National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research; Notice of final priorities (NFP) on improving employment outcomes [OSERS]

FR Doc 04-11679
[Federal Register: May 24, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 100)]
[Notices]
[Page 29635-29640]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr24my04-109]

[[Page 29635]]
Download:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Part III

Department of Education

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research; Office of
Special Education and Rehabilitative Services; Overview Information;
Rehabilitation Research and Training Centers (RRTC) Program--Improving
Employment Outcomes; Notices

[[Page 29636]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

RIN 1820 ZA26

National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research

AGENCY: Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services,
Department of Education.

ACTION: Notice of final priorities (NFP) on improving employment
outcomes.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and
Rehabilitative Services announces final priorities under the
Rehabilitation Research and Training Centers (RRTC) Program for the
National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR).
The Assistant Secretary may use one or more of these priorities for
competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2004 and later years. We take this
action to focus research attention on areas of national need. We intend
these priorities to improve employment-related rehabilitation services
and outcomes for individuals with disabilities.

EFFECTIVE DATE: These final priorities are effective June 24, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donna Nangle, U.S. Department of
Education, 550 12th Street, SW., room 6046, Potomac Center Plaza,
Washington, DC 20202. Telephone: (202) 205-5880 or via Internet:
donna.nangle@ed.gov.

If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), you may
call the TDD number at (202) 205-4475.
Individuals with disabilities may obtain this document in an
alternative format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer
diskette) on request to the contact person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Rehabilitation Research and Training Centers

RRTCs conduct coordinated and integrated advanced programs of
research targeted toward the production of new knowledge to improve
rehabilitation methodology and service delivery systems, alleviate or
stabilize disability conditions, or promote maximum social and economic
independence for persons with disabilities. Additional information on
the RRTC program can be found at: http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/research/pubs/res-program.html#RRTC
.

General Requirements of Rehabilitation Research and Training Centers

RRTCs must:
Carry out coordinated advanced programs of rehabilitation
research;
Provide training, including graduate, pre-service, and in-
service training, to help rehabilitation personnel more effectively
provide rehabilitation services to individuals with disabilities;
Provide technical assistance to individuals with
disabilities, their representatives, providers, and other interested
parties;
Disseminate informational materials to individuals with
disabilities, their representatives, providers, and other interested
parties; and
Serve as centers for national excellence in rehabilitation
research for individuals with disabilities, their representatives,
providers, and other interested parties.
The Department is particularly interested in ensuring that the
expenditure of public funds is justified by the execution of intended
activities and the advancement of knowledge and, thus, has built this
accountability into the selection criteria. Not later than three years
after the establishment of any RRTC, NIDRR will conduct one or more
reviews of the activities and achievements of the RRTC. In accordance
with the provisions of 34 CFR 75.253(a), continued funding depends at
all times on satisfactory performance and accomplishment of approved
grant objectives.
We published a notice of proposed priorities (NPP) for this program
in the Federal Register on February 4, 2004 (69 FR 5327). The NPP
included a background statement for these priorities at 69 FR 5329.
This NFP contains significant differences from the NPP. We discuss
these changes in the Analysis of Comments and Changes section published
as an appendix to this notice.

Note: This notice does not solicit applications. In any year in
which we choose to use one or more of these priorities, we invite
applications through a notice in the Federal Register. When inviting
applications we designate each priority as absolute, competitive
preference, or invitational. The effect of each type of priority
follows:
Absolute priority: Under an absolute priority, we consider only
applications that meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(3)).
Competitive preference priority: Under a competitive preference
priority, we give competitive preference to an application by either
(1) awarding additional points, depending on how well or the extent
to which the application meets the competitive priority (34 CFR
75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2) selecting an application that meets the
competitive priority over an application of comparable merit that
does not meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(ii)).
Invitational priority: Under an invitational priority, we are
particularly interested in applications that meet the invitational
priority. However, we do not give an application that meets the
invitational priority a competitive or absolute preference over
other applications (34 CFR 75.105(c)(1)).

Note: NIDRR supports the goals of President Bush's New Freedom
Initiative (NFI). The NFI can be accessed on the Internet at the
following site: http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/newfreedom/.

