27634 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 24, 1995 / Notices

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

National Institute on Disability and

Rehabilitation Research

AGENCY: Department of Education.

ACTION: Notice of Final Funding

Priorities for Fiscal Years 1995–1996 for

Rehabilitation Research and Training

Centers.

SUMMARY: The Secretary announces final

funding priorities for certain

Rehabilitation Research and Training

Centers (RRTCs) under the National

Institute on Disability and

Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR) for

fiscal years 1995–1996. The Secretary

takes this action to focus research

attention on areas of national need.

These priorities are intended to improve

outcomes for individuals with

disabilities.

EFFECTIVE DATE: These priorities take

effect on June 23, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David Esquith, U.S. Department of

Education, 600 Independence Avenue,

S.W., Switzer Building, room 3424,

Washington, D.C. 20202–2601.

Telephone (202) 205–8801. Individuals

who use a telecommunications device

for the deaf (TDD) may call the TDD

number at (202) 205–5516.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This

notice contains four final priorities

under the RRTC program: Independent

living and disability policy;

Management and services of Centers for

Independent Living (CILs); Improved

services for low-functioning deaf

individuals; and Rehabilitation in longterm mental illness. These priorities

support the National Education Goals

that call for all Americans to possess the

knowledge and skills necessary to

compete in a global economy and

exercise the rights and responsibilities

of citizenship.

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). The

Secretary may make awards through

grants or cooperative agreements. Under

the regulations for this program (see 34

CFR 352.32), the Secretary may

establish research priorities by reserving

funds to support particular research

activities.

On November 15, 1994, the Secretary

published a notice of proposed

priorities in the Federal Register at 59

FR 59030. The Department of Education

received a number of letters

commenting on each of the priorities, as

well as a large number of letters

recommending additional priority areas.

Modifications were made to the

priorities as a result of those comments.

The comments, and the Secretary’s

responses to them, are discussed in an

appendix to this notice.

Note: This notice of final priorities does

NOT solicit applications. A notice inviting

applications under these competitions is

published in a separate notice in this issue

of the Federal Register.

Applicants have considerable latitude

in proposing the specific research and

related projects they will undertake to

achieve the designated outcomes;

however, the regulatory selection

criteria for the program (34 CFR 352.31)

state that the Secretary reviews the

extent to which applicants justify their

choice of research projects in terms of

the relevance to the priority and to the

needs of individuals with disabilities.

The Secretary also reviews the extent to

which applicants present a scientific

methodology that includes reasonable

hypotheses, methods of data collection

and analysis, and a means to evaluate

the extent to which project objectives

have been achieved.

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

The Secretary announces that the

following requirements will apply to all

of the RRTCs pursuant to the priorities:

Each RRTC must conduct an

integrated program of research to

develop solutions to problems

confronted by individuals with

disabilities.

Each RRTC must conduct a

coordinated and advanced program of

training in rehabilitation research,

including training in research

methodology and applied research

experience, that will contribute to the

number of qualified researchers working

in the area of rehabilitation research.

Each Center must disseminate and

encourage the use of new rehabilitation

knowledge. They must make available

all materials for dissemination or

training in alternate formats to make

them accessible to individuals with a

range of disabling conditions.

Each RRTC must involve individuals

with disabilities and, if appropriate,

their family members, as well as

rehabilitation service providers, in

planning and implementing the research

and training programs, in interpreting

and disseminating the research findings,

and in evaluating the Center.

Priorities

Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(3) the

Secretary gives an absolute preference to

applications that meet one of the

following priorities. The Secretary will

fund under this competition only

applications that meet one of these

absolute priorities:

Priorities 1 and 2: Independent Living

Background

Independent Living (IL) programs

operate from a philosophy of consumer

control, self-help, advocacy,

development of peer relationships and

peer role models, and equal access of

individuals with significant disabilities

to society, programs, and activities. The

IL philosophy stresses the concept of

empowerment of individuals with

disabilities to control their own lives

through participation in service

planning, management of their own

personal assistants, informed

decisionmaking, and self advocacy. In

its 25-year history, ‘‘Independent

Living’’ has been a philosophy, a social

movement, and a service program.

These priorities address all of these

aspects of independent living, and

propose investigations into new

applications of independent living

concepts, as well as studies and training

related to the operations of the publiclysupported IL programs.

