A r c h i v e d I n f o r m a t i o n
[Federal Register: May 18, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 97)]
[Notices]
[Page 31751-31757]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr18my00-147]
[[Page 31751]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part V
Department of Education
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research, Office of
Special Education and Rehabilitative Services; Final Funding Priorities
for Research and Training Centers and Inviting Applications; Notices
[[Page 31752]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research
AGENCY: Department of Education.
ACTION: Notice of Final Funding Priorities for Fiscal Years 2000-2001
for Research and Training Centers.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for the Office of Special Education
and Rehabilitative Services announces final funding priorities for
three Rehabilitation Research and Training Centers (RRTCs) under the
National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR)
for fiscal years 2000-2001. The Assistant 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 June 19, 2000.
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:
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 for
one RRTC related to Rehabilitation for Persons with Long-Term Mental
Illness and two RRTCs related to Independent Living. The final
priorities refer to NIDRR's Long Range Plan (the Plan). The Plan can be
accessed on the World Wide Web at: http://www.ed.gov/legislation/
FedRegister/other/1999-12/68576.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 in this
issue of the Federal Register.
Analysis of Comments and Changes
On February 23, 2000 the Assistant Secretary published a notice of
proposed priorities in the Federal Register (64 FR 9182). The
Department of Education received 13 letters commenting on the notice of
proposed priority by the deadline date. Technical and other minor
changes--and suggested changes the Assistant Secretary is not legally
authorized to make under statutory authority--are not addressed.
Rehabilitation Research and Training Centers
Rehabilitation of Persons with Long-term Mental Illness
Comment: Eleven commenters suggested that the RRTC should add a
priority addressing the role of technology in self-determination.
Discussion: The RRTC is established for the purpose of conducting
research that can facilitate improving services and supports for
individuals with Long-Term Mental Illness (LTMI). NIDRR recognizes the
need for better understanding of the role of technology in
rehabilitation of individuals with disabilities, including applications
of information technologies in the delivery of supports and services to
individuals with LTMI.
Changes: The priority has been revised to require that applicants
conduct research on technology in self-determination.
Comment: The request for application should specifically ask for
research and development issues related to societal barriers that
result from the problems related to the stigma and discrimination
experienced by persons with mental illness.
Discussion: Applicants have the discretion to propose to address
stigmas, discrimination, and barriers as they relate to self-
determination. However, after consulting with officials at the National
Institute on Mental Health (NIMH), NIDRR has determined that research
on these topics duplicate NIMH research. NIDRR declines to add a
requirement that applicants specifically address research and
development issues related to societal barriers that result from the
problems related to the stigma and discrimination experienced by
persons with mental illness.
Change: None.
Comment: NIDRR is encouraged to examine opportunities to enhance
self-determination efforts, particularly opportunities to expand
consumer and family member initiated acts of self-determination in
delivery of patient care and rehabilitative services and other self-
determination efforts that are succeeding.
Discussion: The priority provides a discussion on the issue of
enhancing opportunities to expand consumer and family member initiated
acts of self-determination in delivery of patient care and
rehabilitative services. The applicant has the discretion to pursue
research related to all aspects of improving self-determination
services and supports for individuals with LTMI in the proposal. The
peer review process will evaluate the merits of the proposals.
Change: None.
Comment: NIDRR is encouraged to use resources to increase
availability of evidence-based service delivery programs such as the
Program of Assertive Community Treatment (PACT).
Discussion: The priority provides a discussion on the issue of
community-based and evidence-based service delivery. Applicants could
propose to address examples of evidence-based service delivery in
fulfilling the requirements of the priority. However, NIDRR has no
basis to determine that all applicants should be required to address
this issue or to utilize a specific theory, model, or approach.
Change: None.
The Department of Education received two letters commenting upon
the two proposed priorities on independent living.
Improved Management of CIL Programs and Services
Comment: One commenter suggested that NIDRR require the RRTC to
address successful management practices applied by organizations in the
for-profit sector that could be utilized by CILs.
Discussion: In the background statement, NIDRR notes that CILs
operate in an environment of public and private and nonprofit and
business entities. We agree that the for-profit sector may offer CILs
models of successful management practices. In addressing the required
research activities, applicants have the discretion to propose specific
research approaches and theoretical perspectives. The peer review
process will evaluate the merits of the proposals.
Changes: We have revised the fourth activity to reflect that
business organizations are potential models of successful management
for CILs.
