On the Threshold of Independence
Progress on Legislative Recommendations from Toward
Independence
National Council on Disability
(formerly the National Council on the Handicapped)
A Report to the President and to the Congress of the
United States, January 1988
National Council on Disability
1331 F Street, NW, Suite 1050
Washington, DC 20004-1107
202-272-2004 (Voice)
202-272-2074 (TTD)
202-272-2022 (Fax)
The views contained in this report do not necessarily
represent those of the Administration, as this document has not
been subject to the A-19 Executive Branch review process.
Contents
Letter of Transmittal
Description of the National Council on
the Handicapped
Council and Staff Members
Acknowledgments
Executive Summary
Foreword
I. Introduction
II. Recent Data and Trends
III. Analysis of Progress Made In Specific Topic Areas
Since the Publication of Toward Independence
A. Equal Opportunity Laws
The Americans With Disabilities Act of 1988--Section
by Section Summary
The Americans With Disabilities Act of 1988--A
Draft Bill
B. Employment
C. Disincentives to Work Under Social Security
Laws
D. Prevention of Disabilities
E. Transportation
F. Housing
G. Community-Based Services For Independent Living
H. Educating Children With Disabilities
I. Personal Assistance
J. Coordination
Biographies of Members of the National
Council on the Handicapped
References
Letter
of Transmittal (Text of identical letters
sent to the President of the United States, the President of the
Senate, and the Speaker of the House of Representatives)
January 29, 1988
The National Council on the handicapped is pleased
to issue On the Threshold of Independence, a report describing
progress made toward increasing the independence and quality of
life for persons with disabilities since the Council's 1986 report,
Toward Independence. On the Threshold of Independence was
developed in response to a statutory mandate that the Council:
Not later than January 30, 1988, and annually thereafter,
the National Council on the Handicapped shall issue a report to
the President and Congress on the progress that has been made
in implementing the recommendations contained in the Council's
January 30, 1986, report Toward Independence. The reports
issued shall present, as appropriate, available data on health,
housing, employment, insurance, transportation, recreation, and
education, and shall include appropriate information on the current
status and trends in the status of individuals with disabilities.
(Public Law 99-506, Section 502(b))
Toward Independence assessed the status
of persons with disabilities in America and the Federal laws and
programs that affect them. It presented forty-five legislative remedies
to identified problems, all geared toward increasing the dignity
and independence of Americans with disabilities. Since the publication
of Toward Independence, many doors, previously closed to
persons with disabilities, have been opened. On the Threshold
of Independence describes accomplishments that have been achieved
in response to the recommendations in Toward Independence,
and the degree to which the recommendations have been implemented.
In some instances, the Toward Independence recommendations
have been the driving force behind particular legislative proposals,
and the Council played a major role in the process of developing
concrete statutory approaches. In other cases, the Council was but
one of many voices in favor of a particular proposal that led to
legislative action. In either event, the Council gratefully acknowledges
that the progress has been the result of the ideas, comments, and
diligent work of numerous persons with disabilities, their families,
public officials, other professionals and experts, consumer and
service organizations, and other interested individuals from all
over the country.
Some progress has been made in each of the ten topics
of Toward Independence. There have been major statutory advances
in many of the topic areas, bills are pending in others, and at
least some positive administrative efforts or related activities
have occurred in the remainder. In all, approximately eighty percent
of the recommendations have been either partially or fully accomplished.
The Council is pleased at the many ways in which
the Legislative and Executive Branches of Government have responded
positively to its recommendations. Yet, the significant progress
that has been made does not obscure the fact that many of the major
recommendations have not yet been addressed or addressed only partially-
many of the doors of opportunity remain firmly shut to persons with
disabilities. The Council seeks to rededicate its own efforts, and
to join with the President, the Congress, and persons with disabilities
and their families, to achieve the objectives of Toward Independence.
Only then will Americans with disabilities escape from situations
of dependence and dehumanization and cross the threshold of independence.
The Council appreciates the opportunity to continue
to shape disability policy and to work toward an America in which
persons with disabilities are afforded all the opportunities that
our society has to offer.
Sincerely,
Sandra Swift Parrino
Chairperson
Description
of the National Council on the Handicapped The
National Council on the Handicapped is an independent Federal agency
comprised of 15 members appointed by the President and confirmed
by the Senate. The Council was initially established in 1978 as
an advisory board within the Department of Education (Public Law
95602). The Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1984 (Public Law 98-221)
transformed the Council into an independent agency.
The current statutory mandate of the Council assigns
it the following duties:
- establishing general policies for and reviewing
the operation of the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation
Research (NIDRR);
- providing advice to the Commissioner of the Rehabilitation
Services Administration (RSA) on policies and conduct;
- providing ongoing advice to the President, the Congress,
the RSA Commissioner, the Assistant Secretary of the Office of
Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS), and the
Director of NIDRR on programs authorized in the Rehabilitation
Act;
- reviewing and evaluating on a continuous basis the
effectiveness of all policies, programs, and activities concerning
handicapped individuals conducted or assisted by Federal departments
or agencies, and all statutes pertaining to Federal programs,
and assessing the extent to which they provide incentives to community-based
services, promote full integration, and contribute to the independence
and dignity of individuals with disabilities;
- making recommendations of ways to improve research,
service, administration, and the collection, dissemination, and
implementation of research findings affecting handicapped persons;
- reviewing and approving standards for Independent
Living programs;
- submitting an annual report with appropriate recommendations
to the Congress and the President regarding the status of research
affecting persons with disabilities and the activities of RSA
and NIDRR;
- reviewing and approving standards for Projects with
Industry programs;
- providing to the Congress, on a continuing basis
advice, recommendations, and any additional information which
the Council or the Congress considers appropriate; and
- issuing an annual report to the President and the
Congress on the progress that has been made in implementing the
recommendations contained in the Council's January 30, 1986, report,
Toward Independence.
While many government agencies deal with issues and
programs affecting people with disabilities, the National Council
is the only Federal agency charged with addressing, analyzing, and
making recommendations on issues of public policy which affect people
with disabilities regardless of age, disability type, perceived
employment potential, economic need, specific functional ability,
status as a veteran, or other individual circumstance. The Council
recognizes its unique opportunity to facilitate independent living,
community integration, and employment opportunities for people with
disabilities by assuring an informed and coordinated approach to
addressing the concerns of persons with disabilities and eliminating
barriers to their active participation in community and family life.
The
National Council on the Handicapped Members
Sandra Swift Parrino, Chairperson
John S. Erthein
Theresa L. Gardner
Marian N. Koonce
Leslie Lenkowsky, Ph.D.
Nanette Fabray MacDougall
Robert Muller
Brenda Premo
*Harry J. Sutcliffe, D. D. (Deceased 12/87)
Joni Eareckson Tada
Roxanne Vierra
A. Kent Waldrep, Jr.
Phyllis Zlotnick
Staff
Lex Frieden, Executive Director
Brenda Bratton, Secretary
Stacey Brown, Clerk Typist
Ethel Briggs, Adult Services Specialist
Robert Burgdorf Jr., Attorney/Research Specialist
Frances Curtis, Administrative Officer
Andrea Farbman, Public Affairs Specialist
Kathleen Roy, Children's Specialist
Deborah Shuck, Staff Assistant
LaVerne Chase, Fellow
D. Fay Fuller, Jr., Fellow
Acknowledgments
The Council is indebted to Andrea Farbman
for coordinating, managing, and editing this report. The contributions
of staff members Ethel Briggs, Robert Burgdorf Jr., Kathy Roy, and
fellows LaVerne Chase and D. Ray Fuller, Jr. are greatly appreciated.
Gratitude is also extended to Richard Moss for graphic design and
production, Karen Premack for editorial guidance, and Unicor print
plant for printing the report.
Executive
Summary In the 1986 Amendments to the Rehabilitation
Act of 1973, Congress required the Council to:
...issue a report to the President and Congress
on the progress that has been made in implementing the recommendations
contained in the Council's January 30, 1986, report Toward
Independence.
The reports issued shall present, as appropriate,
available data on health, housing, employment, insurance, transportation,
recreation, and education, and shall include appropriate information
on the current status and trends in the status of individuals
with disabilities. (Public Law 99-506, Section 502(b))
On the Threshold of Independence chronicles
progress made on the forty-five legislative recommendations which
were proposed in the Council's previous report, Toward Independence.
Several recent studies on disability, including one from the Census
Bureau and two Harris polls are also discussed.
Some significant progress has occurred in the two
years since Toward Independence was published. The Council
has identified some twenty-one statutory provisions consistent with
its recommendations in Toward Independence that have been
enacted into law. In addition, the Council is aware of eight bills
that have been introduced in Congress, but not yet enacted, that
would further proposals included in Toward Independence.
Of the forty-five legislative recommendations, eighty
percent have been either partially or fully accomplished. Many doors
to independence have been opened, others remain closed or only partially
opened.
This report assesses progress made in each of the
ten topic areas in Toward Independence and examines the extent
to which each of the forty-five legislative recommendations have
been implemented. The following is an overview of progress that
has occurred.
Equal Opportunity Laws
A major achievement in this area was the development
by the Council of a comprehensive legislative proposal, "The Americans
with Disabilities Act of 1988," which translates the primary equal
opportunity recommendations into proposed statutory language. Three
other statutes- the Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1986, the Handicapped
Children's Protection Act of 1986, and the Protection and Advocacy
for the Mentally Ill Individuals Act of 1986- incorporated other
significant, but narrower, equal opportunity recommendations. In
spite of legislative progress made, the Council remains committed
to passage of its comprehensive equal opportunity proposal as an
essential prerequisite to equality and independence for persons
with disabilities.
Employment
In the area of employment of persons with disabilities
accomplishments included passage of legislation incorporating several
of the Council's major recommendations in the areas of supported
employment, transition, and tax incentives for employers. The Council
believes that these legislative changes represent unprecedented
gains in terms of expanded employment opportunities for persons
with disabilities. Additional congressional action is still needed
to implement the full range of the Council's recommendations, including
the establishment of model centers on employment and return-to-work
programs, and elimination of the income eligibility requirement
for persons with disabilities under the Job Training Partnership
Act.
Disincentives to Work under Social Security Laws
Legislation passed in the 99th Congress furthered
several of the Council's recommendations for the removal of barriers
under the Social Security Act that discouraged persons with disabilities
from seeking gainful employment. These included the Employment Opportunities
for Disabled Americans Act which made the temporary provisions of
Section 1619 (a) and (b) of the Social Security Act permanent and
established Section 303 of the Rehabilitation Act Amendments of
1986 which required the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation
Research to conduct a study of health insurance for persons with
disabilities. The Council continues to believe that the eligibility
criteria for Supplemental Security Income and Social Security Disability
Insurance merit attention.
Prevention of Disabilities
The Council devoted considerable effort regarding
policies and programs to prevent both primary and secondary disabilities.
The Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, in conjunction
with the Council, convened a Federal ad hoc group on the prevention
of disabilities which included a number of Federal agencies. The
focus of this ad hoc group was the exchange of information between
Federal agencies and the development of a national plan for the
prevention of disabilities, as recommended by the Council. Funds
have been sought for the development of the national plan and a
small community-based grants program administered by the Centers
for Disease Control. After these projects have been completed, the
Office of Technology Assessment will be asked to conduct a study
on the status of prevention of disabilities in America.
Transportation
In Toward Independence the Council concluded
that accessible transportation is a critical component of a national
policy that promotes the self-reliance and self-sufficiency of people
with disabilities. The area of greatest progress has been that of
air transportation with the passage of the Air Carrier Access Act
of 1986. Other developments included the introduction of bills to
amend the Urban Mass Transit Act and to create a national uniform
system for handicapped parking. The Council affirms its commitment
to improving access for persons with disabilities.
Housing
The housing legislative recommendations presented
direct and indirect means for increasing the housing opportunities
available to persons with disabilities. Some significant legislative
proposals and administrative actions have furthered the Council's
recommendations. At the same time, many of the Council's key housing
recommendations have yet to receive congressional resolution and
administrative implementation.
Community-Based Services for Independent Living
Centers providing independent living services have
grown substantially in number, scope, and resources. Consistent
with the Council's recommendation, Congress has continued to appropriate
funds for independent living. The evaluation standards for independent
living services developed by the Council have been endorsed by the
Rehabilitation Services Administration. Tax deductions for expenses
incurred by persons with disabilities have increased under the Tax
Reform Act of 1986. Other Council recommendations regarding core
funding and institutional bias within the Health Care Financing
Administration have not been implemented.
Educating Children with Disabilities
The Education of the Handicapped Act Amendments of
1986 accomplished a primary recommendation of the Council by creating
an early intervention program to serve disabled infants from birth
through age two. In addition, the legislation included significant
improvements in services for three- to five-year-old children with
disabilities. To further implementation of its recommendation regarding
standards to clarify the concept of least restrictive environment,
the Council developed a draft policy statement on this issue. One
activity not mentioned in Toward Independence was the Council's
initiation of a third Harris poll to examine the status of education
for children with disabilities. The results of the poll will be
of immense value to the Council, the Congress, and others in the
development of educational policy to meet the needs of children
with disabilities.
Personal Assistance: Attendant Services, Readers, and
Interpreters
The Council established a task force for the development
of a legislative package for a comprehensive national personal assistance
program and consulted with leaders in the field and numerous organizations
around the country. A legislative workplan is currently being developed
which recommends amendments to legislation, and includes proposals
to fill service gaps in developing coordination of personal assistance
services.
Coordination
The Council participated in efforts that have fostered
coordination of services for people with disabilities on the Federal,
State, and local levels. Examples of these efforts include participation
in an ad hoe group on the prevention of disabilities, observation
of the regulatory negotiation process for the Air Carrier Access
Act of 1986, cosponsorship of a conference on transition with the
Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, and recommendations
in testimony for the Education of the Handicapped Act Amendments
of 1986. The Council is also exploring the work of the Advisory
Council on Intergovernmental Relations to identify data being gathered
regarding coordination efforts at the State and local levels.
Foreword
In response to Toward Independence,
President Ronald Reagan proclaimed:
I agree with the goals implicit in Toward Independence-
equal opportunity and full social participation for all Americans,
and I am pleased to see that your report sets forth a comprehensive
agenda for progress toward these goals .... [However]The road
toward full independence will not be easy.
(Reagan letter, Jan., 1986)
Toward Independence assessed the status of
persons with disabilities in America and the Federal laws and programs
that affect them. The report presented forty-five legislative remedies
to identified problems, all geared toward increasing the dignity
and independence of Americans with disabilities. Each recommendation
can be viewed as a means of achieving a greater degree of independence;
viewed together, the implementation of all forty-five recommendations
can bring about an America in which disabled citizens are given
the opportunity to be fully participating members.
Since the publication of Toward Independence
in 1986, many doors, previously closed to persons with disabilities,
have been opened. Some doors to opportunities have been fully opened,
some have been opened halfway, some have been only cracked slightly,
and still others remain tightly shut. This report describes accomplishments
that have been achieved in response to the recommendations in Toward
Independence, and the degree to which the recommendations have
been implemented.
When the accomplishments of the past two years are
examined in their entirety, the overall effect can be viewed as
having placed persons with disabilities on the
threshold of independence. For the areas in which the proposals
in Toward Independence have been implemented and the doors
to opportunity have been opened, the task remaining is to keep the
doors open and for people with disabilities to accept the challenge
of going through the doorways. For those areas in which the doors
to independence are ajar, the Council hopes for further efforts
to keep opening up opportunities for independence, dignity, and
self sufficiency. For areas in which no progress has been made and
the doors to opportunity remain shut, the Council plans to redouble
its efforts, and looks to the Congress, the Administration, people
with disabilities and their families, services providers, and others,
to join with the Council to continue to push and knock until the
doors are opened.
While President Reagan has aptly warned that -[t]he
road to full independence will not be easy," some significant progress
has occurred in the two years since Toward Independence was
published. The Council has identified some twenty-one statutory
provisions consistent with its legislative recommendations in Toward
Independence that have een enacted into law (see Table 1). In
addition, it is aware of eight bills that have been introduced in
Congress, but not yet enacted, that would further proposals included
in Toward Independence. The Council does not seek to claim
for itself the credit for such laws and proposed legislation. The
development of bills and the process of getting them through Congress
and signed by the President is a highly collaborative process involving
the skills and commitment of many individuals and organizations.
In some instances, the Toward Independence
recommendations have been the driving force behind particular legislative
proposals, and the Council has played a major role in the process
of developing concrete statutory approaches. In other cases, the
Council was but one of many voices in favor of a particular proposal
that led to legislative action. In either event, the Council gratefully
acknowledges that the recommendations issued in Toward Independence
were the result of the ideas, comments, and advice of numerous persons
with disabilities, their families, public officials, other professionals
and experts, consumer and service organizations, and other interested
individuals from all over the country.
The legislative recommendations contained in Toward
Independence focused on ten major topic areas. Within each of
these ten areas, some progress has been made since the publication
of that report. There have been major statutory advances in many
of the topic areas, bills are pending in others, and at least some
positive administrative or related activities have occurred in the
remainder. Of the forty-five specific legislative recommendations
in Toward Independence, 75 percent, or thirty-four of the
forty-five recommendations, have been partially accomplished, and
three have been fully accomplished (see Table 2).
The Council is pleased at the many ways in which
the Legislative and Executive Branches of Government have responded
positively to its recommendations. Yet, the significant progress
that has been made does not obscure the fact that many of the major
recommendations have not yet been addressed or addressed only partially-
many of the major doors of opportunity remain firmly shut to persons
with disabilities. This report represents a recognition and affirmation
of the progress since Toward Independence, but it also provides
an assessment of how much has not been accomplished. The Council
seeks to rededicate its own efforts, and to join with the President,
the Congress, and persons with disabilities and their families,
to achieve the objectives of Toward Independence. Only then
will persons with disabilities in the United States escape from
situations of dependency and dehumanization and cross the
threshold of independence.
Table 1 |
|
|
|
Summary of Accomplishments
on the
Recommendations from Toward Independence |
|
|
|
Topic Area |
Legislative Activity |
|
Statutory
Provisions |
Bills* |
|
|
|
Equal Opportunity Laws |
6 |
3 |
Employment |
4 |
0 |
Disincentives to Work |
3 |
0 |
Prevention |
3 |
1 |
Transportation |
2 |
3 |
Housing |
0 |
2 |
Independent Living |
2 |
0 |
Education |
1 |
0 |
Personal Assistance |
0 |
0 |
Coordination |
0 |
0 |
Totals |
21 |
9 |
|
|
|
*Includes the Council's proposed
"Americans with Disabilities Act of 1988." |
Table 2 |
|
|
|
|
Summary of Accomplishments
on the
Recommendations from Toward Independence |
|
|
|
|
Topic Area |
Level of Achievement
|
|
Full |
Partial |
No Activity |
|
|
|
|
Equal Opportunity Laws (6)* |
0 |
6 |
0 |
Employment (8) |
0 |
4 |
4 |
Disincentives to Work (3) |
1 |
1 |
1 |
Prevention (3) |
0 |
2 |
1 |
Transportation (6) |
1 |
3 |
2 |
Housing (8) |
0 |
7 |
1 |
Independent Living (4) |
0 |
2 |
2 |
Education (4) |
1 |
3 |
0 |
Personal Assistance (2) |
0 |
2 |
0 |
Coordination (1) |
0 |
1 |
0 |
All recommendations (45)
|
3 |
31 |
11 |
|
|
|
|
*denotes number of Toward Independence
recommendations |
Introduction
Background
On January 29, 1986, the National Council on the Handicapped
released its comprehensive blueprint for disability policy in America.
Toward Independence was developed in response to a 1984 congressional
mandate for the Council to:
assess the extent to which Federal programs serving
people with disabilities provide incentives or disincentives to
the establishment of community based services for handicapped
individuals, promote the full integration of such individuals
in the community, in schools, and in the workplace, and contribute
to the independence and dignity of such individuals. (Section
401 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended)
In that report, the Council presented its findings,
conclusions, and legislative recommendations based upon its review
and assessment of Federal laws and programs, as well as input from
hundreds of persons with disabilities.
- Relevant information and data were collected by:
- examining current legislation and programs;
- collecting and analyzing information about exemplary
programs;
- reviewing existing analyses of Federal programs
and disability issues;
- consulting with experts;
- conducting special seminars and hearings: and
- conducting forums with persons with disabilities
and their families throughout the United States.
As a result, Toward Independence listed major
Federal programs serving individuals with disabilities and ranked
them according to expenditures, with an estimated number of persons
with disabilities served. From its analysis, the Council drew three
primary conclusions:
- Approximately two-thirds of working-age persons
with disabilities do not receive Social Security or other public
assistance income.
- Federal disability programs reflect an overemphasis
on income support and an underemphasis on initiatives for equal
opportunity, independence, prevention, and self-sufficiency.
- More emphasis should be given to Federal programs
encouraging and assisting private sector efforts to promote opportunities
and independence for individuals with disabilities.
The Council also analyzed Federal spending on disability.
"Our nation's current annual Federal expenditure on disability benefits
and programs exceeds $60 billion" (p. 2). Further examination of
that estimate revealed that the combined spending
for Fiscal Year 1986 for the education of handicapped children and
vocational rehabilitation totaled less than $3 billion, or less
than five percent of the total dollars spent on disability.
This startling underemphasis of spending on programs and services
oriented toward the goals of independence and self-reliance caused
the Council to target its legislative recommendations on more fiscally
responsible approaches which emphasize productivity and self-determination.
The forty-five legislative recommendations in Toward
Independence focused on ten major topic areas of particular
importance to persons with disabilities. These ten topics were discussed
extensively in a 600page Appendix to the report. In order to review
the major recommendations from the topic areas, a brief synopsis
follows.
Recommendations from Toward Independence
Based on testimony and comments from hundreds of people
with disabilities, parents, and others, the most pervasive and recurrent
problem faced by disabled persons appeared to be unfair and unnecessary
discrimination.
...[W]hatever the limitations associated with particular
disabilities, people with disabilities have been saying for years
that their major obstacles are not inherent in their disabilities,
but arise from barriers that have been imposed externally and
unnecessarily. (p. 1)
Equal Opportunity Law
The Council recommended the enactment of a comprehensive
law requiring equal opportunity for individuals with disabilities,
with broad coverage and setting clear, consistent, and enforceable
standards prohibiting discrimination on the basis of handicap.
Employment
To increase employment among people with disabilities-
a drastically unemployed and underemployed segment of the population-
the Council recommended several legislative changes, concerning
the transition from school to work, supported employment, private
sector initiatives, job training, job development, and placement.
Disincentives to Work Under Social Security Laws
The Council outlined several ways in which provisions
of existing Social Security laws- Supplemental Security Income (SSI),
Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI), Medicaid, and Medicare-
serve to discourage and penalize people with disabilities if they
seek to become employed and self supporting. In response to these
work disincentives, the Council recommended corrective amendments
to the problematic provisions.
Prevention of Disabilities
To promote the prevention of disabilities and to assure
that individuals having disabilities do not experience unnecessary
secondary disabilities, the Council recommended that the Federal
Government mount a national program for the prevention of disabilities.
