[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 126 (Tuesday, July 1, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35636-35644]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-17206]



[[Page 35635]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part VI





Department of Education





_______________________________________________________________________



National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research; Final 
Funding Priorities for Fiscal Years 1997-1998 for Rehabilitation 
Research and Training Centers and a Knowledge Dissemination and 
Utilization Project; and Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative 
Services; Inviting Applications for New Awards Under Certain Programs 
for Fiscal Year 1997; Notices

  Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 126 / Tuesday, July 1, 1997 / 
Notices  

[[Page 35636]]



DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION


National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research; 
Notice of Final Funding Priorities for Fiscal Years 1997-1998 for 
Rehabilitation Research and Training Centers and a Knowledge 
Dissemination and Utilization Project

AGENCY: Department of Education.

SUMMARY: The Secretary announces final funding priorities for the 
Rehabilitation Research and Training Center (RRTC) Program and the 
Knowledge Dissemination and Utilization (D&U) Program under the 
National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR) 
for fiscal years 1997-1998. The Secretary takes this action to focus 
research attention on areas of national need to improve rehabilitation 
services and outcomes for individuals with disabilities, and to assist 
in the solutions to problems encountered by individuals with 
disabilities in their daily activities.

EFFECTIVE DATE: These priorities take effect on July 31, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Esquith. Telephone: (202) 205-
8801. Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf 
(TDD) may call the TDD number at (202) 205-2742. Internet: 
David__E[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice contains final priorities to 
establish RRTCs for research related to persons who are late-deafened 
(L-D) or hard-of-hearing (HOH), substance abuse, and rural 
rehabilitation. In addition there is a D&U project on parenting.
    These final priorities support the National Education Goal that 
calls for all Americans to possess the knowledge and skills necessary 
to compete in a global economy and exercise the rights and 
responsibilities of citizenship.

    Note: This notice of final priorities does not solicit 
applications. A notice inviting applications under these 
competitions is published in a separate notice in this issue of the 
Federal Register.

Analysis of Comments and Changes

    On April 21, 1997, the Secretary published a notice of proposed 
priorities in the Federal Register (62 FR 19432-19439). The Department 
of Education received 19 letters commenting on the notice of proposed 
priorities by the deadline date. Three additional comments were 
received after the deadline date and were not considered in this 
response. Technical and other minor changes--and suggested changes the 
Secretary is not legally authorized to make under statutory authority--
are not addressed.

Rehabilitation Research and Training Centers

Priority 1: Maintaining the Employment Status and Addressing the 
Personal Adjustment Needs of Individuals Who Are Late-Deafened or Hard-
of-Hearing

    Comment: Three commenters made a number of different suggestions 
about the experience and expertise of the RRTC's key personnel. They 
suggested that key personnel: have extensive experience with vocational 
rehabilitation policies and procedures at the Federal and State level; 
have experience working with children who are HOH or L-D enrolled in 
mainstream programs; include individuals who are L-D; and include 
individuals who have demonstrated background, interest, and skill 
working with individuals who are L-D or HOH.
    Discussion: The peer review process evaluates the degree to which 
an applicant's key personnel are qualified to accomplish the purposes 
of the priority. The selection criteria for RRTCs are used to determine 
the degree to which: the staffing plan for the Center provides evidence 
that the project director, research director, training director, 
principal investigators, and other personnel have appropriate training 
and experience in disciplines required to conduct the proposed 
activities; the commitment of staff time is adequate to conduct all 
proposed activities; and the Center, as part of its nondiscriminatory 
employment practices, will ensure that its personnel are selected for 
employment without regard to race, color, national origin, gender, age, 
or handicapping conditions. These selection criteria address the issues 
raised by the commenters, and no further requirements are necessary.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Five commenters suggested that the RRTC should address the 
needs of adolescents and young adults who are L-D or HOH. The 
commenters indicated that recent research suggests that for a 
significant number of young people hearing loss may be taking place 
earlier than previously expected and may go undiagnosed for extended 
periods of time. The commenters indicated that very little research has 
been conducted on the personal adjustment needs of adolescents and 
young adults who are L-D or HOH.
    Discussion: There is a need for research and training on personal 
adjustment and, to a lesser extent, employment issues affecting 
adolescents and young adults who are L-D or HOH. It is desirable and 
feasible to expand the scope of RRTC's work in the area of personal 
adjustment and in transition-related employment areas to address the 
needs of adolescents and young adults who are L-D or HOH.
    Changes: The priority has been changed to require the RRTC, where 
appropriate, to address the needs of adolescents and young adults who 
are L-D or HOH.
    Comment: Three commenters suggested that the priority distinguish 
between the personal adjustment needs and mental health needs of 
persons who are L-D or HOH.
    Discussion: In order to provide applicants with general guidance, 
at various points the background statement elaborates on issues related 
to personal adjustment. Parts of that guidance refer to issues that are 
commonly understood as mental health issues (e.g., feelings of 
alienation, alcohol and drug abuse). However, ``personal adjustment'' 
is not defined, and the term ``mental health'' is not used in the 
priority in order to provide applicants with the discretion to propose 
the specific parameters of the research and training the RRTC will 
conduct in this area. The peer review process will evaluate the merits 
of each applicant's view of personal adjustment issues affecting 
persons who are L-D or HOH.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Three commenters suggested that the RRTC address not only 
maintaining employment for persons who are L-D or HOH, but also 
underemployment and unemployment.
    Discussion: In regard to employment, the focus of the RRTC is 
maintenance of employment status because the majority of the target 
population are employed when they begin to experience hearing loss and 
because research has determined that interventions that effect 
maintenance of employment are more effective than restorative 
interventions. However, the first activity of the priority refers to 
``employment status'' and provides applicants with the authority to 
propose research and training on other aspects of employment, so long 
as such activities are in addition to those related to maintenance of 
employment.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Three commenters suggested specific disability 
organizations that the RRTC should consult with or include in their 
training and technical assistance activities.
    Discussion: The fifth activity requires the RRTC to provide 
training and technical assistance to organizations representing persons 
who are L-D or HOH. There are a large number of

