CSAVR Comments on HR 27 Feb. 14 2005
February 14, 2005
The Honorable John Boehner, Chairman
House Education and the Workforce Committee
2181 Rayburn
House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Chairman Boehner:
I am writing on behalf of the Council of State Administrators of Vocational Rehabilitation (CSAVR) to provide comments and recommendations regarding the Job Training Improvement Act of 2005 (H.R. 27). I have attached a document that outlines CSAVR’s concerns with H.R. 27 and makes recommendations to address those concerns.
CSAVR is composed of the chief administrators of the State VR Agencies serving individuals with physical and mental disabilities in the states, the District of Columbia, and the territories. These agencies, which constitute the state partners in the State-Federal program of vocational rehabilitation services authorized under Title I of the Rehabilitation Act, have evidence-based research demonstrating their success in assisting eligible individuals with disabilities in achieving their chosen employment goals.
Return on Investment: The Public VR program is one of the most successful employment and training programs ever funded by Congress. In any given year, State VR Agencies nationwide provide services and supports to and supervise the rehabilitation of approximately 1.2 million individuals with disabilities. Of those served in FY 2004, more than 213,000 entered competitive employment and became tax paying citizens. Many of these people are no longer on public benefits. In their first full year of work, these new wage earners will pay over $300 million in Federal taxes, $90 million in State income taxes, and $500 million in Social Security and Medicare taxes (self and employer). In addition, according to the Social Security Administration’s (SSA) FY 2004 end of year report, “Recap on VR Reimbursements,” the projected savings to the Trust Fund resulting from VR successfully employing SSI and SSDI beneficiaries in FY 2004 was $470.3 million. Based on these figures, SSA estimates that the projected savings to expenditures under the SSA/VR cost reimbursement program is $6 for every $1 reimbursed to VR in FY 2004. An October 2004 evaluation of the Massachusetts VR program projected an increase in lifetime earnings for VR consumers ranging from $14 to $18 dollars for each $1 invested in VR. For every dollar spent on VR in MA, there is an estimated return in tax revenues of $5. The evaluation found that most people pay back almost twice (1.7%) the cost of their services in ten years.
When WIA was first authorized, it consolidated a number of employment and training programs in an effort to create a seamless service delivery system. Unfortunately, this consolidation was accompanied by a significant cut in funding, with additional cuts in funding in subsequent years. As a result, WIA has resulted in a substantial decline in funding available for actual training when compared to its predecessor program. By giving Governor’s the authority to tap partner funds to pay for infrastructure costs of the One-Stop system, H.R. 27 proposed to take funds from the WIA partner programs to make up for this deficit. These
partner programs, particularly the Public Vocational Rehabilitation Program, are already under-funded to meet the needs of their target populations.
CSAVR has a number of concerns regarding H.R. 27 as currently drafted. Our primary concerns include the following.
1) H.R. 27 does not address the need for increased funding for VR, but rather exacerbates current funding shortages by giving Governor’s the authority to divert scarce resources away from the Public VR program to pay for infrastructure costs of One-Stop Centers while, at the same time:
A) removing the requirement that mandatory partners (such as VR) serve on Local Workforce Investment Boards where key decisions are made about funding and service provision;
B) significantly increasing VR’s responsibilities with regard to the provision of transition services for students with disabilities; and
C) failing to ensure that each state gets an increase equal to the Consumer Price Index (CPI) increase for the previous year.
2) CSAVR is gravely concerned about the Administration’s proposal, for WIA reauthorization, referred to as WIA Plus Consolidation. This proposal if adopted as part of H.R. 27 could potentially divert all of the VR funding in a state away from the Public VR Program with the expectation that individuals with significant disabilities will be able to receive the same level and scope of services through the state’s system of One-Stop Centers. A recent GAO report found that many One-Stop Centers are still not fully accessible to individuals with disabilities. If this proposal is added to H.R. 27, it has the potential to eliminate with 84 years of dedicated funding for specialized services and supports to facilitate the employment of individuals with significant disabilities.