Transportation
The Council recommended amendments to transportation
legislation to achieve the Nation's established policy that "disabled
people have the same right to use public transportation as nondisabled
persons." Proposals related to urban mass transit, air transportation,
intercity and interstate buses, private vehicles, and research.
Housing
To permit people with disabilities an opportunity
to obtain appropriate housing, which is an important prerequisite
to obtaining employment, living independently, and avoiding costly
institutionalization, the Council made several recommendations designed
to prohibit housing discrimination and to promote increased appropriate
and accessible housing for persons with disabilities.
Community-Based Services for Independent Living
To achieve productivity and independence, people with
disabilities require a range of support services according to the
nature and degree of their disabilities. The Council proposed a
variety of measures, including amendments and funding support under
Parts A and B of Title VII of the Rehabilitation Act, to promote
the availability of community based services for independent living.
Educating Children with Disabilities
The Council made legislative recommendations regarding
educational opportunities for children with disabilities. These
recommendations responded to: the need for special education and
related services during infancy; the need to educate children with
special needs in regular
education facilities: and the need to assess progress
made since the enactment of the Education for All Handicapped Children
Act.
Personal Assistance: Attendant Services, Readers, and
Interpreters
Because of the critical importance of such services
in fostering independence and avoiding expensive institutionalization,
the Council recommended a national commitment to developing a quality
system of attendant services, readers, and interpreters.
Coordination
The Council recommended that all Federal and federally
supported disability-related programs be authorized and required
to develop a joint plan for the systematic coordination of services
and benefits.
Dissemination and Response to Toward Independence
Reactions to Toward Independence were overwhelmingly
positive. Some of the highest accolades were expressed in a letter
from President Reagan (a replica of the letter appears on page 5).
In addition to sending copies to the White House and to all members
of the Senate and House of Representatives, the Council released
Toward Independence at two Washington press conferences.
Media Coverage
One of the factors that increased the visibility of
Toward Independence was the simultaneous release of an unprecedented
nationwide Harris poll that examined the perceptions of persons
with disabilities (for details on the poll, see: -Recent Data and
'&ends"). Toward Independence and the Harris poll were
covered on the front page of USA Today, as well as in articles in
many local papers across the country. Television coverage included
interviews with Chairperson Sandra Swift Parrino on "Today in New
York City" and "Live at Five" on station WPLG in Miami, Florida.
And radio broadcasts were generated from as far away as Seattle,
Washington, St. Louis, Missouri, and Miami, Florida. Based on a
request from the Voice of America, the Council and Toward Independence
were featured on a radio program broadcast in the Peoples Republic
of China.
The disability community also openly embraced Toward
Independence. Publications such as the Disability Rag and
various newsletters ran articles emphasizing the comprehensiveness
and depth of the report's recommendations.
THE WHITE
HOUSE
WASHINGTON
January 29, 1986
Dear Mrs. Parrino:
Thank you for Toward Independence, the special
report of the National Council on the Handicapped.
I congratulate the members and staff of the Council
on the completion of this report, and I commend the many individuals
from all of the fifty states who donated their time, their talents,
and their economic resources to produce this special testament to
the spirit of independence. Their contributions demonstrate the
vitality of our democratic process and the commitment of the American
people to the principles of independence and opportunity for all.
I agree with the goals implicit in Toward Independence
-equal opportunity and full social participation for all Americans,
and I am pleased to see that your report sets forth a comprehensive
agenda for progress toward these goals. My Administration will study
your report and cooperate with the Council, with the Congress, and
with disabled Americans and their supporters to refine and develop
these proposals.
The road toward full independence will not be easy.
It will require the efforts of individuals, families, and communities
as well as partnership between the private sector and all levels
of government. You can be assured of my complete cooperation as
we work together to make the American dream a reality for all our
people.
Sincerely,
[Signature: Ronald Reagan]
The Honorable Sandra S. Parrino
Chairperson
National Council on the Handicapped
123 Marlborough Road
Briarcliff Manor, New York 10510
Visibility on Capitol
Hill
Opportunity for close scrutiny came when the National
Council on the Handicapped appeared before the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations to review the Council's Fiscal Year
1987 Budget request. Both Committees queried Council Chairperson
Sandra Swift Parrino and Executive Director Lex Frieden about the
report's recommendations and plans for implementation.
Senator Lowell Weicker opened the Council's 1986
appropriation hearing by congratulating the Council for its accomplishments
and remarking about the uniqueness of the Council: "I think really,
so many of these national councils are a lot of show and don't do
anything. I think you are terribly blessed .... You have a great
outfit here." Later in the hearing Senator Weicker added:
...I want to thank you for everything that you are
doing: for the report Toward Independence. I think it is
a magnificent piece of work, the Harris poll, with the professionalism
that you are bringing with the Council to where the Council's
voice is listened to by everybody, and for the courage in cutting
across all partisan and philosophical bounds in order to achieve
the result of those you serve, which is what it is all about.
(p. 805)
Senator Weicker asked Chairperson Parrino to summarize
Toward Independence and describe how the Council planned
to follow up and monitor each of the forty-five recommendations.
Mrs. Parrino detailed the Council's workplan and implementation
strategies.
On the House side, Congressmen William Natcher, Silvio
Conte, and Carl Pursell further explored the recommendations of
Toward Independence. In responding to a question from Congressman
Pursell, Executive Director Frieden commented on the major themes
of the report:
There are two principal themes that run through
this report. One of those deals with equal opportunity .... The
second predominant theme relates to independence for people with
disabilities. We believe community-based programs that facilitate
independence for people with disabilities are the most cost-effective
means of providing disabled people the opportunity to make choices
about their own lives. (p. 443)
In addition to being a topic for discussion during
the Council's appropriations hearings, a number of legislators integrated
recommendations from Toward Independence into their own speeches
and comments on disability-related legislation. For example, in
his remarks on the Employment Opportunities for Disabled Americans
Act, Congressman Steve Bartlett used Toward Independence
to underscore the importance of employment opportunities for persons
with disabilities.
Toward Independence Featured at Conferences
In the course of the two years since the publication
of Toward Independence, the report has been used repeatedly
as the centerpiece for conferences, meetings, and forums. Organizations
such as the Paralyzed Veterans of America, the National Easter Seal
Society, and the National Council for Independent Living have all
employed the report as a tool from which to generate discussion
about disability policy.
Follow-up Report Mandated by Congress
Subsequent to the report, Congress reauthorized the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 in the Rehabilitation Act Amendments
of 1986. In the Amendments, Congress required the Council to report
on progress that had been made on the recommendations in Toward
Independence.
Section 502 of the Rehabilitation Act Amendments
of 1986 states:
(b)(1) Not later than January 30, 1988, and annually
thereafter, the National Council on the Handicapped shall issue
a report to the President and Congress on the progress that has
been made in implementing the recommendations contained in the
Council's January 30, 1986, report Toward Independence.
(2) The reports issued pursuant to paragraph (1)
shall present, as appropriate, available data on health, housing,
employment, insurance, transportation, recreation, and education,
and shall include appropriate information on the current status
and trends in the status of individuals with disabilities.
Thus, the intent of this followup report is to chronicle
progress made on each of the forty-five legislative recommendations
proposed in Toward Independence. For the purpose of this
report, progress includes the convening of important meetings and
conferences, the initiation of correspondence, and the development
of legislation and regulations. Progress was realized not solely
by the Council, but also by disability organizations, service providers,
government agencies, individuals, and others. The period covered
by this report is February 1, 1986, through November 18, 1987.
Recent
Data and Trends Accurate statistical data
in the area of disability are imperative for policy-makers and others.
As reported in Toward Independence, existing studies have
been fraught with problems. Since the publication of Toward Independence,
however, a number of significant studies have been conducted.
The Census Bureau issued an important study of functional
limitations in December 1986. Entitled "Disability, Functional Limitation,
and Health Insurance Coverage: 1984/85," the report presents data
drawn from the Bureau's Survey of Income and Program Participation,
conducted in May through August of 1984.
In the report, researchers found that one out of
five non-institutionalized residents aged 15 and over- some 37.3
million persons- has difficulty performing one or more basic physical
activities. The activities included seeing, hearing, speaking, walking,
using stairs, lifting or carrying, getting around outside, getting
around inside, and getting into or out of bed. Some 13.5 million
persons said that they not only had difficulty, but could not perform
the activity specified or could not do it without help.
Among the findings of the study:
- Some 12.8 million people, or 7.1 percent of the
population studied, had trouble seeing words and letters in ordinary
newsprint, even with glasses or contact lenses. Approximately
1.7 million could not see words and letters at all.
- About 7.7 million people had trouble hearing a normal
conversation, and 500,000 were unable to hear such a conversation.
- Some 2.5 million people had a problem having their
speech understood by others.
- About 19.2 million people had difficulty walking
a quarter of a mile, including 8 million who reported that they
were unable to walk that far.
- Some 18.1 million people had trouble walking up
a flight of stairs without resting, and 5.2 million could not
do so on their own.
- About 18.2 million persons had trouble lifting or
carrying something as heavy as a full bag of groceries, and 17.8
million of them could not do so.
- Some 6 million individuals had trouble getting around
outside the home, and 3.6 million of them could not do so on their
own.
- Approximately 2.5 million people had trouble getting
around inside the home, and 1.2 million were unable to do so without
help.
- Some 2.1 million people had difficulty getting into
or out of bed, and 1.2 million of them could not do so on their
own.
- Of those who had trouble performing at least one
function, 21.8 million were under age 65 and 15.5 million were
65 and over. The totals for those completely unable to perform
an activity or who needed help were 6 million under age 65 and
7.5 million 65 and over.
One of the data sources employed in the development
of Toward Independence was the Digest of Data on Persons
with Disabilities, prepared by Mathematica Policy Research,
Inc. under contract to the Congressional Research Service of the
Library of Congress. The information in the Digest has been
supplemented by two reports prepared by the Human Services Research
Institute and issued by the National Institute on Disability and
Rehabilitation Research. The Summary of Data on Handicapped Children
and Youth (1985) compiles data from various sources regarding
the incidence and prevalence of disability in children.
Among the statistical highlights contained in the
report are estimates that 4.2 percent of all children under age
twenty-one have a chronic activity limitation, and that about one-fourth
of 1 percent of children under age seventeen need help in activities
such as walking, going outside, dressing, eating and using the toilet.
The Compilation of Statistical Sources on Adult Disability (1986)
provides a bibliography containing profiles of major national data
files. It is designed to serve as a reference for researchers, administrators,
and practitioners looking for statistical information on adult impairments.
The Compilation describes thirty data files, some of which contain
two or more related surveys.
Several publications have made projections regarding
the population with disabilities. These include two publications
of the Menninger Foundation, A Population Model of Working Age
Disabled Individuals (1985) and The Relationship Between
Age and Physical Disability Among Workers: Implications for the
Future (1986), and a book chapter by H.R. Vachon, III, entitled
"Inventing a Future for Individuals with Work Disabilities" (1986).
All three sources provide estimates of the size and characteristics
of the population with disabilities through the year 2000 and beyond.
Among a variety of other observations and findings, these publications
verify two major premises of Toward Independencethat disabilities
correlate with aging, and that the proportion of the population
with disabilities will increase significantly during the next several
decades.
Harris Polls
Clearly, the two Harris poll studies initiated by
the Council also made important and unique contributions to the
disability community. The idea for the first Harris poll evolved
during the initial phases of Toward Independence. Several
Council members expressed frustration at the lack of adequate data
regarding the status, needs, and opinions of Americans with disabilities.
One Council member suggested a nationwide survey of persons with
disabilities.
A short time later, working in conjunction with the
Council, the International Center for the Disabled commissioned
such a study from the well-known survey research firm of Louis Harris
and Associates. The survey, entitled "Bringing Disabled Americans
into the Mainstream," was the first major national survey to study
the attitudes and experiences of people with disabilities. As the
Harris agency correctly acknowledges:
Census Bureau and other government agencies have
measured the incidence and prevalence of disability in the general
population, and the number of disabled people in and out of the
labor force ... But no substantial nationwide survey has sought
to learn the impact of disability; what disabled people think
about being disabled; and what they think must be done to enable
them to participate fully in the life of the nation (p. i).
The Council decided that it needed to know the answers
to such questions before it could address the needs of disabled
persons and effectively set disability policy in America.
Sample
One unique aspect of the Harris poll was its use of
a nationwide random sample. Harris researchers telephoned 12,500
households to obtain 1,000 respondents who met at least one of the
definitional criteria (which will be discussed in the next section).
The sample represented non-institutionalized disabled persons aged
sixteen and over who lived in households with telephones. V%Then
a disabled person was unavailable for an interview, or unable to
be interviewed, a proxy was chosen as the respondent. About seventeen
percent of the interviews were conducted with pro2des.
Issue of Definition
Toward Independence points out that the issue
of defining disability is not simple. "Most existing studies of
the disabled population employ one of two major approaches, each
of which has its own shortcomings and limitations" (p. 3). The health
conditions approach stresses conditions or limitations which impair
health or interfere with normal functioning. This approach is best
exemplified in surveys conducted by the National Center for Health
Statistics. On the other hand, the work disability approach focuses
on factors that prevent individuals from working or limit their
ability to work. Data collected by the Social Security Administration
exemplify this type of definitional approach.
Knowing the limitations of these approaches, Harris
sought to solve the problem by using a third approach. For purposes
of the Harris survey, a person was defined as being disabled if:
- He or she had a disability or health problem that
prevented them from participating fully in work, school, or other
activities.
- He or she said that he or she had a physical disability,
a seeing, a hearing, or speech impairment, an emotional or mental
disability, or a learning disability.
- He or she considered himself or herself disabled,
or said that other people would consider him or her disabled.
(p. iii)
In a Council report on the Federal Government implications
of the Harris survey (to be published in 1988), strong support was
given to the application of this approach:
The Harris ... approach should be considered as
a starting point or conceptual model in the development by Federal
agencies of more adequate instruments and studies... In particular,
the Bureau of Census should consider the definitional approach
in the Harris survey for reformulating questions on disability
for the decennial Census...."
Numbers and Types of People with Disabilities
Another issue discussed in Toward Independence
was the number of people with disabilities in the U.S. Various estimates
place the number between twenty million and fifty million, with
thirty-five or thirty-six million being the most commonly used figures.
Based on the Harris data, it was estimated that the incidence of
disability was 15 percent and that the number of Americans aged
sixteen and over was between twenty-seven and twenty-eight million
(p. 123). Although the Harris survey did not use people under age
sixteen in the survey, it found the overall incidence for this group
to be 1.5 percent or about three million. This figure is drastically
lower than other estimates of the number of children with disabilities,
and appears to reflect an undercount. According to the Harris figures,
the disabled population is between thirty and thirty-one million.
When the number of disabled persons in institutions is considered,
along with those in households without telephones or in households
in which Telecommunication Devices for the Deaf are used exclusively,
and when the undercount of children with disabilities is considered,
the figure of thirty-five or thirty-six million is roughly validated.
Another complex question to answer, and one that
is somewhat dependent on which definitional approach is selected,
relates to the types of disabilities. Toward Independence
provided data with a variety of classifications and categories from
such sources as the National Center for Health Statistics, the National
Institute of Mental Health, and the Office of Special Education
and Rehabilitative Services.
Harris data revealed that 44 percent of respondents
stated that they had a physical disability, 13 percent had sensory
impairments (visual, hearing, speech, and/or language), 6 percent
had a mental disability (mental retardation or mental illness),
-and 32 percent had other serious health impairments (heart disease,
respiratory disease, etc.) Thirty-two percent of the Harris sample
considered themselves multiply disabled, while the remainder did
not. Finally, with regard to the severity of disability, 45 percent
considered themselves to be slightly or moderately disabled and
52 percent considered themselves to be somewhat or very severely
disabled.
Age
Based on Census data, Toward Independence confirmed
what many have observed: the incidence of disability increases dramatically
with age. Harris data showed that "58 percent of people with disabilities
were 55 years of age or older, and 71 percent were 45 or older.
In contrast, only 16 percent of disabled people were between the
ages of 16 and 34. Twelve percent were in the 35-44 age range" (p.
15).
Income
Numerous studies have confirmed the correlation between
disability and poverty. Toward Independence drew from 1980
Census figures on income levels of those with work disabilities.
Some 20.1 percent of the persons reporting a work disability had
family incomes below the poverty threshold. That figure was more
than double the 1980 Census rate of 9.1 percent for the general
population.
The Harris survey confirmed the great disparity between
the incomes of those with disabilities and those in the general
population. According to Harris, half of all disabled persons surveyed
had incomes of $15,000 or less. Among non-disabled Americans, just
over a quarter had incomes in that bracket.
Harris highlights the alarming rate of poverty among
older disabled persons. "Fully one in three (32%) of disabled persons
aged 65 and over report a household income of $7,500 or less. Six
out of ten elderly disabled persons report a household income of
$15,000 or less" (p. 23).
Poverty also correlates with severity of disability.
Using the Harris definition of disability, both those who are the
most severely disabled and those who stated that their activities
are the most limited have the lowest family incomes.
Education
The Harris poll examined the education levels of persons
with disabilities. "Forty percent of all disabled persons aged 16
and over did not finish high school. This proportion is nearly three
times higher than in the non-disabled population, where only 15%
of adults aged 18 and over have less than a high school education"
(p. 23).
Future studies are needed to determine of the impact
of the Education of All Handicapped Children Act, Public Law 94-142.
As the Harris report comments: "These data provide no measure of
the impact of the Education Act of 1975 [sic], since only a small
minority of the sample were educated since its passage" (p. 88).
Thus, at the urging of the Council, a third Harris poll surveying
parents of children with disabilities, disabled children themselves,
and educators, is being conducted and will be released in 1988 (see
also "Educating Children with Disabilities").
Statistics from the first poll on college education,
although not surprising, are also disconcerting. Only 29 percent
of disabled persons have had some college or at least a four-year
degree, compared with 48 percent of the non-disabled population.
Employment
Census figures on individuals with work disabilities
used in Toward Independence revealed that only 32 percent
of working age persons with disabilities had jobs at the time of
the 1980 Census (p. 22). Data from the first Harris poll confirmed
those figures. The chapter describing the employment status of disabled
persons was entitled "Working or Not Working: The Great Divide."
The H"s report remarks:
Not working is perhaps the truest definition of
what it means to be disabled in this country. Two-thirds of all
disabled Americans between age 16 and 64 are not working. Only
one in four work full-time, and another 10% work part-time. No
other demographic group under 65 of any size has such a small
proportion working. (p. 47)
Even though the number of persons with disabilities
not working is so large, one optimistic finding is that of the persons
with disabilities who are not working, two-thirds say that they
would like to work. As the Harris report declares, "This finding
- that most non-working persons want to work- is one of the most
important and challenging findings in the survey. The challenge
is how society can effect policies and programs which will bring
these people into the working mainstream" 50).
Barriers preventing the employment of persons with
disabilities are significant. V%Then asked by Harris to comment
on barriers respondents identified being limited by their own disabilities
or their need for medical treatment and therapy. They also mentioned
employers' attitudes, lack of appropriate jobs, insufficient education
and training, lack of accessible transportation, and lack of necessary
equipment or devices.
Based on data from the first Harris poll, and the
conclusion that the employment picture needed more in-depth study,
a second Harris poll was conducted which focused on employers' perceptions
of disabled employees. Although this second study is discussed more
fully in the Employment topic paper, a few relevant points are summarized
here to supplement the overall status of employment of persons with
disabilities.
Disabled employees received very high marks from
employers. "Overwhelming majorities of managers give disabled employees
a good or excellent rating on their overall job performance" (p.
7). The myth that the cost involved in hiring disabled people is
high was dispelled by a 75 percent majority of managers who said
that the average cost of hiring a disabled person is about the same
as the cost of employing a non-disabled person (p. 9).
Managers appear to be aware of the discrimination
faced by disabled employees. "A three-fourths majority of managers
feel that disabled people often encounter discrimination from employers"
(p. 12).
Although the study poi-trays disabled persons as
being a strong, untapped resource, it also points out that the employment
of disabled persons is not likely to increase because:
- Most managers think their company is already doing
enough to employ disabled people and should not make greater efforts
to do so.
- Most employers believe that the shortage of disabled
job applicants with appropriate qualifications is a major barrier
to their employing of more disabled people.
- Employers give the hiring of disabled people a
lower priority than the hiring of people from minority groups
and the elderly. And disabled people are the least likely to be
viewed as an excellent source of employees. (p. 16)
Harris concludes that efforts to increase the employment
of disabled people will require an increase in the number of qualified
job applicants and employers giving the hiring of disabled persons
a higher priority (p. 16).
Social Life and Leisure
The Harris survey provided important new data regarding
the limited independence of people with disabilities in regard to
social life and leisure experiences. Harris researchers included
questions on social life and leisure patterns for which they had
comparable data on the nondisabled population. They discovered a
group of people who are extremely isolated and simply do not get
out and pursue as many activities as non-disabled persons.
Over half of those surveyed said that their disability
prevents them from getting around, attending cultural or sports
events, or socializing with friends outside their home as much as
they would like. The more severely disabled the individual, the
more these statistics increase.
Almost 80 percent of very severely disabled persons
do not get around in the ways mentioned.
Harris researchers found significantly lower participation
rates among disabled persons for specific activities:
- Nearly two-thirds of all disabled Americans never
went to a movie in the past year. In the full adult population,
only 22% said that they had not gone to a movie in the past year.
- Three-fourths of all disabled persons did not see
live theater or a live music performance in the past year. Among
all adults, about 4 out of 10 had not done so.
- Two-thirds of all disabled persons never went to
a sports event in the past year, compared to 50% of all adults.
- Disabled people are three times more likely than
are non-disabled people to never eat in restaurants. Only 34 percent
of disabled people eat at a restaurant once a week or more, compared
to 58% majority of non-disabled people. (p. 3)
Traditional leisure pursuits are not the only activities
limited for disabled persons. Those social activities associated
with daily living and community life are also affected. For example,
13 percent of disabled persons never go to a grocery store, compared
to 2 percent of the general public (p. 3). Only 36 percent of disabled
persons participate actively in community, religious, volunteer
or recreational groups, as compared to 60 percent of non-disabled
persons.
Because of the isolated and nonparticipatory status
of persons with disabilities in leisure activities, it is clear
that this area is one that merits further investigation and policy
development. The complex interactions between leisure and schooling,
leisure and work, and leisure and health also need to be examined.
Emerging Political Constituency
Disabled voters have gained increasing attention from
candidates. Most recently, efforts are being made to make polling
places accessible to persons with disabilities. Of course, these
efforts have even more importance in 1988, a Presidential election
year.
The Harris researchers explored the degree to which
persons with disabilities felt a common unity. An overwhelming majority,
75 percent, of Americans with disabilities reported that they felt
some sense of common identity with other people with disabilities
(p. 110). Furthermore, the Harris report notes, "the strength of
identification varies little among disabled people of all ages,
those who have been disabled all or only part of their lives, and
among those who are moderately or severely disabled" (p. 110).
