ERIC ED370299: Independent Living.

49 Pages·1994·1.3 MB·English

by  ERIC

DOCUMENT RESUME
EC 303 030
ED 370 299
Nathanson, Jeanne H., Ed.
AUTHOR
Independent Living.
TITLE
Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative
INSTITUTION
Services (ED), Washington, DC.
PUB DATE
94
NOTE
49p.
OSERS, Room 3129, Switzer Building, 330 C St., S.W.,
AVAILABLE FROM
Washington, DC 20202-2524 (free; also available on
disk and in braille).
Serials (022)
Collected Works
PUB TYPE
OSERS; v6 n2 Win-Spr 1994
JOURNAL CIT
MF01/PCO2 Plus Postage.
EDRS PRICE
Advocacy; Attendants; *Disabilities; *Federal
DESCRIPTORS
Legislation; Federal Regulation; Health Insurance;
*Independent Living; Networks; Neurological
Impairments; Normalization (Disabilities); Parent
Association's; *Physical Disabilities; Program
Administration; *Public Policy; Rural Areas;
Supported Employment
*Rehabilitation Act 1973; World Institute on
IDENTIFIERS
Disability
ABSTRACT
This issue of "OSERS" addresses the subject of
independent living of individuals with disabilities. The iss--e
includes a message from Judith E. Heumann, the Assistant Secretary of
the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS),
and 10 papers. Papers have the following titles and authors: "Changes
in the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and Federal Regulations" (John
Nelson); "Title VII: A Major Step Forward" (Robert E. Michaels);
"Perspectives on Personal Assistance Services" (Bob Kafka);
"Consumer-Driven Supported Employment: Consolidating Services for
People with Significant Disabilities" (John D. Westbrook); "The
Effects of Insurance Benefits Coverage: Does It Affect Persons with
Spinal Cord Injury?" (Denise Tate and Julie Daugherty); "Learning
from the Experts: Best Practices in Rural Independent Living" (R.
Mark Mathews); "Improving Management Effectiveness in Independent
Living Centers through Research and Training" (Quentin Smith and
others); "Independent Living: Driven by Principles of Democracy"
(Duane French); "How Parent Networks Are Working with Independent
Living Centers" (Martha Ziegler); and "Independent Living and
Personal Assistance Services: The Research, Training, and Technical
Assistance Programs at the World Institute on Disability" (Jae
(JDD)
Kennedy and others). (References accompany most papers.)
***********************************************************************
Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made
from the original document.
***********************************************************************
5a
irm2011A
-111111/1111111dillir
UAL DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Inde endent Livin
Office of Educationsl Research and Improvement
EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION
CENTER (ERIC)
docum.nt has beim risproduccl IS
Cliodus
ccmyrsd from the person or orgianization
originating It
0 Minor changis have been mad. to =my.
reproduction Quality.
Points of view of opinions stinitd in this docu-
mint do not necasanly represent official
OERI position or policy.
2
BEST COPY NIMBLE
USERS
A MESSAGE FROM THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY
The Independent Living Movement
We now have more than 200 inde-
T
he 1992 Amendments to the Re-
pendent living centers (ILCs) across
habilitation Act present a radi-
the United States. I really see these
cally different view of disabled peo-
centers as change agents. Not only
ple. The rehabilitation program has
change agents for disabled people, but
evolved from a program that served
change agents for the community as a
only those disabled people presumed
whole, change agents for integration,
to be capable of engaging in gainiul
change agents for society. This is a
employment to a program that pre-
large challenge and a large responsibil-
surnes that pfople with significant
ity, but it's certainly a worthy one.
disabilities have a right to employ-
Change takes time. But we as dis-
ment services.