[[Page 35637]]

organizations representing the interests of persons who are L-D and 
HOH, and applicants have the discretion to select the organizations 
that will participate in their training and technical assistance 
activities. The peer review process will determine the merits of their 
selections.
    As necessary, all RRTCs are expected to consult with a wide range 
of entities. NIDRR declines to single out specific organizations for 
this purpose.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: The RRTC should be required to consult with NIDRR grantees 
addressing the needs of persons who are deaf including the RRTC for 
Persons Who Are Deaf or HOH.
    Discussion: The priority includes a requirement, in part, to 
coordinate with NIDRR's other research projects that address the needs 
of individuals who are L-D or HOH. There are areas of research common 
to persons who are L-D, HOH, and deaf, and research projects addressing 
the needs of persons who are deaf should be included in this 
coordination requirement.
    Changes: The priority has been revised to require the RRTC to 
coordinate with NIDRR research projects addressing the needs of 
individuals who are deaf.
    Comment: Two commenters recommended changes to the definitions of 
L-D and HOH, and a third commenter suggested that the RRTC generate 
definitions of L-D and HOH based on research. The first commenter 
recommended that the definition be revised to recognize that the needs 
of persons who are L-D or HOH may include issues related to deaf 
culture and the need for appropriate accommodations. The second 
commenter recommended that the definition of HOH be revised to indicate 
that these individuals can understand conversational speech ``through 
the ear'' in order to clearly distinguish this population from persons 
who are late-deafened and can speechread.
    Discussion: The definitions that are included in the background 
statement are purposefully broad in order to provide applicants with 
the discretion to refine their approach to the RRTC's target 
population. Applicants have the discretion to propose research that 
incorporates the idea that needs of persons who are L-D or HOH may 
include issues related to deaf culture and the need for appropriate 
accommodations. In addition, an applicant may propose to distinguish 
the needs of persons who are HOH from those who are L-D, in part, by 
their ability to understand normal conversation ``through the ear.'' 
While these two recommendations are reasonable refinements of the 
definitions included in the priority, there are many others that could 
be proposed, and there is no compelling reason to require all 
applicants to utilize the two that were recommended.
    In regard to the recommendation for the RRTC to generate a 
definition of L-D and HOH based on research, an applicant could propose 
to conduct this research as long at it furthered the purposes of the 
RRTC as set forth in the priority. The peer review process will 
evaluate the merits of such a project.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter recommended using a different database to 
indicate the number of persons who are L-D or HOH, and a second 
commenter indicated that the Bureau of the Census data underestimated 
the number of persons who have a functional limitation in hearing 
normal conversation because many people may fail to realize they have a 
mild hearing loss.
    Discussion: The priority cites data from the Bureau of the Census, 
the National Center for Health Statistics, and the Association of Late-
Deafened Adults. Neither commenter presented compelling evidence to 
indicate that these databases are incorrect.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: The RRTC should address the needs of various racial and 
ethnic groups who are L-D or HOH.
    Discussion: By statute, each applicant must demonstrate how it will 
address, in whole or in part, the needs of individuals with 
disabilities from minority backgrounds. No further requirements are 
necessary to address the commenter's concern.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Five commenters suggested numerous specific activities for 
the RRTC to carry out. These suggestions include, but are not limited 
to, specific age group focus, development of educational materials, 
incidence studies, model demonstrations, and family dynamics.
    Discussion: Applicants have the discretion to propose the specific 
activities that the RRTC will undertake in order to fulfill the 
purposes of the RRTC as set forth in the priority. Providing this 
degree of discretion to applicants is an acknowledgement of the wide 
range of approaches that applicants could take. The peer review process 
will determine the merits of the suggested activities.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: All of the RRTC's activities and information should be 
fully accessible to individuals who are deaf, L-D, or HOH.
    Discussion: All of NIDRR's grantees must conduct all activities in 
a manner that is accessible to and usable by individuals with 
disabilities. No further requirements are necessary.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: The RRTC should be capable of rigorous scientific research 
combined with a strong commitment to consumer involvement with equal 
attention given to individuals who are L-D and HOH.
    Discussion: Using the relevant selection criteria, the peer review 
process will evaluate the quality of the research design that an 
applicant proposes. No further requirements are necessary to ensure the 
scientific rigor of the RRTC's research activities.
    In regard to consumer involvement, the general requirements for all 
RRTCs state that the RRTC must involve individuals with disabilities 
and, if appropriate, their family members, as well as rehabilitation 
service providers, in planning and implementing the research and 
training programs, in interpreting and disseminating the research 
findings, and in evaluating the Center.
    In regard to providing equal attention to individuals who are L-D 
and HOH, each applicant is expected to propose and justify its 
allocation of research and training efforts, which must include 
attention to both population groups. The peer review process will 
evaluate the merits of this allocation.
    Changes: None.

Priority 3: Improving Employment and Independent Living Outcomes for 
Persons With Disabilities in Rural Areas

    Comment: The project should include a scientifically valid, 
credible, and outcome-based evaluation program.
    Discussion: Applicants have the discretion to propose the RRTC's 
plan of evaluation. Plans of evaluation that are scientifically valid, 
credible, and outcome-based are consistent with the plan of evaluation 
selection criteria for RRTCs. These selection criteria are used to 
determine the degree to which the plan for evaluation of the Center 
provides for an annual assessment of the outcomes of the research, the 
impact of the training and dissemination activities on the target 
populations, and the extent to which the overall objectives have been 
accomplished.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: The third, fourth and six activities specifically call for 
the development of new strategies and services, while the first, 
second, and fifth activities require the project to carry out 
identification, analysis, and evaluation activities. May a project 
carry