Comment: One commenter recommended that the training to improve
core competency skills be extended to all staff members, including
[[Page 31753]]
those facing barriers related to cultural and linguistic diversity. The
same commenter recommended that the statement regarding evaluation of
strategies for improved recruitment and retention of staff be worded so
that it includes all center staff, with an emphasis on people from
diverse backgrounds.
Discussion: In the background statement, NIDRR notes that staffing
problems in general are an issue for CILs that must be addressed.
Similarly, NIDRR recognizes that improvement of core competencies is an
issue for all CIL staff. The language of the proposed activities needs
to be changed to fully address the concerns of NIDRR.
Changes: NIDRR has revised the activities to clarify that the
training needs and the recruitment and retention of all staff,
including those who are geographically dispersed or cultural and
linguistic minorities, must be addressed.
Comment: One commenter recommended that the focus be broadened to
include examination of CIL partnerships with public and private
agencies that may have newly acquired authority and resources aimed at
the mission of employment of people with disabilities.
Discussion: In the priority, NIDRR notes that CILs operate in an
environment of public and private and nonprofit and business entities.
NIDRR notes that the ability to form effective working relationships
with a range of organizations is essential for successful CIL
operation. As noted in the background statement, recent developments in
employment services and entitlement benefits for individuals pose
additional challenges. NIDRR prefers to allow the applicant to develop
and propose plans that draw upon the range of actors that may
facilitate employment. The peer review process will evaluate the merits
of the proposals.
Changes: None.
Il and the New Paradigm of Disability
Comment: One commenter indicated that the priority was not clearly
worded when presenting the activity that references ``generic community
services''.
Discussion: The background statement indicates that a challenge to
facilitating independent living and community integration is the
changing universe of disability. NIDRR encourages applicants to address
a range of strategies that could facilitate advocacy and community
services for persons with significant disabilities, including persons
from a changing universe population. An applicant might propose to
focus upon a range of appropriate populations with different degrees of
need for services. The peer review process will evaluate the merits of
the proposals.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter asked for clarification so that the priority
explicitly includes ``the policy environment as part of the social
environment'' cited in the opening paragraph.
Discussion: NIDRR has long supported policy research on disability
and independent living. Inclusion of a policy focus is in line with
positions established in the Plan.
Changes: The priority has been revised to explicitly include ``the
policy environment''.
Rehabilitation Research and Training Centers
The authority for the RRTC program 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 Assistant 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.
Priority 1: Long-Term Mental Illness
Background
The Surgeon General estimates that approximately 20 percent of the
U.S. population experience a mental disorder in any given year, that 9
percent of the adult population have a diagnosable major mental
illness, and that a subpopulation of 5.4 percent of the population is
considered to have a significant mental illness (Kessler, R.C.,
McGonagle, K.A., Zhoa, S., Nelson, C.B., Hughes, M., Eshlemon, S.,
Wittchen, H.U., Kendler, K.S. (1994). Lifetime and 12-month prevalence
of DSM-IIIR psychiatric disorders in the United States. Results from
the National
[[Page 31754]]
Comorbidity Survey. Archives of General Psychiatry, 51-8-19). The costs
to society of mental illness are substantial. The indirect costs of
mental illness in 1990, stemming from lost productivity at work,
school, or home, were estimated at $78.6 billion (Rice and Miller,
1996). As the population grows, the needs of a growing number of
individuals with a significant mental illness are not being met. Only
one in four adults with a diagnosable mental disorder receives
treatment and one third of children and adolescents needing mental
health services are treated (Manderscheid and Henderson, 1998), this
can be attributed to many factors. Inadequate community resources,
including lack of access to new medications and psychosocial
treatments, unemployment, and lack of options for long-term care
complicate the lives of individuals with long-term mental illness. Many
individuals also experience homelessness, family disruptions, chronic
medical conditions, alcohol and substance abuse, incarceration, and
social isolation, as well as the potential for periodic exacerbation.
Quality is an important factor in the delivery of effective mental
health services. Defining quality services is not an easy task, nor is
there ready consensus on all components of the concept. The Institute
of Medicine states that quality of services is ``the degree to which
health services for individuals and populations increase the likelihood
of desired health outcomes and are consistent with current professional
knowledge'' (Marder, 1999). However, measuring the quality of services
provided to individuals with significant mental illness, as well as
measuring outcomes, present numerous challenges because of the periodic
and chronic nature of the illness, and the ongoing need for intensive
therapeutic services and long-term support. Practitioners, policy
makers, and consumers continue to ask questions about how to adequately
meet the multifaceted needs of individuals with significant mental
illness.