abled people appropriately feel that we
The new provisions of the Rehabili-
have no time. Every day that goes by
tation Act Amendments clearly delin-
denying millions of disabled people our
centers
living
independent
eate
rights is not tolerable. Yet the reality of
as empowering, advocacy-oriented or-
the independent living movement is
Judith E. Heumann
ganizations. I like to refer to the sec-
that we have to be in this struggle for
tion of the law which talks about:
Speretarr
Assisum
the long run. Independent living cen-
"... independent living, consumer
tOr Speculi Education and
ters in the United States are not large,
control. peer support, self-help, self-
Rehabilitative Services
well financed organizations. But they
determination, equal access, individ-
change their
have a large mandate
ual and system advocacy, leadership,
community, their state, their country and to work with the
empowerment, independence, and productivity of individu-
international movement to improve the world.
als with disabilities, and the integration and full inclusion of
At the same time, the independent living movement is
individuals with disabilities into the mainstream of Ameri-
analyzing its weaknesses and working on expanding its
can society."
base. The centers are expanding to be more representative
Independent living is really at the very heart of all we
of the community across disabilities, to be representative of
strive for. It is the goal of special education, rehabilitation.
older people, people with AIDS, people with psychiatric
research, health-care reform. and policy development to live
problems. cognitive and learning difficulties, to focus on
independently in the community. participating fully in as
women's issues, issues of African Americans. Latin Amer-
many aspects of life as possible.
icans. Native Americans, Asian Americans. and people
Many people in our society are simply not used to think-
having alternative life styles. This expanded movement has
ing of significantly disabled people as members of the com-
helped the independent living movement become aligned
petitive workforce or the community in general. It is up to us
with the other civil rights movements.
to set the pace. establish the vision, and create an environ-
In OSERS, we intend to continue to look at the various
ment to bring about change. And of course, this is what the
approaches to independent living and ILCs such z s working
bringing about
independent living movement is all about
in cross-disability coalitions, working with minaity issues,
change.
working with state and local governments on issues such as
I think this movement, more than any other, gives us both
health reform and systems change. Now that the law stipu-
the model and the method for change. It shows us. by its
lates that ILCs are to be managed by disabled people and
very successes, how dedication can overcome discrimina-
serve more people with significant disabilities, ILCs will be
tion, involvement can overcome intolerance, and activity
on the cutting edge of developing new and effective modes
can overcome apathy.
of service delivery.
In addition to the Rehabilitation Act. we have the help of
I believe a strong independent living movement that
laws such as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
echos the words of President Clinton in emphasizing inde-
(IDEA) mandating appropriate education for disabled chil-
pendence. not dependence. inclusion, not exclusion, em-
dren. We have the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
powerment. not paternalism, will ensure that the quality of
prohibiting discrimination against disabled people in em-
life for disabled people will improve. Our reality is that to-
ployment. public accommodations, and in state and local
gether we have begun to create a better world where we as
disabled people are beginning to be respected for who we
government. These extremely important pieces of legislation
are and who we can be. i
are producing changes.
U'inter-Sprm 1994
3
OSERS
A Message from the Assistant Secretary
Judith E. Heumann
Independent
Changes in the Rehabilitation Act
Living
4
of 1973 and Federal Regulations
John Nelson
Volume VI. Number 2
Winter-Spring 1994
8
Title VII: A Major Step Forward
Robert E. Michaels
Richard W. Riley
Perspectives on Personal Assistance Services
11
Secretary
Bob Kafka
United States Department of
Education
Consumer-Driven Supported Employment:
Consolidating Services for People with
14
Judith E. Heumann
Significant Disabilities
Assistant Secretary
John D. Westbrook
Office of Special Education and
Rehabilitative Services
The Effects of Insurance Benefits Coverage:
19
Does It Affect Persons with Spinal Cord Injury)
Jeanne H. Nathanson
Editor
Julie Daugherty
Denise Tate
Learning from the Experts:
Cover
23
Best Practices in Rural Independent Living
OSERS' Own
Wilbert "Rab" Currie
R. Mark Mathews
Photo by
OSERS Execul 'ye Officer
Improving Management Effectiveness
Paul V. O'Connell
in Independent Living Centers through
30
Research and Training
Laurel Richards
Quentin Smith
OSERS is published approximately
Laurie Gerken Redd
Lex Frieden
quarterly and is available free of
Independent Living:
charge. Contributors of articles for
37
Driven By Principles of Democracy
this issue expressed their own points
Duane French
of view, which may not necessarily
reflect the position or policy of the
How Parent Networks Are Working
U.S. Department of Education. The
39
with Independent Living Centers
information in this publication'may
Martha Ziegler
be reproduced without further permis-
sion: a credit line would be appreci-
Independent Living and Personal Assistance Services:
The Research, Training, and Technical Assistance
ated. OSERS is available on disk and
43
Programs at the World Institute on Disability
in braille for people with visual im-
Simi Litvak
pairments. Please address comments
Jae Kennedy
Hale Zukas
Editor. OSERS, Room 3129,
to:
Switzer Building, 330 C Street, S.W..