These final priorities are in concert with NIDRR's 1999-2003
Long-Range Plan (Plan). The Plan is comprehensive and integrates
many issues relating to disability and rehabilitation research
topics. While applicants will find many sections throughout the Plan
that support potential research to be conducted under these final
priorities, a specific reference is included for each priority
presented in this notice. The Plan can be accessed on the Internet
at the following site: http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/research/pubs/index.html
.

Through the implementation of the NFI and the Plan, NIDRR seeks
to: (1) Improve the quality and utility of disability and
rehabilitation research; (2) foster an exchange of expertise,
information, and training to facilitate the advancement of knowledge
and understanding of the unique needs of traditionally underserved
populations; (3) determine best strategies and programs to improve
rehabilitation outcomes for underserved populations; (4) identify
research gaps; (5) identify mechanisms of integrating research and
practice; and (6) disseminate findings.

Priorities

The Assistant Secretary announces four priorities for the funding
of RRTCs that will conduct research on improving employment outcomes of
individuals with disabilities. These priorities are: Priority 1--
Employment Policy and Individuals with Disabilities; Priority 2--
Employment Service Systems; Priority 3--Workplace Supports and Job
Retention; and Priority 4--Substance Abuse and Employment Outcomes.
Under each of these priorities, the RRTC must:
(1) Develop, implement, and evaluate a comprehensive plan for
training critical stakeholders, e.g., individuals with disabilities and
their family members, practitioners, service providers, researchers,
and policymakers;
(2) Provide technical assistance to critical stakeholders to
facilitate utilization of research findings; and
(3) Develop a systematic plan for widespread dissemination of
informational materials based on knowledge gained from the RRTC's
research activities, for individuals with disabilities, their
representatives, service providers, and other interested parties.

[[Page 29637]]

In addition to the specific activities proposed by the applicant,
each RRTC must:
Conduct a state-of-the-science conference on its
respective area of research in the third year of the grant cycle,
including research from other sources, and publish a comprehensive
report on the final outcomes of the conference in the fourth year of
the grant cycle;
Coordinate on research projects of mutual interest with
relevant NIDRR-funded projects as identified through consultation with
the NIDRR project officer;
Involve persons with disabilities in planning and
implementing the RRTC's research, training, and dissemination
activities, and in evaluating the research;
Demonstrate in its application how it will address, in
whole or in part, the needs of individuals with minority backgrounds;
Demonstrate how the RRTC project will yield measurable
results for individuals with disabilities;
Identify specific performance targets and propose outcome
indicators, along with time lines to reach these targets;
Demonstrate how the RRTC project can transfer research
findings to practical applications in planning, policy-making, program
administration, and delivery of services to individuals with
disabilities;
Consider the effect of demographics factors such as race/
ethnicity and educational level and disability factors such as
disability severity when conducting the research; and
Articulate goals, objectives, and expected outcomes for
the proposed research activities. It is critical that proposals
describe expected public benefits, especially benefits for individuals
with disabilities, and propose projects that are designed to
demonstrate outcomes that are consistent with the proposed goals.
Applicants must include information describing how they will measure
outcomes, including the indicators that will represent the end-result,
the mechanisms that will be used to evaluate outcomes associated with
specific problems or issues, and how the proposed activities will
support new intervention approaches and strategies, including a
discussion of measures of effectiveness.
An RRTC must focus research on one of the following priorities:
Priority 1--Employment Policy and Individuals with Disabilities:
The purpose of the priority on employment policy and individuals with
disabilities is to improve information on the employment status of
individuals with disabilities and the effects of legislative and policy
initiatives on employment outcomes for such individuals. The research
funded under this priority must be designed to contribute to the
following outcomes:
Improved understanding of employment trends for
individuals with disabilities in relation to macroeconomic,
legislative, and policy changes;
Strategies for evaluating legislative and policy efforts
to improve employment outcomes for individuals with disabilities; and
Identification of policies that contribute to improved
employment outcomes for individuals with disabilities.
The research resulting from this RRTC's program will provide
guidance to policy-makers and others involved in efforts to improve
employment outcomes for individuals with disabilities. The reference
for this topic can be found in the Plan, chapter 3, Employment
Outcomes: Economic Policy and Labor Market Trends.
Priority 2--Employment Service Systems: The purpose of the priority
on employment service systems is to identify effective strategies that
could be used by public and private employment service providers to
improve employment outcomes for individuals with disabilities. Among
public systems, the RRTC may include State vocational rehabilitation
services and services provided under the Workforce Investment Act
(WIA). Among private systems, the RRTC may include for-profit and non-
profit employment service providers. The RRTC may propose research
related to other public and private employment systems. The reference
for this topic can be found in the Plan, chapter 3, Employment
Outcomes: Community-Based Employment Service Programs and State Service
Systems. The research funded under this priority must be designed to
contribute to the following outcomes:
Cost-effective strategies that enhance consumer access to
services that improve employment outcomes;
Effective strategies that enhance consumer satisfaction
with services that improve employment outcomes;
Effective simplified strategies for eligibility
determination that promote access to services and improved customer
satisfaction;
Effective service system strategies for the provision of
individualized services, and enhanced coordination of services at the
individual level; and
Effective strategies to improve employment outcomes for
individuals with disabilities.
Priority 3--Workplace Supports and Job Retention: The purpose of
the priority on workplace supports and job retention is to improve
employment outcomes through the use of effective workplace supports and
job retention strategies. The reference for this topic can be found in
the Plan, chapter 3, Employment Outcomes: Employer Roles and Workplace
Supports. The research funded under this priority must be designed to
contribute to the following outcomes:
Improved understanding of the use of workplace supports,
accommodations, and strategies across a variety of work settings and
with specific disability groups;
Improved understanding of factors that impede the use of
effective workplace supports and job retention strategies; and
Identification of effective employer-based or workplace
strategies or accommodations that improve employment outcomes and
factors that influence improved employer understanding of these
workplace strategies or accommodations.
Priority 4--Substance Abuse and Employment Outcomes: The purpose of
the priority on substance abuse and employment outcomes is to improve
employment outcomes for individuals with disabilities who also have
substance abuse problems. The research funded under this priority must
be designed to contribute to the following outcomes:
Effective techniques for individuals and agencies
providing employment-related services to individuals with disabilities
to screen and identify those who have substance abuse problems; and
Effective strategies to improve employment outcomes for
individuals with disabilities who have substance abuse problems.
When conducting this work, the RRTC must examine strategies that
are effective in both community and work settings (including community-
based partnerships) and must examine the effects of workplace support
and clinical treatment services, including substance use disorder
treatment programs. The reference to this topic can be found in the
Plan, chapter 2, Dimensions of Disability: Emerging Universe of
Disability.