I have attached a document that includes more detailed information on CSAVR’s concerns with HR 27 and provides recommendations and suggested legislative language to address these concerns. I trust you will give serious consideration to the specialized services and supports that are necessary for many individuals with significant disabilities to engage in, maintain and advance in employment; services and supports that are not available through the generic workforce system except through the participation of VR.
Currently, the federal government spends approximately $200 billion a year on various types of assistance for individuals with disabilities. Of that, less than $3 billion is appropriated to address the employment and training needs of individuals with significant disabilities. The Nation’s public policy must be directed toward the realization that a significant investment of resources must be made if people with disabilities are to have access to the individualized services and supports necessary to increase their independence and their economic self-sufficiency.
Sincerely,
Carl Suter
Executive Director
Attachment
CSAVR’s Recommendations with Regard to Title I of H.R. 27
H.R. 27 does not address the need for increased VR funding, but rather exacerbates current funding shortages.
Issue: CSAVR’s primary concern regarding H.R. 27 is how this legislation will negatively impact the highly effective, state/federal, public/private partnership that constitutes the Public Vocational Rehabilitation program authorized under Title I of the Rehabilitation Act (hereafter referred to as “VR”). H.R. 27 grants authority to Governors to take funds away from One-Stop partners to support the infrastructure costs of the One-Stop Center system. As a mandatory partner, VR would be required to divert funds away from providing direct services to individuals with significant disabilities to support the infrastructure of One-Stop Centers, even though significant numbers of One-Stop Centers are still not physically or programmatically accessible to individuals with disabilities. H.R. 27 stipulates that in determining the portion of funds to be taken from a partner program, the Governor must consider the “proportionate use” of the centers by each partner, the “cost of administration” for purposes not related to One-Stop Centers for each partner, and other relevant factors. While these restrictions may apply to some partner programs, they present significant problems for VR for a number of reasons.
-
VR already contributes funds to pay for infrastructure costs through the current cost-allocation process as approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and utilized by the DOL.
Statements made during the Senate’s passage of the 1998 Amendments to the Rehabilitation Act made it clear that it is contrary to Congressional intent to transfer funds appropriated for persons with disabilities to subsidize activities for the non-disabled general population. During the Senate’s consideration of the original WIA legislation, Senator DeWine (R-OH), the then-Chairman of the Subcommittee on Employment and Training, stated: “While the VR program is to be linked to the workforce investment system, funds appropriated for the VR program are not to be compromised or diverted to other workforce populations.”
Actual legislative language further confirms this intent. Sec. 3(b) of the Rehabilitation Act states: “The Secretary shall take whatever action is necessary to ensure that funds appropriated pursuant to this Act are expended only for the programs, personnel and administration of programs carried out under this Act.”
Sec. 16(a), TRANSFER OF FUNDS, states: “….no funds appropriated under this Act for any program or activity may be used for any purpose other than that for which the funds were specifically authorized.”
- This diversion of funds takes desperately needed dollars from services for individuals with disabilities to pay for indirect activities like rent and utilities.
42 State VR agencies [AZ combined; AR General & Blind; CA; CO; CT Gen; DE B; GA; HI; IL; IO G; IN; KS; KY G&B; LA; ME G&B; MD; MA G; MN G; MS; MO G; NE G; NJ G; NM B; NC G; ND; OH; OK; OR B; PA; RI; TN; VT G; VI; VA G&B; WA G; WV; WI; and WY] have implemented an Order of Selection (OOS) during FY 2005, a system of prioritizing services, required by law, when a State VR Agency does not have the fiscal or human resources available to serve everyone. Under an OOS, thousands of eligible individuals are placed on waiting lists. [For example, WA VR has over 13,000 eligible individuals waiting for services and TN VR has over 7,000 waiting for services.]
- “Proportionate use” is not defined in H.R. 27.
- While the other program partners have portions of their funds designated specifically for administrative costs, VR does not.