Washington. D.C. 20202-2524.
Winter-Sprmg 1994
4
OSERS
Changes in the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973
and Federal Regulations
r1,41121.
Background
(1) The laws cannot be changed by
the regulations.
In
T
itle VII of the Rehabilitation Act
(2) The regulations should "stand on
of 1973, as amended was exten-
their own" and not require a copy of
sively changed by the Rehabilitation
the statute to enable an individual to
Act Amendments of 1992 (1992
use the regulations.
Amendments), effective October 29,
(3) The regulations should be pri-
1992 and the technical amendments to
marily skeleton regulations based on
the Act (1993 Amendments), effective
the statute, expanding on the statute
August 8, 1993. This article will dis-
cuss the prior and projected activities
only where clarification is necessary or
of the Department of Education con-
where program experience or legisla-
cerning those portions of the 1992 and
tive history indicate.
1993 Amendments and subsequent
The work of the policy group con-
draft regulations that affect the inde-
tinued for more than a year. Because of
pendent living programs contained in
the statutory timeline and the extensive
Title VII of the Act. All references to
history involved with the development
regulations are references to the pro-
of indicators for Centers for Indepen-
posed regulations in 34 Code of Fed-
dent Living (CILs), that portion of the
eral Regulations. parts 364, 365, 366,
proposed regulations referring to stan-
and/or 367. Readers are encouraged to
dards and indicators was given priority.
review both the Act and regulations.
The notice of proposed rule making
The Department formed a policy
(NPRM) on the standards and indica-
group to prepare proposed and final reg-
and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS).
tors was published for comment on
ulations for Title VII. This group con-
and the Department's Office of General
October 27. 1993. The comment pe-
Counsel. Office of Management and
sisted of representatives from the Reha-
riod. originally scheduled to end De-
bilitation
Services
Administration
Budget, and Office of Evaluation.
The policy group approached its
cember 13, 1993, was extended to Feb-
(RSA), the Office of the Assistant Sec-
mary 22, 1994.
retary in the Office of Special Education
tasks with three basic assumptions:
Wmter-Sprins: 1944
4
-
pendent living councils established
regulations in the Federal Register. the
There were three meetings and three
under Section 705, state vocational re-
proposed Title VII data collection and
teleconferences scheduled to facilitate
habilitation programs receiving assis-
reporting forms will be sent to the Of-
dialogue on the draft proposed regula-
tance under Title I, state programs of
fice of Management and Budget
tions. During the meetings and telecon-
supported employment services receiv-
(OMB) for review and publication for
ferences, the policy group and others
ing assistance under Part C of Title VI,
comment in the Federal Register.
from the Department were present to
client assistance programs receiving
These forms must have OMB clear-
receive comments and suggestions,
assistance under Section 112, programs
ance prior to publication of the final
discuss why certain decisions were
funded under other titles of this Act,
regulations on the Title VII programs.
made, and discuss other issues related
programs funded under other federal
The 1992 and 1993 Amendments re-
to the development of the regulations.
programs, and programs funded
structure Title VII of the Act by creat-
The comments and suggestions were
through non-federal sources.