Generally, family members and consumers want community-based
support services and treatment programs that are accessible and
designed to meet long-term needs. The potential for individuals with
serious mental illness to be maintained in the community rather than in
institutions, work productively, live independently, and participate in
rehabilitation planning is increased when a comprehensive support
system is available in community settings. Research on consumer
participation and community-based programs has provided evidence that
there is a positive relationship between the level of consumer
participation and therapeutic outcomes (Kent & Read, 1998).
Proponents of community-based service programs and support systems
long have advocated that consumers be empowered to participate in the
decisionmaking process. However, one reason individuals with
disabilities have limited opportunities to participate in decisions
about their services is related to the lack of consensus on a
definition for self-determination. Self-determination is defined and
implemented differently (Ward, 1999) depending on the program,
philosophy, and purposes for implementing a self-determination model.
However, there are some common concepts in the definitions for self-
determination, in particular, consumer control, choice, self-direction,
empowerment, leadership, and self-advocacy (Ward & Roger, 1999) as
potential elements of self-direction. While most mental health
professionals support the concept of self-determination, not all agree
that individuals with psychiatric disabilities should have control over
or participate in planning and decisionmaking activities (Kent & Read,
1998).
Individuals with psychiatric disabilities are not yet full
participants in the disability self-determination movement. It is
widely alleged that professionals in the psychiatric disabilities
community continue to use medical compliance as a control mechanism and
as a determining factor for awarding patients certain privileges. The
right to choose among treatment options is often regarded as a
privilege that is earned through medical compliance (Chamberlain &
Powers, 1999).
Obstacles to the development and implementation of self-
determination efforts include controversy over whether severe mental
illness is a lifelong process or whether recovery is possible. Some
discussions of this issue suggest that the need for extensive, lifelong
support and the severity of the illness preclude using a self-
determination approach. In addition, the impact of self-determination
approaches on quality of services is unknown. Methodologies,
indicators, and standards for measuring quality of care within self-
determination models would facilitate understanding the impact of this
approach on rehabilitation outcomes. In particular, research that
addresses questions about the ability of individuals with serious
mental illnesses to make decisions about treatment and medication
management is lacking.
Traditionally, program planning and treatment decisions in the
mental health field have been made by clinicians, and often involve
maintaining patients on medication without consumer input or choice.
Policies and service systems tend to be based on a paternalistic model
that restricts consumer control and input. However, there is evidence
that consumer and family involvement in decisionmaking and program
planning have the potential to foster higher quality services and
responsiveness from providers.
The quality of services can potentially be improved by using
information technology to involve consumers and families in
decisionmaking. Efforts to support individual choice can be enhanced by
using emerging technologies to improve access to services, particularly
for individuals in remote areas, reduce information dissemination
barriers, improve employment training and job opportunities, and
enhance training options for service providers. Although recent studies
have discussed the digital divide for individuals with disabilities
(New York Times, 2000; Disability Statistics Center, 2000) there is a
paucity of research on the benefits of using technology to support
self-determination. Research addressing consumer benefits and
satisfaction with uses of technology for activities associated with
improving their independence, barriers that prevent access and expanded
use of technology, service provider knowledge and experience using
technology to support self-determination, and the effectiveness of
technology to improve or enhance self-determination is limited.
Similarly, the effectiveness service models incorporating self-
determination and their relationship to rehabilitation outcomes have
not been evaluated. In addition, there has not been adequate study of
the impact of the various components of self-determination models on
the rehabilitation process.
Better understanding of the implications of self-determination for
rehabilitation outcomes potentially will answer questions related to
competency, patient rights, recovery, outcomes, and policies. Research
addressing these issues, describing standards for quality, and
establishing outcome measures for consumer driven decisions is lacking
in the research literature. Studies evaluating self-determination will
potentially further the understanding of the rehabilitation process for
individuals with significant mental illness, and identify strengths,
[[Page 31755]]
weaknesses, and needed improvements in the existing models.
