[Federal Register: March 19, 1999 (Volume 64, Number 53)]
[Notices]
[Page 13631-13637]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr19mr99-139]
[[Page 13631]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part II
Department of Education
_______________________________________________________________________
National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research; Final
Funding Priorities for Fiscal Year 1999-2000 for Certain Centers and
Projects and Inviting Applications for New Awards Fiscal Year 1999;
Notices
[[Page 13632]]
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research;
Final Funding Priorities for Fiscal Year 1999-2000 for Certain Centers
and Projects
AGENCY: Department of Education.
ACTION: Notice of final funding priorities for Fiscal Years 1999-2000
for certain centers and projects.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Secretary announces funding priorities for two
Rehabilitation Research and Training Centers (RRTCs) and two Disability
and Rehabilitation Research Projects (DRRPs) under the National
Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR) for fiscal
years 1999-2000. 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 April 19, 1999.
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) 205-2742. Internet:
Donna__Nangle@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 two RRTCs related to: Measuring rehabilitation outcomes; and
rehabilitation of persons with disabilities from minority backgrounds.
The notice also contains final priorities for two DRRPs related to:
Dissemination of disability and rehabilitation research; and the
international exchange of information and experts. The final priorities
refer to NIDRR's Long-Range Plan (LRP). The LRP can be accessed on the
World Wide Web at:
http://www.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister/announcements/1998-4/
102698a.html
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. 762(g) and 764).
Note: This notice of final priorities does not solicit
applications. A notice inviting applications is published elsewhere
in this issue of the Federal Register.
Analysis of Comments and Changes
On January 4, 1999 the Secretary published a notice of proposed
priorities in the Federal Register (64 FR 342). The Department of
Education received 24 letters commenting on the notice of proposed
priority 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.
Rehabilitation Research and Training Centers
Priority: Measuring Rehabilitation Outcomes
Comment: Three commenters indicated that the word ``function'' in
the third required activity should be replaced by ``outcomes'' in order
to broaden the scope of the RRTC's effort to identify relevant
measurement gaps.
Discussion: NIDRR agrees that the wording of the third activity
should be revised in order to ensure that the RRTC undertakes a broad
effort to identify relevant measurement gaps.
Changes: The third activity has been revised by substituting
``functional outcomes'' for ``function.''
Comment: Health policymakers and analysts should be added to the
target population of the fifth required activity.
Discussion: The fifth required activity targets payers, providers,
and consumers as users of medical rehabilitation outcome data. Having
addressed these three groups, an applicant could propose to target
health policymakers and analysts. NIDRR has no basis to determine that
all applicants should be required to target health policymakers and
analysts.
Changes: None.
Comment: The priority requires the RRTC to address the
effectiveness of medical rehabilitation services. One commenter
suggested that in addition to addressing effectiveness, the RRTC should
address the efficacy of medical rehabilitation services. A second
commenter suggested that the RRTC address issues of cost-effectiveness.
Discussion: In regard to the first comment, an applicant could draw
the distinction between efficacy and effectiveness and propose to
pursue both lines of investigation. Similarly, in regard to the second
comment, an applicant could propose to address cost-effectiveness as
part of fulfilling the requirements of the priority. The peer review
process will evaluate the merits of the proposals. NIDRR has no basis
to require all applicants to address efficacy in addition to
effectiveness, or to require all applicants to address issues of cost-
effectiveness.
Changes: None.
Comment: The first required activity of the RRTC is to develop and
test a theoretical model or models assessing long-term outcomes. The
priority or the introduction should elaborate on the specific features
that characterize a satisfactory theoretical model.
Discussion: NIDRR declines to identify the specific features that
characterize a satisfactory theoretical model in order to provide
applicants with as much discretion as possible. The peer review process
will evaluate the merits of the theoretical model or models that
applicants propose.
Changes: None.
Comment: The priority is silent on the RRTC's training program
content.
Discussion: The training requirement for the RRTC is included in
the general requirements that precede the priority.
Changes: None.
Comment: NIDRR should clarify whether the focus of the RRTC is to
measure disability and enablement, or to measure rehabilitation
effectiveness. If the focus is the latter, then changing the title of
the RRTC to Measuring Rehabilitation Outcomes and Treatment
Effectiveness would help clarify the issue.
