcomes for individuals with

disabilities.

EFFECTIVE DATE: These priorities take

effect on July 23, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Donna Nangle. Telephone: (202) 205–

5880. Individuals who use a

telecommunications device for the deaf

(TDD) may call the TDD number at (202)

205–9136. Internet:

DonnalNangle@ed.gov

Individuals with disabilities may

obtain this document in an alternate

format (e.g., Braille, large print,

audiotape, or computer diskette) on

request to the contact person listed in

the preceding paragraph.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This

notice contains final priorities under the

Disability and Rehabilitation Research

Projects and Centers Program for five

RRTCs related to disability and

employment policy, State service

systems, community rehabilitation

programs (CRPs), workplace supports,

and educational supports.

These final priorities support the

National Education Goal that calls for

every adult American to possess the

skills necessary to compete in a global

economy.

The authority for the Secretary to

establish research priorities by reserving

funds to support particular research

activities is contained in sections 202(g)

and 204 of the Rehabilitation Act of

1973, as amended (29 U.S.C. 761a(g)

and 762).

Note: This notice of final priorities does

not solicit applications. A notice inviting

applications is published in this issue of the

Federal Register.

Analysis of Comments and Changes

On April 14, 1998, the Secretary

published a notice of proposed

priorities in the Federal Register (62 FR

40422–40425). The Department of

Education received five letters

commenting on the notice of proposed

priorities by the deadline date.

Technical and other minor changes—

and suggested changes the Secretary is

not legally authorized to make under

statutory authority—are not addressed.

General

Comment: NIDRR should identify a

significant role for persons with

disabilities in the RRTCs both from an

employment and an advisory

perspective.

Discussion: Involvement of

individuals with disabilities is one of

the general requirements that apply to

all RRTCs. All RRTCs must ‘‘involve

individuals with disabilities and, if

appropriate, their representatives, in

planning and implementing its research,

training, and dissemination activities,

and in evaluating the Center.

Applications for RRTCs are evaluated,

in part, on the extent to which the

applicant encourages individuals with

disabilities to apply for employment.

Changes: None.

Comment: The priorities should place

more emphasis on the development of

studies measuring change or developing

strategies for change.

Discussion: NIDRR provides

applicants with the discretion to

propose studies and methodologies to

measure the impact of new strategies or

interventions. An applicant could

propose to place a special emphasis on

the development of studies measuring

change or developing strategies for

change. The peer review process will

evaluate the merits of the proposal.

However, NIDRR has no basis for

requiring all applicants to place a

special emphasis on the development of

studies measuring change or developing

strategies for change.

Change: None.

Comment: The role that culture plays

in the development of employment

opportunities for persons with

disabilities should be part of the overall

focus of the centers.

Discussion: NIDRR agrees that

cultural variations may be an important

contributing variable related to

employment outcomes for persons with

disabilities. An applicant for any of the

centers could propose to include

cultural factors in one or more activities.

The peer review process will evaluate

the merits of the proposal. However,

NIDRR has no basis for requiring all

applicants to include cultural factors in

their investigations.

Changes: None.

Comment: The priorities do not

include a sufficient focus on training.

This may inadvertently limit the

transition from research to practice.

Discussion: The minimum training

requirements for an RRTC training are

stated in the RRTC program description

and general RRTC requirements section

of the notice of final priorities. NIDRR

believes that these requirements are

sufficient to ensure that the research

findings of the RRTC will be utilized by

appropriate service providers. Having

met these requirements, an applicant

could propose to carry out additional

training activities. The peer review

process will evaluate the merits of the

additional training activities. However,

NIDRR has no basis for requiring all

applicants to carry out additional

training activities.

Changes: None.

Comment: One commenter suggested

a number of specific studies that the

RRTCs should carry out. These

suggestions included investigating: how

industry could be solicited to manage

supplemental housing for employees

with disabilities; modified voucher

systems for parents or guardians of

individuals with disabilities to serve as

negotiators for service providers, job

coaches, and transporters; enticing

skilled crafts people to serve as mentors

in their trades and provide persons with

disabilities with opportunities to learn

specific trade skills; creating alternate

vocational opportunities, as opposed to

the lock step endorsement placed on

production and service type nonskilled

work; and standardizing curricula for

vocational training and trainers in

community workshops and adult

activity centers.

Discussion: An applicant could

propose to carry out these suggested

projects under the authority of one of

the five employment RRTCs. The peer

review process will evaluate the merits

of the proposal. However, NIDRR

prefers to provide applicants with the

discretion to propose specific

investigations and has no basis to

determine that all applicants should be

required to carry out these projects.

Changes: None.

Priority 1: Disability and Employment

Policy

Comment: Civil rights issues are not

well integrated into the overall policy

direction of this center.

Discussion: In part, the sixth activity

requires the RRTC to identify and

analyze the effect of civil rights

protections on significantly promoting

or depressing the employment status of

persons with disabilities. Applicants

have the discretion to propose how this

required activity, or any required

activity, is integrated with the other

activities of the RRTC.