Executive Order 12866

This notice of final priorities has been reviewed in accordance
with Executive Order 12866. Under the terms of the

[[Page 29638]]

order, we have assessed the potential costs and benefits of this
regulatory action.
The potential costs associated with the notice of final priorities
are those resulting from statutory requirements and those we have
determined as necessary for administering this program effectively and
efficiently.
In assessing the potential costs and benefits--both quantitative
and qualitative--of this notice of final priorities, we have determined
that the benefits of the final priorities justify the costs.
Summary of potential costs and benefits:
The potential costs associated with these final priorities are
minimal while the benefits are significant. Grantees may anticipate
costs associated with completing the application process in terms of
staff time, copying, and mailing or delivery. The use of e-Application
technology reduces mailing and copying costs significantly.
The benefits of the RRTC Program have been well established over
the years in that similar projects have been completed successfully.
These final priorities will generate new knowledge through research,
dissemination, utilization, training, and technical assistance
projects.
The benefit of these final priorities will be the establishment of
new RRTCs that generate, disseminate, and promote the use of new
information to improve options and participation in the community for
individuals with disabilities.
Applicable Program Regulations: 34 CFR part 350.

Electronic Access to This Document

You may review this document, as well as all other Department of
Education documents published in the Federal Register, in text or Adobe
Portable Document Format (PDF) on the Internet at the following site:
http://www.ed.gov/news/fedregister.

To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available
free at this site. If you have questions about using PDF, call the U.S.
Government Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1-888-293-6498; or in
the Washington, DC, area at (202) 512-1530.

Note: The official version of this document is the document
published in the Federal Register. Free Internet access to the
official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal
Regulations is available on GPO Access at: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/index.html
.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number: 84.133B,
Rehabilitation Research and Training Center Program)

Program Authority: 29 U.S.C. 762(g) and 764(b)(2).