The 1992 Amendments to the

Rehabilitation Act: established

Statewide Independent Living Councils

(SILCs) to jointly develop and sign the

State plan for independent living;

created a new definition of a CIL as a

consumer-controlled, community-based,

cross-disability, nonresidential, private

non-profit agency that is designed and

operated within a local community by

individuals with disabilities and

provides an array of independent living

services; modified the State and Federal

responsibilities for making grants to

CILs; and specifically authorized

advocacy services.

NIDRR has funded RRTCs in

independent living since 1980. Current

RRTCs focus on disability policy, IL

management, and IL for underserved

populations. The current Centers on

policy and management will receive

their final funding in fiscal year 1994.

In order to determine the continued

need for RRTCs in IL, and some possible

research needs, NIDRR convened a two-
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 24, 1995 / Notices 27635

day focus group of experts in IL research

and administration in Washington in

January, 1994. The following priorities

are based largely on the work of this

focus group as well as reports from the

current research centers and input from

other Federal agencies. Focus group

participants raised issues for further

investigation in the following areas of

program operations: implementation of

program standards; outcome measures

and accountability; improved program

services; reaching diverse populations;

training, recruitment, and retention of

staff; and effective operations of

governing boards and SILCs.

The focus group also discussed a

number of issues concerning new roles

for CILs in societal developments such

as violence, homelessness, and

information technology, and in the

formulation and implementation of

policy in areas with particular

implications for individuals with

disabilities, such as the Americans with

Disabilities Act (ADA) and the reform of

the health care delivery system.

The RRTC on CIL management and

services will be funded jointly by

NIDRR and RSA and will be required to

work closely with the RSA grantee

providing training, technical assistance,

and transition assistance to CILs under

Part C of Title VII of the amended

Rehabilitation Act.

Priority 1: Independent Living and

Disability Policy

Under this priority, the Secretary

supports an RRTC on independent

living and disability policy that—(1)

conducts research on policy barriers to

achieving independent living in such

areas as transportation, housing, and

health care; (2) examines the role and

effectiveness of CILs in increasing

community options for independent

living and the capacity of communities

to meet the independent living needs of

individuals with significant disabilities;

and (3) identifies and provides training

and information on effective strategies

that CILS use to effect change.

In addition to activities proposed by

the applicant to carry out these

purposes, the center must conduct the

following activities:

• Analyze CIL policies regarding

activities to promote implementation of

the ADA, and develop strategies that

CILs might adopt, including an analysis

of the implications and consequences of

various options;

• Review CIL and vocational

rehabilitation agency policies related to

collaborations, and design strategies for

innovative partnerships to promote

employment outcomes for individuals

with disabilities;

• Identify strategies for CILs to

promote accessible generic community

services for individuals with significant

disabilities, including vulnerable

individuals such as persons with

disabilities who are homeless, who are

at risk for societal abuse and violence,

and those who are from minority

backgrounds.

• Provide training and information to

CILs, policymakers, administrators, and

advocates on research findings and

identified strategies.

Priority 2: Independent Living Center

Management and Services

An RRTC on CIL management and

services will conduct research and

training activities and develop model

approaches that will enhance the

capacity of CILs to—(1) plan, manage,

and evaluate program services,

including the measurement of program

outcomes and compliance with national

standards; (2) provide appropriate

services to cultural and linguistic

minorities; (3) recruit, train, and retain

appropriate staff; (4) develop effective

governing boards, including appropriate

staff relations; and (5) collaborate

effectively with State Vocational

Rehabilitation agencies to promote

employment outcomes among

individuals with disabilities. The RRTC

will also conduct research and training

activities to promote the effective

operation of SILCs.

In addition to activities proposed by

the applicant to carry out these

purposes, the Center must conduct the

following activities:

• Identify best practices and develop

and test optimal programs for CILs in

expanding services to youth with

disabilities and in interfacing with

education and transition programs to

prepare youth for independent living;

• Review CIL funding patterns and

analyze the impact on CILs of diverse

funding sources, and design and test

several options for generating funding

from alternate sources, including those

independent of public financing;

• Document the initial development,

composition, and operation of the

SILCs; identify effective operational

practices, develop and provide training

to a selected sample of SILCs, and

evaluate the impact of this effort; and

• Coordinate activities with and

provide instruments, curricula, and

methodologies, as well as research

findings, to the RSA technical assistance

grantee under Part C of Title VII of the

Rehabilitation Act.

