The Dismantling of VR????
As you may already know, Joanne Wilson resigned from her position as the head of the Rehabilitation Services Administration in early February. RSA is the federal agency that administers, among other programs, Vocational Rehabilitation. Each state has a Vocational Rehabilitation agency, funded through a combination of federal and state monies, that exists for the sole purpose of providing the training and supports necessary for people with disabilities to gain and/or maintain employment and lead independent lives.
In a [recent article in National Journal Magazine](http://nationaljournal.com/cgi-bin/ifetch4?ENG+NJMAG+7-njindex+1113974-REVERSE+0+1+233+F+1+1+1+ex%2dchief+AND+protests “Administration – Ex-Chief Protests Changes for Disabled”), Joanne Wilson speaks out:
The administration made a decision on the direction that the RSA was going to go and, in my heart, I could not follow the administration’s lead…. This direction could set people with disabilities back 50 years.
The direction is to merge the services provided by RSA into general job-training programs. And the concern is that people with disabilities are going to be left behind, way behind, should this occur. There’s good reason to be concerned:
Imagine your job is to find work for people who are unemployed, and your annual performance reviews are closely tied to the number of people you place. The sad reality is that the pre-conceived notions of some employers is going to make it more challenging to place clients with disabilities. Plus, someone with a recent disability is going to require training specific to that disability, such as how to travel safely, use an adapted computer, etc. So if you have to decide whom to prioritize, and your annual review is coming up fast, whom would you choose: A highly-skilled person with a disability or a lesser-skilled person who has no disability?
The National Journal article is not any more cheery than I am being, but I think it’s important to take a deep breath and read what Joanne Wilson has to say. Things are not looking good….
It was with all of this in mind that I read the following announcement posted on NHBlind-Talk, a local listserv I moderate.
SABE Looking for your Vocational Rehabilitation Stories: Make your voice
heard!
Self Advocates Becoming Empowered (SABE) wants your stories about Vocational Rehabilitation services. They are working with a staff person for the U. S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, who is working
on VR legislation. Aaron would like stories from self advocates about what it has been like to get served by their state’s VR offices and their independent living centers. SABE is collecting the stories and sending them to him. You can talk about the problems and your ideas on how to make VR offices and independent living centers better places. Some examples of problems are the process of getting assistive technology or other accommodations, staff’s willingness to work with self-advocates, staff’s attitude toward self-advocates, how much did they help you get a job or the type of job that you wanted, and problems with the assessment process….
I could not help but wonder how these “stories” would be received by the Senate committee. On the one hand, maybe the senators would realize that Vocational Rehabilitation services are necessary because people with disabilities have unique needs related to gaining and maintaining employment. Maybe they would see the positive outcomes of VR services and consider that the reported problems are in large part the result of inadequate funding. Maybe they would conclude that dismantling RSA isn’t such a hot idea after all. Then again…. SABE asks for “how to make VR offices… better places,” but they sure seem to be after reports of problems. Might the senators use these solicited reports as evidence that VR should indeed be dismantled?
Perhaps I’m being paranoid. It wouldn’t be the first time, and it undoubtedly won’t be the last. But as the old saying goes, just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean that people are not out to get you. So I did some looking around at the SABE website. You wouldn’t believe what I found: This organization that claims to empower self-advocates with disabilities is not seeking to improve VR; they are actively seeking to dismantle it! I kid you not. It is an actual objective of SABE’s Strategic Plan which was adopted January 1999. (They’ve had this in the works for 6 years!)
Goal 3, Objective 3 is:
Introduce legislation to increase job opportunities and dissolve Vocational Rehabilitation and sheltered workshops.
I had to do a double-take—actually it was more of a quadruple-take. SABE wants to increase job opportunities by dissolving the very program which exists to increase job opportunities for persons with disabilities. I fail to see the logic here. I suppose the argument could be made that VR has its problems—what government agency doesn’t? But the benefits of VR far outweigh the problems. Besides, if you don’t like the services provided by VR, no one is forcing you to use them. Go to some other job placement service. Isn’t that what the Ticket to Work is all about? But why do you want to prevent others from obtaining the services that they want?!? I just don’t get it…. And what’s worse is that SABE is collecting their ammunition from individuals without making their true agenda clear.
