[NABS-L] Concerns About Program Claims By Presenters During The NFB National Convention

[Logan]

I would like to highlight some concerns raised by counselors from across
the country regarding presentations to be made by  AccessAbility Officer
(AO) at the NFB National Convention. During this presentation,
 AccessAbility Officer will discussed their program, known as the CAT
Program, which they assert guarantees competitive integrated employment for
vocational rehabilitation clients.
However, it appears that what they are actually offering is an
apprenticeship rather than a guaranteed job after clients graduate from the
program. This distinction is crucial and potentially misleading. When a
client claims, "I secured an apprenticeship, or what  AccessAbility Officer
refers to as a job with AO," it may lead counselors to believe that the
client has attained permanent and stable employment, thereby justifying the
closure of their vocational rehabilitation case.
Furthermore, many clients have reported that they do not have any
accessibility testing work for extended periods during their apprenticeship
with  Accessability Officer, which adds to the misleading nature of the
claims regarding clients securing jobs.
  AccessAbility Officer's portrayal of program success is concerning, as it
conflates an apprenticeship with a job when communicating with individuals
who are blind and their counselors. This misrepresentation has resulted in
increasing scrutiny and criticism of AO country wide by counselors..
Moreover, the AccessAbility Officer claims that their graduates receive two
industry certifications. While it is accurate that graduates obtain the
Trusted Tester certification from the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS), which is recognized within the industry, the second certification
the CAT Program certification is not acknowledged by any external
authority. This certification is self-created and lacks recognition in the
broader web accessibility field.
Additionally, AO asserts that it has grown into a $1,000,000 company;
however, this figure should be approached with skepticism, as it has not
been independently verified by any external entity.
In light of these considerations, I encourage everyone to critically assess
the claims made by  AccessAbility Officer.