[[Page 35638]]

out additional activities than those included in priority?
    Discussion: An applicant must propose to address each of the 
specific activities included in the priority, but may propose 
additional activities as well.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: The fifth activity refers to people with ``significant'' 
disabilities. Is this term synonymous with ``severe'' disabilities, and 
is it NIDRR's intent to restrict the fifth activity to services 
affecting only persons with significant disabilities?
    Discussion: The terms ``severe'' and ``significant'' are used 
synonymously. By statute, NIDRR research must have a particular 
emphasis on problems of individuals with severe disabilities. This 
provision applies equally to all priorities in all Centers. The fifth 
activity of the proposed priority unnecessarily restricted the RRTC to 
address services provided to persons with significant disabilities.
    Changes: The reference to persons with significant disabilities in 
the fifth activity has been eliminated.
    Comment: One commenter suggested that the collaboration requirement 
should be broadened to include other Federal agencies, in addition to 
USDA and DHHS, that may be carrying out projects related to persons 
with disabilities in rural areas. A second commenter suggested 
broadening the collaboration requirement to include RRTCs that address 
the needs of underserved and minority populations of consumers with 
disabilities.
    Discussion: The priority establishes the minimum collaboration 
requirements that the project must meet. While an applicant may choose 
to propose to undertake additional collaborative activities, including 
those suggested by the commenters, additional collaboration is not 
specifically required by NIDRR.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Is it NIDRR's intent to restrict training and information 
services to the entities included in the sixth activity, and to limit 
training activities?
    Discussion: An applicant must propose to provide training and 
information services to the entities identified in the sixth activity, 
but may propose to provide training and information services to 
additional entities. In regard to the nature of the training 
activities, an applicant may propose to undertake a variety of training 
activities, and the peer review process will evaluate the merits of the 
activities.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: A seventh activity should be added to the priority, 
requiring the RRTC to identify, evaluate, develop, and disseminate 
information about appropriate assistive technology that enables persons 
with disabilities living in rural areas to live more independently and 
improve their employment outcomes.
    Discussion: Access to assistive technology is an important issue, 
and an applicant could propose to integrate assistive technology into 
the fourth and fifth activities of the priority. Adding a seventh 
activity to the priority related exclusively to assistive technology 
would significantly limit the RRTC's capacity to carry out the six 
activities in the priority.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: While the third activity addresses the participation of 
persons with disabilities in local public planning for community 
development, it should include service providers such as independent 
living centers and vocational rehabilitation agencies.
    Discussion: An applicant may propose to include service providers 
in the strategies that are developed to increase participation of 
persons with disabilities in local planning for community development. 
The peer review process will evaluate merits of the proposal. There is 
insufficient information regarding the role of service providers in 
local public planning for community development to warrant requiring 
all applicants to include them.
    Changes: None.

Priority 4: Parenting With a Disability Technical Assistance Center

    Comment: The priority should specifically include ``research'' 
among the information that the Center identifies, disseminates, and 
synthesizes across various activities in the priority.
    Discussion: The background statement clearly indicates that the 
Center should utilize research findings in its various information 
dissemination activities. It would be redundant to include ``research'' 
among the specific activities included in the priority.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Pre-service training activities should have a relatively 
equal weight with the other training activities required by the Center.
    Discussion: Each applicant is expected to propose and justify its 
allocation of training efforts, which must include attention to 
organizations and institutions of higher education that provide pre-
service and in-service training. The peer review process will evaluate 
the merits of this allocation.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: The inter-disciplinary focus of the priority should be 
wider and include related health service providers such as occupational 
therapists, physical therapists, speech and language pathologists, and 
psychologists.
    Discussion: The priority refers to a range of ``fields of social 
services, law, and medicine.'' The health service providers included in 
the comment fall within this range.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: It is important to emphasize the importance of technical 
competence, access to technology resources, and potential for multi-
site national collaboration of the successful applicant.
    Discussion: All of the characteristics included in the comment are 
within the purview of the application review process.
    Changes: None.

Rehabilitation Research and Training Centers

    Authority for the RRTC program of NIDRR is contained in section 
204(b)(2) of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (29 U.S.C. 760-
762). Under this program the Secretary makes awards to public and 
private organizations, including institutions of higher education and 
Indian tribes or tribal organizations for coordinated research and 
training activities. These entities must be of sufficient size, scope, 
and quality to effectively carry out the activities of the Center in an 
efficient manner consistent with appropriate State and Federal laws. 
They must demonstrate the ability to carry out the training activities 
either directly or through another entity that can provide that 
training.
    The Secretary may make awards for up to 60 months through grants or 
cooperative agreements. The purpose of the awards is for planning and 
conducting research, training, demonstrations, and related activities 
leading to the development of methods, procedures, and devices that 
will benefit individuals with disabilities, especially those with the 
most severe disabilities.
    Under the regulations for this program (see 34 CFR 352.32) the 
Secretary may establish research priorities by reserving funds to 
support particular research activities.

Description of the Rehabilitation Research and Training Center Program

    RRTCs are operated in collaboration with institutions of higher 
education or providers of rehabilitation services or other appropriate 
services. RRTCs serve

[[Page 35639]]

as centers of national excellence and national or regional resources 
for providers and individuals with disabilities and the parents, family 
members, guardians, advocates or authorized representatives of the 
individuals.
    RRTCs conduct coordinated and advanced programs of research in 
rehabilitation targeted toward the production of new knowledge to 
improve rehabilitation methodology and service delivery systems, to 
alleviate or stabilize disabling conditions, and to promote maximum 
social and economic independence of individuals with disabilities.
    RRTCs provide training, including graduate, pre-service, and in-
service training, to assist individuals to more effectively provide 
rehabilitation services. They also provide training including graduate, 
pre-service, and in-service training, for rehabilitation research 
personnel and other rehabilitation personnel.
    RRTCs serve as informational and technical assistance resources to 
providers, individuals with disabilities, and the parents, family 
members, guardians, advocates, or authorized representatives of these 
individuals through conferences, workshops, public education programs, 
in-service training programs and similar activities.
    NIDRR encourages all Centers to involve individuals with 
disabilities and minorities as recipients in research training, as well 
as clinical training.
    Applicants have considerable latitude in proposing the specific 
research and related projects they will undertake to achieve the 
designated outcomes. However, the regulatory selection criteria for the 
program (34 CFR 352.31) state that the Secretary reviews the extent to 
which applicants justify their choice of research projects in terms of 
the relevance to the priority and to the needs of individuals with 
disabilities. The Secretary also reviews the extent to which applicants 
present a scientific methodology that includes reasonable hypotheses, 
methods of data collection and analysis, and a means to evaluate the 
extent to which project objectives have been achieved.
    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 Center. In accordance 
with the provisions of 34 CFR 75.253(a), continued funding depends at 
all times on satisfactory performance and accomplishment.