Peer Support in the Rehabilitation of

Long-Term Mental Illness

Background

Findings of the National Institute of

Mental Health Epidemiological

Catchment Area program are that more

than 20 percent of all Americans have

a diagnosable mental disorder in any

given year. (Office of Technology

Assessment, Psychiatric Disabilities,

Employment, and the Americans with

Disabilities Act, 1994). Of the

population with mental disorders, 4 to

5 million adults are considered

‘‘seriously mentally ill’’ (Rutman, 1993).

This priority focuses on that part of the

population that has serious and

persistent mental disorders that

interfere with normal activities of daily

life; the term ‘‘persons with long-term

mental illness’’ (LTMI) is also

commonly used to refer to this

population.

A number of community-based

programs, many of them operated by

consumers, have developed in recent

years offering vocational counseling,

educational and training programs, job

placement services, and ongoing peer

support. These programs often are a

low-cost augmentation of scarce

community services. (Parrish, J., Center

for Mental Health Services, 1994). The

programs are, however, very difficult to

evaluate (Goldklang, D., American

Journal of Community Psychiatry,

October, 1991). Nevertheless, in order to

identify those elements of communitybased programs that are most effective

in meeting the needs of individuals with

LTMI, there is a need to evaluate the

effectiveness of various models of peer

support services in community-based

programs (including those that are

consumer-run) in: serving the most

significantly disabled individuals;

providing appropriate services for

individuals from minority cultures;

obtaining diverse funding sources;

maintaining accountability; training

peer service providers; providing an

appropriate range and quality of

services; providing crisis response

services; and achieving optimal

outcomes.

In addition, peer-support programs

may have a significant role in crisis

response and in minimizing the need for

involuntary institutionalization or

treatment. However, the leadership and

the staff of organizations that rely on

peer support require appropriate

training and preparation if they are to be

effective in crisis intervention.

The mental health field has become

increasingly aware of the special

concerns and unmet needs of women

with LTMI. A recent study indicated
27636 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 24, 1995 / Notices

that 40 percent of the children in foster

care in New York City have mothers

with mental illness (New York State

Office of Mental Health). Peer support is

a potential resource to assist these

women to develop the capacity to

parent children and to obtain and

maintain housing, employment, and

social supports in the community

(Salasin, S., Center for Mental Health

Services, 1994).

There are strong indications that

community-based peer support

programs have not been as prevalent or

as effective in minority cultures.

Approaches to this problem include

providing more training in cultural

awareness and sensitivity (Cook, J. A.,

1992) to existing community-based

programs, and developing programs

operated by or representing minority

individuals and cultures.

The National Task Force for

Rehabilitation and Employment of

Persons with Psychiatric Disabilities

called, in 1993, for improved

dissemination of useful research

findings and best practices to all

appropriate target audiences. The Task

Force also recommended that the

findings be translated in ways that are

useful for policymakers, administrators,

consumers, and families of diverse

cultural backgrounds. The mental health

field currently does not make full use of

computerized information systems to

access knowledge about long-term

mental illness, or to link researchers,

service providers, trainers, educators,

and consumers for on-line discussion

and information sharing. (Nance, R.,

Illinois Dept. of Mental Health and

Developmental Disabilities, 1993, letter

to CMHS). With effective training and

technical assistance, community-based

programs and consumer organizations

could use technology to access

resources, establish electronic bulletin

boards, and conduct conferences and

training.

The National Institute on Disability

and Rehabilitation Research proposes to

support an RRTC on LTMI in

collaboration with the Center for Mental

Health Services of the Substance Abuse

and Mental Health Services

Administration. This RRTC on LTMI

will focus on the role of communitybased peer support in improving

independence, employment, and

community integration. Any Center to

be funded under this priority must

involve individuals with long-term

mental illness and consumer-run and

other community-based programs that

use peer support in the planning,

management, and operations of the

Center and must consider the

perspectives of individuals with LTMI

in all aspects of its research and related

programs.

Priority

An RRTC on peer support approaches

to the rehabilitation of individuals with

LTMI will study the most effective uses

of peer support in: (1) Crisis

management and prevention of

hospitalization; (2) facilitating

employment and return to work; (3)

meeting the specific needs of women

with LTMI; and (4) addressing the needs

of individuals with LTMI from diverse

cultural backgrounds.

In addition to activities proposed by

the applicant to carry out these

purposes, the center must conduct the

following activities:

• Develop an evaluation protocol for

community-based peer support

programs, including those that are

consumer-run, with outcome measures

based on empirical data on factors such

as recovery, independence,

empowerment, employment,

community integration, and cultural

competency;

• Develop, test, and implement model

training programs for preservice and

inservice training of peers as service

providers; and

• Develop and disseminate strategies

to increase the effectiveness of

information-sharing among and between

consumer and provider organizations,

researchers, and peer organizations.