Dated: May 18, 2004.
Troy R. Justesen,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Special Education and
Rehabilitative Services.

Appendix

Analysis of Comments and Changes

In response to our invitation in the NPP, we received 38
comments. An analysis of the comments and of the changes in the
priorities since publication of the NPP follows. We discuss
substantive issues under the title of the priority to which they
pertain.
Generally, we do not address technical and other minor changes
and suggested changes we are not authorized to make under the
applicable statutory authority.

General

Discussion: On page 5328 of the NPP, under the section entitled
General Requirements of Rehabilitation Research and Training
Centers, we included a paragraph encouraging applicants, among other
things, to include information in their applications about proposed
goals, objectives, and expected outcomes for their research
activities and how they will measure outcomes and the mechanisms
they will use to evaluate outcomes. Based on our own review and
comments received from OMB, we believe that we should require all
applicants to provide this information to ensure that applicants are
sufficiently focused on proposed objectives and outcomes of their
research activities.
Change: We have modified the language in this paragraph to make
the application requirements mandatory and, in the NFP, have
inserted this paragraph as the last required activity in the bullet-
point list of activities, listed in the Priorities section, which
all RRTCs must conduct.
Comment: One commenter suggested that it appeared the discussion
of the proposed priorities of the employment RRTCs omitted language
focusing on the role of postsecondary education in the employment of
persons with disabilities.
Discussion: We do not believe it is necessary to include
language in the proposed priorities that focuses specifically on the
role of postsecondary education in the employment of persons with
disabilities. Applicants, however, are free to propose research
activities in this area.
Changes: None.
Comment: Three commenters recommended that NIDRR add a Priority
Five and title it New Freedom Initiative. The purpose of the
priority would be to establish an RRTC to improve understanding of
the impact of the NFI on States, local communities, employers,
individuals with disabilities, and families. The commenters believed
that the addition of this priority would respond to the focus of the
Administration's efforts to build on the scope of changes resulting
from the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 with the design and
implementation of the NFI. The commenters further suggested that the
establishment of such an RRTC would allow an applicant to focus on
both specific multiple subgroups of the disability population and
the evaluation of efforts related to these subgroups within the
broad framework of the NFI. It was also suggested that this
framework would not prioritize one subgroup over another, as
proposed in Priority Four.
Discussion: NIDRR developed its priorities with the intent that
they support the goals of the President's NFI. NIDDR intended that
the proposed priorities allow an applicant the discretion to
determine the target population that the proposed research and
training activities will address, including research involving
subgroups within populations. NIDRR does not believe that Priority
Four favors one population over another. Rather, NIDRR believes that
this priority allows applicants to address the needs and concerns of
individuals with a diverse range of disability characteristics,
substance abuse problems, and employment issues.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter noted an increased recognition of a
distinct population of persons with disabilities who live with
episodic disabilities, including persons with psychiatric
disabilities; neurological disabilities, such as seizure disorders;
HIV/AIDS; Multiple Sclerosis; and serious emotional and learning
disabilities. The commenter expressed concern that the proposed
priorities addressed a mixed population of persons with disabilities
and believed the priorities should better define the populations
according to common issues, barriers, policy, and interventions. It
was further communicated that developmental and physical
disabilities should not be part of a congregate grouping.
Discussion: NIDRR considers it unnecessary to specify the
composition of the target population(s) of the research. NIDRR
prefers to provide an applicant the discretion to identify the
disability population(s) that its application will target and how it
will focus its research activities on the specified population(s)
within the context of the priority. NIDRR does not believe that the
priorities as described preclude an applicant from proposing
research and training activities that have a focus on specific
populations and issues of research targeting multiple population
groups in order to demonstrate common issues, barriers, policy, and
interventions across disability groups or to conduct research on
single or group disabilities that are characterized as being
episodic. The peer review process will evaluate the merits of the
approaches proposed in the application.
Changes: None.