Changes: None.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 120 /Tuesday, June 23, 1998 / Notices 34227

Comment: The RRTC should carry out

the following projects: investigate broad

workforce trends with an emphasis on

benefits, worklife needs and issues, and

the impact of national legislation such

as the Family Medical Leave Act on the

workforce and particularly the

employee with a disability; investigate

the relationship between health benefits

and the needs of SSI and SSI

beneficiaries who are candidates for

returning to work; and coordinate the

RRTC’s data analysis activities with the

analysis carried out in the RRTC on

Improving the Effectiveness of State

Service Systems, including data from

State employment and support agencies

as part of the analysis.

Discussion: An applicant could

propose to carry out these suggested

projects. The peer review process will

evaluate the merits of the proposal.

However, NIDRR prefers to provide

applicants with the discretion to

propose specific investigations and has

no basis to determine that all applicants

should be required to carry out these

projects.

Changes: None.

Priority 2: State Service Systems

Comment: The definition of State

systems should be revised to include:

mental retardation/developmental

disabilities programs, mental health

programs, Workmen’s Compensation

programs, One Stop Career Centers,

community rehabilitation providers,

and local schools.

Discussion: The priority does not

prescribe the entities that could be

considered part of State service systems.

An applicant could propose to include

the entities listed in the comment as

part of the State service system. The

peer review process will evaluate the

merits of the proposal. However, NIDRR

has no basis for requiring all applicants

to consider all of these entities as part

of the State service system.

Changes: None.

Comment: The RRTC should carry out

the following projects: analyze emerging

practices in reimbursement, including

cash payments to individuals,

employers, and others; and study the

use and impact of natural and employer

supports.

Discussion: An applicant could

propose to carry out these suggested

projects. The peer review process will

evaluate the merits of the proposal.

However, NIDRR prefers to provide

applicants with the discretion to

propose specific investigations and has

no basis to determine that all applicants

should be required to carry out these

projects.

Changes: None.

Priority 3: Community Rehabilitation

Programs (CRPs)

Comment: The RRTC should carry out

the following projects: investigate the

impact of consumer control on services

and service delivery in the CRP system;

and investigate the impact of choice on

CRP system structurally, including the

range of services offered and consumer

outcomes realized.

Discussion: An applicant could

propose to carry out these suggested

projects. The peer review process will

evaluate the merits of the proposal.

However, NIDRR prefers to provide

applicants with the discretion to

propose specific investigations and has

no basis to determine that all applicants

should be required to carry out these

projects.

Changes: None.

Priority 4: Workplace Supports

Comment: The RRTC should be

required to address the relationship

between quality of life and employment

for persons with disabilities.

Discussion: The fourth and fifth

activities require the RRTC to address

quality of life issues related to

employment. No further requirements

are necessary.

Changes: None.

Comment: The priority should be

expanded to require the RRTC to

determine the extent to which

workplace supports provided by human

service agencies, such as supported

employment job coaches or personal

assistants, enhance or hinder employer

productivity and the ability of

employers to provide workplace

accommodations.

Discussion: The sixth activity of the

priority addresses employer

perspectives and needs in order to

facilitate the employment of persons

with disabilities. Under the authority of

the sixth activity, an applicant could

propose to investigate the extent to

which workplace supports provided by

human service agencies enhance or

hinder employer productivity and the

ability of employers to provide

workplace accommodations. The peer

review process will evaluate the merits

of the proposal. However, NIDRR has no

basis for requiring all applicants to

investigate the extent to which

workplace supports provided by human

service agencies enhance or hinder

employer productivity and the ability of

employers to provide workplace

accommodations.

Changes: None.

Priority 5: Educational Supports

Comment: The RRTC should address

the needs of persons with cognitive

disabilities.

Discussion: Unless noted otherwise in

a priority, any NIDRR-funded project or

center must address the needs of all

persons with disabilities, including

those with cognitive disabilities.

Changes: None.

Comment: The RRTC should address

the impact of culture on outcomes of

individuals entering or exiting

postsecondary settings.

Discussion: NIDRR agrees that

cultural variations may be an important

contributing variable related to the use

of educational supports and educational

outcomes for persons with disabilities.

An applicant for any of the centers

could propose to include cultural

factors in one or more activities. The

peer review process will evaluate the

merits of the proposal. However, NIDRR

has no basis for requiring all applicants

to include cultural factors in their

investigations.

Changes: None.

Rehabilitation Research and Training

Centers

Authority for the RRTC program of

NIDRR is contained in section 204(b)(2)

of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as

amended (29 U.S.C. 760–762). Under

this program the Secretary makes

awards to public and private

organizations, including institutions of

higher education and Indian tribes or

tribal organizations for coordinated

research and training activities. These

entities must be of sufficient size, scope,

and quality to effectively carry out the

activities of the Center in an efficient

manner consistent with appropriate

State and Federal laws. They must

demonstrate the ability to carry out the

training activities either directly or

through another entity that can provide

that training.

The Secretary may make awards for

up to 60 months through grants or

cooperative agreements. The purpose of

the awards is for planning and

conducting research, training,

demonstrations, and related activities

leading to the development of methods,

procedures, and devices that will

benefit individuals with disabilities,

especially those with the most severe

disabilities.

Description of Rehabilitation Research

and Training Centers

RRTCs are operated in collaboration

with institutions of higher education or

providers of rehabilitation services or

other appropriate services. RRTCs serve
34228 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 120 /Tuesday, June 23, 1998 / Notices

as centers of national excellence and

national or regional resources for

providers and individuals with

disabilities and the parents, family

members, guardians, advocates or

authorized representatives of the

individuals.