Priority 4: Improved Outcomes for LowFunctioning Deaf Individuals

Background

Approximately one of every 1,000

infants is born with a hearing

impairment that is severe enough to

prevent the spontaneous development

of spoken language, according to the

National Strategic Research Plan for

Deafness and Hearing Impairment,

National Institute on Deafness and

Other Communication Disorders

(NIDCD), 1992. While many of these

prelingually deaf and severely hearingimpaired individuals complete

education and attain employment and

independence, the report of the

Commission on the Education of the

Deaf (COED) indicates that the majority

of deaf students do not go into any

postsecondary education, and that many

need further education or training to

obtain appropriate employment (COED,

Toward Equality: Education of the Deaf,

1988). Moreover, an estimated 100,000

deaf people are unemployed or

seriously underemployed due to such

problems as deficiencies in language

performance and related psychological,

vocational, and social

underdevelopment. (COED, 1988, p. 69.)

These ‘‘low-functioning’’ deaf (LFD)

individuals often do not have

comprehensive rehabilitation training

and related services accessible and

available to them. This segment of the

deaf population—sometimes called

‘‘low functioning’’, ‘‘low achieving’’,

‘‘multiply disabled deaf’’, or

‘‘traditionally underserved deaf’’—

requires long term and intensive

habilitative and rehabilitative services

and is the focus of this priority.

The deaf individuals to be addressed

by this Center frequently exhibit deficits

in vocational skills, independent living

skills, manual and oral communication

skills, social skills, and academic skills,

and many have significant secondary

disabilities. Many are from

socioeconomically and culturally

disadvantaged backgrounds, and many

are from ethnic or linguistic minorities.

Services to this population are scarce

and fragmented. In addition to

understanding the social, vocational,

and educational implications of the

disability, service providers must also

be able to communicate with the

individuals, often through less than

optimal means, such as rudimentary

sign language.

In 1990, NIDRR funded an RRTC on

Traditionally Underserved Persons Who

Are Deaf, located at the University of

Northern Illinois, to study the

parameters and service needs of this

population. Funding for this Center

ends in fiscal year 1994. Activities of

this Center included a needs

assessment, development of a model

service program, outcome studies,

qualitative and quantitative analyses

and surveys, development of curriculum

and training materials, conduct of

training seminars, and provision of

technical assistance. The new Center

will have the benefit of the work of the

previous Center on Traditionally

Underserved Deaf Populations. The new

Center will be required to coordinate its

activities with related projects for this

population funded by RSA and by the

Office of Special Education Programs

(OSEP), including activities supported

by these agencies that target the needs

of children, youth, and adults who are

deaf-blind.

In January 1994, NIDRR convened a

focus group of consumers and providers

of services, researchers, and advocates

to consider the issue of the need for

ongoing research in the area of lowfunctioning deaf individuals and to

identify specific questions. The input

from the panel and other experts from

the field has contributed to the decision

to fund additional research to

understand more fully the population of

low-functioning deaf individuals,
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 24, 1995 / Notices 27637

especially those with secondary

disabilities, and to develop improved

interventions and service systems for

those individuals.

Priority

An RRTC on the special needs of lowfunctioning deaf individuals shall—(1)

develop appropriate assessment

techniques for this population; (2)

evaluate the applicability of a variety of

strategies to enhance the development

of language and literacy skills in this

population; and (3) identify the range of

services and service resources necessary

to meet the rehabilitation and

independent living needs of this

population and develop mechanisms for

coordination among service agencies

and across service systems to foster a

comprehensive system of services to

enhance their integration into the

community. In addition to activities

proposed by the applicant to carry out

these purposes, the center must conduct

the following activities.

• Identify and develop appropriate

personnel training that will lead to the

required competencies and train service

providers to deliver enhanced services

to this population; and

• Develop effective materials and

media to enhance the dissemination of

new knowledge on LFD to appropriate

audiences, including LFD individuals

and their families, independent living

centers, educators, and health care

practitioners.

• Coordinate its activities with

related projects for this population

funded by RSA and by the Office of

Special Education Programs (OSEP),

including activities supported by these

agencies that target the needs of

children, youth, and adults who are

deaf-blind.

Applicable Program Regulations

34 CFR Parts 350 and 352.

Program Authority: 29 U.S.C. 760–762.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

Number 84.133B, Rehabilitation Research

and Training Centers)

Dated: May 18, 1995.