Economic Research on Employment Policy and Individuals With
Disabilities

Comment: Twenty-one commenters expressed concern about the
primary focus of the RRTC on employment policy and individuals with
disabilities. They suggested that the use of the word ``economic''
limited the ability of applicants to propose research and training
activities that focus on aspects of policy that extend beyond the
analyses of large data sets and economic methods. Commenters
considered the relationship between public policy implementation and

[[Page 29639]]

employment outcomes to be complex and encouraged NIDRR to revise the
language in Priority One to focus generically on employment policy
rather than economic research on employment policy and individuals
with disabilities.
Discussion: NIDRR agrees that the focus of the priority on
economic research is unnecessarily narrow and changed language in
the priority to expand its focus. Because NIDRR believes that
economics is a critical element of employment policy, we will retain
language in the priority that requires an applicant to include
research activities within the scope of its proposed project that
address some aspect of employment trends for individuals with
disabilities in relation to macroeconomic changes.
Changes: The language is revised to remove the word ``Economic
Research'' from the title of the priority and to remove the word
``economic research'' from the purpose statement of the priority.
Comment: Twenty-one commenters suggested that the RRTC should
address improving the quality and utility of research, providing
practical applications to the policymaking process, and filling gaps
in our understanding of the complex issues and factors affecting the
employment of the heterogeneous population of persons with
disabilities, including barriers for workplace participation and
outcomes.
Discussion: NIDRR believes that the priority as described allows
an applicant the flexibility to propose research activities that may
improve the quality and utility of research, provide practical
applications to the policy making process, and fill gaps in our
understanding of issues and factors affecting the employment of
persons with disabilities, including barriers for workplace
participation and outcomes. While not precluded, NIDRR believes it
is unnecessary to require all applicants to propose research
activities as described by the commenters. NIDRR expects that all
research activities that it supports will be of high quality,
generate findings having utility, and fill gaps in our understanding
of issues and factors influencing persons with disabilities. The
peer review process will evaluate the merits of the research
activities proposed in the application.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended that the RRTC be required to
look beyond the macro rate of employment trends toward developing an
understanding of motivational factors associated with these trends
and how they can facilitate the ability of policymakers to work
effectively to abolish disincentives to work for people with
disabilities and to better encourage employers to hire persons with
disabilities.
Discussion: The language in the priority does not preclude
research that focuses on investigating motivational factors
associated with employment trends. The peer review process will
evaluate the merits of the research and training activities proposed
in the application. NIDRR has no basis for requiring that all
applicants focus their research and training activities on
motivational factors in response to this priority.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested that NIDRR encourage the use of
rigorous policy methods designed to assess the impact of specific
policies and that these methods be in line with current standards of
practice in policy analysis.
Discussion: NIDRR expects that the research will be rigorous and
of high quality, but it is the responsibility of the applicant to
delineate methods and standards that are relevant and appropriate to
the research proposed. The peer review process will evaluate the
merits of the methods and standards proposed in the application.
NIDRR has no basis for specifying what these methods and standards
should be.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter considered it important that this Center
interact with the RRTC funded under Priority Two since a significant
part of implementation of public policy occurs in the context of
State service systems, and much of the emerging Federal policy
requires significant change in the priorities, message, and
structure of State and local service systems.
Discussion: The NPP included language that requires grantees to
coordinate with relevant NIDRR-funded research projects of mutual
interest as identified through consultation with the NIDRR project
officer. The peer review process will evaluate the merits of the
coordinative activities proposed in the application.
Changes: None.