RRTCs conduct coordinated,

integrated, and advanced programs of

research in rehabilitation targeted

toward the production of new

knowledge to improve rehabilitation

methodology and service delivery

systems, to alleviate or stabilize

disabling conditions, and to promote

maximum social and economic

independence of individuals with

disabilities.

RRTCs provide training, including

graduate, pre-service, and in-service

training, to assist individuals to more

effectively provide rehabilitation

services. They also provide training

including graduate, pre-service, and inservice training, for rehabilitation

research personnel and other

rehabilitation personnel.

RRTCs serve as informational and

technical assistance resources to

providers, individuals with disabilities,

and the parents, family members,

guardians, advocates, or authorized

representatives of these individuals

through conferences, workshops, public

education programs, in-service training

programs and similar activities.

RRTCs disseminate materials in

alternate formats to ensure that they are

accessible to individuals with a range of

disabling conditions.

NIDRR encourages all Centers to

involve individuals with disabilities

and individuals from minority

backgrounds as recipients of research

training, as well as clinical training.

The Department is particularly

interested in ensuring that the

expenditure of public funds is justified

by the execution of intended activities

and the advancement of knowledge and,

thus, has built this accountability into

the selection criteria. Not later than

three years after the establishment of

any RRTC, NIDRR will conduct one or

more reviews of the activities and

achievements of the Center. In

accordance with the provisions of 34

CFR 75.253(a), continued funding

depends at all times on satisfactory

performance and accomplishment.

General Requirements

The following requirements apply to

these RRTCs pursuant to these absolute

priorities unless noted otherwise. An

applicant’s proposal to fulfill these

proposed requirements will be assessed

using applicable selection criteria in the

peer review process.

The RRTC must provide: (1) training

on research methodology and applied

research experience; and (2) training on

knowledge gained from the Center’s

research activities to persons with

disabilities and their families, service

providers, and other appropriate parties.

The RRTC must develop and

disseminate informational materials

based on knowledge gained from the

Center’s research activities, and

disseminate the materials to persons

with disabilities, their representatives,

service providers, and other interested

parties.

The RRTC must involve individuals

with disabilities and, if appropriate,

their representatives, in planning and

implementing its research, training, and

dissemination activities, and in

evaluating the Center.

The RRTC must conduct a state-ofthe-science conference and publish a

comprehensive report on the final

outcomes of the conference. The report

must be published in the fourth year of

the grant.

Priorities

Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(3), the

Secretary gives an absolute preference to

applications that meet the following

priorities. The Secretary will fund under

this competition only applications that

meet one of these absolute priorities.

Research Priorities in Employment of

Persons with Disabilities

Issues in the Employment of Persons

With Disabilities

Unemployment and

underemployment among working-age

Americans with disabilities are ongoing

problems. Data from the U.S. Census

Bureau on the labor force status of

persons ages 16 to 64 in fiscal year 1996

highlight the magnitude of this problem

(see Table 1). While four-fifths of

working-age Americans were in the

labor force and over three-fourths were

working, less than one-third of persons

with disabilities were in the labor force,

and only one-quarter of them were

working. Fully two-thirds of workingage persons with disabilities were not in

the labor force, a statistic suggesting that

many who may want to work have given

up looking for a job. Finally, among

those in the labor force, the

unemployment rate for persons with

disabilities is more than double that of

nondisabled workers (12.6 percent

versus 5.7 percent).

TABLE 1.—LABOR FORCE PARTICIPATION OF WORKING-AGE ADULTS WITH DISABILITIES

Working-age Americans

In labor

force (percent)

Employed Not in labor

force (percent) Total (percent

Full time

(percent)

All working-age persons ................................................................................................... 81.3 76.7 62.6 18.7

Working-age persons with disabilities .............................................................................. 31.8 27.8 17.7 68.2

Recent analyses of data from the

Survey of Income and Program

Participation (SIPP) (McNeil, J.,

Americans with Disabilities: 1994–99,

Current Population Reports, P70–61,

U.S. Census Bureau, 1997) describe

earnings discrepancies among working

adults based on disability status. As

shown in Table 2, median monthly

earnings of working males without a

disability ($2,190) are nearly $1,000

higher than those of workers with a

severe disability ($1,262). Working

females without a disability earn $500

more in median monthly earnings than

do females with a severe disability

($1,470 versus $1,000).

Recent trends in the nation’s labor

market exacerbate the difficulties

experienced by persons with disabilities

in their attempts to gain employment

and even in their motivation to seek

employment. Downsizing, for example,

has led to a reduction in the percentage

of individuals in the labor force with

stable, long-term jobs that offer

employee benefits. There has been an

increase in the use of contingent labor

as business and industry move to other

configurations that fill labor needs

without requiring a long-term

commitment to workers. This

contingent workforce takes many forms,

including on-call workers, temporary

help agency workers, workers provided

by contract firms, and independent

contractors paid wages or salaries

directly from the company (Uchitelle,

L., ‘‘More Downsized Workers Are
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 120 /Tuesday, June 23, 1998 / Notices 34229

Returning as Rentals, New York Times,

December 8, 1996; Clark, R., ‘‘Planning

for the Future Environmental Scanning

Forum: Final Report,’’ Office of Special

Education and Rehabilitative Services

(OSERS), Washington, DC, 1997). Many

of these types of jobs lack the security

and benefits, particularly health

insurance, that most persons with

disabilities require in order to

participate in the labor force. Further,

some individuals believe that the

nation’s political climate is such that

government supports for

underemployed persons are likely to

decline in the future (Clark, R., ibid.;

Conlan, T., Planning for the Future

Environmental Scanning Forum: Final

Report, OSERS, Washington, DC, 1997).