Judith E. Heumann,

Assistant Secretary for Special Education and

Rehabilitative Services.

Appendix—Analysis of Comments and

Changes

The Secretary received 17 letters of

comment about the proposed priorities and

138 letters urging the establishment of

various additional priorities. These

comments are discussed in the order of the

priorities to which they refer.

Independent Living—General

Comment: One commenter stated that all

priorities should contain language stating

that the SILCs must include equal

representation of persons with cognitive and

physical disabilities.

Discussion: The SILCs are appointed by the

Governors according to statute and regulation

that are not subject to governance by the

NIDRR priorities.

Changes: None.

Comment: The same commenter

recommended including language that would

make clear that both the RRTC and ‘‘its

Independent Living programs’’ must include

both people with physical disabilities as well

as people with cognitive disabilities.

Discussion: The CILs are chartered,

governed, and staffed according to State and

Federal statutes and regulations that are not

subject to governance by NIDRR priorities.

The Rehabilitation Act, as amended, requires

that independent living centers supported by

funds under the Act be ‘‘cross-disability’’

(Sec. 702).

Changes: None.

Comment: The same commenter suggested

that one of the RRTC’s activities should be

analyzing issues related to independent and

supported living for persons with mental

retardation and developmental disabilities.

Discussion: NIDRR agrees that it is

important to make independent living

services available and relevant to individuals

with cognitive, emotional, sensory, and

physical disabilities. In fact, in 1993, NIDRR

established a separate RRTC specifically to

address the research and training aspects of

expanding IL programs and concepts to those

populations not traditionally served in CILs.

That RRTC is located at the University of

Kansas. ‘‘Supported living’’ is not a required

subject of these Independent Living

priorities. However, any applicant is free to

address these issues within the general scope

of either of these priorities.

Changes: None.

Comment: One commenter stated that the

priorities related to independent living

should emphasize improving collaboration

between CILs and State vocational

rehabilitation agencies to enhance

employment outcomes and other common

goals.

Discussion: The Secretary agrees that

improving collaboration between CILs and

State VC agencies is an important strategy in

enhancing independent living for individuals

with significant disabilities.

Changes: The Secretary has added an

activity to each of the RRTCs on IL focusing

on strategies for collaboration and innovative

partnerships between CILs and State

vocational rehabilitation agencies to promote

employment outcomes.

Independent Living and Disability Policy

Comment: One commenter suggested that

the name of the Center be changed to

Independent Living and Public Policy

because there are generic public policies

affecting individuals with disabilities.

Discussion: The Secretary regards

disability policy as any public policy that

affects the ‘‘inclusion and integration into

society, employment, independent living,

family support, and economic and social selfsufficiency of individuals with disabilities of

all ages.’’ (Quotation from the Rehabilitation

Act, as amended, Sec. 200, stating the

purpose of NIDRR’s research.) This definition

includes ‘‘generic’’ public policy when the

specific relevance to the outcomes of

integration-independence-employment for

persons for disabilities is demonstrated. As

described in the response to the succeeding

comment, the genesis of this RRTC was as a

center to conduct research and training that

would enhance independent living programs.

The Secretary believes there is strong support

for maintaining this as an RRTC on

independent living.

Changes: None.

Comment: The same commenter

recommended that other organizations

serving people with disabilities should be

included as appropriate research subjects and

training audiences in this Center, since many

of these single disability organizations have

a superior record of serving individuals

traditionally underserved by CILs.

Discussion: Again, the Secretary points to

the genesis and justification of this as an

RRTC on independent living. While the

priority does not preclude gathering data

from or providing training to, other disability

organizations that may be able to contribute

to strengthening CILs and independent living

programs, the focus of this Center is on

defining and disseminating the concept of

independent living programs and on

strengthening those programs, particularly

the CILs, in their ability to promote and

apply independent living concepts and to

measure their effects. The priority does not

preclude the Center from disseminating its

products broadly as long as the focus on

independent living programs is maintained.

Changes: None.

Comment: The same commenter also

requested that the Department modify the

third activity in the proposed priority, which

requires the Center to analyze CIL policies

regarding implementation of the Americans

with Disabilities Act (ADA) and develop

potential strategies for CILs, to add ‘‘other

strategies to promote full community

inclusion’’ after ADA. The commenter goes

on to say that this entire activity could be a

subset of the second activity under the

priority.