The Plan emphasizes the importance of independent living and
community integration. Central to independent living is the recognition
that each individual has a right to independence that comes from
exercising maximal control over his or her life. These activities
include making decisions involved in managing one's own life,
sustaining the ability and opportunity to make choices in performing
everyday activities, and minimizing physical and psychological
dependence on others. Independent living is a concept that also
emphasizes participation and equity in the right to share in the
opportunities, risks, and rewards available to all citizens.
Priority: Improving Services and Supports for Individuals With
Long-Term Mental Illness
The Assistant Secretary, in collaboration with the Substance Abuse
and Mental Health Services Administration and the Center for Mental
Health Services, will establish an RRTC for the purpose of improving
services and supports for individuals with long-term mental illness. In
carrying out these purposes, the Center must:
(1) Develop measures that can be applied to evaluate self-
determination activities in terms of rehabilitation outcomes, quality
of services, and availability of community resources;
(2) Identify and assess self-determination direction theories,
models, and activities, as well as the barriers to participation in
self-determination activities for individuals with disabilities;
(3) Develop and evaluate management tools to enable service
providers to support self-determination;
(4) With significant and persistent mental illness and publish a
comprehensive report in the fourth year of the grant; and
(5) Address in its research the specific needs of minority
populations with LTMI.
Two Priorities on Independent Living
Background
The mission of NIDRR emphasizes developing knowledge that will
``improve substantially the options for disabled individuals to perform
regular activities in the community, and the capacity of society to
provide full opportunities and appropriate supports for its disabled''
as stated in the Plan. Much of NIDRR's work reflects the components of
the Independent Living (IL) philosophy: consumer control, self-help,
advocacy, peer relationships and peer role models, and equal access to
society, programs, and activities. NIDRR has funded subject-specific
RRTCs in IL since 1980 and supports other projects that incorporate
principles of IL.
Most recently, NIDRR has funded one RRTC on Centers for Independent
Living (CIL) management and services and a second on IL and disability
policy. The last year of the five-year project period for the awards
was 1999. In light of the research agenda established in the Plan, and
input obtained from the Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA)
and other Federal agencies and constituents, in various meetings that
addressed related themes, NIDRR has identified critical issues in
independent living to be addressed at this time. There is a continuing
need to fund two Centers that study independent living and community
integration.
Independent living and achieving community integration to the
maximum extent possible are issues at the crux of NIDRR's mission.
NIDRR is committed to the creation of a theoretical framework with
measurable outcomes that is based upon the experiences of individuals
with disabilities. The new paradigm of disability embodied in the Plan
requires analysis of the extent to which socioenvironmental factors
help or hinder individuals with disabilities in attaining full
participation in society. Questions as basic as defining independent
living in the context of diverse socioeconomic factors must be
addressed. Current challenges to independent living derive from the
changing characteristics of both the IL service system and the
disability population.
Substantial administrative, advocacy, strategic and service-
delivery issues affect the daily activities of Centers for Independent
Living (CILs). Critical issues include funding and resource management,
quality staffing, and relationships with other agencies key to the
success of CILs. The issue of financial management of CILs calls for a
balanced approach to identify existing policies, regulations, models,
and programs that serve to hinder or help in establishing sound fiscal
operation. Financial management requires expertise in fiscal analysis,
budgeting, understanding grant requirements and program rules,
accounting, auditing, and fundraising.
CILs, which spend substantial amounts of money on personnel, are
subject to staffing problems typical of human service organizations and
small businesses, including recruitment problems, training and
competency development, and retention problems. Staffing problems may
impede the ability of CILs to deliver individualized information and
support services. An essential step in strengthening continuity in
services is to recruit, train, and retain first line managers.
CILs lack documentation of the competencies required for IL
management. Awareness of competency needs is key to developing
successful recruitment strategies and staff development programs. For
example, innovative recruitment strategies are needed to attract youth
with disabilities that are transitioning from school to independent
living to obtain employment expeiences in CIL service programs.
Creative efforts to attract young persons entering the job market as
employees could assist the CILs in understanding the needs of youth
with disabilities as consumers as well, including work experience
opportunities while still in school, upon graduation and after college.
Career development, with pathways to more responsible positions in
CILs, can be a key to the retention of competent staff.
CILs exist in a framework of public agencies, nonprofit
organizations, and the local business sectors. The ability to form
effective partnerships and cooperative working relationships with
appropriate entities is essential to successful CIL operation.