TABLE 2.—MONTHLY EARNINGS OF NONDISABLED AND DISABLED WORKING ADULTS, 1994–95

Gender

Median monthly earnings

No disability Nonsevere

disability

Severe disability

Male .......................................................................................................................................................... $2,190 $1,857 $1,262

Female ...................................................................................................................................................... 1,470 1,200 1,000

In addition, while many of the

nation’s business and education

communities point to the need for

highly educated, highly skilled workers

if the nation is to succeed in the

increasingly competitive global

economy, the reality is more complex.

On the one hand, availability of highskilled jobs combined with rapid

advances in technology may in fact

improve the employment prospects of

persons with disabilities as well as other

workers, through such work

arrangements as telecommuting and

expanding the market for selfemployment or small business. On the

other hand, a sizable segment of the

labor market includes low-skilled, lowpaying jobs, in which persons with

disabilities are disproportionally

represented (Hayward, B., and Tashjian,

M., ‘‘A Longitudinal Study of the

Vocational Rehabilitation Service

Program: Second Interim Report,

‘‘Characteristics and Perspectives of

Vocational Rehabilitation Consumers,’’

Research Triangle Institute, 1996).

Researchers have suspected a

relationship between changes in the

configuration of the nation’s labor

market and growth in the number of

persons with disabilities who are

recipients of disability benefits, but

such a relationship is hard to

demonstrate empirically (Rupp, K. and

Stapleton, D., ‘‘Economic and

Noneconomic Determinants of the

Growth in the Social Security

Administration’s (SSA’s) Disability

Programs—Overview of Theories and

Evidence,’’ Social Security Bulletin,

58(4), pgs. 43–70, 1995). In the past ten

years, the number of persons who

receive cash benefits through Social

Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) and

Supplemental Security Income (SSI) has

increased by two-thirds, with SSA

paying out approximately $72 billion

annually to eight million recipients.

Including Medicare and Medicaid

benefits, the annual Federal expenditure

exceeds $110 billion, and policymakers

expect the costs of cash benefits alone

will exceed $110 billion annually by the

end of the current administration

(Coelho, T., ‘‘Keynote Speech:

Employment Post the Americans with

Disabilities Act,’’ Conference sponsored

by the SSA, Washington, DC, 1997).

In addition to the changing

macroeconomic work world, there are

important changes in the

conceptualization of disability. In this

‘‘new’’ disability paradigm, there is

increased emphasis on the

environment’s role in creating barriers

to an individual’s with disability

participation in society. NIDRR will

support research that focuses on how

the individual interacts with society. In

terms of employment, this interaction

may focus on environmental barriers to

employment, including transportation,

accommodations, attitudes, or

programmatic barriers such as health

insurance.

Recent investigations into the

explosive growth of the disability

benefit rolls and the inability of the

existing service delivery system to

return greater numbers of beneficiaries

to employment have identified a wide

variety of issues that merit further

research. For example, data available

from the Longitudinal Study of the Title

I Vocational Rehabilitation Program

indicate that the current structure of

SSA benefits and work incentives is not

adequate to address consumer concerns

about income security (Hayward, B. and

Tashjian, M., op. cit.). As shown in

Table 3, when asked to identify reasons

for not working, a substantially higher

percentage of beneficiaries identified

concern about a loss of total income or

medical coverage than did

nonbeneficiaries.

Addressing the issue of medical

coverage is especially critical, since less

than half (43.7 percent) of all persons

aged 22 to 64 years old with a severe

disability have private health insurance

(McNeil, J., op. cit.). Under the current

benefit structure, availability of medical

benefits is tied to eligibility for cash

benefits. Loss of medical coverage

associated with a return to work is the

major concern for many beneficiaries

contemplating employment. As the data

also suggest, many beneficiaries, who

have little to no work history, are

concerned that the income they might

receive from available employment will

not match the combined value of cash

benefits and medical coverage they

receive through SSA.

A number of public and private

initiatives target employment for

persons with disabilities. These include

the State-Federal Vocational

Rehabilitation Program, community

rehabilitation program services, schoolto-work programs, and employer

sponsored programs primarily targeted

at individuals already in the work force.

For the past 75 years, the chief avenue

of publicly
34230 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 120 /Tuesday, June 23, 1998 / Notices

TABLE 3.—SELF-REPORTED REASONS FOR NOT WORKING

Issues preventing consumers from obtaining employment or working regularly

SSI/DI

beneficiaries

(percent)

Nonbeneficiaries with

severe disabilities

(percent)

I am afraid I would lose my medical insurance ............................................................................................................... 48.3 26.5

I am afraid I could not get back on benefits if I lost the job ............................................................................................ 50.8 26.1

I do not think I could earn as much working as I get from my benefits .......................................................................... 42.1 19.8

funded employment-related services to

improve the employment status of

persons with disabilities has been the

State-Federal Vocational Rehabilitation

Program, currently authorized under the

Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended.