Discussion: NIDRR has a particular

interest, based on Congressional directives,

in facilitating and analyzing the successful

implementation of the ADA, and in assisting

CILs to participate effectively in that process.

The ADA reflects a statutory civil rights and

antidiscrimination approach to achieving

equal opportunity for individuals with

disabilities. As such, it has been hailed as a

landmark piece of legislation in disability,

and is certainly different in many important

respects from other approaches to inclusion.

An applicant may propose to examine other

inclusion strategies consistent with the stated

purposes of the priority. However, NIDRR is

continuing to require that the RRTC analyze

CIL policies with respect to the ADA.

Changes: None.

Comment: The same commenter also

suggested that the priority be modified to

authorize the Center to ‘‘conduct research

and provide training on a range of policy

issues not limited to the content outlined

above’’. The commenter suggests that
27638 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 24, 1995 / Notices

subjects such as health care reform, ADA,

housing, or employment, (along with

presumably as yet unidentified policy issues

that could emerge) could take center stage

and become important issues for the Center

to examine.

Discussion: The Secretary reiterates that

the focus of this priority is on policy barriers

to achieving independent living and the role

of CILs in increasing the capacity of

communities to meet the IL needs of

individuals with disabilities. The priority

requires that the applicant address the areas

that were given priority importance by the

focus group, namely homelessness, abuse,

violence, ADA, and diverse populations.

However, other than that, the applicant may

propose to conduct research on those policy

barriers which the applicant believes are

most critical.

Changes: None.

Comment: One commenter suggested that

the Secretary define health care reform to

include both medical and non-medical

services that are funded through the public

health care system, because of the

dependence of persons with developmental

disabilities on the health care system for nonmedical services and supports.

Discussion: The final priority has been

revised to clarify the focus of this RRTC. The

RRTC must conduct research on policy

barriers to independent living. While issues

of the availability of health care may

constitute policy barriers, the priority no

longer specifically requires the RRTC to

analyze issues related to health care reform.

Changes: Analysis of health care reform is

no longer a requirement.

Independent Living Center Management and

Services

Comment: One commenter recommended

that the activity related to CIL services to

linguistic, cultural, and ethnic minorities

should be centered on CIL management

activities related to diverse populations. The

commenter urged that NIDRR maintain its

current RRTC on IL programs for

underserved populations.

Discussion: The inclusion of this activity in

this RRTC does not imply a change in

NIDRR’s commitment to an RRTC on

underserved populations. NIDRR would like

to point out that a major emphasis in the

NIDRR priority that established the Center for

underserved populations was on those

disability groups that are not traditionally

served by CILs and independent living

programs—such as persons with cognitive,

emotional, and sensory disabilities, persons

with HIV/AIDS, homeless individuals, youth,

and elderly persons—as well as ethnic and

linguistic minorities. Therefore, the Secretary

believes it is appropriate to increase attention

to improving the ability of IL programs to

serve ethnic and linguistic minorities. The

priority as proposed suggested that the RRTC

do this through identification of best

practices, and the development and testing of

models for the delivery of IL services to

ethnically diverse populations. Applicants

for the RRTC may propose to focus on

‘‘management’’ aspects of enhancing the

capacity of CILs to provide appropriate

services, such as staffing, recruitment, staff

training, evaluation, consumer participation,

or training of ethnic minority groups in IL

management. The suitability of the approach

would be assessed by the peer reviewers for

these applications.

Changes: None.

Improved Outcomes for Individuals With

Long-Term Mental Illness

Comment: Several commenters were

concerned that consumer-run organizations

should not be excluded from participating in

any resultant Center, or that, in fact, their

participation should be encouraged.

Discussion: The Secretary agrees that

consumer-run organizations should be

involved as applicants, consortium-members,

subcontractors, advisory board members,

trainees, dissemination vehicles, or in other

appropriate capacities, in any Center

resulting from this priority.

Changes: The background statement to the

priority has been amended to include a

provision that any Center to be funded under

this priority must involve consumers and

consumer-run organizations in the planning,

management, and operations of the Center

and must consider the perspectives of

individuals with LTMI in all aspects of its

research and related programs.

Comment: Two commenters commented

on the terminology used in the priority. The

comments focused on the appropriateness of

the terms ‘‘long-term mental illness’’,

‘‘LTMI’’, and ‘‘consumer’’.

Discussion: Among the few commenters

who commented on this question of

terminology, there were several competing

and apparently inconsistent nomenclatures.