General

    The following requirements will apply to these RRTCs pursuant to 
the priorities unless noted otherwise:
    Each RRTC must conduct an integrated program of research to develop 
solutions to problems confronted by individuals with disabilities.
    Each RRTC must conduct a coordinated and advanced program of 
training in rehabilitation research, including training in research 
methodology and applied research experience, that will contribute to 
the number of qualified researchers working in the area of 
rehabilitation research.
    Each RRTC must disseminate and encourage the use of new 
rehabilitation knowledge. They must publish all materials for 
dissemination or training in alternate formats to make them accessible 
to individuals with a range of disabling conditions.
    Each RRTC must involve individuals with disabilities and, if 
appropriate, their family members, as well as rehabilitation service 
providers, in planning and implementing the research and training 
programs, in interpreting and disseminating the research findings, and 
in evaluating the Center.

Priorities

    Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(3), the Secretary gives an absolute 
preference to applications that meet one of the following priorities. 
The Secretary will fund under these competitions only applications that 
meet one of these absolute priorities:

Priority 1: Maintaining the Employment Status and Addressing the 
Personal Adjustment Needs of Individuals Who are Late-Deafened or Hard-
of-Hearing

Background
    Individuals whose hearing is impaired, but who can understand 
conversational speech with, or without, amplification are hard-of-
hearing (HOH). Adults who are late-deafened (L-D) become deaf after 
having experienced hearing as well as speech and language development. 
Adults who are late-onset HOH and those who are L-D have common and 
different employment-related and personal adjustment needs. A third 
group of persons who are considered hearing impaired are those persons 
who are prelingually deaf. Because the prelingually deaf have been and 
continue to be the focus of other NIDRR-funded research, this proposed 
priority is for research that addresses the needs of adults who are L-D 
or late-onset HOH.
    According to data from the Bureau of the Census, the number of 
individuals who have a functional limitation in hearing normal 
conversation is approximately 10.9 million (McNeil, J., ``Americans 
with Disabilities: 1991-1992,'' Household Economic Studies, P70-33, 
December, 1993). The National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) 
estimates the number of persons who are HOH ranges from 20 million to 
22 million (``National Health Survey,'' Series 10, No. 188, 1994). The 
NCHS studies use the ``Gallaudet Hearing Scale'' which is self-
reporting and quantifies the amount of interference with hearing in 
ordinary day-to-day situations. According to the Association of Late-
Deafened Adults, the number of persons who are L-D is estimated to be 
between 800,000 and 1.5 million. For 1991 and 1992, of all persons 21 
to 64 years old who had some functional limitation hearing normal 
conversation, 3,335,000 individuals or 63.6 percent were employed, 
while 189,000 individuals, or 58.2 percent of those who were totally 
unable to hear normal conversation, were employed (McNeil, J., 1993).
    Over the years, NIDRR has supported a number of research efforts to 
address the problems caused by various hearing impairments. At various 
times these efforts have included: developing hearing aids and 
telecommunication devices; enhancing the use and teaching of sign 
language interpreters; developing interventions for ``low-functioning'' 
deaf persons with multiple disabilities; developing more effective 
interventions and service models for hearing impaired vocational 
rehabilitation clients; and studying mental health issues of persons 
who are deaf, HOH, or L-D.
    As the population ages, as people recover from serious illness with 
hearing impairments, and as environmental factors contribute to the 
incidence of hearing loss, it has become clear that there is a growing 
population of persons who experience disabling hearing loss as adults. 
The time of onset is likely to be in older adulthood, but this 
population is distinguished by the fact that the hearing loss occurs 
after the person has developed spoken language, has completed 
substantial formal education, and may have worked, married, had 
children, or developed social relationships--as a hearing person with 
``normal'' speech.
    These individuals face major adjustment problems in all phases of 
their lives, and may undergo depression

[[Page 35640]]

and disruption in family or community life, as well as in their ability 
to perform their work and maintain their career. Such individuals need 
to learn ways to maintain communication skills--both receptive and 
expressive--and frequently need interventions to enable them to 
maintain speech quality (i.e., volume, modulation, articulation). 
Because they socialize and work with colleagues, family, and friends in 
a hearing and speaking environment, and because of their age, they are 
not likely to make a transition to deaf culture even if they do learn 
some sign language. Most will depend on lip-reading, amplification, or 
written communication. Multiple personal adjustment and work 
performance issues confront these individuals ranging from safety 
(e.g., driving and traffic noise, fire alarms, public announcement 
warning systems) to following instructions at work, to communicating 
with doctors, dentists, and therapists about their health and 
medications.
    The impact of partial or complete hearing loss may have compound 
effects on the work status of individuals who are L-D or HOH. In 
addition to the functional impact of the hearing loss on an employee's 
performance, the employee may be unfamiliar with his or her civil 
rights and concerned about disclosing his or her condition for fear of 
dismissal, demotion, or loss of potential career advancement. This fear 
of disclosure not only produces additional anxiety, but also may delay 
or prevent the employee from obtaining needed assistance. Even if the 
employee discloses his or her condition, human resource personnel, 
family counselors, and other employment and social service providers 
may not be familiar with the sundry impacts that hearing loss and 
impairment can have on work performance and personal life. The 
inability of human resource personnel, family counselors, and others to 
provide effective services can increase the individual's sense of 
isolation and anxiety.
    Factors such as early identification, family support, and the 
provision of reasonable accommodations can play an important role in 
enabling the individual to adjust to the hearing impairment and 
maintain employment, family, and community status. Providing such 
individuals with appropriate assistive technology (e.g., assistive 
listening devices, realtime computer assisted captioning) in a timely 
manner can make a significant difference in job performance and morale.
    The onset of a hearing impairment or the increased loss of hearing 
ability also can have a significant impact on the personal life of an 
individual who is L-D or HOH. It is not uncommon for those individuals 
to experience feelings of disorientation and alienation and to withdraw 
from family and friends. That withdrawal reinforces the individual's 
isolation and can, in extreme instances, lead to secondary 
complications such as alcohol and drug abuse.

