[nfbwatlk] OTC Closure

[Frye, Dan]

Dear Friends and Colleagues:
 
As a longtime former resident of Washington State who played an active
role in policy development with the OTC as a member of a taskforce that
worked to improve the center's programs and who served on the
department's statewide Rehabilitation Advisory Council, I write to join
the growing chorus of those among our organization supportive of
maintaining a residential component at the training center. I note that
our affiliate president has made it clear on this list that this is our
state affiliate's position. I am confident of President Freeman's
interest in and willingness to lead on this matter.
 
The reasons for supporting a residential component at the OTC are clear.
A residential training environment enables students to put into practice
the skills that they acquire in class in a living situation that will
compel their independent exercise of responsibility. Putting learned
skills to work at home is usually not successful because the relaxed
atmosphere and family living arrangements don't generally lend
themselves  to learning in an effective way. In a properly run
residential program, more learning can occur in the informal environment
of living with other blind people than can sometimes occur in class. I
would venture to say that a training program without a residential
component--if it is to be a comprehensive one--need not exist at all. (I
am aware that many OTC students are day-only students even now, and I
think they are probably poorly served for this policy.) Additionally,
the absence of a residential component practically deprives access to
such a comprehensive course to blind consumers across the state.
Further, the absence of a residential program--and consequently a
comprehensive adjustment-to-blindness course--diminishes one of the
principal distinctions and justifications for blindness-specific
rehabilitation provided by the Washington Department of Services for the
Blind.
 
It is needlessly cynical to suggest that the Federation, one of the
strongest advocates for proper adjustment-to-blindness training, would
relish the gutting of a statewide training program as a means of
promoting our three privately administered NFB centers. Our centers are
currently operating at capacity, and waiting lists exist for at least
two of these centers for admission. Since we could not hope to serve
fully the demand for services that exists in Washington State, and since
as has been stated by others, many--for a variety of reasons--will not
choose or be permitted by the state to seek training elsewhere--it is in
our best interest to preserve an in-state quality training program. It
would be disingenuous, however, to suggest that greater efforts will not
be made to help those who want training at an NFB center to get it if a
residential option is eliminated, and that is exactly as it should be.
But I don't expect that our advocacy efforts in this regard will be much
easier in the absence of a residential program. The economic times are
tough, and the choice provisions in the law are vague and subject to
considerable legal debate if an agency wants to challenge the matter.
 
What am I saying, then, that's new. I try not to post if I am just
echoing other sentiments already expressed. Here is what I think. If we
are going to exert the collective effort to maintain a comprehensive
residential training program for blind people, we are also obligated to
exert the collective effort to see that this program is as good as it
can be. If any lack of enthusiasm has been perceived on this list for
maintaining a residential program, it can probably be attributed to
thoughtful deliberations about how to help make the existing program
better and understandable pessimism about previous efforts to achieve
this goal that have been abandoned or ignored in practice. Without a
residential program to work on, we cannot hope to help improve it, but
improve it we must. Many of the hard recommendations made by the joint
taskforce of several years ago--which had representation from both the
Council and Federation--have been abandoned. These ideas, at a minimum,
need to be revisited and implemented. If the hard resolve to create a
quality center does not exist among the current agency administration
then the blind of Washington State need to find a way to gain control of
the agency and help the Governor find new leadership for the Department
of Services for the Blind. It's as simple--and difficult--as that. But
the effort--no doubt long in coming--will ultimately be worth the
investment of time and energy. Those who receive quality
adjustment-to-blindness training in the future will benefit from our
efforts today and over the months and years to come. Let's first
preserve the residential component of this critical program and then
work to make it the best it can be.
 
While I appreciate that hard priority decisions must be made during
difficult fiscal times, I earnestly believe that a high-quality
adjustment-to-blindness training program is and should be the
centerpiece and top priority of any blindness-specific rehabilitation
agency. I do not propose, without further access to information, other
ideas for slashing services, but cutting out what ought to be the heart
of an agency created to serve blind people is definitely not the place
to start.
 
With Kind Regards,
 
***********************
Daniel B. Frye, J.D.
Associate Editor
The Braille Monitor
National Federation of the Blind
Office of the President
1800 Johnson Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21230
Telephone: (410) 659-9314 Ext. 2208
Mobile: (410) 241-7006
Fax: (410) 685-5653
Email: DFrye at nfb.org
Web Address: www.nfb.org <http://www.nfb.org/> 
"Voice of the Nation's Blind"