In analyzing this phenomenon, the Harris report remarks:
These results show clear signs of an emerging group
consciousness. Many other findings in the survey indicate that
most disabled person view their disability as their own problem.
But these attitudinal data suggest that the common experience
of not working and facing limitations in physical and social activities,
affects how disabled persons relate to, and perceive, other disabled
people. (p. 110)
In a Council report on the Federal policy implications
of the Harris poll, further analysis is offered: "...[Persons with
disabilities are an emerging political constituency whose views
and objectives will become an increasingly important aspect of American
politics and program administration" (p. 24).
Endorsement of Nondiscrimination Law
A central theme of Toward Independence was
the enactment of a comprehensive law requiring equal opportunity
for persons with disabilities. As an emerging political constituency,
the views of people with disabilities regarding such a law are important.
The Harris survey found strong support for legal protection against
discrimination on the basis of disability:
When it comes to how disabled persons should be
treated under the law, a near consensus emerges. Three out of
every four (75%) disabled persons believe that civil rights laws
that protect minorities against discrimination should also protect
them. (p. 112)
it is also clear from the survey that disabled Americans
strongly endorse efforts by the Federal Government to enhance the
lives of persons with disabilities. "A two-thirds majority of disabled
Americans think that federal laws passed since the late 1960's to
give better opportunities to disabled Americans have helped a great
deal or somewhat" (p. 1).
Disabled Americans are not alone in their belief
that they should be protected from discrimination by law. All four
manager groups in the second Harris poll on employment were asked
if the civil rights laws that cover minorities against discrimination
should also cover disabled persons. "Majorities of top managers,
EEO managers, line managers, and small business managers think they
should" (p. 25). Both Harris polls have demonstrated support for
equal opportunity legislation that would protect people with disabilities
from discrimination.
Equal Opportunity Laws
A major obstacle to achieving the societal goals
of equal opportunity and full participation of individuals with
disabilities is the problem of discrimination. Discrimination
consists of the unnecessary and unfair deprivation of an opportunity
because of some characteristic of a person. It is the antithesis
of equal opportunity. The severity and pervasiveness of discrimination
against people with disabilities is well-documented. (Appendix
to Toward Independence, p. A-3)
Existing nondiscrimination laws, such as Section 504
of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, are extremely important and have
engendered much progress. In an overall context, however, our Nation's
laws provide inadequate protection from discrimination for people
with disabilities. Current statutes are not comparable in their
scope of protection against discrimination to those afforded racial,
ethnic, and religious minorities and women under civil rights laws.
The National Council on the Handicapped believes
that equality of opportunity is a bedrock right in our society,
and that discrimination against people because of their disabilities
is an unacceptable denial of that right. Such discrimination is
not only an affront to the dignity of the individual involved, but
it undermines Federal programs that attempt to promote the independence
and self-sufficiency of persons with disabilities. Discrimination
is a significant reason why many people with disabilities are trapped
in situations of dependency- dependency which costs our Nation dearly,
both in lost potential productivity and in dollars spent for support
programs.
President Reagan has declared:
Our Nation's commitment to equal protection of the
laws will have little meaning if we deny such protection to those
who have not been blessed with the same physical or mental gifts
we too often take for granted. I support Federal laws prohibiting
discrimination against the handicapped, and remain determined
that such laws be vigorously enforced.
(President Reagan, 1982)
To address the problem of discrimination against
persons with disabilities, the Council has advocated comprehensive
equal opportunity protection for persons with disabilities. In the
Toward Independence topic paper on "Equal Opportunity Laws,"
the Council examined the current status of disability-related nondiscrimination
laws and identified large gaps in coverage, shortcomings and inconsistencies
in interpretation and application, and deficiencies in enforcement.
To correct these problems, the Council recommended a series of legislative
improvements. Chief among these is the enactment of a comprehensive
equal opportunity statute providing clear standards of nondiscrimination,
with broad coverage paralleling laws prohibiting discrimination
on the basis of race, sex, religion, and national origin.
There have been some significant, albeit limited,
legislative advances achieving some of the Council's equal opportunity
proposals. But the major efforts, especially regarding the enactment
of a comprehensive equal opportunity statute, have only recently
begun to gain momentum.
Recommendations from Toward Independence
In Toward Independence, the Council made ten
legislative recommendations regarding equal opportunity laws for
persons with disabilities. Five of these recommendations were directly
concerned with the enactment of a comprehensive law prohibiting
discrimination against persons with disabilities. The Council has
tentatively entitled this draft legislative proposal "The Americans
with Disabilities Act of 1988." The other five recommendations called
for additional legislative enactments and amendments to increase
legal guarantees of equal opportunity for persons with disabilities.
Comprehensive Equal Opportunity Statute
1. Congress should enact a comprehensive law requiring
equal opportunity for Individuals with disabilities, with broad
coverage and setting clear, consistent, and enforceable standards
prohibiting discrimination on the basis of handicap.
Accomplishments
The foregoing is the first legislative recommendation
in Toward Independence. Its primacy in the proposals presented
to Congress and the President reflects the Council's view that protection
from discrimination is a baseline necessity, and one that is not
being adequately addressed in the existing statutes and legal precedents.
In forums with citizens with disabilities across the Nation, the
Council has heard over and over that discrimination is the number
one problem faced by individuals with disabilities.
"Bringing Disabled Americans into the Mainstream,"
a nationwide poll conducted in 1986 by Louis Harris and Associates,
underscores the conclusion that discrimination is a problem that
people with disabilities frequently experience. Respondents identified
a variety of types of discrimination they had experienced, including
workplace discrimination, denials of life and health insurance,
denials of educational opportunities, lack of access to public buildings
and public bathrooms, the absence of accessible transportation,
and various forms of social rejection (others shying away or feeling
sorry for them). One-fourth of those interviewed said that they
personally had encountered job discrimination because of their disabilities.
Forty-seven percent of those individuals who were not employed or
employed less than full-time listed as an important reason why they
were not working that employers would not recognize that they were
capable of doing a full-time job. In a subsequent Harris poll of
employers (1987), three-fourths of managers of businesses reported
that people with disabilities "often encounter job discrimination
from employers."
The first Harris poll found great support among individuals
with disabilities for legal protection against discrimination on
the basis of disability. Its survey report declared:
When it comes to how disabled persons should be
treated under the law, a near consensus emerges. Three out of
every four (75%) disabled persons believe that civil rights laws
that protect minorities against discrimination should also protect
them. Only 17% disagree. (p 112)
Such strong support for legal protection from discrimination
corroborates the Council's priority for the enactment of a comprehensive
equal opportunity law.
While the first recommendation in Toward Independence
is a call for Congress to enact a comprehensive statute guaranteeing
equal opportunities for persons with disabilities, the second through
the fifth recommendations give more detail as to the content of
such a law. The second recommendation describes the broad scope
of statutory coverage that the proposed law should encompass. The
third recommendation proposes that the law should include a definition
of discrimination and standards for applying it. Recommendation
number four discusses enforcement mechanisms and regulations that
should be issued under the proposed law. The fifth recommendation
deals with guidelines for accessibility, and the role of the Architectural
and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board under the comprehensive
statute. All of these recommendations would be satisfied by the
enactment of a single piece of legislation- the comprehensive equal
opportunity law with the features proposed by the Council.
There have been some narrow, but significant, legislative
advances in the direction of the Council's equal opportunity initiative.
In Toward Independence, the Council noted that the Supreme
Court's decision in Atascadero State Hospital v. Scanlon
(473 U.S. 234 (1985)) recognized States' immunity from suits in
the Federal courts to enforce nondiscrimination requirements. This
situation was corrected with the enactment of the Rehabilitation
Act Amendments of 1986 (Public Law 99-506). Section 1003 of that
Act provides that States may not invoke immunity under the Eleventh
Amendment if they are charged with discrimination on the basis of
handicap in violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.
The Council also recommended the correction of certain
problems with the provisions regarding terms of office of members
of the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board
under section 502 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Toward Independence,
p. 21, and Appendix, p. A-31). The wording of the statute regarding
the appointment of succeeding members to the Board and the commencement
of the successors' appointments had led to unfilled vacancies on
the Board. The Council proposed that the terms of office provisions
of Section 502 follow the approach taken in most other governmental
boards and stipulate that members are to serve until their successors
have been appointed and are ready to serve. This correction was
made with the enactment of Section 60 1 (a) (3) of the Rehabilitation
Act Amendments of 1986 (Public Law 99-506), which amended Section
502 to change the language in accordance with the Council's recommendation.
The application of nondiscrimination requirements to airlines has
been clarified by the Air Carrier Access Act of 1986 (Public Law
99435), which prohibits discrimination on the basis of handicap
by all air carriers. (The Air Carrier Access Act is discussed more
extensively in this report in the section dealing with Transportation.)
The Council has also noted the restrictions upon
coverage of existing nondiscrimination statutes protecting people
with disabilities resulting from the -program or activity" limitation
(See, Toward Independence, Appendix, pp. A-8 and A-9). Pursuant
to decisions of the United States Supreme Court in Grove City
College v. Bell (465 U.S. 555 (1984)) and Consolidated Rail
Corporation v. Darrone (465 U.S. 624 (1984)), the prohibition
of discrimination under such statutes as Section 504 of the Rehabilitation
Act of 1973 is limited to the specific programs or activities that
are funded by Federal grant money. Under these decisions recipients
of Federal financial assistance are permitted to discriminate in
their other, non-federally-funded programs and activities.
A bill entitled "The Civil Rights Restoration Act
of 1987" (S. 557) was introduced in the 100th Congress to remove
the limitations resulting from the Grove City and Darrone
decisions. In April of 1987, the Council was asked to testify before
the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources in hearings regarding
S. 557. In its testimony, the Council reaffirmed its belief in comprehensive
equal opportunity protection for people with disabilities and stated
its view that "an absolutely necessary first step is to return the
scope of coverage of Section 504 and the other civil rights laws
to their status before the Supreme Court's ruling in the Grove
City case." The proposed Restoration Act has been approved by
the Committee on Labor and Human Resources and is currently awaiting
action on the Senate floor.
Although the statutes and pending legislation just
discussed represent significant initiatives to expand or clarify
nondiscrimination protection for persons with disabilities, they
address only a few relatively narrow issues. The Council's primary
recommendation in this area - enactment of a clear and comprehensive
statute guaranteeing equal opportunities for people with disabilities-
is now beginning to be the focus of legislative attention and support.
Just as the recommendations in Toward Independence
were a crystallization of views expressed to the Council by numerous
individuals with disabilities at the grass roots level as well as
by experts and organizational representatives, the Council sought
additional input and feedback in regard to the actual drafting of
a comprehensive equal opportunity statute. Over the past eighteen
months, the Council has engaged in numerous meetings and discussions
with members of Congress, congressional staff members, officers
of national organizations, grassroots consumers, and other interested
parties to explore the content and wording of the statutory proposal.
Based on the approach outlined in the equal opportunity recommendations
in Toward Independence, augmented by the comments and advice
received, the Council developed a draft of a comprehensive equal
opportunity proposal entitled "The Americans with Disabilities Act
of 1988."
The drafting of legislation is a developmental process
that reflects negotiation, compromise, and continuous revision;
the Council recognizes that the draft proposal presented on the
succeeding pages is not the final version. The Council believes,
however, that the draft presented herein represents a significant
step toward the introduction and eventual passage of such a statute.
The Council is confident that the "Americans with Disabilities Act"
is representative of the need for expanded nondiscrimination protection
it has heard repeatedly voiced by persons with disabilities, and
is convinced that the enactment of such a statute is one key to
increased independence and quality of life for persons with disabilities.
Consumer Leverage of U.S. Government
2. The law should direct the Federal Government to
use its leverage as a consumer of goods and services to set standards
and timelines for requiring that businesses and companies from which
it purchases or rents goods, services, or facilities shall make
such goods, services, and facilities accessible, available to, and
usable by people with disabilities on a nondiscriminatory basis.
Accomplishments
The first five recommendations in Toward Independence
concerned the enactment of the Americans with Disabilities Act and
described the elements that such a law should contain. The remaining
five legislative recommendations in regard to equal opportunity
laws involve specific concerns that can be addressed by separate
pieces of legislation or amendments.
The first of these, set out above, involves a legal
mandate to require U.S. Government agencies to use their 'consumer
clout" as purchasers and lessors of numerous types of services,
merchandise, and facilities in order to persuade businesses they
deal with to make their products and services accessible to persons
with disabilities. As proposed by the Council in Toward Independence,
this initiative pertains to a wide array of goods and services obtained
by the Government from private companies, including conference and
meeting room rentals, airline and train tickets, rental cars, hotel
rooms, and office equipment.
Congress has not yet enacted legislative directives
requiring the Federal Government to limit its purchases and rentals
to equal access companies on an across-the-board basis.
To date, the Federal Government's purchasing power
has been invoked to apply pressure for accessibility in a single
but increasingly important area- electronic equipment. In February
of 1986, as Congress was considering the amendments to the Rehabilitation
Act of 1973 that would culminate in the Rehabilitation Act Amendments
of 1986 (Public Law 99-506), the Council recommended the addition
of a new section to the Act to require that all office automation
equipment obtained by the Federal Government be accessible to and
usable by persons with disabilities. In response to this proposal,
Congress included Section 603 in the Rehabilitation Act Amendments
of 1986. This provision adds a new Section 508, entitled "Electronic
Equipment Accessibility," to the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. It
requires the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation
Research and the General Services Administration in consultation
with the electronics industry to establish "guidelines for electronic
equipment accessibility designed to insure that handicapped individuals
may use electronic office equipment with or without special peripherals."
After September 30, 1988, such guidelines are to be adopted by the
Administrator of General Services, and complied with by Government
agencies in their purchases or leases of electronic office equipment.
Section 508 represents a narrow but quite significant implementation
of the Council's recommendation that Government procurements of
services, goods, and facilities make accessibility to persons with
disabilities a condition precedent.
Discrimination in Medical Services
3. The law should apply to discrimination in medical
services.
Accomplishments
This recommendation was primarily in response to the
decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit in United States v. University Hosp., State U. of New York
(729 F.2d 144 (2d Cir. 1984)), in which the court ruled that
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 does not apply to
medical treatment. Subsequent to the publication of Toward Independence,
the United States Supreme Court had occasion to review the rationale
of the University Hospital decision in a separate case, Bowen
v. American Hospital Association (1 06 S. Ct. 2 1 01 (1986)).
The regulations regarding treatment of handicapped infants, at issue
in both cases, were ultimately struck down by the Supreme Court,
but not because Section 504 does not apply to medical services.
On the contrary, the Court expressly ruled that "handicapped infants
are entitled to 'meaningful access' to medical services provided
by hospitals, and that a hospital rule or State policy denying or
limiting such access would be subject to challenge under Section
504" (106 S. Ct. at p. 2111 (1986)). The Section 504 regulations
regarding medical treatment of handicapped infants were invalidated
because the Secretary of Health and Human Services was ruled to
have overstepped the extent of his authority to address discrimination
under Section 504 by providing overly intrusive procedures and failing
to provide adequate documentation of the problem being addressed
and of the necessity for the procedures initiated.
Currently, instances of alleged denials of medical
treatment to infants with disabilities are much more likely to be
dealt with under the Child Abuse Amendments of 1984 (Public Law
98-457) than under Section 504. These Amendments and the regulations
issued to implement them (45 C.F.R. 1340.15) provide standards regarding
the rendering of medical treatment to handicapped infants and establishing
when the failure to provide treatment constitutes child abuse or
neglect.
Because of the subsequent developments in legislation,
regulations, and case law, the objectives underlying the Council's
recommendation in regard to coverage of medical services have largely
been achieved.
Bill of Rights for Persons with Disabilities
4. An enforceable Bill of Rights for Persons with Disabilities
should be enacted.
Accomplishments
The Council's proposal of a Bill of Rights for persons
with disabilities has been the subject of some legislative advancement,
but the initiatives have not been as broad nor as forceful as the
Council recommended. The Council proposed that a Bill of Rights
be created for persons with all types of disabilities. The Council
suggested that the rights listed be patterned after the existing
Developmental Disabilities Bill of Rights and that proposed by the
Task Panel on Legal and Ethical Issues of the President's Commission
on Mental Health. A key feature of the Council's recommendation
was that such a Bill of Rights "should explicitly be made enforceable
administratively and in the Federal courts" (Toward Independence,
Appendix, p. A-57).
No Bill of Rights for the overall class of persons
with disabilities as a whole has yet been enacted. A significant
development was the passage of the Protection and Advocacy for Mentally
Ill Individuals Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-319), which contains
a "Restatement of Bill of Rights for Mental Health Patients." Reaffirming
statements of rights contained in Title V of the Mental Health Systems
Act, these provisions direct each State to review its mental health
laws and revise them if necessary. In doing so, the States are to
"take into account the recommendations of the President's Commission
on Mental Health" and a lengthy list of rights regarding conditions
of treatment and prerequisites to confinement.
The list of rights contained in this Act is very
useful and consistent with the Council's concept of a Bill of Rights.
Its primary shortcoming, however, is that the list of rights appears
to be unenforceable. The list is simply one that States are to "take
into account" as they review and revise their laws. A subsequent
provision provides that the Act "shall not be construed as establishing
any new rights for mentally ill individuals" (Section 301). The
lack of enforceability (which is also a problem with the Developmental
Disabilities Bill of Rights) makes this list of rights somewhat
less than a true Bill of Rights.
Private Right of Action Under Section 503
5. Equal opportunity obligations upon Federal contractors
and subcontractors should be made enforceable by a private right
of action.
Accomplishments
Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 places
affirmative action and nondiscrimination requirements upon Federal
contractors having contracts in excess of $2,500. The enforcement
of such requirements is assigned to the Department of Labor. The
weight of judicial precedent is that an aggrieved individual subjected
to discrimination in violation of Section 503 does not have a right
to file a lawsuit to challenge such illegal discrimination. In Toward
Independence, the Council echoed views expressed for many years
by persons with disabilities and legal commentators when it proposed
that Section 503 be made enforceable by a private right of action.
To date, Congress has not yet followed up on this proposal. A private
right of action for individuals complaining of discrimination on
the basis of handicap would be provided under the Council's proposed
comprehensive equal opportunity law.
Advocacy System and Legal Fees
6. To assure the recognition and implementation of
the rights established in this equal opportunity law, Congress should
authorize an expanded Protection and Advocacy System in each State
to protect and advocate for the rights of individuals with all types
of,disabilities, regardless of the age of onset; Congress should
authorize the awarding of reasonable attorney's fees and litigation
expenses to prevailing complainants.
Accomplishments
Significant legislative progress has occurred in regard
to the Council's recommendations of an expanded Protection and Advocacy
System and for the awarding of attorneys fees to successful litigants
in lawsuits by individuals with disabilities and their families.
The Protection and Advocacy for Mentally Ill Individuals Act of
1986 (Public Law 99-319) provides authority and funding for expanding
the responsibilities of the existing developmental disabilities
Protection and Advocacy Systems in each State to encompass protection
and advocacy of the rights of mentally ill individuals. In addition,
Section 1 12(a) of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (as amended by
Public Law 98-22 1) establishes a program of grants to the States
for the establishment and operation of "client assistance programs"
for vocational rehabilitation clients. Section 112(b) makes funding
of State vocational rehabilitation programs contingent upon the
existence of a client assistance program that "has the authority
to pursue legal, administrative, and other appropriate remedies
to ensure the protection of rights of handicapped individuals who
are receiving treatments, services, or rehabilitation under this
chapter."
The addition of the protection and advocacy systems
for mentally ill individuals and the vocational rehabilitation client
assistance programs to the previously existing protection and advocacy
systems for persons with developmental disabilities represents a
very significant expansion of advocacy services for individuals
with disabilities. Such expansion has not yet equaled the scope
of the Council's recommendation of advocacy services for persons
with all types of disabilities, but it certainly reflects vigorous
congressional action in that direction.
Attorneys fees and litigation expenses for people
with disabilities and their families who successfully prove that
they have been denied their rights would be a specific feature of
the Council's proposed comprehensive equal opportunity law for persons
with disabilities. To date there has been one major legislative
advance regarding these issues the enactment of the Handicapped
Children's Protection Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-372). This law
provides that a court "may award reasonable attorney's' fees as
part of the costs to the parents or guardian of a handicapped child
or youth who is the prevailing party" in a lawsuit brought under
the provisions of the Education of the Handicapped Act. The enactment
of this provision constitutes a critical milestone for children
with disabilities and their parents in providing them realistic
access to the expensive legal representation sometimes necessary
for contesting inappropriate special educational placements and
programs.
The
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1988
Section by Section Summary Section 1
- Short Title
Provides that the law may be cited as the Americans
with Disabilities Act of 1988.
Section 2 - Findings and Purpose
Subsection (a) presents Congressional findings about
people with disabilities, their disadvantaged status in our society,
the seriousness of discrimination against them, and the costliness
of such discrimination to our country.
Subsection (b) provides a statement of the overall
purposes of the Act centering on the establishment of a clear and
comprehensive National mandate for the elimination of discrimination
against persons with disabilities.
Section 3 - Definitions
Provides definitions of key terms used in the Act,
including "on the basis of handicap," "physical or mental impairment,"
and "reasonable accommodation." The former are defined consistently
with their definition in existing regulations under Section 504
of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The definition of "reasonable
accommodation" is drawn from Accommodating the Spectrum of Individual
Abilities, a report issued by the U. S. Commission on Civil
Rights.
Section 4 - Scope of Discrimination Prohibited
Tells what persons and agencies are prohibited from
discriminating against persons with disabilities. Provides broad
scope of coverage in line with other types of civil rights laws.
Includes, among others, the Federal Government, Federal grant recipients,
Federal contractors and licensees, employers engaged in interstate
commerce having fifteen or more employees, housing providers covered
by Federal Fair Housing laws, public accommodations, interstate
transportation companies, and State and local governments.
Section 5 - Forms of Discrimination Prohibited
Subsection (a) tells what actions constitute discrimination
prohibited by the law. These include various types of intentional
and unintentional exclusion; segregation; inferior or less effective
services, benefits, or activities; architectural, transportation,
and communication barriers; failing to make reasonable accommodations;
and discriminatory qualifications and performance standards.
Subsection (b) specifies that certain actions do
not constitute discrimination. These include unequal treatment that
is wholly unrelated to a person's disability, or is the result of
the legitimate application of qualifications and performance standards
that are necessary and related to the ability to perform or participate
in the essential components of the job or activity involved. Also
explicitly defined as not discriminatory are special programs designed
for persons with particular physical or mental impairments or classes
of impairments.
Section 6 - Discrimination in Housing
This section provides standards regarding the application
of nondiscrimination requirements in housing. The standards are
drawn from the current version of the disability portions of the
Federal Fair Housing Amendments bill in the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Their primary focus is upon accessibility in future design and construction
of housing.