Funded at $2.3 billion in Federal funds

for fiscal year 1998 and a 22 percent

State match for a total of an estimated

$3 billion annually, the State-Federal

Vocational Rehabilitation Program is

designed to assist States in providing

state-of-the-art, comprehensive and

coordinated vocational rehabilitation

services. State Vocational Rehabilitation

agency staff assist persons with

disabilities to establish vocational goals

that are consistent with their strengths,

resources, priorities, concerns, abilities,

and capabilities in order that they may

prepare for and engage in gainful

employment. The program is authorized

to provide an array of services that are

intended to facilitate the employment of

persons with disabilities, such as

assessment, counseling and guidance,

vocational or other training, physical

and mental restoration, maintenance,

and other necessary services and

supports.

Reform of the current rehabilitation

service delivery system is underway,

and the possible effects of changes in

the system require investigation. The

State-Federal Vocational Rehabilitation

Program is increasing consumers’

control and expanding their role in

policy development, implementing

program performance standards, and

streamlining the vocational

rehabilitation process. In addition to

these and other changes in the StateFederal Vocational Rehabilitation

Program, a host of other ongoing reforms

in the broader service delivery

environment are occurring. In

particular, the recent growth in the

number of SSI/SSDI beneficiaries has

sparked considerable Congressional

interest in reforming the system of

employment services that target persons

with disabilities. Congressional interest

includes revising existing SSA work

incentives and expanding consumer

choice in the selection of a vocational

rehabilitation service provider through

return-to-work tickets or vouchers for

some or all recipients of disability

benefits. Implementation of a return-towork ticket program may have

significant implications for current and

future SSI/SSDI beneficiaries, including

the level of control they will have over

decisions about whether to participate

in such a program, the selection of an

employment goal and specific

rehabilitation services, and changes in

service providers or employers over

time.

There are nearly 7,000 CRPs serving

approximately 800,000 individuals with

disabilities each day with funding from

State vocational rehabilitation agencies,

Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA)

programs, Workman’s Compensation,

Medicaid, private insurance, and other

sources (Menz, F., ‘‘Vocational

Rehabilitation Research in the United

States of America,’’ Vocational

Rehabilitation in Europe, p. 107, 1997).

The role of CRPs in the overall service

delivery environment may increase even

further if Federal employment programs

devolve to States and communities.

CRPs may need to be prepared to offer

a full range of vocational-related

services, or highly specialized services

to an increasingly heterogeneous

consumer population. If return-to-work

programs in which provider payments

are based on successful consumer

outcomes are among the new service

delivery models implemented, new

relationships between service providers

and funding sources may emerge over

the next few years. These new

relationships are likely to require CRPs

to adapt their current structure and

operations in significant ways.

A number of questions about how

these changes may potentially influence

and affect CRPs remain unanswered. For

instance, more needs to be known about

the impact of consumer choice on

different service delivery models and

the efficacy of different models to

maximize competitive employment

outcomes for persons with severe

disabilities or with specific types of

disabilities. Finally, whether new

funding mechanisms will promote

increased competition and innovation

in service delivery by CRPs is a major

question. Knowledge about these and

related areas is essential to validating

assumptions around which pending

reforms are predicated and to help

shape the future direction of initiatives

designed to increase the numbers of

persons with severe disabilities who

obtain and retain meaningful

employment.

Workplace supports are programs or

interventions provided in the workplace

to enable persons with disabilities to be

successful in securing and maintaining

employment. Some workplace supports

may be provided through formal

mechanisms established by vocational

rehabilitation programs, such as

supported employment. Supported

employment programs usually provide

onsite assistance, provided by a job

coach who works with the person with

the disability as well as with co-workers

and supervisors to ease the transition to

the competitive employment setting

(‘‘Evaluating the Effectiveness and

Efficiency of Supported Employment

Programs,’’ Policy Research Brief,

Volume 5, No. 2, Center on Residential

Services and Community Living,

College of Education, University of

Minnesota, 1993).

In addition, employers have

developed a number of support

mechanisms in the form of return-towork programs and related disability

management programs. These programs

use case management strategies to

ensure communication among medical

providers, supervisors, and employees

to prevent disability; or, when accidents

or disease occur, to foster early returnto-work. Particularly important to these

programs is the establishment of a

framework that sends a clear message

that the employer wants the employee

to continue working or to return to work

as quickly as appropriate. Workplace

supports also include employer

willingness to implement

accommodations and to encourage

supervisors to work to integrate the

person with disability back into the

workforce. Often the reintegration

process requires that treatment

personnel understand job requirements
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 120 /Tuesday, June 23, 1998 / Notices 34231

and essential job functions in order to

assess the ability of the employee to

perform the job adequately. Finally,

incentives embedded in employee

benefit plans must be used to encourage

the worker to maintain employment.

In addition to workplace supports,

employees are protected under Title I of

the Americans with Disabilities Act

(ADA) which prohibits discrimination

on the basis of disability in

employment. This law requires that

employers with 15 or more employees

provide qualified persons with

disabilities an equal opportunity to

benefit from the full range of

employment-related opportunities

available to others. The ADA prohibits

employers from discriminating against

workers with disabilities and applies to

individuals with disabilities who are

seeking employment, as well as to those

who are employed. Employers must

provide reasonable accommodations to

workers to overcome disability-related

barriers to performing essential job

functions. In addition, various

government programs have

experimented with strategies to improve

employer receptivity to workers with

disabilities, including tax credits and

partial support of health benefits to

encourage employers to hire persons

with disabilities. Given the role that

workplace supports can play in assisting

employers to expand and improve

employment opportunities for persons

with disabilities, investigation of issues

related to the development and

implementation of innovative

workplace supports is essential.