Priority 1:

    The Secretary will establish an RRTC for the purpose of conducting 
research on the maintenance of employment status and personal 
adjustment of persons who are L-D or HOH. The RRTC shall:
    (1) Identify and analyze the factors that negatively impact the 
employment status and the personal life of persons who are L-D or HOH;
    (2) Develop and disseminate interventions that address these 
employment and personal adjustment problems, including early 
identification, reasonable accommodations, counseling, and assistive 
technology;
    (3) Develop information materials on effective interventions and 
disseminate those materials to employers, human resource organizations, 
appropriate counseling organizations, and organizations representing 
persons who are L-D or HOH;
    (4) Identify materials that address the rights of persons who are 
L-D or HOH under the Americans with Disabilities Act, and other 
disability rights laws, disseminate these materials to organizations 
representing those persons, and inform those organizations about 
opportunities to receive training and technical assistance from 
entities such as the Disability and Business Technical Assistance 
Centers (DBTACs); and
    (5) Develop training and technical assistance materials and provide 
training and technical assistance to employers, human resource 
organizations, appropriate counseling organizations, and organizations 
representing persons who are L-D or HOH to enable them to address 
effectively the employment and personal adjustment problems experienced 
by persons who are L-D or HOH.
    In carrying out the purposes of the priority, the RRTC shall:
     Identify and address the employment and personal 
adjustment issues that are common to both persons who are L-D and those 
who are HOH, as well as those issues that are unique to each 
population;
     Coordinate with NIDRR's other research projects addressing 
individuals who are L-D, HOH, or deaf, the DBTACs, and the Assistive 
Technology Projects; and
     Where appropriate, address the needs of adolescents and 
young adults who are L-D or HOH.

Priority 2: Improving Vocational Rehabilitation Outcomes for 
Individuals Who Are Substance Abusers

Background

    In 1993, NIDRR funded the establishment of a three-year RRTC on 
Substance Abuse and Disability to address the vocational rehabilitation 
needs of two major categories of eligible individuals served by the 
State Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) Services program. The two 
categories of VR eligible individuals were: (1) Those whose substance 
abuse has resulted in a work disability; and (2) those who have some 
other disability but whose substance abuse interferes with their 
ability to benefit from vocational rehabilitation services.
    In addition, the 1993 priority authorizing the RRTC limited the 
scope of substance abuse to substances other than alcohol abuse 
(although the presence of alcohol abuse in conjunction with other 
substance abuse was within the scope of the RRTC). For the purposes of 
this priority, substance abuse includes alcohol abuse with or without 
the presence of other substance abuse. The RRTC is expected to address 
the needs of VR eligible individuals who abuse alcohol, other 
substances, or alcohol and other substances.
    Individuals with a disability that results in a substantial 
impediment to employment and who can benefit from VR services, 
including those individuals whose disabling condition is due to 
substance abuse, are eligible for services through the State Vocational 
Rehabilitation (SVR) Services Program, authorized under Title I of the 
Rehabilitation Act. Program data for fiscal year 1995 show that 
substance abuse was reported as the primary disabling condition for 
51,339 eligible individuals who exited the program in that year. Of the 
51,339 individuals with a primary disability of substance abuse, 22,708 
persons' primary disabling condition was alcohol abuse and 28,631 
persons' primary disabling condition was drug abuse. Of the 40,766 
eligible individuals with a primary disabling condition of substance 
abuse who received services before exiting the program, 21,718 (53 
percent) achieved an employment outcome (Rehabilitation

[[Page 35641]]