Section 7 - Limitations on the Duties of Accommodation
and Barrier Removal
Subsection (a) provides that barrier removal or reasonable
accommodations are not required to be made if to do so would fundamentally
alter or threaten the e2dstence of the program, business, activity,
or facility in question.
Subsection (b) permits a reasonable period of time,
not to exceed two years, for making substantial modifications to
existing buildings and facilities in order to remove barriers. This
period may be extended up to five years through regulations governing
particular classes of buildings and facilities.
Subsection (c) provides that regulations may permit
a reasonable period of time, not to exceed ten years, for making
substantial modifications to existing platforms and stations of
mass transportation systems.
Section 8 - Regulations
Subsection (a) calls for the Architectural and Transportation
Barriers Compliance Board to issue minimum guidelines for accessibility
of buildings, facilities, vehicles, and rolling stock. Other parts
of the Section call for Federal agencies to issue regulations for
implementing and enforcing the requirements of the Act, including
the following:
- Employment
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
- Housing
Secretary of Housing & Urban Development
- Transportation
Secretary of Transportation
- Public accommodations
Secretary of Commerce
- Federal contractors and subcontractors
Secretary of Labor
- State and local governments,
and coordination
Attorney General (Department of Justice)
- Recipients of Federal financial
assistance
The agency that provides the Federal assistance
Subsection (i) provides that regulations issued under
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 shall remain in effect
unless and until superseded by regulations under this Act.
Subsection 0) provides that regulations under this
Act cannot provide less protection to persons with physical or mental
impairments, perceived impairments, or records of impairment than
under existing Section 504 regulations.
Section 9 - Enforcement
Establishes enforcement procedures for the requirements
of the Act. These include administrative remedies, a private right
of action, monetary damages, injunctive relief, attorney's fees,
and cutoffs of Federal funding.
Section 10 - Effective Date
Provides that the Act shall take effect on the date
of its enactment.
The Americans with Disabilities
Act of 1988
A Draft Bill
To establish a clear and comprehensive
prohibition of discrimination on the basis of handicap.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives
of the United States of America in Congress assembled.
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the "Americans with Disabilities
Act of 1988".
SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.
(a) Findings. - Congress finds that -
(1) some thirty-six million Americans have one or
more physical or mental disabilities, and this number is increasing
as the population as a whole is growing older;
(2) historically, society has tended to isolate and
segregate persons with disabilities, and, despite some improvements,
discrimination against persons with disabilities continues to be
a serious and pervasive social problem;
(3) discrimination against persons with disabilities
persists in such critical areas as employment, housing, public accommodations,
education, transportation, recreation, institutionalization, health
services, voting, and access to public services;
(4) every day, people with disabilities encounter
various forms of discrimination, including outright, intentional
exclusion, architectural, transportation, and communication barriers,
overprotective rules and policies, refusal to make modifications
to existing facilities and practices, exclusionary qualification
standards and criteria, segregation, and relegation to lesser services,
programs, activities, benefits, jobs, or other opportunities;
(5) census data, national polls, and other studies
have documented that people with disabilities, as a group, occupy
an inferior status in our society, and are severely disadvantaged
socially, vocationally, economically, and educationally;
(6) persons with disabilities are a discrete and
insular minority who have been saddled with restrictions and limitations,
subjected to a history of purposeful unequal treatment, and relegated
to a position of political powerlessness in our society, based upon
characteristics that are beyond the control of such persons and
resulting from stereotypic assumptions not truly indicative of the
individual ability of such persons to participate in, and contribute
to, society;
(7) the Nation's proper goals regarding persons with
disabilities are to assure equality of opportunity, full participation,
independent living, and, wherever possible, economic self-sufficiency
for such citizens; and
(8) the continuing e-3dstence of unfair and unnecessary
barriers, discrimination, and prejudice denies people with disabilities
the opportunity to compete on an equal basis and to pursue those
opportunities for which our free society is justifiably famous,
and costs the United States billions of dollars in unnecessary expenses
resulting from dependency and nonproductivity.
(b) PURPOSE. - It is the purpose of this Act-
(1) to provide a clear and comprehensive National
mandate for the elimination of discrimination against persons with
disabilities;
(2) to provide a prohibition of discrimination against
persons with disabilities parallel in scope of coverage with that
afforded in statutes prohibiting discrimination on the basis of
race, sex, national origin, and religion;
(3) to provide clear, strong, consistent, enforceable
standards addressing discrimination against persons with disabilities;
and
(4) to invoke the sweep of congressional authority,
including its power to enforce the fourteenth amendment, to regulate
commerce, and to regulate interstate transportation, in order to
address the major areas of discrimination faced day-today by people
with disabilities
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
For purposes of this Act:
(1) ON THE BASIS OF HANDICAP. - The term "on the basis
of handicap" means because of a physical or mental impairment, perceived
impairment, or record of impairment.
(2) PHYSICAL OR MENTAL IMPAIRMENT. - The term "physical
or mental impairment" means-
(A) any physiological disorder or condition, cosmetic
disfigurement, or anatomical loss affecting one or more of the following
body systems:
(i) the neurological system;
(ii) the musculoskeletal system:
(iii) the special sense organs, and respiratory organs,
including speech organs;
(iv) the cardiovascular system:
(v) the reproductive system;
(vi) the digestive and genitourinary systems;
(vii) the hemic and lymphatic systems;
(viii) the skin; and
(ix) the endocrine system; or
(B) any mental or psychological disorder, such as
mental retardation, organic brain syndrome, emotional or mental
illness, and specific learning disabilities.
(3) PERCEIVED IMPAIRMENT. - The term "perceived impairment"
means not having a physical or mental impairment as defined in paragraph
(2), but being regarded as having or treated as having a physical
or mental impairment.
(4) RECORD OF IMPAIRMENT. - The term "record of impairment"
means having a history of, or having been misclassified as having,
a mental or physical impairment.
(5) REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION. - The term "reasonable
accommodation" means providing or modifying devices, services, or
facilities, or changing standards, criteria, practices or procedures
for the the purpose of responding to the specific functional abilities
of a particular person with a physical or mental impairment in order
to provide an equal opportunity to participate effectively in a
particular program, activity, job, or other opportunity.
SEC. 4. SCOPE OF DISCRIMINATION PROHIBITED.
(a) IN GENERAL. - No person shall be subjected to
discrimination on the basis of handicap in regard to-
(1) actions, practices, and policies of the Federal
Government, any of the agencies and departments of the Federal Government,
or the United States Postal Service;
(2) actions, practices, and policies of a recipient
of Federal financial assistance;
(3) actions, practices, and policies of a Federal
contractor, subcontractor, or licensee;
(4) employer practices, employment agency practices,
labor organization practices, and training programs covered by Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964;
(5) the sale or rental of housing covered by Title
VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968;
(6) any public accommodation covered by Title II of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964;
(7) transportation services rendered by a person,
company, or agency engaged in the principal business of interstate
transportation of persons, goods. documents, or data; and,
(8) actions, practices, and policies of a State,
or agency or political subdivision of a State.
(b) CONSTRUCTION. - Nothing in this Act shall be construed
to invalidate or limit any other Federal law or any law of a State
or political subdivision of a State, or jurisdiction that provides
greater protection or rights for persons with physical or mental
impairments, perceived impairments, or records of impairment than
are afforded by this Act.
SECTION 5. FORMS OF DISCRIMINATION PROHIBITED.
(a) IN GENERAL. - Subject to the standards and procedures
established in sections 6 through 9 of this Act, the actions or
omissions described in this subsection constitute discrimination
on the basis of handicap:
(1) SERVICES, PROGRAMS, ACTIVITIES, BENEFITS. JOBS,
OR OTHER OPPORTUNITIES. -
(A) IN GENERAL. - It shall be discriminatory to subject
a person, directly or through contractual, licensing, or other arrangements,
on the basis of handicap, to any of the following:
(i) Denial of the opportunity to participate in or
benefit from a service, program, activity, benefit, job, or other
opportunity.
(ii) Affording a person an opportunity to participate
in or benefit from a service, program, activity, benefit, job, or
other opportunity that is not equal to that afforded others.
(iii) Providing a person with a service, program,
benefit, job, or other opportunity that is less effective than that
provided to others.
(iv) Providing a person with a service, program,
activity, benefit, job, or other opportunity that is different or
separate, unless such action is necessary to provide the person
with a service, program, activity, benefit, job, or other opportunity
that is as effective as that provided to others.
(v) Aiding or perpetuating discrimination by providing
significant assistance to an agency, organization, or person that
discriminates.
(vi) Denying a person the opportunity to participate
as a member of planning or advisory boards.
(vii) Otherwise limiting a person in the enjoyment
of any right, privilege, advantage, or opportunity enjoyed by others.
(B) LEVELS OF ACHIEVEMENT. - For purposes of this
section, services, programs, activities, benefits, jobs, or other
opportunities to be equally effective, are not required to produce
the identical result or level of achievement for persons with physical
and mental impairments, perceived impairments, or records of impairment,
and persons without such impairments, but such services, programs,
activities, benefits, jobs, or other opportunities shall afford
persons with such impairments an equal opportunity to obtain the
same result, to gain the same benefits, or to reach the same level
of achievement, in the most integrated setting appropriate to the
needs of the person.
(C) OPPORTUNITY TO PARTICIPATE. - Notwithstanding
the existence of separate or different programs or activities provided
in accordance with this section, a person with a physical or mental
impairment, perceived impairment, or record of impairment shall
not be denied the opportunity to participate in such programs or
activities that are not separate or different.
(D) ADMINISTRATIVE METHODS. - A person, company,
or agency may not, directly or through contractual or other arrangements,
utilize criteria or methods of administration-
(i) that have the effect of discrimination on the
basis of handicap;
(ii) that have the purpose or effect of defeating
or substantially impairing the accomplishment of the objectives
of the services, programs, activities, benefits, jobs, or other
opportunities provided with respect to persons with physical or
mental impairments, or records of impairments; or
(iii) that perpetuate the discrimination of others
who are subject to continuous administrative control or are agencies
of the same State.
(2) BARRIERS. - It shall be discriminatory-
(A) to establish or impose; or
(B) to fail or refuse to remove;
any architectural, transportation, or communication
barriers that prevent or limit the access or participation of persons
on the basis of handicap.
(3) ACCOMMODATION. - It shall be discriminatory to
fail or refuse to make a reasonable accommodation to permit an individual
with a physical or mental impairment, perceived impairment, or record
of impairment to apply, have access to, or participate in a service,
program, activity. benefit, job. or other opportunity.
(4) STANDARDS AND CRITERIA. - It shall be discriminatory
to impose or apply any qualification standards, selection criteria,
or eligibility criteria that-
(A) screen out or disadvantage an individual because
of a physical or mental impairment, perceived impairment, or record
of impairment; or
(B) disproportionately screens out or disadvantages
persons with particular types of physical or mental impairments,
perceived impairments. or record of impairments;
unless such criteria can be shown to be necessary
and substantially related to ability to perform or participate in
essential components of the particular service, program, activity,
benefit, job, or other opportunity.
(5) Relationships or Associations. - It shall be
discriminatory to exclude or otherwise deny equal services, programs,
activities, benefits, jobs, or other opportunities to a person because
of the relationship to, or association of, that person with another
person that has a physical or mental impairment, perceived impairment,
or record of impairment.
(b) ACTIONS NOT DISCRIMINATORY. - It shall not be
considered to be discrimination on the basis of handicap to exclude
or otherwise deny equal services, programs, activities, benefits,
jobs, or other opportunities to a person-
(1) for reasons wholly unrelated to the existence
of or consequences of a physical or mental impairment, perceived
impairment, or record of impairment;
(2) based on a legitimate application of qualifications
standards, selection criteria, performance standards, or eligibility
criteria that are both necessary and substantially related to the
ability to perform or participate in the essential components of
the particular job, program, activity, or opportunity, and such
performance or participation cannot be accomplished by a reasonable
accommodation.
SEC. 6. DISCRIMINATION IN HOUSING.
(a) IN GENERAL. - Notwithstanding the requirements
of section 5(a),it shall be an act of discrimination in regard to
housing-
(1) to discriminate in the sale or rental, or to
otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any buyer or renter
because of a physical or mental impairment, perceived impairment,
or record of impairment of -
(A) such buyer or renter;
(B) a person residing in or intending to reside in
such dwelling after it is so sold, rented, or made available-, or
(C) any person associated with that buyer or renter.
(2) to discriminate against any person in the terms,
conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling, or in
the provision of services or facilities in connection with such
dwelling, because of a physical or mental impairment, perceived
impairment, or record of impairment of-
(A) such person;
(B)a person residing in or intending to reside in
such dwelling after it is so sold, rented, or made available; or
(C) any person associated with such person.
(b) REMOVAL OF BARRIERS IN HOUSING. - For purposes
of subsection (a), discrimination includes-
(1) a refusal to permit, at the expense of a person
with a physical or mental impairment, perceived impairment, or record
of impairment, reasonable modifications of existing premises occupied,
or to be occupied, by such person if such modifications may be necessary
to afford such person full enjoyment of the premises;
(2) a refusal to make reasonable accommodations in
rules, policies, practices, or services, when such accommodations
may be necessary to afford such person equal opportunity to use
and enjoy a dwelling; or
(3) a failure to design and construct qualified multifamily
dwellings for first occupancy after the date that is 30 months after
the date of enactment of this Act, in such a manner that-
(A) the public and common use portions of such dwelling
are readily accessible to, and usable by, persons with physical
and mental impairments;
(B) all the doors into and within all premises within
such dwellings are sufficiently wide to allow passage by persons
in wheelchairs; and,
(C) all premises within such dwellings contain basic
universal features of adaptive design.
(c) DEFINITION. - As used in this section the term
"qualified multifamily dwellings" means-
(1) buildings consisting of two or more units if
such buildings have one or more elevators; and
(2) those units in other buildings consisting of
two or more units that are on the ground floor.
SEC. 7. LIMITATIONS ON THE DUTIES OF ACCOMMODATION
AND BARRIER REMOVAL
(a) EXISTENCE THREATENING ALTERATIONS. -
(1) IN GENERAL. - The failure or refusal to remove
architectural, transportation, and communication barriers, and to
make reasonable accommodations required under subsection 5(a) shall
not constitute an unlawful act of discrimination on the basis of
handicap if such barrier removal would fundamentally alter the essential
nature, or threaten the existence of the program, activity, business,
or facility in question.
(2) OTHER ACTION. - In the event that barrier removal
is not required because it would result in a fundamental alteration
or threaten the existence of a program, activity, business, or facility,
there shall continue to be a duty to conform to other requirements
of this Act and to take such other actions as are necessary to make
a program, activity, or service, when viewed in its entirety, readily
accessible to and usable by persons with physical and mental impairments,
perceived impairments, or records of impairments.
(b) TIME FOR ALTERATIONS. -
(1) IN GENERAL. - If substantial modifications to
existing buildings and facilities are necessary in order to remove
architectural, transportation, and communication barriers, as required
under subsection 5(a), such modifications shall, unless required
earlier by other law or regulation, be made within a reasonable
period of time, not to exceed 2 years from the date of enactment
of this Act.
(2) EXCEPTION. - Regulations promulgated pursuant
to section 8 of this Act may allow up to 5 years from the effective
date of this Act where reasonably necessary for the completion of
such modifications to particular classes of buildings and facilities.
(c) MASS TRANSPORTATION. -
(1) IN GENERAL. - If substantial modifications to
existing platforms and stations of mass transportation systems are
necessary in order to remove architectural, transportation, and
communication barriers, as required under subsection 5(a)(2) of
this Act, regulations promulgated pursuant to section 8 of this
Act may, unless required earlier by other law or regulation, allow
a reasonable period of time, in no event to exceed ten years from
the effective date of this Act, for such modifications to be made.
(2) EXCEPTION. - This subsection shall not affect
the duty of providers of transportation services to conform to other
requirements of this Act, including the requirement of removing
other types of architectural, transportation, and communication
barriers, and the application of such requirements to vehicles and
rolling stock.
SEC. 8. REGULATIONS.
(a) ARCHITECTURAL AND TRANSPORTATION BARRIERS COMPLIANCE
BOARD. - Within 6 months of the date of enactment of this Act, the
Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board shall
issue minimum guidelines, to supplement the e-3dsting Minimum Guidelines
and Requirements for Accessible Design, to establish standards for
the architectural, transportation, and communication accessibility
of buildings, facilities, vehicles, and rolling stock subject to
the requirements of this Act.
(b) ATTORNEY GENERAL. -
(1) IN GENERAL.-Within 1 year of the date of enactment
of this Act, the Attorney General shall promulgate regulations for
the implementation and enforcement of the requirements of this Act
as it applies to States and agencies and political subdivisions
of States.
(2) MINIMUM GUIDELINES. - The Attorney General of
the United States shall coordinate the timely development of regulations
required under this section and shall issue, within 6 months of
the date of enactment of this Act, minimum guidelines for the development
of such regulations.
(c) EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION. -
(1) EMPLOYER PRACTICES.-
(A) IN GENERAL. - Within 1 year of the effective
date of this Act, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission shall
promulgate regulations for the implementation and enforcement of
the requirements of this Act as it applies to employer practices.
(B) PROHIBITIONS. - The regulations promulgated under
subparagraph (A) shall prohibit discrimination in regard to job
application procedures, the hiring and discharge of employees, employee
compensation, job training, and other terms, conditions. and privileges
of employment.
(2) REQUIREMENTS. - The regulations promulgated under
subparagraph (A) shall include, for all covered employers having
fifteen or more employees, a requirement of outreach and recruitment
efforts to increase the workforce representation of individuals
with physical or mental impairments, or records of impairments,
and shall establish a process and timelines for the development,
implementation, and periodic revision of such outreach and recruitment
efforts.
(3) PREEMPLOYMENT INQUIRIES. -
(A) IN GENERAL. - The regulations promulgated under
paragraph (1)(A) shall include a requirement that employers may
not conduct a preemployment medical examination or may not make
preemployment inquiry of an applicant as to whether the person has
a physical or mental impairment, perceived impairment, or record
of impairment, or as to the nature or severity of such impairment.
(B) PERMITTED INQUIRIES. - AN EMPLOYER -
(i) may make a preemployment inquiry into the ability
of an applicant to satisfy legitimate qualifications standards,
selection criteria, performance standards, or eligibility criteria
as permitted under section 5(b)(2);
(ii) may condition an offer of employment on the
results of a medical examination conducted prior to the entrance
to duty of the applicant, if-
(I) all entering employees are subjected to such
an examination regardless of physical or mental impairment, perceived
impairment, or record of impairment: and
(II) the results of such an examination are used
only in accordance with the requirements of this section;
(iii) taking remedial action to correct the effects
of past discrimination or engaged in outreach and recruitment efforts
to increase the participation of persons with physical or mental
impairments may invite applicants for employment to indicate whether
and to what extent they have a physical or mental impairment, if-
(I) the employer states clearly on any written questionnaire
used for employment purposes, or makes clear orally if no written
questionnaire is used, that the information requested is intended
for use solely in connection with its remedial action or outreach
and recruitment activities: and
(II) the employer states clearly that the information
is being requested on a voluntary basis, that such information will
be kept confidential as provided in subparagraph (C), that refusal
to provide such information will not subject the applicant or employee
to any adverse treatment, and that such information will be used
only in accordance with the requirements of this section.
(C) CONFIDENTIALITY. - Information, as to the medical
condition or history of the applicant, obtained in accordance with
this paragraph shall be collected and maintained on separate forms
that shall be accorded the same confidentiality as medical records,
except that-
(i) supervisors and managers may be informed of restrictions
on the work or duties of persons with physical or mental impairments
and of necessary accommodations for such persons;
(ii) first aid and safety personnel may be informed,
where appropriate, if such a condition may require emergency treatment:
and
(iii) government officials investigating compliance
with this Act shall be provided relevant information on request.
(d) SECRETARY OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT. -
Within 1 year of the effective date of this Act, the Secretary of
Housing and Urban Development shall promulgate regulations for the
implementation and enforcement of the requirements of tins Act as
it applies to sellers, landlords, and other providers of housing.
(e) SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION. -
(1) IN GENERAL. - Within 1 year of the effective
date of this Act, the Secretary of Transportation shall promulgate
regulations for the implementation and enforcement of the requirements
of this Act as it applies to State and local transit systems and
to those engaged in the business of interstate transportation.
(2) STANDARDS. - The regulations promulgated under
paragraph (1) shall include standards regarding the accessibility
of vehicles and rolling stock consistent with the requirements of
paragraph (3).
(3) REQUIREMENTS. - With respect to State and local
transit systems, rail and light rail services, and bus companies,
the standards issued under paragraph (2) shall-
(A) ensure that all vehicles or rolling stock that
are purchased, leased, renovated, or otherwise placed into service
after the date of enactment of this Act shall be accessible to and
usable by persons with physical or mental impairments, including
wheelchair users:
(B) permit a reasonable period of time, not to exceed
7 years, for such transportation operators to purchase, acquire,
or modify sufficient vehicles and rolling stock so that the peak
fleet has at least 50 percent of vehicles and rolling stock that
are accessible to and usable by persons with physical or mental
impairments, including wheelchair users; and
(C) ensure that the use of paratransit and other
specialized transportation services for persons with physical or
mental impairments shall be used as a supplement to other forms
of transportation, but shall not affect the requirement that transportation
systems and services available to members of the public shall be
accessible to and usable by persons with physical or mental impairments,
including wheelchair users.
(f) SECRETARY OF COMMERCE. - Within 1 year of the
effective date of this Act, the Secretary of Commerce shall promulgate
regulations for the implementation and enforcement of the requirements
of this Act as it applies to places of public accommodation.
(g) SECRETARY OF LABOR. - Within 1 year of the effective
date of this Act, the U.S. Secretary of Labor shall promulgate regulations
for the implementation and enforcement of the requirements of this
Act as it applies to recipients of Federal contracts and subcontracts.
(h) FEDERAL AGENCIES. - In addition to the regulations
required pursuant to paragraphs (a) through (g), Federal executive
agencies shall issue, within 1 year of the date of enactment of
this Act, such additional regulations as shall be necessary to implement
and enforce the requirements of this Act as such requirements apply
to programs and activities to which such agencies provide Federal
financial assistance.
(i) REHABILITATION ACT OF 1973. - Regulations of Federal
agencies issued under section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973
shall remain in effect unless and until they are superseded by regulations
promulgated under this Act.
(j) LEVEL OF PROTECTION. - In no event shall regulations
promulgated under this Act provide less protection against discrimination
to persons with a physical or mental impairment, perceived impairment,
or record of impairment than under existing regulations for the
implementation of section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
SEC. 9. ENFORCEMENT
(a) ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS. -
(1) IN GENERAL. - Any person who believes that he
or she or any specific class of individuals is being or is about
to be subjected to discrimination on the basis of handicap in violation
of the Act, shall have the right, by himself or herself, or by a
representative, to pursue such administrative enforcement procedures
and remedies as are available in connection with the regulations
issued pursuant to Section 8 of this Act.