Discussion: As stated in the introductory purpose statement, the
focus of the RRTC is the effectiveness of medical rehabilitation
services. NIDRR does not believe that it is necessary to change the
title of the RRTC in order to provide further clarification.
Changes: None.
Comment: Five commenters asked NIDRR to clarify whether the RRTC
should address both short-term and long-term outcomes.
Discussion: NIDRR expects the RRTC to evaluate and develop methods
for measuring medical rehabilitation effectiveness in the short-term
and create theoretical models that examine ways that long-term outcomes
from medical rehabilitation can be assessed. NIDRR anticipates that
models that examine long-term outcomes will address strategies to link
treatment effectiveness and short-term outcomes as well as factors that
may make those linkages difficult to achieve.
Changes: None.
Comment: The RRTC should address allied health services and
community
[[Page 13633]]
supports in addition to medical rehabilitation services.
Discussion: NIDRR considers allied health services and community
supports a part of medical rehabilitation services.
Changes: None.
Comment: The activities to develop a sequel to the Functional
Independence Measure and evaluate the effectiveness of medical
rehabilitation services should be pursued as separate projects because
of the resources that will be required.
Discussion: NIDRR declines to separate out any of the priority's
activities because all of the priority's activities are inter-related
and conducting any of these activities as separate projects will
diminish their impact.
Changes: None.
Comment: Two commenters suggested that the RRTC be required to
address the role of assistive technology in the provision of medical
rehabilitation services.
Discussion: NIDRR recognizes that assistive devices play a large
and important role in the provision of medical rehabilitation services
and their effectiveness. An applicant could propose to address the role
of assistive technology. The peer review process will evaluate the
merits of the proposals. NIDRR has no basis to require all applicants
to address the role of assistive technology.
Changes: None.
Comment: In examining outcomes, the RRTC should focus on changes
over time, independent of where, or for how long, the person has
received services.
Discussion: An applicant could propose to carry out research that
focuses on changes over time, independent of where or for how long the
person has received services. The peer review process will evaluate the
merits of the focus. NIDRR has no basis to require all applicants to
focus on changes over time, independent of where or for how long the
person has received services.
Changes: None.
Comment: NIDRR should clarify if the focus of the second required
activity is the extent to which medical rehabilitation effectiveness is
determinable at all, the extent to which it is determinable using
functional measures, or the extent to which the impact of specific
interventions is determinable.
Discussion: The second required activity requires the RRTC to
investigate the extent to which the effectiveness of medical
rehabilitation services can be determined by applying specific
functional outcomes measures to specific rehabilitation interventions.
The second required activity focuses on a combination of the
commenter's second and third interpretations.
Changes: None.
Comment: NIDRR should clarify if a long-term perspective should be
incorporated into the third required activity as it is with the first
required activity.
Discussion: The third required activity does not refer specifically
to long-term outcomes and, therefore, applicants have the discretion to
propose to address the most appropriate and promising types of
outcomes, including long-term outcomes.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter asked if NIDRR expects the RRTC's activities
to include less traditional medical rehabilitation service consumers
such as persons with mental illness, developmental disabilities, and
elderly persons with disabilities. A second commenter asked if the
NIDRR expected the target population to include only those persons with
physical disabilities. A third commenter suggested that the target
population be focused on persons with traumatic brain injuries, spinal
cord injuries, multiple sclerosis, and Parkinson's disease.
Discussion: NIDRR expects the RRTC to address issues applicable to
all consumers of medical rehabilitation services. To the extent that
persons with specific disabilities (e.g., mental illness, developmental
disabilities, Parkinson's disease) are consumers of medical
rehabilitation services, the RRTC should include them in its
activities. Applicants may propose to emphasize certain disabilities,
and the peer review process will evaluate the merits of the emphasis.
Changes: None.
Comment: Does the second required activity apply to existing
measures or measures that may be developed by the project?
Discussion: Applicants can use existing measures, measures
developed by the project, or both, in carrying out the second required
activity.
Changes: None.
Comment: Is the purpose of the second required activity to: (1)
Evaluate the use of functional outcome measures exclusively in order to
determine if they are a valid way to evaluate services, (2) investigate
the limitations of functional outcome measures, or (3) compare
different outcome measures? The commenter supported the third purpose.