Employment Service Systems

Comment: One commenter suggested that efforts be made to develop
stakeholders and acquire human and capital resources from other non-
disability sectors that might have an interest in efforts to improve
employment outcomes for people with disabilities. The commenter also
suggested that the inclusion of trade unions, employer associations,
and business improvement districts could expand and help make
employment a priority of entities other than the disability service
system and consumers/advocates. It was further suggested that the
processes of developing stakeholders and a common mission, forming
collaborations, and demonstrating both employment outcomes and
increased integration into the workplace and reduced stigma should
be required in the priority.
Discussion: NIDRR believes that an applicant has the flexibility
to propose research that includes the processes of developing
stakeholders and acquiring human and capital resources from other
non-disability sectors interested in improving employment outcomes
for people with disabilities; expanding and helping make employment
a priority of entities other than the disability services system and
consumers/advocates; developing a common mission and collaborations;
and demonstrating both employment outcomes and increased integration
into the workplace and reduced stigma. The peer review process will
evaluate the merits of the research strategies proposed in an
application.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter noted that youth experience difficulties
in accessing postsecondary education and employment following school
completion. The commenter further noted the need to better align
special education services with the adult workforce development
system by focusing research activities on youth with disabilities in
their transition from school to work.
Discussion: An applicant may propose the young adult population
as its target population and the composition of employment service
systems as the commenter describes. We prefer to provide an
applicant the discretion to identify the target population and
composition of employment service systems around which it elects to
develop its research and training program. The peer review process
will evaluate the merits of the research strategies proposed in an
application. NIDRR has no basis for specifying what an applicant's
target populations should be.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter requested clarification as to whether the
intent of the priority is to influence the structure and design of
effective State service systems at a State policy level or to
influence the effectiveness of employment supports at an individual
level. It was suggested that the breadth of the priority may limit
the RRTC's ability to support a research agenda that has the
capacity to address effectiveness of strategies used to increase
employment outcomes of persons with disabilities.
Discussion: The priority allows applicants the flexibility to
identify strategies that are designed to be effective at either a
systems or individual level, or at both levels. The peer review
process will evaluate the merits of the approaches proposed in an
application.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter believes that the priority emphasized
satisfaction with service delivery and encouraged NIDRR to
disentangle the emphasis on satisfaction, employment outcomes, and
access by separating research focused on satisfaction from the
emphasis on access to services. The commenter also encouraged NIDRR
to frame any research priority emphasizing satisfaction in the
context of a broad-based process of quality improvement for services
that incorporates multiple approaches for the effective
participation of consumers in quality improvement of service
systems. The commenter further recommended that NIDRR maintain a
broad emphasis on assessing the quality of life impact of service
strategies and identifying characteristics that lead to better
personal outcomes.
Discussion: NIDRR believes that the priority allows an applicant
the ability to propose research focused on employment outcomes,
consumer satisfaction, and consumer access, and does not preclude or
require examination of potential linkages between these variables
for clarification purposes. Nonetheless, we are revising the
language of the priority to provide for separate research outcomes
for consumer access and satisfaction. NIDRR does not believe that it
has a basis for requiring that all applicants apply the approaches
described by the commenter or to restrict studies to independent
examination of one or the other of these activities.

[[Page 29640]]

Changes: We have modified the language of the first outcome
specified in the priority to provide for two separate outcomes: one
focused on consumer access to services and the other on consumer
satisfaction with services.
Comment: One commenter noted that the priority combined language
in the Plan that addresses ``Community-Based Employment Service
Programs'' and ``State Service Systems''. It was suggested that
NIDRR clarify whether its intent is to study effective strategies
used by State agencies to expand access to employment, or whether
its intent is to expand knowledge of effective strategies used by
the community rehabilitation provider network.
Discussion: The described purpose of this RRTC is to identify
effective strategies for use by both public and private employment
service providers to improve employment outcomes for individuals
with disabilities. NIDRR believes that an applicant should have the
discretion to identify the specific approaches that it proposes to
use in conducting the research and composition of the state service
systems on which its research activities will focus. The peer review
process will evaluate the merits of the approaches proposed in an
application. NIDRR considers it unnecessary to specify additional
requirements governing the expansion of knowledge beyond the general
requirements identified for all RRTCs on the dissemination of
research findings.
Changes: None.

Workplace Supports and Job Retention

Comment: One commenter noted that recent discussions by
agencies, such as the Social Security Administration (SSA) and
Office of Disability Employment Policy (ODEP), have begun to address
the need to coordinate better adult employment services for young
adults. The commenter suggested that the proposed RRTC could help to
ensure that young adults are better served.
Discussion: An applicant has the discretion to propose the
development and implementation of research and training activities
focused on adult employment services for young adults. The peer
review process will evaluate the merits of the approaches proposed
in an application. NIDRR considers it unnecessary to require that
all applicants under this priority address adult employment services
for young adults.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested that the priority require
improved understanding of effective employer-based or workplace
strategies or accommodations that improve employment outcomes. The
commenter further suggested clarification of the intent of the
priority to evidence a clear focus on job retention rather than job
access.
Discussion: NIDRR believes that the priority should also require
improved understanding of factors that influence effective employer-
based or workplace strategies or accommodations that improve
employment outcomes. NIDRR intends that the research activities of
the RRTC will focus on workplace supports and job retention
strategies rather than job access.
Changes: We have revised the language in the third bulleted
paragraph of the priority to add language about factors influencing
employer understanding and workplace strategies or accommodations.