Historically, relationships with State governments, including
Vocational Rehabilitation agencies, Statewide Independent Living
Councils, State Consumer Advocacy Organizations and County and City
governments have been at the heart of CIL operations and
responsibilities. Recent developments in the area of employment
services and entitlement benefits for individuals with disabilities
pose additional opportunities and challenges for CILs by introducing
new actors, new clients, and new rules. Passage of the Workforce
Investment Act of 1998 and the Work Incentives Improvement Act of 1999
might provide new opportunities for CILs to play a role in the process
of vocational rehabilitation and employment.
A challenge to facilitating independent living and community
integration is the changing universe of disability. Demographic, social
and environmental trends affect the prevalence and distribution of
various types of disability as well as the demands of those
disabilities on social policy and service systems. Within the universe
of disabilities are: (1) Changing etiologies for existing disabilities;
(2) growth in segments of the population with higher prevalence rates
for certain
[[Page 31756]]
disabilities; (3) the consequences of changes in public policy and in
health care services and technologies; and (4) the appearance of new
disabilities. Some of the RRTCs sponsored by NIDRR that address these
issues including the following: Aging with a Disability, Measuring
Rehabilitative Outcomes, and Economic Research on Employment Policy for
Persons with Disabilities.
The CILs and consumer organizations can prepare to address changing
needs of diverse populations with attention to the infrastructure of
resource availability and management strategy. At the same time, there
is a need to frame the history and role of the independent living
movement within the context of theories of society and social movements
and organizational and group structure. Such a framework could identify
ways to: (1) Reach out to underserved populations, (2) collaborate with
key organizations that might not be perceived as traditional disability
advocates, and (3) recognize the role of environmental factors on
successfully independent living and achieving community integration. A
sound theoretical base can be drawn upon to develop policy and service-
delivery models that can help maximize social participation for
individuals with disabilities.
Researchers have identified an association between disabilities and
poverty, especially among youth (Fujiura G et al., ``Disability Among
Ethnic and Racial Minorities in the United States,'' Journal of
Disability Policy Studies, Vol. 9, No. 2, pgs. 112-130, 1998). The
growing number of individuals aging with long-standing disabilities, as
well as the increase in the population of older persons who acquire
disabilities as they age, is another aspect of a changing disability
population. Newer etiologies of disability, such as HIV/AIDS, multiple
chemical sensitivity and environmental illness, challenge IL concepts,
services, and research. CILs and other organizations can serve as a
resource to teach youth, aging persons, and underserved populations,
including those from cultural and linguistic diversity about
independent living. There may be an opportunity for CILs to develop
strong alliances with parent information training centers and schools
(from pre-school through postsecondary programs) and with the aging and
underserved populations through appropriate partnerships.
As an example of the role of demographic factors, disability has a
disproportionate impact upon African Americans, Hispanic Americans, and
American Indians. An array of culturally-sensitive service-delivery
models, community organizations, and other resources is necessary to
provide services to individuals from minority backgrounds.
Organizations with grassroots orientations, including CILs, are in a
unique position to help identify the specific needs of individuals from
those affected populations. Model strategies in other countries might
be adapted to reach unserved and underserved populations in the United
States.
Physical environment, including the built environment, can pose
numerous obstacles that confound living independently. Individuals with
disabilities living in rural communities may be isolated from CILs and
vocational rehabilitation services. Isolation resulting from distance,
lack of available transportation, lack of monetary resources to support
social services, limited job opportunities, lack of a health care
delivery system, the digital divide due to a lack of technology, and
unavailability of accessible and affordable housing can be problems for
rural Americans. Similar problems may confront persons from minority
backgrounds in inner cities and remote areas, persons who are homeless,
and migrants. For all populations, and for all salient issues that
affect independent living and community integration, the social and
economic costs and benefits of various strategies must be evaluated.
The Plan discusses research on physical inclusion, including the
identification and evaluation of models that facilitate housing that
are consistent with consumer choice. In addition to physical and
economic accessibility, model housing approaches must maximize
community integration and ability to participate in a range of
normative activities.