Over the past 20 years, changes in the

nation’s labor market have increased the

importance of post-high school

education in terms of employment

success. Gingerich reported

unemployment rates of persons with

disabilities by level of education as

follows: 12 percent among individuals

with less than a high school diploma,

6.3 percent among those with a

diploma, 4.2 percent among persons

with some postsecondary education,

and 2.5 percent among persons with at

least four years of college. In 1992,

earnings of college graduates were 50

percent higher than those of persons

with only a high school diploma

(Gingerich, J., ‘‘Vast Spaces and Stone

Walls: Overcoming Barriers to

Postsecondary Education for Rural

Students with Disabilities,’’ American

Council on Rural Special Education

Conference, 1996).

Concurrently, the percentage of

postsecondary students reporting a

disability has tripled, from less than 3

percent in 1978 to over 9 percent (about

140,000) in 1994. The largest growth has

been students reporting a learning

disability, representing about one-third

of all postsecondary students reporting

a disability, double the 1988 figure of 15

percent (Henderson, C., ‘‘College

Freshmen with Disabilities: A Statistical

Profile,’’ American Council on

Education, Washington, DC, 1995).

Ongoing research sponsored by the

Office of Special Education Programs

(OSEP), U.S. Department of Education,

is testing a methodology to determine

the types of services youth exiting

secondary school can be expected to

require in their transition to adulthood

(‘‘Services Anticipated to Be Needed by

Exiting Students with Disabilities:

Results of the Second PASS Field Test,’’

OSEP, 1996). While case management is

the most frequently needed service (up

to 80 percent of exiting youth require

this service), over half will reportedly

require services to support their

participation in postsecondary

education, including two- and four-year

colleges and various forms of adult

literacy programs (e.g., General

Equivalency Diploma preparation, adult

high schools, and adult basic education)

(OSEP, ibid.).

Most of the nation’s 3,000

postsecondary institutions offer support

services to students with disabilities.

Such services vary widely and may

include: (1) individual academic

accommodations (e.g., note taking,

library and typing assistance, alternative

testing arrangements, books on tape,

readers, interpreters, tutors, and waivers

of course requirements); (2) adaptive

equipment (portable wheelchairaccessible desks, voice-activated

computers, speech synthesizerequipped computers); (3) case

management and coordination (liaison

with vocational rehabilitation,

independent living, and other

community resources); (4) advocacy;

and (5) personal counseling, academic

and career advising.

Given that such disability-related

services are a relatively new addition to

the postsecondary environment, a

number of issues associated with their

provision merit investigation, including:

(1) whether the requirement that a

person disclose his disability in order to

obtain services is a deterrent to

postsecondary enrollment and

completion; (2) accessibility of

vocational rehabilitation or other

funding sources of funds for services not

covered under ADA or Section 504 of

the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as

amended, but necessary for a student’s

continued enrollment; (3) the impact of

such services on students’ completion of

postsecondary education; and (4) the

extent to which the institution provides

transitional support to graduates as they

attempt to enter the labor force.

To accommodate the changing nature

of the nation’s employment

environment, along with anticipated

policy changes that will affect all

segments of the employment and

training delivery system, NIDRR intends

to apply new approaches and rigorous

methods to research about the

employment of persons with

disabilities. Fundamental to these

approaches and methods is NIDRR’s

intent to support research that is

outcome based and has a high

likelihood of making significant

contributions to the advancement of

knowledge and improved service

delivery. NIDRR proposes a research

agenda that emphasizes collaborative,

interdisciplinary studies that contribute

to knowledge about problems and issues

related to the employment of persons

with disabilities.

Priority 1: Disability and Employment

Policy

Background

The effect of macroeconomic trends

on the employment of persons with

disabilities and public policy responses

to these trends merit increased

investigation. A coordinated research

effort must examine issues, (e.g., the

changing structure of the workforce,

economic trends, labor market changes,

new skill requirements, incentives and

disincentives to work, devolution of

responsibility for employment training

to State and local levels, and new

service delivery patterns that necessitate

changes in Vocational Rehabilitation

Program configurations) to improve

employment and economic selfsufficiency for persons with disabilities.

Of particular interest are implications of

cross-agency and multiple agency

developments and initiatives, including

welfare reform, workforce development,

changes in Social Security benefits and

disability determination policies,

Medicare and Medicaid changes, and

the U.S. Department of Education—U.S.

Department of Labor school-to-work

program. Investigative studies that are

national in scope and test alternative

models for financing services, and

infrastructure changes that may yield

increased opportunities for persons with

disabilities are essential.

Priority 1

The Secretary will establish an RRTC

on disability and employment policy for

the purpose of improving our

understanding of public policy and its

relationship to improving employment
34232 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 120 /Tuesday, June 23, 1998 / Notices

outcomes for persons with disabilities.