(2) REMEDY. - Agencies enforcing such regulations
shall have the authority to order all appropriate remedial relief,
including compliance orders, cutoff of Federal funds, rescission
of Federal licenses, monetary damages, and back pay.
(b) CIVIL ACTIONS. -
(1) RIGHT TO FILE. - Any person who believes that
he or she or any specific class of individuals is being or about
to be subjected to discrimination on the basis of handicap in violation
of this Act, shall have a right, by himself or herself, or by a
representative, to file a civil action for injunctive relief, monetary
damages, or both in a district court of the United States.
(2) ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT. - The exhaustion
of administrative enforcement procedures and remedies as contemplated
in section 9(a) shall not be a prerequisite to the filing of a civil
action under this subsection, except in regard to employer practices,
employment agency practices, labor organization practices, and training
programs, covered by paragraph 4(a)(1) of this Act, for which such
exhaustion shall be required unless-
(A) administrative enforcement procedures and remedies
as contemplated in section 9(a) are not available; or
(B) such enforcement procedures are not concluded
within 180 days after the filing of a complaint of discrimination
prohibited under this Act.
(c) ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. - In any action brought under
this section, the court shall receive the records of the administrative
proceedings, shall hear additional evidence at the request of a
party, and, basing its decision on the preponderance of the evidence,
shall grant such relief as the court deems appropriate.
(d) JURISDICTION. - The district courts of the United
States shall have jurisdiction of actions brought under this Act
without regard to the amount in controversy.
(e) IMMUNITY. - A State shall not be immune under
the Eleventh Amendment of the Constitution of the United States
from suit in Federal Court for a violation of this Act. In a suit
against a State for a violation of the requirements of this Act,
remedies (including remedies both at law and in equity) are available
for such a violation to the same extent as such remedies are available
for such a violation in a suit against any public or private entity
other than a State.
(f) ATTORNEY'S FEES. - In any action or administrative
proceeding commenced pursuant to this section, the court, or agency,
in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the
United States, a reasonable attorney's fee in addition to costs,
and the United States shall be liable for costs the same as a private
person.
(g) BURDEN OF PROOF. - In any administrative proceeding
or civil action brought under this Act, the burden of proving the
legitimacy of any qualifications standard, selection criteria, or
eligibility criteria at issue in a case, and of proving the defense
that a particular reasonable accommodation or removal of an architectural,
transportation, or communication barrier would fundamentally alter
or threaten the existence of the program, activity, business, or
facility in question, shall be on the person, agency, or entity
alleged to have committed an act of discrimination, and shall not
be on the complainant.
SEC. 10. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This Act shall become effective on the date of enactment.
Employment
Employment has consistently headed the list
of major concerns of persons with disabilities in this country.
As is true for most other Americans, a major prerequisite to economic
self-sufficiency and quality of life is a job. Employment offers
the possibility of dramatically improving an individual's lifestyle,
while at the same time resulting in tremendous financial savings
for the Government. Perhaps most important is the ability of gainful
employment to facilitate the integration of persons with disabilities
into all facets of community life. In fact, employment for persons
with disabilities is critical in determining independence. Recognizing
the seriousness of barriers to employment opportunities for persons
with disabilities, employment was selected as one of the ten areas
in the Council's report, Toward Independence.
In order to explore and fully understand the problems
of employment for persons with disabilities, the Council conducted
a series of forums throughout the United States to gather data from
consumers, parents, service providers, experts, and others. In addition
to public forums, the Council initiated two Harris polls.
The first Harris poll examined overall attitudes
and life experiences of persons with disabilities, including the
area of employment. Findings from the first Harris poll indicated
that:
Not working is perhaps the truest definition of
what it means to be disabled. Two-thirds of all disabled Americans
between the ages of 16 and 64 are not working. Only one in four
work full-time, and another 10% work part-time .... Furthermore,
unemployment among persons with disabilities as a group is a bigger
problem than among any other demographic group of working-age
Americans. (p. 47)
Another significant finding from the first Harris
poll was that 66 percent of working-age persons with disabilities,
who are not working, want to have a job. This overwhelming absence
from the labor force of people with a strong desire to work is a
tragic failure of the American dream.
Data from the first Harris poll coupled with the
importance of employment in the lives of persons with disabilities
generated a second Harris poll devoted solely to employment, "Employing
Disabled Americans."
Based on interviews with over 900 companies, the
purposes of the second survey were to determine what employers across
the country were doing to employ persons with disabilities and to
return persons with disabilities to work; what experiences employers
had had with persons with disabilities,, what barriers prevented
employers from hiring persons with disabilities; and what steps
the public and private sectors could take to increase the employment
of persons with disabilities.
A great majority of employers rated the performance
of disabled workers as "good to excellent." Another significant
finding dispelled a common myth about the cost of hiring a disabled
person: 75 percent of managers said that the cost of employing persons
with disabilities is no greater than the cost of hiring non-disabled
workers. Most employers appeared to be willing to consider the employment
of more disabled people if they are qualified.
Unfortunately, data from the survey indicated that
without some new stimulus, the employment of disabled people is
unlikely to increase significantly. Most managers thought that their
company was already doing enough to employ disabled people and should
not make greater efforts to do so. Employers gave the hiring of
disabled people a lower priority than the hiring of people from
minority groups and elderly persons. Furthermore, disabled people
are the least likely to be viewed as an excellent source of employees.
Finally, several steps that leaders in government,
business, and voluntary organizations could take to increase the
employment of persons with disabilities were suggested: increase
job training programs; make available widespread information on
qualified applicants; create programs to make employers aware of
agencies which have disabled applicants; and encourage disabled
people to apply for positions.
Data from both Harris polls regarding overcoming
barriers to employment for persons with disabilities strongly reinforce
the eight recommendations made by the Council in Toward Independence.
These recommendations addressed a variety of issues, including transition
from school to work, supported employment, private sector initiatives,
job training, and job development and placement.
During the 99th Congress, legislation was passed
that included several of the Council's major recommendations in
the areas of supported employment, transition, and tax incentives
for employers. The Council believes that these legislative changes
represent unprecedented gains in terms of expanded employment opportunities
for persons with disabilities. Additional congressional action is
still needed to implement the full range of the Council's recommendations,
including the establishment of model centers on employment and return-to-work
programs, and elimination of income eligibility requirement for
persons with disabilities under the Job Training Partnership Act.
In addition to legislative activity, the Council
has played a major role with the promulgation of regulations pursuant
to the Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1986 by holding numerous
meetings and teleconferences of consumers and service providers
to solicit input and feedback.
A detailed summary of progress toward the eight recommendations
follows.
Recommendations from Toward Independence
Transition
1. Congress should direct the Department of Education
to designate the State educational agency as the lead agency to
start, develop, and carry out the transition planning process.
2. Congress should direct the Department of Education
to strengthen regulations requiring the involvement of education
coordinators and vocational rehabilitation counselors in the transition
process.
Accomplishments
Transition is an outcome-oriented process encompassing
a broad range of experiences and services resulting in competitive
employment. In Toward Independence, the Council used the
transitional model developed by the Office of Special Education
and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS) which represents a bridge between
the security of school and the risks and opportunities of adulthood.
It is based on sound preparation in high school, adequate support
mechanisms upon leaving school, and secure opportunities and services,
as needed, in adulthood (Will, 1984). The Council believes that
a coordinated, well-planned collaborative transition process will
lead to successful employment for students with disabilities.
Although the precise Council recommendations regarding
transition were not enacted by the 99th Congress, the intent of
the recommendations was included in the Education of the Handicapped
Act 1986 Amendments (Public Law 99-457).
Title III - Discretionary Programs, Section 626,
which provides for transitional services to handicapped youths,
was amended in two ways. First, it clarifies the policy that transitional
programs can serve not only children and youth currently in school,
but also youth who have recently left school. Second, the legislation
extends transitional services to include "services provided to a
handicapped child throughout his or her years in school, not simply
during the last two or three years before he or she graduates out
of the special education system." Both of these provisions clearly
reflect the Council's conviction that transitional services need
to be improved and expanded to increase employment opportunities
for youth with disabilities.
In addition to these legislative changes, the Council
cosponsored, with the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative
Services and the President's Committee on Employment of the Handicapped,
a parent-employer conference on best practices in transitional programming.
The conference brought together parents, employers, young people
with disabilities, service providers, educators, and representatives
of Federal, State and local governments to discuss employment opportunities
and to develop strategies and guidelines that parents can use when
assisting their daughters or sons with special needs in seeking
employment. Conference proceedings, published in November 1987,
outlined strategies and guidelines developed by participants for
use by parents and employers in promoting job development, placement,
and retention.
Supported Work
3. Congress should amend the Rehabilitation Act to
add a Title expressly authorizing programs of supported work for
persons with severe disabilities who can be competitively employed
with the assistance of such a program.
Accomplishments
Defined simply, supported work refers to paid employment
for some individuals with severe disabilities who require ongoing
support and assistance in a work setting. Recognizing the increased
importance of the role of supported work in the lives of severely
disabled individuals, Congress incorporated the Council's recommendation
regarding supported work into the 1986 Rehabilitation Act Amendments
(Public Law 99-506). Furthermore, a new State Grant Program was
added, Part C of Title VI, entitled "Supported Employment Services
for Individuals with Severe Handicaps." This section establishes
supported employment as a State formula-grant program, supplementing
the Title I allocation.
Another key provision in the Rehabilitation Amendments
is the definition of "supported employment" which is compatible
with the definition used in Toward Independence.
"Supported employment" means competitive work in
integrated settings-
(A) for individuals with severe handicaps for whom
competitive employment has not traditionally occurred, or
(B) for individuals for whom competitive employment
has been interrupted or intermittent as a result of severe disability,
and, who because of their handicaps, need ongoing support services
to perform such work.
In addition to persons with developmental disabilities
and mental retardation, the definition includes transitional services
for persons with chronic mental illness and persons with physical
disabilities.
Other key changes related to supported employment
include the addition of supported employment under Title III as
an eligible funded service and the addition of supported employment
as an authorized vocational rehabilitation service and outcome under
Title I.
Establishment of supported work programs will substantially
reduce the number of severely disabled persons residing in residential
facilities and allow these individuals to become employed in competitive
work settings within the community. Supported employment programs
also will provide persons with severe disabilities an opportunity
to become independent, taxpaying citizens.
The regulations governing supported employment under
the Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1986 have been finalized and
approved. At the beginning of Fiscal Year 1988 rehabilitation agencies
in each State received funding to provide supported employment services
and programs.
Federal Support for Private Sector Initiatives
4. Congress should extend and expand the Targeted Jobs
Tax Credit Program (Deficit Reduction Act of 1984, Public Law 98-364).
Accomplishments
The Targeted Jobs Tax Credit (TJTC) Program offers
employers a credit against their tax liability for hiring individuals
from nine target groups who traditionally have had difficulty in
obtaining and holding jobs. The Targeted Jobs Tax Credit Program
has created work opportunities for persons with disabilities and
is continuing to create a favorable climate throughout the business
community for hiring persons with disabilities.
The success of incentives for employers was corroborated
in the second Harris poll: 68 percent of the managers interviewed
indicated that a government policy subsidizing the salaries of handicapped
employees for a trial period would be an effective incentive for
employers to increase the hiring of persons with disabilities.
Although the TJTC program was to expire on December
31, 1985, the Tax Reform Act of 1986, Public Law 99-514, reauthorized
the program for a three-year period, through December 31, 1988.
The same nine target groups were authorized, one of which was persons
with disabilities who are referred to employers from a State vocational
rehabilitation office or Veterans' Administration program.
Major changes in the TJTC program under the new legislation
relate to the amount of credit and retention period:
a. Amount of Credit - The credit for first year's
wages is limited to 40 percent of up to $6,000 earned, with a
maximum credit of $2,400. The tax credit for second year wages
is eliminated. Wages paid during the retention period (see b)
apply if the minimum retention requirement is met. Credit for
economically disadvantaged summer youths remains at 85 percent
of up to $3000 for a maximum credit of $2,500 for each individual.
b. Retention Period - A minimum employment period
of 9O days or l2O hours of paid employment (14 days or 20 hours
in the case of economically disadvantaged summer youth employees)
is required before the employer can claim the tax credit.
The TJTC program gives employers a financial incentive
while providing disabled job seekers an opportunity to demonstrate
their capabilities. According to a study based on FY 1985 TJTC usage,
the Committee on Employment Opportunities found a nationwide savings
in public assistance payments of $418,000,000. Tax credits such
as the Targeted Jobs Tax Credit Program are cost-beneficial by contributing
directly to a reduction in government payment to people with disabilities,
including those on Social Security (SSDI and SSI), Aid to Families
with Dependent Children (AFDC), and the cost of institutionalization.
The amount of money paid in taxes by disabled employees assisted
by this program may offset the tax credits allowed to employers.
In addition to the economic benefits which will accrue to the Nation
as a result of the Targeted Jobs Tax Credit Program, it also promotes
selfrespect and independence for persons with disabilities
Although the TJTC program was extended for three
years and made retroactive to January 1, 1986, this program was
not expanded in as broad a way as the Council recommended. Therefore,
the Council will continue to monitor this legislation and determine
the best way to effect the necessary changes.
5. Congress should make Section 190 of the Internal
Revenue Code permanent and expand it to a maximum amount of $75,000
per year.
Accomplishments
Section 190 of the Internal Revenue Code allows an
employer a tax deduction for expenses incurred in connection with
the elimination of architectural and transportation barriers for
persons with disabilities and elderly persons at the place of business.
The Tax Reform Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-514) made
Section 190 a permanent provision, as recommended by the Council.
Section 190 was made retroactive to January 1, 1986. The amount
that an employer can deduct in any taxable year remains $35,000.
Qualified expenses include only those specifically attributable
to the removal of existing barriers.
Once again, data from the Harris poll on employers
confirmed the wisdom of this legislative change. Approximately 74
percent of the managers surveyed agreed that a policy by the Government
to provide additional tax deductions for or share in the cost of
expensive accommodations would increase the employment of persons
with disabilities.
6. Congress should develop innovative and effective
incentives to promote the establishment of return-to-work programs.
Accomplishments
Most managers surveyed by the Harris agency were supportive
of and committed to the rehabilitation of employees who become disabled.
Approximately three-quarters of each of the three types of managers
surveyed responded that employers have a responsibility to rehabilitate
disabled employees. The large majority felt that the rehabilitation
of disabled employees is cost-effective.
The provision of incentives to businesses that provide
return-to-work programs would increase the return-to-work of a significant
number of persons who become disabled. However, the Council's recommendation
on return-to-work programs was not included in legislation enacted
by the 99th Congress. The Council will continue to attend to this
important recommendation.
Although these programs are relatively new, the Council
believes that return-to-work programs that involve employees in
the early stages of rehabilitation will enable a substantial number
of employees to maintain and return to employment. Incentives to
companies will encourage more employers to develop return-to-work
programs, thus reducing the number of persons with disabilities
not working. This will eventually reduce the amount of money spent
on income support programs.
Job Development and Placement
7. Congress should support the development of area
model centers on employment for persons with disabilities.
Accomplishments
Many persons with disabilities experience difficulty
in finding suitable employment. Job development and placement are
fundamental rehabilitation services to assist persons who are vocationally
handicapped by a disability to secure employment consistent with
their vocational assets and limitations. Job development is the
process of developing the appropriate job site; placement is actually
obtaining the job.
As stated previously, the findings from the first
Harris poll indicated that two-thirds of persons with disabilities
in this country who are of working age are not working. Even more
important is the fact that two-thirds of those individuals not working
want to work. Although no action has been taken on this recommendation,
the Council continues to believe that area model centers on employment
could assist in reducing the number of unemployed persons with disabilities.
Job Training
8. Congress should amend the Job Training Partnership
Act (JTPA) to eliminate the income eligibility requirement for persons
with disabilities and to increase the representation of persons
with disabilities on Private Industry Councils.
Accomplishments
The Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) authorized
job preparation and job training for people who are economically
disadvantaged and for people who face serious barriers to employment.
The JTPA also symbolizes cooperation between the public and private
sectors to achieve the shared goal of providing employment opportunities
for disabled persons. The 1986 Amendments to the JTPA were primarily
technical in nature because of the many substantial changes to the
Act in 1982, and the Council's recommendation was not incorporated.
Some changes, however, did relate to disabled persons.
A new section entitled "Projects for Special Populations," Section
456, was added. This section mandates the Secretary of Labor to
expend a portion of the discretionary funds for research, demonstration,
and pilot projects to assist groups of individuals who are not otherwise
targeted with Federal, State, or service delivery area set-asides.
Special consideration is to be given to displaced workers and persons
with disabilities. In addition, several sections of the Act emphasize
the provision of services to disabled veterans.
The Council believes that these provisions will improve
and increase the services provided to persons with disabilities
under the Job Training Partnership Act. However, the Council reaffirms
its belief that for persons with disabilities to be adequately served
by the JTPA, the income eligibility criteria must be eliminated.
The Council will continue to encourage Congress to amend this legislation
to reflect that position.
Disincentives to Work Under
Social Security Laws An overwhelming consensus
e2dsts as to the importance of work in our society; that consensus
applies to disabled and non-disabled persons alike. The previous
section on employment dealt in general with the world of work, including
the transition from school to work, supported work, private sector
initiatives, and job development, placement and training. Toward
Independence also included a section that took a closer look
at Social Security legislation and its impact on securing a job.
This section details progress toward the elimination of disincentives
in the Social Security system.
In Toward Independence, the Council explored
the extent to which income and medical benefit programs authorized
under the Social Security Act encouraged persons with disabilities
to become self-sufficient and gainfully employed. Economic benefits
provided by those programs, e.g., Social Security Supplemental Income
(SSI) and Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI), are intended
to partially compensate for the earning loss which typically accompanies
disability.
In addition to income supplements, persons with disabilities
and/ or their families may be eligible for assistance with food,
health care (Medicaid and Medicate), housing, education, training,
and employment. The tenet that underlies this form of Government
assistance is that alleviating financial stress through the provision
of disability benefits will allow persons with disabilities to focus
on recovery, rehabilitation and the eventual return to work.
However, some of the Federal programs under the Social
Security Act not only fail to promote employment and independence
for citizens with disabilities, but actually penalize and discourage
people with disabilities if they seek employment. Even though these
programs provide many people with severe disabilities the basic
life necessities, the experiences of consumers and service providers
demonstrate that some programs actually encourage dependence and
discourage gainful employment.
In order to eliminate or reduce the disincentives
to work under the Social Security Act, the Council recommended several
legislative changes. The first change relates to the existing process
for determining eligibility for Social Security benefits. The Council
believes that the eligibility determination process should be revised
to include a functional assessment of the individual's disabling
condition. Other changes include developing work incentives for
recipients of Supplemental Security Income and conducting a study
on cost-effective methods of providing health insurance to persons
with disabilities.
Legislation passed in the 99th Congress contains
several of the Council's recommendations for the removal of barriers
that discourage persons with disabilities from seeking gainful employment
under the Social Security Act. The Council believes that this legislation
will have a positive impact on the number of persons receiving SSI
and returning to work. The Council continues to believe that Congress
should revise the eligibility criteria for SSI and SSDI.
Recommendations from Toward Independence
1. Congress should amend the Social Security Act to
make eligibility for SSI and SSDI programs dependent upon the presence
of a severe medical disability and a functional assessment to determine
vocational potential whenever deemed appropriate.
Accomplishments
By definition, eligibility for SSI disability benefits
or SSDI benefits is based on the assumption that disabled beneficiaries
are unable to work. In principle, a person who is able to work should
not be entitled to disability benefits. However, disabilities obviously
cannot be categorized simply as those that prevent one from working
and those that do not.
Currently, individuals with certain medical diagnoses
are automatically considered eligible for SSI and SSDI disability
income benefits unless they have a substantial work history after
the onset of disability. Because the ability to work is dependent
upon a large number of factors and varies tremendously from one
individual to another, the eligibility process should be judged
by a thorough functional vocational assessment.
Although agreement exists that the eligibility process
needs to be improved, Congress has not yet acted on the recommendation
made by the Council. Because of the Council's commitment to this
issue, it will continue to work with the Social Security Administration
and Congress to encourage the revision of the eligibility criteria
for SSI and SSDI. The Council believes that this revision will change
the focus of disability determinations from a purely medical standard
to one that recognizes the full range of factors affecting the ability
to work.
2. Congress should amend the Social Security Act to
assure that SSI and SSDI recipients who become gainfully employed
are permitted to retain benefits and have access to medical insurance
in circumstances where the loss of such benefits would substantially
negate the income they might earn.
Accomplishments
The health insurance problems of disabled persons
are widespread. Some disabled workers are forced into income support
programs primarily because they cannot obtain private medical insurance
coverage. Persons with disabilities who are self-employed often
have great difficulty because they rarely have access to group insurance
programs. Furthermore, many small businesses that offer the low
paying jobs held by many people with disabilities have no medical
coverage at all.
Congress attempted to alleviate problems in this
area by the passage of the Employment Opportunities For Disabled
Americans Act (Public Law 99-643), which makes the temporary (demonstration)
provisions of Section 1619 (a) and (b) permanent. Passing this legislation
implemented the aforementioned Council recommendation.
Under this important program, eligibility for Supplemental
Security Income cash assistance and Medicaid is extended for persons
with disabilities who go to work and have earnings above the Substantial
Gainful Activity (SGA) indicator, currently $300 per month. Previous
barriers which consisted of the termination of the SSI cash assistance
after the trial work period and the loss of eligibility for Medicaid
have been eliminated in this new legislation.
Re-entitlement problems for persons who have fluctuating
earnings and other changes have also been addressed. Re-entry is
improved and waiting time and reexamination requirements are eliminated.
The Act also provides for persons who are reinstitutionalized for
treatment, thus bridging another gap in the SSI program for persons
with severe disabilities. As a direct result of this legislation,
more persons with disabilities, especially those with more severe
disabilities, will have the opportunity to become employed, some
for the first time.
In addition to the Employment Opportunities for Disabled
Americans Act, Congress established an Advisory Council on Disability
within the Social Security Administration to study and make recommendations
on the medical and vocational aspects of the Social Security disability
programs [Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985
(Public Law 99-272, Section 12102), enacted April 7, 1986]. In addition
to studying the areas mandated by Congress, the Advisory Council
will address work incentives and disincentives in disability programs.
A report of the findings of the Advisory Council is scheduled for
December 31, 1987. The National Council on the Handicapped looks
forward to the report's recommendations regarding the removal of
disincentives to employment for persons with disabilities.
3. Congress should direct the Health Care Financing
Administration to study and recommend cost-effective methods for
providing health insurance coverage to persons with preexisting
conditions who cannot obtain adequate health insurance coverage
from private insurers at affordable rates. The study should be conducted
in consultation with the National Council on the Handicapped, and
findings and recommendations should be reported in hearings before
Congress within two years of the date of the enactment of this provision.
Accomplishments
As was stated previously, the problems that disabled
persons have with health insurance are monumental. Access to health
insurance is certainly one key toward independent functioning. The
Council believes that further investigation into this area is essential.