ing two Chapters. Chapter 1 contains
carefully considered prior to the publi-
Part A contains general provisions
A, B, and C. Chapter 2
three parts
cation of the proposed regulations in
for all of Chapter 1 and some portions
does not contain separate parts.
the Federal Register.
of Chapter 2. The provisions include
definitions for centers for independent
Chapter 1
Future Activities
living, consumer control, program eli-
The purpose of Chapter 1 is to pro-
A 60-day comment period
is
state plan requirements,
gibility,
mote a philosophy of independent liv-
planned following publication of the
statewide independent living council
ing, including a philosophy of con-
proposed regulations. During this pe-
(SILC) composition and responsibili-
sumer control, peer support, self-help,
riod, all parties will have an opportu-
ties, and the specific responsibilities of
self-determination, equal access, and
nity to review and provide written
the Commissioner of the Rehabilitation
individual and system advocacy, to
comments on the proposed regulations.
Services Administration. The defini-
maximize the leadership, empower-
The comments are open for public re-
tions contain significant emphases on
ment, independence, and productivity
view in RSA and will be carefully con-
consumer controlled, cross-disability
of individuals with disabilities. Chapter
sidered in developing the final regula-
services from private non-residential,
about how
The decision
1 seeks to promote the integration and
tions.
non-profit CILs.
full inclusion of individuals with dis-
substantive comments are addressed
The State Plan for Independent Liv-
abilities into the mainstream of Ameri-
ing (SPIL) is jointly developed and
will be reflected in the preamble to the
can society by:
signed by the directors of the desig-
final regulations when they are pub-
(1) providing financial assistance to
lished in the Federal Register. Policy
nated state units (DSUs) and the chair-
person of the consumer controlled
states for providing, expanding, and
group activities resulting from the
SILC. There must be an approved
improving the provision of indepen-
NPRM will include: comment analysis,
SPIL before Chapter 1 funds can go to
dent living services;
policy decisions, response preparation,
a state. The SPIL is a major document
(2) providing financial assistance to
and regulation rewriting to reflect the
develop and support statewide net-
that:
Department's decisions in response to
establishes the SILC and describes
works of centers for independent living;
the comments. The final Federal Reg-
the extent and scope of the independent
(3) providing financial assistance to
ister publication of the regulations will
living activities of the DSU and CILs
states for improving working relation-
include regulations for all of Title VII,
in the state;
ships among state independent living
including the standards and indicators.
describes roles and objectives of
rehabilitation service programs, centers
Concurrent with the publication of
the DSU and CILs;
for independent living, statewide inde-
the NPRM of the remaining Title VII
It Illtri Sr, flu,
1994
5
6
I.
conducting activities that will im-
train individuals with disabilities
describes a design for a network
prove or expand services for such indi-
and people providing services to indi-
of CILs in the state;
viduals; and
describes how the DSU will make
viduals with disabilities about the inde-
conducting activities to help im-
awards and oversee the Part C program
pendent living philosophy; and
prove public understanding of the prob-
in states where the state contributes at
provide outreach to populations
lems of such individuals.
least as much as the federal govern-
that are unserved or underserved by
There is a definition of independent
ment for the general operations of
programs under Title VII, including
living services for Chapter 2. Indepen-
CILs;
minority groups and urban and rural
dent living services include:
describes steps to maximize inter-
populations.
services to help correct blindness,
agency cooperation;
Part C establishes an entity to pro-
such as:
describes steps to provide out-
vide training and technical assistance to
outreach services;
reach to unserved and underserved
CILs and SILCs and describes program
visual screening;
populations; and
funding allocation formulas, transition
surgical or therapeutic treat-
establishes a method for periodic
year procedures, procedures for grants
ment to prevent, correct, or modify
evaluation of the plan in meeting its
administration of the CIL program for
disabling eye conditions; and
objectives.
both the federal and state government
hospitalization related to such
Part B describes the funds allotment
administrations, procedures for the state
services.