The RRTC shall:

(1) Develop predictive models for

national macroeconomic trends

affecting employment of persons with

disabilities;

(2) Identify and analyze the

relationship between select Federal and

State policies including, but not limited

to, welfare reform and innovations in

Social Security programs affecting

persons with disabilities, the Executive

order on ‘‘Increasing Employment for

Adults with Disabilities’’, and issues of

contingent workforce and

accompanying changes (e.g., part-time

benefits and demands for new and

flexible skills), upon the employment of

persons with disabilities;

(3) Using existing data, conduct a

comprehensive analysis of the

employment status of persons with

disabilities, identifying gaps in current

data availability and collection

methodologies;

(4) Identify and analyze the factors,

such as pre- and post-disability

earnings, education, type of job,

personal assistance service, and benefit

design, that predict return-to-work;

(5) Analyze the policy implications of

outcome-based reimbursement on the

delivery of employment and

rehabilitation services to persons with

disabilities;

(6) Identify and analyze the effect of

civil rights protections and

environmental factors (e.g., barriers to

transportation and employer attitudes)

on significantly promoting or depressing

the employment status of persons with

disabilities; and

(7) Identify and analyze policies and

resource availability issues that foster or

impede the participation of

transitioning students in rehabilitation

training or employment services

programs.

Priority 2: State Service Systems

Background

The public vocational rehabilitation

service system is in the midst of major

reform. The 1992 amendments to the

Rehabilitation Act mandated: (1)

expanded consumer choice in the

selection of goals, services, and

providers; (2) implementation of

program performance standards for

State vocational rehabilitation agencies;

and (3) an expanded consumer role in

policy developed through the

Rehabilitation Advisory Councils. The

influence of these and other changes,

such as a streamlined vocational

rehabilitation process, on employment

outcomes for persons with disabilities is

unknown. Moreover, the current and

future impact of recent reforms in the

broader service delivery system, such as

workforce development consolidation

and return-to-work programs employing

vouchers or ‘‘tickets,’’ merit

investigation.

Priority 2

The Secretary will establish an RRTC

for the purpose of improving the

effectiveness of State service systems on

promoting employment outcomes for

persons with disabilities. The RRTC

shall:

(1) Describe the State systems that

deliver employment services to persons

with disabilities, including transitioning

students. Identify how and to what

extent the different components of the

system, such as State vocational

rehabilitation agencies, disability

determination services, JTPA’s Private

Industry Councils, one-stop shops, and

schools, coordinate their efforts;

(2) Analyze existing State and Federal

data sets, including client and service

provider characteristics, to determine

different employment outcomes for

persons with disabilities;

(3) Describe how State vocational

rehabilitation agencies and other

agencies within the State service

delivery system overcome

environmental barriers (e.g., using

assistive technology, jobsite

modifications, and personal assistance

services) in order to improve

employment outcomes;

(4) Evaluate the success of State

service system efforts to address the

unique employment-related needs of

SSDI and SSI beneficiaries and identify

State systems that have implemented

demonstrably effective employment

programs in assisting recipients of

disability benefits to achieve a

successful return-to-work; and

(5) Describe the progress of State and

Federal initiatives to consolidate

workforce development programs and

identify policies and procedures that

have been successful in ensuring the

availability and provision of services to

persons with the most severe

disabilities.

Priority 3: Community Rehabilitation

Programs

Background

Proposed restructuring of the

financing of employment-related

services for persons with disabilities

assumes a major role for CRPs. The

capacity and potential contributions of

an estimated 7,000 CRPs across the

nation require thorough investigation.

Further, the potential of this system to

assume greater responsibility for service

delivery under contractual or other

agreements (e.g., return-to-work ‘‘ticket’’

systems for SSDI and SSI recipients)

merits study.

Priority 3

The Secretary will establish an RRTC

on CRPs to improve their role in

promoting employment outcomes for

persons with disabilities. The RRTC

shall:

(1) Describe the CRPs service delivery

system, including the characteristics of

providers, funding sources, nature and

extent of the services provided, and

individuals served, and identify the

relative contributions of the programs to

providing rehabilitation and

employment services.

(2) Identify how services delivered by

CRPs to State vocational rehabilitation

agency consumers differ in quality,

timeliness, quantity, costs, or outcomes

from those delivered to consumers

through other payor sources;

(3) Investigate the extent to which

CRPs provide consumers with choices

in the selection of employment goals

and specific rehabilitation services;

(4) Analyze the impact of Federal and

State policies on the structure and

operation of CRPs, including

management approaches, staffing

configurations and staff training,

outreach to underserved populations,

and emerging service configurations;

and

(5) Evaluate the nature and success of

employment outcomes of persons who

obtain services from CRPs.

Priority 4: Workplace Supports

Background

The work environment for persons

with disabilities, including both the

physical environment (as represented by

job requirements, job site

accommodations, and technological

aids), and the roles of employers,

supervisors, and co-workers, has

received insufficient attention in past

research. An improved understanding of

the work environment and employer

needs and preferences is necessary to

improve employment outcomes.

Employer disability management and

return-to-work programs are one

potential source of information on

effective employer accommodation

strategies for employees with

disabilities. NIDRR will support

research that investigates employer

roles, collaboration between education

and rehabilitation professionals and

employers, strategies to improve

employer receptivity to workers with

disabilities, and the impact of

incentives, such as tax credits and
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 120 /Tuesday, June 23, 1998 / Notices 34233

partial support of health benefits, to

encourage employers to hire persons

with disabilities. In addition, this

research will examine the viability of

new work structures, including

telecommuting, flexible work hours and

self-employment, for persons with

disabilities.