A study of the type recommended by the Council on
health insurance was incorporated by Congress in the 1986 Rehabilitation
Act Amendments (Public Law 99-506, Section 303). Congress requested
the Director of the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation
Research to conduct a study on health insurance practices and policies
affecting persons with disabilities. A report on this study is to
be presented to the appropriate congressional committees by February
1, 1990.
Prevention
of Disabilities A Federal initiative to
prevent primary and secondary disabilities could substantially reduce
the costs of disability and health care for Americans, reduce Federal
spending for disability in the near future, and decrease the incidence
of disability for future generations. Research indicates that preventive
measures would reduce the number of new additions to the disabled
population. For example:
- One dollar spent on the Childhood Immunization
Program saves $10 in later medical costs (Monitoring the Health
of America's Children, 1984).
- Seventy percent seat belt use would save an estimated
9,000 lives and prevent 34,000 severe injuries or disabilities
per year (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1984).
Because it is clear that our Nation has the knowledge,
technology, and resources to mount an effective and successful national
program for the prevention of primary and secondary disabilities,
the Council has devoted concerted effort in this area, and considerable
progress has been achieved in the past two years.
The Council's recommendations regarding prevention
have three components: 1) a national plan on the prevention of disabilities;
2) a small community-based grants program; and 3) further research
on incidence and prevalence of primary and secondary disabilities.
The first component consists of the Federal Government's development
of a national plan for the prevention of disabilities. Such a plan
would focus on the major causes of primary and secondary disabilities
and how they can be prevented. Recognizing the fiscal constraints
being placed on the Federal Government today, the Council believes
that the implementation of this recommendation must not create any
new Government agency or department, but rather be built into an
already existing Federal agency.
The Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion
has issued a report, Promoting Health/Preventing Disease, which
outlines national objectives to be reached by 1990. The Council
is impressed with the report, but is concerned that the objectives
outlined focus on the prevention of mortality and not disability.
If this Office were to receive additional monies and staff, it could,
with Council involvement and oversight, develop a plan focusing
on the prevention of disabilities. The development of such a plan
would help prevent disabilities and would also gather important,
sorely needed statistical information.
The second component of the Council's prevention
plan is a small community-based grants program, which should be
administered by the Centers for Disease Control. Such a program
would allow local communities to apply for small grants to eliminate
or ameliorate one or several disabling conditions. For example,
a small community in New York State recently developed a plan to
reduce the number of persons killed or injured in traffic accidents
by educating a significant number of high school youth, as well
as others in the community. Data indicate that this program has
significantly reduced the number of traffic fatalities and injuries.
By allowing local communities to set their own priorities, this
program is likely to receive broader community involvement and support.
The third component reflects an overall need within
the disability community for valid and reliable statistical data.
Accordingly, the Council has recommended that such data be gathered
by the Office of Technology Assessment.
Recommendations from Toward Independence
1. Congress should enact a law related to prevention
entitled "The Prevention of Disabilities Act."
Accomplishments
When Toward Independence was published, the
Council believed that a separate piece of legislation was needed
on the prevention of disabilities. Since that time, however, the
Council has learned that existing legislation could accomplish the
same objectives, i.e., the development of a national plan on the
prevention of disabilities and a communitybased grants program to
demonstrate effective prevention strategies. The Public Health Service
Act contains several sections which authorize the type of prevention
activities which the Council believes must be funded.
First, Title XVII, Health Information and Health
Promotion, authorizes the activities of the Office of Disease Prevention
and Health Promotion. Senate Report 99-408, which accompanies the
Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations bill
for Fiscal Year 1987 (Public Law 99-591), contains language which
directs the Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion to
begin to consider the development of a National Plan for the Prevention
of Disabilities. Recently, the Office of Disease Prevention and
Health Promotion has convened a series meetings of several Federal
agencies involved in the prevention of disabilities. Although these
meetings have been productive, the Council believes that additional
staff and funding for the Office of Disease Prevention and Health
Promotion are necessary for the goals of the Council's prevention
initiative to reach fruition. Furthermore, the Council sees its
role as maintaining oversight responsibility for the development
of such a national plan in order to assure that the plan addresses
major issues confronting the disability community.
Title III of the Public Health Act, General Powers
and Duties of the Public Health Service, contains a number of small
grants programs which may lend themselves to the implementation
of the Council's recommendation for community-based grants to prevent
disabilities. Specifically, Section 317, Project Grants for Preventive
Health Services, could be directed toward the prevention of disabilities.
In addition, Title XVII of the Act, entitled Health
Information and Health Promotion, also contains a vehicle for a
small community-based grants program, Section 1703, entitled Community
Programs. This section authorizes many activities which could promote
the prevention of disabilities within local communities. The Centers
for Disease Control administers both of these community-based programs.
2. Congress should provide appropriate levels of funding
for special program priorities related to disability prevention.
Accomplishments
The Council has officially adopted two recommendations
for appropriate funding levels for disability prevention activities.
First, adequate funds should be appropriated to the Department of
Health and Human Services to allow the Office of Disease Prevention
and Health Promotion to develop a National Plan on the Prevention
of Disabilities. Second, the Centers for Disease Control should
be appropriated sufficient funds over the next five years to fund
community-based programs which would promote the prevention of both
primary and secondary disabilities.
The Council firmly believes that the implementation
of these recommendations could make a tremendous impact, not only
by preventing needless disabilities from occurring, but also by
assuring that persons with existing disabilities are able to live
more independent and productive lives. Over the past two years,
the Council has worked conscientiously to secure appropriations
related to prevention.
3. Congress should direct its Office of Technology
Assessment to conduct a study of the status of primary and secondary
prevention of disability in the United States, and to submit a report
of its findings two years after the issuance of the National Plan
on the Prevention of Disabilities.
Accomplishments
Before such a study of the status of primary and secondary
prevention of disabilities by the Office of Technology Assessment
can be of value, it is imperative that the Council's first two recommendations
on prevention be fully operational. The Council continues to urge
the Federal Government to initiate a national program for prevention
by coordinating Federal prevention-related programs, and believes
that when these programs become functional, an OTA study regarding
the prevention of disabilities will be of great assistance.
Transportation
In Toward Independence the Council concluded
that accessible transportation is a critical component of a national
policy that promotes the self-reliance and self-sufficiency of people
with disabilities: "People who cannot get to work or to the voting
place cannot exercise their rights and obligations as citizens"
(p. 33). According to Government data (DOT, 1978), the number of
transportation-handicapped people is 7.4 million in urban areas;
of that group 1.4 million are unable to use transit at all. Transportation
is not a problem in a vacuum- the magnitude of the problem is increased
exponentially by complex interactions between transportation and
employment, housing, independent living, education, and leisure
activities.
The 1986 Harris poll, -Bringing Disabled Americans
into the Mainstream," underscores the fact that transportation is
a major problem for persons with disabilities. A clear majority
of disabled persons state that their disability prevents them from
getting around, socializing, or going to cultural events as much
as they would like. Forty-nine percent of the respondents believe
that their mobility is limited because they "are not able to use
public transportation or because [they] can't get special transportation
or someone to give [them] a ride when [they] need one" (p. 65).
Transportation barriers not only limit social and
community life; they also severely restrict employment options,
and may explain a portion of the 66 percent of disabled persons
who are without jobs. According to the Harris survey, approximately
three out of ten people say that a lack of accessible or affordable
transportation is an important reason why they are not working.
In the Council's 1986 report, recommendations were
provided in the following areas: urban mass transit, air transportation,
intercity and interstate buses, private transportation, and research.
Without a doubt, the area in which the greatest progress has been
achieved is that of air transportation, with the passage of the
Air Carrier Access Act of 1986.
Recommendations from Toward Independence
Urban Mass Transit
1. Congress should amend Section 16 of the Urban Mass
Transit Act to require full accessibility to mass transportation
to be achieved over a realistic period of time; such amendments
should:
a. Prohibit discrimination on the basis of disability
by recipients of Federal funds under this Act.
b. Require recipients to provide a level of service
to disabled and elderly persons that is equivalent with that available
to nondisabled persons in terms of-. 1) service range, 2) transfer
frequency, 3) fare, 4) travel purpose. 5) trip decision/travel
time, 6) capacity, and 7) availability.
c. Require that all new facilities and vehicles constructed
or purchased with funds under this Act be accessible.
d. Require recipients of funds under this Act to
develop specific transition plans for achieving, within a reasonable
period of time, full access and comparable service levels. These
plans should be developed with the substantial and meaningful
involvement of disabled and elderly consumers.
e. Create a private right of action for persons who
believe they have been discriminated against by recipients of
funds under this Act.
Accomplishments
In today's highly mobile society, transportation barriers
continue to exclude many disabled persons from most forms of public
transportation. Such discrimination prevents many people from realizing
their full potential for independence and productivity. Although
the Urban Mass Transit Act of 1964, as amended, espouses a national
policy establishing a right to equal use of public transportation
for disabled and elderly persons, the legislation lacks the underlying
foundation necessary to render it enforceable. It contains no clear
mandate.
Section 16 of the law requires that -special efforts
shall be made in the planning and design of mass transportation
facilities and services so that the availability to elderly and
handicapped persons of mass transportation which they can effectively
utilize will be assured...... This language weakens the policy of
equal use by not setting a physical standard for compliance. Judicial
interpretations have found that this section creates no requirement
for a fully accessible system. The legislative history of the Act,
on the other hand, tends to support the idea that the intent of
Section 16 is to create full accessibility.
The Council proposed amendments to Section 16 that
would alleviate its weaknesses in terms of disabled persons and
attempt to fulfill its philosophical promise of a fully accessible
system of transportation. Unfortunately no action has been taken
on the proposed remedies. Instead, Congress has taken the role of
policeman by proposing legislation to reverse regulatory setbacks
imposed by the Department of Transportation.
The regulatory setbacks Congress is attempting to
reverse relate to the Department of Transportation's promulgation
of its final rule on May 23, 1986, for urban mass transportation
pursuant to Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and Section
317(c) of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982. In
a letter to the former Secretary of Transportation Elizabeth H.
Dole, the Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities remarked: "...this
rule fails to implement the principles of Section 504 and jeopardizes
the availability of desperately needed transportation for people
with disabilities."
The two most glaring problems of that final rule
are: 1) a regulatorily imposed limit of 3 percent on the amount
of funds required by a recipient of Federal financial assistance
in order to fulfill its obligations to providing services to persons
with disabilities-, and 2) the unprecedented exclusion of one category
of disabled persons, i.e. mentally disabled persons, from coverage
under the definition of disability under the regulations (unprecedented
in terms of Section 504 regulations). The regulations cover only
persons who are physically unable to use the services. In his January
29, 1987, statement for the Record, Senator Cranston concluded:
[I]t has now been nearly 17 years since Congress
proclaimed in section 16(a) of the Urban Mass Transportation Act
of 1964 that it is 'national policy that elderly and handicapped
person have the same right as others persons to utilize mass transportation
facilities and services' [I]t is still too often the case that
disabled persons lack the access to transportation services that
they need.... It is time we gave greater meaning to the Congress'
1970 declaration of handicapped rights, and we can do so in this
legislation. (p. S 1412)
Identical bills are now pending in both the Senate
and the House (S. 1077, H.R. 2887). These proposals, if enacted,
will reverse the regulations with regard to the exclusion of mentally
disabled individuals and the 3 percent cap. Also included is a provision
which was one of the Council's five recommendations made to amend
Section 16, the creation of a private right of action for persons
who believe they have been aggrieved under the Act.
If Congress passes the proposed legislation, the
two regulatory setbacks will be negated and a private right of action
will be established for the first time. However, the Council strongly
reaffirms its commitment to the other four recommended amendments,
especially the requirement that all new facilities and vehicles
constructed or purchased be accessible.
A related issue to amending UMTA is monitoring the
enforcement of the UMTA Section 504 regulations that require the
submission of transition plans describing how local transit authorities
intend to achieve compliance. The Paralyzed Veterans of America,
the Council, and the National Easter Seal Society are currently
analyzing transition plans that have been submitted to assess the
status and level of compliance as reported.
2. Congress should amend the Architectural Barriers
Act of 1968 to establish the Department of Transportation as a standardsetting
agency for the development of access standards for buildings, facilities,
and public conveyances, including ro1nng stock and aircraft, which
are designed, altered, constructed, or purchased with Federal funds
to insure that they are readily accessible and usable by disabled
and elderly persons.
The Architectural Barriers Act of 1968 establishes
four Federal agencies as standard setting- the General Services
Administration, the Department of Defense, the Department of Housing
and Urban Development, and the U.S. Postal Service. Although the
Department of Transportation sets transportation standards governing
such matters as configurations of vehicles, communication access,
and appropriate signage and safety, DOT is not allowed to establish
standards for accessible transportation. The Council continues to
believe that this situation should be remedied.
Air Transportation
3. Congress should amend the Federal Aviation Act to:
a. Prohibit discrimination on the basis of disability
by all airlines using federally assisted airports.
b. State that all airlines using federally assisted
airports are subject to the provisions of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation
Act of 1973 and regulations promulgated thereunder.
Accomplishments
At the time of the publication of Toward Independence,
only a few small air carriers that were federally subsidized were
required to be accessible. However, since that time, Congress has
responded to this inequity by enacting legislation to prohibit discrimination
in air travel. The Air Carrier Access Act of 1986, Public Law 99-435,
echoed the nondiscrimination language of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation
Act by prohibiting air carriers from discriminating against qualified
handicapped individuals in the provision of air transportation.
This law, in effect, reversed the Supreme Court decision
in the case of the Department of Transportation v. Paralyzed
Veterans of America. Specifically, the Act amends Section 404
of the Federal Aviation Act to prohibit discrimination on the basis
of handicap by all air carriers. Symbolically, the law has been
a clear message from Congress that discrimination against persons
with disabilities will not be condoned.
In a statement made to the House of Representatives,
Congressman Norman Mineta, chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee,
remarked:
The bill now before us ... will make it clear that
airlines may not discriminate against handicapped persons ....
I strongly believe that handicapped passengers are entitled to
take full advantage of the mobility afforded by air transportation
and that handicapped passengers are entitled to be treated with
dignity when they travel. (p. H 7193)
The law also directed the Department of Transportation
to promulgate regulations to implement its provisions by January
31, 1987. Recognizing the potential adversarial positions which
the regulations might evoke, and in an attempt to get those parties
together to negotiate compromises, the Department of Transportation
utilized a process referred to as "regulatory negotiation." This
process, which had been employed by the Department on three previous
occasions, was originally developed by the Administrative Conference
(47 FR 30706).
On June 10, 1987, a team led by two facilitators
from the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service convened to
establish parameters for the negotiation process. The team was composed
of 15 individuals representing the disability community, the air
travel industry, the Federal Government, and observers.
Disability interests were represented by the American
Council of the Blind, Paralyzed Veterans of America, National Federation
of the Blind, National Association of Protection and Advocacy Systems,
National Association of the Deaf/National Center for Law and the
Deaf, National Council for Independent Living and the Society for
the Advancement of Travel for the Handicapped. The Federal Government
was represented by the Department of Transportation and the Architectural
and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board. The National Council
on the Handicapped, although not asked to be part of the official
team, was encouraged to participate and voice its views on issues
of concern.
For purposes of discussion, potential problem areas
were divided into seven groups: 1) on-board accessibility, equipment,
stowage of aids, layovers, and enplaning and deplaning; 2) information
briefing and personnel training; 3) seating, dog guides, emergency
evacuations, and no segregation: 4) refusal of service, contagious
diseases, advance notice, mandatory special assistance, and limitations
on the number of handicapped persons on one flight: 5) reimbursement
and special charges: 6) contractors and security; and 7) unequal
treatment of people with disabilities not requiring accommodations
compared with treatment of non-handicapped persons.
The team decided on an ambitious schedule which included
approximately twenty-five meeting dates from June through early
November. It was agreed that small work groups would also be formed
for indepth exploration of specific topics. In addition, the committee
scheduled two days of open public hearings for September so that
any individuals or groups that felt their needs were not being heard
would have an opportunity to testify and submit materials for the
record.
At this juncture, the committee has completed the
majority of its meetings and will issue its final consensus document
on November 6, 1987. Subsequently, the Department of Transportation
will issue proposed regulations in the Federal Register.
Intercity and Interstate Buses
4. Congress should extend coverage of handicap nondiscrimination
requirements to interstate commerce, thus prohibiting such discrimination
by interstate bus companies.
Accomplishments
Bus transportation is often the sole form of public
transportation connecting people in rural areas with major cities
and towns. Because a significant number of disabled people reside
in rural areas and rely on bus transportation, the Council recommended
prohibiting discrimination by interstate bus companies.
The Council is aware of no activity with regard to
extending nondiscrimination coverage to bus companies. However,
there do appear to be increasingly more examples of bus companies
retrofitting and purchasing vehicles which are accessible.
Private Transportation
5. Congress should establish a low-interest loan program
based on income to assist disabled persons and families with disabled
children or elderly persons to purchase vehicles or to make necessary
access modifications.
Accomplishments
Private transportation provides the only means by
which many disabled persons and elderly persons can participate
fully in community life, including employment, recreation, education,
etc. Since the cost of purchasing and modifying vehicles is prohibitive
for many disabled persons and their families, such a low-interest
loan program is needed. To date, no such program has been developed.
Much effort has gone into the development of legislation
that would create a national uniform system for handicapped parking
so that persons with disabilities who require special parking arrangements
can travel freely between States. To date, the Senate has approved
such a system in S. 853, legislation authorizing the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration. The House legislation, H.R. 1442,
is still pending.
Research
6. Congress should direct the Department of Transportation
to commission a study, based upon its existing authorities and targeting
currently available funds, to assess the impact of increased access
to transportation on employment, education, and quality of life
for disabled and elderly persons.
Accomplishments
Very few reliable studies have been conducted on the
impact of accessible transportation. Most existing studies have
methodological weaknesses. Therefore, the Council believes that
Congress should direct the Department of Transportation to commission
such a study.
The study proposed by the Council for the Department
of Transportation has not been requested by Congress. However, Congress
has requested that the Architectural and Transportation Barriers
Compliance Board present a report on its activities, including transportation
barriers, by February 1988. It is anticipated that since the ATBCB
conducts research, a segment of that report will be devoted to the
status of available data and research needs in the area of transportation
barriers.
Housing In
Toward Independence, the Council described housing as "a
major prerequisite to social integration and living independently
for persons with disabilities," and noted:
The lack of appropriate housing opportunities for
individuals with disabilities frequently results in the unnecessary
and expensive institutionalization of such persons. Available
data suggest that the costs of providing appropriate housing options
for people with disabilities are well worth the investment because
of the significant savings that may be engendered by enabling
disabled people to live in the community, get jobs, and pay taxes.
Various reports of Federal agencies, disabled persons, and the
few formal studies of the subject have documented a serious shortage
of housing options for people with disabilities. (p. 37)
The legislative recommendations of the Council in
regard to housing presented direct and indirect means for increasing
the housing opportunities available to persons with disabilities.
If implemented, these would greatly enhance the quality of life
of Americans with disabilities, with a secondary effect of reducing
dependency-related costs. Some significant legislative proposals
and administrative actions have furthered the proposals made by
the Council in the area of housing. At the same time, many of the
Council's key housing recommendations have yet to receive the congressional
attention and implementation they merit.
Recommendations from Toward Independence
1. Congress should prohibit housing discrimination
against persons with disabilities on as broad a basis as race, color,
religion, sex, and national origin discrimination are prohibited
under Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968.
Accomplishments
Responding to the anomalous situation in which one
of the Nation's largest minorities- persons with disabilities- is
omitted from the coverage of Federal Fair Housing laws, the Council
proposed the expansion of housing nondiscrimination requirements
to protect individuals with disabilities. Several bills currently
before the Congress would provide to persons with disabilities protection
from housing discrimination comparable to that available to other
minorities. The proposed Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1987 (S.558
and H.R. 1 158) would amend Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of
1968 to add "handicap' to the list of prohibited types of discrimination.
Currently, Title VIII prohibits discrimination in housing on the
basis of race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. As an
alternative to amending Title VIII, the Council's comprehensive
equal opportunity proposal- "The Americans with Disabilities Act"-
would create a separate prohibition of discrimination on the basis
of handicap in housing. The housing subject to the comprehensive
nondiscrimination requirement under this proposal would be identical
to the housing covered by Title VIII.
2. Congress should require that all housing units constructed
or substantially altered with Federal financial assistance, Federal
loans, federally subsidized or insured loans, or by agencies of
the Federal Government, should be required to meet accessibility
standards.
Accomplishments
Based upon data indicating that it costs relatively
little to incorporate accessibility features into the construction
of new housing, and that accessible housing will be increasingly
needed as the Nation's population ages, the Council advocated the
broad application of housing accessibility requirements. Such requirements
would call for universally accessible housing units that can be
easily adapted to meet the needs of individuals with particular
disabilities.
Some progress has been made in expanding the application
of Federal housing accessibility requirements. In addition to the
Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards (UFAS) that had previously
created accessibility and adaptability requirements for housing
constructed by Federal agencies, similar requirements are now proposed
for recipients of Federal housing grants. Proposed regulations of
the Department of Housing and Urban Development under Section 504
of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (to be discussed in connection
with recommendation number 6) require that federally assisted housing
projects shall contain no fewer than five percent of units that
are accessible to persons with mobility impairments and no fewer
than two percent that are accessible for persons with hearing or
vision impairments.
Concepts of universal accessibility features have
also been incorporated in the proposed Fair Housing Amendments Act
and in the Council's proposed comprehensive equal opportunity law.
Based upon the Council's concern that fair housing for persons with
disabilities include, at a minimum, an accessibility requirement
for new housing construction, the Senate version of the Fair Housing
bill (S.558) was modified in the Judiciary Committee in June 1987
by a Kennedy/ Specter substitute bill. In addition to other types
of discrimination prohibited under the proposed statute, the language
of the substitute bill as adopted by the Judiciary Committee makes
it an unlawful act of discrimination to design and construct multifamily
dwellings 30 months after the date of enactment of the Act that
fail to meet the following standards:
(i) the public use and common use portions of such
dwellings are readily accessible to and usable by handicapped
persons;
(ii) all the doors into and within all premises
within such dwellings are sufficiently wide to allow passage by
persons in wheelchairs: and
(iii) all premises within such dwellings contain
basic universal features of adaptive design.
These standards apply to all the floors of buildings
having elevators and to the ground floor of buildings without elevators.
The same standards are included in the proposed "Americans with
Disabilities Act," the Council's comprehensive equal opportunity
proposal.
3. Congress should direct the Department of Housing
and Urban Development that programs to provide rent subsidies for
persons with disabilities through both Section 8 certificates and
the housing voucher program should be made permanent and given a
high priority.
Accomplishments
The Council considers both the Section 8 certificates
program and the housing voucher program to be effective means for
providing housing opportunities for persons with disabilities who
are unable to afford appropriate housing without assistance. While
Congress has not yet expressly made the voucher program a permanent
Federal program, it has continued to provide funding for expansion
of the voucher program as a demonstration project within the Section
8 program.