Discussion: NIDRR defers to applicants to propose approaches to
carrying out the required activities of a priority. In this particular
instance, an applicant could propose to do one or more of the
commenter's approaches to carry out the second activity's requirements.
The peer review process will evaluate the merits of the proposals.
Changes: None.
Comment: The first and fifth required activities seem to suggest
that NIDRR is interested in the RRTC engaging in work to develop a
standardized set of outcome measures. This may not be possible to
complete within five years, but the RRTC could make significant
progress toward this goal. NIDRR should clarify its intent.
Discussion: The priority does not require the RRTC to undertake
standardization activities. However, an applicant could propose to
carry out standardization activities as part of fulfilling the
requirement of the fourth activity. The peer review process will
evaluate the merits of the proposal.
Changes: None.
Comment: The second required activity should be revised to require
the RRTC to investigate the effectiveness of medical rehabilitation
services by applying outcome measures to specific rehabilitation
interventions.
Discussion: The second required activity focuses on the extent to
which the effectiveness of medical rehabilitation services can be
determined by applying specific functional outcomes measures to
specific rehabilitation interventions. It is outside the size and scope
of this RRTC to study the effectiveness of services in a field as broad
as medical rehabilitation.
Changes: None.
Comment: Collaboration and cooperation between the RRTC and
relevant non-profit national organizations should be emphasized.
Discussion: One of the general requirements applicable to the RRTC
indicates that the RRTC must coordinate with other entities carrying
out related research or training activities. No further requirements
are necessary in order for the RRTC to coordinate with relevant non-
profit national organizations.
Changes: None.
Priority: Rehabilitation of Persons with Disabilities from Minority
Backgrounds
Comment: Clarification is needed in regard to whether the RRTC
should focus on select disabilities, particularly those that are
chronic (or likely to be chronic), and whether the RRTC should address
the needs of adults and children.
Discussion: The purposes of this priority are to evaluate the
rehabilitation
[[Page 13634]]
needs and improve rehabilitation outcomes of persons with disabilities
from minority backgrounds. In their efforts to achieve these purposes,
applicants have the discretion to propose to focus on selected
disabilities, or types of disabilities (e.g., chronic). The peer review
process will evaluate the merits of their focus.
Unless specified otherwise in the priority, NIDRR expects its
projects and centers to address the needs of persons with disabilities
from all age groups. Having addressed the needs of all age groups,
applicants have the discretion to emphasize one or more age groups.
Changes: None.
Comment: The priority requires the RRTC to address too many groups
of individuals from minority backgrounds, and as a result, the needs of
Pacific Islanders may not receive sufficient attention. Two commenters
urged NIDRR to establish an RRTC on the rehabilitation for Pacific
Islanders in the Pacific Basin.
Discussion: In order to concentrate its support for RRTCs around
particular broad themes or outcomes having national significance and
reflecting large scale concerns and problems, NIDRR is not planning to
support RRTCs that are geographically based. Currently, NIDRR supports
RRTCs in areas such as employment policy, family policy, demographics,
telerehabilitation, rural rehabilitation, and vocational rehabilitation
systems that have the capacity to address rehabilitation research
issues relevant to the Pacific Basin. NIDRR also supports projects that
have a specific focus on the Pacific Basin, including an RRTC funded in
FY 98 at the University of Hawaii, several State or territorial
Technology Act projects, and the Region IX Disability and Business
Technical Assistance Center. Finally, NIDRR's Field Initiated Project
competition provides interested parties with an opportunity to carry
out research or development activities specific to the Pacific Basin.
Changes: None.
Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects
Priority: International Exchange of Information and Experts
Comment: The activities carried out by this project should be
focused on the following areas: employment policy, independent living
practice, issues pertaining specifically to women with disabilities,
and the appropriate use of technology to assist persons with
disabilities.
Discussion: An applicant could propose to focus on these four
areas. The peer review process will evaluate the merits of the
proposal. However, NIDRR prefers to provide applicants with the
discretion to propose to focus on specific areas and has no basis to
determine that all applicants should be required to focus on these
areas.
Changes: None.