Priority 4

The Secretary will establish an RRTC

on workplace supports for the purpose

of identifying and evaluating effective

workplace supports that improve

employment outcomes for persons with

disabilities. The RRTC shall:

(1) Analyze the potential of existing or

new employer incentives, such as tax

credits or Medicare buydowns to

improve labor force participation of

persons with disabilities;

(2) Develop and test financial analysis

methodologies, such as return on

investment or economic value added to

measure effectiveness of employer

workplace supports and their

contribution to employer profitability;

(3) Identify and evaluate effective

employer disability management,

return-to-work, or other strategies that

affect hiring, retention, and

advancement of workers with

disabilities;

(4) Evaluate the impact of workplace

support on changes in the employment

status of persons with disabilities in

terms of job types, career advancement,

and other outcomes important to

meaningful employment of persons with

disabilities;

(5) Conduct research to determine

how changes in work structure will

affect hiring, retention, advancement,

and job satisfaction for persons with

disability; and

(6) Examine perspectives of

employers to determine their needs

(e.g., for information, training, and

resources) that will facilitate the

employment of individuals with

disabilities with necessary work

support.

Priority 5: Educational Supports

Background

The U.S. Department of Education

Strategic Plan, 1998–2002, describes

postsecondary education as ‘‘America’s

traditional gateway to the professions,

more challenging jobs, and higher

wages.’’ Insufficient information exists

about the use and impact of educational

supports for persons with disabilities in

postsecondary environments. Of

particular interest are the types of

educational and transition assistance

that postsecondary institutions make

available to improve the educational

and subsequent labor market success of

students with disabilities. Systemic and

environmental barriers to full

participation in postsecondary programs

by individuals with disabilities must be

studied as well. In addition, promising

postsecondary educational practices

important to the career mobility and

success of individuals with disabilities

must be investigated, at a minimum, to

determine whether educational supports

are available as needed, and whether

they are effective in improving the

educational performance of individuals

with disabilities.

Priority 5

The Secretary will establish an RRTC

on educational supports to increase

access and improve outcomes for

individuals with disabilities in

postsecondary education programs. The

RRTC shall:

(1) Identify the nature and range of

educational supports that are available

to students with disabilities in

postsecondary educational programs by

type of program (e.g., colleges,

vocational and technical institutes,

adult educational programs) and type of

disability;

(2) Examine the contributions of

technological advances to the

effectiveness of student support systems

at the postsecondary level;

(3) Investigate the effectiveness of

educational supports in terms of

educational outcomes and labor force

participation; and

(4) Investigate the extent to which

institutional supports extend to the

employment environment, with

particular emphasis on the special

needs of persons with severe

disabilities.

Electronic Access to This Document

Anyone may view this document, as

well as all other Department of

Education documents published in the

Federal Register, in text or portable

document format (pdf) on the World

Wide Web at either of the following

sites:

http://ocfo.ed.gov/fedreg.htm

http://www.ed.gov/news.html

To use the pdf you must have the Adobe

Acrobat Reader Program with Search,

which is available free at either of the

preceding sites. If you have questions

about using the pdf, call the U.S.

Government Printing Office toll free at

1–888–293–6498.

Anyone may also view these

documents in text copy only on an

electronic bulletin board of the

Department. Telephone: (202) 219–1511

or, toll free, 1–800–222–4922. The

documents are located under Option

G—Files/Announcements, Bulletins and

Press Releases.

Note: The official version of this document

is the document published in the Federal

Register.

Applicable Program Regulations: 34

CFR Part 350.

Program Authority: 29 U.S.C. 760–762.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

Number 84.133B, Rehabilitation Research

and Training Centers)

Dated: June 17, 1998.

Judith E. Heumann,

Assistant Secretary for Special Education and

Rehabilitative Services.

[FR Doc. 98–16593 Filed 6–22–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

[CFDA No.: 84.133B]

Office of Special Education and

Rehabilitative Services; National

Institute on Disability and

Rehabilitation Research; Notice

Inviting Applications for New

Rehabilitation Research and Training

Centers for Fiscal Year (FY) 1998

Note to Applicants: This notice is a

complete application package. Together

with the statute authorizing the

programs and applicable regulations

governing the programs, including the

Education Department General

Administrative Regulations (EDGAR),

this notice contains information,

application forms, and instructions

needed to apply for a grant under these

competitions.

This program supports the National

Education Goal that calls for all

Americans to possess the knowledge

and skills necessary to compete in a

global economy and exercise the rights

and responsibilities of citizenship.

The estimated funding levels in this

notice do not bind the Department of

Education to make awards in any of

these categories, or to any specific

number of awards or funding levels,

unless otherwise specified in statute.

Applicable Regulations: The

Education Department General

Administrative Regulations (EDGAR),

34 CFR Parts 74, 75, 77, 80, 81, 82, 85,

and 86; and Disability and

Rehabilitation Research Projects and

Centers—34 CFR Part 350, particularly

Rehabilitation Research and Training

Centers in Subpart C.

Program Title: Rehabilitation

Research and Training Centers (RRTCs).

CFDA Number: 84.133B.

Purpose of Program: RRTCs conduct

coordinated and advanced programs or