CSAVR is also concerned about the provision in Section 108(i) of H.R. 27, “Other Funds.” This provision appears to permit additional funds to be taken from One-Stop partner programs based on provisions specified in local MOUs. These contributions can be sought to pay the additional costs relating to the operation of the One-Stop delivery system that are not paid from the funds provided under the infrastructure funding provision, including common costs that are in addition to the costs of infrastructure and the cost of the provision of core services applicable to each program. CSAVR appreciates the inclusion of the reference “to the extent not inconsistent with the Federal law involved.” CSAVR nonetheless sees this as a potential drain on the already inadequate resources provided to VR to assist individuals with disabilities to become employed and self-sufficient.
Ultimately, CSAVR believes that this approach to infrastructure funding will most likely result in One-Stop partners being in conflict with one another over resources, rather than in working to improve services for One-Stop partners.
The diversion of VR funds to pay for One-Stop infrastructure costs and core services will appreciably diminish the resources available through VR to assist individuals with disabilities who want to work. The level and types of services and supports that VR provides to assist individuals with disabilities who want to work far exceed those provided by the traditional employment and training programs offered through the One-Stop Centers.
Unfortunately, VR is already severely under-funded to meet the mandates in the Rehabilitation Act (i.e., presumption of ability to benefit from services, emphasis on serving individuals with the most significant disabilities, providing a broad scope of individualized services, offering choice throughout the process, maximizing employment, etc.) and the external challenges facing the program (i.e., implementing the Ticket program, serving TANF clients, participating in One-Stop Centers, committing increased resources to assistive technology and post secondary education, etc.). As a result of these factors, forty-two (42) State VR agencies will be implementing an Order of Selection (OOS) during FY 2005. .
The erosion of VR’s funding means that fewer individuals with disabilities will go to work; state and federal taxes paid by individuals with disabilities will decrease, and those individuals who would otherwise move off of public assistance will continue to rely on public assistance programs such as Social Security disability benefits, welfare, food stamps, and Medicare.
Recommendation: To address these issues, CSAVR recommends an amendment to Section 108(h) that would place an overall 0.25 percent cap on the portion of VR funds that a Governor can take to support the infrastructure costs of the One-Stop system.
Suggested Language:
1) Add a new subsection (iii) to Section 108(h)(I) (C), Limitations, of H.R. 27, to read as follows:
“(iii) Vocational Rehabilitation.-Programs carried out under title I of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 shall not be required to provide, for purposes of this paragraph, an amount in excess of 0.25 percent of the amount provided to such programs in the State for a fiscal year.”
CSAVR also recommends amending section 108(i)(1), Other Funds, of H.R. 27 by inserting a comma after the phrase “described in subsection (b)(1)(B)” and inserting the following:
“with the exception of the programs authorized under title I of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 720 et seq.), as amended,”
CSAVR firmly believes these changes to H.R. 27 are in keeping with Congress’ original intent when it enacted the Workforce Investment Act in 1998 as stated by key members of Congress during the floor debate, i.e., that the funds appropriated under the Rehabilitation Act should be used solely for individuals with disabilities to meet the purposes of the Act.
Recommendation: CSAVR also recommends that H.R. 27 be amended or report language accompany the infrastructure provisions to clarify that no VR funds should be used to pay for infrastructure costs for any One-Stop Center that is not physically and programmatically accessibility to individuals with disabilities.
Recommendation: CSAVR also recommends that Sec. 108(g), Certification of One-Stop Centers, be amended to include a requirement that the criteria to certify One-Stop Centers must include that the facilities, programs and services must be both physically and programmatically accessible to individuals with disabilities.
Suggested Language: Amend section 108(c) by adding a new subparagraph (i) and renumber accordingly:
(c) CERTIFICATION AND FUNDING OF ONE-STOP CENTERS. – Section 121 (as amended by subsection (b)) is further amended by adding at the end the following new subsections:
“(g) Certification of One-Stop Centers.—
“(2) CRITERIA. – The criteria for certification under this subsection shall include minimum standards relating to the following:
(i) the scope and degree of service coordination or integration achieved by the centers involving the programs provided by the One-Stop partners;
(ii) how the centers ensure that such providers meet the employment needs of local employers and participant; and
(iii) the degree to which its facilities, technology, and services are physically and programmatically accessible to individuals with disabilities.”
Recommendation: CSAVR also recommends that H.R. 27 be amended to include a definition of “programmatic accessibility.”