Services Administration, Caseload Services data, 1995).
    There are also individuals with disabilities served by the SVR 
program for whom substance abuse is a co-existing, and sometimes 
hidden, condition. In addition to those individuals who exited the SVR 
program in 1995 for whom substance abuse was reported as the primary 
disabling condition, another 33,808 individuals were reported to have a 
secondary disability of substance abuse. Findings from a State-wide 
survey of alcohol, tobacco, illicit drugs, and medication among 
applicants for vocational rehabilitation services from Michigan 
Rehabilitation Services indicate that while alcohol use patterns 
approximate the general population, the percent of applicants who 
report current tobacco use or lifetime use of illicit drugs appear 
considerably higher than the general population (Moore, D. and Li, L., 
``Substance Abuse Among Applicants for Vocational Rehabilitation 
Services,'' Journal of Rehabilitation, Vol. 60, No. 4, pgs. 48-53, 
1994).
    Unrecognized or untreated substance abuse as a co-existing 
condition can be a greater barrier to employment than the primary 
disability. Chief among those barriers are complications of 
psychological and social adjustment to the disability, impaired 
learning processes, decreased chances for vocational preparation and 
employment, and increased risk of adverse medical effects from the 
interaction of abused substances with treatment medications.
    One of the primary modes of transmission of HIV is through 
injection drug use when an HIV-infected syringe is shared between 
individuals. The higher incidence of intravenous drug abuse in socio-
economically depressed communities means that resultant HIV is 
concentrated among individuals who lack health care, have low education 
and little prior work experience, and lack access to transportation, 
assistive technology, and other community supports that facilitate 
vocational rehabilitation and job maintenance. Substance abuse also 
leads to more high risk sexual behaviors, further increasing the 
incidence of HIV infection in this population. The presence of HIV 
infection can be a complicating factor in the vocational rehabilitation 
of substance abusers. There is a need for research on the specific 
vocational rehabilitation needs of substance abusers with HIV.
    The need for an expanded understanding of the relationship between 
vocational rehabilitation, substance abuse, and disability has been 
further underscored by recent changes in legislation, including welfare 
reform and discontinuance of Social Security Insurance and Social 
Security Disability Insurance benefits for individuals who previously 
were eligible based on addictions to alcohol and other drugs. The 
removal of substantial numbers of substance abusers from income 
supports and medical assistance is likely to cause strains on the SVR 
service delivery system by increasing the demand for services, 
decreasing the ``comparable benefits'' dollars available for SVR 
services, decreasing access to general health care during 
rehabilitation, and increasing client financial instability. Changes in 
the management and financing of health care in both the public and 
private sector, including managed care, may also have an impact on SVR 
agencies' financial arrangements with third party payers and access to 
comparable benefits for substance abuse treatment.
    Although there is an increasing prevalence of substance abuse among 
a diverse population of individuals undergoing rehabilitation, many 
service providers communicate that they have an inadequate 
understanding about substance abuse and co-existing disability and that 
this adversely impacts their ability to address the problem effectively 
(Heinemann, A. W.,''An Introduction to Substance Abuse and Physical 
Disability,'' Substance Abuse and Physical Disability, New York: The 
Haworth Press, 1993). Practitioners in a growing number of disciplines 
within the rehabilitation field need information about substance abuse 
and co-existing disability, including rehabilitation educators, 
vocational rehabilitation counselors, health care providers, 
independent living specialists, community-based rehabilitation 
providers, rehabilitation administrators, chemical dependence 
counselors, and directors of State vocational rehabilitation programs.
    In order to address this need and because there are other Federal 
agencies that focus significant resources on individuals whose sole or 
primary disability is substance abuse, this RRTC will focus its 
efforts, although not exclusively, on issues affecting individuals with 
co-existing disabilities. Particular emphasis would be given to SVR 
eligible individuals for whom substance abuse is not their sole or 
primary disabling condition, but whose substance abuse interferes with 
their ability to benefit from vocational rehabilitation services.
    Priority 2: The Secretary will establish an RRTC for the purpose of 
improving vocational rehabilitation outcomes for SVR eligible 
individuals whose substance abuse has resulted in a work disability, or 
who have some other disability that results in a substantial impediment 
to employment but whose substance abuse interferes with their ability 
to benefit from vocational rehabilitation services. The RRTC shall:
    (1) Conduct epidemiological studies to advance the understanding of 
the relationship between substance abuse and disability among 
individuals who are eligible for the State Vocational Rehabilitation 
Services program, including determining the relative prevalence of 
substance abuse among persons with more severe disabilities;
    (2) Develop, identify, and evaluate information about effective 
methods for providing vocational rehabilitation services to individuals 
who are substance abusers;
    (3) Investigate the impact of recent legislative changes (including 
welfare reform and SSA eligibility) and changes in health care 
management and financing of substance abuse treatment on the provision 
of vocational rehabilitation services to individuals who are substance 
abusers; and
    (4) Disseminate informational materials and provide technical 
assistance and training to SVR eligible individuals whose substance 
abuse has resulted in a work disability, or who have some other 
disability that results in a substantial impediment to employment but 
whose substance abuse interferes with their ability to benefit from 
vocational rehabilitation services, vocational rehabilitation 
personnel, and related rehabilitation disciplines concerning effective 
strategies for providing vocational rehabilitation services.
    In carrying out the purposes of the priority, the RRTC shall:
     Give special emphasis to issues affecting the vocational 
rehabilitation of individuals with co-existing disabilities, 
particularly issues affecting SVR eligible individuals for whom 
substance abuse is not their sole or primary disabling condition, but 
whose substance abuse interferes with their ability to benefit from 
vocational rehabilitation services.
     Address the vocational rehabilitation needs of individuals 
with HIV/AIDS who are SVR eligible individuals whose substance abuse 
has resulted in a work disability, or who have some other disability 
that results in a substantial impediment to employment but whose 
substance abuse interferes with their ability to benefit from 
vocational rehabilitation services;
     Where appropriate, address the needs of transitioning 
special education

[[Page 35642]]

students who may have substance abuse problems, their special education 
teachers, and administrators; and
     Coordinate with projects on substance abuse supported by 
the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration and with 
NIDRR centers and projects on vocational rehabilitation and emerging 
disability populations.

Priority 3: Improving Employment and Independent Living Outcomes for 
Persons with Disabilities in Rural Areas