4. Congress should direct the Department of Housing
and Urban Development to reorganize the Section 202 program to provide
a range of housing options for persons with disabilities, and to
include a program of demonstration grants to agencies such as Independent
Living Centers to develop model housing options, including transitional
living programs, group residences, and other alternatives.
Accomplishments
The Section 202 program provides direct, long-term
Federal loans to eligible private nonprofit organizations to finance
new construction or substantial rehabilitation of rental or cooperative
housing for elderly persons or people with disabilities. At the
time Toward Independence was issued, funding for the Section
202 housing construction program was in a moratorium, and there
was some question as to whether the Section 202 program would be
continued. The Council felt that, with some modifications, the Section
202 program was a useful means for addressing the shortage of housing
construction appropriate for persons with disabilities. It recommended
continuation of the program, with changes in focus designed to increase
social integration and age appropriateness for tenants with disabilities.
The Section 202 program has been continued. In Fiscal Year 1987,
the Department of Housing and Urban Development provided some $556.7
million in loans under Section 202 to finance 12,689 rental units
for low-income elderly and disabled households. Loans were awarded
to 384 nonprofit groups in forty-three States, the District of Columbia,
Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. Approximately $122.6 million
of these funds are earmarked to finance 2,928 units for persons
with disabilities.
5. Offices responsible for disability issues should
be established within HUD's Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity Division
and within the Office of Policy Development and Research.
Accomplishments
Consistent with the Council's recommendation, a Section
504 Unit has been established within the Fair Housing and Equal
Opportunity Division of the Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD). Its mission statement is the following:
The Section 504 Unit is responsible for the implementation
and enforcement of Section 504 of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act,
as amended. The Section 504 Unit provides administrative oversight
and technical support in regard to Sections 501 and 502 of the
1973 Rehabilitation Act, the Architectural Barriers Act of 1968,
and other laws affecting disabled persons. The combined effect
of these activities will be to ensure that HUD's programs and
activities are carried out in a manner which neither discriminates
against nor has the effect of excluding participation by disabled
persons.
Although administratively created and functioning,
the Section 504 Unit has not yet been formally incorporated as a
permanent part of the HUD structure and organizational chart.
No action has been taken regarding the Council's
other recommendation for creating an office responsible for disability
issues within HUD's Office of Policy Development and Research.
6. Congress should direct HUD to issue appropriate
regulations for the implementation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation
Act of 1973.
Accomplishments
As a result of a lawsuit, Wilson v. Pierce,
(Civil No 82-288 TUC RMB (Order of June 22, 1983)), the Department
of Housing and Urban Development has been ordered to issue its Section
504 regulations on a prompt basis, and the Court is monitoring its
progress monthly. A current version of the proposed regulations,
incorporating many of the changes recommended by the Council is,
as this report goes to press, the subject of negotiations between
HUD and the Department of Justice.
7. Additional programs should be initiated to leverage
existing private sector funding and to provide incentives and financial
resources for the development of housing opportunities for people
with disabilities.
Accomplishments
The Federal tax deduction available to businesses
for the removal of architectural barriers has been made a permanent
part of the Tax Code and has been increased from $25,000 to $35,000.
Apart from this and the Section 202 program discussed previously,
little has been made available in the way of increased resources
to provide for housing opportunities for persons with disabilities.
The Department of Housing and Urban Development has contracted with
the United Cerebral Palsy Associations, Inc. to develop reports
in the area of housing for persons with disabilities. One of these
reports, issued in August 1987, focused on the feasibility and usefulness
of establishing a National Center on Housing for Persons with Disabilities.
Another, issued in April 1987, presented six case studies representing
a range of approaches to the provision of housing for persons with
disabilities; its conclusion was as follows:
While these cases represent organizations along
a continuum of public/private partnership in the development of
housing for disabled persons, it is clear that the promise of
the future is in private financing, a heavier reliance on private
providers, and an ongoing search for incentives for investors
and small community based living situations. All of the programs
considered envision expanded development of housing in the future
and there is no indication that the need for housing for disabled
persons is even close to being met. Because of the shrinking public
dollars and a future trend towards private investment, the pressure
is on to expand creative financing schemes and turn any stone
which may hide an investor incentive.
These findings underscore the importance of the Council's
proposals of additional programs to leverage existing private sector
funding and provide additional resources for housing opportunities
for persons with disabilities.
In the fall of 1987, HUD awarded a two-year grant
to the National Association of Homebuilders National Research Center
(NAHBNRC) in collaboration with the Association for Retarded Citizens
of the United States (ARC) to review financing mechanisms and accessibility
design issues in housing development for people with disabilities,
and to provide technical assistance in regard to such financing
and design issues.
8. HUD and the private sector should be encouraged
to develop training grants, supplemental teaching positions, awards,
and other innovative programs for promoting architectural planning
that incorporates the concept of universal accessibility.
Accomplishments
The Council is not aware of any major Federal training
grants focusing specifically on accessibility in architectural design,
although several schools of architecture in various parts of the
country have made courses on accessibility a mandatory part of their
curriculums.
One of the major undertakings of the HUD-funded grant
project (NAHBNRC/ARC) discussed previously is to provide technical
assistance in regard to accessible design.
Community-Based
Services for Independent Living In 1983,
the Council in its National Policy for Persons with Disabilities
defined independent living as "control over one's life based on
the choice of acceptable options that minimize reliance on others
in making decisions and in performing everyday activities." The
independence defined here implies an optimally responsible and productive
exercise of the power of choice. It implies that each disabled person,
regardless of his or her mental or physical ability, should be encouraged
and assisted to achieve maximum levels of quality of life, independence,
and productivity in the least restrictive environment and with due
respect for cultural or subcultural affiliation.
According to the Research and Training Center on
Independent Living (ILRU) in Houston, Texas: "Independent living
centers are operated primarily by people with disabilities who have
been successful in establishing independent lives. Centers offer
a wide variety of services, including: information and referral;
independent living skills training; peer counseling; advocacy; and
others." ILRU estimates that there are approximately 150 independent
living centers and over 320 independent living programs in this
country. In 1984, according to the Rehabilitation Services Administration,
86 grants were awarded to 160 independent living projects throughout
the country. In 1987, 136 grants were awarded to 170 independent
living projects. The increase in independent living centers and
programs is indicative of their increasing importance in the lives
of persons with disabilities.
Recommendations from Toward Independence
1. Congress should require the agency in each State
designated to administer Title VII, Part A of the Rehabilitation
Act to allocate no less than 50% of available funds to purchase
services from independent living centers that meet the standards
approved by the National Council on the Handicapped. No more than
10% of available funds should be used for administrative purposes.
The remaining funds should be used at the discretion of the administering
agency in any way that assists people with severe disabilities to
achieve independence and productivity in their communities.
Accomplishments
According to Senate Conference Report (99-388), which
accompanied the Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1986, the Congress
has been impressed with the overall accomplishments of independent
living programs. Several additions were made to the Rehabilitation
Act Amendments of 1986 to strengthen the philosophical integrity
of the independent living program. The basic principles of consumer
involvement and consumer control, which are fundamental to the concept
of independent living, were stressed.
In Toward Independence, the Council recommended
that funding for Part A be continued as a means of ensuring that
community-based services are made available to persons with severe
disabilities. The Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1986 retained
this provision. The 1986 Amendments also mandated the establishment
of State Independent Living Councils which would serve three purposes:
1) provide guidance for the development and expansion
of independent living programs and concepts on a statewide basis;
2) provide guidance to State agencies and to local
planning and administrative entities assisted under the Rehabilitation
Act; and
3) prepare and submit to a designated State agency
a five-year plan addressing the long-term goals and recommendations
for the need for independent living services and programs within
the State.
The Council views the establishment of State Independent
Living Councils as a positive step in strengthening the independent
living movement and in enabling persons with disabilities to live
and work more productively in their communities.
2. Congress should provide core funding under Title
VII, Part B of the Rehabilitation Act for independent living centers
that meet the standards approved by the National Council on the
Handicapped. Such centers should be allowed to apply and compete
for this funding on an equal basis with State vocational rehabilitation
agencies.
Accomplishments
The Congress has reaffirmed the importance of the
standards established by the Council in 1985 for independent living
centers. In Senate Report 99-388, the Congress indicated that the
appropriate Federal role with respect to independent living centers
is to ensure the provision of a foundation of support for these
independent living centers that will enable them to attract additional
public and private support at Federal, State and local levels. Continued
funding for centers operating according to prescribed standards
and principles of good business assures that these centers will
be able to attract the additional support required to expand programs
to meet the needs of all severely disabled people in the communities
which they serve.
The evaluation standards for independent living services
developed by the Council have been endorsed by the Rehabilitation
Services Administration. RSA is currently organizing an advisory
group to develop measurable criteria based on the Council standards.
These criteria are expected to be published in the Federal Register
in July 1988.
3. Congress should require the Health Care Financing
Administration to study the institutional bias within its programs
for persons with disabilities and to develop appropriate measures
for eliminating such biases. The criteria should be developed in
consultation with the National Council on the Handicapped and be
reported in hearings before Congress within one year from the date
of enactment of this requirement.
Accomplishments
An extraordinary amount of the Medicaid funds administered
by the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) is spent on nursing
homes and other long-term institutions that primarily provide custodial
maintenance for disabled individuals. The Council believes that
strictly maintenance-oriented institutional programming is indefensible
and unnecessary. Wherever possible, institutions should be transitional
and foster independence. The majority of available funding should
be directed toward assisting all individuals with severe disabilities
to achieve self-direction and independence to the maximum extent
possible, in the most dignified and least restrictive environment.
The Council continues to cooperate with HCFA to develop
criteria to determine to what extent Medicaid and other programs
administered by the HCFA promote community-based services and discourage
placements in institutions. Steady progress in this area is expected
as independent living concepts gain acceptance.
4. Congress should amend the Internal Revenue Code
to establish a tax credit for taxpayers with disabilities who incur
unreimbursed expenses directly related to independent moving, employment,
and efforts to secure employment, including personal assistant services,
special transportation, assistive devices, and other support services.
Accomplishments
The number of tax deductions allowable under the medical
category continues to grow. Recently enacted tax legislation, for
example, permits a disabled employee to deduct the full cost of
attendant services and other services necessary to enable the employee
to work. Capital expenditures to accommodate a personal residence
now also constitute medical expenses eligible for deductions. However,
regulations governing many non-medical, disability-related services
remain unclear and impose unfair restrictions on disabled persons.
The Council intends to continue its efforts to clarify tax legislation
and regulations and to include services that enable individuals
with disabilities to engage in productive activity.
Educating Children
With Disabilities Few would argue with
the premise that education is a key to success in our society. The
same holds true for children with disabilities- education helps
disabled children develop the skills they need to live as independently
as possible when they reach adulthood.
In Toward Independence, the Council placed
education of children with disabilities among its ten priorities.
The Council has heard about needs and issues related to the education
of children with disabilities from hundreds of parents, disabled
persons, and service providers from around the country. Moreover,
this issue is close to the hearts of many Council members either
because they are parents of children with disabilities or because
they, as disabled persons, vividly remember their own educational
difficulties.
Although special educational services have progressed
greatly in the twelve years since the passage of Public Law 94-142,
the full promise of the mandate has not yet been fulfilled. The
Council made four recommendations relating to the education of disabled
children.
The first two recommendations are related directly
to the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EHA). The Council
believed that the Act should be amended to extend the mandate to
birth. The Education of the Handicapped Act Amendments of 1986 extend
the mandate. The recently enacted legislation creates an Early Intervention
Program to serve disabled infants from birth through age two. In
addition, the legislation included significant improvements in services
which are provided for three- to five-year-old children with disabilities.
The second recommendation relates to one of the central
principles of the EHA- the least restrictive environment (LRE).
The Council identified LRE as an issue that requires standards for
clarification. To help in this process the Council developed a draft
policy statement on least restrictive environment.
The last two recommendations have national significance.
One suggests the development of a national technical assistance
center to help parents and State and local education agencies plan
and develop educational options for children with special needs.
The other calls for the establishment of a National Commission for
the Study of Excellence in Special Education.
One final activity not mentioned in Toward Independence
is the Council's initiation of a third Louis Harris poll that will
survey parents, educators, and children with disabilities to more
closely examine the status of education for children with disabilities
in this country. The results of the poll will be of immense value
to the Council, the Congress, and others in the development of the
best educational policy to meet the needs of disabled children and
youth.
Recommendations from Toward Independence
1. Congress should amend the Education for All Handicapped
Children Act to encourage States to make available a free appropriate
public education to every disabled child from birth through age
twenty-one.
Accomplishments
Young children with disabilities are particularly
vulnerable. Research indicates that early intervention services
greatly enhance the developmental and educational potential of these
youngsters. Furthermore, the provision of early intervention services
which benefit children and their parents result in significant tax
savings in the long run because of reduced special education expenditures
in later years.
Public Law 99-457, the Education of the Handicapped
Act Amendments of 1986, enacted into law on October 10, 1986, extends
services to children from birth to age three, significantly expands
services to preschoolers ages three to five, and contains a number
of important provisions regarding the education of children with
disabilities.
The new legislation, a result of the combined efforts
of the Council and many parents and advocacy groups, creates a program
which will provide enhanced services to infants and toddlers with
disabilities and their families. A State-wide system which will
provide comprehensive services to these young children and their
parents is an essential ingredient of the new program. Through the
development of an Individualized Family Service Plan, each child
will receive a multi-disciplinary assessment which will identify
his or her unique needs and assure that appropriate services are
delivered. Additionally, States may choose to serve those children
who are 'at risk- in developing a disability.
Another provision of the new law addresses concerns
raised in Toward Independence regarding the lack of coordination
of funds for services rendered to young disabled children. The major
thrust of this payor of last resort- provision is that monies provided
for this program may not be used to pay for services which would
have been provided through another public or private source.
The Amendments also made significant improvements
in services which are provided to three- to five-year-old children.
This new mandate effectively extends the mandate of Public Law 94-142,
the Education for All Handicapped Children Act, to serve all disabled
children at three years of age by 199 1. The Amendments repeal the
existing Preschool Incentive Grant program but increase the financial
incentives for serving disabled preschoolers. By school year 1990-199
1, if appropriations are made at the authorized levels contained
in the Amendments, States will be required to serve all disabled
children aged three to five. EHA funds for preschoolers, including
incentive grants and discretionary funds, will be withheld from
States not in compliance with the service mandate.
Finally, the new law adds several other provisions
designed to assure that children and youth with disabilities receive
appropriate educational and related services.
2. Congress should direct the Department of Education
to promulgate and enforce standards for the application of the least
restrictive environment requirement; such standards should clarify
that the primary determinant of which educational setting is least
restrictive is the educational appropriateness of the program.
Accomplishments
The least restrictive environment mandate is a major
component of the right to a free appropriate public education for
children with disabilities. The principle has not, however, always
been appropriately applied by State and local education agencies.
In some instances, least restrictive environment has not been vigorously
applied and children with disabilities continue to be unnecessarily
segregated. Additional guidance and clarification should be provided
so that this principle can be realized.
In order to address the multiple issues which are
involved in educating youngsters with disabilities in the LRE, the
Council has adopted a draft policy statement with a broad-based,
comprehensive approach. Issues discussed in the draft document include
the need for monitoring and data collection on LRE; the parental
role in LRE; technical assistance to State and local education agencies;
and personnel development and funding issues. The Council believes
that these and other issues must be thoughtfully considered if the
vision of educating children in the least restrictive environment
is to be fully realized.
A Council task force will be convened within the
next few months to finalize the policy statement on LRE. After this
has been completed the full Council will consider this policy for
adoption and dissemination.
3. Congress should direct the Office of Special Education
Programs to fund a national technical assistance center to help
parents and State and local education agencies plan and develop
educational options for children with special needs.
Accomplishments
The Council has long recognized the need for greater
emphasis on the provision of services to parents of children with
disabilities. Many gaps e2dst in the provision of information and
referral sources for parents. The feasibility of a centralized information-based
system with nationwide access is being considered.
In its special report on the Education for All Handicapped
Children Act, the Council provided testimony to Congress on the
need for a national technical assistance center. Senator Paul Simon
further explored this concept with Chairperson Parrino during the
hearing. The Council will continue to advocate the establishment
of a parental assistance system.
4. Congress should direct the Secretary of Education
and the Chairperson of the National Council on the Handicapped to
establish a National Commission for the Study of Excellence in Special
Education.
Accomplishments
The Council has been impressed with the variety of
new and innovative approaches adopted in special education programs.
Called "best practices," they include team and shared teaching,
itinerant teachers and resource persons working with the regular
educator, and physical, speech and occupational therapists working
with classroom teachers to "transfer" their professional knowledge
from isolated settings into the regular education environment. These
practices reinforce the Council's belief that a comprehensive approach
to personnel development will enhance the collaborative efforts
among all professionals involved in the education of children with
disabilities.
While members of the Council are excited about new
techniques emerging in the education of children with disabilities,
it is nonetheless disturbing that so much remains to be done. In
1982, the Commission on Excellence in Education issued a report
titled A Nation at Risk, which cited many problems faced
by the American educational system. The report, however, did not
attempt to address the special needs of students with disabilities
and their families. Therefore, the Council believes that this unmet
need must be fulfilled. Moreover, twelve years have passed since
the enactment of Public Law 94-142, and the Council sees value in
assessing the progress of the implementation of the law to date.
Therefore, the Council recommends the establishment of a National
Commission on the Study of Excellence in Special Education. Such
a commission would evaluate the progress and recommend future directions
geared toward enhancing the education of children with disabilities.
Personal
Assistance: Attendant Services, Readers, and Interpreters
Personal assistance is one key to independence for
thousands of Americans with disabilities. Without question, personal
assistance by readers, interpreters, and advocates is one of the
single most important unmet needs for disabled persons.
According to Toward Independence, personal
assistance, as rendered by attendants who assist with routine activities
of daily living, when provided in conjunction with other community-based
services, can be an effective and economical means for reducing
the Nation's reliance on institutions. Effective and efficient personal
assistance services can enable most persons with disabilities to
live independently in settings of their choice. The goal should
be to establish personal assistance services, self-directed when
feasible, as one component of a comprehensive array of community-based
services that should be available to people with disabilities. In
order for an acceptable system to be developed, many complex funding,
policy, and legislative issues must be addressed.
While some progress has been made at the Federal,
State, and local levels toward providing personal assistance services,
the stark reality is that for most disabled Americans, these services
are, at best, difficult to acquire. And for most these services
are unavailable, leaving countless disabled persons to live lives
of dependency. This situation often puts an untoward burden on families
and friends, or means that the disabled person must reside unnecessarily
in an institution or nursing home.
The World Institute on Disability (WID), an internationally
known organization comprised primarily of disabled consumers, has
recently released a study entitled, "Attending to America." That
study further underscores the critical need for attendant services
in this country.
The Council has sought input regarding attendant
services from WID, the National Council on Independent Living, and
many other organizations and individuals. In addition, because the
Council places such a high priority on personal assistance, it has
brought together experts from the disability community to form a
task force on this issue to develop recommendations for a comprehensive
legislative agenda. A legislative workplan is currently being developed
which recommends amendments to legislation, and includes proposals
to fill service gaps in developing coordination of personal assistance
services.
The Council reaffirms its commitment to the development
of a national policy on personal assistance for all persons with
disabilities and to the connection between such a policy and the
goal of independence for persons with disabilities.
Recommendations from Toward Independence
1. Congress should establish a national policy that
defines personal assistance and should require the development of
national standards for the delivery of personal assistance services.
Accomplishments
As the Council examined the development of a national
policy on personal assistance services, one fact was clear: this
is a complex policy matter, one that requires careful thought and
deliberation. First, while there are some programs currently funded
through the Federal Government, eligibility requirements often limit
these services based on age or income. Second, even when these services
are funded, they are often on a time-limited basis. For example,
someone who has recently been discharged from a hospital might only
have attendant services available during the recovery period, even
though that individual might need more extensive services. Finally,
these services are generally rendered through a "medical model"
which does not usually promote optimum independence or choice for
individuals with disabilities. These and many other factors enter
into the development of a comprehensive public policy on personal
assistance services for persons with disabilities.
Some of the options discussed by the Council include:
amendments to Medicaid and/or Medicate to mandate personal assistance
services for persons with disabilities; amendments to Title II of
the Social Security Act (SSDI) to allow attendant services; and
amendments to Medicate to also increase the availability of these
services.
Additionally, the Council has initiated tracking
of major legislative options. Although there is no broad Federal
policy regarding personal assistance services, scattered Federal
attempts to provide these services can be found under Medicaid;
Title XX, Social Service Block Grants: the Older Americans Act,
Title III; and State initiatives. Because of the wide range of government
agencies involved, as well as the wide range of age groups and disability
populations needing personal assistance services, the process of
developing personal assistance program legislation is exceptionally
complicated. Overcoming these obstacles necessitates a proposal
that fills in the gaps regarding
populations or services not included in other legislation.
In addition to establishing a Council task force
for the development of a legislative package for a national personal
assistance program, the Council has consulted with leaders in the
field and many organizations throughout the country, including the
World Rehabilitation Fund, the National Council on Independent Living,
and the World Institute on Disability. A legislative workplan is
currently being developed, and future task force meetings are expected
to provide results which will reflect enhanced coordination of personal
assistance services.
Although the number of qualified interpreters for
people who are deaf has expanded in recent years, the demand for
competent interpreters far exceeds availability. Section 315 of
the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, authorizes the Commissioner
of the Rehabilitation Services Administration to award grants to
States for the establishment of interpreter service programs. This
section includes a requirement that interpreters participating in
such programs meet minimum standards. Because Section 315 has not
been funded by the Congress, no interpreter standards have been
established. However, the Arkansas Research and Training Center
on Deafness and Hearing Impairment is currently conducting a national
survey from which specific recommendations can be developed regarding
needed interpreter competencies. The study, which has surveyed professional
interpreter trainers, vocational rehabilitation counselors, deaf
consumers, providers of interpreter services, and others in the
field of deafness, is expected to be completed by September 1988.
2. Congress should require the Social Security Administration
(SSA), in consultation with the National Council on the Handicapped,
to implement a series of projects, using SSA demonstration authority
and targeting currently available funds, to develop and demonstrate
a cost-effective process and mechanisms for the support of community-based
personal assistance services for persons with severe disabilities.
Accomplishments
As progress is achieved in the development of a workplan
on personal assistance policy, it is anticipated that cooperative
negotiations between SSA and the Council will yield detailed steps
for the effective provision of personal assistance services. The
Council believes that a more centralized process of providing personal
assistance services can be developed with the assistance of SSA
subsequent to the completion of the task force workplan. The Council
remains confident that the SSA is sensitive to the need for increased
community-based personal assistance programs and that future funding
priorities will reflect this commitment.
Coordination In
addition to the recommended legislative changes in each of the nine
substantive areas, the need for coordination of services, programs,
and funding is also critical. "Coordinated services" describes the
ideal results of a wide range of interactions among persons active
in policy and program development. Although these interactions take
place every day, their purpose, frequency, and effectiveness vary
greatly from program to program, community to community, and State
to State. Many instances of gaps in services, as well as duplicative
services, are evident across the country. Coordinated efforts could
resolve some of these problems.