Comment: Two commenters suggested that participatory action
research should be identified as a particularly desirable methodology
in the priority. The second commenter also suggested that the project
should emphasize increased awareness, interest, and participation in
international opportunities by people with disabilities, and identify
and evaluate best practices by people with disabilities, particularly
in developing countries.
Discussion: NIDRR is a proponent of participatory action research.
However, consistent with its approach to provide applicants with as
much discretion as possible, NIDRR declines to require all applicants
to promote participatory action research in this priority.
NIDRR encourages all of its grantees to involve persons with
disabilities and, if appropriate their representatives, in all aspects
of a grant's activities. The fourth required activity of the priority
focuses on information on cultural perspectives, and NIDRR expects
developing countries to be included in the project's activities.
Changes: None.
Comment: The first and second required activities should be revised
to include development and technology transfer in the database of
international rehabilitation research and as a topic at the research
conferences.
Discussion: ``International rehabilitation research'' includes
development and technology transfer. NIDRR prefers to provide
applicants with the discretion to propose the content of the database
and topics at the research conferences. The peer review process will
evaluate the merits of the proposals.
Changes: None.
Comment: NIDRR should clarify the meaning of ``improving
rehabilitation services.'' For example, does it include assistive
technology services and assistive devices, as well as medical
rehabilitation and vocational rehabilitation?
Discussion: NIDRR expects that the project will approach and define
rehabilitation services broadly, and prefers to provide applicants with
the discretion to define the scope of rehabilitation services.
Changes: None.
Comment: Is the goal of the project to improve research and
technical assistance on rehabilitation primarily with the U.S., outside
the U.S., or both?
Discussion: The goal, as stated in the Introduction, is essentially
to assist U.S. rehabilitation practitioners to improve the
effectiveness of the services they provide.
Changes: None.
Comment: Who is the target audience for this project?
Discussion: The target audience is primarily researchers and
practitioners.
Changes: None.
Comment: What criteria should be applied in selecting countries to
include in the project's activities?
Discussion: The issue of selection for participation in the project
relates much more to an individual's potential contribution than their
country of origin. NIDRR expects that applicants will propose to
include individuals from a number of foreign countries whose research
and practical experience will contribute to fulfilling the purpose of
the priority.
Changes: None.
Comment: What is the definition of research? For example, should
the project focus on applied research, research and development, or
clinical research?
Discussion: Research is classified and defined in NIDRR's
regulations at Sec. 350.5.
Changes: None.
Comment: Is the definition of disabilities limited to physical
disabilities, sensory disabilities, cognitive disabilities, or
psychological disabilities?
Discussion: An individual with a disability is defined in NIDRR's
regulations at Sec. 350.5.
Changes: None.
Comment: Does the exchange of experts need to be face-to-face, and
if so what is the role of the project staff? Related to this question,
if technical assistance experts visit other countries, is the goal to
share information or provide technical assistance?
Discussion: The exchange of experts does not have to be face-to-
face, and project staff will facilitate the exchange of information. In
regard to whether the question of whether the technical assistance
experts will share information or provide technical assistance, NIDRR
does not draw as sharp a distinction between the two activities as the
commenter suggests. NIDRR prefers to provide applicants with the
discretion to propose the types of information exchange that the
project's participants will undertake.
Changes: None.
[[Page 13635]]
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.
764(b)(2)). 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 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 in-service 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.
Each 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.
Each 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.
Each 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-of-the-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.
The RRTC must coordinate with other entities carrying out related
research or training activities.
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.
Priority 1: Measuring Rehabilitation Outcomes
Introduction
Chapter Four of NIDRR's proposed LRP (63 FR 57204) discusses issues
in medical rehabilitation, including research on rehabilitation
outcomes. There is a need to develop more effective outcomes
measurement tools to determine the effectiveness, including the cost-
effectiveness, of medical rehabilitation interventions and products.
Chapter Seven of the proposed LRP (63 FR 57211) reviews the importance
of documenting outcomes across service settings and programs. The
proposed LRP identifies long-term outcomes, such as employment,
community integration, and quality of life, as an important component
of the new paradigm of disability that expands the focus of research
from the individual to society and the environment. NIDRR expects this
RRTC to integrate the new paradigm of disability in its research
activities. The new paradigm maintains that disability is a product of
an interaction between characteristics of the individual and
characteristics of the natural, man-made, cultural, social
environments.
