[Nfbk] Dr. Maurer's letter to the Department of Education
Nickie Pearl
njp at insightbb.com
Sat Jun 19 20:48:23 UTC 2010
NFB President Marc Maurer recently sent a letter to the Department of
Education urging it to retain its current employment policy that states that
disabled persons in sheltered employment, extended employment, or other
employment in non-integrated settings are not considered to have achieved an
employment outcome in the State Vocational Rehabilitation Services Program.
National Industries for the Blind recently advocated for changes to this
policy that would threaten blind Americans who strive to obtain full or
part-time competitive employment.
Below you will find a copy of the letter.
Letter to Alexa Posny
5/27/2010
May 27, 2010
The Honorable Alexa Posny
Assistant Secretary for Special Education
and Rehabilitative Services
United States Department of Education
400 Maryland Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20202-2800
Dear Assistant Secretary Posny:
I serve as President of the National Federation of the Blind (NFB), the
nation's oldest and largest organization of blind Americans. The NFB has
over 50,000 members comprising fifty-two affiliates (one in each state, the
District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico), over seven hundred local chapters,
and a number of special interest divisions. Since its founding in 1940, the
NFB has advocated for better employment opportunities for the blind, and I
am writing to you in support of that fundamental goal.
Because we are determined that blind Americans should be given full
opportunity to enter the careers of their choice, and because we are
determined to assist blind people to find employment that is suited to their
skills and aspirations, we are deeply concerned that National Industries for
the Blind (NIB) has recently requested that you "issue new guidelines
clarifying that the definition for 'employment outcomes' includes
individuals who are blind and are working in the AbilityOne Program through
National Industries for the Blind's nationwide network of nonprofit
agencies." (I am attaching correspondence from NIB to this effect for your
convenience.) The NFB strongly opposes the dramatic change in policy that
is inherent in this request.
Although NIB currently supports a policy that blind people should be paid
at least the minimum wage, several of the NIB workshops do not universally
adhere to this policy. NIB officials have expressed the view that they
cannot require the workshops to abide by the policy. In the past, the
placement policies of a number of state vocational rehabilitation agencies
have emphasized placing blind individuals in NIB workshops because this
placement was simpler and easier than finding employment for the blind in an
integrated setting. The effect of such policies in the past has been to
"dump" blind people into NIB agency workshops unless extraordinary pressure
was brought to bear to prevent it. The result of "dumping" the blind into
such workshops has been to doom blind clients to dead-end positions without
opportunity for upward mobility or full opportunity for the employment of
their talent. Although a few blind people have recently found their way
into management positions in NIB workshops, the promotion of blind
individuals into management in NIB is notable, mostly for its failure rather
than its success. NIB is hoping that you will use your power to assign
blind people to the workshops. We believe that this is contrary to the
policy of full employment opportunity contained in the Rehabilitation Act.
On January 22, 2001, the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative
Services (OSERS) issued final regulations to redefine the term "employment
outcome" as it applies to the State Vocational Rehabilitation Services
Program (VR program). Under these regulations, "employment outcome" means
an outcome in which an individual with a disability enters full- or
part-time competitive employment in an integrated setting (66 Fed. Reg. 7250
et seq., codified at 34 CFR Part 361). The NFB endorsed these regulations
during the rule-making process and continues to support them. We believe
the revised and now current definition of "employment outcome" [34 CFR
361.5(b)(16)] properly reflects the Rehabilitation Act's strong emphasis on
the integration into society of persons with disabilities and on the ability
of individuals with disabilities to achieve employment in integrated
settings if necessary services and supports are provided.
One of the effects of the revised definition is that disabled persons in
sheltered employment, extended employment, or other employment in
non-integrated settings are no longer considered to have achieved an
employment outcome in the VR program. This does not mean, however, that no
individual participating in an AbilityOne job program can be considered to
have achieved an employment outcome. In discussing these changes, OSERS
noted that many jobs obtained by disabled persons under certain types of
set-aside contracts authorized by the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (JWOD) (41 USC
46-48) would satisfy the definition of "employment outcome" as long as those
jobs were performed in "integrated settings" as defined elsewhere in the
regulations [34 CFR 361.5(b)(33)(ii)]. OSERS also stated:
"The determination as to whether any job, including those obtained under
JWOD contracts, meets the regulatory definition of 'integrated setting,' and
therefore qualifies as an 'employment outcome' (for purposes of the VR
program), must be made by State [VR] units on a case-by-case basis." (66
Fed. Reg. 7251)
We urge you to retain this policy position. The determination of when an
individual has achieved an employment outcome in the VR program is made
jointly by the individual and a qualified rehabilitation counselor employed
by the State VR agency after they agree that the individual is satisfied
with and performing well in employment [34 CFR 361.56(c)]. OSERS should not
issue any new policy that persons obtaining employment through JWOD
contracts are automatically considered to have achieved an employment
outcome in the VR program. To do so would interdict the joint
decision-making between the disabled individual and rehabilitation
counselor, and would undermine the goal of competitive employment in
integrated settings for people with disabilities.
Blind people must be able to decide for themselves when they have reached
their employment goals; their cases should not automatically be closed by
virtue of being employed in a NIB facility. NIB's primary motivation in
requesting this policy change is to give incentives to rehabilitation
counselors to place consumers in its programs and facilities. We have
nothing against NIB, and its record of employing blind individuals at or
above minimum wage has certainly improved, but blind people must be allowed
to determine for themselves whether a NIB placement is their desired
employment outcome. The proper goal of rehabilitation is the successful
employment of blind Americans in jobs that they find personally and
professionally fulfilling, not the closing of rehabilitation cases or the
support of NIB.
Thank you for your consideration of this critically important matter. If
you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Marc Maurer, President
NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND
More information about the NFBK
mailing list