Other commenters did not mention

nomenclature. This inhibits any conclusion

that there is a generally accepted

terminology. Furthermore, the Rehabilitation

Act, under which NIDRR is authorized, uses

the term ‘‘individuals with mental illness’’.

The Secretary does not believe there is

sufficient cause to change the terms

throughout the priority.

Changes: None.

Comment: One commenter suggested that

the requirement for model training programs

for culturally sensitive training for peer

service providers could be extended to

include models that include pre-service,

inservice, and ongoing technical support.

Discussion: The Secretary believes that

culturally sensitive training models are

needed for all levels of peer support workers.

However, the priority as written would

permit applicants to focus on training for all

parts of the continuum, or to focus on

specific segments that they identify as

needing more attention. The Secretary is

reluctant to impose more requirements on the

applicants, and prefers to allow the

applicants to present their proposals for

evaluation by the peer reviewers.

Changes: None.

Comment: Two commenters suggested that

emphasis on parenting skills should be for

men as well as women.

Discussion: The reference to parenting

skills in the priority was provided as an

example of an area for consideration in

addressing the specific needs of women with

LTMI. The topic of parenting skills is not

itself a focus of the priority.

Changes: None.

Comment: One commenter suggested that

the activity on special adaptations for

minority populations should include focus

on the role of family support, values, and

expectations.

Discussion: The Secretary believes that

applicants should have the opportunity to

propose how they will study the most

effective approaches to meeting the needs of

individuals with LTMI from diverse cultural

backgrounds.

Changes: None.

Comment: One commenter suggested that

the activity on outcome evaluations should

contain specific reference to operationally

defining the emerging concepts of ‘‘recovery’’

and ‘‘community integration’’. Two

commenters recommended that any

outcomes to be measured should be defined

through the perspectives of individuals with

psychiatric disabilities, and that the RRTC

should be encouraged to use the expertise of

researchers with long-term mental illness in

the development of outcome measures.

Discussion: The Secretary believes that

these comments are important ones in the

discussion of these issues. Operational

definitions of outcome variables are likely to

be essential to any evaluation strategy.

However, the Secretary does not believe it is

necessary to direct applicants on how to

develop an evaluation methodology. The

Secretary believes that it is important to

include the perspectives of individuals with

psychiatric disabilities in all activities,

models, strategies, training programs,

research methods, and dissemination

strategies of the Center.

Changes: A sentence has been added to the

Background statement emphasizing the

importance of including the perspectives of

individuals with long-term mental illness in

all areas of the RRTC’s work.

Comment: One commenter suggested that

there needs to be a clear definition of

‘‘consumer-operated’’ programs.

Discussion: The Secretary is aware that

there may be more than one definition or

model for ‘‘consumer-operated’’ or

‘‘consumer-run’’ programs and acknowledges

that the multiple terms used in the proposed

priority may have caused some confusion.

The nomenclature used in the final priority

has been revised for consistency. However,

the Secretary prefers to encourage each

applicant to present the definition, or

definitions, of consumer-run program and

community-based program which it proposes

to use, and the peer reviewers to evaluate the

appropriateness of the definitions to the

purposes of the priority.

Changes: The nomenclature in the

background section and the final priority

have been revised for consistency.

Comment: Several commenters made

references to the desirability of involving

consumer-run organizations as grantees,

either by mandating that only such

organizations could receive the grant or by

specifying roles for consumer-run

organizations in the grantee’s organizational

structure.

Discussion: Program regulations, which are

discussed in the preamble to these priorities,

and delineated in part in the notice soliciting
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 24, 1995 / Notices 27639

applications for these Centers, describe the

entities that are eligible to apply for RRTC

grants. The Secretary does not intend to

amend those regulations by further restricting

eligibility for this Center grant. However, the

Secretary believes that additional language

inserted into the Background and the

activities of the priority indicate the

expectation that consumers and consumer

organizations will have important roles in the

RRTC.

Changes: The final paragraph of the

Background statement has been amended to

add ‘‘Any Center to be funded under this

priority must involve consumers and

consumer-run organizations in the planning,

management, and operations of the Center

and must consider the perspectives of

individuals with LTMI in all aspects of its

research and related programs.’’

Comment: Several commenters suggested

modifications to the information

dissemination components of the priority.

Some questioned the appropriateness of the

dissemination activity centered around the

use of electronic information networks, since

they believe that consumers, consumer

organizations, and many other communitybased service providers do not have access to

the necessary electronic technology. One

commenter recommended that the priority

include an activity for developing a

consumer information exchange.