I am not being paranoid.
So the question is, what now? Since it is nearly 1 AM, I am going to get some sleep. Then I am going to figure out who is on this committee and get their names and contact information posted. Let’s show SABE what strong advocacy is and fight to preserve the programs of RSA.
—jd
March 18th, 2005 at 6:19 pm
I just wanted to let you know that I have not forgotten to find committee names. I have requested this information from a colleague who is far more up to speed than I am on all things legislative. Stay tuned….
—jd
March 21st, 2005 at 2:24 pm
Hi JD,
I’m actually having a little trouble getting overly excited about the dismantling of VR. We continue to suffer a 75 percent unemployment rate despite VR’s existence for well over 50 years! Maybe, just maybe, it is time for a little shake up? This is just a thought. I am still reserving judgment, but, on this issue, I will say that I have not yet seen fit to call or write my legislators asking them to save VR.
I’m more concerned about increasing accessibility, improving transportation and ending discrimination against the blind. If those things can be accomplished, then there should be no need for VR. Might some blind people just be using programs like Social Security and VR as a crutch to avoid taking their own initiative.
March 22nd, 2005 at 7:34 pm
You’re right, the unemployment rate of individuals with disabilities—especially those who are blind or visually impaired—is ridiculously high. But why is that? You listed what I feel are the three top reasons:
So let’s say, for the purpose of argument, that the barriers to employment you identified have somehow been eliminated. Individuals with disabilities would be on a completely equal playing field and should have no difficulty gaining and maintaining employment—assuming they had already obtained the skills necessary to access the now-accessible information and/or facilities and utilize those transportation options. Not a problem for an individual who acquired his/her disability as a child and received the appropriate services and supports as part of his/her education.
But what about those folks who, as adults, go from, say, totally sighted to totally blind? Those individuals need to learn how to do everything non-visually—and many of these new, non-visual skills must be acquired before employment can be sought.
We’re still living in our hypothetical, perfect world where access abounds, discrimination is non-existent, and VR—having been deemed unnecessary—no longer exists. So the newly-blinded individual goes to the generic employment service and is assigned to a job placement specialist who, of course, won’t discriminate, but who also doesn’t know much about blindness issues. This specialist would presumably refer that person to an appropriate agency for all of the training he/she needs in the areas of independent living and job readiness. Unfortunately, even in our new and perfect world, that training is expensive.
So I’m going to throw out a revision of the question I asked in my original post: If you are that job placement specialist, and you have a finite amount of money you can spend to place folks in jobs, and your job performance is judged on number of placements, whom are you going to spend that money on: 10 people who don’t need expensive training or 1 person who does? That’s not discrimination; that’s being practical. Throw our imperfect world back into the mix—the one in which access issues, lack of transportation, and discrimination persist—and people with disabilities are even more likely to get the short end of the stick.
If VR is eliminated, the money that is currently allocated for training and supports for individuals with disabilities will almost certainly be merged into general employment programs with no requirement that it be used for disability-related services. If nothing else we need to ensure that those funds continue to be spent on disability-related services so that the general job placement specialist will not be put in the position of having to choose between the 10 non-disabled clients and the 1 disabled one.
Now let’s say—again, hypothetically—that the money thing is all taken care of. If you had recently become disabled and were ready to get training and find employment, where would you rather go? To a general employment specialist who means well, but doesn’t really understand your needs, or to someone who spends all day every day helping individuals with disabilities find work? I don’t know about you, but my money is not on the general guy—especially in our imperfect world where there are access issues, lack of transportation, and discrimination. But if your money is on the general guy, you can take your Ticket to Work there instead of VR. VR is a choice.
You said:
I’m sure some blind people are. Eliminating VR is not going to change that. Those people would just be using the general employment programs as a crutch instead.
VR is by no means perfect, but it brings two things to the table that will be eliminated if the administration gets its way:
I think these two things are essential for people with a recent disability, and pretty darn helpful for all job seekers with disabilities. VR needs to remain a choice.