Priority 1: Improved Management of CIL Programs and Services
The Assistant Secretary will establish an RRTC on IL management,
services and strategies that will conduct research and training
activities and develop and evaluate model approaches to enhance the
capacity of CILs to operate and manage effective advocacy, service
programs and businesses, and develop and maintain effective external
partnerships. In carrying out this purpose, the Center must:
(1) Develop a database of existing CIL funding and economic
resources, and identify innovative and best practices in creating
secure economic foundations for CILs;
(2) Working in collaboration with appropriate entities, design and
test several options for generating funding from alternative sources,
including business development strategies and analyze policy-related
and programmatic consequences of various funding options, especially
those independent of public financing;
(3) Identify best practices and develop and test programs for CILs
in expanding services to youth with disabilities and their families,
including those from diverse cultural backgrounds, and in interfacing
with education and transition programs to prepare children and youth
for independent living, including life long learning;
(4) Develop and test strategies to enable CILs to benefit from
management models of other successful community-based organizations or
business organizations. Develop and test innovative models of cost-
effective training to improve core competency skills of CIL staff,
including geographically dispersed and culturally and linguistically
diverse CIL staff, including but not limited to those from Indian
tribes and tribal organizations, and evaluate strategies for improved
recruitment and retention of CIL staff, including those from diverse
backgrounds;
(5) Review CIL and vocational rehabilitation agency policies
related to collaborations, and design strategies for innovative
partnerships to promote employment outcomes for individuals with
disabilities;
(6) Coordinate activities with and provide instruments, curricula,
methodologies, and resource guides, as well as research findings,
including but not necessarily limited to distance learning and web-
based technologies, to the RSA training and technical assistance
provider under Part C of Title VII of the Rehabilitation Act; and
(7) Provide training and information for CILs, policy makers,
including business leaders and educators, administrators, and advocates
on research findings and identified strategies.
In carrying out these purposes, the Center must coordinate with
other NIDRR, including Section 21 Leadership Training and the RRTCs on
Disability Statistics and Persons with Disabilities from Minority
Backgrounds, and OSERS grantees and community-based organizations that
focus upon independent living and with the National Center for the
Dissemination of Disability Research. The RRTC on improved management
of CIL programs 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,
[[Page 31757]]
and transition assistance to CILs and Statewide Independent Living
Councils under Part C of Title VII of the Rehabilitation Act.
Priority 2: IL and the New Paradigm of Disability
The Assistant Secretary will establish an RRTC on IL and the New
Paradigm of Disability that will facilitate the development of
innovative independent living strategies to meet the challenges of the
21st century. This Center will promote an understanding of independent
living concepts and practices in the context of the physical and social
environments noted in the new paradigm of disability, including
assessment of the application of independent living to the changing
universe of disability. In carrying out these purposes, the Center
must:
(1) Develop an analytical framework for research on living
independently that incorporates the definition of IL, the contextual
framework of disability and an accessible community, and the changing
universe of disability as articulated in the Plan, and is grounded in
social science theory and methods;
(2) Identify and evaluate strategies to promote accessible cost-
effective advocacy and generic community services for individuals with
significant disabilities, and address specifically at least one
changing universe population;
(3) Evaluate the use of peer networks and communication channels to
assist individuals with disabilities to maintain wellness, access
community services, and participate in community life, including
education and employment;
(4) Assess the concept and application of independent living for
diverse populations of cultural and linguistic minorities, including
but not limited to those from Indian tribes and tribal organizations,
Latinos and Asians and identify and evaluate culturally appropriate
independent living approaches and strategies to assist individuals
within these groups to attain self-determined independent living goals;
and
(5) Provide training and information for CILs, policy makers,
including business leaders and educators, administrators, and advocates
on research findings and identified strategies.
In carrying out these purposes, the project must coordinate with
other NIDRR, including Section 21 Leadership Training and the RRTCs on
Disability Statistics and Persons with Disabilities from Minority
Backgrounds, and OSERS grantees and community-based organizations that
focus on independent living, the Center on Emergent Disability, the
National Center for the Dissemination of Disability Research, and the
RSA training and technical assistance provider under Part C of Title
VII of the Rehabilitation Act.
Electronic Access to This Document
You may view this document, as well as all other Department of
Education documents published in the Federal Register, in text or Adobe
Portable Document Format (PDF) on the Internet 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, 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 (GPO),
toll free, at 1-888-293-6498; or in the Washington, D.C. area at (202)
512-1530.
Note: The official version of this document is the document
published in the Federal Register. Free Internet access to the
official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal
Regulations is available on GPO Access at: http://
www.access.gpo.gov/nara/index.html.
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: May 11, 2000.
Judith E. Heumann,
Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services.
[FR Doc. 00-12502 Filed 5-17-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-U