Suggested Language: Programmatic Access - The term "programmatic access" means policies, practices, and procedures providing people with disabilities an equal opportunity to participate in or benefit from the provision of core, intensive, training, and support services (e.g., making reasonable modifications to policies, practices, and procedures, administering programs in the most integrated setting appropriate, guidance and counseling, communicating with persons with disabilities in a confidential environment, and providing auxiliary aides and services necessary for communication purposes).
Representation on State and Local Workforce Investment Boards
Issue: When WIA was originally authorized, Congress specified that mandatory partners be represented on State Workforce Investment Boards (SWIBs). The fact that VR was specifically given a seat on the SWIB was a strong statement regarding the importance that Congress places on persons with disabilities participating in the workforce system. However, as WIA was implemented in some states, the designated VR seat was occupied by the head of the designated state agency, the larger umbrella agency within which VR was located. CSAVR believes that Congress intended that the person with day-to-day responsibility for VR in a state serve on the SWIB.
CSAVR commends H.R. 27 for to addressing this issue and ensuring that the disability expertise housed in VR is available to all SWIBs. However, the language as drafted in H.R. 27 only permits the Director of the VR unit serving the most individuals with disabilities, in the state, to serve on the SWIB. In states where there is a separate VR agency for individuals who are blind and visually impaired, the Director of the Blind Agency would not have a seat on the SWIB. In every such case, the specialized expertise of blind agency directors will be lost to the SWIBs.
Recommendations: Amend Section 103 of H.R. 27 to require that the Director of the State VR agency and the Director of the State Agency for the Blind serve on the State Workforce Investment Boards.
Suggested Language: Amend Section 103, State Workforce Boards, by amending subsection 103(a)(1)(A) to read as follows:
(A) by amending paragraph (1)(C)(III) to read as follows:
(III) in the case of the programs authorized under Title I of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 720 et seq.)--
(i) the representative shall be the director of the Vocational Rehabilitation program; or
(ii) in a state that, under state law, has established a separate state agency responsible for provision of services to individuals who are blind or visually impaired, the Directors of both the General VR agency and the Blind VR agency shall serve on the State Workforce Investment Board.
Issue: When WIA was originally authorized, Congress specified that mandatory partners be represented on Local Workforce Investment Boards (LWIBs). This was done to ensure that LWIBs had access to the expertise needed to serve the various populations served by the WIA partners. This was viewed as particularly important because many decisions on how funding is directed and the types of services offered in the local areas are determined by the LWIB. Having individuals with disabilities and representatives of VR serve on LWIBs is critically important for enhancing the capacity of local One-Stop Centers to develop and implement appropriate strategies for employment and training initiatives for individuals with disabilities. H.R. 27 proposes to remove all WIA partners from LWIBs.
Recommendation: CSAVR supports current law with regard to the WIA mandatory partners serving on LWIBS and recommends that H.R. 27 be amended to permit the WIA mandatory partners, including representatives of the Public VR program, to continue serving on LWIBs.
CSAVR’s Recommendations with Regard to Title IV of H.R. 27, Amendments to the Rehabilitation Act
Expanding and Improving Transition Services for Youth with Disabilities
Issues: During the FY 2003-2004 school year, close to 2 million youth with disabilities, ages 16 to 21, were served in special education. There are also tens of thousands of additional students with disabilities, classified as 504 students, did not receive special education services. In addition, thousand of students with disabilities drop out of school each year.
With unemployment rates for adults with disabilities approaching 70 percent, the need to better prepare youth with disabilities for postsecondary education and employment is significant. The VR program provides vital services to assist students with disabilities as they leave the educational system and seek adult services and employment.
VR serves approximately 1.2 million individuals with disabilities a year. The potential population of transition-age youth with disabilities exceeds VR’s total caseload in most states, and with significant numbers of students with disabilities dropping out of school, CSAVR acknowledges that a greater emphasis on transition services would result in more students with disabilities leaving the school setting and going to work or having immediate access to adult services.