Discussion: The Secretary believes that

applicants should have the flexibility to

propose how they will develop and

disseminate strategies to increase the sharing

of information.

Changes: The final activity in the priority

has been amended to read ‘‘develop and

disseminate strategies to increase the

effectiveness of information-sharing among

and between consumer and provider

organizations, researchers, and peer

organizations.

Improved Outcomes for Low-Functioning

Deaf Individuals

Comment: One commenter stated that the

RRTC should be required to address the

needs of deaf-blind individuals who meet the

profile of low-functioning.

Discussion: The Secretary points out that

the priority requires the new Center to

coordinate activities with related projects

funded by RSA and OSEP, which do serve

individuals who are deaf-blind. Applicants

for a grant under this priority may address

needs of deaf-blind individuals as the

priority now exists. However, the Secretary

does not require that they do so.

Changes: None.

Recommendations for Additional Priorities

Comment: Several commenters

recommended that NIDRR establish RRTCs

addressing the needs of individuals with

End-Stage Renal Disease (ESRD); one

recommended a center on assistive

technology for inclusion, and a substantial

number urged the establishment of an RRTC

on community integration for individuals

with mental retardation.

Discussion: The Secretary is considering

these suggestions for future priorities. In part

as a response to these comments, the

Secretary published a Notice of Proposed

Priority for a dissemination and technical

assistance center on Facilitating Community

Integration for Individuals with Mental

Retardation in the Federal Register of March

31, 1995 (60 FR 16760). The Secretary also

reminds all commenters that NIDRR sponsors

a Field-Initiated Research program under

which potential applicants may submit

applications for research related to any area

of disability and rehabilitation.

Changes: None.

[FR Doc. 95–12767 Filed 5–23–95; 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 Certain New

Awards Under the Rehabilitation

Research and Training Centers (RRTC)

for Fiscal Year (FY) 1995

NOTE TO APPLICANTS: This notice is a

complete application package. The

notice contains information, application

forms, and instructions needed to apply

for a grant under this competitions. The

final priorities for the Rehabilitation

Research and Training Centers (RRTC)

program are published in this issue of

the Federal Register. This consolidated

application package includes the closing

date, estimated funding, and application

forms necessary to apply for an award

under this program’s competition.

Potential applicants should consult the

statement of the final priority published

in this issue to ascertain the substantive

requirements for their applications.

The estimated funding level in this

notice does not bind the Department of

Education to make awards or to any

specific number of awards or funding

levels.

This notice of final priorities 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

and citizenship.

APPLICATION NOTICE FOR FISCAL YEAR 1995, REHABILITATION RESEARCH AND TRAINING CENTERS CFDA NO. 84.133B

Funding priority

Deadline for

transmittal of

applications

Estimated

number

of awards

Estimated

size of

awards

(per year)

Project

period

(months)

Independent living and disability policy .................................................................................. July 21, 1995 .. 1 $400,000 60

Independent living center management and services ............................................................ July 21, 1995 .. 1 650,000 60

Peer support in rehabilitation of long-term mental illness ...................................................... July 21, 1995 .. 1 545,000 60

Improved outcomes for low-functioning deaf individuals ....................................................... July 21, 1995 .. 1 400,000 60

Applications available: May 25, 1995.

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS: (a) The

Education Department General

Administrative Regulations (EDGAR),

34 CFR Parts 74, 75, 77, 78, 80, 81, 82,

85, 86; (b) the regulations for this

program in 34 CFR Parts 350 (amended

April 5, 1995, (60 FR 17426)) and 352

(amended April 5, 1995, (60 FR 17429));

and (c) the notice of final priorities

published elsewhere in this issue of the

Federal Register.

PURPOSE OF PROGRAM: Rehabilitation

Research and Training Centers conduct

coordinated and advanced programs of

rehabilitation research, provide

training—including undergraduate,

graduate, and in-service training—to

research and other rehabilitation

personnel, and assist individuals to

more effectively provide rehabilitation

services.

Selection Criteria: The Secretary uses

the following selection criteria to

evaluate applications under this

program.

(a) Relevance and importance of the

research program (20 points). The

Secretary reviews each application to

determine to what degree—

(1) The proposed activities are

responsive to a priority established by

the Secretary and address a significant

need of a disabled target population and

rehabilitation service providers;

(2) The overall research program of

the Center includes appropriate

interdisciplinary and collaborative

research activities, is likely to lead to