Medical rehabilitation outcomes research has focused on function.
NIDRR supported the development and application of the Functional
Independence Measure (FIM), a criterion-referenced scale that has been
widely accepted in inpatient rehabilitation settings. NIDRR also
supported the development of the Craig Handicap Assessment and
Reporting Technique that contains scales for assessing the World Health
Organization dimensions of ``handicap'' (i.e., participation) and is
currently being refined to measure cognitive components of disability.
While researchers have been able to demonstrate gain in function,
as measured by instruments like the FIM, there is no conclusive
evidence regarding the specific impact of therapeutic intervention on
functional gain (Heinemann, A. et al., ``Relation of Rehabilitation
Intervention to Functional Outcome,'' Final Technical
[[Page 13636]]
Report, Center for Functional Assessment Research, University of
Buffalo, pg. 11, 1998). In addition, medical rehabilitation providers
are being asked to demonstrate the relationship between short-term
functional gain and long-term outcomes for persons with disabilities
(Wilkerson, D. and Johnston, M., ``Clinical Program Monitoring
Systems,'' in Assessing Medical Rehabilitation Practices--The Promise
of Outcomes Research, pgs. 275-305, 1997).
In addition to the widespread use of the FIM as a measure of
function, there are other commonly used measures. Also, there are
multiple measures related to other types of outcomes, including quality
of life, community integration, and consumer satisfaction. Providers,
consumers, and other stakeholders have difficulty comparing outcomes
because use of outcome measures across settings is not standardized
(Wilkerson, D. and Johnston, M., ibid.).
Priority
The Secretary will establish an RRTC for the purpose of developing
improved methods that assess the effectiveness of medical
rehabilitation services. The RRTC must:
(1) Develop and test theoretical model or models assessing long-
term outcomes as part of a system of evaluating medical rehabilitation
effectiveness;
(2) Investigate the extent to which the effectiveness of medical
rehabilitation services can be determined by applying functional
outcomes measures to specific rehabilitation interventions;
(3) Identify gaps in existing measures of medical rehabilitation
effectiveness, assessing not only the FIM's, but also other
instruments' utility as a measure of the impact of therapeutic
interventions on functional outcomes across rehabilitation settings;
(4) Revise or develop and test measures of medical rehabilitation
effectiveness to address gaps identified by paragraph (3) above; and
(5) Evaluate and describe the uses of medical rehabilitation
outcome data by payers, providers, and consumers.
In carrying out these purposes, the RRTC must coordinate with the
RRTC on Health Care for Individuals with Disabilities--Issues in
Managed Health Care, the National Center on Medical Rehabilitation
Research, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and the Health Care
Financing Administration.
Priority 2: Rehabilitation of Persons With Disabilities From Minority
Backgrounds
Introduction
Chapter Two of NIDRR's proposed LRP (63 FR 57194) discusses and
highlights methodological problems in the categorization and definition
of disability, including identifying and measuring consequences of
disability in minority populations. Disabilities in minority
populations may be associated with factors such as health, poverty,
family structure, environment, aging, substance abuse, chronic disease,
and violence-related trauma in ways that are substantially different
from non-minority populations. Chapter 3 of the proposed LRP identifies
the need for minority populations research that provides information
about employment factors, including identifying rehabilitation
strategies that are based on knowledge about the characteristics of
racial and ethnic minorities.
For the purpose of this priority, persons from minority backgrounds
include one or more of the following minorities: Asian-Americans,
Hispanics or Latinos, Black or African-Americans, and Native Hawaiians
or other Pacific Islanders. American Indians and Alaskan Natives are
not included as a target population for this RRTC because other NIDRR
grants address their needs directly.