VR already has some responsibility to provide transition services and CSAVR wholly supports the policy intent to expand and improve transition services. From FY 1996 through 2005, special education received a well-deserved increase in funding of approximately 390%. During the same time period, the Public VR program received less than a 25% increase.
CSAVR believes that, without additional funding and time to prepare VR agencies to take on these new responsibilities, these amendments will most likely result in raised expectations for families and students that cannot be met. CSAVR believes that a community-wide effort is necessary if we are going to be successful in diverting a majority of the youth with disabilities from becoming tomorrow’s statistics on individuals with disabilities who are not working, who live in poverty, and who are dependent on public assistance.
Since VR’s effectiveness is measured by a set of standards and indicators that focuses solely on issues related to employment (e.g., achieving an employment outcome and measuring hourly earnings), they do not accurately measure the outcomes that should be viewed as successful for transitioning students with disabilities. Many of these youth may not enter employment for several years. If VR is required to prioritize services for transition-age youth without any influx of new funding, services to adults with disabilities would have to be diminished, meaning fewer adults with disabilities would get jobs, become tax-paying citizens and stop relying on public assistance programs.
Recommendation: According to the definition of “transition services expansion year” contained in H.R. 27, these new transition responsibilities would go into effect when the VR appropriation reaches $100 million above the 2004 appropriation. With the mandatory CPI increase that VR receives, State VR agencies would be expected to implement these new requirements in 2006 with no additional resources, with the possibility that some of VR’s resources will be diverted to pay for One-Stop infrastructure costs, and with no time to prepare State VR agencies and qualified rehabilitation counselors to take on these new responsibilities.
CSAVR recommends that the new definition of “transition services expansion year” contained in Section 402 of H.R. 27 be amended to establish the trigger for the new transition responsibilities at $100 million above the annual CPI increase.
Suggested Language:
Sec. 7(39) The term “transition services expansion year” means—
(A) the first fiscal year for which the amount appropriated under section 100(b) exceeds the amount appropriated under 100(b) for the previous fiscal year by $100 million above the mandated Consumer Price Index increase; and
(B) each fiscal year subsequent to that first fiscal year.
Report Language to Accompany the Transition Amendments to the Rehab Act
Issue: The transition amendments in H.R. 27 include a definition of student with a disability that references students ages 16 to 21. Many advocates, parents and individuals with disabilities may believe that this definition creates a mandate that VR must serve students with disabilities as young as age 16. In addition, some may interpret this definition to mean that VR is prohibited from serving students younger than age 16.
Recommendation: CSAVR recommends that language be developed for inclusion in the Committee Report, clarifying that the definition of “student with a disability” does not create a mandate that VR must serve all students with disabilities ages 16 to 21, or a prohibition against serving students younger than age 16.
Suggested Report Language: The Committee acknowledges that the proposed transition amendments constitute significant new responsibilities for the Public VR program without providing any additional resources to undertake these responsibilities. The Committee recognizes that the potential population of transition-age students with disabilities who might be determined eligible for VR services exceeds the total adult population being served by VR in most states. While the definition for student with a disability refers to youth ages 16 to 21, the Committee does not intend that this definition create a mandate for VR to serve students as young as 16 years of age or prevent VR from serving students who are younger than age 16 if the VR agency has the fiscal and personnel resources to do so. The Committee acknowledges that many of the services referenced in these amendments may be accomplished through services to groups and that VR’s involvement in IEP meetings may take place in a variety of ways and be required only when there is a specific focus on vocational matters. For example, the Committee believes that VR’s involvement in developing the transition component of an IEP can be accomplished through actual participation in an IEP meeting, participation by telephone or teleconference, and participation through the submission of written consultation. The Committee also intends that at no time should VR’s involvement with an individual student supplant the services being provided under IDEA. The Committee intends that representatives of Special Education and VR work together in close partnership to identify the appropriate role that VR should play in providing services while a student is still receiving special education services.
Ensuring that Every State Gets the CPI Increase in its VR Allotment
Issues: Section 100(b) of the Rehabilitation Act mandates an annual increase in the federal appropriation for the Public VR program that is at least equal to the increase in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) over the previous fiscal year. Unfortunately, Congress has provided VR with nothing more than the required CPI for the last six years, with increases less than .5% above CPI from 1996 through 1999. Mandatory CPI increases have been helpful but have failed to keep pace with the growing demand for and increased costs of VR services (including such things as college tuition and assistive technology services and devices) and supports necessary for individuals with significant disabilities to engage successfully in meaningful employment.