Background
    Between 11 and 15 million persons living in rural areas have a 
chronic or permanent disability, a higher per capita rate of disability 
than exists in cities with populations over 50,000 (Young, C. and 
O'Day, B., ``Issues in Rural Independence: Funding,'' Rural Monograph 
Series.'' Compared to their counterparts in metropolitan areas, persons 
with disabilities in rural areas have higher rates of activity 
limitation (16.4% versus 14.6%), work limitation (14.2% versus 10.9%), 
and personal care limitation (4.7% versus 3.8%) (LaPlante, M. et al., 
``Disability Statistics Report #7,'' Disability in the United States: 
Prevalence and Causes, 1992, Institute for Health and Aging, University 
of California, San Francisco, July, 1996). Persons with disabilities in 
rural areas face challenges that are quite different from their peers 
living in and around metropolitan areas. The quality of life for many 
people with disabilities residing in rural America is characterized by: 
(1) Limited job opportunities; (2) inadequate health care; (3) 
isolation and inadequate transportation; (4) lack of accessible 
housing; and (5) underfunded social services.
    For many rural areas, social and economic vitality hinges on 
overcoming the problems posed by remoteness from urban centers--such as 
the lack of easy access to advanced education, medical knowledge, and 
enterprise development opportunities. People with disabilities living 
in rural communities often live a long distance from vocational 
rehabilitation (VR) agencies, independent living centers (ILCs), and 
other social service agencies. Although these resources have great 
potential for reducing the impact of disability, service delivery 
challenges limit their availability in rural areas.
    Currently, Federal, State, and local initiatives such as 
Empowerment Zones (EZ) or Enterprise Communities (EC) are addressing 
community and economic development in rural areas. The Federal 
government, working across agency lines and in a new partnership with 
State and local government and the private sector, has provided 
distressed communities with the tools they need and flexibility they 
desire, in the form of block grants, tax breaks and waivers. In return, 
EZ/EC communities--residents, community leaders, businesses, State and 
local governments and schools--must demonstrate that they are taking 
responsibility for their own futures by developing and implementing a 
plan to utilize these tools. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 
is authorized to designate three rural EZs and thirty ECs.
    These projects are intended to demonstrate that innovative economic 
development and service delivery approaches can make a difference for 
people with disabilities living in rural areas. It is important for 
individuals with disabilities living in rural communities to 
participate in long-range community development planning. Their 
involvement is crucial to ensure that the unique needs of people with 
disabilities for employment, economic self-sufficiency, transportation, 
affordable and accessible housing, and access to generic community 
facilities are addressed. Research is needed to study current 
approaches, and to develop new models, for increasing their 
participation in public and private economic development and services 
improvement initiatives.
    The health problems experienced by people with disabilities living 
in rural areas are complicated by the burden of travelling long 
distances and the general shortage of primary health care providers. As 
a result, people with disabilities living in rural areas may experience 
a high rate of secondary conditions each year such as pressure sores, 
physical deconditioning, urinary tract infections, depression and pain 
(Seekins, T. et al., ``A Descriptive Study of Secondary Conditions 
Reported by a Population of Adults with Physical Disabilities Served by 
Three Independent Living Centers in a Rural State,'' Journal of 
Rehabilitation, Vol. 60, No. 2, pgs. 47-51, 1994). Proper education, 
support delivered by health clinics and independent living centers, and 
utilization of telemedicine can dramatically improve the health of 
adults with disabilities and reduce medical service utilization.
    The USDA's Rural Utilities Service, which funds telecommunications 
infrastructure in many rural areas, provides grants to link rural 
health clinics with larger hospitals to better serve rural residents. 
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' (DHHS') Health Care 
Financing Administration funds Rural Telemedicine Grants which 
demonstrate and collect information on the feasibility, costs, 
appropriateness, and acceptability of telemedicine for improving access 
to health services for rural residents and reducing the isolation of 
rural practitioners. The intended beneficiaries of these grants are 
rural health care providers, patients, and rural communities which gain 
from this program.
    Changes in health care policy, such as managed care, are 
significantly affecting the lives of people with disabilities living in 
rural areas. For example, managed care emphasizes primary care and 
control of access to specialized services. Persons with significant 
disabilities in rural areas, however, have difficulty obtaining primary 
care and often need extensive services and access to highly specialized 
providers to prevent death or further disability (``Medicaid Managed 
Care: Serving the Disabled Challenges State Programs,'' U.S. General 
Accounting Office (GAO)/Health, Education, and Human Services-96-136).
    The use of telecommunications technologies may be a critical 
element in efforts to provide social services as well as maintain and 
foster economic development. Advanced telecommunications technologies--
the Internet, videoconferencing and high-speed data transmission--offer 
rural areas the chance to overcome some of the problems they face as a 
result of their geographic isolation. These technologies can link rural 
areas with other communities and expertise to improve medical services, 
create new jobs, and increase rural residents' access to education 
(``Rural Development: Steps Toward Realizing the Potential of 
Telecommunications Technologies,'' GAO/Resources, Community, and 
Economic Development-96-155).
    Interactive technology can link isolated rural settings with 
comprehensive services at distant facilities. With these linkages, the 
distant facility can review X-rays, CAT scans, and other medical 
evidence to diagnose an illness and prescribe treatment without having 
the patient make long, and sometimes difficult, trips to the larger 
institution. Colleges and schools can offer classes, and even degree 
programs, to students in remote locations. Large businesses can 
establish or maintain branch offices in rural areas by using 
videoconferencing or on-line access to hold meetings and conduct 
business. There is a need to design ways to apply these emerging 
interactive technologies to the lives of people with

[[Page 35643]]

disabilities living in rural areas, particularly as Federal and other 
public and private programs expand their uses of interactive 
technology.

Priority 3

    The Secretary will establish an RRTC for the purpose of examining 
means to improve the employment status and ability of persons with 
disabilities to live independently in rural areas. The RRTC shall:
    (1) Identify, analyze and evaluate the impact of rural economic 
development strategies in improving the employment outcomes and 
economic status of people with disabilities living in rural 
communities;
    (2) Identify and examine issues of access to health care for 
persons with disabilities living in rural areas, particularly those 
issues contributing to the onset of secondary conditions;
    (3) Develop and evaluate strategies to increase the participation 
of people with disabilities in local public planning for community 
development;
    (4) Identify, develop, and evaluate strategies to improve rural 
transportation, accessible housing, and access to generic community 
facilities services for people with disabilities;
    (5) Identify and evaluate strategies to improve the use of 
telecommunications technologies for the delivery of health, employment, 
education, and social services to people with disabilities living in 
rural communities; and
    (6) Develop training and informational materials and provide 
training and information to persons with disabilities, and providers of 
health care, vocational rehabilitation, and independent living 
services, on effective strategies for improving the employment, health, 
and independent living outcomes of people with disabilities living in 
rural areas.
    In carrying out the purposes of the priority, the RRTC shall:
     Coordinate with NIDRR-funded research, training and 
demonstration activities on delivery of rehabilitation and independent 
living services in rural areas, including those sponsored by RSA and 
the RRTC on managed care;
     Where appropriate, address the needs of transitioning 
special education students and their special education teachers and 
administrators;
     Coordinate with rural projects affecting persons with 
disabilities funded by USDA and DHHS; and
     Address the needs of persons with disabilities in rural 
communities in all parts of the country, including persons from ethnic 
and racial minority backgrounds.