Priority
The Secretary will establish an RRTC on rehabilitation of persons
with disabilities from minority backgrounds for the purpose of
evaluating their rehabilitation needs and improving their
rehabilitation outcomes. The RRTC must:
(1) Identify methodological problems in determining the
rehabilitation needs of persons with disabilities from minority
backgrounds, including subpopulations within these groups, and propose
strategies to address these methodological problems;
(2) Based on paragraph (1), identify implications for
rehabilitation research, training, policy development, and services;
(3) Assess the outcomes of rehabilitation for persons with
disabilities from minority backgrounds, as measured by two or more
variables (e.g., functional abilities, health and wellness, employment,
and psychosocial status), and analyze the effects of minority status on
rehabilitation outcomes; and
(4) Identify, develop, and evaluate rehabilitation methodologies,
models and interventions for specific minorities in selected areas
drawn from the NIDRR Research Agenda in Section Two of the proposed
LRP.
In carrying out the purpose of the priority, the RRTC must:
* Include concepts of health self-assessment and consumer
decision-making related to participation in the labor force; and
* Coordinate with the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention's Center on Minority Health.
Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects
Authority for Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects
(DRRPs) is contained in section 204(a) of the Rehabilitation Act of
1973, as amended (29 U.S.C. 764(a)). DRRPs carry out one or more of the
following types of activities, as specified in 34 CFR 350.13--350.19:
research, development, demonstration, training, dissemination,
utilization, and technical assistance. Disability and Rehabilitation
Research Projects develop methods, procedures, and rehabilitation
technology that maximize the full inclusion and integration into
society, employment, independent living, family support, and economic
and social self-sufficiency of individuals with disabilities,
especially individuals with the most severe disabilities. In addition,
DRRPs improve the effectiveness of services authorized under the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended.
Priority 3: Dissemination of Disability and Rehabilitation Research
Introduction
Chapter Eight of NIDRR's proposed LRP (63 FR 57213) describes the
importance of effective knowledge dissemination and utilization (D&U).
NIDRR proposes to establish a center that will serve as the cornerstone
of NIDRR's D&U efforts by carrying out research on effective
dissemination methodologies and providing technical assistance to all
of NIDRR's grantees as well as to the wide array of consumers of
disability research findings.
Priority
The Secretary will establish a DRRP for the purpose of increasing
the usefulness of NIDRR-funded research findings. The National Center
for the Dissemination of Disability Research must:
(1) Identify and evaluate effective methodologies for disseminating
disability research to persons with disabilities and their families,
service providers, policymakers, and other researchers;
[[Page 13637]]
(2) Provide technical assistance on D&U methodologies to all NIDRR
grantees including, but not limited to, addressing cultural relevance,
ensuring physical accessibility of information, and developing
effective dissemination plans.
(3) Develop, implement, and evaluate a plan for collaboration among
NIDRR projects that primarily disseminate information in order to
enhance dissemination and avoid duplication of activities; and (4)
Develop, implement, and evaluate methods that diverse public audiences
can use to access NIDRR-funded research findings.
Priority 4: International Exchange of Information and Experts
Introduction
The Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, provides NIDRR with the
authority to exchange experts and technical assistance in field of
rehabilitation of individuals with disabilities as well as conduct a
program for international research and demonstration (Section 204
(b)(6)). Cooperative international research activities can offer new
perspectives on solving rehabilitation problems, provide data for the
evaluation of domestic programs, and assist U.S. rehabilitation
practitioners to improve the effectiveness of the services they
provide, especially for minority and immigrant populations.
Priority
The Secretary will establish a DRRP for the purpose of improving
rehabilitation services by obtaining and disseminating information on
international rehabilitation research and practices. The DRRP must:
(1) Develop and maintain a database of international rehabilitation
research and make this database available to grantees supported by
NIDRR, the Office of Special Education Programs, and the Rehabilitation
Services Administration;
(2) Conduct rehabilitation research conferences involving
participants from the U.S. and other countries;
(3) Conduct an international exchange of research and technical
assistance experts between other countries and the United States; and
(4) Disseminate information on cultural perspectives on rehabilitation
to entities that provide rehabilitation or conduct rehabilitation
research and training activities involving persons from foreign
backgrounds.
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 at (202) 512-1530 or, 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.
Program Authority: 29 U.S.C. 760-762.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 84.133A, Disability
and Rehabilitation Research Projects, and 84.133B, Rehabilitation
Research and Training Centers)
Dated: March 15, 1999.
Judith E. Heumann,
Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services.
[FR Doc. 99-6799 Filed 3-18-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-U