When the formula is applied to these minimal annual increases in VR’s appropriation, a significant number of states do not receive an increase in their state allotment that is equal to the CPI increase. The VR appropriation for FY 2005 included the CPI increase of 1.977%. When the formula was applied to this appropriation, thirty (30) states and territories received less than the CPI increase from the previous year. Those states are: AL, AR, CT, DC, IL, IN, IO, KS, KY, LA, ME, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, NE, NH, NJ, NY, OH, OK, PA, RI, TN, WV, WI, AS, PR, and VI. Unfortunately, the states that receive these minimal increases in the VR allotment tend to have had this budgetary crisis compounded over the years.
Recommendation: CSAVR recommends amending Sec. 100(b) to state that the funds authorized to be appropriated for the Public VR program each year shall include an increase above the previous year’s appropriation that is at least adequate to ensure that each state and territory gets an increase in its State allotment under Section 110(a) that is at least equal to the increase in the Consumer Price Index for the previous fiscal year. Given the high unemployment rate among persons with disabilities, the ever-increasing inflationary rate of many services such as college, assistive technology, etc., insuring every state gets at least the mandated COLA increase is crucial.
Suggested Language: Amend Section 100(b) to read as follows.
Section 100(b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—For the purpose of making grants to States under part B to assist States in meeting the costs of vocational rehabilitation services provided in accordance with State plans under section 101, there are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary for fiscal years 2006 through 2010, except that the amount to be appropriated for a fiscal year shall not be less than the amount of the appropriation under this paragraph for the immediately preceding fiscal year, increased by a percentage change that will ensure each state allotment a percentage increase that is, at a minimum, equal to the percentage change in the Consumer Price Index determined under subsection (c) for the immediately preceding fiscal year.
Recommendation: CSAVR also recommends that Title IV of H.R. 27 be amended to require the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to conduct a study of the formula used for the Public VR program.
Elevate the Position of the RSA Commissioner to an Assistant Secretary
Issue: H.R. 27 proposes to downgrade the position of the Commissioner of the Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA) from a Presidential appointment with Senate confirmation to a Director appointed by the Secretary of Education Reportedly, this is being done because the current reporting structure that has one Presidential appointee reporting to another Presidential appointee creates a management conflict. Since RSA is the leading federal agency overseeing policy on employment of individuals with significant disabilities, CSAVR believes that the downgrading of the Commissioner of RSA sends a message to the disability community that employment for individuals with disabilities is no longer a high priority of the Administration.
Recommendation: CSAVR recommends, in keeping with the President’s New Freedom Initiative and the need to place significant emphasis on the employment of individuals with significant disabilities, that the position of Commissioner of RSA should be elevated to be parallel to the position of the Assistant Secretary of the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS). This would eliminate any potential conflict inherent in the current management structure within OSERS and help ensure that an individual with the requisite knowledge, expertise, skills and commitment to employment for individuals with significant disabilities has ultimate responsibility for the administration of the Public VR program. This would also ensure that the needs of individuals seeking both Special Education and VR services are met in the most efficient and effective manner.
Suggested Language: Amend Sections 402 and 403 of H.R. 27 to read as follows:
Sec.402. Rehabilitation Services Administration
Section 3(a) of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S. C. 702(a)) is amended—
(1) by striking “Office of the Secretary” and inserting “Department of Education”;
(2) by striking “Commissioner” each place it appears, and inserting “Assistant Secretary”; and
(3) by striking “or an appropriate Assistant Secretary.”
Sec. 403. Assistance Secretary
(a) In General.—The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 701 et seq.) is amended by striking “Commissioner” each place it appears, except in section 21, and inserting “Assistant Secretary.”
Recommendation: CSAVR recommends that the administration of the National Institute on Disability Rehabilitation and Research (NIDRR) be moved under this new Assistant Secretary position.