procedure and the authorized use of
operation of CII.s, standards and assur-
the provision of eyeglasses and
these funds. The funds may be used to:
ances for CILs, and the definition of el-
other visual aids;
support the SILC;
the provision of services and
igibility for Part C funds.
provide independent living ser-
equipment to assist an older individual
vices to individuals with severe dis-
Chapter 2
who is blind to become more mobile
abilities;
and more self-sufficient;
demonstrate ways to expand and
Chapter 2 contains the definition for
mobility training, braille instruc-
improve independent living services;
older individuals who are blind; finan-
tion, and other services and equipment
support the operation of CILs;
cial allocation of funds, including com-
to help an older individual who is blind
support activities to increase the
petitive and formula grant require-
adjust to blindness;
capacities of public or nonprofit agen-
ments; authorized uses of funds;
gr.ide services, reader services.
cies and organizations and other enti-
non-federal matching requirements; el-
and tr.msportation;
ties to develop comprehensive ap-
igibility to receive and subgrant the
aLy other appropriate service de-
proaches or systems for providing
funds; assurances; and data reporting
signed to assist an older individual who
independent living services;
requit2ments.
is blind in coping with daily living ac-
conduct studies and analyses,
This program supports grants to
tivities, including supportive services
gather information, develop model
state agencies serving individuals who
and rehabilitation services;
policies and procedures. and present
are blind or visually impaired. These
independent living skills training,
information, approaches, strategies,
grants support such activities to assist
information and referral services, peer
findings, conclusions, and recommen-
individuals who are at least 55 years of
counseling, and individual advocacy
dations to federal, state, and local pol-
age as:
training; and
icy makers to enhance independent liv-
other independent living services,
providing independent living ser-
ing services for individuals with
as defined for the rest of the Act.
vices to older individuals who are blind;
disabilities;
OSERS
against CILs and selection criteria to
bility for services and who determines
The Proposed Regulations
fund new CILs under competitions di-
eligibility is described. There is also a
for Title VII
rectly administered by the Department.
provision for delegation of authority
The organization of the regulations
The regulations provide a methodology
given to the DSUs. Other post-award
tracks the organization of the Act. Part
for determining whether states or DSUs
conditions are proposed relating to re-
364 of the proposed regulations equates
are eligible for awarding grants under the
ferrals and applications, initiation and
to Title VII, Chapter I , Part A of the
CIL program and describe procedures for
development of a SPIL, consumer ser-
Act; Part 365 of the proposed regula-
determining whether a DSU qualities, or
vice records. the prohibition of service
tions equates to Title VII. Chapter 1.
continues to qualify, to administer the
durational limitations, standards for
Part B of the Act. Part 366 of the pro-
CIL program based on the amount of
providers, personal information, and for
posed regulations equates to Title VII.
state funds contributed to the program.
the use of expenditures made with non-
Chapter 1, Part C of the Act; and Part
Clarifying regulations distinguish the dif-
federal funds in a particular fiscal year.
367 of the proposed regulations equates
ference between procurement and assis-
to Title VII, Chapter 2 of the Act.
Part 365
tance contracts and emphasizes the pro-
The proposed regulations incorpo-
hibition of the use of procurement
This Part contains specific provi-
rate the provisions of the Act. The De-
contracts. Finally, state DSUs are pro-
sions applicable to the Part B, Chapter
partment also made certain clarifica-
vided with the option of increasing the
I. Title VII. State Independent Living
tions and additions where it was
funding level of existing CILs if funds
Services program. The regulations con-
deemed necessary.
are not sufficient to support a new CIL.
tain provisions describing non-federal
matching and prohibition of reversion
Part 364
Part 367
to donor requirements and conditions
This Part contains the general provi-
This Part contains specific provi-
for awarding sub-grants and contracts.
sions applicable to all of Title VII.