Substance Abuse and Employment Outcomes Disability

Comment: Fourteen commenters noted that contributing risk
factors to alcohol, tobacco, and other drug (ATOD) use include
isolation, stigma, and physical pain. They suggested that the best
use of the RRTC funds would be to focus on programs that examine
these behaviors, their associated risk factors, and the evaluation
of ATOD intervention and prevention programs for persons with
disabilities.
Discussion: Applicants have the discretion to propose activities
of the nature and scope described by the commenter within the
context of the priority. The peer review process will evaluate the
merits of the approaches proposed in an application.
Changes: None.
Comment: Seven commenters recommended that the priority
specifically address the State Vocational Rehabilitation (VR)
system, including State VR agencies and Centers for Independent
Living, because of the large number of persons with disabilities who
find employment through this system.
Discussion: NIDRR prefers to provide applicants the discretion
to identify the employment service systems around which they elect
to develop their research and training program. An applicant has the
flexibility to specifically address the State VR system, including
State VR agencies and Centers for Independent Living. The peer
review process will evaluate the merits of the approaches proposed
in an application.
Changes: None.
Comment: Four commenters expressed concern that the research did
not address the long-term employment outcomes of persons with
disabilities who have or have had substance abuse problems. These
commenters suggested that such research is particularly important to
facilitating the capacity of employment systems to formulate better
rehabilitation plans, engage in inter-system networking to assist
this population, and begin addressing the employment inequities,
discrimination, and stigma for persons with disabilities and
substance abuse problems.
Discussion: An applicant has the discretion to propose research
activities as described by the commenter within the context of the
priority. The peer review process will evaluate the merits of the
approaches proposed in an application.
Changes: None.
Comment: Three commenters considered the definition of clinical
treatment services to be vague. They suggested that NIDRR consider
narrowing the definition to include specific programs or services,
such as substance use disorder treatment programs.
Discussion: NIDRR prefers to allow applicants the flexibility to
identify the clinical treatment programs or services on which their
research will be focused. However, we are revising the language in
the priority to identify substance use disorder treatment programs
as an example of clinical treatment services that the RRTC may
propose to examine.
Changes: We are revising the language in the priority to add
substance use disorder treatment programs as an example of clinical
treatment services.
Comment: Four commenters noted that the priority does not
require investigation of the potential prevalence of substance abuse
problems among various disability groups. It was suggested that
NIDRR include this requirement given its critical role in planning
for screening, assessment, and referral systems.
Discussion: NIDRR prefers to provide applicants the discretion
to identify the target disability group(s) that its research will
address. The priority as described will allow an applicant to
propose research that investigates the prevalence of substance abuse
programs among various disability groups. The peer review process
will evaluate the merits of the approaches proposed in an
application.
Changes: None.
Comment: Three commenters noted that the priority fails to
address abuse of prescribed medication and its particular influence
on employment outcomes for persons with disabilities.
Discussion: NIDDR believes that an applicant has the discretion
to address the role of prescribed medication and its influence on
employment outcomes within the context of the priority as described.
The peer review process will evaluate the merits of the approaches
proposed in an application.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter encouraged NIDRR to consider ways to
identify and address traditionally underserved populations at
particularly high risk of substance abuse and focus some effort on
them. The commenter further suggested that applicants address access
to service programs across different geographical areas, such as
central city, suburban, and rural.
Discussion: NIDRR is committed to improving employment outcomes
for all persons with disabilities, including traditionally
underserved populations, and their access to service programs across
different geographical areas, including central city, suburban, and
rural. NIDRR believes that the priority as described allows an
applicant the flexibility to address research and training
activities that focus on specific populations, including underserved
populations at particularly high risk of substance abuse, and their
access to services across different geographical areas. The peer
review process will evaluate the merits of the activities that an
applicant proposes.
Changes: None.

[FR Doc. 04-11679 Filed 5-21-04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4000-01-P