[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 100 (Monday, May 24, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29636-29640]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-11679]



[[Page 29635]]

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

Part III





Department of Education





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



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

  Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 100 / Monday, May 24, 2004 / 
Notices  

[[Page 29636]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

RIN 1820 ZA26


National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research

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

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

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

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

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donna Nangle, U.S. Department of 
Education, 550 12th Street, SW., room 6046, Potomac Center Plaza, 
Washington, DC 20202. Telephone: (202) 205-5880 or via Internet: 
[email protected].
    If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), you may 
call the TDD number at (202) 205-4475.
    Individuals with disabilities may obtain this document in an 
alternative format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer 
diskette) on request to the contact person listed under FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Rehabilitation Research and Training Centers

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

General Requirements of Rehabilitation Research and Training Centers

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

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


    Note: NIDRR supports the goals of President Bush's New Freedom 
Initiative (NFI). The NFI can be accessed on the Internet at the 
following site: http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/newfreedom/.
    These final priorities are in concert with NIDRR's 1999-2003 
Long-Range Plan (Plan). The Plan is comprehensive and integrates 
many issues relating to disability and rehabilitation research 
topics. While applicants will find many sections throughout the Plan 
that support potential research to be conducted under these final 
priorities, a specific reference is included for each priority 
presented in this notice. The Plan can be accessed on the Internet 
at the following site: http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/research/pubs/index.html.
    Through the implementation of the NFI and the Plan, NIDRR seeks 
to: (1) Improve the quality and utility of disability and 
rehabilitation research; (2) foster an exchange of expertise, 
information, and training to facilitate the advancement of knowledge 
and understanding of the unique needs of traditionally underserved 
populations; (3) determine best strategies and programs to improve 
rehabilitation outcomes for underserved populations; (4) identify 
research gaps; (5) identify mechanisms of integrating research and 
practice; and (6) disseminate findings.

Priorities

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

[[Page 29637]]

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

Executive Order 12866

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

[[Page 29638]]

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

Electronic Access to This Document

    You may review this document, as well as all other Department of 
Education documents published in the Federal Register, in text or Adobe 
Portable Document Format (PDF) on the Internet at the following site: 
http://www.ed.gov/news/fedregister.
    To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available 
free at this site. If you have questions about using PDF, call the U.S. 
Government Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1-888-293-6498; or in 
the Washington, DC, area at (202) 512-1530.

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

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

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

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

Appendix

Analysis of Comments and Changes

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

General

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

Economic Research on Employment Policy and Individuals With 
Disabilities

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

[[Page 29639]]

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

Employment Service Systems

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

[[Page 29640]]

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

Workplace Supports and Job Retention

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

Substance Abuse and Employment Outcomes Disability

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

[FR Doc. 04-11679 Filed 5-21-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P