Statement of
Susan Prokop
to the CSAVR Forum on
the Future of Vocational Rehabilitation
February 14, 2006
Thank you for this opportunity to participate in this forum on the future of the Vocational Rehabilitation System. I want to share my observations from two perspectives – one, as Associate Advocacy Director for Paralyzed Veterans of America and the second, as chair of the Virginia Statewide Independent Living Council.
PVA issues
PVA is a Congressionally-chartered veterans' service organization representing over 20,000 veterans with spinal cord injury or dysfunction. Our members are veterans with disabilities received in military service – service-connected – and outside military service – non-service connected.
A 2000 PVA membership survey revealed that -- of those respondents in the traditional "working age" category 18 to 65 – their employment rate was only 15%.
It is useful to bear in mind the distinctions between service-connected disabled veterans and those veterans whose injuries are not service-connected. Service-connected disabled veterans get the full array of benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs – including priority in health care, housing modification grants, and VA vocational rehabilitation services.
Non-service connected disabled veterans do have access to the VA health care system [albeit at a lower priority]. They also have access to other more modest benefits from the VA but they are more likely to rely on SSDI for income support and other civilian program supports for people with disabilities – such as the state vocational rehabilitation system.
Issues PVA members have with state VR agencies are little different than many concerns other people with disabilities have with their state agency. They are concerned about the impact of work on their benefits, the lack of long-term follow up, difficulty in getting help pursuing self-employment or setting up a business as a vocational goal, and they express a desire for greater employer outreach to really understand what the labor market is looking for.
At the same time, VR agencies need make sure they're utilizing the unique programs and services available to veterans with disabilities – the VA health care system is an obvious one. However, there is also veterans' preference in hiring programs and veterans' small business programs through SBA. I understand there is a "veterans' identifier" on the intake form when a veteran goes to a vocational rehabilitation agency – and some 20,000 veterans are supposed to be in a database held by the Department of Education. So, the lack of interface between programs seems more a problem of the VA. State agencies could help alleviate that silo mentality of the VA by reaching out to state departments of veterans' services, VA medical centers, and veteran service organizations to make sure they're talking to one another.
SILC Issues
The experiences I want to relate as a member of the Virginia Statewide Independent Living Council are not unique to Virginia but are similar to what I have heard from other SILC representatives at national conferences. Nevertheless, I will preface my remarks by saying that the Virginia SILC is fortunate to enjoy one of the better relationships with its designated state unit for which we are most grateful.
Although the Rehab Act requires SILC "autonomy" from any state agency, friction often arises between Councils and their designated state unit. Sometimes those disagreements center on the SILC's annual 704 report to RSA. If the DSU disagrees with the report contents, SILC's have been known to get pressure from the DSU to change the report.
If the Council has to rely on DSU staff for certain administrative functions, the SILC duties often get pushed to the back burner. This can impede the effectiveness of the SILC as a voice for people with disabilities at the state level.
Frequent conflicts occur over funding. SILC's that are reliant on Federal Part B and C monies should also receive I&E dollars or Social Security cost reimbursement funds. Some SILCs around the country get these latter monies as a matter of course but, in other circumstances, SILC's must request these funds from the DSU and this can be a contentious negotiation.
If a SILC tries to find ways to obtain non-federal funding to support its operations, sometimes the DSU proves to be more a hindrance than a help.
I don't know what CSAVR's policy is on VR-SILC relationships or if you even have given this any thought. However, should the reauthorization of the Rehabilitation Act be delayed to 2007, I would encourage some attention by the VR system to the role, authority and expectations of its Independent Living partners.
Thank you for your attention to these remarks.