Knowledge Dissemination and Utilization Projects

    Authority for the D&U program of NIDRR is contained in sections 202 
and 204(a) of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (29 U.S.C. 
760-762). Under this program the Secretary makes awards to public and 
private organizations, including institutions of higher education and 
Indian tribes or tribal organizations. Under the regulations for this 
program (see 34 CFR 355.32), the Secretary may establish research 
priorities by reserving funds to support particular research 
activities.

Priority

    Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(3), the Secretary gives an absolute 
preference to applications that meet the following priority. The 
Secretary will fund under this competition only applications that meet 
this absolute priority:

Priority 4: Parenting With a Disability Technical Assistance Center

Background
    Approximately one in eleven families with children at home includes 
one or more parents with a disability (LaPlante, M., ``Disability in 
the Family,'' presented at the annual meeting of the American Public 
Health Association, Atlanta, GA, 1991). This proportion can be expected 
to increase as a correlate of the gains that persons with disabilities 
have achieved in their efforts to live and work independently in the 
community. In the course of becoming parents and rearing children, 
persons with disabilities may encounter a variety of attitudinal, 
physical, medical, and legal barriers. They may also find 
misinformation or an absence of information regarding advances in 
fields that address issues related to parenting.
    NIDRR has been addressing the physical barriers and reproductive 
issues faced by parents with disabilities through a variety of research 
and development projects. Since 1993 NIDRR has supported a 
Rehabilitation Research and Training Center on Families in which one or 
more adult parent or guardian has a disability. The Center has 
investigated a wide range of parenting issues, including the assistive 
technology needs of parents with disabilities, training obstetricians 
to deal with the needs of women with disabilities, and needs of mothers 
with visual disabilities. The Center has created and identified a wide 
range of valuable information for parents and professionals. In 
addition, over the last ten years, NIDRR has supported research 
projects on the design and development of new adaptive equipment for 
parents with physical disabilities and parenting assessment techniques. 
A wide array of parenting equipment has been developed, for example, a 
lifting harness and an adapted baby bathing cart. Information is also 
available on the social service needs of parents with disabilities. As 
a result of these and other research, training, and development 
efforts, a substantial body of knowledge now exists related to 
parenting with a disability.
    Persons with disabilities who want to become, or remain parents, 
may need information and technical assistance. A NIDRR-sponsored focus 
group on women and disabilities held in 1994 recommended that NIDRR 
explore issues related to sexuality, reproductive health, pregnancy and 
parenting for women with disabilities, including ``the level of 
information that women have about these topics'' (``Focus Group on 
Women and Disabilities,'' unpublished ``Report of Proceedings,'' NIDRR, 
pg. 8, July, 1994). Parents with disabilities and prospective parents 
with disabilities need information about related advances in the field 
of assistive technology and medicine, public policy and legal 
developments, and parenting resources.
    One source of information and valuable experience is persons with 
disabilities who are parents. These individuals have a wealth of 
knowledge and can not only share their experiences and practical 
information, but also serve as uniquely qualified sources of support. 
Currently, this ``parent to parent'' networking is primarily informal 
and limited in scope.
    Persons with disabilities may encounter substantial attitudinal and 
legal barriers in their efforts to become pregnant, gain or maintain 
custody, or adopt children. Barbara Faye Waxman, an expert on 
reproductive rights, notes that laws allowing sterilization of persons 
with disabilities remain on the books in some States and that social 
service agencies are often too quick to put the non-disabled children 
of parents with disabilities up for adoption (Mathews, J., ``The 
Disabled Fight to Raise Their Children,'' Washington Post Health 
Section, August 18, 1992). Most States treat disability as prima facie 
evidence of parental unfitness and a possible detriment to the child 
(Conly-Jung, C., ``The Early Parenting Experiences of Mothers with 
Visual Impairments and Blindness,'' Dissertation, California School of 
Professional Psychology, Alameda, CA, pg. 21, May, 1996). One important 
strategy in the effort to overcome these attitudinal and legal barriers 
is

[[Page 35644]]

providing social service, legal, and medical professionals with 
information that dispels stereotypes and describes advances in the 
related fields that enable persons with disabilities to provide a safe 
and nurturing environment for their children.

Priority 4

    The Secretary will establish a center for the purpose of providing 
technical assistance and disseminating parenting information to persons 
with disabilities and to social service, medical, and legal service 
providers. The technical assistance center shall:
    (1) Identify and disseminate technological, legal, and medical 
information on parenting, pregnancy, custody, and adoption to parents, 
and prospective parents with disabilities, and service providers in 
related field of social services, law, and medicine;
    (2) Develop training materials on parenting with a disability and 
disseminate those materials to organizations and institutions of higher 
education that provide pre-service and in-service training to 
professionals in related fields of social services, law, and medicine, 
as well as to organizations representing persons with disabilities;
    (3) Provide technical assistance on parenting with a disability to 
persons with disabilities and service providers, including making 
referrals and serving as a clearinghouse of technical information; and
    (4) Develop and establish a parent-to-parent network that enables 
experienced parents with disabilities to voluntarily provide 
information and support to persons with disabilities interested in 
becoming or remaining parents.
    In carrying out the purposes of the priority, the technical 
assistance center shall:
     Collect and synthesize information from other NIDRR-funded 
projects and centers that could be relevant to parenting with a 
disability including, but not limited to, the Assistive Technology 
Projects;
     Collaborate with other NIDRR and Office of Special 
Education Programs-funded projects and centers that address issues 
related to parenting and to disability rights of persons with 
disabilities; and
     Establish a national toll-free telephone hotline and 
publish a quarterly newsletter.

Applicable Program Regulations

    34 CFR Parts 350, 352, and 355.

    Program Authority: 29 U.S.C. 760-762.

    Dated: June 25, 1997.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers: 84.133B, 
Rehabilitation Research and Training Center Program, 84.133D, 
Knowledge Dissemination and Utilization Program)
Judith E. Heumann,
Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services.
[FR Doc. 97-17206 Filed 6-30-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P