Finally, provisions are added that re-
sions applicable to Chapter 2, of Title
Chapter I and also contains several nec-
quire written standards in situations
VIL the Independent Living Services
essary references to Chapter 2. In addi-
where the provision of IL services fur-
for Older Indiv:duals Who Are Blind
tion to the definitions in the Act, certain
program. Selection criteria are given
nished by sub-grantees and contractors,
other definitions are proposed. These in-
other than CILs, do not meet the stan-
for making competitive awards when
clude definitions for "administrative
dards and assurances described in Sec-
the funding level for this program is
support services," "advocacy," "atten-
tion 725 of the Act.
less that $13 million. The proposed
dant care," "cross-disability," "individ-
regulations give the Secretary the abil-
ual with a significant disability." "mi-
Part 366
ity to consider geographic distribution
nority group." "nonresidential," "peer
when making competitive awards and
This Part contains specific provisions
relationships," "peer role models," "sig-
permit state vocational rehabilitation
applicable to the ?art C. Chapter I. Title
nificant disability," "transportation,"
agencies to run the program directly or
VII. CIL program. The proposed regula-
and "unserved and underserved." Clari-
through sub-grants or contracts.
tions provide a definition of a new CIL.
fying language is added to describe the
For additional information, contact
The regulations expand on descriptions
SILC and SPIL. The DSU's roles for
John Nelson at 202/205-9362 or write
of the appropriate entity to provide train-
the Part B and C programs are clarified,
to him at the Rehabilitation Services
ing, technical assistance, and selection
staffing and development requirements
Administration, Room 3326 Switzer
criteria for competitively selecting the
for DSUs and CILs are explained, a fur-
Building. 330 C Street, S.W., Wash-
entity. Other proposed regulations focus
ther definition of the requirement for
ington. D.C. 20202. i
on appeal procedures for adverse actions
networks of CILs is provided, and eligi-
NY"
Wu!
Sr?
7
OSERS
TITLE VII:
A Major Step Forward
Still others have taken a resistant
n 1992 President Bush signed into
I
"when-hell-freezes-over- approach.
law the Rehabilitation Act Amend-
Robert E. Michaels
ments. At that time, many congres-
If the traditionalists are, in fact. seri-
ous about resisting changes in the Act
sional staffers and disability advocates
called these amendments the most
(and NCIL believes they are). then dis-
President
sweeping changes ever or, at least
ability advocates must remain ever vig-
Resources for Living
ilant. And the areas of greatest resis-
the most significant modifications since
Independently
tance will coincide with those that we
the addition of Section 504 in 1973.
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
see as our major victories. In Title I.
As chair of the National Council on
Independent Living (NCIL) Subcom-
these are likely to be eligibility determi-
Chair
mittee on the Rehabilitation Act. I am
nation. consumer control in the IWRP
Rehabilitation Act Subcommittee
often asked whether
believe the
process. and the appeal systems. Title
National Council on
I
changes really will have much impact
VII, which is where NCIL concentrated
Independent Living
on the rehabilitation system as we know
most of its energy during reauthoriza-
it. The truth is, it is just too early to tell.
tion, contains most of the rest.
It would be very easy to claim that
funding procedures for Centers for In-
Making the State IL
the changes. especially in Title VII, are
dependent Living (CILs), and strict
so far-reaching that the reauthorization
Councils Work
standards for CILs. These may. indeed.
must have been an overwhelming vic-
Several meaningful reforms affect
he major victories for disciples of IL
tory for consumers. After all, the addi-
the structure, composition. and author-
tional emphasis on empowerment. self-
philosophy.
ity of the SILCs. Prior to this reautho-
On the other hand, these changes
productivity,
determination,
and
rization. appointments to the councils
may amount to little more than window
integration suggests that we are trans-
were made by the director of the state
dressing as rehabilitation professionals.
forming into action those principles for
vocational rehabilitation agency. The
and especially those within the state
which we fought so hard in the ADA.