The Council advocates frequent interaction at the
national level of all parties involved in policy decisions that
affect services to people with disabilities. To that end, the Council
has maintained its information base with consumer organizations
around the country while strengthening interaction on coordination
with national, State and local policy makers, disability organizations,
Congress, and the Administration.
Several examples of coordinated efforts in disability
policy stand out, but activities in the area of prevention best
exemplify the advantages of a coordinated approach. In conjunction
with the Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, a series
of meetings of various Federal agencies were convened which focused
on the prevention of disability.
Another example entails coordination with the Department
of Transportation in the development of regulations pursuant to
the Air Carrier Access Act of 1986. Known as "regulatory negotiation,"
this process involves a team of individuals representing different
areas of concern, ranging from a particular disability, such as
blindness or mobility impairments, to a sector of the air transportation
industry, such as airport operators or flight attendants.
The Council also has supported coordination efforts
by cosponsoring a conference with the Office of Special Education
and Rehabilitative Services and by submitting congressional testimony
advocating coordination of services to very young children with
disabilities.
Recommendation from Toward Independence
1. Congress should require State and local agencies
that receive Federal funds for services for people with disabilities
to participate in the development of coordinated service delivery
plans.
Accomplishments
During the past few years, the Council has actively
engaged in efforts that have fostered coordination at the Federal,
State and local levels. Examples of these efforts include the establishment
of a Federal ad hoc group on prevention, participation in the regulatory
negotiation process for the Air Carrier Access Act of 1986, cosponsorship
of a conference with the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative
Services, and recommendations in testimony for the Education of
the Handicapped Act Amendments of 1986.
One of the most significant contributions at the
Federal level is the ad hoc group which the Council convened in
conjunction with the Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion.
Comprised of fifteen Federal agencies, the committee meets bimonthly
to promote the coordination of services for the prevention of disabilities.
Representatives on the committee include the Council, the Administration
on Developmental Disabilities, the Rehabilitation Services Administration,
the President's Committee on Mental Retardation, the Centers for
Disease Control, the Maternal and Child Health Program, and the
National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research. The
committee has two functions: one, to exchange information and coordinate
efforts among these agencies on the prevention of disability; and
two, to develop a national plan on the prevention of both primary
and secondary disabilities. The national plan will be the first
of its kind and will greatly enhance coordination efforts around
the country. (see also "Prevention of Disabilities')
Another example of coordination at the Federal level
is one in which the Council has been an observer and supporter in
the Department of Transportation's "regulatory negotiation" process
to develop regulations pursuant to the Air Carrier Access Act of
1986. This process involves a team of fifteen individuals, each
representing a different area of concern, ranging from a particular
disability, such as blindness or mobility impairments, to a sector
of the air transportation industry, such as the airport operators
or flight attendants. The intent of the process is to create a forum
in which divergent views can be aired and a consensus can emerge.
In November 1987, after a series of twenty-five meetings, a report
detailing areas of agreement and disagreement will be submitted
to the Department of Transportation so that a proposed rule can
be published in the Federal Register for public comment. (see also
"Transportation")
In March 1987, the Council cosponsored a conference
with the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services
and the President's Committee on Employment of the Handicapped regarding
the transition of disabled youth from school to work settings. This
conference was unique in that it brought together disabled youth,
parents, employers, and rehabilitation professionals to discuss
problems faced by disabled Americans leaving school and seeking
their rightful place in the work force. (see also "Employment")
Finally, the Council's commitment to the coordination
of services also has been demonstrated in its written testimony
on August 12, 1986, to the House Subcommittee on Select Education
regarding the Education of the Handicapped Act Amendments of 1986.
In that testimony, the Council supported the creation of Early Intervention
Councils to assure that services to very young children with disabilities
are adequately coordinated.
In testimony submitted to the Senate Subcommittee
on the Handicapped in April 1987 regarding the Developmental Disabilities
Act, the Council reinforced the coordinated approach taken by the
Development Disabilities State Councils. Furthermore, the Council
emphasized that Federal programs must maintain a certain degree
of flexibility so that they can be coordinated with other programs
to meet the unique needs of State and local communities.
The Council is also exploring the work of the Advisory
Council on Intergovernmental Relations to identify data being gathered
regarding coordination efforts at the State and local levels.
Biographies
of Members of the National Council on the Handicapped Sandra
Swift Parrino
Sandra Swift Parrino, of Briarcliff Manor, New York,
was appointed Chairperson of the National Council on the Handicapped
in 1983 by President Reagan. She has been actively involved in issues
concerning disabled people for many years. Her 22-yearold son, Paul,
has been severely disabled for most of his life. She is best known
as a spokesperson for parents of disabled children and as a panelist,
lecturer, lobbyist, and organization official.
Mrs. Parrino serves on numerous boards and councils.
She has been director of the Office of the Disabled in Ossining
and Briarcliff Manor, New York; she has served on the board of Westchester
County Homes for the Retarded; and she is a member of the New York
State Assembly Task Force on the Disabled, which reviews pending
legislation in the State of New York. Through her efforts, many
local advances have been made to improve accessibility for disabled
people, such as setting up transportation services and installing
voting machines for disabled persons, fund-raising to provide interpreter
services for deaf people, and supervision of the school district's
compliance with Federal regulations. Mrs. Parrino has been instrumental
in the inception of the Council's comprehensive equal opportunity
proposal which promotes independence and equality for people with
disabilities.
Mrs. Parrino is also a member of the board of Parent
Chain, and has served as an American Representative to the United
Nations and UNICEF for the International Year of Disabled Persons.
She is currently the North American vice president of Rehabilitation
International, a worldwide service, information, and advisory organization.
She has also been asked by the Department of Health and Human Services
to co-chair an ad-hoc committee on the prevention of disabilities.
John S. Erthein
John S. Erthein lives in Los Angeles, California,
where he is president of John S. Erthein and Associates, Inc., a
public relations firm with offices in Los Angeles and Washington,
D.C. The firm's clients include the AMDAHL Corporation; CBS, Inc.;
Arts and Entertainment Network; Forum Home Video; Insight Magazine;
Dart Drug; and the Chicago Board of Trade. Mr. Erthein has produced
and marketed home video cassettes including 'How To Benefit From
Tax Reform- and Charleton Heston's "Television's Vietnam.'
Mr. Erthein was the founding president of the American
Paralysis Association, an organization whose primary objective is
to fund research to find a cure for spinal cord injuries. He is
a graduate in marketing from Columbia University, served as an officer
in the United States Coast Guard and was Security Officer and Public
Information Officer for his unit in New York.
He was assistant for finance for Citizens for the
Republic when Ronald Reagan chaired that organization. Subsequently,
he assisted in setting up the fundraising organization for the 1980
Reagan Presidential campaign.
Theresa Lennon Gardner
Theresa Lennon Gardner of Washington, D.C., was nominated
by President Reagan to the National Council on the Handicapped after
more that two decades of professional service as an educator and
volunteer working with disabled youngsters.
Mrs. Gardner began her efforts with disabled children
in the early 1960s, when she worked at the D.C. Society for Crippled
Children. At that time, Mrs. Gardner was successfully completing
her degree work at the Washington Montesorri Institute. Mrs. Gardner's
commitment to quality education for our younger student population
was evidenced in 1966, when she founded the Georgetown Montessori
School in Washington. For twelve years, Mrs. Gardner administered
the sixty-student Montessori preschool which educated children of
diverse socioeconomic backgrounds in the Nation's Capital. She also
founded and funded an inner-city Montessori facility near the Capitol
which later became a model for Washington's Head-Start program.
As a mother of two daughters, Mrs. Gardner has been
active in a variety of cultural and social enrichment programs for
Washington area youngsters. As a member of the Women's Heart Board
of Washington, D.C., Mrs. Gardner chaired the Children's Heart Party.
She also has taught therapeutic riding to multi-disabled youngsters
from numerous Washington area residential facilities.
In addition to her civic responsibilities, Mrs. Gardner
currently attends Trinity College in Washington, where she is scheduled
to receive a degree in education in the spring of 1988. Mrs. Gardner
is also a frequent visitor to educational and disabled person facilities
throughout United States, Europe and Africa. In 1982, Mrs. Gardner
served as the official U.S. hostess to thousands of Kenyan school
children who visited the U.S. exhibit on telecommunications while
her husband was serving as President Reagan's ambassador to a United
Nations' Conference in Nairobi.
Marian North Koonce
Marian North Koonce, of Santa Barbara, California,
is the mother of six children. Two are physically handicapped from
birth and a third contracted multiple sclerosis as a young adult.
Along with the great amount of time and attention she gives to her
family, she has held many administrative and leadership positions
in business, most recently, as chairman of the board of a Santa
Barbara independent bank.
She is involved in numerous local and national organizations.
She was chair-man of the Santa Barbara County Reagan-Bush '84 Committee.
She served as a delegate to the Republican National Conventions
of 1976, 1980, and 1984.
From 1980 to 1981, Mrs. Koonce was vice president
of recording for the Blind Auxiliary. She serves on the boards of
the Santa Barbara Symphony Association, the Las Positas Park, and
the University of California, Santa Barbara. She is also chairman
of the Channel Islands chapter of the National Multiple Sclerosis
Society.
Leslie Lenkowsky, Ph.D.
Dr. Leslie Lenkowsky is the president of the Institute
for Educational Affairs, a nonprofit organization in Washington,
D.C., devoted to encouraging innovative thinking in higher education,
philanthropy, and public affairs. He is also an adjunct professor
of public policy at Georgetown University and an adjunct scholar
for public policy research for the American Enterprise Institute
where he specializes in social policy issues. He is also a director
of the Foreign Policy Research Institute and a member of the board
of advisors to the president of the Naval War College.
From 1976 to 1983, Dr. Lenkowsky was the director
of research at the Smith Richardson Foundation in New York. He has
served as a consultant to Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan and was
an assistant to the Secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of
Public Welfare. He has also been deputy director of the United States
Information Agency and a member of the National Voluntary Service
Advisory Board.
Dr. Lenkowsky completed his undergraduate education
at Franklin and Marshall College, Lancaster, Pennsylvania. His doctoral
degree was awarded from Harvard University. Dr. Lenkowsky is the
author of many books and articles. He lectures frequently on philanthropy,
social policy, and other issues.
Nanette Fabray MacDougall
Nanette Fabray MacDougall, a resident of Pacific Palisades,
California, is a renowned actress who developed a progressive hearing
disability. Following four operations, the condition that had threatened
her with total deafness was cured. She has continued to be active
in organizations benefiting hearing-impaired and other disabled
persons.
Mrs. MacDougall was regional chairperson of the National
Easter Seal Society and the National Mental Health Association.
She is past chairperson of the National Advisory Committee for Education
of the Deaf. She currently serves on the board of the National Captioning
Institute and the Better Hearing Institute in Washington, D.C.,
as well as the House Ear Institute and the Museum of Science and
Industry.
Among the many awards she has received are the President's
Distinguished Service Award (1 97 1), the Eleanor Roosevelt Humanitarian
Award (1 964), and the Screen Actors Guild's Humanitarian Award
(1986) for outstanding service. Mrs. MacDougall and Helen Keller
are the only two women ever to have received the annual Public Service
Award of the American Academy of Ophthalmology and Otolaryngology.
She has three honorary doctoral degrees, from Gallaudet College,
Western Maryland College, and MacMurray College She was one of the
original members of the National Council on the Handicapped, and
was reappointed by President Reagan.
Robert S. Muller
Robert Muller of Grandville, Michigan, joined Steelcase
Inc. in 1966 and is currently in administration. He is an adjunct
assistant professor in the Department of Psychology at Aquinas College
and in the Department of Education at Calvin College in Grand Rapids,
Michigan. He serves on the board of trustees for Hope Rehabilitation
Network in Grand Rapids, which serves 1,400 adults with disabilities.
In April of 1981, he received an honorary degree in educational
psychology from the Free University in Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Mr. Muller holds a B.S. degree in business administration from Aquinas
College and in 1978 was voted Outstanding Alumnus of the Year. Mr.
Muller has lectured at several colleges and universities, both nationally
and internationally. He is a board member of a number of national,
State and local organizations.
In May 1987, he and his wife, Carol, hosted a first-time
event at the White House with the Vice President. The 'Celebration
of Disabled Americans at Work' was cosponsored by several major
corporations throughout the United States. He presently serves as
chairman of the National Roundtable on Corporate Development for
Americans with Disabilities. In May 1985, Mr. Muller was awarded
the Liberty Bell Award by the Grand Rapids Bar Association for his
work toward Liberty and Justice for All.-
Brenda Premo
Brenda Premo is a native of Southern California and
currently resides in Stanton, California. Ms. Premo has a small
fraction of the vision many people take for granted. She is legally
blind, one of the characteristics of albino persons, along with
pale skin and snow white hair.
Ms. Premo received her bachelor of arts degree in
psychology from California State University at Long Beach. While
attending college, she became acquainted with other disabled students
and became part of an activist group that helped to found the Disabled
Students Services at the University. After college, while working
for the Orange County Department of Education, Ms. Premo became
part of a task force which surveyed disabled persons in Orange County
and called for an independent living center to provide information
and services to people of all disabilities. The Dayle McIntosh Center
was launched in November 1977 with Ms. Premo, age 25, as its first
director.
She was asked to go to Washington, D.C., on a peer
review team evaluating other independent living centers, was active
on the State Independent Living Advisory Committee, served as vice
president of the California Association of the Physically Handicapped,
and served two years as chairperson of the California Coalition
of Independent Living Centers. In 1981, she chaired the Orange County
Task Force on the International Year of Disabled Persons. Ms. Premo
was recently elected president of the California Foundation of Independent
Living Centers.
Ms. Premo has been the recipient of many awards for
her outstanding service to the disabled community. She received
the Handicapped Californian Award from the California Association
of the Physically Handicapped (1978); the regional Service to Mankind
Award from Sertoma International (1987); and the California Professional
Handicapped Woman of the Year Award from the Pilot Club (1987).
Father Harry J. Sutcliffe, D.D.
Father Harry J. Sutcliffe resides in Brooklyn, New
York. He has been totally blind since infancy and received his early
education from the New York Institute for Education of the Blind.
He earned a bachelor of arts degree, Magna Cum Laude, from Wittenberg
University, a masters of divinity form the Mount Aily Theological
Seminary and a doctor of divinity from the Episcopal Theological
Seminary, both with honors.
Father Sutcliffe is the founder of the Episcopal
Guild for the Blind and has served as its director since 1959. He
also is employed as a classical language and sacred studies instructor
with the Hadley School for the Blind, Winnetka, Illinois. The Hadley
School operates the only home study program in the world for blind
individuals, having an enrollment of more than 6,000 students representing
all of the continents. The school offers over 100 courses in academics,
independent living, and homemaker skills.
He is involved in many local and national organizations,
including the American Association for Education and Rehabilitation
of the Blind and Visually Impaired Individuals, American School
of Oriental Studies, Society of Biblical Literature, Republican
Presidential Task Force and State and national Republican Committees.
Father Sutcliffe has received numerous awards for
his outstanding service, including the B'nai B'rith Man of the Year
Award (1 959) in recognition of his interfaith activities, particularly
the teaching of Hebrew and Hebrew Braille to blind persons of the
Jewish faith; the Private Sector Initiative Commendation, given
by the President of the United States in recognition of exemplary
community service (1986); and the Excellence Award from the Hadley
School for the Blind (1986).
Father Sutcliffe serves as a strong advocate, not
only for persons who are blind, but for all persons with disabilities.
Joni Eareckson Tada
Joni Eareckson Tada is a resident of Woodland Hills,
California Mrs. Tada was paralyzed from the shoulders down by a
diving accident in 1967, at the age of 17. She developed a latent
artistic talent by painting with her mouth during two years of rehabilitation.
Her experiences were catalogued in an autobiography that has been
translated into 35 languages.
As founder and president of the Christian Fund for
the Disabled, Mrs. Tada's goal is to help churches reach out and
meet the spiritual and practical needs of persons with disabilities.
This is accomplished through books, films, record albums, videos,
tapes, printed materials, seminars, and workshops. Also a five-minute
radio program, Joni and Friends, is aired every weekday over 400
religious stations in the United States.
Among the many awards she has received are the Golden
Plate (1979) from the American Academy of Achievement; Penwoman
of the Year (1980) from the National League of American Penwomen;
Layperson of the Year (1985) from the National Association of Evangelicals;
The Courage Award (1985) from the Courage Rehabilitation Center;
and the Excellence and Accomplishment Award (1985) from the Patricia
Neal Rehabilitation Center.
Roxanne S. Vierra
Roxanne S. Vierra, of Littleton, Colorado, has been
actively involved in business as well as in community and political
affairs. Her son, Steven, had brain damage from birth. His disability
gave her insight into the needs of mentally retarded individuals.
This insight caused her to develop Retarded Unlimited, Inc., an
organization designed to establish business ventures owned and operated
by mentally retarded persons. Her objective is to make mentally
retarded people more self-sufficient and less dependent on government
funds. Steven is an example of what a mentally retarded individual
can do: He lives in his own apartment, works as a courtesy clerk
at a grocery store, and is relatively independent.
Mrs. Vierra serves as an officer of the Children's
Diabetes Foundation, which is dedicated to finding a permanent cure
for diabetes in children. She is on the board of directors of the
American Lung Association, and is past president of the board of
Childhelp USA, a national organization to prevent child abuse. She
has campaigned for and organized numerous activities in national
elections, including fundraising in President Reagan's campaign.
In the business world, Mrs. Vierra has been a broker associate for
the Devonshire Company, selling residential property for the past
eight years.
Alvis Kent Waldrep, Jr.
Alvis Kent Waldrep, Jr. of Plano, Texas, is the president
and chief executive officer of the Kent Waldrep National Paralysis
Foundation, a nonprofit organization dedicated to finding a treatment
and cure for paralysis caused by spinal cord injury. He is responsible
for all phases of daily operations including fundraising, budgeting,
and public awareness, through its national office in Dallas. From
September 1982 to June 1985, Mr. Waldrep was president of the American
Paralysis Association.
From June 1979 to December 1981, Mr. Waldrep founded
and served as chief executive officer of the Kent Waldrep International
Spinal Cord Research Foundation, Inc., a nonprofit organization
which became the American Paralysis Association. He was responsible
for planning and implementing all programs designed to meet the
objectives and goals of the Foundation.
Mr. Waldrep served as assistant sports information
director for Texas Christian University from April 1977 to June
1979. There, he assisted the sports information director with all
sports promotion programs, including media communication, brochure
preparation, and compilation of statistics and advertising sales.
This followed three years of intensive physical therapy for a cervical
spinal cord injury from a football injury in 1974, which resulted
in quadriplegia with paralysis from the neck down.
He is a member of several community and professional
groups, including the board of the Dallas Rehabilitation Institute
and the National Society for Fundraising Executives. He has been
the recipient of many awards for his achievements in the area of
disability. Mr. Waldrep was selected by the United States Jaycees
as one of the ten outstanding young men in America for 1985. Mr.
Waldrep was recently named chairman of the Texas Governor's Committee
on Disabled Persons.
Phyllis D. Zlotnick
Phyllis Zlotnick of West Hartford, Connecticut, has
been employed by the Office of Protection and Advocacy for Handicapped
and Developmentally Disabled Persons in Hartford, since 1983. Born
with Spinal Muscular Atrophy, Ms. Zlotnick is widely recognized
as a successful advocate for the rights inherent with full citizenship
for all disabled people. As a highly respected lobbyist in Connecticut,
she is responsible for changes in the State Building Code; removal
of architectural barriers; access to public transportation, housing,
education, voting, employment, and parking; and handicapped driver
training programs. She has lectured, published articles, received
numerous awards, and served on many boards and advisory councils.
Ms. Zlotnick formerly was the Director of External
Affairs for the Easter Seal Society of Connecticut and later, an
aide to the former Speaker of the House in the State and General
Assembly. Presently, she is a legislative consultant to the Protection
and Advocacy Office in Connecticut and the chairperson of the State
Personal Care Assistance Advisory Council.
References
Census Bureau. (1986). "Disability, Functional
Limitation and Health Insurance Coverage: 1984/85." Washington,
DC.
Cranston, A. (January 29, 1987) "Statement for the
Record regarding transportation for people with disabilities," Congressional
Record. Washington, DC.
Department of Transportation. (1978), in Grey Advertising
Inc. Technical Report of the National Survey of Transportation
of Handicapped People. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation.
Harris, Louis. (1987). The ICD Survey II., Employing
Disabled Americans. New York, New York.
Harris, Louis. (1986). The ICD Survey of Disabled
Americans: Bringing Disabled Americans into the Mainstream.
New York, New York.
House Hearings Before a Subcommittee on Appropriations
for Fiscal 1987 Appropriations. (1986). "National Council on the
Handicapped,"- (pp. 431-489). Washington, DC: GPO.
Human Services Research Institute. (1986). Compilation
of Statistical Sources on Adult Disability. Washington, DC:
GPO.
Human Services Research Institute. (1985). Summary
of Data on Handicapped Children and Youth. Washington, DC: GPO.
Independent Living Research Utilization Project. (1987).
Brochure on Independent Living. ILRU: Houston, Texas.
Menninger Foundation. (1985). A Population Model
of Working Age Disabled Individuals. Topeka, Kansas.
Menninger Foundation. (1986). The Retationship
Between Age and Physical Disabilities Among Workers: Implications
for the Future. Topeka, Kansas.
Monitoring the Health of America's Children
(1984). Child Health Outcome Project, University of North Carolina.
National Council on the Handicapped. (1986). Appendix
to Toward Independence. Washington, DC.
National Council on the Handicapped. (scheduled for
publication in 1988). Implications for Federal Policy of the
1986 Harris Survey of Disabled Americans. Washington, DC.
National Council on the Handicapped. (1986). Toward
Independence. Washington, DC.
Reagan, R. (I 986). -Letter upon receipt of Toward
independence. - Washington, DC.
Reagan, R. (1982). Memorandum to the Attorney General,
April 30, 1982. Washington, DC.
Senate Hearings Before the Committee on Appropriations
for Fiscal 1987 Appropriations (1986). "National Council on the
Handicapped," (pp. 791-814). Washington, DC: GPO.
United Cerebral Palsy Associations, Inc. (April 28,
1987). "The Development of Housing for Disabled Persons: Six Case
Studies." Washington, DC.
United Cerebral Palsy Associations, Inc. (August 7,
1987). "A National Center on Housing for Persons With Disabilities."
Washington, DC.
Vachon, A. (1987). "Inventing A Future for Individuals
with Work Disabilities," chapter in The Changing Nature of Work,
Society, and Disability: the Impact on Rehabilitation Policy.
New York, New York: World Rehabilitation Fund.
Will, M. (1984). OSERS Programming for the Transition
of Youth with Disabilities: Bridges from School to Working Life.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. |