Council. usually following the direc-
and federal bureaucracies, move to pre-
Independent living (IL) philosophy
tion of state agency staff, prepared a
has been formally endorsed with the
serve the status quo. Already, there are
five-year IL plan (as opposed to the
inclusion of principles of consumer
indications that this may be happening
three-year state IL plan submitted to
as we hear about "finely crafted lan-
control and direction, cross-disability
the Rehabilitation Services Adminis-
guage- being inserted into regulations
service provision and representation.
tration (RSA) in order to receive fund-
to obstruct meaningful change. Others
and equal access for people with the
ing) which was given to the state direc-
have interpreted the law, in the absence
most significant disabilities.
tor for his or her consideration.
of regulations. in a manner which is in-
We can also take pride in the stnic-
Today. the SILCs will be truly con-
consistent with the spirit of reform that
tural changes in the statewide indepen-
sumer controlled with at least 51 per-
w.ts evident during reauthorization.
dent living councils (SILCs). liberating
Wmwr-SprmQ/9(4
8
An advocate's analysis
of changes in Title VII's
Independent Living Program
the grant to the CIL through its re-
Independence for IL Centers
cent of its members being people with
gional offices. Currently. fewer than 20
disabilities.
No issue raised more concern for CIL
percent of the states are in a position to
Appointments to the councils arc
directors than the channel through
apply for the funds.
made by the governor or. when one ex-
which funds flow to CILs. Prior to Oc-
Centers in those states are almost
ists within a state, an appointing author-
tober I. 1993, states were given first
universally unhappy with the outcome
ity. The SILCs will supervise and eval-
right of refusal for the funds that were
of the funding stream debate. Many
uate the staff and will develop and sign.
appropriated for CILs. Most states exer-
complain that CILs played a central
in conjunction with the state agency.
cised their right and distributed funds to
role in securing state fundin2 for cen-
the state IL plan. The states and the Re-
centers through the designated state
ters and that they are now essentially
habilitation Services Administration
agency. Center advocates reasoned that
being punished for their efforts. Most
must follow the plan when distributin2
CILs themselves must be independent
CILs familiar with both the federal and
funds authorized by the Act. Because of
in order to carry out their mission and to
state systems contend that state bureau-
the amendments, the S1LCs finally
meet the requirements of the Act. Cen-
cracies are more cumbersome and in-
real
authority to carry out their re-
have
ter advocates believed that having state
trusive than federal systems.
sponsibilities.
ailencies administer these CIL-desig-
In several states. the desianated state
Still, problems need to be worked
nated funds places centers in a subordi-
agency has operated one or more cen-
for instance, where the councils
out
nate role to state agencies. which is both
ters for independent living, staffing the
should be located. A technical amend-
unnecessary (in terms of adding an ad-
centers with state employees. Accord-
ment has been written confirming that
ministrative layer) and counter produc-
ing to most participants in the original
the councils are not established within
tive to establishing collegial relations.
drafting of Title VII. this clearly was
a state agency and. therefore, cannot
At the same time, some state directors
not the intent of Congress. Title VII.
fall under the auspices of the state des-
expressed concern that direct funding
Part B was created to establish free-
ignated agency. Regarding develop-
for the centers would frustrate the de-
standing centers in which a majority of
ment of the state plan using the new
velopment of statewide center networks.
the governing board members were re-
"joint-development and sign-off" pro-
After considerable discussion, a
quired to be people with disabilities.
Title VII. Part A was to be used to pur-
two-tier system was created to give ad-
cedure, advocates in several states have
ministrative authority for the granting
reported that the plan has been devel-
chase their unique array of services.
and oversight of CIL funds. A state
A similar problem occurred with the
oped by state agency staff and handed
that contributes an equal or greater
state agencies that serve only persons
to the Coune'l chair for approval and
with visual impairments. Despite lan-
amount for the operation of C1LS is el-
signature. 1 have been told that other
guage in the Act requiring that persons
igible to receive the Title VII. Part C
state agency staff have threatened not
be provided services without regard to
grant. When the federal approp-iation
to sign off on a State Plan if it means a
their disability, funds were directed to
for a state exceeds the state's alloca-
loss in control of the Title VII, Part C.
state agencies for provision of services
tion. RSA will administer and oversee
funds for the establishment of CILs.
Winter-Spring
9
1994
10